Purple partner Chris Durlak is a featured expert in the latest issue of The CEO Forum magazine, sharing insights for CEOs from Purple’s new Futurecasting platform. His article outlines what it takes for leaders to build and protect their corporate reputation, based on insights derived from in-depth interviews with 40 executives charged with the reputations of some of the world’s most important companies and brands.

“Change is constant,” Durlak writes. “Stakeholders including consumers, the public, policymakers and investors are demanding more from corporations than ever before. From Black Lives Matter to immigration to climate change, the public expects corporations to play a role in advancing more than just their business.”

Read the full article, or access the complete issue – “10 Transformative CEOs Strengthening our New World Through Leadership” – for more insights for today’s chief executives.

Explore more of the Futurecasting insights at futurecasting.com.

Research from mid-summer 2020 showed a distinct partisan divide in how Americans viewed the pandemic. Republicans largely believed COVID-19 was an “Economic Crisis” and Democrats were much more likely to believe COVID-19 was a “Health Crisis.” As the crisis has worsened across most of the United States this fall – in terms of cases as well as economic hardship – there’s been a definitive shift in partisan attitudes.

What the data say

Concern about COVID-19 has shifted, from an “Economic Crisis” to primarily a “Health Crisis.” More Americans now believe COVID-19 is a Health crisis than an Economic one. Attitudes have tracked the path of the virus: in late summer and early fall, concerns about the health impact eased somewhat, while economic worries stayed consistent. But as case counts have surged, so too have concerns about the health impact of the virus.

• As the second wave of COVID-19 is sweeping the nation, today nearly two-in-five (37%) believe the crisis is primarily a health crisis, versus 30% who currently believe it is an economic one. This is a marked increase from late September when only 28% viewed COVID-19 as primarily a health crisis.

Partisan differences remain, but significant attitudinal changes reflect the second wave of the virus. As the virus surged outside of the coasts and throughout the Midwest, and thus out of left-leaning cities and into more suburban and rural areas dominated by Republicans, the health implications of COVID-19 have become front and center for more Americans.

• Republicans’ core concern about the economy is weakening. While a core group of Republicans still believe COVID-19 is an economic crisis (40%, compared to 45% in the summer/early fall), attitudes have shifted. A greater number of Republicans now believe that COVID-19 is a health crisis (26%), up 7 points from 19% in late summer and before the recent surge in cases.

• Independents’ attitudes follow the virus. Independents’ attitudes have followed COVID-19’s progress through the country. Early in the summer, as the virus appeared to be coming under control, Independents were evenly split between believing the crisis was health (31%) or economic (32%). In early September, as many communities had observed several weeks of COVID-19 being more under control, the majority of Independents believed COVID-19 was a mix of an economic and health crisis (54%), and fewer than one-in-five (18%) believed it was mostly a health crisis. As cases surged in October and November, Independents have shifted dramatically to viewing the pandemic as a health crisis (from 18% to 35%).

• Democrats remain focused on health considerations. Democrats have consistently been more likely to see COVID-19 as a health crisis, with more than two-in-five taking this view throughout the surges and retreats of the virus since summer. However, by our mid-November poll, that percentage shot up to 47%, while the number equivocating that the crisis is equally an economic and health crisis fell considerably.

What it means

The all-party increase in belief that COVID-19 is primarily a health crisis matches the surge in cases, but it does not indicate concern about the economic impact has dissipated. Political divides remain and impact how many are viewing the crisis. What does that mean for businesses?

• Health concerns will materialize in places where they may not have been a universal priority before the most recent surge in case counts – see the reversal of many GOP governors on mask mandates and mandatory business/school and new community lock downs and restrictions.
• Americans will continue to view opening and closing through their partisan values – though at this point the majority of Americans take the view that at least some restrictions will be necessary to get the virus under control.
  • Republicans are less in favor of state and local governments mandating that businesses close entirely to reduce the spread of the virus, but most (60%) agree that some new restrictions will be necessary.
  • Democrats will be skeptical of corporate intentions regarding balancing health and safety with decisions to stay/remain open; 60% think that states should do “whatever it takes” to reduce the spread of the virus, including forcing businesses to close temporarily.

Decision makers need to remain aware that customers and stakeholders are judging their COVID response plans through this ideology. How companies respond now has the potential to impact their reputation for the long term, which means hitting the cues and proactively planning for and managing reputational impact will be essential.

What we should do, a reminder

• Identify your bubble and step out of it. Attitudes for partisans are very consistent, but Independents are changing with the intensity of COVID in their communities. That means critics will come from both sides. Understand how your framing of announcements will be understood among those with different points of view to help to protect against the politicization of your actions.
• Heed the changing environment. Decisions need to be tempered and framed by what is happening in real time and adjusted as the circumstances shift. As caseloads grow, emphasizing health and safety will be critical, but as the pendulum swings back and access to a vaccine increases, economic concerns will be prioritized again.
• Talk about it. Communicating about your efforts must be more than a “checking the box,” one-time exercise. Communicate consistently the values that are driving your decision to re-open or stay closed. Be visible and vocal about how you are protecting employees and customers. Plan to communicate often, and as often as the situation is changing.

 

---

PURPLE PULSE SURVEY OF THE US INFORMED PUBLIC. N=950. NOVEMBER 13-16, 2020.

PURPLE PULSE SURVEY OF THE US INFORMED PUBLIC. N=847. SEPTEMBER 30-OCTOBER 2, 2020.

