Morning Consult tracked media consumption trends of U.S. consumers, including how they get their news.An online survey of 2,200 U.S. adults was conducted June 2022 – July 2023.Key findings include:1.) 60% of adults said they turned to websites for news at least once within the past month, down from 67% in August 2022.2.) 24% of adults said broadcast news networks offered the most trustworthy news, followed by cable news networks (17%), and social media (17%). —- The least trusted news sources were newsletters (2%), podcasts (4%), and video streaming services.4.) Social media (68%), broadcast news networks (66%), and news websites (60%) were the most used sources for news.Read more here ...

Gallup analyzed how employees feel about their work life, and proposed changes that could help grow the global gross domestic product (GDP).A global survey of 122,000 participants was conducted from April 2022 to March 2023.Key findings include:1.) 59% of employees are not engaged in the workplace, also known as quiet quitting, and 18% are actively disengaged.— Low engagement costs the global economy US$8 .8 trillion and accounts for 9% of global GDP.2.) 85% of employees who are quiet quitting would want to change engagement or culture, pay and benefits, or wellbeing-work/life balance.3.) 44% of employees reported experiencing a lot of stress the previous workday, continuing the trend from 2021.— Those who were actively engaged were less likely to feel a lot of stress (30%) than those who were actively disengaged (56%).4.) 51% of currently employed workers said they are actively seeking or watching for a new job.Read the full report here ...

This summary is provided by the IPR Organizational Communication Research CenterDr. Linjuan Rita Men, Dr. Yufan Sunny Qin, Renee Mitson, and Dr. Patrick Thelen studied how organizational diversity communication efforts and employees’ cultural intelligence contributed to an inclusive organizational climate and enhanced employee engagement. Furthermore, they examined the relationship between employees’ racial minority status and employee engagement.An organization’s diversity communication was defined as the organization’s efforts in communicating their commitment, advocacy, and initiatives of diversity in the workplace. Employees’ cultural intelligence referred to an employee’s ability to effectively respond to culturally diverse settings. An inclusive climate represented an organization’s commitment to providing fair treatment, consideration, and recognition to all employees regardless of their background and involving them in the organization’s core decision-making processes.The authors conducted an online survey of 657 full-time employees who worked at various medium and large-sized corporations across 27 industries in the U.S. The survey was implemented in April 2021.Key Findings1.) Organizational diversity communication and employees’ cultural intelligence both contributed to a greater perception of an inclusive climate of the organization.2.) A more inclusive organizational climate contributed to higher employee engagement. Additionally, organizational diversity communication and employees’ cultural intelligence also directly contributed to employee engagement.3.) The positive impact of an inclusive climate on employee engagement was stronger among racial minority employees than their white counterparts.4.) Organizations and their leaders should participate in well-researched programs and workshops on diversity communication to improve employee engagement.— Organizations should also provide cultural intelligence learning opportunities for employees to encourage a more inclusive workplace climate.Implications for PracticeOrganizations should deliver messages that emphasize the organization’s value of inclusiveness and diversity, and more importantly, accompany such messages with internal programming and policy-making efforts. Employees should be encouraged to learn about the diverse cultures represented in the workplace. Concrete strategies such as facilitating dialogue with employees of diverse backgrounds at social events and team-building exercises and ensuring that leaders lead by example in correctly pronouncing the names of all employees will benefit the cultivation of an inclusive climate of the organization.Click here to learn more about how organizations’ diversity communication and employees’ cultural intelligence can benefit the organization.Men, L. R., Qin, Y. S., Mitson, R., & Thelen, P. (2023). Engaging employees via an inclusive climate: The role of organizational diversity communication and cultural intelligence. Journal of Public Relations Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2023.2222859     ...

