Morning Consult analyzed Gen Z’s consumption habits, preferred brands, platforms, and forms of entertainment.A study of 2,205 U.S. adults was conducted from February 17-19, 2023.Key findings include: — 56% of Gen Z respondents said they prefer to buy from companies that reflect their social values, compared to:—- 59% of Millennials —- 61% of Gen X—- 59% of Baby Boomers— YouTube (88%) was the most used platform by Gen Z, followed by Instagram (76%) and TikTok (68%).— To research a major news event, Gen Z respondents were most likely to use a Google search (39%) followed by TikTok (14%).— Gen Z consumers were most brand-loyal in the “personal electronics” category: only 26% said they “make an effort to try new brands” with electronics.Find the original study here. ...

Those of us who communicate for a living are in the business of influence. We shape the reputations of our organizations, the narratives coming from leaders’ mouths, and — critically — the stories we tell ourselves about who we are. But today, we seek influence in a media and information landscape of unprecedented complexity.One way for leaders to think about that landscape is as a network of influence. Your network is vastly larger than it was 10 years ago, and it has no clear boundaries. New voices can join at any time. Ideas flow continuously in all directions. You can’t control the narrative, and you often can’t predict the context in which your messages will land. You’re doing improv, and you have to read the room every minute.At Integral, the employee experience agency I founded five years ago this month, we have always argued that the most influential voices in any organization’s network are its employees.Employees agree.This month, as part of our ongoing partnership with the Harris Poll, we conducted a national survey of 1,200 employees to understand how they think about influence within their organizations. We asked both “who has influence?” and “who should have influence?”.The results were striking. We gave respondents a list of 16 constituencies and asked them which ones they believe have the most influence on their company’s actions. The group most often cited as influential was employees – ahead of customers, the board of directors, competitors, and shareholders: Next, we asked who should have influence on their company’s actions: While the top answers were similar, there were important differences. Far more respondents said employees should be influential than said employees are influential – 62% to 47%, the largest gap in our survey. Respondents also said customers should be more influential than they are (51% to 45%), while boards of directors and competitors should be less influential than they are: The results also underscored the fact that employees are a diverse public with needs and attitudes that vary by age, race/ethnicity, gender, political philosophy, and other factors.For example: Male employees are more likely than female employees to say that several groups should have influence over their company’s actions: the Board of Directors (29% vs. 18%), Shareholders (28% vs. 19%), and Distributors (18% vs. 11%)Black employees are far more likely than either Hispanic or white employees to cite racial inequality and related issues as something they would like to see their employer influence in society (38% vs. 17% and 12%, respectively.)Younger employees are more likely than employees ages 45+ to advocate for the influence of labor and trade unions (25%) professional affiliations/associations (24%), distributors (22%), media outlets (22%) and geographic communities (10%).  While there is a wealth of data to be found in our survey results – reach out if you want to learn more — the most important takeaway is that your employees are the leading voices in your network, and they want to be.Employees are your most important public. Listen to them. Understand them. Engage them in and enable a multidirectional dialogue. When they talk about your organization – on LinkedIn, Glassdoor, Fishbowl, or a dozen other channels – their voices will be the among the most trusted. And, not coincidentally, those engaged employees will be a huge driver of your business results. Ethan McCarty is the CEO of Integral, an award-winning Employee Experience Agency. He lectures at Columbia University in New York City and is a member of the Forbes Business Council. He currently is a member of the Institute for Public Relation’s Board of Trustees and is Director of the IPR Organizational Communication Research Center. ...

