The PR Community Asks: Can We Fix Ageism, DEI Retreats, and Reputation Laundering?

Farzana Baduel (00:24):

Hello, happy Friday everybody. My name is Farzana Baduel. This is The Week Unspun and it's a weekly live look unless you are looking at us on demand. And it's a look at the world to the eyes of PR people. I'm based in London and

David Gallagher (00:40):

I'm David Gallagher, also based in London.

Farzana Baduel (00:43):

Now, today we are missing our third Musketeer Doug Downs. It's so exciting. He actually, he flew out to London to hang out with me and David, and the first thing we did is we took him to a pub. Oh God. And anyway, he has staggered back to Canada and he is on a flight at the moment, which is why he's not here with us Now We have a very unique episode today. We're going to be taking questions from our PR community and they have kindly been sending us some fantastic questions on video and this is a reminder for all others. If you want to submit questions, please do so and we are going to be touching on a number of stories today. So number one, Justin Trudeau and Katy Perry. I must admit, I've had the biggest crush on him for years. So we are going to talk about their romance, CIPR and the Foreign policy Center, CIPR, for those not in the Know Chartered Institute of Public Relations, they have both been working together on a spotlight on anti-corruption and how PR people can act as useful idiots or sort of known enablers for anti-corruption.

(01:52):

We also have a story on King Charles II PR lessons, how he's handled the last three years from a PR lens, and also as Americans go quiet on ESG and DEI, what is happening in Europe and age discrimination in pr, what can be done? And then finally, Robert Kennedy's Junior's campaign on healthy food versus anti-VAX stance. And please do join the conversation in the comments. I'm looking at them and we would love to engage with you throughout this whole conversation. Now, David, shall we dive in?

David Gallagher (02:31):

Yeah, let's dive in. I just want to say one thing, just this whole mailbag idea, I think it was your idea, it reflects the conversation that you and Doug and I had earlier this week about what we hope this little show we do can provide to the community. And I think we all came from it slightly different angles, but the one thing we agreed is that A what a great three things. We agreed what a great time it is to be in the communications business in PR business. It really is probably as exciting as it's ever been. Two, why can't we have better conversations and where can we go to have better conversations? So we're hoping this is a place that we can do that. And then three, how do we involve people more directly? So again, please make your comments in the section here and after the show if you think, wow, I wish I would've asked that or I had a point to make, please send us a video, send us a text. You can even send us a voice note as we'll get into it. So our first story comes from Yana Nesterenko. She is a communications consultant in Canada. I believe she's Ukrainian, but has nothing to do with this story, which is about Justin au and a little meme that popped with him and Katy Perry. Apparently they shared a kiss. Thank you Yanna for your question. David, if you don't mind just rolling that video and we'll hear what she has to say and we'll come back to it.

Yana Nesterenko (03:46):

Name is Yana. I wanted to talk about the little vi moment between Justin Trudeau and Katy Perry. The clip's been everywhere and of course social media had opinions. Some people found it charming and lighthearted, others called it awkward or even cringe. What's interesting to me from a PR point of view is how politicians handle this pop cultural moments to those brand I think has always leaned toward being approachable and modern, but every casual interaction like this gets dissected online in real time. So my question is, how much control do politicians really have over how these moments are framed once they hit social media? And at this point, is it even worth trying to manage it or is it better to just lean in and let the public conversation happen? Thank you.

David Gallagher (04:37):

Wow, what a great question. And I think you should probably go first, Rosana since you had the crush, but I'll just give you my point of view quickly. I used to work with this Norwegian guy who said that anytime a politician either loses, has a scandal or falls out of favor, they kind of go through three phases. They go quiet for a little while, then they start to slowly and behind the scenes rehabilitate their image in America. Maybe they find religion, maybe they get attached to a cause. Or more recently maybe they lay the groundworks with a new book that they're writing and then they go public again with some big new thing. Kamala Harris just came out with a new book that she's written after going quiet and kind of going through that cycle. I thought what Yona was going to ask was, was this intentional? Was this a contrived moment? And that's kind of where I think almost, I don't want to doubt their true love, but you couldn't have invented a better way for Justin Trudeau to come back into the attention economy with this Katy Perry. Me. That's my take.

Farzana Baduel (05:36):

And what a moment as well. I mean I think it depends on what they want. I mean, clearly politicians and pop stars are swimming in prs, so don't tell me that they haven't thought about how it's going to play out in the public domain. I mean, these guys can probably give ask PR pros a run for our money, the amount of PR dollars they've spent between them and been in the room strategists. Now of course they understood the currency of attention and how big this could be a politician and a pop star. And of course with social media you can't quite control it. It's not like in yesteryear where you could control the media in a way that you just can't right now. But what you can control is actually what is seen, how is seen body language when you know you're going to go public or not.

