Archive for category: Diversified Industries

Here’s What You Need To Know

Fake news. Disinformation. Russian bots trolling on social media. The common narrative being echoed throughout the media is that this year and beyond, consumers of information are going to have to scrutinize stories and sources to make sure that the news they’re viewing is a true representation of events – rather than a made-up or entirely obfuscated piece of clickbait. But what if seemingly well-intentioned reporters at reputable organizations run stories misreporting events, stating opinions as facts, or otherwise misrepresenting developments?

The answer may well be a key paradox of 2020: the real challenge is not how widespread the fake news is, but rather how fake the real news can be. For public and government affairs professionals who need to stay on top of information flows and leverage insights gleaned from news items on behalf of their companies and organizations, the struggle of dealing with fake news is real. How can you process developments and create and execute strategies to further your priorities if you cannot be certain that data used to make decisions is accurate?

Particularly over the last few years, there have been examples where the conventional thinking and widely reported narrative in the media has been incorrect on consequential issues including trade, taxes, and geopolitics. Here are a few story lines of interest to the private sector where the media largely got it wrong:

• America First In Trade Leaves America Alone. The Administration’s approach to trade policy has been a notable departure from its predecessors in both parties, of which the President’s criticism of NAFTA, rejection of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and use of tariffs and trade wars are prominent features. However, if the news led some to assume that this approach would “assault the global trading system,” spur a market correction, and isolate the U.S. on the world stage, the reality appears different. Irrespective of the substance of specific policies, the U.S. remains engaged, signing a new trade agreement with Japan, negotiating the USMCA with its continental partners (which won strong bipartisan backing in the Democrat-controlled House just hours after the chamber voted to impeach the president), and last week signed a phase one trade agreement with China. Particularly on the latter, the Administration’s policy has been widely criticized, with heightened tensions between the two countries possibly leading to what Henry Kissinger called a “catastrophic outcome.” Yet, a purportedly “impressed” Kissinger was in the front row of the signing ceremony and earned a special mention from President Trump, the president’s tough stance against China is credited by some to have forced China to make a deal, and the higher costs for consumers the media kept warning us about largely haven’t materialized.
   
• Tax Reform Will Suffer The Same Fate As Replacing Obamacare. Having failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act in early 2017, the united Republican majority was expected to run into the same challenges when undertaking tax reform later that year. Whether for lack of clear policy goals or obscure Senate rules, tax reform was given little chance to succeed. When tax reform became law, it was then widely reported that the plan would benefit the rich at the expense of others, although the overwhelming majority of filers got tax relief. Today, the effects of the law continue to enable strong economic growth, with recent data now indicating that wages are growing fastest among workers currently employed in low-wage jobs. For those of us involved early in the process of Trump’s tax reform efforts, there were clear distinctions between the two fights and their likely outcomes. But in the media, no such distinctions were made, making it that much harder for those relying on media reporting to understand what would really happen.
   
• Peace Through Strength Or World War III. The removal of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani by U.S. forces immediately set off fears of an impending third world war, representing “a serious threat of increased violence” in the Middle East, as outlets as varied as Teen Vogue noted. Such stories, though, assume that tensions between the U.S. and Iran (to say nothing of broader diplomatic and kinetic tensions between other countries in the region) are lower before the strike than after, and the U.S. and Iran are not currently engaged in all-out war. Interestingly, the strike appears to have inspired Iranians who have been protesting the regime, and rather than eliminate dialogue, has opened up new avenues for the U.S. to engage with the country, appeal to moderate elements, and even propose negotiations to create a new nuclear agreement with the country. The overdone media predictions were similar to early media predictions regarding Trump’s pressure on North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, and those predictions met a similar fate.

The narratives above are just three examples of recent, consequential policy issues that were the subject of much conjecture by the news media and that turned out quite different in reality. Yet this phenomenon is not limited to Trump – remember when the media was overwhelmingly certain Beto O’Rourke would be the Democratic nominee in 2020? Nor is it a distinctly American challenge – remember when Brexit would devastate the U.K.’s financial sector?

Sadly, this phenomenon will not abate even if Trump were to lose the election this coming November because it is a symptom of our current media age, and a symptom that must be addressed in a serious and meaningful way if the press is to regain its footing as a crucial institution underpinning democracy. If not, the result could have dire implications. As Axios(unironically and seemingly without self-awareness) noted recently, “If the 2020 presidential election is close enough to trigger a fight over the results,” which is a real possibility, “the public’s confidence is so low in key people and institutions [including the news media] that no one is likely to be a trusted referee…”

In the meantime, while the merits of the specific policies and decisions will continue to be debated from all parts of the political spectrum, the disconnect between today’s media assessments and tomorrow’s reality clarifies the challenge facing policy professionals. In addition to facing information overload, tracking more policy issues than ever, and being crunched for time, government relations and public affairs professionals have to identify the real signal from the fake noise in the news media. This “fakeness” of real news means companies and trade associations will need to rely on a range of primary and secondary sources when monitoring developments in order to gain a more complete and accurate picture of their operating environments and the key trends impacting their interests.