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down three high-profile decisions in 2023 that have major implications for public relations practitioners and communicators. While the impact of each of these cases, which involve affirmative action, fair use and copyright, and legal immunity for online platforms, is yet to be fully realized, communication professionals should expect to experience the residual effects of each of these decisions. Ending Affirmative Action in Higher Education:  Implications for Private Sector Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)One of the major shifts in U.S. higher education came with the ending of affirmative action in the cases Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and companion case Students for Fair Admissions v. the University of North Carolina.  In these cases, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that considering race in college admissions violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The impact of this ruling will not be seen immediately, but many consider this a signal of a decreased focus on racial diversity in colleges.  As a result, there is some indication that this decision will create a new style of admissions process (notably Harvard University stated it would continue to promote diversity while adhering to the ruling).  In the communication industry, there may be shrinking racial diversity in recent college graduates that could result in a diversity decrease in public relations. However, this ruling may have further implications beyond college admissions. Many in the private sector are asking whether this decision will usher in a new group of lawsuits concerning corporate DEI programs.  The answer is likely not—for now.  There is a practical and legal distinction between the affirmative action decisions in admission and DEI initiatives.  For instance, in employment law there is established anti-discrimination laws in place for discrimination against race, religion, national origin, disabilities, age, and other characteristics.  This is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a variety of state anti-discrimination laws.  The Harvard and UNC cases were not decided under those laws, so the discussion around employment and DEI initiatives is a different legal conversation.However, it is likely that there will be future lawsuits about DEI initiatives in the private sector that will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to extend its rationale beyond college admissions to private organizations.  The results of these types of lawsuits remain to be seen.  Despite how DEI is portrayed in the media, the field itself is highly complex and includes content that presents diversity broadly defined, including content and programming about raising awareness about a variety of issues such as unconscious bias, accessibility, salary transparency, gender, and sexual orientation.  Because of that, DEI is not necessarily an item that directly relates to hiring and promotion decisions. However, communicators should be aware that this is a shifting legal landscape, and that DEI initiatives focusing on inclusivity writ large have a greater protection against legal challenges.  Initiatives that could be interpreted as leading to certain hiring decisions based on protected characteristics a more vulnerable to lawsuits.Because the challenges to DEI are coming from both private lawsuits and state laws, communicators need to stay current on the shifting legal landscape.  Some states have proposed or enacted both laws that promote and eliminate DEI initiatives.  All those state laws are also subject to constitutional lawsuits, notably Florida’s Individual Freedom Act, popularly called the “Stop WOKE Act,” currently enjoined by federal courts.  Communications plays a role as well.  As the legal landscape surrounding affirmative action and discrimination changes, it will be public relations practitioners who are tasked with explaining and communicating these measures to internal and external publics. Fair Use and Copyright:  The Future of Derivative WorksPublic relations practitioners and communicators are always affected by any change in copyright law.  Those creating content need to be especially careful of using copyrighted material in derivative works after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith.  This 7-2 decision, with a cross section of liberal and conservative justices in the majority, held that a silkscreen portrait derived from popular photograph of the musician Prince did not constitute fair use. The holding in this case has major implications for content creators.  For owners of copyrighted works, it means that the transformative “purpose and character” element of fair use includes commerciality as a consideration.  For communicators, this means copyright holders have a greater right of control of content.  The downside for content creators, particularly artists and illustrators, is that when creating transformative work, fair use may not exist when the use itself is for the same commercial purpose as the original.What does this mean?  The U.S. Code Title 17 section 107 lists the four factors of fair use:1.) Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.2.) The nature of copyrighted work3.) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.4.) Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted workIn Warhol the image in question was a 1981 photo of Prince taken by Lynn Goldsmith for a Newsweek article on Prince as a new popular musician.  Later, Goldsmith licensed the photo in 1984 for $400 to Vanity Fair magazine to use as the basis for an illustration in an article about Prince.  Vanity Fair hired Andy Warhol to produce the illustration, which was a silkscreen portrait of Prince.  Warhol created 16 versions of the silkscreen, one of which was entitled “Orange Prince.”  Upon Warhol’s death, the Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF) held the silkscreens, and in 2016 Vanity Fair received a license from the AWF to use “Orange Prince” for its commemorative edition after Prince died.  