Staying Relevant in the Ever-Changing Landscape of Corporate Public Relations with Gregg Feistman, Assistant Chair for Public Relations at Temple University
In this episode of On Record PR, Gina Rubel goes on record with Gregg Feistman, Assistant Chair for Public Relations at Temple University, to discuss how social advocacy and technology are changing the landscape of corporate public relations. After a long career in corporate public relations, Greg celebrates his 22nd year in this role. He oversees the undergraduate PR program, and teaches graduate courses in corporate social responsibility and consulting skills.
Gregg and two colleagues recently presented a study on emerging technology and PR at this year’s Institute for Public Relations Conference in Washington DC. He’s a local and national speaker, a published novelist, and is currently co-writing a book on corporate social advocacy.
How do CEOs and leaders deal with the call for greater social advocacy and activism?
It’s an interesting C-suite dilemma. Just to give you a little context, we saw the rise of this within the last 10 years, with initially the #MeToo movement, the George Floyd murder, Black Lives Matter, Stop Asian Hate, and the rise of antisemitism. What has been happening in the corporate world is that they’re under greater scrutiny than ever before. Various stakeholders are demanding they respond to some of these issues and want to know what stance they take on them. Not taking a stance is an answer, but you better have a reason why you’re not taking a stance on it as well. We’re seeing the pressure from various stakeholders, including the investor market, employees, customers, and suppliers. It runs the gamut of the ecosystem that corporations are existing in.
Gina Rubel: I think it’s fascinating, because as a former litigator, and one who works predominantly with law firms and legal issues, my gut says to ask, should every type of company take a stance on everything?
Gregg Feistman: Obviously, nobody can take a stance on everything. Things are moving so fast, and the news today is going to be different from the news tomorrow. I think it makes sense to ask, what are your organization’s values, and does a particular cause align with the values? Because if they do, then you have a defensible position. Certain things are pretty generic. I don’t know anybody who’s against poor environment or poor drinking water. When we get into things like environmentalism, what part of that are you talking about?
This comes down to definition. Are you talking about recycling? Are you talking about supply chains? Everywhere from where you get your raw materials, to how you dispose of waste and manufacturing? What practices do you practice? If you’re traveling for business, are you encouraging employees to take the most environmentally friendly way to get to their destination? There are multiple layers in each one of these environmental, social, and governance areas. You have to pick something, or multiple things, that align with your business. Otherwise, we’re all for world peace, but who knows that we’re ever going to get there?
What is ESG, and how does it fit into the social advocacy and activism sphere?
It’s another term for what was once known as corporate social responsibility. Depending on who you talk to, it’s the same thing, just with a different label. It stands for environmental, social, and governance. The environmental part is probably the one that’s easiest to understand. The social aspect is a little bit harder to define. Because again, what part of social justice are you talking about? Are you talking about racial equity? Are you talking about pay equity or gender equity? What part of it makes sense for you to support?
None of these things are necessarily bad causes. I think what organizations have to do, first of all, is do an internal gut check. Do a little naval gazing. Where are you now on things such as gender equity, pay equity, or women’s healthcare? What is your position now? What are your policies? Could they stand to be improved? Go out and listen to your stakeholders. What do they expect of you? Of course, we both know employees are your most important stakeholders. I think even shareholders are starting to get a little savvier on some of this stuff. Are you holding your vendors and your suppliers accountable to some of your standards? What are your standards?
When it comes to governance, what are your governance standards? What’s your competition doing? What are other companies doing? Internationally, for example, in India they have a law that says two percent of a company’s profits must go towards what was then CSR programs. It’s been an interesting experiment. A lot of organizations globally are watching it, but this is the first of its kind. It’s mandated by the government. You must devote two percent of your profit to social issues.
Gina Rubel: If you’re not familiar with the term ESG, go to esgthereport.com. It’ll be helpful to understand what the sustainable development goals are, and how they play into this idea of ESG. As an example, there are 17 sustainable development goals. One is zero hunger in the world, and another is life on land versus another life below water. The reason I bring that up in terms of this conversation is when we are talking about social advocacy, it’s my understanding that you have to pick where you want to spend your time as a company. Is that correct?