Download Full Article (PDF): Deconstructing: Artificial Intelligence RegulationThis research brief is provided by the IPR Digital Media Research Center Introduction Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been a disruptive force within the communication industry.  Regulations of this new technology have yet to keep pace with the technological development of generative AI.  However, within the United States, the President, Congress, federal agencies, state legislatures, and municipal governments have attempted to provide a framework to regulate AI.  These regulations attempt to strike a balance between allowing the technology to grow and guarding against issues of disinformation, discrimination, and privacy violations. This article examines the current trends in U.S. AI regulation pointing out the legal and regulatory philosophies that guiding early attempts to manage generative AI platforms.  The article concludes with suggestions for PR practitioners to navigate the evolving parameters of AI regulation.  ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: THE COMMUNICATION ISSUE OF THE 2020sThe power of generative artificial intelligence has sent both awe and fear for those with knowledge-based careers, such as public relations. Looking at the trade presses and seminars in the field, the issue of how do we use artificial intelligence (AI), how does AI help us with communication strategy, and how will AI potentially make public relations practitioners obsolete, are common questions. Generative AI’s disruption to communication is analogous to the creation of the internet. When the internet was put in public domain for use in 1993, there was trepidation by some organizations to become part of the online revolution. The beginnings of online growth saw some organizations rapidly adopt the new technology, while others were more cautious. By the late 1990s the proliferation of the internet led to the dot com bubble and the eventual crash of those companies in the early 2000s. From that event, regulation of the internet proliferated in the 2000s, and led to the current status we operate in today.The internet’s evolution is illustrative of how AI regulation is likely to develop. The technology is rapidly evolving and there is uncertainty in how it will be implemented. Managers and communicators share a mutual interest and skepticism of the real benefit of AI. This is also accelerated by the democratization of AI tools. Utilizing machine learning and generative AI does not necessarily require custom software. And barriers to AI use, such as hardware, software, machine learning models, data, and expertise data scientists, are more available with costs trending downward for organizations. That means that AI as a tool is gaining more traction in a variety of work settings, large and small.This situation presents a difficult position for lawmakers and industry organizations who are seeking to regulate generative AI in this early phase. Too much regulation can stifle the growth of an important new technology. No regulations would potentially facilitate a free-for-all development of generative AI that can result in unintended adverse impacts on user privacy, increase of discrimination, and the loss of intellectual property. This article examines existing and proposed U.S. laws and regulations on AI and provides suggestions for how professional communicators practicing in the U.S. can navigate this fast-paced and evolving technology.What Does This Mean for U.S. Based PR Practitioners?Giving public relations practitioners precise measures for navigating their communication work is difficult given the state of flux of AI regulation. At this stage the legal system is porting out where the problem points are in AI, with privacy, discrimination, and disinformation being major areas of concern. Going forward, PR practitioners should be aware of three major issues.1. EXPECT REGULATORY CHANGE FROM MULTIPLE LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.U.S. law is in a state of flux, and that means that as the technology of AI evolves so will the law. Federal agency law is likely to address the particular issues of AI in communication, so practitioners should pay close attention to FTC regulations in the area. That agency is concerned over many of the topical issues in communication, namely disinformation. However, U.S.-based practitioners increasingly communicate in a global marketplace, which may have laws that differ to that in the U.S. For instance, the European Union GDPR regulates data privacy, which has major impact for the construction of AI platforms. Understanding the evolving landscape of AI regulation means looking at U.S. federal, state, and local law, but is also requires a global perspective.2. COMBATTING DISCRIMINATION AND FAKE NEWS ARE MAJOR DRIVERS OF REGULATION.AI regulation has increasingly focused on discrimination and false information. At the basis of artificial intelligence is human knowledge. That knowledge has been developed over thousands of years and contains inaccuracies, biases, and other disinformation that can be replicated by AI. The bottom line is AI is only as good as the data it uses to generate content, so it is important for professional communicators to be wary of the accuracy of any exclusively generated AI content. As a business, public relations firms and in-house functions have a unique opportunity to discuss bias and accuracy of information with clients and employers, because so much of the law is rooted in transparency. PR professionals have worked with issues of organizational transparency since the dawn of corporate PR, so regulations, like that in New York City, that mandates disclosure of algorithm use and potential bias lends itself well to the transparent practices of communication.3. PR PROFESSIONALS NEED TO DEVELOP AN ORGANIZATIONAL OR INDUSTRY STANDARD TO DEAL WITH EVOLVING AI.AI technology will evolve faster than the laws that regulate it. Because of that, public relations professionals will need to establish professional standards and norms for AI use. Those conversations need to happen now, and need to continue to happen as AI’s place in the field becomes more solidified. This conversation should include frank discussions around ethics, organizational reputation, transparency, and business goals. Ethical guides for industry provide a framework for difficult discussions about implementing AI. However, these discussions must consider both the deliberate and unintended consequences of AI use. These conversations may also include industry standards in niche subfields. For example, AI guidelines have already been establishedin some sectors, such as in engineering and healthcare. If a professional is practicing in one of these areas, these standards can serve as a guidepost for communications as well.For more information, download the full report HERE. Cayce Myers, Ph.D., LL.M., J.D., APR is the Legal Research Editor for the Institute for Public Relations.  He is the Director of Graduate Studies and Associate Professor at the Virginia Tech School of Communication. ...