Goldsmith who received no compensation for “Orange Prince” and notified the AWF that she believed “Orange Prince” constituted infringement.  AWF claimed the use of the photo was fair use because it was transformative of the original photograph.  A lawsuit between Goldsmith and the AWF ensued with the U.S. Supreme Court analyzing the first factor of fair use “the purpose and character of the use.” The U.S. Supreme Court held that the purpose and character of the use by Warhol did not constitute fair use. Specifically, the court held that “transformativeness” of the original photograph was not enough to constitute fair use under purpose and character.  That transformativeness had to be considered considering commercial use of the new image, which in this case is the silkscreen.  Because the original photograph in 1981 and the later silkscreen version of “Orange Prince” were commercial in nature, this weighed against fair use.  After all, the original photograph and the later licensing of “Orange Prince” were for the same purpose and the same commercial ends—a magazine article about Prince. This case has raised many questions about artistic creation, and there was a robust exchange in the opinion between Justices Sotomayor and Kagan who were on opposite sides.  However, for communicators in commercial production of content, this case should serve as a cautionary tale.  Getting the permission of copyright holders is even more important, even when the copyright at issue is one where something is transformed from the original.  Licensing is a way to mitigate any uncertainty in the creation of content, and assuming fair use is a risky endeavor, especially because the establishment of fair use is not going to be determined unless a lawsuit is brought.  In this case, fair use and its first factor has become more legally complex, and there may be more cases that emerge post-Warhol; the dissent in this case emphasized that the majority opinion will have the impact of stifling artistic expression. That may be. But the bottom line for communicators is that fair use is harder to prove than it used to be, and infringement cases against parties who commercially use content without permission have a higher likelihood of prevailing.Legal Immunity and the Future of Online LiabilityOne of the biggest issues in recent years has been the legal immunity that internet companies have had from lawsuits arising from third-party content.  Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has been a rallying cry for the left and right in recent years with “cancel 230” becoming a political slogan in the past few election cycles.  The Institute for Public Relations published a piece in 2020 on section 230 during the Trump administration’s attempt to remove its protection for internet companies that were perceived to be anti-conservative.This past term, the U.S. Supreme Court waded into the discussion about section 230 but stopped short of making any changes to the immunity of online platforms.  In Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh the court heard a section 230 issue that involved terrorist-created internet content.  The U.S. Supreme Court was thought to be potentially weighing the future of this important aspect of how the internet functions, but ultimately these cases were decided on grounds outside of section 230.  There was a fear that the Court was ill-equipped with handing the technical implications of changing the protections of section 230.  Justice Kagan acknowledged as much as she said in the oral argument, “I mean, we’re a court. We really don’t know about these things. You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the Internet” (Gonzalez v. Google, 2023, p. 45).What this means for PR practitioners and communicators is the internet and its structure is here to stay for now.  This immunity for organizations, such as social media platforms, that host third-party content protects them from an onslaught of lawsuits.  While some Members of Congress have attempted to change the widespread immunity that section 230 provides, they so far have been unsuccessful. This has real-world implications for communications practice, especially in terms of managing reputations, combatting fake reviews, and engaging with activist reviewers.  Internet platforms that host third-party content, however untrue or defamatory, remain immune from lawsuits.  Any changes on immunity will likely be legislative rather than judicial, and given the current gridlock in Washington D.C., an immediate change seems unlikely.Going ForwardThe U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in 2023 have significant impacts on the communications industry in terms of DEI, intellectual property, and internet protections.  Going forward there will be a continuation of changes to the industry. Currently, the U.S. and other nations are struggling to find the right balance between regulation and AI.  The issue of privacy, discrimination, and civil rights will continue to be of top importance.  Perhaps the biggest takeaway is that for public relations and professional communicators, the evolving nature of law is perhaps more important than ever.  As the communication sector becomes more technological, philosophically, and economically complex, the impact of U.S. Supreme Court cases impacts not both how and what PR practitioners say.References17 U.S.C. §107.47 U.S.C. §230.Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, No. 21-869 (U.S. 2023)Gonzalez v. Google, No. 21-1333 (U.S. 2023).Gonzalez v. Google, 21-1333, OT 2022-23, 1 (U.S. 2023). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2022/21-1333_f2ag.pdf.H.R. 7, 124th Leg. Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2022).Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, No. 21-1199 (U.S. 2023).Students for Fair Admissions v. the University of North Carolina, No. 27-707 (U.S. 2023).Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e et seq. Twitter v. Taamneh, No. 21-1496 (U.S. 2023). Cayce Myers, Ph.D., LL.M., J.D., APR is a professor and director of graduate studies at the Virginia Tech School of Communication.  He is the Legal Research Editor for the Institute for Public Relations.  He can be reached at mcmyers@vt.edu. ...

