September 30, 2025 • 39 mins
Structure sends signals. In an AI-driven attention economy, how a company organizes its communications function can sharpen its corporate narrative or splinter it - and this has big implications for trust both inside and outside an organization's walls.
Anne Green sits down with seasoned communications leader Chrissy Jones to unpack centralized and decentralized models, the real risk of fragmentation in a volatile reputation environment, and how a focus on communications structure and governance can help protect reputation in complex and regulated spaces. Chrissy shares thoughts on practical hybrid approaches that maintain a clear enterprise voice while building “local” agility. The discussion also gets beyond the surface on the “Comms need a seat at the table” discussion to focus on the bridges that prove strategic value.
In this episode:
Anne Green sits down with seasoned communications leader Chrissy Jones to unpack centralized and decentralized models, the real risk of fragmentation in a volatile reputation environment, and how a focus on communications structure and governance can help protect reputation in complex and regulated spaces. Chrissy shares thoughts on practical hybrid approaches that maintain a clear enterprise voice while building “local” agility. The discussion also gets beyond the surface on the “Comms need a seat at the table” discussion to focus on the bridges that prove strategic value.
In this episode:
- The pendulum swing between centralized and decentralized comms functions, and trends Anne and Chrissy are seeing today in sectors like pharmaceuticals
- Assessing and balancing potential pros and cons – including how decentralization can build subject matter expertise and speed gains yet can erode coherence, create duplication of efforts, and lead to a patchwork brand voice
- How a central system with embedded business units can scale trust, clarity, and accountability across the enterprise
- Simple moves you can make now, from cross-silo alignment and narrative hygiene to GEO implementation, to help key stakeholders and LLMs alike understand your story and build coherence in your narrative
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
How do we break out of our processes? How do
we move faster? Perfect is the enemy of done. I
can see issues where something is going out in a
business unit, let's say the C suite or leadership teams,
or those that are kind of coming to the center
of the organization even understand it, it's out the door.
I mean, do you think that's a danger of things
that can happen in that way.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
One of the biggest risks of decentralization is fragmentation and messaging.
You have separate business units telling their own story in
their own style and tone, and then your company narrative
looks like a patchwork quilt.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
Hello, and welcome to Building Brand Gravity. I'm Anne Green.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
And I'm Steve Halsey, and we're.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
Glad to be back together against Steve, you and I
were just together and Raleigh recently. You're still in our
office there. I'm back in New York. But it's nice
to be back together on the pod.
Speaker 4 (00:58):
YEP. It's exciting to be coming to our listeners from
multiple GNS locations. Uh, and the Raleigh is certainly a
very dynamic city, and we've we've seen the area we're
at when we when we were first here. None of
this was behind me. So it's been an exciting, uh
exciting development to see all the growth and the investment
(01:19):
here in the in the Southeast, and you know, with
everything going on in the research triangle here, it's also
a really good market for some of the some of
the challenges that you're going to be talking about in
your podcast today with all the investment and the highly
regulated industries, just the role of comms.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Yeah, you know, I'm glad for that setup. Thank you.
I had a good conversation with our guests today who
I'll bring in in a minute, and it had to
do with a really perennial issue in our industry, which
is where is comms sitting in an organization? Is how
is it structured? And related to that, where is its
stature and influence? So, more specifically, for the conversation that's coming,
(02:00):
it was precipitated by observations of where the pendulum swings
from either centralized function or decentralized function. And we particularly
saw some interesting articles about Pfizer recently, which is obviously
a big player in the pharmaceutical space, that has decided
to say goodbye to a long time really respected comms leader.
(02:20):
I mean to say really respected as an understatement, and
move more of the comms structure into a decentralized function
so they're embedded within business units and not so much
within a central service comm structure. If I'm understanding it correctly,
and it's not something we haven't seen before. It is
like that pendulum swing back and forth. And it's always
interesting because it raises a lot of questions for our
(02:40):
industry about how should comms be structured and given sectors
or organizations, and what are the implications of one model
versus another.
Speaker 4 (02:50):
Yeah, and I think what you hear is a lot
of that. Hey, we want customer centricity, let's be really
close to the customer. What that looks like. And at
least from my perspective, where seeing a lot of momentum
now about decentralization because it feels like agility, right if
we're closer, if we're in the market, we can be
more agile. But without the alignment back to the mothership,
(03:11):
so to speak, it quickly becomes noise, you know, and
and we're when you become in a trust fragile world
like we're at right now, every word carries a lot
of consequences so from my perspective, the tension really becomes
clear that if you've got agility without alignment, you're really
risking that trust. But alignment without agility risk relevance. So
(03:33):
how do you find that middle ground? I think it's
like it's like all things that you say yes and right.
That's that's kind of the challenge that we're facing right now.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
I love that phrase. You hit me with that the
other day about you know, those two sides of the coin,
because I always choke the grass is green and brown
on both sides of the fence.
Speaker 4 (03:49):
Right.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
With my guest today, it was really about this question
of it's a very intense risk environment right now and
things move extremely quickly. I think this individual feels that
danger and wanted to have that discussion about what are
the risks in the danger of making it too decentralized.
Is that in some ways you're more agile to the
(04:13):
business units and to that customer base, but the agility
to the reputational aspects of the corporation as a whole.
How quickly are you seeing issues rising up out in
the different pieces? Is there enough agility, speed, nimbleness of
a team to understand how you respond is there enough
cohesion and what that corporate message should be and not
(04:35):
just a crisis comms response, but really any kind of
communications response. So I think there's a lot of tensions
in there.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
There are, and one of the other things I think
is important to keep central to it as well. And
we talked about it on an earlier Brand Gravity episode
with Elliott Msrali and Robie ecolec. Elliott, as most of
our listener knows, is with the Page Society and Rob
is with Harris pol and they were really talking about
(05:01):
what they called the confidence curve. Public trust is very uneven,
and when you lay generational aspects across it, it adds
an other dimension of this conversation that there's a lot
of skepticism across some generations about leader's intentions and it's
only growing and that makes a structural misalignment that a
(05:22):
company may have even riskier. So, like you said, it's
really about that balancing act that leaders face. And I thought,
that's what's so exciting about the conversation that you're about
to have with Christy Jones is that's exactly what she
challenges us to think about.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
Absolutely. And Christy, she has a long career in communications,
really senior counsel and practitioner, has been in a number
of industry sectors, including the pharma sector, and I think
it's time to bring her in, So please stay tuned
for this conversation with Chrissy Jones. Well, I'm very excited
to be joined today by Christy Jones. Hi, Christy, how
(05:59):
are you? Hi?
Speaker 2 (06:00):
And I'm well, how are you.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
I'm doing good. I'm doing good. Just to let our
listeners know, I've got my notes right here. And Chrissy
is a very seasoned communications leader, more than fifteen years
of experience in shaping reputation advising executives. I know you
do a lot of executive thought leadership and guiding organizations
through complex moment of change. And she's led strategy for
major product launches, thought leadership programs in industry, peers in
(06:26):
the public sphere, and I love this one piece of
your bio. Christy is especially known for her ability to
make it make sense, taking those complex issues from science
to strategy. I know you've worked in healthcare or pharma
professional services into clear narratives and making it make sense,
I think is a part of what we're talking about today.