Gregg Feistman: I think so. Nobody has resources for everything. What makes sense that aligns with your business, or aligns with your industry? For example, in New Jersey, there is a movement to grow the wind power industry. That has all kinds of environmental, social, and governance issues, from pollution to underwater noise. Some people are very much against it because they’re going to spoil the visuals off the coast. Then you get into, what is this really? It’s the energy industry. You have that layer on top of it. This is a way to be sustainable in an energy infrastructure, but what’s it going to take to do that, to get there? There are just so many layers, and that’s true for many industries.
Gina Rubel: I’m glad you mentioned that. Because as the owner of a home in Cape May, New Jersey. I’m sure you’ve read the stories about dolphins washing up on the beach along the coast there, and everybody is blaming windmills. It’s my understanding that there’s no actual evidence of that. However, when you talk about ESG and what you get behind, those are the types of causes that some companies need to get behind. Individuals and listeners also need to understand how they’re investing their money, right?
Gregg Feistman: Absolutely. It’s not only those same companies, but there are ETFs and mutual funds that are social choices, for want of a better word, and over the last several years, the data shows these have very good returns. They’re designed to invest in corporations that have very solid, ongoing sustainability efforts. Sustainability is the key, because every business wants to be sustainable. Of course, you don’t want to disappear in five years. Anybody remember MySpace? And who knows what’s going to happen with Twitter?
The social part, the environmental part, and the governance part are all things that lead to sustainable business practices. From a dollar and cents point of view, to me, it just makes sense to invest in these kinds of programs, forgive the pun, whether you are an individual or institutional investor, or you’re in the C-suite, because it’s going to lead to more sustainable business. On another level, you’re going to attract talent. We’re already seeing that Gen Zs and the people coming out of colleges have a choice of where they want to work, and they’re very socially conscious. As a college instructor, I can tell you this for a fact. If their values don’t align with the business’s values, they don’t have to work there. It might be a candidate you really want in your company, but your values don’t align with theirs, so they’re going to go elsewhere. It’s also a recruiting tool.
Listen to Episode 95: What Law Firm Leaders Need to Know about ESG From Leading Experts
How do you balance competing stakeholder interests?
That is the trick. Because in almost any issue, you are going to have competing stakeholder interests. On one issue this morning, you might go with stakeholder A. On the issue that comes up this afternoon, you might go with stakeholder B. You have to first establish good relationships with your various stakeholders and understand what is important to them. Then, how do your own stated values align with that?
Companies and people are going to make mistakes. It happens. We’ve seen that over the years. A great example is what’s going on with Disney and the Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, about the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Disney’s CEO Bob Iger was not always an advocate; he was very much of the old-school mindset that business is about business and we don’t get involved in social issues, until this started impacting Disney. It grew from employee pressure. It also helped cost the then-CEO of Disney their job, and then Bob Iger stepped in. He has become very much an activist, even going past advocacy about this. To the point where in this war with the governor, Disney has canceled the economic development in Orlando and is moving that money to California.
Gina Rubel: I read that recently, and I can say that is a company living its standards. I think our listeners know me well enough to know that I stand behind Disney on that one.
Gregg Feistman: Bob Iger’s not doing this out of altruism. He understands that standing up for LGBTQ rights appeals to a section of stakeholders within his employee base, but also to those outside. Ultimately we all vote with our wallets. If the values don’t align with my values, I’m not going to support you. It’s that simple. I may not vote for you, or whatever the action is that we all can take. It’s been interesting to watch that war of words going on. Now it’s in the legal arena, because there are competing lawsuits. What’s interesting is the business community is questioning why the governor is pushing this. Disney is the largest employer in the state.
Gina Rubel: We could do a whole podcast on that issue. I think it’s a great example of social advocacy and activism. Whether you call it moral or business acumen, he still has to stand up to something that a faction of the community thinks is right. I venture to believe that there are more people that think it’s wrong. I’m not going to get onto my moral soapbox here.
Gregg Feistman: The problem is these days, everything is viewed through the polarization of politics. That’s not going away.
Is there a way to test for stakeholder interests, the same way we have DiSC profiles or Gallup profiles? How do you figure out what a stakeholder’s interests are besides asking them?
You have to ask them. People will be happy to give you their point of view on any topic. You should also monitor their behaviors. Are their actions following their rhetoric? If they say, “I won’t buy from you if you’d support X,” are you seeing a drop-off in sales? Or do they not like you but still buy from you? I personally have a love-hate relationship with Amazon for that very reason. I don’t agree with all their policies. Am I still a customer? Yes. Is that hypocrisy? Perhaps, but we all have to make our own moral judgments. Ask them and monitor their behaviors. That’s how to find out.
