May 8, 2025 • 44 mins
Business confidence is no longer just a reflection of quarterly results—it's a barometer of public trust, strategic clarity, and leadership alignment. Yet, according to new global research from The Page Society and The Harris Poll, only 1 in 4 people believe companies can positively impact the issues that matter most. Even fewer see both the action and context that build lasting confidence.
In this episode, host Steve Halsey is joined by Eliot Mizrachi, VP of Strategy & Content at The Page Society, and Rob Jekielek, Managing Director at The Harris Poll, to unpack the insights behind the Confidence in Business Index—a landmark study spanning 14 countries, 16 issues, and interviews with 40 Chief Communications Officers worldwide.
Together, they explore what the data means for communicators navigating a fragmented trust landscape, an evolving CCO role, and a multigenerational workforce with diverging expectations.
Join us as we discuss:
In this episode, host Steve Halsey is joined by Eliot Mizrachi, VP of Strategy & Content at The Page Society, and Rob Jekielek, Managing Director at The Harris Poll, to unpack the insights behind the Confidence in Business Index—a landmark study spanning 14 countries, 16 issues, and interviews with 40 Chief Communications Officers worldwide.
Together, they explore what the data means for communicators navigating a fragmented trust landscape, an evolving CCO role, and a multigenerational workforce with diverging expectations.
Join us as we discuss:
- Six societal issues shaping public expectations of business in 2025
- What the Confidence Curve reveals about moving belief from 26% to 53%
- Generational trust divides and Gen Z’s evolving expectations at work
- How CCOs align internal culture with external credibility
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Social is one of the most relevant, high impact sets
of channels. But at the same time, that's not going
to be your silver bullet. Doing free posts on social
it's not going to break through. Just putting up a
landing page is not going to get through. You really
need to think in a much more holistic fashion and
you need to have like a consistent drum beat.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Welcome to Building brand Gravity. I'm your host, Steve Halsey.
I'm excited today to talk about the global state of
confidence in business. According to the latest page Harris Pole research,
only twenty six percent of people globally are very confident
that companies can make a positive impact on the issues
that matter most. Even fewer, just twenty percent say they
(00:47):
see companies providing both action and context. With me today
to discuss how we bridge the gap in confidence in business,
why brand should care, and what chief communications officers should
do about it. Are my friends of the Pond, Elliot Mizrahi,
VP Strategy and Content for Page, and Rob Yecolek, who
(01:08):
is the managing director of Harris Polk. Gentlemen, welcome back
to the show.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Thanks for having us creates be or Steve.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
So let's start with some of the top line findings
from this year's global research. You guys put together research
that tracks sixteen key issues across fourteen global markets. You
also interviewed forty chief communications officers from around the world
to really create a pretty comprehensive view of what publics
(01:34):
are thinking where business is at. I mean, Rob, maybe
you can kick us off by helping us unpack what
you found to be the top six issues the public
expects business to act on in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
Thanks for the setup, Steve. Yeah, So when you go
across fourteen countries and those sixteen issues, there are six
pieces that really bubble up. We'll talk a little bit,
I think, in a little bit about some of the
differences by market, but there are six issues that kind
of what we call essential, right. It's a blend of
different things, so it's a bit of pretty dynamic landscape.
(02:07):
But the top three are around economic stability and growth,
around job creation and workforce skills development, and corruption.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Right.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Corruption is definitely an interesting one for conversation, especially since
in a number of markets it's actually number one. And
the next three that fill out the whole kind of
essentials gap are environmental issues, research and technological innovation, and
mental health issues, right each all six of those are
seen as very important for leading companies to make an
(02:37):
impact on in aggregate across all those markets. The majority
of the population says that.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
So Rob when you guys put together that full list
of the sixteen key issues, were you surprised in the
top three the top six.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
The one that's always I think drives a lot of
intrigue is the one around corruption. And right now, I
would just use that, especially in communications corporate affairs parlance,
as a as a very strong proxy for reputational risk.
Right so, the word corruption can be everything from I
think my fees are too high, that this company is
(03:12):
acting in a corrupt fashion, to this is a senator
or a representative who has been indicted on twenty three
counts of malfeasance, intersecting with foreign actors and occurring a
lot of personal wealth. Right So it's it's a very
large spectrum. And for that reason, just you know, as
with reputational risk, sometimes there's a there's a three percent
(03:34):
kernel of truth that gets turned into a much bigger story.
So very I think that's it's a really important one.
I think mental health is also really intriguing, primarily because
it over indexes so heavily on younger generations across the board.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
So, so, Elliott, when you when you think about what
rob was talking about in terms of reputational risk and
just the broader set of things that rose to the top,
how does that match up with a one on one
conversation as you were having with CEOs around the globe
and any different perspectives you got from those who may
be based in the States versus elsewhere in the world. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
So, actually, just to back up a moment, the impetus
for this study was Page's interest in having more of
a presence at events like Davos, and so we partnered
with Robin Harris to develop a piece of research that
would underscore the role of the CCO as a real
business leader and would focus on some of the challenges
(04:29):
that they're facing. One of the main ones being how
do we contend with this range of societal issues, What
are the expectations of us in our organizations to address those,
and what's the impact of that. And I think for
a lot of CCOs, you know, if you flash back,
you know four years ago, five years ago, a lot
of these issues, particularly around DEI and ESG. They were
(04:51):
really front and center, and companies were really aggressive in
their actions and pursuing those politics as it often does,
you know, sort of moves over time, and I think
there were a couple of instances where companies were chastened
for some of the action that they took because of
some negative reaction, which caused some companies to think maybe
(05:12):
a little bit more critically and judiciously about the issues
that they ought to tackle. And so the idea behind
this research was let's shed some light on what types
of issues should really matter to organizations and importantly, what
action on those issues might produce in terms of confidence
in business and confidence in their ability to have impact
on those issues. What I think is interesting, which was
(05:35):
kind of the point of doing this globally, is that
those answers are really different across geographies.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Yeah, that'll be. That'll be I want to get into
that in a little bit talking about what you're seeing
across the globe. But Rob, I thought it was interesting
you you looked at the issues that in terms of
importance and in terms of confidence, can you can you
talk a little bit about about what you found when
you look at it through those two dimensions.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Sure, I've actually one of the points I was wanted
to build on what what Elliott said, we made sure
and this is and it just makes sense that we
have all the components of issues such as ESG and
DEI included. We just don't use the terms ESGR, DEI,
nor would we suggest that anyone use those, right. I
mean again, unless you you've you've been invested in that
acronym for a very very long time and the acronym
(06:21):
is kind of part of your culture, it's probably best
to kind of focus in on the specific issues underlying it. Right.
Where Again, there's I think there's a tremendous amount of
work to be done, and there's very little reason why
many companies should should back away from a lot of
the underpinning ideas. But we'll get to that, right. So,
when you're when you're looking at the across all the
especially the sixth essentials, they're the one that's the standout
(06:43):
in terms of highest confidence, although it's still pretty low,
is around R and D and innovation. Right, So that's
the one that connects most easily and more most intuitively
with with with with the public, and that's where our
confidence is highest. Although still reasonably low. Also, just when
we're we're talking about comp it's being low. We're also
we're not saying that the negatives are high. It's just
(07:04):
the ambivalence is high.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
Right.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
So, like it's basically a low confidence in business indicates
a lack of perspective, which again, in today's reality, that's
a big risk, right, because it's you know, as you
look at the overall geopolitical landscape, there's increasingly many more
populist voices, populist leaders who can have might pick on
(07:27):
companies as kind of the reason for why things are
going well or not going so well. Right, So that's
the big piece around. A lack of confidence is really
a lack of definition. So again, highest definition on research
and technological innovation. Low is confidence on corruption. Right, So
again speaks to the fact that we're not just talking
(07:47):
about individual company actions. In many cases, it's that intersection
with kind of politics, government, et cetera. Right, and across
many many governments, right, you can see that like, especially
in like parliamentary if you will, like very often one
regime is in for a long time and then changes
because of a corruption scandal, and that's kind of that's
not like something that's happening now that's like a decades
(08:09):
long trend that you see pretty consistently.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
Yeah, that was that was a fascinating one. And when
we get into a little bit of slice of the
data by by generations, it's really interesting looking at that
corruption viewpoint as well. So Elliott, you know, as we
get started in this conversation and we think about the
importance and we think about the confidence, how does that
start shaping as we go through this discussions. How CEOs,
(08:34):
agency leaders other senior comms professionals need to think about
how do you start taking data like this what you're
hearing in your organization and start thinking about how those
come together.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
Yeah, so my first thought on that question actually is
an emphasis on what rob Ja said about the choice
not to talk about ESG and BEI. You know, those
are terms that are popular in the corporate killer, but
are not the way that everyday people think about those issues.
And I think that's one of the lessons for CCOs is,
(09:07):
you know, make that distinction, think about what type of initiatives, programs,
decisions you need to make at the corporate level in
order to fulfill your mission, your values, all that stuff.
But then also, and I think part of what this
research does is meet consumers, meet stakeholders where they are
on those issues, speak to them in terms that relate
(09:29):
to how that issue shows up in their life. And
so we deliberately chose not to focus on those terms.