PURPLE PULSE SURVEY OF THE US INFORMED PUBLIC. N=1,000. JULY 17-22, 2020.

 

Purple is actively partnering with companies and industries to navigate the ever-changing COVID-19 pandemic and prepare for the future that will come after, bringing deep experience helping the world’s best-known companies navigate the world’s toughest challenges. Please reach out to author Sarah Simmons or any member of our Purple team to let us know how we can support you.

 

By Sarah Simmons | Managing Director | sarah.simmons@purplestrategies.com

What We See

By signaling and sometimes even calling himself a “transitional candidate,” President- elect Joe Biden may have summoned an eager and early field to the starting blocks of a 2024 race that may not include him. If a campaign with no incumbent were to occur, there are a number of candidates, including the 800 pound gorilla who has yet to concede defeat, who may already be thinking about their future, their role, or planning a campaign.

President Donald Trump may tease a 2024 run, or even embark on one. And if he were to do so, he’d currently be the prohibitive favorite. That will not change without a change in circumstances for either Trump or the party. So he will likely maintain a leading voice in the party and will hold significant sway over the GOP primary electorate and even congressional activity. This will add a historic amount of early outside pressure to lawmakers.

That’s bad news for Vice President Mike Pence who will be seeking his due from four years of loyalty and will suffer from a lack of oxygen despite likely attempts to try and influence policy. The Trump family, including Don Jr. and Ivanka, will remain political celebrities with outsized voices, even over established legislators.

Despite the Trump orbit, you will have a many Senators vying for national attention from different corners of the ideological spectrum so they can also be positioned for a run. Tom Cotton (R-AR) may be asserting himself as a national security candidate. Ted Cruz (R-TX) may look to reclaim some of his 2016 conservative credibility with a dose of Trumpism. Josh Hawley (R-MO) may look to grab the more populist conservative wing. Ben Sasse (R-NE) may align with constitutional conservatives who want a return to more sober leadership. Mike Lee (R-UT); Marco Rubio (R-FL); Tim Scott (R-SC); and Rick Scott (R-FL) will also be positioning themselves, the latter of which will run the NRSC at a moment when a difficult midterm looms.

Outside Washington, you will have former Ambassador Nikki Haley, Governors Larry Hogan (R-MD); Ron DeSantis (R-FL); Greg Abbott (R-TX); and potentially some surprises vying for national attention. And you will have the quixotic ambitions of some House Republicans as well.

On the Democratic side, it is highly likely the 2024 nominee will be Vice President- elect Kamala Harris but that is not a certainty and she will be seeking to define an independent role for herself inside the administration to demonstrate leadership and experience. This would follow the pattern set by Vice Presidents Cheney, Biden and Pence as more hands-on figures.

This is not to handicap the 2024 race before Biden is even inaugurated but to indicate that leading decision-makers in Congress are already jostling for political position with significant outside pressure, and in a period of divided government where little may get done, that matters.

Trump voters, or the apparent threat of Trump voters will continue to loom large. One mistake often made in Washington is assuming a Member of Congress fears the president. What they fear is a backlash from his voters and a difficult primary. Republican members in both chambers will continue to read the tea leaves of the MAGA grassroots for direction. Whether a split emerges between MAGA and other Republican/conservative grassroots audiences will largely depend on if the GOP primary beginning right after the 2022 midterms defines that battle or if the candidates merely compete for a share of the pie.

The Democratic side will continue its own battle from within between younger progressives and older pragmatics. The progressive wing is restless and wants systemic change, which will be nearly impossible to come by with a Republican Senate. So, their energy may be focused on the 2022 midterms which are favorable to Democrats. The quandary is whether that progressive energy will simply produce candidates that are too progressive to win general elections in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa or Wisconsin. And whether they can buck the trend of first term presidents facing a midterm backlash.

And Democrats will be wrestling with what went wrong in 2020. Sure, they won the White House, but their down ballot races were a failure. They had a net loss of state legislatures right on the eve of redistricting. Their Senate races defied all polling, the wrong way. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi was barely able to maintain her majority.

Progressives in the House led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) will have considerable power. Think back to the power that the Freedom Caucus had over Speakers John Boehner (R-OH) and Paul Ryan (R-WI). By packaging a small block of votes, they can determine what can and cannot be successful on the floor. Moderates could do the same, but it’s much less likely you see them draw the same hard line.

Meanwhile, House Republicans have only become more emboldened. Their opposition will reach fervent heights, especially with new members representing the full MAGA wing of the party. So, it’s unlikely we’ll see much if any cross-aisle collaboration in the House.

House Democrats will push highly liberal bills to the Senate, where they will be rejected. They will complain that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is holding them up. And any legislation with a chance of becoming law will have to be crafted by bipartisan gangs in the Senate driving toward an outcome where Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (R-NY), McConnell and Biden force Pelosi’s hands more often than not.

If this sounds like déjà vu all over again, it’s because it is. We are returning to a traditional divided government atmosphere much like what we saw in the Bush and Obama administrations. And a major reason why Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) will hold considerable power.

Finally, the Biden cabinet will resemble a Democratic coalition but also a negotiating apparatus. They will carry more traditional policy portfolios and may be the difference between Biden getting some things done or merely keeping the White House warm.

