The Engaging Differences in Media Collaborative
In the madness of today’s hostile and polarized political climate, Brands no longer know how to reach mainstream American without finding themselves in the middle of controversy. Marketers find that the best media channels to grow their businesses are often those associated with personalities and opinions prone to give offense at one time or another.
When the moment of inevitable controversy arises, Brands feel there are only two options available:
Avoid the potential of controversy when building media plans.
Retreat from existing media relationships when controversies arise.
Meanwhile, Media Figures who give their opinions as a profession live in fear of suddenly losing Brand partnerships based on judgments formed from their latest soundbites. Groups like Media Matters, Sleeping Giants, or MoveOn.org monitor their statements for a particularly damning clip, and then play “Gotcha” games when something is said that might cause offense to one group or another. Members of these or other advocacy groups are notified and often given scripts or instructions to contact the sponsors of the show and battle lines are drawn.
Advertisers find themselves stuck in the middle, as they are systematically pressured, first by a third-party, then increasingly by internal stakeholders who personally dislike the program that caused the controversy. Pressures mount to cancel their contracts and renounce their affiliation with the Media Personality that was previously contributing to their sales and advancing their mission. If and when they disassociate with a Media Personality, these Brands often find themselves attacked from both sides: Both the complaining party who is driving the controversy, as well as audience members, loyal to the Media Personality under fire. Amidst the chaos, the Media Personality under scrutiny and the Brand caught in the crossfire never seem to talk with one another in hopes of protecting their relationship or seeking restorative outcomes from the offense. Incidentally, these issues are virtually never brought up by active customers, and sales are not impacted by the negative attention. The only time that profits are hurt is when Brands terminate the relationship with the media and cutoff what might have been a powerful force in supporting their business.
Media personalities are losing millions of dollars while reputable Brands are losing millions of customers. This approach simply isn’t working for either side. Worse yet, a mean-spirited and hostile tone is overtaking otherwise dignified conversations everywhere from our dining room tables to the corridors of power. Private citizens from all ideologies are finding themselves increasingly alienated and unable to express themselves freely. We can do better than this. Any solution will require people on both sides of an issue to express a sincere desire for reconciliation and a willingness to listen and talk to each other with respect.
It is for this purpose that we are launching the Media Round Table
The Media Round Table consists of business leaders and Media Figures, representing Brands and media organizations committed to working together to elevate the nature of discourse in this country. It is committed to the principles of partner organization, The National Institute for Civil Discourse. By leveraging their influence and resources to demand more respectful communication, Brand and media partners can operate unencumbered by external pressures to terminate relationships and, instead, manage them toward mutually beneficial outcomes.
The Media Round Table is committed to the following beliefs:
Every person deserves to be treated with respect, regardless of their views.
Media Figures can improve the level of respect shown toward people with whom they disagree.
Members of the media can contribute to a corporation’s social good efforts in powerful ways.
Business Leaders can advance their mission and elevate the national discourse by engaging directly with Media Partners when controversy occurs, with a desire for restorative outcomes.
Corporations have tremendous power to do social good in the world today.
By working collaboratively, corporations and members of the media can overcome differences in beliefs to advance good in this country and throughout the world.
Disagreement can be an opportunity, not just a threat. When conflict between people of different beliefs boils to the surface, we can get further through engagement than disengagement.
When each half of the country is frequently upset by the other, we have a problem. Brands who terminate media relationships during moments of controversy, they squander their influence. Great missions are not achieved by preaching to the converted. They are achieved when they can unite people around shared purpose and values.
In accordance with the purpose of a corporation as defined by Business Roundtable and according to the values expressed by the National Institute for Civil Discourse, we exist to advance the objectives of Purpose Driven Corporations through working to advance their mission and values by working collaboratively with diverse members of the media.
We can do more good for more people if we can unite around shared values and use moments of conflict to advance these goals through direct communication and collaboration rather than letting our differences divide us.
Our focus is not on seeking alliances only with members of the media with whom we agree on substantive topics, but to embrace each other for purposes that unite us.
As our society is increasingly fractured by disagreement and outrage, we will not participate in deepening divisions. Instead, we will talk and we will listen. By pledging your support of our Beliefs, you are offering to lean in, rather than turn away, as conflicts continue to arise.
To achieve our goal, we offer our participants a clear and centralized path for conflict resolution, in partnership with the NICD and administered by Mediators Beyond Borders, offering online resources and a single point of contact for support when contentious moments occur.