The advantage of doing that is you preempt a potential crisis. Don’t let it rise to the point where you have people, employees or others, picketing outside your headquarters. If you monitor this on a regular basis, you can head off some of that. Even if there’s controversy, bring some of these stakeholders in. Sit down and talk with them. Understand why is this important to them. How are you viewing us on this? Maybe the message is garbled. Maybe you’re believing social media posts instead of checking out what we’re really doing. Have that dialogue. That is true public relations.
Gina Rubel: Part of it is also in avoiding the issues in the long run and having an understanding of who those stakeholders are in the beginning.
When do you take a stance, and what do you have to consider when a company does so?
You come back to the organization’s own values. What do you really believe in? You’re going to put your money where your mouth is. There are times it will cost you money. Back in 2012, the then-CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods was so shaken by the Parkland High School shootings, he decided, “We’re not selling guns anymore, or ammo.” The critics and Wall Street all warned him, it’s going to cost you a ton of money. It did, because a year after that decision, they lost $150 million. He publicly came out and said, “There are some things more important than money.” I’m paraphrasing.
That’s another example of somebody who stands up for their values. To this day, they don’t sell guns and ammo. You know you’re going to probably offend some group of stakeholders. You have to be willing to take that risk, even if there’s a financial penalty. There’s a trend of boycotts, but research shows most boycotts don’t last. There’s a lot of noise, but shortly after they just kind of pass, and business returns to normal. I think the exception to that is what we’re seeing with the momentum right now against Bud Light. That seems to have some legs. The irony from a business point of view is that Bud Light used to be the number one seller in beer, and now it’s Modelo. Well, Bud Light and Modelo are owned by the same people. You’re not hurting anybody.
Gina Rubel: That’s where all of those boycotts and things don’t go deep enough to understand that it’s not just a product. There are so many things that go into that product. There’s the real corporate owner, and then there’s the investments. I always go back to this idea of sustainable investing. People might not buy something, but they never look at their portfolio to see if they’re actually investing in that company to begin with.
Greg Feistman: Another example is the BP oil spill when the rig blew up and everybody wanted to boycott BP. The problem is that if you’re not going to buy BP gas, the person you’re hurting is the person who runs the gas station. There’s very little profit in gasoline, and the profit comes from the stuff they sell inside the store. What you’re really hurting is a small business person. If you want to make your point known to BP, sell your shares. A hundred shares aren’t going to get their attention, but if institutional investors band together and start selling hundreds of thousands or millions of shares, BP will notice. Trust me.
What are the benefits and risks of a corporate social advocacy program?
The benefits come down to image, reputation, and enhancing your values. The benefits can be greater employee retention and recruitment, customer loyalty, and new customer business development. There are a number of benefits to this.
The risk? You’re going to probably offend somebody. Business is all about risk and reward. You have to determine are you willing to take that risk? Yes, it might cost you some money in the short term, but why do you exist other than making a profit? The public perception is we’re giving you a license to operate your business, but what are you doing to enhance the quality of life? What’s the return on investment over and above the dollars? Especially as we get into an era of hyper-political partisanship and the wealth gap has been growing over the last couple of decades. What are you doing to help people who are part of your community? Whether it is the physical community, a virtual community, the people who help support your business in every way possible, or government, what are you doing to help? How are you making the world a better place? I know that sounds very utopian, but in a real sense, that’s what stakeholders are looking at now.
Gina Rubel: And we can make the world a better place.
Gregg Feistman: I think most business leaders want to do the right thing. Part of what’s been happening over the last several years is, how do I do it? It’s not, “What do I say or when do I say it?” It’s, “How do I do it?” That’s where communication counsel, along with other counsel, can help them.
Gina Rubel: It can start from anywhere. Just yesterday in our media market, I heard a story on Channel 6 about a boy in North Philadelphia who started his own water ice company at the age of six. He’s now eight running this water ice company, but he’s giving back to the community. It’s not just that he’s selling water ice and making money. There’s an activism part of it, for an eight-year-old.
Gregg Feistman: I think the younger generations coming up are much more socially aware, and this is important to them. As a college professor, I’ve seen in both undergraduate and graduate students that this stuff’s important. This is part of who they are. Not all of them, of course, but a lot of them, that is one of their core values. We are experiencing the results, for example, of climate change. Storms are getting worse and lingering, and heat is reaching record highs. We’re seeing the climate change. This is the world younger people are going to be living in for the next 50 years, and their kids. It’s important to them.