What It Means

Look for Republicans and Democrats to find common enemies or objectives when and if possible. This could mean:

Pharmaceutical industry in the crosshairs:

Republicans have traditionally protected the industry from Democratic impulses in the name of cost-cutting. But as the party has grown more populist, so has its relationship with business. With that said, the pharmaceutical industry has perhaps never had a year like 2020 where their value and innovation were more recognized.

Healthcare tug-of-war:

Biden ran on the expanding the promise of the ACA. He also led a major initiative to cure cancer. A Republican Senate is very unlikely to expand the ACA, but they may be able to find a number of areas of agreement to clear the decks of issues like pre-existing conditions. This will remain the major policy issue in Washington.

Immigration, again:

Like on healthcare, Senate Republicans may see some merit to clearing the decks of some lingering immigration issues, especially after seeing some modest electoral gains in 2020. The question remains whether hardline House Republicans allow this to happen, even if their votes are irrelevant. If Biden makes certain unilateral moves, we could be right back to the 2013-2014 dynamic.

It’s finally Infrastructure Week:

Embracing a large infrastructure package is the kind of pork-heavy effort that could entice a former Senator like Biden and members in both parties. Republicans are likely to become born-again fiscal conservatives so that could remain a hold up, but they also have infrastructure priorities. Democrats could also use this as a vehicle for climate change bargaining chips.

The tech industry under fire:

Both sides have significant issues with how tech and social media companies are behaving and how they self-regulate. Republicans, led by Hawley, could look for openings of oversight and regulation that the industry may object to, but their users may not.

Big COVID-19 stimulus:

Even with Republicans’ newfound fiscal responsibility, it’s likely that the turn of the year will see enough economic repercussions from 2020 that a large support bill will become inevitable, even if the lame duck is able to advance something in the meanwhile.

CBO becomes powerful once again:

Remember CBO scores? Republicans once lived or died by them and they will once again. Spending will be an issue on the right despite cries of hypocrisy from the left.

Omnibuses, CRs, debt limits, oh my:

Federal budgeting will take a sharp turn back toward brinksmanship for all of the political reasons already noted. Expect fiscal cliffs and potential shutdowns to come back into play.

Voting rights:

Voting rights was once considered the potential vehicle to end the legislative filibuster, especially after the loss of Congressman John Lewis (D-GA). After widespread criticism from Democrats in 2016 and from Republicans in 2020, we may see an opening for new federal standards and protections. The question is whether they can bargain in good faith on issues of ID, ballot counting, accessibility, etc.

Judges:

Democrats may still believe court-packing was a necessary reaction to Trump’s SCOTUS picks. But it was not politically popular. Justice Breyer may choose to retire with Joe Biden as president. Perhaps an opening for…Merrick Garland? This may not be the ideal progressive choice but may be what cools the temperature in the Senate, which is one of Joe Biden’s campaign goals.

Make alliances great again:

With Joe Biden unable to move major legislative packages, he may seek comfort
in repairing America’s relationship with the UN, NATO, WHO and other alliances. Reasserting a U.S. commitment to the Paris Accords could be the opening salvo. The issue of trade is more difficult to predict. Populist Republicans largely co-opted the Democratic trade platform under Trump. Whether Democrats seek to counter Trump’s moves, especially with China, or to let them lie remains to be seen.

Another four years of a pen and phone:

President Obama enacted major reforms and regulations via executive order and agency rulemaking. President Trump did the same. Expect President-elect Biden to carry on the new normal, reversing his predecessor and enacting his own administrative agenda.

What You Should Do

This is a difficult political climate for companies, issue organizations and coalitions. Political alliances are shifting, and headwinds and tailwinds are becoming harder to read. While divided government can often slow legislation and spare new regulation, it can also become highly unfavorable if you find your company or industry a target with bipartisan agreement.

Be prepared:

Shortly after the inauguration is a good time to be in the field with quantitative and qualitative research to see if and which expectations of your stakeholders and audiences have shifted since the election and how you can effectively communicate with them over the next 6, 12 and 18 months.

Prioritize stakeholders:

The winter months mean a surge in COVID-19 cases and economic repercussions, and 2021 will bring a new political climate as we’ve outlined. The stakeholders who mattered in 2019 and 2020 may have changed. This includes consumer and activist-led audiences as well the policymaker and opinion former audiences they influence. You can have a message that resonates broadly, but your time and resources should be prioritized to impact business and policy outcomes.

Communicate early:

It will take some time for Washington to regain solid footing in 2021, with COVID still an outstanding crisis and the fog of the Trump era still omnipresent. Rather than wait for the issue or crisis to come to you, 2021 will offer opportunities to take action and build dialogue with stakeholders, building equity you may need to draw on in policy battles later next year or in 2022.

Identify significant milestones in your path:

As the environment changes, so do the dates that matter. Whether it be shareholder expectations, critical business-driven moments or the political calendar, mapping your activations around these milestones is good campaign management. This can be done knowing that you will also need to be flexible given the high number of unknowns in the year ahead.

Change your paid media cadence:

The Trump era redefined the media diet for policymakers and those who influence them, which was a good situation if you sold airtime for Fox & Friends. Audiences are now more fragmented and diverse and will require better targeted content, more value- centric messaging and thoughtful channel planning. Finding the people who matter is more important than ever, rather than attempting to reach the old audience-of-one who is watching last night’s Tucker Carlson in the White House residence.