Better insights lead to better strategies, better decisions, and a competitive information advantage in achieving your policy objectives. To learn more about how Delve is helping companies and trade associations navigate their public affairs challenges at a time of fake news and suspect real news, contact us.

News You Can Use

THE SHARPENING EDGE OF ADVOCACY

In case a breakdown of civility wasn’t making life difficult enough for public affairs and advocacy professionals already, a new blurring of the personal and the professional means new risks for companies and organizations engaging on public policy issues. This month, a European strategic communications professional who is undergoing treatment for cancer was attacked by a public health advocate through Twitter direct message. The reason? Because the communications professional’s firm has worked on behalf of tobacco companies.

The episode illustrates the impact today’s toxic partisanship and zero-sum nature of professionalized and energized issue activism are having on the policy and advocacy climate. As more public policy fights get personal, individuals at companies and industries – whether they work on policy issues or not – are at greater risk for political and reputational challenges, creating the need for a new approach by the employers to protect not only their brand’s and industry’s reputations, but their employees’ as well. It also means more employees asking tougher questions about their firms’ political and policy positions.

K STREET’S ACTIVISM ADAPTION

With presidential candidates voicing proposals that could become policies, K Street is already buzzing to influence policy outcomes and minimize risks for their clients. One instructive way they are doing this is by conducting “deeper outreach to think tanks, academia and other institutions that can lend policy gravitas to shape major discussions” over key issues. Such institutions offer an “alternative voice” that serve as the basis for legislation and that “candidates, lawmakers and voters alike may be willing to hear rather than corporate interests,” largely due to the anti-business messaging from professionalized, digitized, and nationalized activists.

This outreach and other “workarounds” highlight the increased risks facing corporate interests as issue activism becomes more prominent, and showcases the changed nature of today’s operating environment for government affairs professionals. Rather than simply traditional outreach and advocacy to contacts on the Hill, understanding and examining the range of stakeholders outside of government influencing the policy discussion on your issue set has become more important than ever.

LENDING A(I) HUMAN HAND

The “robot revolution” could impact more than just blue-collar workers and include “knowledge workers” as well, according to a new study by Stanford University economist Michael Webb. But, perhaps more interesting is what the study says about the nature of the potential displacement caused by artificial intelligence (AI).

While the study warns that white collar jobs could be displaced by automation, some experts point to factors that might mitigate that possibility. Some AI patents, for example, “might never be used,” while others “might not be used for their initial intentions.” Notably, these technologies might also be used to “augment jobs rather than supplant them.”

One hedge fund investment analyst explained, “There’s a reason there’s not more unemployed hedge fund analysts: Because you do still need that human hand,” he added, “at least for the time being.” When it comes to competitive intelligence for public affairs, our clients echo this sentiment: trained analysts using sophisticated technology provides an information advantage.

AL GORE’S INTERNET MISHAP

If Al Gore really invented the internet, there may be an inconvenient truth he’ll have to face. According to The New Republic, the internet is “inextricably tied to the coming horrors of the climate crisis” and is “the largest coal-fired machine on the entire planet, accounting for 10 percent of global electricity demand.” It’s not simply the attention toward the web’s electricity usage that makes this assault against modernity concerning however, but that companies running ads on the internet – from news outlets to small businesses – risk getting caught up in the political and reputational challenges stemming from environmental activism’s focus on the electricity required to run such ads.

With Bernie Sanders’s proposed plan treating the internet as a “utility that will very much be affected by the climate crisis” and in-house experts at activist groups such as Greenpeace already shaping what the future of a greener internet may look like, the internet as the next climate change culprit has begun. Not only does this trend risk commerce, communication, and promising advancements in innovative frontiers such as telemedicine, but demonstrates the unrelenting and unreasonable nature of today’s environmental activism that can focus its attention and scrutiny anywhere.

Here’s What You Need To Know

Extreme partisanship. Unrelenting information flows from traditional and digital media. A blending of corporate interests and politics. Today’s policy landscape is more decentralized and complex than ever. Policy professionals tasked by companies, trade associations, and public affairs firms to achieve objectives are constantly navigating this operating environment rife with uncertainty. In the words of one Senior Vice President of Government Affairs: “I’m no longer dealing primarily with policy issues related to my company’s industry. My firm asks for my help with everything from gun rights to labor issues and investor relations. We weigh in on more business decisions than ever before.” How can you ensure you’re prepared to weigh in on more issues than ever when 53% of policy professionals’ biggest challenge is managing information overload?

That’s the question raised by the data in Politico Pro’s recently released “Policy Professional Benchmark Report,” which was compiled from more than 1,400 interviews with policy and public affairs professionals to provide an in-depth look at the challenges they face. Given Delve’s expertise in culling, analyzing, and synthesizing data into actionable insights for our corporate and industry clients, this data was no surprise to us. As the Politico Pro report illuminates, policy professionals are in the midst of adapting to these key challenges:

• From Heightened Social Issue Activism To Expanded Corporate Stakeholder Expectations, Policy Professionals “Weigh In On More Business Decisions Than Ever Before.” Regardless of whether it chooses to engage on political issues and values or not, the C-suite is more interested than ever in matters of public policy. Policy professionals face increased pressures to add value as social issue activism and heightened expectations regarding corporate social responsibility from investors and the public push them outside of their comfort zones. As evidence of this need for counsel, more than half of those policy professionals surveyed are meeting with general counsels and business unit leaders on a weekly basis, including 60% doing so with a CEO. Where decision-making was once based on traditional modeling, competitive market intelligence, and rigorous analysis, competitive intelligence through the lens of public affairs is now in demand.
   