(06:47):
But did I miss anything in your bio you think
people should know.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
We're that at the heart of what communicators do. We
make it make sense now, I think thank you for
the intro. No, I think that you just about covered it.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
That's great.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
You know one thing I owe like to ask, especially
because we've got a wide range of listeners. A lot
of them are across sort of integrated marketing communications, but
beyond too, I'm sure some friends and family as well.
How did you first come to communications? I always like
to get personal to start, you know, it's not always
the most obvious field, especially.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
How we moved through it. Where where did you get
your start in the field?
Speaker 2 (07:19):
Yeah, I think probably like most communicators, my path has
not been linear. What I am passionate about. What I
was passionate about at my start was writing and reading.
So I was an English major in college and I
just wanted to figure out a way to monetize the
(07:40):
ability to write and read all day long. And so
for me, you know, I've been in the industry and
corporate comms for almost twenty years. What I have done
that has been consistent across that time period is really
helping leaders and organizations achieve clarity through very complex issues
(08:07):
and initiatives. So sometimes that has been strategy. Sometimes that's
been in the science industry. Often that has been with
very sensitive issues. But I think that you know, that
through line of my career has been connecting those dots
so that people can see the bigger picture and so
(08:29):
that leaders can act with confidence and clarity.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
That I love that, and I think that sense of
what it means to communicate, to right, to connect with
others is so at the heart of its still no
matter where we're positioned in this world. Now, I've been
agency side, you know, you've been what is considered more
client side. So we've seen so much change in the field.
You know, me thirty years, you almost twenty years. What
(08:54):
are the things that still excite you about it today?
You know, it's it is a lot of change all
the time, but there's also some DNA to it too, Yes.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Yes, so yeah, I have been in house or or
client side my whole career. What I really love about
communications is that it's the intersection of art and business strategy,
so you really get to use both sides of the brain,
translating that complex business strategy into those human terms that
(09:27):
really help people relate to the organization and help build
the corporate reputation. So that's kind of the heartbeat of
the company, is that reputation. And like you just said,
the field has evolved tremendously. I think that twenty thirty
years ago we were very tactical, tactically focused press releases
(09:55):
and media pitches, and now we are really a drive
of trust and influence. So I think the pace is
just getting faster and faster over time with AI Digital.
So for me, it's really the challenge of marrying the
(10:17):
speed and the substance and building lasting credibility with our storytelling.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
I like that speed and substance and also the art
and science of it too, you know, and the connection.
And it is amazing to see the change and then
ask ourselves what stays the same, because in some ways
it's the humans at the center. It's communicating between humans
across groups and the ways in which communication lands or
it doesn't, a multi stakeholder environment, which I know you're
(10:42):
very much used to. I mean this to me gets
to the heart of what I hope to talk to
you about today and why I reached out to you.
You know, I really enjoy in real life connection and
we've had some of that, you know, which is great
through industry bodies, but I also enjoy the connections that
we forge online, especially on platforms like LinkedIn. You know,
(11:02):
I do try to spend some time there to see
what are people talking about, and I always pay attention
when there's moments of sort of lightning on LinkedIn, or
we're moments that really like people up and it seems
like there's something that is exciting them or they feel
really passionately about. People are sharing a real point of view.
And what I was excited about is I saw one
of those moments that you sparked in a LinkedIn post
(11:23):
that you shared, and the essence of it really had
to do with this question of the communications function, which
by the way, is not just PR means press release anymore. Yay,
hopefully people have a deeper understanding. But this question of
how is it organized and form follows. Function and form
are very related, so this idea of is it centralized,
(11:45):
is it decentralized? And what are the tensions there? So
maybe catch our listeners up a little bit about the
issue that you saw and what you posted, and then
we'll get into it more.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Okay, So what I saw was an announcement of a
major shift in structure at a very large, very well known,
reputable organization. The reaction from industry peers and functional peers
was very centered on the leader, which was absolutely deserved.
(12:18):
The accolades are well well deserved. But I was struck
by how little attention was being put on the structural
changes themselves. So structures send signals, and then this move
from a centralized communications structure to decentralized is a signal
(12:43):
or a statement of how the company values communications as
a strategic function. So what I sought to do was
to spark a conversation about that, because that's not just
isolated to one company that has ripple effects across our
function or industry.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
Yeah, and in this case, you know, it was Sally
Sussman departing, you know, a major pharma player. She's so
well known and so respected and as she said, deserves
all the flowers. Has been such an incredible leader in
the sector, an incredible leader for the comms function, carried
companies through some major reputational changes, ups and downs, and
so this question of that visibility. But I was struck,
(13:26):
you know, as you comment on on this and like
you said, that's one data point, but it's really the
bigger picture, right, This is happening not just in one sector.
You see this kind of pendulum swing, the pull back
and forth, centralized decentralized, not just for comms, but it
seems to have been I've noticed this over the years
of communications in particular, having worked in so many sectors.
(13:49):
But I was noticing the same thing Chrissy. When I
saw your post on LinkedIn, I was like, Yes, why
is people not where are we not talking about this?
Speaker 4 (13:57):
Like?
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Where is that discussion? Why do you feel that larger
backdrop was less acknowledged or discussed in the public sphere.
I'm just curious if you have any hypotheses on that.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
I mean, it's hard to say for sure. I think
part of it is that people naturally gravitate towards the
human story. Sally's legacy was the headline and is so
especially for those of us in commons, especially for those
of us in pharmacoms. I mean, we it's the celebration
(14:28):
is so well deserved. So I think that's maybe why
the conversation centered there rather than with the organizational structure
part of the conversation. But you know, I wanted to
make sure that that structural shift wasn't overshadowed by some
(14:49):
of the conversation that was happening, because the structure really matters,
you know. It signals to not just comms professionals, but
the wider industry. How an organization values communications and whether
(15:11):
it sees comms as central to enterprise strategy or if
it sees comms as more as an embedded set of
support functions. I think those types of changes are not
necessarily celebratory or personal, so that could be why folks
(15:32):
were not speaking about them as much. But the reality
is that they are quite consequential for the future of
our function and also for corporate reputation and reputation management
for organizations.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Yeah, and I want to talk about the implications for
reputation and the risk factors involved, because you've talked about
this both in your LinkedIn posts and also in an
article that you did for a trade magazine that I thought,
you know, deep in the cushion that was really excellent,
and we can put a link to it in our
show notes. I encourage people to check it out. But
this I want to come back to that. But first
and foremost You're right. Not everybody is really cognizant of
(16:11):
the ins and outs of corporate structure. It's not something
people study every day. I happen as an organizational leader
and a practitioner to be interested in these things. But
maybe give folks a sense if they're not really familiar
with this. What would be the difference between a communications
function and we're talking tend to be large entities, right,
it's not small entities. It's often large, often multinational. What
(16:34):
would it look like to have a centralized comm structure
communications function, whatever its name is, versus a more decentralized structure.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
What would that look like? So people can paint a
picture in their minds.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Simply, it's a centralized comm structure is one communications team
that drives strategy across the enterprise, a strategy and messaging
across the enterprise. Decentralized, you'll have communications folks embedded in
different business units, and they'll build less or no central oversight.