Analyze your third-party advocates and critics:

Just as you are re-evaluating your footing, so are your opponents. Now would be a good time to reassess which alliances look solid and which could splinter in the months ahead. More often than not, third-party allies are called upon when they are needed, creating a transactional relationship where a trusted, strategic one would be even more valuable. Use this time of transition and uncertainty to reevaluate and renew advocates and to assess potential threats.

 

---

Despite our best attempts, 2021 is a difficult year to predict. There are considerable external and internal pressures on legislative activity; a divided government; a Trump hangover; a still-omnipresent pandemic; and critically unstable economic conditions. At Purple Strategies we’ve helped some of the world’s greatest companies deal with the world’s toughest challenges. We stand ready to help you navigate these changes, fortify your reputation, and address any headwinds. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to author Rory Cooper or any member of the Purple team.

Rory Cooper  |  Managing Director  |  rory.cooper@purplestrategies.com

Party ID & Where You Get Your News Drives Unique Factors of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy

From where you grew up to where you get your news, different experiences can lead to different beliefs and opinions on important societal topics. This principle has been brought to life when it comes to how people view the coronavirus pandemic.

For example, political affiliation may lead a person to view the pandemic as a different type of crisis. Our recent research shows that Republicans view COVID-19 primarily as an economic crisis and believe re-opening should be a top priority. In contrast, Democrats view COVID-19 primarily as a health crisis and believe caution should be the guiding force, even if it is costly to the economy.

These differing perspectives can translate not just to different world views but also to different choices that have immediate impact.

One key choice that will be crucial in stopping the spread of the coronavirus is whether or not to get vaccinated, and the perceived quickness of vaccine development is becoming a liability. Just 30% of the informed public say that they are going to get vaccinated for the coronavirus as soon as a vaccine becomes available. And Republicans are more likely than Democrats to take this position.

*Will you get the coronavirus vaccine as soon as it is available? SOURCE: Purple Pulse Survey of US Informed Public. N=847. September 30 – October 2.

 

Below we dive deeper into party identity and news consumption habits and how a person’s political party affiliation or source of news may lead to different beliefs, and then different vaccine choices based on those beliefs.

News flow on the right and left may be hurting our ability to stop the spread of the coronavirus, but for different reasons.

•  On the right, there is an increased belief that coronavirus cases are going down over time, negating the need for a vaccine for some. Fox News viewers are more likely than CNN or MSNBC viewers to believe that U.S. coronavirus cases overall are decreasing week over week.

*To your knowledge, which best describes the current trend of coronavirus cases today, in your state and in the US overall? SOURCE: Purple Pulse Survey of US Informed Public. N=847. September 30 – October 2.

 

•  On the left, coronavirus vaccine hesitancy is driven in part by concerns about the vaccine development process being rushed. Liberal cable news viewers are significantly more likely to not get vaccinated for the coronavirus if a vaccine is developed and brought to market too quickly. This view is most strongly held by MSNBC viewers, over half (57%) of which say a vaccine that was developed and brought to market too quickly would influence their decision not to get vaccinated.

*Which of the following factors would influence your decision not to get vaccinated for the coronavirus? SOURCE: Purple Pulse Survey of US Informed Public. N=847. September 30 – October 2.

 

•  An analysis of comments on similar Fox News and CNN Facebook posts about a coronavirus vaccine show that commenters on the CNN post express more negative opinions about a vaccine than Fox News commenters. Over 1/3 (35%) of comments on CNN’s post were critical of a vaccine compared to just 17% of comments on Fox News’ post which shared a similar sentiment. Critiques of an eventual coronavirus vaccine were multifaceted but many expressed that they did not want to get a “rushed vaccine” or be “guniea pigs.” Others proposed that conservative elected officials and their families should get the vaccine first.

Non-partisan subject matter experts are viewed with a partisan lens.

•  Anthony Fauci has been a central figure to the U.S. coronavirus response and is widely regarded as the nation’s top infectious disease expert. He is frequently cited by media and referred to with similar titles by right- and left-leaning outlets. But a person’s news consumption may impact whether or not they trust him.

•  CNN and MSNBC viewers are also significantly more likely to trust Fauci to say whether or not a coronavirus vaccine is safe and effective.

*How much do you trust the endorsement of the safety and effectiveness of a coronavirus vaccine from each of the following? SOURCE: Purple Pulse Survey of US Informed Public. N=847. September 30 – October 2.

 

•  An analysis of comments on Facebook posts which mention Fauci and a coronavirus vaccine further demonstrate that commenters have different reactions to him. Fox News commenters are more likely to express a negative view of Fauci than CNN commenters. 618 comments (38%) on Fox’s post from September 18 are highly critical of the infectious disease expert writing things like, “he flip flops more than anyone I’ve seen,” “This man can’t be trusted,” “I wouldn’t believe a word this man says,” “I would bet he’s got a lot of stock in the company that makes it too” and “This guy tells false information he’s a liar a disgrace he’s working for democrats needs to be put in jail.” This sentiment is expressed in just 32 comments (4%) on CNN’s Facebook post.

In order to combat these varying factors driving coronavirus vaccine hesitancy, it’s important for entities in this space to meet audiences where they are.

This can be accomplished by:

•  Developing a deep understanding of key audiences. In order to best engage the audiences that matter to your brand and move them to where you want them to be, it is crucial to understand not only who they are, but what they believe.

•  Creating audience-specific messaging, not “one size fits all.” How you tell your story matters. Create custom messages for audiences based on their starting places in order to ensure your message resonates.