(06:23):

And so of course I think with a politician, it depends what they want to be known for. Because you see one thing about politicians, they may be out of the limelight now and out of political office, but often what I often see having worked with politicians for many years is some people are just political animals. And even if they're out of office, it doesn't mean they want to completely ignore politics for the rest of their life. They often want to come back for round two, round three, round four. And as we live longer, you see these politicians just constantly pop up. I mean, we saw with for instance, Lord Mandelson, how many lives does he have as a Politico operator? So he's probably enjoying himself with Ka Perry and having fun, but he's always been a bit of a rockstar politician. He's always had Hollywood good looks. And if it was, I don't dunno, John Major or someone going out with Katy Perry, I think people would be quite horrified and super cringe. But out of all the politicians who can go out with a fabulously gorgeous pop star like Katy Perry, I'd say Justin Trudeau probably can get away with it.

David Gallagher (07:30):

Stays on brand, stays on brand. So what do you got next?

Farzana Baduel (07:34):

Right? So next we have the Chartered Institute Public relations. And I've got a bit of skin in the game here because I'm president-elect for the Chartered Institute Public Relations. And it is this old institute for Public relations that was founded in 1948. And it does incredible work and I'm super inspired by the work that they do now. They obviously have a chartered mandate in order to really champion responsible communications for the good of society in addition to supporting PR practitioners. Now what they did is that they co-hosted the foreign policy Center, a spotlight on the anti-corruption event. And what they wanted to try and just let people know in the PR industry is that we can be useful idiots. We can be unwittingly accomplices to kleptocrats by laundering reputation. And of course London has always had a bit of a reputation as a money laundering capital off the world, but also the reputation laundering capital of the world. And they go hand in hand because crats need to come to London, they need to clean up the reputation. And then actually it could put our institutions at risk when we sort normalize corruption and give them this veneer of responsibility and respectability. Now we have got John GLIs, who is the head of PR and policy, who is going to talk a little bit about the event that we had and the work

Jon Gerlis (08:59):

Hello this is John from Chartered Institute of Public Relations. Early this week the CIPR hosted a round table event with the Foreign policy center and spotlights on corruption. Looking at the UK government's recent anti-corruption measures and what they mean for the public relations industry. Thank you for everyone that did attend. There will be a report that comes from that discussion, but also the wider role of the UK business services sector in being professional enablers for such activities. And we'll be sure to share that. And the CIPO will continue to work with the UK government to make sure that such practices are understood better, are regulated appropriately, if and where necessary.

David Gallagher (09:46):

Why. I was in the audience for that. I thought it was a great, great event, great conversation, and I hadn't really put the pieces together of why London, UK and more generally is the reputation laundering capital of the world. And John alludes to it with kind of professional enablers and you think about the abundance of law firms and banks and PR people and philanthropic causes that you can give to kind of see where this would happen. As I think came out in the conversation, I don't think there's a suggestion that everybody in in London is involved in reputation laundering, but some might be dragged into this kind of unwittingly and maybe unwillingly without really understanding the landscape. I think it's an important conversation. I was really glad to attend and will look forward to that report.

Farzana Baduel (10:31):

And I think for those who are interested, Chatham House issued a report in December, 2021 and it was about enabling kleptocracy professional service firms playing a part. And they had a chapter on public relations as available online. If you Google Chatham House and Kleptocracy, you'll find that report. And then Foreign Policy Center did a follow-up report purely focused on the public relations industry. And again, if you Google foreign Policy center and public relations, it will come up. And for those who are interested in soft power foreign policy center's last report. And soft power is also a fantastic read. It was commissioned by the Premier League and about sort of British pr, so that was really fascinating. So our next story we have is King Charles III PR lessons, how he's handled the last three years from a PR lens and a shout out to Jim Rudolph who has given us a clip to share his insight. Let's play it

Jim Rudolph (11:33):

Hello I am Jim Rudolph from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. I'm the president of JGR Communications and today my question is about the King's pr. Of course, I'm talking about the King of Canada. He's also the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And about what other constitutional markies, the head of the Commonwealth King Charles iii. My question today is about how does he handle his first three years of his reign from a public relations perspective, what can he do better and what are his prospects going forward in terms of perpetuating the monarchy? Of course one of his biggest issues has been his brother, prince Andrew and dealing with that. So Andrew, to hear your perspective on King Charles iii, the King's pr. Thank you.

