Corporate communication is at a turning point since the rise of social internet. The keywords for successful communication have become openness, interaction, and community. The future was envisioned as intelligent markets, genuine collective wisdom, and the co-design of products and corporate strategies. Companies were expected to become porous legal fictions, diluted within their broader context. This vocabulary and its references have changed little since. The dominant buzzwords still revolve endlessly around transparency and authenticity.
And yet, every day, digitalization seems to undermine the reputation of companies, especially those that are publicly listed. Now more than ever, these organizations need to secure their corporate and financial information flows to maintain control over their reputation and that of their leaders. In an environment rife with fake news, corporate identity theft, and extreme volatility of public image, one might wonder whether technology is actually leading us back toward greater control, rather than always more openness and interaction between companies and their environment.
This is precisely what we observe when examining the communication strategies of the tech giants (GAFA).
It’s a paradox. The new paragons of communication, global community, and openness to the world through technology are closing off their information channels. The GAFA companies want to reinforce the impermeability between their “inside” and “outside.” Some, like Apple, openly embrace this culture of secrecy. Others, like Facebook or Google, are less explicit: they claim to play the transparency card and promote “employee advocacy,” while simultaneously requiring their employees to maintain the strictest confidentiality.
As a recent Guardian investigation shows, the line is thin between the legitimate protection of intellectual property or the prevention of insider trading, and an acute paranoia drifting into widespread surveillance of employees. The GAFA companies have likely understood that their reputations are fragile, and that the best way to manage them is through strict control of information flows. In summary: communicate only when legally required (investor relations) or under duress (crisis management). And communicate only in a one-way, top-down manner.
Apple’s Twitter account is a perfect illustration of this phenomenon. In July 2016, in the Harvard Business Review, Cameron Craig (former PR at Apple) explained the company’s PR culture succinctly: “Cultivate a privileged, tightly managed relationship with the TOP 5 journalists and influencers to ensure effective visibility while controlling reputation.” In the GAFA universe, it is the company that chooses with whom, when, and about what it communicates-or at least, it tries to. It took several days before Mark Zuckerberg succumbed to mounting pressure from shareholders, policymakers, and the media to speak out about the use of user data for political purposes. Whether or not Facebook was responsible, the relatively slow response from its leaders reflects a rather closed vision of information sharing.
Social networks have become massive outlets. Take the phenomenon of “cashtags” on Twitter, where (supposed) shareholders share their opinions about publicly traded companies. These highly personal views from a small, unrepresentative sample can have a significant impact on stock prices. Just before the last U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump supporters called for a boycott of Pepsi products following a statement allegedly made by its CEO-a statement that, in reality, was never made. Sales were barely affected, but the company’s stock price fell. The same thing happened when Vinci’s financial communication was “ hacked ” It’s a painful, involuntary loss of control over corporate information.
These different phenomena can lead to a legitimate-if sometimes illusory-desire to regain control. Through Wiztrust, I’ve had the opportunity to meet many communications directors from major publicly listed companies. Technology is often a source of concern for them, but it can also be a way to better manage their company’s communications.
Technology allows for more effective management of information. For example, it can secure and authenticate emails sent to the press or investors. It improves the performance of media and digital monitoring services. It also enables multichannel information distribution, making it harder to impersonate the sender’s identity. Companies are regaining control of their communications not by “bunkerizing,” but by making smart, controlled use of technology. These technologies serve to foster privileged, better-managed relationships with stakeholders.