And we've actually done some separate research, not as part
of the Harris pole, that looks at what is the
terminology that companies should be using when engaging on these issues,
and you know, terms like you know, we're making choices
(09:50):
that allow us to be a responsible business that is
far less polarizing than using terms like ESG and DEI,
which in many respects, you know, they're acronyms without meaning
that have been given meaning by a variety of different
political actors. And so I think being aware of the
political environment is a big part of it. But also
(10:11):
understanding stakeholders and what their expectations of the business are
is really important.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Yeah, Elliot, That's really important when you when you ask
people and kind of how you did in the research,
when you're asking about gender equality or income inequality, or
racial or minority equality, there are different ways that you
could set that framing up that most people generally are
going to say yes, I agree with However, the acronyms
(10:36):
really got politicized, and I think that's going to be
another point to kind of put a pin in to
come back as to how do you communicate in a
hyper polarized environment, knowing when and where to engage. But
I also thought rob going back to just the sheer
global nature of this, I thought it was fascinating looking
at some of the regions that had extremely confidence viso
(11:01):
v the other ones like Saudi Arabia and India versus
like the UK, Japan and Italy and the United States
and Canada and Mexico were kind of kind of middling.
So what type of things did you think was interesting
from a geographic standpoint and what are some things that
CCOs need to think about that.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
So you certainly do have some differences. So although overall
confidence is relatively low, the US is actually very close
to the average, just under the average, right. But you
did have some markets, especially like well established markets such
as the ones you named that that are a lot
lower on confidence, and you had a lot of a
lot of other markets you can call them emerging. I
(11:44):
think a lot are now established. But like if you're
looking at Saudi Arabia, UAE, India, and Brazil where confidence
was higher. Right. I think there's a couple of different things.
So the first is when you look at some of
those let's call them emerging markets, right, you still the
role of companies is be very, very substantial where you
see a very direct intersection between large scale infrastructure development
(12:05):
and things like that, right where you can make a
very substantive, very noteworthy, and very tangible impact on kind
of the economy. And in many cases there's a closer
intersection with with government because of the size and nature
of a lot of those projects.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
Right.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
So again I don't I don't know if that's the
If it's saying that's the formula for success, it's more
so saying that that is the reality on the ground
right now in many of those markets, many of the
kind of established markets are also kind of there's a
lot more companies doing a lot more things, so it's
harder to to for individual companies to break through. They're
also noisy these days on many different fronts. But when
(12:42):
you look across markets, there's also a difference in expectations. Right.
The you know, the most consistent trend and this one
I think is pretty obvious when you play it out
in terms of consumers lives is around kind of economic growth, right, So,
like economic impact economic growth are really good. Translation of
that is also like prices and inflation. Right, So, like
your economic narrative is fundamentally important across every market. But
(13:04):
from there you you have you have quite a bit
of like difference there. You know, there are some markets
where we mentioned you know, corruption is like the number
one item, like in places like China and in the
United Kingdom, that is the number one that that consumers
are saying they expect companies to make a big impact on.
Which is that's interesting, right, You have other markets where
where you have issues such as you know, negative impacts
(13:27):
of AI and regulation of AI that are much higher
that are into the set, into the essential set where
you know there's that that's not the case, right, So
again AI is a play in certain markets like the
UK is an example where regulation of AI is a
much higher expectation versus many other markets.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
Yeah, so on this notion that the economic issues are
the ones that that stakeholders seem to have the greatest
expectations on, that's intuitive, right, Like the business of business
is business and so that's where the focus ought to be.
But even on some of the these other societal issues,
the research that I referenced earlier, one of the things
(14:03):
that we found was that connecting it to the interests
of the business, to the profitability motive, those are things
that make them seeing more relevant to the business. And
where you get in trouble is where it seems like
companies are virtual signaling or making decisions based on a
set of moral values that are being imposed on others,
whereas in many cases, the truth is that they're doing
that because there is an interest in the business in
(14:27):
pursuing those issues. And so I think one of the
lessons here is be thoughtful about the issues that you
decide to engage on and think about them and think
about communicating them in ways that relate to the success
of the business.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, And I guess
I throw this one out a little bit as a
jump ball. Then, Rob, you covered that the top three
issues most consistently across economic stability and growth, job creation
and workforce skills, development and corruption tended to be fairly
fairly consistent. But then some of the the other things
(15:01):
that are being grappled on by region changed pretty wildly.
So how can how can a senior communicator use this
kind of as a as a blueprint to think about,
what are the things that I need to play up
in different geographies, What are the things what part of
my narratives need to be consistent globally? And and so
(15:22):
how do you how do you use those findings of.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Those top three?
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Right?
Speaker 1 (15:26):
The first two are very proactive, right, So job creation
and economic impact are very proactive ones to And I
mean I think those are important because sometimes people like
think there it's like Captain obvious, but it actually isn't
what you're leading with, and it's not even part of
your overall frame, right, So I think it's a good reminder.
The corruption one is more as we talked about, it's
more of like an indicator of risk. So it's like
(15:46):
something it needs to need to be prepared for, and
like it's really good for kind of like wildcard question
prep for your CEO. Right, And it's definitely a lot
more on kind of rethinking materiality of risks. But even
some of the issues, like environmental issues are consistent across
both markets, but they they over index in certain places
like environmental issues number two in Japan, number two in Mexico,
(16:07):
number two in Brazil, but essential in the majority of
the markets that we looked at. The racial minority equality
also an essential issue in in in the US versus
not as much in and in many other markets. I
think it's really really important just to be judicious about
those things. And again, like I think one of the
most interesting ones is mental health, where again you see
both a generational divide and you see a country divide, right.
(16:30):
Where again it's if you're there's many of these issues
that if you just don't say anything, it's it's basically
like irrelevance Cluese, right, Like you're you're basically you're creating
an impediment for for people to be able to listen
to you. So if you're if you're talking to a
younger generation about how relevant your company is and why
why it's actually meaningful and important, and you know, especially
if you're looking at career opportunities and you don't allude
(16:53):
to things like mental health, is just a huge miss,
Like you're just going to be off the radar that
kind of thing.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
So so let's let's let's shift a little bit and uh,
let's talk about the generations in the workforce. So generally,
accept that we've got four generations in the workforce. Gen
G Millennials, Gen X Boomers. Depending upon your type of business,
you may have an additional generation coming in working the
counter at your store. Things like that, I mean, Elliott,
(17:18):
How has the calculus changed in terms of just thinking
how you need to communicate across generations internally within the organization,
depending upon brand externally, what are some of the broad
lends things that CEOs need to think about.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
You know, I am sure that there are all sorts
of generational issues that are under consideration for external communication
and how you engage those different audiences. But honestly, most
of what I hear from CEOs these days has to
do with internal with the idea that you have different
generations with different understandings and expectations of the nature of
(17:57):
work and their relationship with their employer, different way work styles,
grew up, with different familiarity with technology, and so I
think with that breadth of generational difference in the workforce,
all at once, the idea of building you know, singular
and cohesive culture becomes more difficult because you have people
with very different worldviews or mindsets, and so what I
(18:19):
hear CCOs talk very often about is how do we
bridge those divides internally across the employee base. And so
I think that's a really important factor, especially as technology
starts to disrupt so much of the work that we
do and how we do it. And that doesn't assume
that older generations wouldn't be able to keep up. In fact,
you know a lot of people from older than generations
(18:39):
are quicker adoption adopters than younger people are, and they
have more of a perspective to be thoughtful about the
implications of these kinds of things. So I think trying
to understand internally how you engage the entire work for
US across generations is a really important issue for CEOs today.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
So, Rob, what does a research say. I mean, when
I saw you present this first, I was really struck
by the differences that you saw, particularly between gen Z
and boomers. But but what some of the top takeaways
when you start slicing it by a generational lens.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Yeah, I mean, I think the reason why right now
that generational divide between gen Z and boomers is so
important is that in more and more markets, you're seeing
kind of an equilibrium for those two groups in the workforce. Right,
So in like not all countries yet, but in many
countries in the US and a bunch of Western European countries,
you have somewhere around a quarter of the of the
(19:36):
active WORSK workforce is now gen Z, which is that's
kind of like a new trend as of the last
six months. So that makes it very noteworthy, right because
before it would have been just a couple of voices saying, hey,
I expect this in this and people are like, well,
it's kind of like there's not very many people. Now
it's now it's a really substantial part of the of
the population. Right where you're you're probably it's something like,
you know, twenty five percent is gen Z, twenty five
(19:58):
percent is boomer, right, and there's a big divide there.
So there's you know, as an example, like three of
the big issues when when you're looking at the younger
generation are as we said mental health is number two,
really high expectation. It's also number three with millennials, so
younger trend. But then with gen Z you also have
gender equality and racial minority quality globally right across the
fourteen countries that pop. It's just a it's a different
(20:21):
kind of issue spectrum that's relevant to them versus if
you're looking at boomers, they really really narrow in on
those top three issues. Right, So again economics, jobs and skills,
and corruption, right part, there are the big three that
are real kind of like standouts.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
What I what I might just add there, Steve, You know,
it sort of goes to the point about the economic
value that business creates that and this is just me
kind of speculating based on the result. Older generations, you know,
their relationship with work is maybe more economic in nature.