This summary is provided by the IPR Organizational Communication Research Center based on the original study. To learn more about this topic from Dr. Vercic, register for the IPR Master Class on Employee Engagement.Dr. Verčič and Dr. Špoljarić investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on employees’ perceptions of their employers and changes in internal communication practices.A survey of 3,457 employees was conducted. 1,805 participants completed the survey from May to October 2019 and 1,652 participants completed the survey from October 2020 to February 2021.Key findings include:1.) Specific aspects of internal communication were more significant during a crisis, such as satisfaction with information about the organization and the communication climate.— Other aspects including satisfaction with feedback, informal communication, and quality of communication media, became less important.2.) Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, satisfaction with information about the organization and the communication climate played significant roles in determining employer attractiveness.3.) Horizontal communication emerged as a critical factor for internal employer attractiveness, both prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.Find the original study here. ...

This blog is provided by the IPR Behavioral Insights Research Center. Anyone working in public relations or corporate communication knows that words matter. Behavioral scientists have amassed considerable evidence that even small wording changes can sometimes have surprisingly large effects on people’s attitudes, judgments, and behaviors. Some of this work has focused on wording that contains “logically” equivalent phrasing but is either framed positively or negatively. For example, researchers have shown that people are less likely to go under the knife if the potential outcome of a surgery is framed in terms of failure (e.g., a 1% mortality rate) rather than success (e.g., a 99% chance of survival).Semantically similar phrasing can also affect decision making. One of the best-known examples of this bias comes from an experiment in which individuals who viewed an automobile accident were asked to judge the speed of the cars when they either “smashed,” “collided,” “bumped,” “contacted,” or “hit” one another. Using “smashed” in the question led to higher speed estimates than any of the other verbs, an intriguing result that shows how leading questions can subtly shape the answers of witnesses in a trial.In health communications, the labels that drug companies use to describe their medications can also affect how people respond. As an example, a recent paper found that when a drug was described as preventing a health problem rather than curing a problem, consumers displayed a stronger preference for the drug to be natural and sustainable. On the other hand, when the drug was described as curative (vs. preventative), consumers cared more about the drug’s potency and effectiveness.In a new research article forthcoming in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, I find evidence of another wording effect that Marketing and Communications leaders who work in health care (including pharmaceuticals and biotech) should know about. Specifically, I show that when a health treatment (e.g., a medication or drug) is described as a cure, it fundamentally changes individuals’ expectations about how the treatment will be priced.Because a drug that claims to cure a disease or illness seems superior to a drug that does not make such a strong claim, you might think that people would tolerate higher prices for cures than non-cures. This is consistent with the principle of “value-based” pricing: in general, people are willing to pay more for products or services that are more effective and therefore provide greater value.But that’s not what I found! Instead, in the domain of health care, I provide robust evidence of a cure effect in which individuals prefer lower price levels for cures (vs. non-cures) and consider high prices to be especially unfair. This effect persists when companies describe their treatment by directly using the word “cure” or indirectly using language that merely suggests it is a cure (e.g., “100% effective,” “eliminates disease”).Why does the cure effect occur? My research shows that when thinking about health treatments, people tend to focus on communal value rather than the traditional market value that underlies value-based pricing. In other words, because health care naturally lends itself to thinking about close relationships with others, individuals seek the fair and just distribution of outcomes. People are especially concerned about communal value when thinking about cures because they seem to be so effective and can presumably have an outsized effect on people’s well-being (e.g., cures can save lives). As a result, individuals demand lower prices for cures so that they can be more universally accessed.The cure effect has important managerial and public policy implications, which can be highlighted by the cautionary tale of the biotechnology company, Gilead Sciences. Nearly a decade ago, when launching its new hepatitis C drugs, Sovaldi and Harvoni, Gilead loudly trumpeted that the drugs were cures and therefore warranted their exorbitant $1,000-per-pill price tag. This communications approach, which aligns with a value-based pricing model, fell flat in the court of public opinion. Patients and consumer watchdog organizations alike rose up against Gilead, deriding the company for engaging in unlawful price gouging. An inquiry was even opened to assess whether Gilead had violated consumer protection laws. In hindsight, Gilead did itself no favors by claiming that its drugs were cures that could eliminate the hepatitis C virus. A more restrained communications approach would have likely sparked much less consumer outrage.  Taking a public policy perspective, the current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines related to medication labels give drug manufacturers and marketers considerable flexibility in their word choices on product labels and advertisements. Because health treatments that claim to be cures are judged differently than non-cures—irrespective of whether this claim is accurate or inaccurate—it is imperative that regulatory agencies such as the FDA ensure that labels that appear on health treatments are truthful. Even if certain word pairs are accepted and considered interchangeable by the FDA or other regulatory agencies, they may be semantically different in the minds of individuals. My research shows that the mere substitution of one label for another can exert substantial influence on people’s judgments and behaviors that are both societally consequential and managerially relevant, such as insistence on universal drug access, price preferences, and price fairness judgments.References:Isaac, M. (2023). cure effect: Individuals demand universal access for health treatments that claim to eliminate disease symptoms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, forthcoming.Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585-589. Dr. Mathew Isaac is the chair of business administration at Albers School of Business and Economics at Seattle University. He is a marketing professor and senior advisor at Seattle University. Dr. Isaac is also a member of the IPR Behavioral Insights Research Center. ...