•  Using a variety of surrogates to tell your story. Different voices appeal to different people. Find a variety of voices who can amplify your message and resonate with the audiences that matter to you.

 

By Nicki Zink |  nicki.zink@purplestrategies.com

Purple is actively partnering with companies and industries to navigate the ever-changing COVID-19 pandemic and prepare for the future that will come after, bringing deep experience helping the world’s best-known companies navigate the world’s toughest challenges. Please reach out to author Nicki Zink or any member of our Purple team to let us know how we can support you.

Introducing our Futurecasting by Purple Strategies™ platform

A changing landscape of social, political, and business dynamics is creating a new set of challenges for business leaders. One where corporations and their hard-won reputations have as much to gain as they have to lose.

To increase understanding of this emerging era of threats and opportunities, we sat down with business leaders across industries. And asked them to identify in depth what they see on the horizon and share what their organizations are preparing to do about it.

We interviewed 40 corporate reputation leaders across large, well-known companies with billions of dollars in revenue and millions of employees. We made the interviews anonymous so these leaders could speak freely and tell us the unvarnished truth about what they are dealing with. From the more than 40 hours of interviews, Purple developed 12 insights that deal with everything from the role of the CEO, to retaining employees and attracting new talent, to the convergence of financial and reputational analysis.

Individually, their stories provide best-in-class examples of nimble and nuanced approaches to changing demands of corporate reputation. Taken together, they offer a revealing glimpse into a fascinating future that lies ahead.

Explore the Futurecasting by Purple Strategies™ insights.

Reputation is often viewed as something that happens to you, not something you can actively shape. Too often, companies begin managing their reputation only when crises occur, or critic voices attract their attention.

We know that always-on reputation management can help companies manage and stay ahead of emerging reputation issues, so they don’t turn into crises. A central element of that is proactive storytelling.

When companies fail to proactively, consistently and continuously tell their story, they leave a void. And the danger then is that their critics and dissenting voices may fill that void in an attempt to take control of and determine the prevailing narrative.

Consider the pharmaceutical industry, which has been navigating intense negative perceptions for decades. There has been a consistent battle to shape the narrative around the pharma industry’s work and motives — from innovation to drug prices. The reality that public opinion on pharma is consistently lower than any other industry or business sector in the U.S. — including the federal government — isn’t new or surprising.

Source: Gallup

Since COVID-19 began, the pharmaceutical industry has been under a persistent spotlight. People want a vaccine. They want treatments. They want tests. And most of all, they want hope. It’s in this time – this rare moment – when the public is actually rooting for the pharmaceutical industry.

What We Saw in March

• 72% of the informed public agreed that “we should be rooting for [pharma companies] to develop a vaccine as soon as possible.”
• Almost 6 in 10 believed a vaccine would be available to the public before the end of 2020.
• The majority signaled an openness to communication from the industry during this time, as 58% said “it’s important to keep the American public informed about how companies are working to find a cure or treatment.”

Qualitative research that we have completed across a range of clients further reinforces the finding that pharma companies have permission to communicate about their progress – even if that progress is incremental and incomplete. In our research, people have told us they are looking for assurance that pharma companies are in the game and working relentlessly toward a solution.

In other words, pharma companies have a compelling story to tell, and the public is more than open to hearing it. But while the industry currently enjoys greater permission to tell its story, pharma companies will find themselves once again facing a battle to shape and control their narrative against a backdrop of heightened expectations.

What We See Today

• Expectations of when a vaccine will come to market has dramatically flipped: now a majority expect a vaccine will not be ready until 2021.
• We see a slight dip in those rooting for pharma (68%, down -4 since March), though a majority still hold this view.
• One-third of the informed public now believes that pharmaceutical companies are “taking advantage of this crisis to make profits.”

And yet, while general optimism about the timing of the vaccine and about the industry overall might be waning, the number of people who say it’s important that pharma companies keep the American public informed about how companies are working to find a cure or treatment has risen since March (62%, up +4 from March).

 

 

 

Right now, with these increased expectations, a void exists. One-third of the Informed Public has not heard about any one particular pharmaceutical company working to develop a vaccine, treatment or test, and the average recall across 15 named companies currently working on a vaccine is only 15%. And while this gap in awareness and expectations points to a void that needs to be filled, it also represents a significant opportunity for pharma companies: a majority (56%) say they would feel better about companies if they knew they were working toward “affordable treatments and vaccines to treat the coronavirus as quickly as possible.”

So what does all this mean?

It is a rare moment in time when the pharmaceutical industry enjoys both public optimism about its work and public demand to hear more about it. It is rarer still when the spotlight on this industry is not being controlled by critics intent on exposing its perceived faults. At this moment in time, the spotlight on this industry is an invitation from the public to take the stage and proactively tell its story. Pharma companies that are not actively talking about their work to make treatments and vaccines available and accessible should start. Those companies that feel they have already stepped onto the stage, likely can and should do more to rise to this moment and answer the public’s call for more information. And whether they are just starting or have been telling their story throughout the pandemic, even when they think they have said enough – they should share as much as they can to fill the void.

 

Purple Pulse Survey of the US Informed Public. N=1,006. March 20-25, 2020.
Purple Pulse Survey of the US Informed Public. N=1,000. July 17-22, 2020.
PURPLE PULSE SURVEY OF THE US INFORMED PUBLIC. N=847. SEPTEMBER 30 – OCTOBER 2, 2020.