• Policy Professionals’ “ Biggest Challenge Isn’t A Lack Of Information, But An Overflow Of It.” Policy professionals have an incredible amount of information at their fingertips and 53% of those surveyed by Politico Pro list their top challenge, from “keeping up with it all” to being able to “process and synthesize” it, as managing information overflow. Increased uncertainty and a dispersion of policymaking have only fueled this overload, as professionals are called upon to provide guidance to stakeholders on legislative and executive developments in Washington, new regulatory frameworks implemented in the European Union, policy measures at the state and municipal levels, and more. There is little time to stay on top of developments, let alone process them to discern what they mean for your organization and how to leverage them to your advantage. And with all due respect to Politico, the news these days is more often heat than light, making it difficult for policy professionals to rely on news outlets to separate fact from speculation and opinion.
   
• “Searching For Information” Is Policy Professionals’ Top Category Of Time Spend. Forty-eight percent of public affairs pros spend most of their time researching and searching for information, and that doesn’t include analyzing – let alone packaging and leveraging – such information and doesn’t leave enough time to do so. Given the quick pace of change across so many jurisdictions, it is “almost impossible” to keep up, let alone find time to translate it into actual advocacy work that moves the needle for your organization.

So how can public affairs and government relations professionals adapt to this new operating environment? Leveraging our expertise here at Delve, we have a few solutions:

• Understand And Get Ahead Of Political Risks. The expertise of policy professionals is invaluable to executives, particularly when companies are only a viral moment or tweet away from a boycott or crisis as professionalized social issue activism continues to rise. Because of the array of issues and risks, understanding first an organization’s overall political risk and its own vulnerabilities can help policy professionals proactively outline policies and processes for engaging (or not) in the public arena. Once known, such insights can also help proactively inform advocacy efforts.
   
• Focus On Insights Over Noise. Seventy-three percent of policy professionals are increasingly turning to intelligence tools “to find information more quickly,” and advances in technology from social media listening platforms to free tools such as keyword alerts and aggregators offer policy pros many options. However, these do-it-yourself tools can lead to even more information overload, and do not provide meaningful analysis or key trends that point to what happens next, making it difficult to derive actionable insights from their information flows. That is why when evaluating new tools, policy professionals should consider whether they deliver competitive intelligence and analysis that gives their organization an advantage, or simply add to information overload.
   
• Engage A Force-Multiplier. “Surprise has become standard” does not have to be your organization’s new normal. Engaging a strategic partner to help reduce the time spent on researching, monitoring, and analyzing information can serve as a force-multiplier for an organization’s public affairs team. As the Politico Pro report noted, “All this time spent translating policy internally constrains policy professionals’ availability to influence stakeholders beyond their organizations.” A strategic competitive intelligence partner can ensure policy professionals’ time is invested in leveraging key insights, meeting with internal and external stakeholders, and other high-yield functions.

Challenges are often paired with opportunities. Corporate interests engaging in the public policy environment are continuing to evolve to address the challenges above, and innovative approaches, services, and partnerships are changing the way public policy is done. If you’re interested in discussing how your organization can build a more effective approach to succeeding in today’s uncertain landscape, and hearing more about the work Delve does to put policy professionals at an information advantage rather than an information overload, reach out to us.

News You Can Use

ANTI-MONOPOLY PASSES GO

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes is spearheading a $10 million “anti-monopoly” fund that is hoping to “shine an effort on competition” and, Hughes says, “move the issue from the margins to the mainstream.” His old company isn’t the only one that should take notice, and we’re not just referring to other members of big tech.

Hughes and his allies view the interest surrounding tech as an opportunity to galvanize into a “broader movement to analyze, regulate or dismantle behemoths in agriculture, healthcare and other industries” in which they believe customers are hurt by a lack of competition. With the funding going to like-minded academics, policy advocacy groups, and grassroots activists that engage on the ground, industries beyond tech such as health care, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, financial services and more will need to prepare for this effort and the networks of influence stemming from it.

DRINK WITH YOUR FEET?

It turns out people may not only vote with their feet or their wallets, but drink with their feet, too. A recent study on the effects of Philadelphia’s soda tax provides new data regarding how consumers respond to taxes on the everyday choices they make. Unlike previous studies that centered on Berkeley’s soda tax, Philadelphia’s large and diverse population provides a more complete picture of the policy implications.