(17:09):
So each of those models, I mean, you can dial
up and dial down, you know, so it'll look different
for every organization, but each of those models separately has
their own merits. You know. Centralized communications builds consistency, you
have a strong enterprise voice decentralized communications, you have more agility,
(17:37):
you have comms folks that have deep knowledge in different
areas of the business. The issue, or that the tension
is that that decentralized model comes with risks, and one
of those risks is trading coherence and alignment on messaging
(17:58):
for speed and agility.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Yeah, it's such an interesting balance. Like you said, there
are I mean, gosh, I feel like we can't ever
get away from the word hybrid. It's like it's like
it's like our lives now everything is about hybrid still.
But there are structures obviously where you have the hub
and spoke. You know, you've got the centralized model, and
ideally maybe that's an ideal thing where then you reach
out into business units so you can build that rapport
(18:21):
and that affinity and that subject matter expertise. And you know,
I was saying to Christy and you and I are
preparing for this. I've seen this sort of tension. Like
let's say, in an agency context with earned media relations teams,
you have this pull back and forth between ooh, we
need a centralized earned media team because they will own
higher level relationships, they will build those skills sets, you'll
(18:41):
naturally attract that publicist person who's different, But then you worry,
do they lack the subject matter expertise of the client sectors?
Speaker 3 (18:49):
Right?
Speaker 1 (18:49):
And so then it pulls back to the account teams.
But I think what you're saying about this moment in time,
like you talked about this in your LinkedIn post and
your article about the specific dangers and how the risk
landscape changes around decentralization when you come into different sort
of moments of time. What about the landscape today and
(19:11):
especially in highly regulated industries pharmas one of them. What
about that landscape makes you feel like that risk profile
is a bit higher now for decentralized comms teams.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
Yeah, in any highly regulated industry, you're protecting brand reputation,
but you're also protecting regulatory credibility. So inconsistencies that could
possibly occur with a decentralized model can create confusion for
(19:41):
regulators in the public, and then once that trust is
lost or eroded, it's very hard to rebuild. So that's
why I really value that connected centralized model and think
it really matters a lot in regulated SILF.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Yeah, it's interesting because I've play it out, you know
that agility and the speed this is it. I'm all
about the idea of dynamic tensions. Like I'm not an
either or person. I'm often both and like two, three,
five things can be true at one time. I think
if you can't think in that way, it's hard to
be a leader. In today's context, it's so much happening.
But we want flexibility, nimbleness, agility. I mean, we're talking
(20:25):
about that in my organization. How do we break out
of our processes? How do we move faster? Perfect is
the enemy of done. But I can see issues where
something is going out in a business unit and before
let's say the c suite or leadership teams or those
that are kind of coming to the center of the
organization even understand it, it's out the door. I mean,
(20:45):
do you think that's a danger of things that can
happen in that way?
Speaker 2 (20:48):
Absolutely. I think one of the biggest risks of decentralization
is fragmentation and messaging. So you have separate business units
telling their own story in their own style and tone,
and then your company narrative looks like a patchwork quilt.
(21:10):
The other risk is duplication, so having teams reinventing the
wheel because they're not connected and kind of wasting resources
in that way. And then related as governance, so if
you're if you don't have that center, you could end
(21:31):
up with rogue messaging campaigns that aren't aligned to the
corporate strategy or the enterprise strategy. So while decentralization offers
a lot of agility and deep subject matter knowledge.
Speaker 5 (21:47):
There are risks, right, So what what we would love
to see I think you know what communicators would love
to see is if we're seeing trend towards slight decentral
we want to see the connective tissue continuing to exist
or being built in organizations that have decentralized structure, so
(22:09):
that your voice isn't splintered.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
Yeah, and it's so funny. I feel like since the
admin of social media, this is just one example. When
left to its own devices, it being any organization, right,
all of its component parts will gravitate toward We need
our own channel, we need our own social channel.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
We need this.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
Like I've had so many situations over the years where
clients or organizations or peers we're dealing with trying to
real people back in because there's channel proliferation and confusion.
And I have to say this whole dialogue around AI,
which is more than one acronym, can encompass. By the way,
(22:51):
I have a pet peeve about people saying AI as
if it explains everything. But if we talk about generative,
we talk about the large language models, and we talk
about revolution that's happening in search, zero clicks, search environment,
generative engine optimization, the role of authority, how discovery is changing.
There's so much. In fact, there's new research from Muckrack,
(23:13):
you know, the communications platform vendor out there that we'll
be reporting on in another Building Brand Gravity episode that's
did a really deep dive analysis and how AI discovery
is being generated. The large language models are getting better
at recency, meaning they're pulling in stuff into those AI
summaries that are quite recent, which was not the case before.
(23:35):
So boy, you could see how that fragmentation would be
a real mess in terms of how AI is representing
your organization.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
Right, absolutely, And I think that it's really and it's
very exciting that you're doing a podcast on this and
all communicators really should listen to it because we are
going on a journey to educate our organizations about these changes.
Whereas marketing had traditionally been sitting in the seat or
(24:06):
mark cooms had been sitting in the seat of feeding
the SEO engine, we are seeing a shift now where
traditional communications work is going to be feeding the gen
AI engine. So we need to educate our stakeholders internally
about these changes and how what an important role communications
(24:30):
is going to play.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
I couldn't agree more and I think it's an exciting moment,
but it's a moment to kind of re knit together
how digital marketing, mark comms, communications, stakeholder relations, how it
comes together in a more intentional way. Not that SEO
goes away, but gen you know, aio geo, whatever one
(24:54):
want to call it. This is requiring a thoughtfulness regarding contents, strategy,
earned owned, the PESO model, all the stuff that we've
been talking about for years. It really is that next
step change. And I think that theme of where whether
it's more centralized or less centralized, how do you avoid
(25:16):
fragmentation and the risk that comes with that. I mean
there's a larger question to me because I think you
were so right on about the reputational risk issues. Things
move so fast and if you think about say a
pharmaceutical context, but it could be anyone in healthcare. And
you think about let's say Wall Street as a stakeholder, right,
because most of these are publicly traded or larger entities
(25:39):
out there, large health systems, whatever. What is it that
this entity is specializing in. Where are the horses they're
really riding? Where is that center of gravity that's been
identified by the leadership team. Is there so much fragmentation
because every part of the organization wants to feel like
their stuff is the most important, that the story becomes
so all over the place. And that's why I really
(26:00):
appreciated you pointing out sort of the risk of fragmentation.
But I think there's a backdrop here, which is what
is the relative stature and empowerment of different functions within
an organization and including different leaders. So the C suite,
which may encompass the chief communications officer not the same
(26:21):
in every organization, doesn't report the same, isn't quite the same.
But what is your sense of how that reflects back
on where communication sits in organizations?
Speaker 2 (26:30):
The debate really never seems to go away for where
communication sits in an organization, and maybe part of that
is historical looking back on communications really being a support function,
and it's grown now into a strategic driver. So finance
(26:54):
and legal you never see the same conversation happening those functions.
