How to Speak with Social Activists

How do you speak with social activists?

Local com­munit­ies or act­iv­ist groups have always spoken up when they see an organ­isa­tion step­ping over the line. Peaceful protests are vital signs of healthy democracies.

As a PR pro­fes­sion­al, I’ve helped many organ­isa­tions deal with angry pub­lics. It’s a per­fectly nat­ur­al part of our job description.

But lately, these attacks seem to have spir­alled out of proportion.

In this blog post, I’ll dis­cuss why social act­iv­ists are becom­ing a lar­ger and lar­ger PR threat in today’s amp­li­fied media land­scape — and how these social act­iv­ists ought to be addressed.

Here we go:

Social Activists = PR Problems

There have always been groups of people who speak out against brands. However, social act­iv­ists are becom­ing an even more severe PR prob­lem that seems to be grow­ing out of proportion.

But the play­ing field used to be more bal­anced. While organ­isa­tions are typ­ic­ally strong, the tra­di­tion­al media logic has always favoured social act­iv­ists as underdogs.

But when social media is com­bined with influ­en­tial soci­et­al trends of polit­ic­al cor­rect­ness, vir­tue sig­nalling, woke cap­it­al­ism, and post­mod­ern­ist iden­tity polit­ics, social act­iv­ists can grow their strength expo­nen­tially in hours.

And their attacks are often relent­less and unbal­anced. They use social media not as a plat­form for dia­logue but as a tool for coer­cing organ­isa­tions into compliance.

Where is this imbal­ance com­ing from?

Moral Slacktivism — Amplified

“Slacktivism (a port­manteau of slack­er and act­iv­ism) is the prac­tice of sup­port­ing a polit­ic­al or social cause by means such as social media or online peti­tions, char­ac­ter­ised as involving very little effort or com­mit­ment. Additional forms of slackt­iv­ism include enga­ging in online activ­it­ies such as ‘lik­ing,’ ‘shar­ing,’ or ‘tweet­ing’ about a cause on social media, sign­ing an Internet peti­tion, copy­ing and past­ing a status or mes­sage in sup­port of the cause, shar­ing spe­cif­ic hasht­ags asso­ci­ated with the cause, or alter­ing one’s pro­file photo or avatar on social net­work ser­vices to indic­ate solid­ar­ity.”
Source: Wikipedia ¹Slacktivism. (2023, November 7). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​S​l​a​c​k​t​i​v​ism

“Why does­n’t your brand speak out against X?”

Anyone can tag a busi­ness on social media and hold it account­able for any­thing. And fel­low online act­iv­ists will quickly know how to tag along and whip up tensions.

Their author­ity stems from pro­fess­ing their mor­al superi­or­ity to mute any­one who does­n’t share their polit­ic­al ideas. This is often referred to as “can­cel culture.”

How To Navigate Cancel Culture

Spin Academy | Online PR Courses

Cancel Culture and Social Media

“Cancel cul­ture on social media is a form of pub­lic sham­ing that aims to dif­fuse pub­lic dis­course and pro­mote tol­er­ance, but can also be viewed as a form of intol­er­ance against oppos­ing views.”
Source: Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities ²Velasco, J. (2020). You are Cancelled: Virtual Collective Consciousness and the Emergence of Cancel Culture as Ideological Purging. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 12. … Continue read­ing

Cancel cul­ture, de-plat­form­ing, and woke journ­al­ism are becom­ing chal­len­ging PR problems:

“Cancel cul­ture or call-out cul­ture is a phrase con­tem­por­ary to the late 2010s and early 2020s used to refer to a form of ostra­cism in which someone is thrust out of social or pro­fes­sion­al circles — wheth­er it be online, on social media, or in per­son. Those sub­ject to this ostra­cism are said to have been ‘can­celled’.”
Source: Wikipedia ³Cancel cul­ture. (2023, January 4). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​C​a​n​c​e​l​_​c​u​l​t​ure

Public opin­ion often forces brands to de-plat­form indi­vidu­als, part­ner organ­isa­tions, advert­isers, col­lab­or­at­ors, etc.