I provide economic value to this organization, It provides economic
(20:58):
value to me in the cern in the form of compensation.
Younger generations view their relationship with work more like a
third place. You know that this is a place where
I belong, where you know, I'm I'm working towards creating
an inclusive environment. Issues like mental health and well being
are more Germane to the work experience for those people
(21:22):
than they might be for older generations. So I think
Rob's point is really well taken that even in the
similarities across generation, there are some lessons about how those
generations think differently.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
So with all those generations in the workforce that you're
trying to keep happy and productive, I mean, what are
what are some tips? I mean, you know, different generations
want different messages based on what we're seeing. Different generations
want that message to be delivered in a different way.
What are what are what are some tips or takeaways
or what? What have you heard from CEOs that that
(21:56):
have been fairly successful in helping build a fairly cohed
of culture across the generations.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
A few things come to mind. One is I think
that this kind of goes to the building of an
inclusive culture. I think open for formats for communication are
really employee opportunities for employees not only to express their
ideas or concerns or beliefs to management, but also for
(22:24):
employees to hear that from each other and foster a
greater understanding across generation, which I think is really important.
And that's true not just of generational issues. I think
that's true more broadly. I think another thing would be
we have more of an ability now through technology and contech,
to customized tailor messages. And while I am absolutely not
(22:49):
saying that companies ought to be saying one thing to
one group and another thing to another group. I think
you have to be saying the same thing. Your message
should be the same, but you might frame it or
express it in different ways for different organizations, or emphasize
different elements of it in ways that again meet those
people where they are. And so I think segmentation, targeting, optimization,
(23:11):
through iteration, those kinds of things are all tools in
the toolbox to understand those different stakeholder groups, understand what
their beliefs and behaviors might be, and to tailor messaging
to them accordingly so that it feels as relevant to
them as possible.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Rob anything else in the data. As we think about
kind of the cross generational engagement that that's going to
be important for our listeners to understand.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
I mean, I'll just pull on some additional threads that
we pretty consistently see just building out what Elliott was saying.
I think right now, trying to not trying to like
humanizing your company and really humanizing your leadership is more
important than ever because it's really it's very easy to
get stuck into like kind of like pure channels and
technology and things like that. Right in terms of the humanization,
(23:57):
you need to use the technology a lot better, to
be clear, but to I think one of the especially
as you're looking at internal audiences, being able to relate
these issues to things like culture and really into kind
of understanding driving both strategy and kind of career development
is essentially important, right and really being able to meet
(24:18):
people where they are, right. I mean, there's you know,
there's every company we work for has such a diversity
of different talent, right if you're if you're working for
like an airline, or if you're working in auto or
if you're working in manufacturing. Right, you have a lot
of different people that play different roles in different settings. Right,
So you have to really figure out how to how
to bring that to life for the right way. And
I don't know if it's it's not like saying different
(24:39):
things to different people, like or it's not like trying
to hide something. It's saying, you know, really relating to
a the culture of the company, the values of the company,
but bringing it to life through kind of strategy jobs
to get done. I mean, I think right now, a
lot of people's heads are very very practical as well, right,
Like there in we see this very consistently. People's home lives.
Like people are quote unquote more conservative, but that's because
(25:02):
they're financially feeling insecure. Right, So like people aren't feeling
like politically more conservative, they're feeling that, you know, again,
they're feeling very practical. I have to make decisions for
for myself or my family. Like if I'm doing a job,
I want to understand why I'm doing this job, but
frame it in a way that's like meaningful and impactful
to me. Right, But we're in practical times versus kind
of like you know, esoteric aspirational times.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
I would say, yeah, I think, I think. I think
everything you guys are saying is is key because it
really hits the idea that one size can't fit all.
But to your point, Elliott, you still need to be
telling the same story, the same narrative, which which leads
to where I'd kind of like to pivot a little bit. Okay,
So we've identified, we've identified, there's there's a lot of commonalities.
(25:46):
We've identified, there's a lot of gaps. And one of
the things Rob I thought was really interesting when I
first saw you present this information was really kind of
talking about the confidence curve and just the difference that
you have in terms of impact that you're able to
make by the ability to put together action and context.
(26:07):
Can you can you talk about that a little bit
and set that up for us.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
Yeah, I think the you know, we're hoping that the
confidence herve is a very useful tool for communicators.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
Right.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
So, again, we were looking at fourteen countries, we're looking
at sixteen issues. One of the things we also asked
about is how and what to what degree are you
hearing from leading companies on each one of these things.
When you and there's four kind of or tiers, if
you will. The first is, I'm not hearing much from
the company. I don't really know what they're doing. The
second is I'm seeing company action, but I'm not really
(26:37):
really don't really understand what or why they're doing. You know,
I'm hearing company perspectives but don't really see any action.
And the third is I'm seeing both action and clear
explanation or clear context.
Speaker 3 (26:48):
Right.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
And those four, when you combine them with the level
of confidence in aggregate across all markets, across all those issues,
what you very quickly see is that if people don't
see any action or any perspective like confidence is going
to be abysmally low, much lower than the global average.
It gets ever so modestly higher but very niche impact
if you're seeing action, very similar if you're only seeing perspectives, right,
(27:13):
people just talking about an issue versus once you actually
get both of those combined together, confidence across issues, and
it's a one to one on every issue, right, springs
to like majority impact. Right, So you're moving from confidence
being in the fifteen twenty range to over fifty percent. Right,
So you're moving to majority of confidence. And it's pretty
intuitive if you're working in communications that that should be true.
(27:35):
It's just that is not the reality that most people
are seeing, right, Like, So the it's action plus context
equals confidence, right, and think of confidence as a good
kind of short to medium term goal versus just things
like trust and reputation.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
Right.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
What I'm trying to do is establish confidence on this
very specific thing versus saying that we are the leader
in some sort of a grandiose aspirational fashion. We're just
trying to move the need a little bit forward. And
again we'll get to the implications, right, But you really
need to be able to narrow your focus in order
to do that, right, like a press release or a
(28:09):
social post is not going to be your winning ticket here, right,
You really need to reprioritize and think about, like, how
do I really tell the story in a dynamic omni
channel fashion, and how do I reinforce it right? And
how do I ensure there are very clear examples and
actions that we are taking that are backing up whatever
we're saying.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
So, Elliott, when you think about the role of the
CEO and how that's evolved, you know, we've always traditionally
tried to create the context, tell the story, what is
it about, what is going on? How should you think
about it, how should you frame it? How can the
CEO then really help drive that companion part of action.
(28:49):
What do they need to do with their fellow C
suite officers to really be able to marry those two together.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
Yeah, I'm glad that you acknowledge that this is familiar
territory for communicators. You know, there's explaining the confident that
the context as a means of explaining the action is
something that communicators are adept at, and I think certainly
one of the things that CCOs ought to be doing
is making the case for that. But to your point.
One of the things that we're seeing in CEO leadership
(29:20):
is that the CEO role is diversifying. In some cases,
it's expanding to include areas like public affairs, brand marketing, sustainability.
But even in instances where the room that isn't growing,
the sphere of influences and what that requires is CEOs
who are working cross functionally to enact the mission, the vision,
(29:43):
the purpose and oftentimes, you know, decisions on the issues
that that rops research tests are guided to some extent
on purpose and values and yes, materiality, you know, whether
there's you know, the business has a material relationship to
the issue, whether the issue has a material relationship to
the business, And so I think a big part of
(30:06):
CCO leadership on these issues is unearthing that materiality and
working cross functionally to make sure that the organization's actions,
whether they decide to take one or not, are consistent
with values purpose. The CEO, more than anybody in the
C suite, has that broad purview. It's one of the
(30:28):
reasons why we see CEOs increasingly taking on responsibilities that
benefit from a broader stakeholder lens. Right, more CEOs involved
in HR because employees are important stakeholder group more in
ESG and sustainability. So I think critically important is for
CEOs to identify the partnerships and the coalitions within the
(30:50):
c suite that they need to build in order to
make sure that the action matches the context, because ultimately,
with the confidence curve shows is if there's connectivity between
what you're doing and how you're describing it, that instills
confidence and if there's not, that's where you get into trouble.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
Yeah, and I thought it was interesting. You know, the
formula seems like it should be pretty simple. Action and
context means you're going to be up over fifty percent.
But when you look at the data globally, I mean,
what did it net out to rob about twenty twenty percent,
So it seems like there's there's a lot of opportunity.
What what do you think are the are the barriers
to that, to the to the confidence gap that we're
(31:35):
really talking.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
About prioritization and consistency. So that's like the a prioritization,
like being able to say these are these are the
view the core pillars of what we're going to focus
on like and spend whatever it is. Seventy five percent
of your time. Like you there's a lot of other
stuff you need to do, but that should take like
twenty to twenty percent of your time. Right, So prioritization
and getting buy in from your leadership team on prioritization
(31:56):
is essentially important, and then can consistency. Right, It's kind
of like you know again, I mean, I think everybody
knows this when I say it out loud, but if
you're doing something on social, it has gone like this, Right.