Advocates of soda taxes, whether to increase revenues or improve health or both, may find the results dismaying: soda purchases declined 46% in the city, but sales of soda increased in stores bordering the city, and sales in lower-income neighborhoods remained similar. This data suggests that not only was there no meaningful positive health outcome or increase in tax revenues, but that the tax ultimately targeted those who could least afford it. While the research team proposed a broader taxing area to address these shortcomings, it does not change the reality that people appear to drink with their feet, and that ill-conceived policies often hurt those who can least afford them.

FED UP WITH PHILANTHROPISTS

Successful philanthropists have given much time and money to create and sustain America’s great cultural institutions, yet despite the good they have done in this realm (not to mention the benefits for workers and investors in their successful businesses), professionalized activism is coming for them. Patrons such as Warren Kanders was “run off the board of the Whitney Museum of American art” because his company supplies the U.S. border patrol, and BlackRock CEO and Museum of Modern Art Board Member Larry Fink is being pressured by activists wanting to “ride off the tails of the Whitney action” to change his company’s investments to suit their agenda.

For philanthropists and the organizations who depend on their involvement and generosity, this activism presents new reputational risks that will need to be addressed. In the case of the former, it would appear that shared values, cultural and civic service, and vocal, socially conscious capitalism cannot keep activism at bay. As to the latter, organizations dependent on such benefactors may expect more public scrutiny from activism relating to their boards, creating a new need to better understand the risks and vulnerabilities that can be used against them by determined activists.

COMMENT FRIENDLY

At Delve, we’re well-versed in the jungle of the federal rule-making process, and particularly the too often spurious nature of public comments that are repetitive, vulgar, fake, or irrelevant. In the latest development regarding fraudulent comments on the regulatory docket, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a bipartisan report finding that “federal agencies do little or nothing to stop crimes and abuses committed in the systems they use to collect public comments on proposed regulations.”

Whether a person’s identity was stolen, a false name was used, or comments were laced with profanity, the comments can “corrupt the public-comment process, mandated by law, which can influence outcomes of regulations affecting millions.” Often, interests advancing their policy goals create astroturf campaigns which can employ fake comments. Subcommittee Chair Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) has recommended changes to the laws governing rule-making processes, including this one: “clarify that agencies should not accept or post abusive, profane, or threatening comments; irrelevant comments; or comments submitted under a false identity.” If only it were that easy.

Here’s What You Need To Know

California is once again making waves by laying down a key policy marker in the form of Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which last month was signed into law by Governor Newsom. The law aims to reshape the gig economy and what it means to be a worker in the 21st century, but its implications will go well beyond Uber, Lyft, or whichever other platforms you may use out of convenience (or to make some extra money yourself) in daily life.

AB5 changes California employment law to limit companies’ usage of independent contractors, leaving companies and workers across the country scrambling to determine how it impacts them, whether and how they can push back, and if similar measures may be coming in other states. Here’s what you need to know about AB5 and what might come next in this clash between the 21st century gig economy and 20th century regulatory frameworks:

• What Is AB5? Assembly Bill 5 codifies and expands a 2018 California Supreme Court decision making it more difficult to classify workers as freelancers. AB5 requires the reclassification of gig economy workers to employees instead of contractors. As noted by the American Action Forum (AAF),  whether a worker was an employee or a contractor was previously determined by evaluating several factors such as how they were paid, their work hours, investment in work equipment, and the extent to which the employer could control the worker and the way the work is done – as is done at the federal level across the U.S. AB5 reverses the existing framework by assuming workers are employees unless they meet three specific criteria, known as the “ABC test.” The law takes effect on January 1, 2020.
   
• Why Flip The Script On The Existing Contractor – Employee Classification? The new law seeks to address the idea that employers are classifying workers as contractors in order to reduce compensation and benefit costs, as well as legal requirements like unionization, payroll taxes, and insurance coverage. This factor motivated the law’s support among organized labor, some gig economy workers, and Democratic presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg.
   
• Implications For Workers: The shift to employee status could mean minimum wage protections, overtime, workers’ compensation, sick and family leave, employer contributions to Social Security and Medicare, and mileage reimbursement. However, such benefits would not come without a cost. Gig workers could find their flexibility and hours limited, resulting in less money and opportunity or required working hours that don’t align with their preferences, to say nothing of the costs of complying and figuring out the appropriate classification of certain “gigs” they may have.
   
• Implications Far Beyond Ridesharing: While companies such as Uber, Lyft, Doordash, Instacart and other technology companies come to mind when thinking of the gig economy, the ramifications of AB5 are actually much broader. Despite some professions receiving carve-outs, the bill has the potential to change the status of 1 million workers in California, ensnaring those in non-tech jobs such as yoga teachers, barbers, truck owner-operators, paper carriers, freelance writers, and more. Yet, some of the main targets of the legislation – the popular, tech-centric ridesharing companies – suggest that their businesses don’t fall under the law’s legal framework at all, and are preparing to counter its enforcement.
   