Nielsen examined the representation of disability-related themes, visuals, and topics in TV advertisements.Nearly 450,000 primetime ads on broadcast and cable TV were analyzed in February 2021.Key findings include:1.) 26% of Americans are living with a disability.— Only 1% of ads studied included representation of disability-related themes, visuals, or topics.2.) 3% of the $57 million spent on the inclusion of people with a disability and disability-related themes in February went to ads featuring disabled people or that were inclusive of disability themes in the ad.— 50% of the amount spent on disability-inclusive ads was from pharmaceuticals, healthcare treatments, devices, and similar ads.3.) The lack of representation in linear TV and advertising has led to an increase in disabled social media influencers and creators rewriting the narrative around the media’s presentation of disability. To learn more about disability communication read the IPR-Voya report, Disabilities in the Workplace: Culture, Communication, Support and InclusionRead the full report here ...

Axios HQ examined the best time to send an internal email in order to boost employee engagement. The company analyzed the average open rates of 8.7 million email deliveries over 215 different organizations between January 2022 – March 2023. Key findings include: 70% of employees preferred their employer send vital internal updates by email. The best days to send an email were Sunday (54% open rate) and Monday (54% open rate). Tuesday (52%) and Wednesday (52%) had the next highest open rates. Saturday (31%) had the lowest open rate. Internal emails that were sent from 3 a.m. – 6 a.m. had the highest open rate (70%) likely due to the fact that they are at the top of an employee’s inbox at the start of the workday. 12 a.m – 3 a.m. was the next best time, with a 65% open rate. Read the full report here ...

This research is provided by the IPR Measurement CommissionThe COVID-19 pandemic spurred a resurgence in employee communication. As previously in-office workers began logging on from coffee shops, vacation homes, and residences, communication leaders worried about company culture even as overall productivity exceeded expectations. A pertinent question, however, was tactical rather than strategic in nature:What means of communication were most effective not only for operational matters, but for strategic and cultural priorities?There are many examples of research seeking to determine the “right” way to communicate with employees to assure operational and strategic performance, and to support communication channels that enable strategic impact.O’Neil, Ewing, Smith, and Williams (2018) sought the opinion of senior internal communication professionals and scholars to determine standards for employee communication measurement. These scholars articulated a four-step process for measurement and evaluation in 2021. These steps are: Aligning communication and organizational objectives, identifying stakeholders and the strategy to engage them, measuring outputs, outtakes, outcomes and/or impacts as per the AMEC 2020 methodology, and finally evaluating and improving those measured results. They also examined relevant innovations in technology and digital channel measurement, encouraging professionals to push beyond surface-level metrics to measure behavior. Artificial Intelligence will no doubt present challenges, they note, particularly as regards chatbots and gaming where it already has a toehold.Ruck and Welch (2012) recount the long history of various means of measuring internal communication, most notably connecting communication tactics with employee preferences by topic, and the need of fostering identification with the organization to enhance employee engagement. They further expanded this research with Menara (2017) into the role of employee voice in business impact, with strong implications for selecting communication methods that support and promote that employee voice. With much research covering employee engagement, Ruck, et. al., narrow their focus to whether employees feel like they contribute to organizational performance. Regarding measurement, Ruck has a simple tip: “Avoid focusing on outputs such as page visits and look at the outcomes such as understanding and behavior change.” (Ruck 2015, para. 12).  