How are things like large language models such as ChatGPT affecting the PR industry, and what are the legal and ethical issues?
The first point I would make is that for those who are interested in ChatGPT, which is just one example of generative AI, understand that it’s just a tool. It’s no different than email. It’s no different than Google. Don’t be afraid of it. It’s not going away. I think it could be a game changer for our profession in the next decade. It’s not perfect. ChatGPT doesn’t know anything past 2021.
If you’ve experimented with it, it’s okay, and there’s some use for it. If you start asking it to write in depth, a lot of it doesn’t make any sense. Experiment and see what it can do. I don’t think it will ever replace the human mind. It’s getting better. They’re refining it. It reminds me of when digital photography came on the scene. People thought it’ll never replace film. Now it’s gotten so good, you can’t tell anymore. I think generative AI is headed in that direction. In terms of the legal and ethical issues, that’s what’s being debated. Europe is way ahead of the US on this. They have taken this to heart. They are creating laws. They’re not there yet, but they’re going to be way ahead of us. The US, we’re just starting to look at it.
Gina Rubel: I interviewed Éva Kerecsen, who is the Chief Legal Counsel at NNG in Budapest, and she is very on top of the EU AI Act. Almost the whole podcast was about the EU AI Act, and how it’s affecting US businesses as well. It’s a great podcast to listen to for an understanding of what the EU is doing. Now, be mindful that while they’ve passed this act, there are many critics of it as well, and there are challenges to it. It’s definitely emerging.
Gregg Feistman: The tech industry is calling for regulation on this. I find it ironic that a couple of months ago, the head of OpenAI who created ChatGPT said it’s scary. Well, the time to be afraid of the bears is before you let them in the house. The tech industry understands that this thing could get out of hand. It’s a tool. You can’t blame the technology. There will be good actors and bad actors with it. The trick we have to do is maintain or increase our transparency. When is generative AI being used? Tell your audiences and stakeholders when it’s being used. We’re going to see a greater risk of disinformation in the 2024 elections and beyond.
I believe this stuff has got to be regulated. The question with regulation as always is, who does the regulating? We’ve seen lots of examples of industries “regulating themselves,” and that doesn’t always turn out well. But then do you want more government regulation? Who’s writing the legislation? A lot of our elected representatives aren’t as familiar with the technology. They have to get up to speed on this, and they need to understand what the ethical and legal issues are. None of these laws have been written yet. The courts are just starting to look at this stuff. The law has a process time, and it doesn’t move quickly. Meanwhile, the technology is moving and accelerating.
Gina Rubel: At Furia Rubel, we have a Generative AI Resource Center on our website, where we’re updating content daily. There are major things happening every single day, as you know. We also have a sample generative AI use policy. I agree with you that these are tools to use and play with, but companies also need to protect themselves and understand how they can be used in a way that’s safer for their employees and any confidential information they might have. You can’t just go and input any kind of prompt and say, “Oh, this is fine.” ChatGPT has already been hacked at least once. In fact, I read an article today which I found interesting. It’s called PoisonGPT, and it’s all about how they’re poisoning the large language model systems. It’s above my pay grade, frankly. It’s something that our Chief Innovation Officer shared with me. She sent it to our IT company and said, “Are we protected? Are we doing all the right things?” Because it’s just so big.
Gregg Feistman: What we’re talking about is just math. That’s all it is. It’s really complicated, sophisticated math that hurts my brain, but it’s all math. Generative AI is the 800-pound gorilla in the room, but there are other emerging technologies that are impacting us too. Virtual reality, augmented reality, and geofencing. The Metaverse too, although it seems to be fading. For communicators, this stuff is here. There’s not necessarily a reason to hold a press conference live in person anymore. Everybody can slip on their goggles, and the CEO or the spokesperson sits in their office. You conduct a virtual press conference or a virtual town hall for locations scattered across the country, or across the region.
Gina Rubel: That’s interesting. I have to play with that idea for a second. I haven’t thought about it from a VR perspective. We’ve done virtual press conferences ever since the pandemic started. In fact, most of them are virtual now. Are you seeing that as the future trend?