• Companies Are Taking Their Case To The Voters In 2020: After unsuccessfully trying to influence lawmakers for a more favorable regulatory framework (including a $21 minimum wage in the Golden State), Uber, Lyft, and Doordash are taking the lead in challenging the implementation of the law (and its application to their businesses). Each company has pledged $30 million each – $90 million total – to fund a ballot measure to make their case directly to voters to exempt gig workers. An Uber executive stated that these funds will go toward hiring “the best campaign team and best advisors we possibly can to run a successful ballot initiative.” As other companies and states wonder if California Attorney General Xavier Bercerra’s assertion that “as California goes, so goes the nation” is indeed true, there will likely be significant resources – both from labor and businesses – poured into influencing the outcome of the 2020 ballot initiative.

The passage of AB5 into law may mark the end of the beginning for the wild frontier of the 21st century gig economy, and how it is implemented and challenged will determine its effect on policy and regulatory frameworks in other states. An analysis by AAF’s Isabel Soto estimates that the implementation of AB5’s “ABC test” nationwide would impact “over 13 million workers who produce over $1.6 trillion in economic output, about 8.5 percent of gross domestic product.” If such is the case, many companies and industry groups may find an investment in California’s 2020 ballot initiative now to be an appealing strategic decision for later.

News You Can Use

THE SELFIE STRATEGY

While Sen. Elizabeth Warren may not know the definition of a selfie, she definitely knows how to use them to her advantage. Ending every campaign rally with a well-executed selfie line, her campaign staffers snap pictures of the candidate with voters, and the lines keep getting longer and longer. At a recent rally in New York, Warren spent four hours taking about 4,000 pictures, bumping up her total tally to more than 59,000 selfies since she kicked off her campaign.

Warren’s strategy strives to build individual connections by creating original digital content and gaining free advertising in the process as her supporters excitedly post the pictures to social media. As one political strategist pointed out, 4,000 selfies multiplied by an average social network of 150 people equals 600,000 viral impressions just from one rally. As recent polls show, this grassroots strategy just may be working, and may change the way candidates approach campaigning well into the future.

ACTIVISM CLOSURE OR OPENING? 

It was a slow day in the office for many on September 20th as people skipped work and businesses shut down to participate in the youth-led Global Climate Strike. According to the American Sustainable Business Council, more than 450 businesses either gave workers the day off, closed stores, or halted manufacturing. In addition, over 7,000 companies participated digitally by giving ad space to promote the strike, and thousands of tech workers staged walkouts.

Companies condoning and even encouraging participation in this strike marks a new level of corporate employee activism that has not been seen at this large of a scale before. If more and more companies leverage their corporate brand, reputation, and resources on public policy issues, it may succeed in influencing elected officials to support particular policies as they seek to gain political (and financial) support. Also, it may enable more employee activism, which could turn on the employer itself and lead to potentially negative implications for employees.

CUE THE BREAKUP PLAYLIST 

A love story that reached its peak during the Obama Administration is now headed for a nasty divorce. Once the party of Big Tech, Democrats are now attempting to break away from Silicon Valley as a “techlash” gains popularity. Mark Zuckerberg has even gone so far as to call an Elizabeth Warren presidency an “existential” threat to Facebook due to the Senator’s calls to break up the company.

However, some Democratic presidential candidates are still wooing Silicon Valley while continuing to publicly attack it. With regulatory scrutiny and the breakup of Big Tech now safely a bipartisan issue, this reality may ironically present an opportunity for Big Tech to strategically engage with policymakers from across the political spectrum to favorably influence whatever regulatory outcomes may come – without being viewed through a partisan lens and the baggage it can bring.

TINSELTOWNS ABOUND

As Amazon and HBO proved at the Emmys, streaming services have dramatically changed Hollywood, but the streaming wars have done a lot more than shakeup awards shows. In an effort to develop original content local to their global viewers, streaming giants are spending billions on content producers in foreign countries – using local languages and storylines – which has resulted in the creation of “mini-Hollywoods.”

These new production regions are popping up in places such as Croatia, Serbia, and in Latin America, with Hollywood investment lured by large tax incentives and low labor costs. Besides attracting cash and tourism to host countries, these streaming-enabled “tinseltowns” have disrupted the traditional Hollywood model by creating a unique competitive advantage: highly-localized content that can be quickly leveraged to become the next global hit, thereby at once capturing more subscribers around the world while reducing operating costs.

Here’s What You Need To Know

With Labor Day behind us and the arrival of pumpkin spice season in front of us, we are now a year away from when the majority of American voters traditionally begin tuning in to the presidential contest and other down ballot campaigns. If that seems like a long time away and of no consequence, think again.

Ideas being floated now on the campaign trail can have a real impact on future policy and legislative initiatives, even if the particular candidate espousing them doesn’t survive the primary or get elected. For a recent example, look no further than Bernie Sanders’ failed 2016 bid for the Democratic nomination and his influencing that year’s nominee (and in fact driving the broader policy conversation since then) on issues ranging from support for a single-payer health system, free college tuition, a $15 federal minimum wage, and more.