David Gallagher (12:32):

So you've met the king for Zana. Is this a fair question? What's your

Farzana Baduel (12:37):

Yes, yes, yes. I've met him on a number of occasions because I served on the board of a royal charity and when I first joined, I wasn't this avid royalist, I was kind of neutral. I didn't, and I just thought it was sort of the monarchy were their sort of ribbon cutting sort of thing and performative. And I had a chance to actually meet King Charles multiple times and serve on his board. And what struck me about King Charles is, and Prince Charles back then when I first started on the board is just the work ethic. And he was all over the detail whenever anything was kicking off in South Asia because the charity served South Asia and it was to alleviate poverty in the region. He was knowledgeable, he was all over the detail and just the work ethic was absolutely extraordinary. And we are just one of multiple charities that he's involved in. So I think that's what struck me was that sense of service, which I found really inspiring and I wasn't this huge royalist to begin with, but then I realized actually how important the institution of the monarchy is not only to the UK worldwide, but also that sense of public service, which we all grew up with the late queen and that's been passed on through generations. But I guess I'm biased because I've actually met him a few times and also seen his work. I've been very privileged to see how he does work as well.

David Gallagher (14:10):

Well, I haven't met him. I am technically a UK citizen and I guess subject, but I don't really have a bias. I'm not necessarily a monarchist, I'm not necessarily anti monarchist, but I thought this was a really interesting question and I took a few minutes before we went live to just look at a few numbers and not that polling really matters when you are a monarch, but his net favorability is about 34%. His positive approval ratings about 56%, which is pretty good compared to most other current heads of state. Again, it doesn't really matter. He doesn't have an election coming up. I think the thing he needs to think about is that his numbers are much higher with older people than they are with younger people. I do think there needs to be some sort of public support for whatever institution is sitting at the head of state.

(14:57):

And that might be a question for 'em from a PR point of view. And I've said this before, I've noted with some, well, I've just noted that at the Queen's funeral, at his coronation in the most recent royal weddings, there's this enormous power of the British state and the BBC to prop up a really positive story about the monarchy. You don't have to agree with it, but it is hard to escape it. So I would have to say his PR is probably as good as it could be. And I think the thing he would need to think about is how to gain traction with younger subjects. And that might sit with his son and daughter-in-law who I think have better numbers with the younger subjects. That's my unbiased take. Oh, thank you. So I got another, this is another question. I just skimmed this and I haven't really formed my own answer, so I'll be thinking of it when you watch the video forna, but this is from Steve Dowling, he's in California. He hosts a podcast with Craig Carroll that you and I both have watched and admired called Communication Breakdown. And I think they look at things in a very interesting way too, but I thought this was a good question. So we can roll that and then we can think about what our views are.

Steve Dowling (16:17):

Congratulations on the show. I tune in every Friday and we're really happy to be in touch with you and your community. My question, I'm wondering about the general state of corporate social responsibility in Europe and specifically how companies are talking about it. Here in the US we've seen a steady walk back of diversity commitments and other initiatives. A lot of business leaders seem to be doing whatever they can to signal alignment with Trump, white House, the Trump agenda. And on the communications side, there's just not a lot of talk about it at first. If companies try to explain these changes at all, they tended to make these hand waving references to the evolving external landscape. But more often than not, they just don't say anything at all. And in a number of cases it seems they've misjudged the moods of their customers. I'm wondering if you've seen anything similar there or if the pendulum swings in Europe are just not that dramatic. Maybe this is just an American phenomenon in the age of Trump. Love to hear your thoughts. Anyway, thanks again for bringing us the weak unspun. Best of luck and keep in touch.

David Gallagher (17:22):

What a nice comment and question. Do you have a point of view on this before I stumble in?

Farzana Baduel (17:27):

Yeah, I do actually because obviously I hang out with PRS all the time. And when you started seeing the backlash coming from the US what you started noticing initially is sort of companies that had ties to the us so perhaps who were headquartered in the US or were reliant upon significant US funding or the US administration was a key stakeholder for them. So you started seeing, I think those organizations doing a bit of a walk back. And then I think that I also was privy to conversations of PRS who had to start silently started scrubbing references of diversity of their website and their sort of their language because they, they're worried that the procurement departments who may have a view on it may actually just ban them from being able to apply for grants or contracts. So there was a big commercial play. I think you started having people playing around with language.

(18:21):

So the D word diversity became a sort of a hot topic for some people, a hot potato. And they started changing it to the world of inclusion. And even if they thought inclusion was a bit too radical, they started watering it down further to culture. And I think those that did, I think lost a lot of credibility with stakeholders and it sort of made people think, well actually all of the work that they were doing before must have just been performative and they weren't really in the game to begin with. And actually it's an opportunity to really see what people look like when the tide comes out and you've got really clear sort of vision. So those are my two pennies on what I observed.