So social is one of the most relevant, high impact
sets of channels. But at the same time, like that's
not going to be your silver bullet. Doing three posts
on social is not going to get It's not going
(32:17):
to break through. Like just putting up a landing page
is not going to get through. Just building it into
your into a one like executive speaking engagement is not
going to break through. Just building it into kind of
one piece of paid content or advertising is not going
to break through. You really need to think in a
much more holistic fashion and you need to have like
a consistent drum beat.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
So, so Elliott, with all this great data and so
when you when you think about all the research that
you guys did, all the conversation what's your advice to CEOs,
agency leaders, senior comms. How do they use this research?
What do they what should they? What should they do next?
Speaker 3 (32:52):
Well, one of the things they should do next is
something that I know many CEOs are doing now, which
is develop a methodology or a framework for determining whether
and how to engage on the issues that are relevant
to the organization. And the approaches that I see CCOs
taking can range from really simple, you know, just a
(33:15):
series of very basic questions, how does this issue relate
to our values? What is our history on this issue?
What do employees think about this issue? To the very
sophisticated where companies are collecting data, you know, doing essentially
internal and external research in order to inform choices about
(33:35):
issues where there's an opportunity for the organization to have
a positive impact and where that would be welcomed, and
issues where maybe it's wiser not to. And that's not
to say that there are issues where companies can't or
won't have a positive benefit, but to Rob's point, prioritization
is really important. Which are the issues that matter most
to your organization and how are you going to marshal
(33:58):
the resources, the attention and the commitment that it requires
to have a real meaningful impact. You know, if you're
spread too thin across issues, it can't help but feel superficial.
But when there are specific issues that as an organization,
you've determined these are things that are material to our business,
they're material to our stakeholders, and there's an opportunity for
(34:19):
us to have a positive impact and by the way,
have an impact that contributes to our ability to be
a stronger, more vibrant business. I think those that's a
really compelling argument.
Speaker 2 (34:29):
Yeah, and I think we've really seen kind of a
matrization within the comms profession of how do you address
that dilemma of action and context. For a little bit,
it felt like a pinball machine, like we all have
to respond to everything, have opinion on everything everywhere, and
try and put it in context. But I think that's
(34:50):
the point where you started with Elliott, where you were
saying it comes across a little bit disingenuous if it's
not really what is that core focus that we want?
What gives us that license to have that conversation? I
think is really really important, particularly as easy as it
is to be seen as taking sides and with different
(35:14):
framework going on with politics. And you know, one of
the things that I thought was a really interesting statement
at the Page Spring seminar a few weeks ago was
when we were talking about engagement, one of the speakers
made the comment said, add light, not heat, which I
thought was it was a really interesting comment because again,
(35:36):
when you think about light ad heat has added context
show what we're doing from action wise, but that also
means don't get caught up in like the tit for
tat or some of those those other things. I mean,
I wasn't sure. Did you guys have any kind of
either here with with your CEO interviews or any recent discussions,
anything really stand out for you guys that somebody said
(35:58):
in context of the research or the current landscape that
we're at.
Speaker 1 (36:03):
One of my favorites in terms of application of a
lot of this, right is talking with a CCO who's
also a CMO. She works in the semiconductor space, and
she's she's had both those roles in different kind of
variations for for a long time. And one of the
things she kind of emphasized, which I think it makes
a lot of sense and how it's applied makes a
(36:24):
ton of sense, right, is focus on things like brand
at more of like a macro, regional or global level,
and then really focus your comms at much more of
a localized level.
Speaker 2 (36:35):
Right.
Speaker 1 (36:36):
I think that's like, so it's you know, you want
to have consistency and priorities like if you if you,
if you're responsible for brand, you want to have some
big ticket items that roll up together. But as you're
bringing it to life on the ground, especially for a
global company like your communications dynamic is the essential thing
for for for bringing it to life.
Speaker 3 (36:52):
Right.
Speaker 1 (36:53):
That's where again what you want to have is like
big global examples, right, and but you also want to
bring it to life in a very very local context.
So I really like that because there's I think I've
seen a lot of companies try and do the brand
thing like on the ground, and it looks a little
bit crazy. Right. It's basically just kind of like, you know,
a lot of activity and not very clear as to
(37:13):
why it's happening. And it's kind of all this like
funny language and positioning and things like this, right, versus
being able to kind of pause and stop for a
second and say no, these are kind of our big fundamentals.
We're just going to focus those assets there and then
on for the communications side, really being able to kind
of bring much more context and much more specific action
on the ground, so acting off both of a lot
(37:33):
of consistency but bringing it to that local level. And
I think communications is very well suited to do that,
and a lot of kind of the assets and channels
that that are typically communications are much much better tuned
to it. Right. It's much more organic in nature versus
kind of like paid in promotional in nature, if you will.
Speaker 2 (37:49):
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, Elliott, how about.
Speaker 3 (37:52):
You, Well, I love the light not heat. One. I
think there's there's so much richness in that lesson. Another
one that's stuck out to me was focus on policy
not politics, And just as it relates to this conversation,
I think it's fair to acknowledge that neutrality is a
position like no position is a position today, and even
(38:15):
where there are issues where organizations might choose not to
engage on a particular issue, there will be stakeholders of
one shape or another who are disappointed by that. And
so I think even providing the context the explanation as
to why the organization has chosen not to engage on
a particular issue is important and one of the ways
(38:36):
that you can sort of steer clear. I mean, there's
all these culture war issues and companies understandably don't want
to get caught up in any of that. But their
focus is on policy and not politics, right. It is
about the choices that the business is making and how
those choices have an impact on society. And so I
think whatever companies can do to explain to reinforce the
(38:57):
idea that what we're interested in is policy that works
and not the politics. And the more you steer, you know,
your message and your position into politics, the more risk
there is.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
Yeah, that I think that's that's really good advice. And
you know, as I think about all the research that
you guys did speaking of richness, a lot of richness
in here, and I could I could talk for hours
and go deep on all this, but but we're getting
near the end. So I wanted to ask each of
you just any final thoughts or advice that you have
(39:31):
for the CEOs, the senior agency leaders, even younger professionals
that are listening to this, either based on the research
or just in general, any final thoughts you have about
the global state of confidence in business.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
As with all things, right, that the whole idea whenever
you're doing research with external constituencies or external stakeholders, you
need to match it with like an internal reality.
Speaker 3 (39:54):
Right.
Speaker 1 (39:54):
So we're really proud of this work with with Paige,
and I think our favorite part of it is the
fact that it's turning into a lot of page conversations
like market by market, because that's where the real kind
of rubber hits the road, if you will. Right So,
if anything, the research kind of beckons it kind of
challenges you to think about certain priorities and context of
your business, and it kind of behooves us to kind
(40:16):
of think about those questions and how they fit into
our strategy. Right. So, I think that's the like, this
is a good starting point for a conversation versus saying
this is that this is the answer of what you
need to do tomorrow. I think there's a lot of
key principles that are baked in here, but it's a
really good starting point. I think the most important part
of it is it's a it's a great kind of
you know, page global conversation, which you know, I really enjoy.
(40:37):
There's so many dynamic people across the globes, whether you're
talking about the Middle Least or Asia Pacific or Europe
or Latin America or the US or Canada.
Speaker 3 (40:47):
I think what I would add to that, which covers
mostly everything I was thinking, is there's an understandable tendency
of organizations today to want to retreat from some issues
for fear of the risk aging on them. I would
counsel prudence over disengagement. There is still and I think
(41:11):
the research shows this. You know, even though they weren't
top ranked issues, there are significant groups of people who
care about a variety of issues that businesses have an
opportunity to impact. And while I think it's probably a
poor choice for organizations to try to be all things
on all issues to all people, I do think that
(41:32):
the issues on which organizations decide to engage, and the
manner of engagement and the level of commitment that they
demonstrate to that issue over the long term right not wavering.
I think those things do serve to build trust, and
I would argue they build trust even among those who
disagree with the organization. You know, you hear from time
to time there's a boycott over this or a boycott
(41:54):
over that, and those things peter out over time, and
I think it's because you know, as human beings, we
can We're still capable of disagreeing without disengaging, And so
I would argue that prudence and following research like what
Harris has done with page here, I think helps to
form a stronger opinion about which issues are the ones
(42:16):
that we can really have a positive impact on, which
ones are going to affect confidence? And as a CCO,
how am I going to counsel our c suite on
which opportunities the ones we should pursue and which ones aren't.