This election cycle, candidates’ ability to influence policy and legislative outcomes – win or lose – is even more true because voters appear to be far more interested, engaged, and ready than in elections of the recent past, and they are not waiting until post-Labor Day 2020 to tune in. For companies whose business objectives could be negatively impacted by these campaign trail policy ideas, here’s what you can do before politics become policies:

1. Begin Monitoring Your Issue Set Now: With a recent Fox News national poll showing 57% of respondents already “extremely” interested in the 2020 election, companies impacted by policy and regulatory frameworks – and key societal issues in the public arena – should be even more interested in the current campaign-related conversations and developments pertaining to their interests. These conversations and developments can be tough to track and make sense of, not only because of the wide range of sources and information flows where they’re unfolding, but because campaign conversations are shaped by more than just a candidate and campaign staff. Other actors such as advisors, surrogates, endorsers, pundits, and third parties from academia to think tanks to advocacy groups are trying to influence the issue debate, too. To stay on top of it all, companies need a system in place to monitor information flows and synthesize insights that can be used to understand the impact of events on their interests quickly. By keeping informed of developments, changes in the state-of-play, and key trends, companies can leverage these insights to better stay ahead of the curve and anticipate what happens next.
    
2. Know The Candidates’ Records And Hold Them Accountable: Throughout primary and general election campaigns, candidates are often adjusting their messaging around politics and policy ideas in order to best appeal to the voters whose support they are trying to earn at that time. The result for companies is that it can be difficult to decipher candidates’ true beliefs on key policy issues, let alone separate the signal from the political noise to determine how they could influence policy outcomes. Therefore, examining candidate records – both personal and professional – is critical. What candidates have said or done in the past is a strong indicator of what they may say or do in the future, and in the event their campaign trail ideas stray from the former, a public affairs strategy highlighting their records can help hold them accountable and positively influence the debate surrounding an issue set (lest they risk being labeled a “flip-flopper”).
    
3. Understand The Networks Influencing Your Issue Set: As mentioned above, candidates and their campaigns are only a piece of the landscape of stakeholders and interests seeking to influence policy and legislative discussions on the campaign trail. The danger of focusing on one component of this complex whole is that ideas that hurt a company’s interests can come to pass despite successful efforts to influence a particular candidate, simply because other politicians, activists, NGOs, think tanks, and the like were not influenced or rebutted – and ultimately had arguments a candidate found more compelling. To avoid this scenario, companies should identify and understand the entire universe of stakeholders that make up the network influencing an issue set. In doing so, public affairs and advocacy efforts can be strategically applied to better position companies to succeed in achieving their desired policy and legislative outcomes.
    
4. Know What You Are Up Against: Competitors, stakeholders, and other groups are constantly engaging in political, policy, and regulatory arenas to influence outcomes favorable to their interests. Given the impact that campaign trail ideas can have on future outcomes, and the influence that candidate networks can have on what ideas they float in the first place, companies need to also be able to understand who these specific influencers are. Examining their backgrounds, activities, and operations provide insight into why they might want a candidate to support a certain idea. Knowing this can also give your company’s interests a boost in campaigns of interest, as this type of information can be used to present connections to the media and public that may raise uncomfortable questions for non-favored candidates.

The early arrival of the 2020 election cycle will no doubt mean more surreal Twitter timelines, yet importantly, it will also bring a greater need for companies to make sense of the unrelenting information flows and universe of stakeholders influencing candidate policy and legislative ideas on the campaign trail impacting their interests and priorities. With public engagement this cycle greater than it has been in the past, the risk that a damaging idea can gain a receptive audience, be amplified and leveraged to organize, and set the marker for future policy discussions is greater than ever. Preparing accordingly now can help companies avoid being caught by surprise and having their policy agenda undermined when the 2020 campaign dust settles. If you find yourself overwhelmed by the tasks ahead of your organization in sorting the policy signals from the 2020 political noise, we happen to know some folks who can help.

News You Can Use

POLE TROLL

It turns out it isn’t just Russian bots who are waging troll campaigns on social media. Polish Deputy Justice Minister Łukasz Piebiak resigned last month after it was revealed he used an internet troll to wage a smear campaign against judges opposed to the Polish government’s judicial reforms.

Piebiak, through the troll named Emilia, allegedly sent over 2,000 letters and emails, including fabricated and “gossipy” details about Judge Krystian Markiewicz, who opposed the government’s efforts to restructure the Polish judicial system. Piebiak claims he is a victim of hate speech and that the allegations are “tools in a political fight.”

Whether the allegations are true or not, the latest scandal to rock Polish politics exemplifies the breadth and increasingly sophisticated nature of modern-day smear campaigns. Now, not even elected officials can be trusted to resist the temptation to use bots to take down political opponents. The scandal abroad is certainly something to keep an eye on as we move closer to the 2020 election here in the U.S. and elsewhere around the world.

A SURPRISE DELIVEROO FOR GIG WORKERS

Last month, online food delivery company Deliveroo shocked many customers and employees when it announced it would no longer operate in Germany. As of late, Deliveroo has faced the wrath of many unions in Europe over the company’s claim that the company’s workers are “self-employed” rather than full-time employees. The unions argue this policy means Deliveroo’s workers get few protections that are granted to employees in other sectors of the economy. Deliveroo’s exit highlights the increasingly contentious relationship between European governments, workers, and the gig economy.