David Gallagher (19:06):

Yeah, I would agree with that. And I think that his question about whether the pendulum has swung as far in Europe as it has in the us, I don't think it has. I think the response, the decision to go silent hasn't been quite as pronounced across European or UK businesses, but it has been muted a little bit, partly because business is not really contained to borders, many work in a multinational setting. So it's not surprising that some are going to be a little less vocal and they might've been before. Some might take issue with calling it corporate social responsibility. But I get the gist of the question, especially as it relates to diversity and sustainability questions. I think some are still struggling or striving to understand what the US administration means with some of its language. And then you had those in the NGO or third sector who are affected by things like USAID cuts and I think they feel it much more directly and would probably take issue with me saying that the response has been more muted and it's been muted because they've been largely silenced.

(20:08):

But I think overall the reaction isn't quite the same as it is in the us. And I hope that gets to your question, Steve. I think our next piece, if I'm correct, oh, age discrimination. Yeah, sorry, my notes are teeny tiny. This comes from Jenny Manchester. She is in Bromley, she's a communications consultant. She actually texted me this question a week ago and then she answered it. She wrote a very thoughtful piece about some research that she had done about age discrimination in the UK PR community. This was literally the name of an article she just published today. I get called grandma in meetings and then she ask how can we address age discrimination? And first of all, Jenny, if you're listening or when you hear this, I'm sorry that happened to you, I've actually been called worse than that, if you can imagine. But I have seen age discrimination in all sorts of settings in this industry. And I think it is a thing to Russell with. I have some thoughts on how we'll put together a link for her article, which she outlines a few solutions to. But from your perspective, FNA both as a practitioner and then active in the CIPR, what's your view?

Farzana Baduel (21:21):

I joined the PR industry about 16 years ago and I think within five years. So I was was in my thirties, I was working across consumer corporate government. I was just agnostic and I made a conscious decision a few years back thinking there's ageism in this industry, how can I future proof my career? And I made a conscious decision to move away from consumer and I loved consumer, and I just thought that perhaps the work would dry up as I get older because particularly in consumer, they have this obsession with youth and they wrongly think that only the youth would understand the youth.

(22:10):

And I think that's quite sad because actually perhaps I shouldn't have actually moved away and cut out consumer. Perhaps I should have stayed in consumer and not maintain that stereotype. And I thought actually working in government and corporate will be less prone to ageism. And I do remember that as a conscious decision. And it is awful actually, when you think about an industry such as a public relations industry that's meant to be inclusive and representative of the population, that actually it gets reduced to just young people being considered to having a view. And it just goes against all logic and rationality of the diverse perspectives that you need in order to work in public relations. But I'd love to hear more about you, David, and can I just say Jenny Manchester? I've been hearing her name for months and I'm dying to meet her and read her work and hopefully invite her as a guest to stories and strategies.

David Gallagher (23:13):

Well, it's just out today on the CIPR engagement. I think it's called Engagement Newsletter. It did pay me a little bit, and not just because racing through my fifties myself, but I've seen firsthand and probably should have thought about this and intervened more forcefully. A big part of the industry is focused on what's really cool, what's really trendy, that's generally driven by now social media and rightly or wrongly in people's minds that's associated with younger audiences and therefore younger professionals. And you can see what maybe had some grain of truth about who's creating viral content, who's making things cool and trendy, why that would be, but I think it's a little more pervasive than it should be. I guess what I'd say, and she writes down, she provides a good list of interventions, but I think we need to get past the research phase. This is true with discrimination that's gender related, that's race related, that's socioeconomic related, and then get into a research phase that gets us more to behavior change. So I've seen several surveys or interview series that I think do a nice job of illuminating a real problem and giving it a human touch that maybe would've been invisible to a lot of us. What I'm hoping we'll get to is real interventions for the people that can make a difference and co-create solutions with them. And I think that's a different kind of research than what we've seen so far. And Jenny's here, Hey.

(24:46):

Oh, sorry. It was not Jenny who was, I didn't mean to say I misread your headline, but thanks for pointing that out and thanks again for the article. I did think it was very illuminating. So I guess my main point was that this type of research I think is great. I would love to see a different kind of research that lets us get at who are the people we're actually asking to change their behavior, what sort of incentives or mechanisms would make that attractive to them, and then how do we co-create those solutions together? I do see us say the industry needs to do things, and that's a little too vague, I think to actually see change move forward, but that's my take. But again, I'm sorry she felt that and I think it's a real problem.