Gregg Feistman: I think it’s going to be part of it. It’s another tool in our toolbox. If it makes sense to use in a particular circumstance, then by all means use it. It’s not for everything, and it’s not for everyone. I think to me, that’s the exciting part. All these tools are coming online. They’re being revised. They’re getting better and better. Then it’s up to us to say, “Okay, where does this make sense to use? It may make perfect sense to use in a town hall meeting, and not with the media.” We’re all experimenting. Nobody has an answer to any of this stuff yet.
I think as communicators, we need to own this stuff. With all due respect to IT, don’t let IT own this. Don’t let marketing own this. It will be used for their purposes, which is fine, I totally get it. But it’s a communications tool, and don’t let consultants come in and own this, or consulting companies. We have to be fluent enough in this stuff, on what it is, to keep up with the developments, which is hard. We need to understand the restrictions. How else can we advise our clients and our C-Suite if we’re not familiar with this?
Gina Rubel: I couldn’t agree more. Public relations professionals must be on top of emerging technologies. I agree a thousand times over. We have to.
Gregg Feistman: I did a research study earlier this year, the one that you referenced, presented at the IPR in DC, where we started out looking at the teaching of emerging technologies on the college level. We went after three different audiences: students, college professors, and the industry. We found the industry is in some cases quietly dipping their toe in it, certainly on the in-house side. The agencies are a little more aggressive by and large, because they see this as a value-added service they can offer their clients, but they’re still learning what this stuff is.
The students on the other end, are enthusiastic about this stuff. They’re tech savvy and they want to know. The nexus falls on us, the instructors, to in instruct them not just how to use it, but the ethical and legal ramifications of using it. Because when they graduate college, those are the ones who are going to help train the older generation on how to use this stuff. There’s a direct throughline, a direct connection in that three-legged stool, so it behooves us to be up on this stuff. One of the findings we suggested was that college professors find internships for this stuff. Trust me, students will grab it. That generation’s going to teach an older generation how to use these emerging technologies. Then it’s up to the older generation to figure out, okay, strategically how do we use this stuff?
If you can tell any listener the one most important thing about social advocacy and activism in terms of getting started, what would it be?
I think you’ve got to start with the research. You’ve got to talk to your internal and external stakeholders. Find out what is important to them. If you already are doing this stuff, revisit it. Are you doing it as well as you could be doing it? Are there other issues maybe you should be addressing, other issues that maybe don’t fit anymore with your business model? Keep up on what’s going on. That’s what good leaders do anyway, but this stuff is just moving so fast. Try as much as possible to anticipate what is going to be the next big thing. I don’t have a crystal ball either. Referencing the upcoming presidential elections, stances on issues is part of the campaign on whatever political side you’re on. This stuff is not going away. It’s going to be more and more part of the C-suite and communicators’ portfolio in the next five years. Research bears that out. This stuff is going to be a bigger piece of a company’s culture and an organization’s culture.
What are some of your favorite resources for staying on top of what is going on?
The Institute for PR does a lot of research on this stuff. USC Annenberg publishes a study every year on trends going on in the world of public communication. The Plank Center at the University of Alabama does some of this work. At the University of Florida, I have a good friend who is probably the foremost expert in the country on this stuff. The resources are out there. It takes time, and there are only 24 hours in a day. But it’s here to stay. That’s my belief. This is going to become more and more important, especially as the new generations enter the workforce.
Gina Rubel: I agree. I have to say kudos to Temple, which is known as one of the best communications universities in the US, and in Pennsylvania. They have such great resources. I’m glad that they have you. I’ve hired people right out of school from Temple, I’ve been a guest speaker in some of the classes over the years, and I just have to say that I hope that if you are listening to this, make sure that you take a look at those resources that Greg has shared. I asked that question for a reason.
It’s been an absolute pleasure to catch up with you again. It’s been too long. Listeners, thank you so much for joining us here today. I do want to give a quick shoutout to our producers, Jennifer Simpson Carr and Matthew Henderson, who work very hard to bring this great show to you. Thank you to them, and we look forward to chatting again soon.
Gregg Feistman
Email: greggf@temple.edu
Website: https://klein.temple.edu/directory/type/faculty?glossary-search=&search=feistmanf
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregg-feistman-m-a-b258275/
Gina Rubel
Learn more about Gina Rubel
Listen to more episodes of On Record PR
Order a copy of Everyday PR: Harnessing Public Relations to Build Relationships, Brands & Businesses
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ginafuriarubel/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ginarubel/
Google Play
Apple Podcasts
Spotify
iHeartRadio
Deezer
RadioPublic
Vurbl