---

By Ashley Gibaldi | Managing Director | ashley.gibaldi@purplestrategies.com

Purple is actively partnering with companies and industries to navigate the ever-changing COVID-19 pandemic and prepare for the future that will come after, bringing deep experience helping the world’s best-known companies navigate the world’s toughest challenges. Please reach out to author Ashley Gibaldi or any member of our Purple team to let us know how we can support you.

---

COVID-19 Issue Insight Series  |  View as a PDF

---

Who it impacts

Companies and businesses of all sizes and sectors | Corporate leaders across the political spectrum | Anyone responsible for business planning or corporate decision-making during this phase of the pandemic

What we see

•  Partisanship shapes your view of the crisis: Health v. Economic. Republicans view COVID-19 primarily as an economic crisis and believe re-opening should be a top priority. In contrast, Democrats view COVID-19 primarily as a health crisis and believe caution should be the guiding force, even if it is costly to the economy.

•  Expectations are high and bipartisan for businesses to enforce safety guidelines. Regardless of party, the majority say they will stop shopping at places that don’t enforce health and safety guidelines (64% overall, 80% among Democrats, 57% among GOP). And, the majority would feel more favorable toward companies that choose to shut down in the face of rising COVID-19 cases.

Republican sentiment surrounding those safety expectations, however, is complex. Republicans are almost twice as likely as Democrats to report feeling frustrated with businesses that choose to close when they are not mandated to do so, even as the majority acknowledge an expectation that companies enforce safety guidelines (57%) and say they would feel more favorable toward a company that closes in the face of increasing COVID cases (53%). One in two Republicans (48%) say they would be frustrated if businesses choose to close if state/local guidance allowed them to be open, compared to only around 1 in 4 Democrats (28%).

•  How businesses approach re-opening impacts company reputation for the long-term. Regardless of party, 60% agree that how a company handles its re-opening will have long-standing ramifications for how the public thinks about it.

What it means

Americans’ political attitudes are the filter applied to all areas of life, and the pandemic is no exception. The public is subconsciously judging companies’ opening and closing decisions through their own partisan value system and lenses. Differences such as Republicans’ increased frustration with companies “choosing” to close, or Democrats’ feeling less inclined to agree that corporate America is playing a leading role in protecting public health, are manifestations of the partisan divide on the central question of whether the pandemic is an economic crisis or a health crisis. These divisions are real and don’t just involve fringe partisans or ideologues.

Decision-makers need to be aware that their customers and stakeholders are likely to interpret how a business weighs safety considerations and economic realities as cues about whether that business leans in or out of their ideology. Attention to these cues will be critical in striking the right tone for making and communicating decisions about every phase of re-opening, including potential re-closings as the pandemic continues to unfold. A business’s actions have the potential to do damage or pay dividends today and in the future: the majority say they will stop shopping at businesses that don’t enforce health and safety guidelines and agree that how a company acts now will have long-standing ramifications for how they think about that company.

What you should do about it

•  Step out of your own political bubble. Regardless of your organization’s culture or how you feel as a business executive or decision-maker, remember that the other side is out there and looking to see how you are handling these sensitive issues. Critics are likely to come from both sides: Republicans will complain about businesses closing if they can be open and Democrats will balk if they see lax enforcement of safety guidelines. Don’t decide based on fear or backlash – but out of respect for the seriousness of the situation

•  Pair Health and Economic factors together in your re-opening plans. It is critical to emphasize how your re-opening plans respect health and safety guidelines and how they support the economy. Reframing to include both health and economic factors in tandem will allow your plans to reach audiences on both sides of the partisan divide.

•  Communicate as more than a “check-the-box” exercise. Communicate and then re-communicate not just decisions but the rationale and considerations driving them: What is driving decisions to re-open or to close? How are you protecting the health and safety of employees and customers? When and why are you making changes? Plan to communicate as often as necessary to keep pace with the constantly evolving situation in your area. Spend the time to show how your business plans demonstrate responsibility for health and how plans are aligned with local guidance and permissions. For most of the population, enforcing guidelines respectfully will pay dividends – but framing will help to protect against objectors trying to politicize your business’s decisions.

 

---

Purple Pulse Survey of the US Informed Public. N=847. September 30-October 2, 2020.

Purple Pulse Survey of the US Informed Public. N=1,000. July 17-22, 2020.

 

Purple is actively partnering with companies and industries to navigate the ever-changing COVID-19 pandemic and prepare for the future that will come after, bringing deep experience helping the world’s best-known companies navigate the world’s toughest challenges. Please reach out to author Sarah Simmons or any member of our Purple team to let us know how we can support you.

 

By Sarah Simmons | Managing Director | sarah.simmons@purplestrategies.com

What we see

Debate or no debate, the country is divided and people have chosen their camp.

• According to a POLITICO/Morning consult poll, prior to last night’s debate, 86% of voters report they’ve already decided who will get their vote.
• In fact, according to CNN more than 1.2 million Americans voted in advance of the debate, including a majority from competitive states.

There is a lack of empathy for opposing viewpoints and a pronounced unwillingness to engage or listen to the other side.

• A recent Pew Research Center survey found that fewer than a quarter of registered voters say they have more than a few friends who fall into the opposing party’s camp.

The debate did little to bridge this divide, nor did it provide an opportunity for the few remaining undecided voters to make an informed choice, and may have further eroded trust in our political system and government.