And not for nothing, I think engagement on these issues
by organizations is an important way to build brand gravity,
which is why I think this venue is a great
venue for this conversation.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
Yeah, and you know, as I think about a lot
a lot of this and just all the change that
we're dealing with, and it's easy to get caught up
I say, day to day, hour to hour, second to
second pretty much, but you know, it really is coming
down to a lot of those core principles of having
a clear strategy, knowing what you stand for, when and
where you want to engage, and then really demonstrate what
(42:58):
that action and context is I think the research is
really really rich, looking at the perspectives across different geographies,
looking across different generations. So i'd encourage all of our
listeners to go check that out. If you go to
page dot org to the blog section, you will find
the latest research building Public Confidence sixth Essential Issues for
(43:23):
Business Leadership. It's really exciting stuff. I'd recommend you share
it with your team and with your c suite. So
Rob Elliott, thank you as always for being friends of
the pod. Excited to have you back and honored to
have you back again this year sharing your research after
you unveiled it at Davos. And I'd like to invite
(43:44):
everybody listening to make sure you follow Elliott and Rob.
We'll put their LinkedIn information and the trailer here so
they're full of deep thoughts insights on the industry. So guys,
thank you so much for joining us today, and for
our listeners, thank you so much for joining building brand gravity.
Check back soon for our next issue.
Social is one of the most relevant, high impact sets
of channels. But at the same time, that's not going
to be your silver bullet. Doing free posts on social
it's not going to break through. Just putting up a
landing page is not going to get through. You really
need to think in a much more holistic fashion and
you need to have like a consistent drum beat.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Welcome to Building brand Gravity. I'm your host, Steve Halsey.
I'm excited today to talk about the global state of
confidence in business. According to the latest page Harris Pole research,
only twenty six percent of people globally are very confident
that companies can make a positive impact on the issues
that matter most. Even fewer, just twenty percent say they
(00:47):
see companies providing both action and context. With me today
to discuss how we bridge the gap in confidence in business,
why brand should care, and what chief communications officers should
do about it. Are my friends of the Pond, Elliot Mizrahi,
VP Strategy and Content for Page, and Rob Yecolek, who
(01:08):
is the managing director of Harris Polk. Gentlemen, welcome back
to the show.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Thanks for having us creates be or Steve.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
So let's start with some of the top line findings
from this year's global research. You guys put together research
that tracks sixteen key issues across fourteen global markets. You
also interviewed forty chief communications officers from around the world
to really create a pretty comprehensive view of what publics
(01:34):
are thinking where business is at. I mean, Rob, maybe
you can kick us off by helping us unpack what
you found to be the top six issues the public
expects business to act on in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
Thanks for the setup, Steve. Yeah, So when you go
across fourteen countries and those sixteen issues, there are six
pieces that really bubble up. We'll talk a little bit,
I think, in a little bit about some of the
differences by market, but there are six issues that kind
of what we call essential, right. It's a blend of
different things, so it's a bit of pretty dynamic landscape.
(02:07):
But the top three are around economic stability and growth,
around job creation and workforce skills development, and corruption.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Right.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Corruption is definitely an interesting one for conversation, especially since
in a number of markets it's actually number one. And
the next three that fill out the whole kind of
essentials gap are environmental issues, research and technological innovation, and
mental health issues, right each all six of those are
seen as very important for leading companies to make an
(02:37):
impact on in aggregate across all those markets. The majority
of the population says that.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
So Rob when you guys put together that full list
of the sixteen key issues, were you surprised in the
top three the top six.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
The one that's always I think drives a lot of
intrigue is the one around corruption. And right now, I
would just use that, especially in communications corporate affairs parlance,
as a as a very strong proxy for reputational risk.
Right so, the word corruption can be everything from I
think my fees are too high, that this company is
(03:12):
acting in a corrupt fashion, to this is a senator
or a representative who has been indicted on twenty three
counts of malfeasance, intersecting with foreign actors and occurring a
lot of personal wealth. Right So it's it's a very
large spectrum. And for that reason, just you know, as
with reputational risk, sometimes there's a there's a three percent
(03:34):
kernel of truth that gets turned into a much bigger story.
So very I think that's it's a really important one.
I think mental health is also really intriguing, primarily because
it over indexes so heavily on younger generations across the board.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
So, so, Elliott, when you when you think about what
rob was talking about in terms of reputational risk and
just the broader set of things that rose to the top,
how does that match up with a one on one
conversation as you were having with CEOs around the globe
and any different perspectives you got from those who may
be based in the States versus elsewhere in the world. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
So, actually, just to back up a moment, the impetus
for this study was Page's interest in having more of
a presence at events like Davos, and so we partnered
with Robin Harris to develop a piece of research that
would underscore the role of the CCO as a real
business leader and would focus on some of the challenges
(04:29):
that they're facing. One of the main ones being how
do we contend with this range of societal issues, What
are the expectations of us in our organizations to address those,
and what's the impact of that. And I think for
a lot of CCOs, you know, if you flash back,
you know four years ago, five years ago, a lot
of these issues, particularly around DEI and ESG. They were
(04:51):
really front and center, and companies were really aggressive in
their actions and pursuing those politics as it often does,
you know, sort of moves over time, and I think
there were a couple of instances where companies were chastened
for some of the action that they took because of
some negative reaction, which caused some companies to think maybe
(05:12):
a little bit more critically and judiciously about the issues
that they ought to tackle. And so the idea behind
this research was let's shed some light on what types
of issues should really matter to organizations and importantly, what
action on those issues might produce in terms of confidence
in business and confidence in their ability to have impact
on those issues. What I think is interesting, which was
(05:35):
kind of the point of doing this globally, is that
those answers are really different across geographies.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Yeah, that'll be. That'll be I want to get into
that in a little bit talking about what you're seeing
across the globe. But Rob, I thought it was interesting
you you looked at the issues that in terms of
importance and in terms of confidence, can you can you
talk a little bit about about what you found when
you look at it through those two dimensions.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Sure, I've actually one of the points I was wanted
to build on what what Elliott said, we made sure
and this is and it just makes sense that we
have all the components of issues such as ESG and
DEI included. We just don't use the terms ESGR, DEI,
nor would we suggest that anyone use those, right. I
mean again, unless you you've you've been invested in that
acronym for a very very long time and the acronym
(06:21):
is kind of part of your culture, it's probably best
to kind of focus in on the specific issues underlying it. Right.
Where Again, there's I think there's a tremendous amount of
work to be done, and there's very little reason why
many companies should should back away from a lot of
the underpinning ideas. But we'll get to that, right. So,
when you're when you're looking at the across all the
especially the sixth essentials, they're the one that's the standout
(06:43):
in terms of highest confidence, although it's still pretty low,
is around R and D and innovation. Right, So that's
the one that connects most easily and more most intuitively
with with with with the public, and that's where our
confidence is highest. Although still reasonably low. Also, just when
we're we're talking about comp it's being low. We're also
we're not saying that the negatives are high. It's just
(07:04):
the ambivalence is high.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
Right.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
So, like it's basically a low confidence in business indicates
a lack of perspective, which again, in today's reality, that's
a big risk, right, because it's you know, as you
look at the overall geopolitical landscape, there's increasingly many more
populist voices, populist leaders who can have might pick on
(07:27):
companies as kind of the reason for why things are
going well or not going so well. Right, So that's
the big piece around. A lack of confidence is really
a lack of definition. So again, highest definition on research
and technological innovation. Low is confidence on corruption. Right, So
again speaks to the fact that we're not just talking
(07:47):
about individual company actions. In many cases, it's that intersection
with kind of politics, government, et cetera. Right, and across
many many governments, right, you can see that like, especially
in like parliamentary if you will, like very often one
regime is in for a long time and then changes
because of a corruption scandal, and that's kind of that's
not like something that's happening now that's like a decades
(08:09):
long trend that you see pretty consistently.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
Yeah, that was that was a fascinating one. And when
we get into a little bit of slice of the
data by by generations, it's really interesting looking at that
corruption viewpoint as well. So Elliott, you know, as we
get started in this conversation and we think about the
importance and we think about the confidence, how does that
start shaping as we go through this discussions. How CEOs,
(08:34):
agency leaders other senior comms professionals need to think about
how do you start taking data like this what you're
hearing in your organization and start thinking about how those
come together.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
Yeah, so my first thought on that question actually is
an emphasis on what rob Ja said about the choice
not to talk about ESG and BEI. You know, those
are terms that are popular in the corporate killer, but
are not the way that everyday people think about those issues.
And I think that's one of the lessons for CCOs is,
(09:07):
you know, make that distinction, think about what type of initiatives, programs,
decisions you need to make at the corporate level in
order to fulfill your mission, your values, all that stuff.
But then also, and I think part of what this
research does is meet consumers, meet stakeholders where they are
on those issues, speak to them in terms that relate
(09:29):
to how that issue shows up in their life. And
so we deliberately chose not to focus on those terms.
And we've actually done some separate research, not as part
of the Harris pole, that looks at what is the
terminology that companies should be using when engaging on these issues,
and you know, terms like you know, we're making choices
(09:50):
that allow us to be a responsible business that is
far less polarizing than using terms like ESG and DEI,
which in many respects, you know, they're acronyms without meaning
that have been given meaning by a variety of different
political actors. And so I think being aware of the
political environment is a big part of it. But also
(10:11):
understanding stakeholders and what their expectations of the business are
is really important.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Yeah, Elliot, That's really important when you when you ask
people and kind of how you did in the research,
when you're asking about gender equality or income inequality, or
racial or minority equality, there are different ways that you
could set that framing up that most people generally are
going to say yes, I agree with However, the acronyms
(10:36):
really got politicized, and I think that's going to be
another point to kind of put a pin in to
come back as to how do you communicate in a
hyper polarized environment, knowing when and where to engage. But
I also thought rob going back to just the sheer
global nature of this, I thought it was fascinating looking
at some of the regions that had extremely confidence viso
(11:01):
v the other ones like Saudi Arabia and India versus
like the UK, Japan and Italy and the United States
and Canada and Mexico were kind of kind of middling.