Dortok (2006) examined internal communication generally and its impact on corporate reputation, finding that effective internal communication plans that include frequent measurement and focus on sharing business objectives result in a contribution to positive reputation. Instead of seeing IC and reputation as separate, they have a symbiotic relationship, Dortok observes, with positive reputation driving more effective communication, which then enhances reputation further. What sort of content encourages that reputational impact? Dortok recommends a blend of financial and nonfinancial business results as ideal, with an eye to tactics that allow for personal interaction. A word of caution: This research should be repeated as it is now about 20 years old!Internal social media, or enterprise social media (ESM), has been the focus of the work of several scholars. ESM includes tools such as Microsoft’s Teams and Yammer, Jive, Slack, and others. This category also includes employee apps like Firstup, TheEmployeeApp, and Staffbase. Current research does not closely differentiate among these products; some focus on the instant messaging realm and others on a more robust mobile first platform.The central idea is that tools that people use outside the enterprise could be employed as employee communication tools. Uptake of these resources, however, is very uneven, and there are pitfalls. Labban and Bizzi (2023) found a paradox where employees will enthusiastically use the social tools, but expend less effort on their work duties! Wu, Pitafi, A. H., Pitafi, S., & Ren (2021) saw a relationship between use of internal social (of which employee apps are a big part) and information overload. They suggested that organizations may need to train their employees to use such tools effectively.This researchWhat appears to be missing from the literature is a more general evaluation of employee perspectives on internal communication tools. To explore this, we added several questions to an omnibus survey by Researchscape International of 1,134 U.S. adults fielded from May 12-14, 2023. Our sub-sample of 563 full-time or part-time employees were asked questions about internal communication. Each employee worked at an organization with more than a single worker.The key findings were enlightening both for professionals and scholars: 1.) The overall perception of employee communication was moderately positive.2.) The most commonly used tool for employee communication was email (72%), followed by staff meetings (51%) and then, a distant third, messaging apps (27%).3.) In terms of overall satisfaction, fewer than two-thirds were satisfied with employee communication, and 4 out of 10 said the most prominent area of improvement was “content that helps me do my daily work more effectively.”4.) Broader, more strategic material, however, is far from irrelevant; about one-third said adding to their knowledge of the organization would also be impactful.  SO WHAT?1.) Ensure that email and staff meetings are properly supported and encouraged. They remain ubiquitous, though the level of satisfaction is higher for employee apps and intranet than for email and staff meetings. Improving the satisfaction level for such common tools should yield enhanced results.2.) Know your employees, organizations, and operations. Add and improve content regarding work performance to your mix. Help employees know the organization better and make content as relevant as possible to their areas of responsibility.3.) Measurement should reach across several data points, starting with usage of communication tools and satisfaction of employee communication, but not stopping there. Employees’ perception of usefulness and relevancy can be compared to performance factors to determine what influences are best at enhancing employee performance. TELL ME MORE!HOW CAN WE MAKE EMAIL MORE EFFECTIVE?It’s a hard balance between issuing enough reminders for action-oriented email and spamming your recipients. Our research suggests that employees may need three or even four reminders if they are expected to respond to an email. For informational emails that don’t require action, that would probably be way too many reminders.HOW CAN WE MAXIMIZE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT?The question is, rather, what do we want employees to DO when they are engaged? How about looking at advocacy instead? Our data show that the more satisfied employees are with internal communication, the more they advocate for their organization. Even people in the middle of the satisfaction scale are fairly likely to advocate publicly at a moderate rate. Try focusing on improving the perception of value of your communications, with an eye toward having employees become true brand ambassadors.IF EMPLOYEES ARE ONLY MODERATELY SATISFIED WITH CERTAIN CHANNELS, SHOULD WE STOP USING THEM?Our data shows that the types of communication that have moderate satisfaction rates are still valuable. For example, a physical bulletin board is rated highly by 61% of our respondents. Staff meetings are rated at 63%. That’s a tight gap! Plus, perhaps the physical bulletin board is more popular among employees who don’t sit at desks, or who work more independently. What is your strategy and how do these tools fit?INTERNAL SOCIAL: FAD, FOLLY OR FAB?Employee apps are one of the most popular tools among organizations that use them, but only about 20% of respondents said their organization uses them. It’s tempting to look at the 81% satisfaction rate among employees who use apps and immediately decide to run with them. There is indeed a strong relationship between