• According to interviews conducted by CBS News with likely voters nationwide who watched the debate, majorities from both sides of the aisle found the tone to be negative and felt annoyed after watching.
• Initial reactions from undecided voters, according to reporting by NPR, indicate that these voters remain undecided following the debate and are frustrated by what they saw.
• Whether it was the discussion around a potential coronavirus vaccine or questioning the electoral process itself, the takeaway was certainly to feel less confident in our institutions.

What it means

There’s an opportunity to fill the space traditionally held by political leaders, by seeking to unite Americans and advance faith in our country’s ability to overcome the toughest challenges ahead.

For the most part, voters’ minds are made up and their positions and beliefs stand to only be further galvanized through the rest of the election cycle. In many cases, these beliefs are deeply held. Bridging the gaps in a divided country through understanding and commonality will continue to be a challenge beyond Election Day, no matter who the ultimate winner is.

What corporate leaders should do about it

Corporate leaders don’t need to wait for an outcome of an election to begin thinking about what it means for their brand and corporate reputation. They must take an always on approach to reputation management with an insights-based understanding of their customers, employees, policymakers, interest groups, and the general public’s diverse and divergent viewpoints.

While Americans may be predisposed not to listen to the other side, our corporate leaders should be actively listening. They must make a concerted effort to get beyond group think and listen to a range of perspectives. They should ground their decisions in a research-based understanding of what’s driving sentiment and where the commonalities are that can bring us together.

America’s corporate leaders should invest their time and resources in initiatives that seek to restore trust in our institutions. Whether it’s campaigns to instill confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy or taking a stand to promote awareness and access to voting, now is the time for action. This uncertain time should be viewed as an opportunity to demonstrate leadership, trustworthiness, and competency. Reversing the erosion of trust in institutions both public and private will be critical in bridging the gaps that divide our nation.

 

At Purple Strategies, where we bring together Red and Blue, we know how to develop a message and activations that engage and inspire a broad spectrum of audiences. Purple is standing by to support our clients as they seek to navigate this complex landscape. Purple provides deep experience helping the world’s best-known companies navigate the world’s toughest challenges. Please reach out to authors Jordan Davis and Lauren Hickey or any member of our Purple team to let us know how we can support you.

 

About the Authors

Jordan Davis is a 15-year veteran of Capitol Hill and national congressional campaigns, most recently serving as Senior Advisor at the House Energy & Commerce Committee overseeing legislative and communications strategy, and prior to that as Policy Director & Communications Advisor at the National Republican Congressional Committee during the 2014 and 2016 election cycles.

Prior to joining Purple, Lauren Hickey served for five years at the U.S. Department of State, most recently as Lead Advisor for Strategic Communications. Among other responsibilities, she served as the communications point person for oversight issues, including media and congressional inquiries related to former Secretary Clinton.

Two very different candidates made two distinct appeals to the American Public as they accepted their respective parties’ nominations for the 2020 presidential election, employing speech formats and structures of their own choosing. As nominees Trump and Biden prepare to step into the shared format of the presidential debate stage, we looked back at the style and structure of the candidates’ August acceptance speeches as one guide for what to watch and listen for in the debates.

The Analysis

We conducted a text analysis of each candidate’s debate transcript, utilizing a natural language processing tool that produces graphical representations of what each candidate said. These graphs visualize the statements made by each candidate, and group similar phrases and sentences together, to reveal topics of discussion and the similarities and differences in structure and theme.

We also asked two of our own political experts, Jordan Davis and Jennifer Kohl, for their take on what these data visualizations tell us about each candidate’s approach to their acceptance speech. Davis was a policy director and communications advisor at the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) during the 2014 and 2016 election cycles and a legislative research director during the 2010 cycle. Kohl was the communications director for President Obama’s successful re-election campaign in Virginia in 2012, one of the top two battleground states in the country.

The Convention Speech Distinctions in 3 Visualizations

DISTINCTION IN WORDS AND MINUTES

Trump speech among longest in history; Biden speech is shortest in decades.

 

Even before either candidate uttered a word of his speech, the difference in format presented an immediate point of divergence between the two candidates. Breaking with tradition but in keeping with his preference for a live audience, President Trump used the The White House Lawn as the backdrop for delivering his acceptance speech to 1,500 people. Biden meanwhile centered a safety message in his choice of venue, taking the stage at a near-empty convention center in Delaware to deliver his acceptance speech to a virtual audience at home.

Trump’s speech took roughly three times as long as Biden’s to deliver, clocking in at just over 1 hour, compared to Biden’s much tighter 25-minute speech. In fact, Trump’s 2020 nomination acceptance was the second-longest in recent history, surpassed only by the President’s 2016 acceptance speech. Some of that length can be attributed to the live audience, but not all. The president’s speech was also twice as long as Biden’s by word count, with Trump speaking over 6,000 words compared to Biden’s roughly 3,000-word speech.

What we’ll watch for in the upcoming debates: The debate format is intended to equalize air time, but that’s not always reflected in reality. We’ll be watching for how the candidates regulate the time of their own comments, and possibly those of their opponent’s, and for how much time control is exerted by the moderators in the debates.

 

DISTINCTION IN TOPICAL GROUND COVERED

Trump stuck to a similar refrain throughout his speech; Biden allocated time to a variety of different topics.

Our analysis shows that Trump’s hour-long speech covered less ground than Biden’s speech, which addressed more discrete topics in roughly one-third the time.