No one. I've never heard anyone ask if the CFO
has earned their seat at the table, at the proverbial table,
so they've always been seen as indispensable. Comms is still
fighting that battle in many organizations. One of the reasons
(27:19):
is visibility, because good comms is invisible. Good comms look seamless,
which ironically makes it undervalued, and then when things go wrong,
people notice. So leaders and communications are constantly needing to
prove their worth in ways that c fos and coos
(27:42):
often don't have to. And then there's the cultural component
of it as well. So you have some CEOs who
are really attuned to comms. They are storytellers, they value
storytelling and reputation, and you have some organizations where that
is not the case, so comms will be relegated to
(28:07):
being a tactical support function. But I think you know
those inconsistencies are why this remains an open question, or
why this remains a challenge for us in communications. But
the last five or so years have been really critical
(28:29):
for communications, and I think that what we've seen is
through the pandemic and social justice issues and political polarization,
what we have seen is that reputation is strategic, and
so the companies that get it right are going to
(28:51):
outperform the ones that don't. And your communications team are
your reputation drivers.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
I think that's so powerfully said.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
It has been a heck of a few years showing
putting a spotlight on almost every type of stakeholder group,
the pressures on those stakeholder groups. It reminds me of
a related issue, which is this sort of strange bifurcation
that would happen sometimes between internal and external communications. Like
that is a very old fashioned way of thinking. I
(29:23):
think most practitioners I know would agree, But it was
so separated for so long. And the fact is those
employees and colleagues are the first, you know, the drop
falls in the pond, the first ring or your own
people before it radiates out. And so I think breaking
down those silos and recognizing the pressure on all those
stakeholders' groups and the fact that reputation has significant impact,
(29:46):
It's really like, what does reputation do. It's permission to operate.
It's that trust and permission to operate. It could be
literal permission through regulatory bodies, or it could be just
permission through trust. So I think that's really powerful. You
said something that whole thing about earning a seat at
the table. Well, comms has to earn its seat at
the table. What do you make of That's such a
common phrase we've heard over the years. What do you
(30:07):
make of that? Like, I mean, just what does that
bring to mind for you?
Speaker 2 (30:10):
I'm tired of I'm tired of it. I think it's outdated.
I think it's frustrating. We are, as communicators often positioned
as less powerful or less impactful than some of our
other supporting function or group function here groups, despite the
(30:33):
fact that an organization's reputation can swing morkets and we
know that just as much as numbers on a spreadsheet,
a social media post can tank your earnings. So I
(30:54):
think the past couple of years, I hope, has really
proven the calm not only deserves the seat at the table,
but is an integral part of corporate strategy. I mean,
we're responsible for trust, for leadership impact and executive visibility,
(31:17):
and for organizational strategy and those pillars really uphold the business.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
Yeah, I think that's really well said. As we start
to wrap up today, I'd love to think about, you know,
what advice we can give, Like.
Speaker 3 (31:31):
Who are we? But let's give advice. We have experience,
let's do it.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
The first group I'd like to advise are those senior
executives like CEOs that what pick the sector. Again, decentralization
or centralization of the function is happening in many places.
It's a pendulum. I think that swings back and forth.
It's hitting pharma quite a bit right now, but it's
happening elsewhere.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
What are for those that have that.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
Most senior level decision making, especially the CEO level, What
would you advise them on? What kind of fact do
you think that they should be weighing and even more
educating themselves on as they as they weigh this question.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
Yeah, I think two a position this through the lens
of I think we're going to see more hybrid models.
I think we'll see a centralized core of communicators for
risk and issues management and maybe for business strategy, but
(32:31):
we're going to see embedded comms through the business for
agility and speed and depth of knowledge. So I would
ask CEOs to not look at this as a binary,
to look to design models that can do both protect
the enterprise voice and enable speed. So I think the
(32:52):
question is not what works now or what's easiest to
implement now, but the question that CEOs should ask themselves
is what structure is going to protect the company's reputation
five years out. So that's more than just the ORG chart,
(33:14):
that's more than just cost efficiencies. That's really forward looking.
Will this model provide us with a clear enterprise narrative?
Will this model provide us with clear accountability? And does
it allow us to manage risks across various stakeholders. I think,
(33:38):
you know, the CEO could look at communications sort of
like an operating system. So you can have multiple apps running,
so you can have multiple people embedded in these very
specific areas, but you do need a cohesive uni fide
(34:00):
operating system at the top. So recognizing that the right
reputation and the right structure is a strategic asset and
formatting the comm structure accordingly.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
I love the idea of the operating system that has
multiple apps running multiple programs, but they come together as
a whole. I think that's a really I haven't thought
of it that way. I think that's a really powerful metaphor.
I really like that. So turning to our peers out
there across the industry, comms folks, and again, they can
be integrated marketing communications as well as comms. We're all
(34:39):
doing many different channels and tactics and the more symbiotic,
the better of understanding these levers. But for those that
are either mid career and really growing or more senior folks,
what thoughts can we share on the question of what
to do relative to raising that stature of communications internally
or advocating pushing for that more cohesive and connective structures
(35:04):
that are better in this kind of volatile landscape. What
would you say to our peers.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Yeah, thanks for asking this question, because I have gotten
a lot of individuals have approached me and asked what
they can do. And it really is very different depending
on where you sit in the organization, the structure that's
already in place in your organization, how large organization is.
There's so many factors that will impact and affect the
(35:31):
way that you personally can advocate for change in your
organization or advocate for the function. But I tried to
distill it down to something that would be universal for
all communicators. And so my advice is to make sure
that you are not just running your silo. So build
(35:53):
bridges an influence outside of your lane. Because corporate reputation
does not care about ORG charts, so we shouldn't either.
What we need to do is connect across the business.
And the more connected we are, the more bridges that
(36:14):
we build, the harder it will be as sidle in
communications and to position us just as a tactical executor.
Speaker 1 (36:22):
So much wisdom. I know you've had time to think
about this as people have asked you, because that's hard,
Like it's amazing for people to come and ask that question.
Corporate reputation does not care about ORG charts is one
of the quotes of the podcast. I couldn't agree more.
It's just like consumers encountering a brand don't care where
they're encountering it. It's the brand. Like we've known that
(36:43):
in brand strategy for years. I absolutely love that. So
to finish up, Chrissy, the name of our show is
building brand gravity. So I always like to ask people
what has you in its gravity right now? What is fun?
What's lighting you up? What are you into however you
want to define that?
Speaker 2 (37:01):
Okay, so we're gonna we're going I'm going to try
to bring this back to communications. When we're gonna go.
I last night I finally finished K Pop Demon Hunters.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
Oh my god, so many people are talking about this.
I was hearing I was listening to another podcast when
We're there. Oh it was The New York Times doing
like a culture review. But yeah, tell me what your
take is for.
Speaker 2 (37:23):
People are talking about it. I have a nine year
old daughter who is obsessed, so I finally finished watching
it with her, and it's It's brilliant because it's a
It's a masterclass in trend spoting. They have taken the
appetite for k pop, the appetite for anime, the appetite
(37:47):
for what would you even call it, the zombie demons,
the supernatural crime fighting, and somehow put it together into
a package that works. And so i'd heard yesterday that
this has now become, in just over two months, the
most watched movie in Netflix history. The is their Earworms.
(38:13):
It's just the music is just stuck in my head now.
But I think that the if I'm trying to wrap
it up and bring it back to communication. I think
communicators can really take a lesson from this by embracing
and aligning with the with the zeitgeist and the cultural
currents and seek out different ways that combine things that
(38:38):
you didn't know, you didn't necessarily think would go together,
but look out into the into the cultural current and
see what you can pull and try to create something new.