use of the apps and overall satisfaction, but the relatively small number of users compels us to highlight the need for more evidence before our unqualified endorsement.CONCLUSIONAt this time, with this dataset, email is seen as the best tool for internal communicators, and the relatively easy means of measuring not only outputs like open rates and clicks-through, but downstream behavioral action makes it an easy choice. Determining the lag between distribution of information and intended action is an urgent need, as is measurement of the clarity of strategy, and its alignment with organizational objectives. Given the level of variability in industries, size of organization strategy and purpose of communication action, we need more research, especially within the enterprise.As much as all of us would like to have a singular, generalizable “truth” for strategy, tactics and measurement for internal communication – it probably doesn’t exist. Keep striving! REFERENCESDortok, A. (2006). A managerial look at the interaction between internal communication and corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(4), 322-338. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540258.Labban, A., and Bizzi, L. (2023). Communication via social media: How employees will paradoxically support the organization while putting less effort at work. International Journal of Business Communication. 60. (2). Pp. 487-511. Retrieved May 9, 2023, from https://doi-org.ezproxy.bgsu.edu/10.1177/23294884211005526Li Y, Pitafi AH, Li H. Investigating the factors of enterprise social media strain: The role of enterprise social media’s visibility as a moderator. PLoS One. 2022 Mar 8;17(3):e0264726. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264726. PMID: 35259183; PMCID: PMC8903258.Men, L. R., O’Neil, J., & Ewing, M. (2020). Examining the effects of internal social media usage on employee engagement. Public Relations Review, 46(2), 101880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101880 ...

This summary is provided by the IPR ESG and Purpose Research LibraryDr. CB Bhattacharya and Rob Jekielek analyzed whether employers were prompting employees to conduct business with sustainability in mind.Surveys of 1,056 managers were conducted in fall 2022 by The Harris Poll and the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Sustainable Business.Key findings include:1.) 36% of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement “My company wants to make a difference in people’s lives, not just make profits.”2.) 29% of respondents strongly agreed that their company has a clear business case for improving sustainability performance.— Top challenges for improving sustainability performance included short-term focus (43%), a lack of investor interest (43%), and leadership not believing in sustainability (43%).3.) 45% of employees indicated that they don’t know what actions to take to improve sustainability performance.— 45% identified a belief among employees that sustainability is someone else’s responsibility.4.) 24% of respondents strongly agreed that every business decision they make is viewed through the lens of sustainability.Read the full report here ...

Last month’s U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action from the college admissions process has companies re-evaluating their DEI programs and commitments and planning for possible long-term impacts. If future graduating classes are less diverse, the greatest effect could be on leadership pipelines.

This is an issue tha

Dr. Sylvia Chan-Olmsted and colleagues determined the definition of a “media brand” and explored consumer perceptions of media brands vs. other brands.An online survey of 300 German, South Korean, and American participants and qualitative surveys of 55 research assistants from Germany, South Korea, and the U.S. were conducted. Nine online interviews of media research experts were also conducted.Key findings include:— Consumers across the globe defined media brands as traditional media, digital entertainment, and social media.—- Specifically, consumers categorized television channel/network, radio, news, film, music, streaming, social media, print, outdoor ads, messenger service, and video chat as media.—- Gaming, hardware/software, online retailing, influencers and global tech brands were not perceived as “media” brands.— Media brands differed from other brands (termed as “regular brands” in the study) because other brands operate on a more transactional approach connected to a need for consumer persuasion.—- Conversely, media brands rely on continuous trust-building with consumers through content consumption and engagement with the brand.— The media channel being used (i.e., television news) had a significant impact on the consumers’ level of trust in the content being consumed.— When consumers trusted the content shown on a platform, they were also more likely to trust the platform as well.Find the original study here. ...