“Deplatforming, also known as no-plat­form­ing, has been defined as an ‘attempt to boy­cott a group or indi­vidu­al through remov­ing the plat­forms (such as speak­ing ven­ues or web­sites) used to share inform­a­tion or ideas, or ‘the action or prac­tice of pre­vent­ing someone hold­ing views regarded as unac­cept­able or offens­ive from con­trib­ut­ing to a for­um or debate, espe­cially by block­ing them on a par­tic­u­lar web­site’.”
Source: Wikipedia ⁴Deplatforming. (2023, January 8). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​D​e​p​l​a​t​f​o​r​m​ing

Here’s how to nav­ig­ate the mor­al war as a business:

• Avoid breezy grand­stand­ing. CSR- and ESG activ­it­ies should be laser-focused, clearly defined, and business-relevant.
• Internally, cel­eb­rate the diversity of thought. Having cowork­ers who think dif­fer­ently is an asset to any busi­ness culture.
• Don’t let the can­cel cul­ture intim­id­ate you. Protesters are loud and noisy, primar­ily online, but they don’t have the num­bers to match.
• Direct your resources towards your brand com­munity. Most of your cus­tom­er base will be in the silent major­ity, not in the extremes.

Learn more: How To Navigate Cancel Culture

💡 Subscribe and get a free ebook on how to get bet­ter PR ideas.

De-platforming: An Anti-Democratic Strategy

“Deplatforming of extreme Internet celebrit­ies leads to increased use of Telegram and oth­er altern­at­ive social media plat­forms, impact­ing both their repu­ta­tion and crit­ic­al social media research.”
Source: European Journal of Communication ⁵Rogers, R. (2020). Deplatforming: Following extreme Internet celebrit­ies to Telegram and altern­at­ive social media. European Journal of Communication, 35, 213 – 229. … Continue read­ing

“College cam­puses have long grappled with the ques­tion of allow­ing con­tro­ver­sial speak­ers on cam­pus, but recent years have seen increas­ingly divis­ive pub­lic fig­ures invited and dis­in­vited, with being “deplat­formed” becom­ing a badge of hon­or for these pub­lic fig­ures.”
Source: Journal of Intellectual Freedom & Privacy ⁶McDowall, M. (2019). Hate Speech on Campus: Reframing the Discourse. Journal of Intellectual Freedom & Privacy. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​5​8​6​0​/​J​I​F​P​.​V​4​I​1​.​6​906

Rather than pro­pos­ing dia­logue or debate, online act­iv­ists tend to grav­it­ate toward mak­ing severe threats, demand­ing total con­form­ity, and organ­ising efforts to smear or deplat­form the brand and its spokespeople.

From a PR per­spect­ive, social act­iv­ists seem to resort to increas­ingly more anti-demo­crat­ic meas­ures to coerce brands into total obedience.

“Deplatforming, also known as no-plat­form­ing, has been defined as an ‘attempt to boy­cott a group or indi­vidu­al through remov­ing the plat­forms (such as speak­ing ven­ues or web­sites) used to share inform­a­tion or ideas, or ‘the action or prac­tice of pre­vent­ing someone hold­ing views regarded as unac­cept­able or offens­ive from con­trib­ut­ing to a for­um or debate, espe­cially by block­ing them on a par­tic­u­lar web­site’.”
Source: Wikipedia ⁷Deplatforming. (2023, January 8). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​D​e​p​l​a​t​f​o​r​m​ing

The Spiral of Silence

Spin Academy | Online PR Courses

The Spiral of Silence

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s (1916 – 2010) well-doc­u­mented the­ory on the spir­al of silence (1974) explains why the fear of isol­a­tion due to peer exclu­sion will pres­sure pub­lics to silence their opinions.

The the­ory was developed in the late 1970s in West Germany, partly in response to Noelle-Neumann’s obser­va­tions of how pub­lic opin­ion seemed to shift dur­ing the Nazi régime and post-war Germany.

The spir­al of silence the­ory is based on the idea that people fear social isol­a­tion. This fear influ­ences their will­ing­ness to express their opin­ions, espe­cially if they believe these opin­ions are in the minority.