In fact, last April, the European Union (EU) passed a law that guarantees minimum rights for workers in “casual or short-term” employment, specifically calling out Uber and Deliveroo. Still, it isn’t just gig economy companies in Europe that need to be worried. Such regulations make it difficult for startups to be nimble and pivot as they seek growth opportunities. Policymakers in the U.S. are increasingly targeting sharing economy companies, such as Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb, arguing that they take advantage of workers. Of course, these policymakers fail to realize that the result may be fewer jobs and less economic opportunity for hard-working Americans – including those who want the flexibility a “gig” offers.

EMPLOYEES GET ICE-Y 

In this age of extreme polarization and outrage, it should come as a shock to no one that employees at some of the largest companies in the U.S. are protesting against doing any work for agencies that enforce Trump Administration immigration policies. For instance, employees at Google circulated a petition last month demanding that the tech company publicly commit not to support government agencies, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which they claim engage in “human rights abuses.” Whole Foods employees demanded that their parent company Amazon cut ties with software company Palantir, since it provides software to ICE.

Herein lies the catch-22 for companies: businesses and their executives are increasingly being pressured by employees and customers to “take a stand” on social issues, yet they must do so without alienating customers. Nobody wants to be the next Gillette, which lost billions of dollars following an ad campaign that shamed their core customers, men. Companies must strike a balance or risk hurting their bottom lines, meaning it may be time to revisit our thoughts on key points to consider before plunging your business into politics. 

PUBLISHERS CALL AN AUDIBLE 

Seven of the world’s largest book publishers are suing Amazon, accusing the e-commerce giant of a “quintessential” violation of copyright law. At issue is Amazon’s audiobook company Audible and its new, controversial “speech-to-text feature” called Captions. The feature uses artificial intelligence to transcribe spoken words into written ones, so users can read along while they listen to an audiobook. The problem? Amazon is being accused of not obtaining the necessary licenses to reproduce the written versions of the physical books.

The case could have far-reaching implications for the future of intellectual property rights in the digital age, especially as artificial intelligence gains sophistication. It also highlights how a range of laws and regulations, including those regarding intellectual property, have not kept pace with the emerging digital world in which consumers expect to be able to consume information in whichever format suits them.

Here’s What You Need To Know

Food, agriculture, consumer packaged goods, health, and other related industries beware…we’re in for a food fight. From the European Union (EU) to the United Kingdom and even in Latin America, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and activists are pressuring governments and supranational bodies to crack down on corporate interests that can be blamed and held accountable for the rising levels of obesity around the world.

While the “obesity wars” have been dragging on for years, the nature of the battle is rapidly changing, and it presents an inflection point for companies and industry groups. Here at Delve, we have deep experience helping our clients understand and anticipate how such public policy movements begin, gain momentum, spread around the world, and impact our clients’ operating environments. Here’s what you need to know about this key trend so that your business is prepared for these developments in the fight against obesity:

• The Inflection Point: Just recently seven NGOs, brandishing new studies that claim to show that obesity carries more cancer risks than smoking, announced they were leaving the European Platform for Diet, Physical Activity, and Health. The NGOs argue the Platform has failed to prove it had made “any meaningful impact on curbing childhood obesity.” In short, the NGOs decided that they can influence a greater impact outside of traditional institutions.
   
• The Repercussions Of This Inflection Point In The EU And Latin America: A recently released UN report found that 338 million school-age children around the world are now considered obese, and the staggering figures have led Great Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) Chief Executive Simon Stevens to declare that “obesity is the new smoking.” Stevens continued signaling the increased risks for companies when he stated that “families, food businesses and government all need to play their part if we’re to avoid copying America’s damaging and costly example.” The declaration, part of a broader message from activists and some policymakers about obesity, suggest that their approach could match the investigate, vilify, tax, and prosecute tactics used against the tobacco companies in the last century. Indeed, the British government, which already implemented a tax on sugary drinks in April 2018, recently released a green paper that announced supermarkets can no longer sell energy drinks to children under the age of 16 and floated a potential sugar tax on milkshakes. While new Prime Minister Boris Johnson has voiced his opposition to “the creep of the nanny state” in the past and vowed to review these “sin taxes,” the development is instructive of anti-obesity networks that will not stop at new policies until people are compelled to behave how they want. Meanwhile, in Latin America, governments have passed new laws aimed at reducing obesity, including banning advertisements for foods high in calories and saturated fat between certain hours in Chile.
   
• How Do Things Currently Look In the U.S.? Similar to other countries, a number of experts and doctors have called on the U.S. government to do more to tackle obesity, as 70% of American adults are considered overweight. Earlier this year, Congressman Ron Kind (D-WI) introduced the “Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2019,” which aims to amend the Social Security Act to provide for the coordination of programs to prevent and treat obesity. It has 116 co-sponsors from both parties. Currently, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services are developing the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which is updated every five years to help Americans eat a healthier diet. The food industry has been able to influence the list in the past and successfully lobbied against adding sustainability guidelines back in 2015. However, in the past year industry influence has been exposed and become the focus of activist criticism, part of an effort by NGOs and advocacy groups to discourage and undermine similar efforts this time around. Outside of government, civil society organizations are “playing their part” in combating obesity in America, with one philanthropic organization donating over $40 million to investigate the causes of obesity, which can be utilized by advocacy campaigns to reshape and influence government policies related to it.
   