The graphical representations of what each candidate said feature nodes (circles) and edges (lines connecting circles) to visualize the structure and themes of speech in the graph. The closer the nodes are to each other, the more similar the conversation. Likewise, the closer a cluster (group of circles) is to other clusters, the more similar their topics are to each other.

What we see in President Trump’s graph is that all of the clusters are connected, and the nodes are relatively close to each other. This indicates that the phrases and topics Trump used are similar in nature, and that over the course of his hour-long speech, he returned to the same topics again and again. Trump primarily discussed his record or approach, using phrases like “I kept my promise,” and frequently raising issues with Joe Biden and his approach, repeating phrases like “If Joe Biden is elected…” or “The radical Left wants to… .” Compared to Biden, he spent less time laying out particular policies, and did not detail his plans for his next term.

Conversely, what we see in Biden’s graph is that the clusters are connected to only one or two other clusters and are farther apart from each other. This reveals that Biden used his shorter time to cover more ground and to discuss topics that were more diverse. In particular, Biden incorporated several different angles to introduce or provide context for the topics he covered, including discussing his relationships with his wife, Dr. Jill Biden; his late son, Beau; and his vice-presidential running mate, Kamala Harris; and outlining different and specific policy issues, including climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, and Medicaid. Biden’s use of phrases like “hope and light,” “I see a different America,” and “we’re better than that,” added elements to his speech that were less pointed and more abstract.

What we’ll watch for in the upcoming debates: Debate topics are chosen in advance and addressed by both candidates, putting candidates in a position of having to address issues they choose to avoid in other formats. We’ll be watching the data to see the extent to which the candidates address the topics directly or revert to their chosen terrain.

“There’s a case to be made that Biden is very deliberately using a positive and diverse set of messages to appeal to a range of audiences beyond his base on issues they care about—including people who may have voted for Trump in 2016 and are now looking for a pass to change their vote this time. But anyone who has followed Biden’s life and career will know that these are more than just talking points for him. He genuinely believes in the things he’s saying; the challenge will be successfully conveying that beyond his core base to a skeptical audience.” – Jen Kohl

 

DISTINCTION IN DIRECTNESS OF ATTACK

Trump mounted a direct attack; Biden drew distinctions without naming names.

Watching and listening to each candidate’s acceptance speech, it was immediately clear that the two candidates took very different approaches to calling out the failures and dangers of electing their opponent. But the quantification of the difference between their two approaches was stark: Trump’s speech consisted of 41 mentions of “Joe Biden” or “Biden” by name. Trump repeatedly invoked Biden’s name to make his case that electing Biden and giving power to the Democratic party would lead to such outcomes as “anarchy,” “damage,” “calamities,” and “destruction.”

In contrast, Biden made zero references to “Donald Trump” by name in his speech, instead calling out the “the current president” or “the president.” While never mentioning Trump by name, Biden spoke of the role of the president to the country, comparing Trump’s administration with his vision for the role, even as he challenged the president’s record.

What we’ll watch for in the upcoming debates: Separate convention venues now give way to a single stage. We’ll be watching the data to see how each candidate attacks or draws distinctions when they are finally only a few socially distanced feet apart.

“From the convention speeches we can likely infer that Trump will go on the attack against the Biden/Harris ticket and largely pivot away from addressing policy specifics. Biden will likely take a hybrid approach, continuing to draw contrast in order to frame the election as a referendum. But he’ll also work to articulate a vision on policy matters in an attempt to appeal to diverse pockets of the electorate and their interests.” – Jordan Davis

Communications strategist Jennifer Kohl has joined corporate reputation strategy firm Purple Strategies as a senior director. With experience on Capitol Hill and in political campaign, government, corporate, agency and non-profit work, she most recently led the public relations team for Nobel Peace Prize nominee Chef José Andrés and his restaurant group, ThinkFoodGroup.

“This year has put into stark relief how highly interconnected the reputation landscape has become for companies and executives,” said Steve McMahon, Purple co-founder and CEO. “Jen’s deep experience advising leaders and operating across government, politics, media, non-profits and corporations is exactly the sort of cross-disciplinary mentality our clients are seeking, and we’re pleased to have her on our team.”

In her role for the celebrity chef, she was able to marry her passion for food with her passion for communications, overseeing all public relations, earned media, and social media for José and his three dozen restaurants and 20 brands (including two with two Michelin stars each and The New York Times 2019 #1 Best New Restaurant). Prior, she worked at a progressive communications agency, where she built and led the firm’s media relations team and helped non-profit and corporate clients with crisis communications, messaging, and proactive PR campaigns for new programs and initiatives.

Jen was the communications director for President Obama’s successful re-election campaign in Virginia, one of the top two battleground states in the country. Previously, she worked as strategic communications advisor to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, on Capitol Hill for Rep. Elijah Cummings and the House Armed Services Committee, and on multiple statewide and local political campaigns.

“Purple’s campaign mindset toward the challenges facing corporate leaders is exactly the kind of thinking and strategy needed to successfully navigate today’s reality,” said Kohl. “I’m excited to join the incredibly smart and talented team at Purple in this important work seeing our clients through these turbulent times.”

Jen joins a growing Purple team that has added several senior hires to its ranks in recent months, including Rebecca Ballard, managing director for communications, marketing and engagement; Jordan Davis, senior director; Chris Dealy, executive creative director; and Stacey Jaffe, senior director and insights lead.