So what type of things did you think was interesting
from a geographic standpoint and what are some things that
CCOs need to think about that.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
So you certainly do have some differences. So although overall
confidence is relatively low, the US is actually very close
to the average, just under the average, right. But you
did have some markets, especially like well established markets such
as the ones you named that that are a lot
lower on confidence, and you had a lot of a
lot of other markets you can call them emerging. I
(11:44):
think a lot are now established. But like if you're
looking at Saudi Arabia, UAE, India, and Brazil where confidence
was higher. Right. I think there's a couple of different things.
So the first is when you look at some of
those let's call them emerging markets, right, you still the
role of companies is be very, very substantial where you
see a very direct intersection between large scale infrastructure development
(12:05):
and things like that, right where you can make a
very substantive, very noteworthy, and very tangible impact on kind
of the economy. And in many cases there's a closer
intersection with with government because of the size and nature
of a lot of those projects.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
Right.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
So again I don't I don't know if that's the
If it's saying that's the formula for success, it's more
so saying that that is the reality on the ground
right now in many of those markets, many of the
kind of established markets are also kind of there's a
lot more companies doing a lot more things, so it's
harder to to for individual companies to break through. They're
also noisy these days on many different fronts. But when
(12:42):
you look across markets, there's also a difference in expectations. Right.
The you know, the most consistent trend and this one
I think is pretty obvious when you play it out
in terms of consumers lives is around kind of economic growth, right, So,
like economic impact economic growth are really good. Translation of
that is also like prices and inflation. Right, So, like
your economic narrative is fundamentally important across every market. But
(13:04):
from there you you have you have quite a bit
of like difference there. You know, there are some markets
where we mentioned you know, corruption is like the number
one item, like in places like China and in the
United Kingdom, that is the number one that that consumers
are saying they expect companies to make a big impact on.
Which is that's interesting, right, You have other markets where
where you have issues such as you know, negative impacts
(13:27):
of AI and regulation of AI that are much higher
that are into the set, into the essential set where
you know there's that that's not the case, right, So
again AI is a play in certain markets like the
UK is an example where regulation of AI is a
much higher expectation versus many other markets.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
Yeah, so on this notion that the economic issues are
the ones that that stakeholders seem to have the greatest
expectations on, that's intuitive, right, Like the business of business
is business and so that's where the focus ought to be.
But even on some of the these other societal issues,
the research that I referenced earlier, one of the things
(14:03):
that we found was that connecting it to the interests
of the business, to the profitability motive, those are things
that make them seeing more relevant to the business. And
where you get in trouble is where it seems like
companies are virtual signaling or making decisions based on a
set of moral values that are being imposed on others,
whereas in many cases, the truth is that they're doing
that because there is an interest in the business in
(14:27):
pursuing those issues. And so I think one of the
lessons here is be thoughtful about the issues that you
decide to engage on and think about them and think
about communicating them in ways that relate to the success
of the business.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, And I guess
I throw this one out a little bit as a
jump ball. Then, Rob, you covered that the top three
issues most consistently across economic stability and growth, job creation
and workforce skills, development and corruption tended to be fairly
fairly consistent. But then some of the the other things
(15:01):
that are being grappled on by region changed pretty wildly.
So how can how can a senior communicator use this
kind of as a as a blueprint to think about,
what are the things that I need to play up
in different geographies, What are the things what part of
my narratives need to be consistent globally? And and so
(15:22):
how do you how do you use those findings of.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Those top three?
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Right?
Speaker 1 (15:26):
The first two are very proactive, right, So job creation
and economic impact are very proactive ones to And I
mean I think those are important because sometimes people like
think there it's like Captain obvious, but it actually isn't
what you're leading with, and it's not even part of
your overall frame, right, So I think it's a good reminder.
The corruption one is more as we talked about, it's
more of like an indicator of risk. So it's like
(15:46):
something it needs to need to be prepared for, and
like it's really good for kind of like wildcard question
prep for your CEO. Right, And it's definitely a lot
more on kind of rethinking materiality of risks. But even
some of the issues, like environmental issues are consistent across
both markets, but they they over index in certain places
like environmental issues number two in Japan, number two in Mexico,
(16:07):
number two in Brazil, but essential in the majority of
the markets that we looked at. The racial minority equality
also an essential issue in in in the US versus
not as much in and in many other markets. I
think it's really really important just to be judicious about
those things. And again, like I think one of the
most interesting ones is mental health, where again you see
both a generational divide and you see a country divide, right.
(16:30):
Where again it's if you're there's many of these issues
that if you just don't say anything, it's it's basically
like irrelevance Cluese, right, Like you're you're basically you're creating
an impediment for for people to be able to listen
to you. So if you're if you're talking to a
younger generation about how relevant your company is and why
why it's actually meaningful and important, and you know, especially
if you're looking at career opportunities and you don't allude
(16:53):
to things like mental health, is just a huge miss,
Like you're just going to be off the radar that
kind of thing.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
So so let's let's let's shift a little bit and uh,
let's talk about the generations in the workforce. So generally,
accept that we've got four generations in the workforce. Gen
G Millennials, Gen X Boomers. Depending upon your type of business,
you may have an additional generation coming in working the
counter at your store. Things like that, I mean, Elliott,
(17:18):
How has the calculus changed in terms of just thinking
how you need to communicate across generations internally within the organization,
depending upon brand externally, what are some of the broad
lends things that CEOs need to think about.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
You know, I am sure that there are all sorts
of generational issues that are under consideration for external communication
and how you engage those different audiences. But honestly, most
of what I hear from CEOs these days has to
do with internal with the idea that you have different
generations with different understandings and expectations of the nature of
(17:57):
work and their relationship with their employer, different way work styles,
grew up, with different familiarity with technology, and so I
think with that breadth of generational difference in the workforce,
all at once, the idea of building you know, singular
and cohesive culture becomes more difficult because you have people
with very different worldviews or mindsets, and so what I
(18:19):
hear CCOs talk very often about is how do we
bridge those divides internally across the employee base. And so
I think that's a really important factor, especially as technology
starts to disrupt so much of the work that we
do and how we do it. And that doesn't assume
that older generations wouldn't be able to keep up. In fact,
you know a lot of people from older than generations
(18:39):
are quicker adoption adopters than younger people are, and they
have more of a perspective to be thoughtful about the
implications of these kinds of things. So I think trying
to understand internally how you engage the entire work for
US across generations is a really important issue for CEOs today.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
So, Rob, what does a research say. I mean, when
I saw you present this first, I was really struck
by the differences that you saw, particularly between gen Z
and boomers. But but what some of the top takeaways
when you start slicing it by a generational lens.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Yeah, I mean, I think the reason why right now
that generational divide between gen Z and boomers is so
important is that in more and more markets, you're seeing
kind of an equilibrium for those two groups in the workforce. Right,
So in like not all countries yet, but in many
countries in the US and a bunch of Western European countries,
you have somewhere around a quarter of the of the
(19:36):
active WORSK workforce is now gen Z, which is that's
kind of like a new trend as of the last
six months. So that makes it very noteworthy, right because
before it would have been just a couple of voices saying, hey,
I expect this in this and people are like, well,
it's kind of like there's not very many people. Now
it's now it's a really substantial part of the of
the population. Right where you're you're probably it's something like,
you know, twenty five percent is gen Z, twenty five
(19:58):
percent is boomer, right, and there's a big divide there.
So there's you know, as an example, like three of
the big issues when when you're looking at the younger
generation are as we said mental health is number two,
really high expectation. It's also number three with millennials, so
younger trend. But then with gen Z you also have
gender equality and racial minority quality globally right across the
fourteen countries that pop. It's just a it's a different
(20:21):
kind of issue spectrum that's relevant to them versus if
you're looking at boomers, they really really narrow in on
those top three issues. Right, So again economics, jobs and skills,
and corruption, right part, there are the big three that
are real kind of like standouts.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
What I what I might just add there, Steve, You know,
it sort of goes to the point about the economic
value that business creates that and this is just me
kind of speculating based on the result. Older generations, you know,
their relationship with work is maybe more economic in nature.
I provide economic value to this organization, It provides economic
(20:58):
value to me in the cern in the form of compensation.
Younger generations view their relationship with work more like a
third place. You know that this is a place where
I belong, where you know, I'm I'm working towards creating
an inclusive environment. Issues like mental health and well being
are more Germane to the work experience for those people
(21:22):
than they might be for older generations. So I think
Rob's point is really well taken that even in the
similarities across generation, there are some lessons about how those
generations think differently.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
So with all those generations in the workforce that you're
trying to keep happy and productive, I mean, what are
what are some tips? I mean, you know, different generations
want different messages based on what we're seeing. Different generations
want that message to be delivered in a different way.