Speaker 1 (38:50):
I love that, and that's some great branding. Even the
title captures your attention. You're like, what the heck is this?
But when I heard the culture critics that the New
York Times talking about it, one thing caught my attention
talk about marketing is that the K pop demon hunters,
the women in the K pop groups who fight demons,
the demons who are guys, said to themselves, we have
a marketing issue. We keep getting beaten by these singers.
(39:13):
So maybe we'll form a pop group and it'll be
a demon pop group. So there's marketing for you, Chrissy.
It's so funny. Well, I so appreciate you being on
building brand, gravity and courage.
Speaker 3 (39:25):
Folks.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
If you enjoyed this conversation, check out our other episode.
Share this one with your friends, especially in the comms field.
A lot of really important things to talk about here,
and Christy Jones, thank you again for joining us, Thanks
for having me in
How do we break out of our processes? How do
we move faster? Perfect is the enemy of done. I
can see issues where something is going out in a
business unit, let's say the C suite or leadership teams,
or those that are kind of coming to the center
of the organization even understand it, it's out the door.
I mean, do you think that's a danger of things
that can happen in that way.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
One of the biggest risks of decentralization is fragmentation and messaging.
You have separate business units telling their own story in
their own style and tone, and then your company narrative
looks like a patchwork quilt.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
Hello, and welcome to Building Brand Gravity. I'm Anne Green.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
And I'm Steve Halsey, and we're.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
Glad to be back together against Steve, you and I
were just together and Raleigh recently. You're still in our
office there. I'm back in New York. But it's nice
to be back together on the pod.
Speaker 4 (00:58):
YEP. It's exciting to be coming to our listeners from
multiple GNS locations. Uh, and the Raleigh is certainly a
very dynamic city, and we've we've seen the area we're
at when we when we were first here. None of
this was behind me. So it's been an exciting, uh
exciting development to see all the growth and the investment
(01:19):
here in the in the Southeast, and you know, with
everything going on in the research triangle here, it's also
a really good market for some of the some of
the challenges that you're going to be talking about in
your podcast today with all the investment and the highly
regulated industries, just the role of comms.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Yeah, you know, I'm glad for that setup. Thank you.
I had a good conversation with our guests today who
I'll bring in in a minute, and it had to
do with a really perennial issue in our industry, which
is where is comms sitting in an organization? Is how
is it structured? And related to that, where is its
stature and influence? So, more specifically, for the conversation that's coming,
(02:00):
it was precipitated by observations of where the pendulum swings
from either centralized function or decentralized function. And we particularly
saw some interesting articles about Pfizer recently, which is obviously
a big player in the pharmaceutical space, that has decided
to say goodbye to a long time really respected comms leader.
(02:20):
I mean to say really respected as an understatement, and
move more of the comms structure into a decentralized function
so they're embedded within business units and not so much
within a central service comm structure. If I'm understanding it correctly,
and it's not something we haven't seen before. It is
like that pendulum swing back and forth. And it's always
interesting because it raises a lot of questions for our
(02:40):
industry about how should comms be structured and given sectors
or organizations, and what are the implications of one model
versus another.
Speaker 4 (02:50):
Yeah, and I think what you hear is a lot
of that. Hey, we want customer centricity, let's be really
close to the customer. What that looks like. And at
least from my perspective, where seeing a lot of momentum
now about decentralization because it feels like agility, right if
we're closer, if we're in the market, we can be
more agile. But without the alignment back to the mothership,
(03:11):
so to speak, it quickly becomes noise, you know, and
and we're when you become in a trust fragile world
like we're at right now, every word carries a lot
of consequences so from my perspective, the tension really becomes
clear that if you've got agility without alignment, you're really
risking that trust. But alignment without agility risk relevance. So
(03:33):
how do you find that middle ground? I think it's
like it's like all things that you say yes and right.
That's that's kind of the challenge that we're facing right now.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
I love that phrase. You hit me with that the
other day about you know, those two sides of the coin,
because I always choke the grass is green and brown
on both sides of the fence.
Speaker 4 (03:49):
Right.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
With my guest today, it was really about this question
of it's a very intense risk environment right now and
things move extremely quickly. I think this individual feels that
danger and wanted to have that discussion about what are
the risks in the danger of making it too decentralized.
Is that in some ways you're more agile to the
(04:13):
business units and to that customer base, but the agility
to the reputational aspects of the corporation as a whole.
How quickly are you seeing issues rising up out in
the different pieces? Is there enough agility, speed, nimbleness of
a team to understand how you respond is there enough
cohesion and what that corporate message should be and not
(04:35):
just a crisis comms response, but really any kind of
communications response. So I think there's a lot of tensions
in there.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
There are, and one of the other things I think
is important to keep central to it as well. And
we talked about it on an earlier Brand Gravity episode
with Elliott Msrali and Robie ecolec. Elliott, as most of
our listener knows, is with the Page Society and Rob
is with Harris pol and they were really talking about
(05:01):
what they called the confidence curve. Public trust is very uneven,
and when you lay generational aspects across it, it adds
an other dimension of this conversation that there's a lot
of skepticism across some generations about leader's intentions and it's
only growing and that makes a structural misalignment that a
(05:22):
company may have even riskier. So, like you said, it's
really about that balancing act that leaders face. And I thought,
that's what's so exciting about the conversation that you're about
to have with Christy Jones is that's exactly what she
challenges us to think about.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
Absolutely. And Christy, she has a long career in communications,
really senior counsel and practitioner, has been in a number
of industry sectors, including the pharma sector, and I think
it's time to bring her in, So please stay tuned
for this conversation with Chrissy Jones. Well, I'm very excited
to be joined today by Christy Jones. Hi, Christy, how
(05:59):
are you? Hi?
Speaker 2 (06:00):
And I'm well, how are you.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
I'm doing good. I'm doing good. Just to let our
listeners know, I've got my notes right here. And Chrissy
is a very seasoned communications leader, more than fifteen years
of experience in shaping reputation advising executives. I know you
do a lot of executive thought leadership and guiding organizations
through complex moment of change. And she's led strategy for
major product launches, thought leadership programs in industry, peers in
(06:26):
the public sphere, and I love this one piece of
your bio. Christy is especially known for her ability to
make it make sense, taking those complex issues from science
to strategy. I know you've worked in healthcare or pharma
professional services into clear narratives and making it make sense,
I think is a part of what we're talking about today.
(06:47):
But did I miss anything in your bio you think
people should know.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
We're that at the heart of what communicators do. We
make it make sense now, I think thank you for
the intro. No, I think that you just about covered it.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
That's great.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
You know one thing I owe like to ask, especially
because we've got a wide range of listeners. A lot
of them are across sort of integrated marketing communications, but
beyond too, I'm sure some friends and family as well.
How did you first come to communications? I always like
to get personal to start, you know, it's not always
the most obvious field, especially.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
How we moved through it. Where where did you get
your start in the field?
Speaker 2 (07:19):
Yeah, I think probably like most communicators, my path has
not been linear. What I am passionate about. What I
was passionate about at my start was writing and reading.