• How Can You Prepare For This New Anti-Obesity Activism? An understanding of how momentum builds for these types of public policy movements, as well as the taxonomy of the networks of influence that enable them to gain that momentum, provides a roadmap for how a company anticipating impacts from this battle can develop an effective public affairs strategy to mitigate their risk from such efforts. The new energy behind anti-obesity networks can unfairly vilify law-abiding, responsible companies, driving a wedge between industry and its consumers as well as the policymakers that can determine the industry’s future. Gaining and leveraging an information advantage about this activism can enable industry to engage with policymakers and regulators now, before they face intense pressure to act.

The incoming “obesity wars” in the U.S. will touch many industries, both directly and indirectly, and affect all consumers, including their choices in the marketplace and the cost of those choices. The future of the policy and regulatory fight is uncertain, but companies can work to shape the future. In order to avoid the same fate as their counterparts in the EU and Latin America, companies in the U.S. will need to have an information advantage over their opposition to be prepared for any public affairs (or, ahem, food) fight they may face.

News You Can Use

DELIVERY SERVICE DEBACLES

Last week, we covered the public affairs challenges at Grubhub, but it is not the only food delivery service facing a public affairs challenge. After previously defending its tipping model, DoorDash came under attack after a New York Times article exposed the company’s practice of using customer tips to subsidize the guaranteed minimum wages the company pays delivery drivers rather than have the tips go directly to its “Dashers.” Following public outrage from customers feeling mislead, CEO Tony Xu announced on Twitter that the company would change its tipping system, ironically leaving some “Dashers” concerned their guaranteed minimum will now decrease.

This episode serves as a reminder that companies must understand their own vulnerabilities to craft public affairs strategies to protect and defend their operations and policies from scrutiny, foster employee engagement, and avoid bad press. Especially as the national conversation around the future of work and minimum wage laws increases, gig economy companies need to be proactive about managing their exposure to political and reputational risks.

WHOSE MEDIA MAKES THE PRESIDENT?

In Taiwan’s recent presidential primary for the opposition party, the victory by populist mayor Han Kuo-yu of the island nation’s second-largest city came with some help from unexpected friends. Two major news channels promoting “nonstop coverage” of Han, whose party has shown sympathy for Beijing’s view that Taiwan is part of the broader Chinese nation, are influenced by the Chinese government.

Largely credited for helping create the “Han Wave” that “transformed a politician seen as past his prime into a resurgent star,” CTi-TV and CTV are owned by the Want Want China Times Group, a media company that infuses the Chinese Communist Party’s voice and angle into its coverage.

China’s leveraging of democratic politics and a free media to meddle in its rival’s elections is a cautionary tale and national security issue to free democracies around the world. Besides media, a variety of industries should be aware of the creative approaches Beijing employs to influence politics and policy outside its borders, especially in light of popular camera apps worldwide that can put international users’ data at the fingertips of the Chinese Communist Party.

WHERE’S THE AGENCY?

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a $5 billion settlement with Facebook over its collection and handling of users’ data. When news of the settlement broke, Facebook’s stock price hit its highest point in almost a year, and bipartisan derision arose over the historically large, yet “laughably small” penalty when considering Facebook’s vast resources.

Democrats and consumer advocates are now calling for a new way to regulate Silicon Valley, claiming the FTC does not have the money, staff, or resources to appropriately handle monitoring these online platforms, especially with its already broad oversight duties. Proposals include creating a special agency to protect online privacy or a fully new department that focuses solely on online platforms, while others are pushing to just give the FTC the resources and power it needs to properly regulate. With new regulatory powers, including potentially a new regulatory agency, hanging in the balance, companies and causes with the potential to be impacted should gear up now to best influence an outcome favorable to their interests.

TOFURKY FIGHTS BACK

As we predicted, the public policy fights around plant-based meat are increasing, but this time Tofurky is fighting back. Tofurky, which sells plant-based meat alternatives, and the ACLU have teamed up to file a federal lawsuit claiming an Arkansas bill violates free speech rights. Deemed the “truth in labeling” bill, it is slated to go into effect in March and would ban meatless products from being described by meat-adjacent phrases, such as “veggie burgers,” claiming such names confuse customers.

ACLU calls this claim “absurdly patronizing” and instead claims the bill limits free speech and restricts customer access to healthier, more sustainable choices. This lawsuit may set a precedent for cases in other states and will also affect dairy alternatives and vegetable alternatives to grains (looking at you, cauliflower “rice”).  Arkansas is currently one of six states (along with a proposal in the EU) that has passed a law restricting meat-like labels, and given the momentum the winner of the suit can be expected to get, the meat industry is hoping to come away better off than the dairy industry has fared with alternatives. Companies and related interests in other states should start preparing for similar laws and lawsuits, as this fight is only just starting.