What are what are what are some tips or takeaways
or what? What have you heard from CEOs that that
(21:56):
have been fairly successful in helping build a fairly cohed
of culture across the generations.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
A few things come to mind. One is I think
that this kind of goes to the building of an
inclusive culture. I think open for formats for communication are
really employee opportunities for employees not only to express their
ideas or concerns or beliefs to management, but also for
(22:24):
employees to hear that from each other and foster a
greater understanding across generation, which I think is really important.
And that's true not just of generational issues. I think
that's true more broadly. I think another thing would be
we have more of an ability now through technology and contech,
to customized tailor messages. And while I am absolutely not
(22:49):
saying that companies ought to be saying one thing to
one group and another thing to another group. I think
you have to be saying the same thing. Your message
should be the same, but you might frame it or
express it in different ways for different organizations, or emphasize
different elements of it in ways that again meet those
people where they are. And so I think segmentation, targeting, optimization,
(23:11):
through iteration, those kinds of things are all tools in
the toolbox to understand those different stakeholder groups, understand what
their beliefs and behaviors might be, and to tailor messaging
to them accordingly so that it feels as relevant to
them as possible.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Rob anything else in the data. As we think about
kind of the cross generational engagement that that's going to
be important for our listeners to understand.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
I mean, I'll just pull on some additional threads that
we pretty consistently see just building out what Elliott was saying.
I think right now, trying to not trying to like
humanizing your company and really humanizing your leadership is more
important than ever because it's really it's very easy to
get stuck into like kind of like pure channels and
technology and things like that. Right in terms of the humanization,
(23:57):
you need to use the technology a lot better, to
be clear, but to I think one of the especially
as you're looking at internal audiences, being able to relate
these issues to things like culture and really into kind
of understanding driving both strategy and kind of career development
is essentially important, right and really being able to meet
(24:18):
people where they are, right. I mean, there's you know,
there's every company we work for has such a diversity
of different talent, right if you're if you're working for
like an airline, or if you're working in auto or
if you're working in manufacturing. Right, you have a lot
of different people that play different roles in different settings. Right,
So you have to really figure out how to how
to bring that to life for the right way. And
I don't know if it's it's not like saying different
(24:39):
things to different people, like or it's not like trying
to hide something. It's saying, you know, really relating to
a the culture of the company, the values of the company,
but bringing it to life through kind of strategy jobs
to get done. I mean, I think right now, a
lot of people's heads are very very practical as well, right,
Like there in we see this very consistently. People's home lives.
Like people are quote unquote more conservative, but that's because
(25:02):
they're financially feeling insecure. Right, So like people aren't feeling
like politically more conservative, they're feeling that, you know, again,
they're feeling very practical. I have to make decisions for
for myself or my family. Like if I'm doing a job,
I want to understand why I'm doing this job, but
frame it in a way that's like meaningful and impactful
to me. Right, But we're in practical times versus kind
of like you know, esoteric aspirational times.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
I would say, yeah, I think, I think. I think
everything you guys are saying is is key because it
really hits the idea that one size can't fit all.
But to your point, Elliott, you still need to be
telling the same story, the same narrative, which which leads
to where I'd kind of like to pivot a little bit. Okay,
So we've identified, we've identified, there's there's a lot of commonalities.
(25:46):
We've identified, there's a lot of gaps. And one of
the things Rob I thought was really interesting when I
first saw you present this information was really kind of
talking about the confidence curve and just the difference that
you have in terms of impact that you're able to
make by the ability to put together action and context.
(26:07):
Can you can you talk about that a little bit
and set that up for us.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
Yeah, I think the you know, we're hoping that the
confidence herve is a very useful tool for communicators.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
Right.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
So, again, we were looking at fourteen countries, we're looking
at sixteen issues. One of the things we also asked
about is how and what to what degree are you
hearing from leading companies on each one of these things.
When you and there's four kind of or tiers, if
you will. The first is, I'm not hearing much from
the company. I don't really know what they're doing. The
second is I'm seeing company action, but I'm not really
(26:37):
really don't really understand what or why they're doing. You know,
I'm hearing company perspectives but don't really see any action.
And the third is I'm seeing both action and clear
explanation or clear context.
Speaker 3 (26:48):
Right.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
And those four, when you combine them with the level
of confidence in aggregate across all markets, across all those issues,
what you very quickly see is that if people don't
see any action or any perspective like confidence is going
to be abysmally low, much lower than the global average.
It gets ever so modestly higher but very niche impact
if you're seeing action, very similar if you're only seeing perspectives, right,
(27:13):
people just talking about an issue versus once you actually
get both of those combined together, confidence across issues, and
it's a one to one on every issue, right, springs
to like majority impact. Right, So you're moving from confidence
being in the fifteen twenty range to over fifty percent. Right,
So you're moving to majority of confidence. And it's pretty
intuitive if you're working in communications that that should be true.
(27:35):
It's just that is not the reality that most people
are seeing, right, Like, So the it's action plus context
equals confidence, right, and think of confidence as a good
kind of short to medium term goal versus just things
like trust and reputation.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
Right.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
What I'm trying to do is establish confidence on this
very specific thing versus saying that we are the leader
in some sort of a grandiose aspirational fashion. We're just
trying to move the need a little bit forward. And
again we'll get to the implications, right, But you really
need to be able to narrow your focus in order
to do that, right, like a press release or a
(28:09):
social post is not going to be your winning ticket here, right,
You really need to reprioritize and think about, like, how
do I really tell the story in a dynamic omni
channel fashion, and how do I reinforce it right? And
how do I ensure there are very clear examples and
actions that we are taking that are backing up whatever
we're saying.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
So, Elliott, when you think about the role of the
CEO and how that's evolved, you know, we've always traditionally
tried to create the context, tell the story, what is
it about, what is going on? How should you think
about it, how should you frame it? How can the
CEO then really help drive that companion part of action.
(28:49):
What do they need to do with their fellow C
suite officers to really be able to marry those two together.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
Yeah, I'm glad that you acknowledge that this is familiar
territory for communicators. You know, there's explaining the confident that
the context as a means of explaining the action is
something that communicators are adept at, and I think certainly
one of the things that CCOs ought to be doing
is making the case for that. But to your point.
One of the things that we're seeing in CEO leadership
(29:20):
is that the CEO role is diversifying. In some cases,
it's expanding to include areas like public affairs, brand marketing, sustainability.
But even in instances where the room that isn't growing,
the sphere of influences and what that requires is CEOs
who are working cross functionally to enact the mission, the vision,
(29:43):
the purpose and oftentimes, you know, decisions on the issues
that that rops research tests are guided to some extent
on purpose and values and yes, materiality, you know, whether
there's you know, the business has a material relationship to
the issue, whether the issue has a material relationship to
the business, And so I think a big part of
(30:06):
CCO leadership on these issues is unearthing that materiality and
working cross functionally to make sure that the organization's actions,
whether they decide to take one or not, are consistent
with values purpose. The CEO, more than anybody in the
C suite, has that broad purview. It's one of the
(30:28):
reasons why we see CEOs increasingly taking on responsibilities that
benefit from a broader stakeholder lens. Right, more CEOs involved
in HR because employees are important stakeholder group more in
ESG and sustainability. So I think critically important is for
CEOs to identify the partnerships and the coalitions within the
(30:50):
c suite that they need to build in order to
make sure that the action matches the context, because ultimately,
with the confidence curve shows is if there's connectivity between
what you're doing and how you're describing it, that instills
confidence and if there's not, that's where you get into trouble.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
Yeah, and I thought it was interesting. You know, the
formula seems like it should be pretty simple. Action and
context means you're going to be up over fifty percent.
But when you look at the data globally, I mean,
what did it net out to rob about twenty twenty percent,
So it seems like there's there's a lot of opportunity.
What what do you think are the are the barriers
to that, to the to the confidence gap that we're
(31:35):
really talking.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
About prioritization and consistency. So that's like the a prioritization,
like being able to say these are these are the
view the core pillars of what we're going to focus
on like and spend whatever it is. Seventy five percent
of your time. Like you there's a lot of other
stuff you need to do, but that should take like
twenty to twenty percent of your time. Right, So prioritization
and getting buy in from your leadership team on prioritization
(31:56):
is essentially important, and then can consistency. Right, It's kind
of like you know again, I mean, I think everybody
knows this when I say it out loud, but if
you're doing something on social, it has gone like this, Right.
So social is one of the most relevant, high impact
sets of channels. But at the same time, like that's
not going to be your silver bullet. Doing three posts
on social is not going to get It's not going
(32:17):
to break through. Like just putting up a landing page
is not going to get through. Just building it into
your into a one like executive speaking engagement is not
going to break through. Just building it into kind of
one piece of paid content or advertising is not going
to break through. You really need to think in a
much more holistic fashion and you need to have like
a consistent drum beat.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
So, so Elliott, with all this great data and so
when you when you think about all the research that
you guys did, all the conversation what's your advice to CEOs,
agency leaders, senior comms. How do they use this research?