So I was an English major in college and I
just wanted to figure out a way to monetize the
(07:40):
ability to write and read all day long. And so
for me, you know, I've been in the industry and
corporate comms for almost twenty years. What I have done
that has been consistent across that time period is really
helping leaders and organizations achieve clarity through very complex issues
(08:07):
and initiatives. So sometimes that has been strategy. Sometimes that's
been in the science industry. Often that has been with
very sensitive issues. But I think that you know, that
through line of my career has been connecting those dots
so that people can see the bigger picture and so
(08:29):
that leaders can act with confidence and clarity.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
That I love that, and I think that sense of
what it means to communicate, to right, to connect with
others is so at the heart of its still no
matter where we're positioned in this world. Now, I've been
agency side, you know, you've been what is considered more
client side. So we've seen so much change in the field.
You know, me thirty years, you almost twenty years. What
(08:54):
are the things that still excite you about it today?
You know, it's it is a lot of change all
the time, but there's also some DNA to it too, Yes.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Yes, so yeah, I have been in house or or
client side my whole career. What I really love about
communications is that it's the intersection of art and business strategy,
so you really get to use both sides of the brain,
translating that complex business strategy into those human terms that
(09:27):
really help people relate to the organization and help build
the corporate reputation. So that's kind of the heartbeat of
the company, is that reputation. And like you just said,
the field has evolved tremendously. I think that twenty thirty
years ago we were very tactical, tactically focused press releases
(09:55):
and media pitches, and now we are really a drive
of trust and influence. So I think the pace is
just getting faster and faster over time with AI Digital.
So for me, it's really the challenge of marrying the
(10:17):
speed and the substance and building lasting credibility with our storytelling.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
I like that speed and substance and also the art
and science of it too, you know, and the connection.
And it is amazing to see the change and then
ask ourselves what stays the same, because in some ways
it's the humans at the center. It's communicating between humans
across groups and the ways in which communication lands or
it doesn't, a multi stakeholder environment, which I know you're
(10:42):
very much used to. I mean this to me gets
to the heart of what I hope to talk to
you about today and why I reached out to you.
You know, I really enjoy in real life connection and
we've had some of that, you know, which is great
through industry bodies, but I also enjoy the connections that
we forge online, especially on platforms like LinkedIn. You know,
(11:02):
I do try to spend some time there to see
what are people talking about, and I always pay attention
when there's moments of sort of lightning on LinkedIn, or
we're moments that really like people up and it seems
like there's something that is exciting them or they feel
really passionately about. People are sharing a real point of view.
And what I was excited about is I saw one
of those moments that you sparked in a LinkedIn post
(11:23):
that you shared, and the essence of it really had
to do with this question of the communications function, which
by the way, is not just PR means press release anymore. Yay,
hopefully people have a deeper understanding. But this question of
how is it organized and form follows. Function and form
are very related, so this idea of is it centralized,
(11:45):
is it decentralized? And what are the tensions there? So
maybe catch our listeners up a little bit about the
issue that you saw and what you posted, and then
we'll get into it more.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Okay, So what I saw was an announcement of a
major shift in structure at a very large, very well known,
reputable organization. The reaction from industry peers and functional peers
was very centered on the leader, which was absolutely deserved.
(12:18):
The accolades are well well deserved. But I was struck
by how little attention was being put on the structural
changes themselves. So structures send signals, and then this move
from a centralized communications structure to decentralized is a signal
(12:43):
or a statement of how the company values communications as
a strategic function. So what I sought to do was
to spark a conversation about that, because that's not just
isolated to one company that has ripple effects across our
function or industry.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
Yeah, and in this case, you know, it was Sally
Sussman departing, you know, a major pharma player. She's so
well known and so respected and as she said, deserves
all the flowers. Has been such an incredible leader in
the sector, an incredible leader for the comms function, carried
companies through some major reputational changes, ups and downs, and
so this question of that visibility. But I was struck,
(13:26):
you know, as you comment on on this and like
you said, that's one data point, but it's really the
bigger picture, right, This is happening not just in one sector.
You see this kind of pendulum swing, the pull back
and forth, centralized decentralized, not just for comms, but it
seems to have been I've noticed this over the years
of communications in particular, having worked in so many sectors.
(13:49):
But I was noticing the same thing Chrissy. When I
saw your post on LinkedIn, I was like, Yes, why
is people not where are we not talking about this?
Speaker 4 (13:57):
Like?
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Where is that discussion? Why do you feel that larger
backdrop was less acknowledged or discussed in the public sphere.
I'm just curious if you have any hypotheses on that.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
I mean, it's hard to say for sure. I think
part of it is that people naturally gravitate towards the
human story. Sally's legacy was the headline and is so
especially for those of us in commons, especially for those
of us in pharmacoms. I mean, we it's the celebration
(14:28):
is so well deserved. So I think that's maybe why
the conversation centered there rather than with the organizational structure
part of the conversation. But you know, I wanted to
make sure that that structural shift wasn't overshadowed by some
(14:49):
of the conversation that was happening, because the structure really matters,
you know. It signals to not just comms professionals, but
the wider industry. How an organization values communications and whether
(15:11):
it sees comms as central to enterprise strategy or if
it sees comms as more as an embedded set of
support functions. I think those types of changes are not
necessarily celebratory or personal, so that could be why folks
(15:32):
were not speaking about them as much. But the reality
is that they are quite consequential for the future of
our function and also for corporate reputation and reputation management
for organizations.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Yeah, and I want to talk about the implications for
reputation and the risk factors involved, because you've talked about
this both in your LinkedIn posts and also in an
article that you did for a trade magazine that I thought,
you know, deep in the cushion that was really excellent,
and we can put a link to it in our
show notes. I encourage people to check it out. But
this I want to come back to that. But first
and foremost You're right. Not everybody is really cognizant of
(16:11):
the ins and outs of corporate structure. It's not something
people study every day. I happen as an organizational leader
and a practitioner to be interested in these things. But
maybe give folks a sense if they're not really familiar
with this. What would be the difference between a communications
function and we're talking tend to be large entities, right,
it's not small entities. It's often large, often multinational. What
(16:34):
would it look like to have a centralized comm structure
communications function, whatever its name is, versus a more decentralized structure.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
What would that look like? So people can paint a
picture in their minds.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Simply, it's a centralized comm structure is one communications team
that drives strategy across the enterprise, a strategy and messaging
across the enterprise. Decentralized, you'll have communications folks embedded in
different business units, and they'll build less or no central oversight.
(17:09):
So each of those models, I mean, you can dial
up and dial down, you know, so it'll look different
for every organization, but each of those models separately has
their own merits. You know. Centralized communications builds consistency, you
have a strong enterprise voice decentralized communications, you have more agility,
(17:37):
you have comms folks that have deep knowledge in different
areas of the business. The issue, or that the tension
is that that decentralized model comes with risks, and one
of those risks is trading coherence and alignment on messaging
(17:58):
for speed and agility.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Yeah, it's such an interesting balance. Like you said, there
are I mean, gosh, I feel like we can't ever
get away from the word hybrid. It's like it's like
it's like our lives now everything is about hybrid still.
But there are structures obviously where you have the hub
and spoke. You know, you've got the centralized model, and
ideally maybe that's an ideal thing where then you reach
out into business units so you can build that rapport
(18:21):
and that affinity and that subject matter expertise. And you know,
I was saying to Christy and you and I are
preparing for this. I've seen this sort of tension. Like
let's say, in an agency context with earned media relations teams,
you have this pull back and forth between ooh, we
need a centralized earned media team because they will own
higher level relationships, they will build those skills sets, you'll
(18:41):
naturally attract that publicist person who's different, But then you worry,
do they lack the subject matter expertise of the client sectors?