Rather than risk­ing social isol­a­tion, many choose silence over express­ing their opinions.

“To the indi­vidu­al, not isol­at­ing him­self is more import­ant than his own judge­ment. […] This is the point where the indi­vidu­al is vul­ner­able; this is where social groups can pun­ish him for fail­ing to toe the line.”
— Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (1916 – 2010)

As the dom­in­ant coali­tion gets to stand unop­posed, they push the con­fines of what’s accept­able down a nar­row­er and nar­row­er fun­nel (see also the Opinion Corridor). ⁸Opinion cor­ridor. (2023, April 8). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​O​p​i​n​i​o​n​_​c​o​r​r​i​dor

“The smart way to keep people pass­ive and obed­i­ent is to strictly lim­it the spec­trum of accept­able opin­ion, but allow very lively debate with­in that spec­trum — even encour­age the more crit­ic­al and dis­sid­ent views. That gives people the sense that there’s free think­ing going on, while all the time the pre­sup­pos­i­tions of the sys­tem are being rein­forced by the lim­its put on the range of the debate.”
— Noam Chomsky

Noelle-Neumann emphas­ised the medi­a’s role in shap­ing pub­lic per­cep­tion of what opin­ions are dom­in­ant or pop­u­lar, thus influ­en­cing the spir­al of silence. 

Populism and Cancel Culture

The mech­an­isms behind Elisabeth Noelle Neumann’s spir­al of silence the­ory could fuel destruct­ive soci­et­al phe­nom­ena like pop­u­lism and can­cel culture:

• Populism. The spir­al of silence the­ory sug­gests that indi­vidu­als are less likely to express their views if they per­ceive these views to be in the minor­ity or socially unac­cept­able. In the con­text of pop­u­lism, this can lead to a situ­ation where main­stream or mod­er­ate views are under­rep­res­en­ted in pub­lic dis­course, giv­ing dis­pro­por­tion­ate voice and momentum to more extreme, pop­u­list opin­ions that may appear more wide­spread than they are. ⁹Silfwer, J. (2018, August 6). How To Fight Populism. Doctor Spin | The PR Blog. https://​doc​tor​spin​.net/​h​o​w​-​t​o​-​f​i​g​h​t​-​p​o​p​u​l​i​sm/
• Cancel Culture. The spir­al of silence may amp­li­fy can­cel cul­ture by dis­cour­aging indi­vidu­als from speak­ing against or ques­tion­ing the dom­in­ant nar­rat­ive for fear of social ostra­ciz­a­tion or back­lash. This can cre­ate an envir­on­ment where only one view­point is heard or deemed accept­able, and oppos­ing views are silenced, some­times lead­ing to the pub­lic sham­ing or ‘can­cel­la­tion’ of indi­vidu­als who express these con­trary opin­ions. ¹⁰Silfwer, J. (2020, August 24). Cancel Culture — A Serious PR Problem. Doctor Spin | The PR Blog. https://​doc​tor​spin​.net/​c​a​n​c​e​l​-​c​u​l​t​u​re/

In both cases, the spir­al of silence con­trib­utes to a polar­ised envir­on­ment where views become dom­in­ant not neces­sar­ily because they are more pop­u­lar but because oppos­ing views are not expressed due to fear of social isol­a­tion or repercussion.

Learn more: The Spiral of Silence

💡 Subscribe and get a free ebook on how to get bet­ter PR ideas.

Freedom of Speech is a Two-Way Street

In a demo­cracy, all organ­isa­tions must be open to cri­ti­cism — how­ever unpleas­ant or unsubstantiated.

Freedom of speech is a pil­lar of PR as well. Whenever the man­age­ment of an organ­isa­tion is under heavy fire and they’re try­ing to hide, escape, or deflect, the PR func­tion is there to pro­mote trans­par­ency and pub­lic action.

PR has this func­tion, not due to mor­al high ground but because pro­mot­ing open­ness in adversity is good for busi­ness. If an organ­isa­tion fails to adapt to neg­at­ive feed­back, the prob­lems don’t dis­ap­pear. Hence, open­ness is neces­sary for survival.