What do they what should they? What should they do next?
Speaker 3 (32:52):
Well, one of the things they should do next is
something that I know many CEOs are doing now, which
is develop a methodology or a framework for determining whether
and how to engage on the issues that are relevant
to the organization. And the approaches that I see CCOs
taking can range from really simple, you know, just a
(33:15):
series of very basic questions, how does this issue relate
to our values? What is our history on this issue?
What do employees think about this issue? To the very
sophisticated where companies are collecting data, you know, doing essentially
internal and external research in order to inform choices about
(33:35):
issues where there's an opportunity for the organization to have
a positive impact and where that would be welcomed, and
issues where maybe it's wiser not to. And that's not
to say that there are issues where companies can't or
won't have a positive benefit, but to Rob's point, prioritization
is really important. Which are the issues that matter most
to your organization and how are you going to marshal
(33:58):
the resources, the attention and the commitment that it requires
to have a real meaningful impact. You know, if you're
spread too thin across issues, it can't help but feel superficial.
But when there are specific issues that as an organization,
you've determined these are things that are material to our business,
they're material to our stakeholders, and there's an opportunity for
(34:19):
us to have a positive impact and by the way,
have an impact that contributes to our ability to be
a stronger, more vibrant business. I think those that's a
really compelling argument.
Speaker 2 (34:29):
Yeah, and I think we've really seen kind of a
matrization within the comms profession of how do you address
that dilemma of action and context. For a little bit,
it felt like a pinball machine, like we all have
to respond to everything, have opinion on everything everywhere, and
try and put it in context. But I think that's
(34:50):
the point where you started with Elliott, where you were
saying it comes across a little bit disingenuous if it's
not really what is that core focus that we want?
What gives us that license to have that conversation? I
think is really really important, particularly as easy as it
is to be seen as taking sides and with different
(35:14):
framework going on with politics. And you know, one of
the things that I thought was a really interesting statement
at the Page Spring seminar a few weeks ago was
when we were talking about engagement, one of the speakers
made the comment said, add light, not heat, which I
thought was it was a really interesting comment because again,
(35:36):
when you think about light ad heat has added context
show what we're doing from action wise, but that also
means don't get caught up in like the tit for
tat or some of those those other things. I mean,
I wasn't sure. Did you guys have any kind of
either here with with your CEO interviews or any recent discussions,
anything really stand out for you guys that somebody said
(35:58):
in context of the research or the current landscape that
we're at.
Speaker 1 (36:03):
One of my favorites in terms of application of a
lot of this, right is talking with a CCO who's
also a CMO. She works in the semiconductor space, and
she's she's had both those roles in different kind of
variations for for a long time. And one of the
things she kind of emphasized, which I think it makes
a lot of sense and how it's applied makes a
(36:24):
ton of sense, right, is focus on things like brand
at more of like a macro, regional or global level,
and then really focus your comms at much more of
a localized level.
Speaker 2 (36:35):
Right.
Speaker 1 (36:36):
I think that's like, so it's you know, you want
to have consistency and priorities like if you if you,
if you're responsible for brand, you want to have some
big ticket items that roll up together. But as you're
bringing it to life on the ground, especially for a
global company like your communications dynamic is the essential thing
for for for bringing it to life.
Speaker 3 (36:52):
Right.
Speaker 1 (36:53):
That's where again what you want to have is like
big global examples, right, and but you also want to
bring it to life in a very very local context.
So I really like that because there's I think I've
seen a lot of companies try and do the brand
thing like on the ground, and it looks a little
bit crazy. Right. It's basically just kind of like, you know,
a lot of activity and not very clear as to
(37:13):
why it's happening. And it's kind of all this like
funny language and positioning and things like this, right, versus
being able to kind of pause and stop for a
second and say no, these are kind of our big fundamentals.
We're just going to focus those assets there and then
on for the communications side, really being able to kind
of bring much more context and much more specific action
on the ground, so acting off both of a lot
(37:33):
of consistency but bringing it to that local level. And
I think communications is very well suited to do that,
and a lot of kind of the assets and channels
that that are typically communications are much much better tuned
to it. Right. It's much more organic in nature versus
kind of like paid in promotional in nature, if you will.
Speaker 2 (37:49):
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, Elliott, how about.
Speaker 3 (37:52):
You, Well, I love the light not heat. One. I
think there's there's so much richness in that lesson. Another
one that's stuck out to me was focus on policy
not politics, And just as it relates to this conversation,
I think it's fair to acknowledge that neutrality is a
position like no position is a position today, and even
(38:15):
where there are issues where organizations might choose not to
engage on a particular issue, there will be stakeholders of
one shape or another who are disappointed by that. And
so I think even providing the context the explanation as
to why the organization has chosen not to engage on
a particular issue is important and one of the ways
(38:36):
that you can sort of steer clear. I mean, there's
all these culture war issues and companies understandably don't want
to get caught up in any of that. But their
focus is on policy and not politics, right. It is
about the choices that the business is making and how
those choices have an impact on society. And so I
think whatever companies can do to explain to reinforce the
(38:57):
idea that what we're interested in is policy that works
and not the politics. And the more you steer, you know,
your message and your position into politics, the more risk
there is.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
Yeah, that I think that's that's really good advice. And
you know, as I think about all the research that
you guys did speaking of richness, a lot of richness
in here, and I could I could talk for hours
and go deep on all this, but but we're getting
near the end. So I wanted to ask each of
you just any final thoughts or advice that you have
(39:31):
for the CEOs, the senior agency leaders, even younger professionals
that are listening to this, either based on the research
or just in general, any final thoughts you have about
the global state of confidence in business.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
As with all things, right, that the whole idea whenever
you're doing research with external constituencies or external stakeholders, you
need to match it with like an internal reality.
Speaker 3 (39:54):
Right.
Speaker 1 (39:54):
So we're really proud of this work with with Paige,
and I think our favorite part of it is the
fact that it's turning into a lot of page conversations
like market by market, because that's where the real kind
of rubber hits the road, if you will. Right So,
if anything, the research kind of beckons it kind of
challenges you to think about certain priorities and context of
your business, and it kind of behooves us to kind
(40:16):
of think about those questions and how they fit into
our strategy. Right. So, I think that's the like, this
is a good starting point for a conversation versus saying
this is that this is the answer of what you
need to do tomorrow. I think there's a lot of
key principles that are baked in here, but it's a
really good starting point. I think the most important part
of it is it's a it's a great kind of
you know, page global conversation, which you know, I really enjoy.
(40:37):
There's so many dynamic people across the globes, whether you're
talking about the Middle Least or Asia Pacific or Europe
or Latin America or the US or Canada.
Speaker 3 (40:47):
I think what I would add to that, which covers
mostly everything I was thinking, is there's an understandable tendency
of organizations today to want to retreat from some issues
for fear of the risk aging on them. I would
counsel prudence over disengagement. There is still and I think
(41:11):
the research shows this. You know, even though they weren't
top ranked issues, there are significant groups of people who
care about a variety of issues that businesses have an
opportunity to impact. And while I think it's probably a
poor choice for organizations to try to be all things
on all issues to all people, I do think that
(41:32):
the issues on which organizations decide to engage, and the
manner of engagement and the level of commitment that they
demonstrate to that issue over the long term right not wavering.
I think those things do serve to build trust, and
I would argue they build trust even among those who
disagree with the organization. You know, you hear from time
to time there's a boycott over this or a boycott
(41:54):
over that, and those things peter out over time, and
I think it's because you know, as human beings, we
can We're still capable of disagreeing without disengaging, And so
I would argue that prudence and following research like what
Harris has done with page here, I think helps to
form a stronger opinion about which issues are the ones
(42:16):
that we can really have a positive impact on, which
ones are going to affect confidence? And as a CCO,
how am I going to counsel our c suite on
which opportunities the ones we should pursue and which ones aren't.
And not for nothing, I think engagement on these issues
by organizations is an important way to build brand gravity,
which is why I think this venue is a great
venue for this conversation.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
Yeah, and you know, as I think about a lot
a lot of this and just all the change that
we're dealing with, and it's easy to get caught up
I say, day to day, hour to hour, second to
second pretty much, but you know, it really is coming
down to a lot of those core principles of having
a clear strategy, knowing what you stand for, when and
where you want to engage, and then really demonstrate what
(42:58):
that action and context is I think the research is
really really rich, looking at the perspectives across different geographies,
looking across different generations. So i'd encourage all of our
listeners to go check that out. If you go to
page dot org to the blog section, you will find
the latest research building Public Confidence sixth Essential Issues for
(43:23):
Business Leadership. It's really exciting stuff. I'd recommend you share
it with your team and with your c suite. So
Rob Elliott, thank you as always for being friends of
the pod. Excited to have you back and honored to
have you back again this year sharing your research after
you unveiled it at Davos. And I'd like to invite
(43:44):
everybody listening to make sure you follow Elliott and Rob.
We'll put their LinkedIn information and the trailer here so
they're full of deep thoughts insights on the industry. So guys,
thank you so much for joining us today, and for
our listeners, thank you so much for joining building brand gravity.
Check back soon for our next issue.
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.