Speaker 3 (18:49):
Right?
Speaker 1 (18:49):
And so then it pulls back to the account teams.
But I think what you're saying about this moment in time,
like you talked about this in your LinkedIn post and
your article about the specific dangers and how the risk
landscape changes around decentralization when you come into different sort
of moments of time. What about the landscape today and
(19:11):
especially in highly regulated industries pharmas one of them. What
about that landscape makes you feel like that risk profile
is a bit higher now for decentralized comms teams.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
Yeah, in any highly regulated industry, you're protecting brand reputation,
but you're also protecting regulatory credibility. So inconsistencies that could
possibly occur with a decentralized model can create confusion for
(19:41):
regulators in the public, and then once that trust is
lost or eroded, it's very hard to rebuild. So that's
why I really value that connected centralized model and think
it really matters a lot in regulated SILF.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Yeah, it's interesting because I've play it out, you know
that agility and the speed this is it. I'm all
about the idea of dynamic tensions. Like I'm not an
either or person. I'm often both and like two, three,
five things can be true at one time. I think
if you can't think in that way, it's hard to
be a leader. In today's context, it's so much happening.
But we want flexibility, nimbleness, agility. I mean, we're talking
(20:25):
about that in my organization. How do we break out
of our processes? How do we move faster? Perfect is
the enemy of done. But I can see issues where
something is going out in a business unit and before
let's say the c suite or leadership teams or those
that are kind of coming to the center of the
organization even understand it, it's out the door. I mean,
(20:45):
do you think that's a danger of things that can
happen in that way?
Speaker 2 (20:48):
Absolutely. I think one of the biggest risks of decentralization
is fragmentation and messaging. So you have separate business units
telling their own story in their own style and tone,
and then your company narrative looks like a patchwork quilt.
(21:10):
The other risk is duplication, so having teams reinventing the
wheel because they're not connected and kind of wasting resources
in that way. And then related as governance, so if
you're if you don't have that center, you could end
(21:31):
up with rogue messaging campaigns that aren't aligned to the
corporate strategy or the enterprise strategy. So while decentralization offers
a lot of agility and deep subject matter knowledge.
Speaker 5 (21:47):
There are risks, right, So what what we would love
to see I think you know what communicators would love
to see is if we're seeing trend towards slight decentral
we want to see the connective tissue continuing to exist
or being built in organizations that have decentralized structure, so
(22:09):
that your voice isn't splintered.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
Yeah, and it's so funny. I feel like since the
admin of social media, this is just one example. When
left to its own devices, it being any organization, right,
all of its component parts will gravitate toward We need
our own channel, we need our own social channel.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
We need this.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
Like I've had so many situations over the years where
clients or organizations or peers we're dealing with trying to
real people back in because there's channel proliferation and confusion.
And I have to say this whole dialogue around AI,
which is more than one acronym, can encompass. By the way,
(22:51):
I have a pet peeve about people saying AI as
if it explains everything. But if we talk about generative,
we talk about the large language models, and we talk
about revolution that's happening in search, zero clicks, search environment,
generative engine optimization, the role of authority, how discovery is changing.
There's so much. In fact, there's new research from Muckrack,
(23:13):
you know, the communications platform vendor out there that we'll
be reporting on in another Building Brand Gravity episode that's
did a really deep dive analysis and how AI discovery
is being generated. The large language models are getting better
at recency, meaning they're pulling in stuff into those AI
summaries that are quite recent, which was not the case before.
(23:35):
So boy, you could see how that fragmentation would be
a real mess in terms of how AI is representing
your organization.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
Right, absolutely, And I think that it's really and it's
very exciting that you're doing a podcast on this and
all communicators really should listen to it because we are
going on a journey to educate our organizations about these changes.
Whereas marketing had traditionally been sitting in the seat or
(24:06):
mark cooms had been sitting in the seat of feeding
the SEO engine, we are seeing a shift now where
traditional communications work is going to be feeding the gen
AI engine. So we need to educate our stakeholders internally
about these changes and how what an important role communications
(24:30):
is going to play.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
I couldn't agree more and I think it's an exciting moment,
but it's a moment to kind of re knit together
how digital marketing, mark comms, communications, stakeholder relations, how it
comes together in a more intentional way. Not that SEO
goes away, but gen you know, aio geo, whatever one
(24:54):
want to call it. This is requiring a thoughtfulness regarding contents, strategy,
earned owned, the PESO model, all the stuff that we've
been talking about for years. It really is that next
step change. And I think that theme of where whether
it's more centralized or less centralized, how do you avoid
(25:16):
fragmentation and the risk that comes with that. I mean
there's a larger question to me because I think you
were so right on about the reputational risk issues. Things
move so fast and if you think about say a
pharmaceutical context, but it could be anyone in healthcare. And
you think about let's say Wall Street as a stakeholder, right,
because most of these are publicly traded or larger entities
(25:39):
out there, large health systems, whatever. What is it that
this entity is specializing in. Where are the horses they're
really riding? Where is that center of gravity that's been
identified by the leadership team. Is there so much fragmentation
because every part of the organization wants to feel like
their stuff is the most important, that the story becomes
so all over the place. And that's why I really
(26:00):
appreciated you pointing out sort of the risk of fragmentation.
But I think there's a backdrop here, which is what
is the relative stature and empowerment of different functions within
an organization and including different leaders. So the C suite,
which may encompass the chief communications officer not the same
(26:21):
in every organization, doesn't report the same, isn't quite the same.
But what is your sense of how that reflects back
on where communication sits in organizations?
Speaker 2 (26:30):
The debate really never seems to go away for where
communication sits in an organization, and maybe part of that
is historical looking back on communications really being a support function,
and it's grown now into a strategic driver. So finance
(26:54):
and legal you never see the same conversation happening those functions.
No one. I've never heard anyone ask if the CFO
has earned their seat at the table, at the proverbial table,
so they've always been seen as indispensable. Comms is still
fighting that battle in many organizations. One of the reasons
(27:19):
is visibility, because good comms is invisible. Good comms look seamless,
which ironically makes it undervalued, and then when things go wrong,
people notice. So leaders and communications are constantly needing to
prove their worth in ways that c fos and coos
(27:42):
often don't have to. And then there's the cultural component
of it as well. So you have some CEOs who
are really attuned to comms. They are storytellers, they value
storytelling and reputation, and you have some organizations where that
is not the case, so comms will be relegated to
(28:07):
being a tactical support function. But I think you know
those inconsistencies are why this remains an open question, or
why this remains a challenge for us in communications. But
the last five or so years have been really critical
(28:29):
for communications, and I think that what we've seen is
through the pandemic and social justice issues and political polarization,
what we have seen is that reputation is strategic, and
so the companies that get it right are going to
(28:51):
outperform the ones that don't. And your communications team are
your reputation drivers.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
I think that's so powerfully said.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
It has been a heck of a few years showing
putting a spotlight on almost every type of stakeholder group,
the pressures on those stakeholder groups. It reminds me of
a related issue, which is this sort of strange bifurcation
that would happen sometimes between internal and external communications. Like
that is a very old fashioned way of thinking. I
(29:23):
think most practitioners I know would agree, But it was
so separated for so long. And the fact is those
employees and colleagues are the first, you know, the drop
falls in the pond, the first ring or your own
people before it radiates out. And so I think breaking
down those silos and recognizing the pressure on all those
stakeholders' groups and the fact that reputation has significant impact,
(29:46):
It's really like, what does reputation do. It's permission to operate.