However, the basic prin­ciples of free­dom of speech also apply to social act­iv­ists. Self-pro­claimed mor­al superi­or­ity should­n’t jus­ti­fy anti-demo­crat­ic and dis­pro­por­tion­al attacks on organisations.

But some­times, it seems that it does.

Too Woke — or Not Woke Enough

With CSR issues becom­ing increas­ingly import­ant, brands must find strategies to deal with social activists.

Arik C. Hanson, the PR blog­ger, writes:

“[…] we’ve seen numer­ous reports from vendors and agen­cies like Edelman telling us 1 in every 2 cus­tom­ers is a ‘belief-driv­en buy­er.’ And, of those buy­ers, 65% will not buy from a brand because they stayed silent on an issue it had an oblig­a­tion to address.”

So, how do we nav­ig­ate the jungle of mor­al issues?

A com­mon brand strategy, albeit insig­ni­fic­ant, is to wait and see which issues become press­ing enough to war­rant action. 

At best, such a strategy is oppor­tun­ist­ic and cal­lous. If you choose this route, the media will expose your brand to accus­a­tions of piggy­back­ing on the social agenda. Being too woke is just as bad as not being woke enough.

It back­fired when Gillette came out in front of ongo­ing gender dis­cus­sions by sham­ing them­selves and their cus­tom­er base for being per­pet­rat­ors of tox­ic mas­culin­ity.

I would­n’t recom­mend brands make it their busi­ness to inform adults how they should live their lives. I would recom­mend more focused CSR activ­it­ies instead.

Opting to score points by going for the mor­al high ground is risky. Opting to please social act­iv­ists while dis­reg­ard­ing the busi­ness strategy is mad­ness.

Moral Pragmatism: Diversity of Ideas

Social reforms are com­plex by nature.

Whilst both the news media and the social algorithms are pref­er­en­tial to por­tray­ing con­flicts as hav­ing only two polar oppos­ite sides, the real­ity of social change is bet­ter under­stood as a spectrum.

A brand could be super pro­gress­ive by design, but it must remem­ber that its cowork­ers might have vari­ous polit­ic­al per­sua­sions. Diversity is good — also when it comes to polit­ic­al ideas.

Should brands sit down every morn­ing to review all poten­tial social issues and ask, “Where do we stand on this par­tic­u­lar issue?” Should a social policy team spend days draft­ing pos­sible responses while con­tinu­ously updat­ing a grow­ing lib­rary of documents? 

Well, maybe they should. But for most brands, this type of setup would be fin­an­cially impossible. Irresponsible, even.

There must be a way, right?

Teaching Brands to Speak Human

“How hard can it be to stand up against injustice?” someone might ask. 

As humans, we’ve evolved to com­mu­nic­ate with each oth­er, not with abstrac­tions. This is why we tend to human­ise brands, to think of a brand as a liv­ing entity with a mind of its own. In pub­lic rela­tions, we human­ise brands for this exact reason.

But while an organ­isa­tion is not “human” in any sense, it must still be taught to imper­son­ate a human being.

And make no mis­take about it: 

Getting an organ­isa­tion to “speak human” with many unique indi­vidu­als is challenging. 

So, how should a com­munity man­ager respond to social act­iv­ists online?

The High Road Tonality

Spin Academy | Online PR Courses

The High Road Tonality

An organ­isa­tion is the total sum of all its cowork­ers. Imagine tak­ing the most mature traits from each cowork­er and com­bin­ing them into one voice — the High Road Tonality.

• Openness. A mature organ­isa­tion under­stands that every­one must be allowed to express their thoughts and opinions.
• Fairness. A mature organ­isa­tion will see (and respect) both sides of a divis­ive argument.
• Strength. A mature organ­isa­tion is con­fid­ent in its chosen strategies and acquired abil­it­ies, not because they’re per­fect, but because they are grounded.
• Wisdom. A mature organ­isa­tion will take their time to explain com­plex top­ics without condescending.
• Humility. A mature organ­isa­tion under­stands that no one can have everything com­pletely figured out and that we all have learn­ing and grow­ing to do.