Farzana Baduel (25:29):

And also this, as Jenny has explored, there's gender play as well. So when confronted with ageism, how do men respond versus how do women respond? So you've got the intersectionality aspects as well, but I'm really looking forward to seeing the research and hopefully we can include all the links as well for those on demand. That's great. And then we have one other story to cover. So Robert Kennedy jr's campaign on healthy food versus anti-VAX stands, and we have got a clip from Kate Mason.

Kate Mason (26:05):

Now recently I've been watching Robert Kennedy Jr. Gain traction for his campaign to get Americans eating better, less chemicals and preservatives in their food and their drink. And let's be honest, it's a message that most of us can get behind, but at the same time, his strong anti-vaccine stance continues to divide opinion and sterile controversy. So here's my PR question. How does someone manage a public image that's both inspiring and inflammatory? Can the Clean Food Crusader message actually outweigh the backlash of the anti-vaccine rhetoric? And in this political landscape where trust and health are so intertwined, is this a personal brand that can survive or even thrive on contradiction?

David Gallagher (26:56):

Good question. Do you want me to dive into this? I have a point of view on, and I'll try to kind of keep it straight to the point. I guess the question is, if you're talking about his image, I don't think this is inconsistent. I think that he has a certain point of view about vaccines. I think chemicals and other substances that are put into the food supplier are part of his concern. So I don't think he would see them as inconsistent. And I think that they're a big part of his persona and his political agenda. I think to those of us on the receiving end, we do see that these aren't entirely science-based. They're not symmetrical in terms of the science that he's using to drive them together. From a public health perspective, you can start to do the math and you can see what's the impact of taking people away from vaccines or taking literally vaccines away from people and what sort of mortality and morbidity impact that has.

(27:51):

And you can look at the long-term effects of getting people to eat healthier and see what the trade-off is. And then I think there is a little bit of inconsistency, I'd say too, Michelle Obama had a very similar message about eating healthier and getting kids to exercise, and she was railed for it by people in the Trump Coalition for intervening, interfering with what they thought should be family decision. So there's a little bit of inconsistency there. Last thing I say, this is mostly a political calculation. I don't think there's any cohesive bigger political narrative in which anti-vax healthy eating fits into. I think it's a way of bringing in some voters into the Trump Coalition who otherwise maybe wouldn't have been interested or have a point of view. So that's kind of my rambling take on that. I see Jenny has a comment. Yes, absolutely. Oh, sorry.

(28:42):

This is one of our flaws in the show. By the time people have a chance to type, we've moved on to the next story, but she makes a good point about people who want to make their culture more aging. Inclusive culture needs to be created, co-created with the Center for Aging better. So good point of action there. So sorry, but back to RFK, that's my take. His image I think is not inconsistent. What's in it within those two messages? I think that from a public health point of view, there are two different ways of measuring this, but I think it's mostly a political calculation. Any take Ana or tired of talking about RFK? Because we've talked a lot about him lately.

Farzana Baduel (29:23):

Tired of talking. Let's go next.

David Gallagher (29:27):

Well, I think we're just about out of time, so I hope this mailbag experience has proven interesting. There were a bunch of others that we didn't get a chance to get to. We love seeing your shiny happy faces. So if you don't mind sending us a short video, it just brings your point and your personality to light. But if that's not your thing, send us a text. Voice messages work fine too. As always, we say thank you to our two producers, David Aldi and Emily Page, who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to get these videos running. Well, the week Unspun is a co-production. It's easy for me to say co-production of Zen PR stories and strategies and Gate advisors. Usually at this point, we invite you to join a big mega chat that we use to inform a lot of our conversations. But weirdly, and I did not know this was a technical possibility, it's full that it only lets you put 1024 people into it.

(30:26):

So I can't invite you into that group. There are sub topical groups, so there's one on artificial intelligence, there's one on behavioral science, there's one on misinformation. Those still have room. So if you're interested in joining the chat, please get in touch and we'll find the right community for you to be a part of. I'm sorry, the general chat is full. We're working on a solution for that. But it's a great way to be heard, ask questions and occasionally be part of this conversation if you wish. I just had one sort of closing thought for the day, and that's, if you can get to an art museum, any sort of art installation, an art gallery. We had a meeting, Farzana and Doug and I, we were at the famous Wallace Collection in Central London. Spent a few moments just walking around and absorbing it. And it really is a way to slow down, get out of your own head and be inspired. So that's my parting word for the day. Have a great weekend and we'll see you next week.