It's that trust and permission to operate. It could be
literal permission through regulatory bodies, or it could be just
permission through trust. So I think that's really powerful. You
said something that whole thing about earning a seat at
the table. Well, comms has to earn its seat at
the table. What do you make of That's such a
common phrase we've heard over the years. What do you
(30:07):
make of that? Like, I mean, just what does that
bring to mind for you?
Speaker 2 (30:10):
I'm tired of I'm tired of it. I think it's outdated.
I think it's frustrating. We are, as communicators often positioned
as less powerful or less impactful than some of our
other supporting function or group function here groups, despite the
(30:33):
fact that an organization's reputation can swing morkets and we
know that just as much as numbers on a spreadsheet,
a social media post can tank your earnings. So I
(30:54):
think the past couple of years, I hope, has really
proven the calm not only deserves the seat at the table,
but is an integral part of corporate strategy. I mean,
we're responsible for trust, for leadership impact and executive visibility,
(31:17):
and for organizational strategy and those pillars really uphold the business.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
Yeah, I think that's really well said. As we start
to wrap up today, I'd love to think about, you know,
what advice we can give, Like.
Speaker 3 (31:31):
Who are we? But let's give advice. We have experience,
let's do it.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
The first group I'd like to advise are those senior
executives like CEOs that what pick the sector. Again, decentralization
or centralization of the function is happening in many places.
It's a pendulum. I think that swings back and forth.
It's hitting pharma quite a bit right now, but it's
happening elsewhere.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
What are for those that have that.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
Most senior level decision making, especially the CEO level, What
would you advise them on? What kind of fact do
you think that they should be weighing and even more
educating themselves on as they as they weigh this question.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
Yeah, I think two a position this through the lens
of I think we're going to see more hybrid models.
I think we'll see a centralized core of communicators for
risk and issues management and maybe for business strategy, but
(32:31):
we're going to see embedded comms through the business for
agility and speed and depth of knowledge. So I would
ask CEOs to not look at this as a binary,
to look to design models that can do both protect
the enterprise voice and enable speed. So I think the
(32:52):
question is not what works now or what's easiest to
implement now, but the question that CEOs should ask themselves
is what structure is going to protect the company's reputation
five years out. So that's more than just the ORG chart,
(33:14):
that's more than just cost efficiencies. That's really forward looking.
Will this model provide us with a clear enterprise narrative?
Will this model provide us with clear accountability? And does
it allow us to manage risks across various stakeholders. I think,
(33:38):
you know, the CEO could look at communications sort of
like an operating system. So you can have multiple apps running,
so you can have multiple people embedded in these very
specific areas, but you do need a cohesive uni fide
(34:00):
operating system at the top. So recognizing that the right
reputation and the right structure is a strategic asset and
formatting the comm structure accordingly.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
I love the idea of the operating system that has
multiple apps running multiple programs, but they come together as
a whole. I think that's a really I haven't thought
of it that way. I think that's a really powerful metaphor.
I really like that. So turning to our peers out
there across the industry, comms folks, and again, they can
be integrated marketing communications as well as comms. We're all
(34:39):
doing many different channels and tactics and the more symbiotic,
the better of understanding these levers. But for those that
are either mid career and really growing or more senior folks,
what thoughts can we share on the question of what
to do relative to raising that stature of communications internally
or advocating pushing for that more cohesive and connective structures
(35:04):
that are better in this kind of volatile landscape. What
would you say to our peers.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Yeah, thanks for asking this question, because I have gotten
a lot of individuals have approached me and asked what
they can do. And it really is very different depending
on where you sit in the organization, the structure that's
already in place in your organization, how large organization is.
There's so many factors that will impact and affect the
(35:31):
way that you personally can advocate for change in your
organization or advocate for the function. But I tried to
distill it down to something that would be universal for
all communicators. And so my advice is to make sure
that you are not just running your silo. So build
(35:53):
bridges an influence outside of your lane. Because corporate reputation
does not care about ORG charts, so we shouldn't either.
What we need to do is connect across the business.
And the more connected we are, the more bridges that
(36:14):
we build, the harder it will be as sidle in
communications and to position us just as a tactical executor.
Speaker 1 (36:22):
So much wisdom. I know you've had time to think
about this as people have asked you, because that's hard,
Like it's amazing for people to come and ask that question.
Corporate reputation does not care about ORG charts is one
of the quotes of the podcast. I couldn't agree more.
It's just like consumers encountering a brand don't care where
they're encountering it. It's the brand. Like we've known that
(36:43):
in brand strategy for years. I absolutely love that. So
to finish up, Chrissy, the name of our show is
building brand gravity. So I always like to ask people
what has you in its gravity right now? What is fun?
What's lighting you up? What are you into however you
want to define that?
Speaker 2 (37:01):
Okay, so we're gonna we're going I'm going to try
to bring this back to communications. When we're gonna go.
I last night I finally finished K Pop Demon Hunters.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
Oh my god, so many people are talking about this.
I was hearing I was listening to another podcast when
We're there. Oh it was The New York Times doing
like a culture review. But yeah, tell me what your
take is for.
Speaker 2 (37:23):
People are talking about it. I have a nine year
old daughter who is obsessed, so I finally finished watching
it with her, and it's It's brilliant because it's a
It's a masterclass in trend spoting. They have taken the
appetite for k pop, the appetite for anime, the appetite
(37:47):
for what would you even call it, the zombie demons,
the supernatural crime fighting, and somehow put it together into
a package that works. And so i'd heard yesterday that
this has now become, in just over two months, the
most watched movie in Netflix history. The is their Earworms.
(38:13):
It's just the music is just stuck in my head now.
But I think that the if I'm trying to wrap
it up and bring it back to communication. I think
communicators can really take a lesson from this by embracing
and aligning with the with the zeitgeist and the cultural
currents and seek out different ways that combine things that
(38:38):
you didn't know, you didn't necessarily think would go together,
but look out into the into the cultural current and
see what you can pull and try to create something new.
Speaker 1 (38:50):
I love that, and that's some great branding. Even the
title captures your attention. You're like, what the heck is this?
But when I heard the culture critics that the New
York Times talking about it, one thing caught my attention
talk about marketing is that the K pop demon hunters,
the women in the K pop groups who fight demons,
the demons who are guys, said to themselves, we have
a marketing issue. We keep getting beaten by these singers.
(39:13):
So maybe we'll form a pop group and it'll be
a demon pop group. So there's marketing for you, Chrissy.
It's so funny. Well, I so appreciate you being on
building brand, gravity and courage.
Speaker 3 (39:25):
Folks.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
If you enjoyed this conversation, check out our other episode.
Share this one with your friends, especially in the comms field.
A lot of really important things to talk about here,
and Christy Jones, thank you again for joining us, Thanks
for having me in
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.