Learn more: The High Road Tonality: Don’t Be Pushed Around

💡 Subscribe and get a free ebook on how to get bet­ter PR ideas.

PR Resource: Publics in PR

Spin Academy | Online PR Courses

The Publics in Public Relations

Here’s how to define pub­lics in pub­lic relations:

Publics in PR = a psy­cho­graph­ic seg­ment (who) with sim­il­ar com­mu­nic­a­tion beha­viours (how) formed around a spe­cif­ic issue (why).

Please note:

Psychographic seg­ment = sim­il­ar­it­ies in cog­nit­ive driv­ing factors such as reas­on­ing, motiv­a­tions, atti­tudes, etc.

Communication beha­viours = how the pub­lic’s opin­ion is expressed (choice of mes­sage, rhet­or­ic­al fram­ing, and medi­um type).

Specific issue = determ­ined situ­ation­ally by a spe­cif­ic social object, often high on the agenda in news media or social media.

Learn more: The Publics in Public Relations

💡 Subscribe and get a free ebook on how to get bet­ter PR ideas.

PR Resource: Framing in PR

Spin Academy | Online PR Courses

Persuasion Approach: Framing

Framing is a use­ful approach to per­sua­sion:

Framing (in per­sua­sion) = the rhet­or­ic­al use of dynam­ic lan­guage to emphas­ise the stra­tegic PR object­ive with­in the con­fines of a spe­cif­ic com­mu­nic­a­tion activity.

In oth­er words, there are 1,000 ways to say any­thing. In PR, it’s wise to choose words that pro­mote your cause.

• In a demo­cracy, com­pet­ing interests will put for­ward the truths that best serve their pur­poses. If you care about your interests, you should spin for the win, too.

To per­suade (and mit­ig­ate con­firm­a­tion bias), PR pro­fes­sion­als can adopt an approach using the sev­en mod­els of fram­ing iden­ti­fied by Hallahan (1999):

“This paper iden­ti­fies 7 dis­tinct types of fram­ing in pub­lic rela­tions, which can be used to stra­tegic­ally cre­ate mes­sages and audi­ence responses.”
Source: Journal of Public Relations Research ¹¹Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven Models of Framing: Implications for Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11, 205 – 242. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​2​0​7​/​S​1​5​3​2​7​5​4​X​J​P​R​R​1​1​0​3​_02

Each of these fram­ing strategies can be used to tac­tic­ally nav­ig­ate and coun­ter­act con­firm­a­tion bias, lead­ing audi­ences to recon­sider their pre-estab­lished beliefs and perceptions.

• Framing of situ­ations. Present a busi­ness situ­ation in a new light to chal­lenge exist­ing biases. For example, fram­ing a busi­ness set­back as an oppor­tun­ity for innovation.
• Framing of attrib­utes. Highlight dif­fer­ent product or ser­vice attrib­utes that may not have been pre­vi­ously con­sidered to alter pub­lic perception.
• Framing of choices. Offer choices that lead the audi­ence to recon­sider their pre­con­ceived notions, such as present­ing an envir­on­ment­ally friendly, eth­ic­al, and cost-effect­ive option.
• Framing of actions. Frame the organisation’s actions in a con­text that con­trasts with the audience’s expect­a­tions, like show­cas­ing a corporation’s char­it­able efforts in a way that coun­ters a ste­reo­type of cor­por­ate greed.
• Framing of issues. Re-frame pub­lic issues to align with organ­isa­tion­al goals, subtly shift­ing the audience’s focus and preconceptions.
• Framing of respons­ib­il­ity. Shifting the nar­rat­ive about who or what is respons­ible for a par­tic­u­lar situ­ation can change the audience’s beliefs about caus­al­ity or fault.
• Framing of news. Leverage media fram­ing to present stor­ies in a light that chal­lenges exist­ing biases, for instance, by focus­ing on under­re­por­ted aspects of a story.

Learn more: Framing in PR: How To Bypass Confirmation Bias

💡 Subscribe and get a free ebook on how to get bet­ter PR ideas.