“Is he on the payroll of a competitor?”, our exasperated leader asked at an executive meeting.
He was referring to a palpably biased review of one of our products. Assuming good faith, the leader emailed the reviewer on why he thought the review was unfair.
This backfired spectacularly.
The reviewer appended the email exchange on his blog, painting it as a business owner’s attempt to silence an independent reviewer.
This was a decade ago.
Around the same time, 2012 to be exact, Forbes published an article that asked, “Can Flipkart Deliver?”. The article predicted it wouldn’t. Responding to the piece, Sachin Bansal, the then CEO of Flipkart, argued on why he felt the piece misconstrued their company culture.
Pertinently, he writes, “We agreed to speak to Rohin based on a specific angle that was communicated to us. Considering that the actual story is a lot different, the least we could request is this response from us be carried in a Forbes India-owned platform – print and online, or at least online, since print editions tend to have much shorter life spans in these days of digital domination.”
Note that the longer life spans of the digital medium is stated as an obvious fact.
In response, Forbes acknowledges the change in reporting angle; they write, “…the initial hypothesis we start with changes as the reporting gathers momentum”.
Our aim here is not to take sides in the above debate.
Instead, I only mention this to argue that the digital media has changed the game. Those who think they can control the digital narrative through traditional PR agencies are stuck in the past.
In the last decade, the trend has only worsened. Today, entrepreneurs are more, not less, vulnerable to media hitjobs.
To be clear, I do not imply every media criticism is motivated. There certainly are instances where criticism is not just legitimate, but also in the interest of society and nation.
Nonetheless, we must acknowledge that:
- Even assuming good faith, some pieces of journalism may be genuinely misinformed.
- The possibility of paid hit-jobs cannot be ruled out.
In both instances, companies tend to rely on traditional PR agencies to counter the campaign. In the interim, they are at the mercy of those who play the digital game better. Precious time and goodwill is lost simply because of the inability to promptly communicate one’s point of view.
Traditional PR alone doesn’t cut it anymore
By the time the agency responds with a polished PR note, the loss of reputation is immense.
Also, the PR note’s sophisticated language doesn’t come across as authentic. It appears smug, elite and distant.
The people want to hear it from the person who knows the business best. They want to hear it directly from the CEO.
Why is this?
Because who else knows the company as thoroughly and holistically as the CEO? If it’s the founder CEO, who else knows it as intimately and intensely?
This calls for a new approach to PR: where the CEO goes direct to the public.
This calls for a new style of digital writing that feels native to the social media channels.
That looks like it has come straight from the heart rather than from the desk of a dozen PR and content professionals fluent in sophistry.
This calls for authenticity at a level the bygone era never needed.
Why does authenticity matter?
In the pre-internet era, a gap between the persona and the person went unnoticed. The leader may have a reputation of being bold and boastful. Yet, his communications might ooze humility and prudence.
Today, thanks to social media, this gap will be both noted and amplified.
In fact, this had already happened in the past decade. Earlier, people often spoke on social media without inhibition. They were seen indulging in a verbal duel online as if they were speaking behind closed doors. This happened because the very public nature of the platform was not internalized for a while.
However, a few gaffes by people made the situation untenable. The publicity costs of the gaffes began to outweigh the upside of authentic communication. This led to a decisive swing in the opposite direction, where business communications turned into legalese, carefully crafted to toe the politically correct line.
Lost somewhere in between was a balanced mix of authenticity and diplomacy.
Few FAQs
Does this mean the CEOs do all the writing by themselves?
No.
The CEOs can (and must) be assisted by communication professionals. Just that these professionals must ensure that they amplify, not change, the CEO’s voice.
This is a precaution I always take while ghostwriting. If the leader had the reputation of being a big-picture person, the communication has to be one compelling story high on emotions. For a leader known for his analytical style, the relevant facts and figures become necessary.
In short, the writing must truly appear like it has come from the CEO’s hand.
Is the idea to make CEO a popular influencer?
This may be a byproduct of our efforts, not the idea.
The idea, instead, is to establish a direct channel to the public, bypassing the traditional media.
The idea is to build a community that shares your vision and passion. Which is likely to give you a benefit of doubt in the event of a crisis. Which may voluntarily bat for your cause when unduly criticized.
This is not easy. It demands sincere and sustained efforts over a long time. But it’s still worth the hassle.
Consider the alternative: allowing yourself to be at the mercy of outsider PRs at the time of crisis. Allowing yourself to be cornered without a channel to hit back smart and swift.
This is doubly important during peace-time. Templatized communications tend to blur your product’s edge. Why not take your story to the people directly, untrammeled by traditional wisdom?
Does this mean the CEOs speak their minds unfiltered and throw caution to winds?
No.
Remember: a social media platform isn’t meant for private consumption. So it’s only natural you speak the way you would in a public setting.
You don’t have to toe the politically correct line. But your tone and tenor must demonstrate your intent to persuade the fence-sitters with facts than alienate them with arrogance.
A rule of thumb is to prioritize “how” you present your argument over “what” you choose to speak on. Many thought leaders have spoken about taboo subjects, but have framed it in a way that’s hard to dismiss.
In the digital world, it’s a good idea to criticize opinions, not the people. And, yet, there may be instances where the credibility of the accuser must be challenged too. It’s not enough to counter false narratives with facts. The malafide motivation must be established to the public too.
An Example of Writing Done Right
I present anti-aging mogul Bryan Johnson’s recent thread on X as an example of communication done well.
Johnson begins with, “The New York Times is preparing to publish a hit piece on me.”
Read on the entire thread where he preempts allegations he thinks likely, clarifies things that might be used against him.
Observe the use of “Reader’s Note” in several posts. One such note reads: “Here, the journalist is trying to imply that confidentiality agreements are suspicious when in fact they are common and normal.”
The entire thread is a masterclass on responding to media criticism. Here’s a brief article summarizing it all.
When played well, the results of direct communication can be stunningly effective.
Instead of seeing digital as a beast to be tamed, it’s time for CEOs to embrace it and make it their home turf.
PS: I’m seeking a new role. If you’re planning to ramp up your strategic communications, I can help. In fact, I can help with a wide range of content and product marketing efforts. Check my profile for details on how I can help your marketing organization.
Musings by Madhav 
Leave a comment