This blog is provided by the IPR Organizational Communication Research Center.My agency conducts the Integral Employee Activation Index study annually with The Harris Poll to understand employee mindset and behaviors. We just did a pulse check and the results stunned me. Employees’ expectations about the issues their employer takes a stand on changed drastically.The study gathers input from employed individuals across the United States from a wide variety of industries, career levels, genders, generations, and racial/ethnic backgrounds. Results represent employee attitudes about company values, differences between managers and non-managers, digital transformation, politics in the workplace, and more. In a nutshell, our study is somewhere between a peek into the minds and behaviors of a workforce and a predictor for what will resonate with the working public.In the study, we explore the societal and political issues employees believe are most important for their employer to make a difference on. For the past two years “Employees’ good health and well-being” and “Job creation” topped the list, followed variously by racial and gender inequity, data privacy, income inequality, and universal access to healthcare. We’ve found that when employee values align with organizational priorities all kinds of positive activities occur.  And when they don’t? Employees are more likely to take action against their employers.In April, we conducted a study of 1,200 employees across the country. We wanted to understand if or how employee priorities shifted since we conducted the 2022 survey. What we found changed our minds. And our assumptions. Why? This April, gun violence, housing issues, and poverty displaced other issues and rocketed into the top five issues. While we can’t prove causality, we see a high correlation between the responses to our study and what was going on in the world. Housing affordability is way down. Mass shooting deaths year-to-date are way up. Concern about COVID-19 is somewhat diminished. The workplace reflects our culture. We know that. And make no mistake: gun violence, poverty and housing are workplace issues that employers want employers to make a difference on. Regardless of your personal stance on these issues, employees want their company to do something. Why? Because they see these as salient to their relationship with their employer. It’s about ensuring employee safety and wellness and bringing meaning to day-to-day work. Top ten: Which issues should your employer make a difference on? So what are you going to do about gun violence? The BBC reports that the number of mass shootings has gone up significantly in recent years, citing statistics from the Gun Violence Archive. Every day, 321 people are shot in the United States, according to Brady United. Companies are not exempt from gun violence. Everytown for Gun Safety* reflects that since 1999 there have been nearly four times as many mass shootings in the workplace as there have been in schools. Fifty-eight percent of American adults or someone they care for have experienced gun violence in their lifetime, meaning that it is highly likely our colleagues, employees, and customers have experienced gun violence. I wrote a blog post back in June 2022 on Second Amendment Rights vs. Gun Violence: Workplace Polarization, I stressed that companies need to understand what their employees care about and value.There are ways for your organization to get involved if you’re interested in finding ways to protect your employees and customers or promoting gun safety through business practices. As an example, in 2016, Levi Strauss & Co. prohibited consumers from bringing guns into their stores. In January 2019, CEO Chip Bergh joined other CEOs in support of H.R. 8 to require background checks on all gun sales.Additionally impacting employees and businesses, communities experiencing gun violence are less likely to be hubs for economic growth and commerce, and face lower property values, fewer business startups and loss of jobs. So what are you going to do about housing and poverty?Another issue facing employees, your people, is housing. Stable, safe, and secure housing is fundamental to employees’ ability to perform their roles well. The post-pandemic housing economy is negatively impacting people across the country. The last year saw a sizzling housing market marked by lower than normal inventory, fast-selling homes, and steadily increasing property prices that favor sellers, not buyers. What might this mean for your employees? Perhaps organizations provide a cost of living adjustment for certain segments of your employee population to ensure that they have stable housing? With employee frustration over their pay, Amazon is going to let employees pledge stock for home loans. Another consideration is the Employer Assisted Housing (EAH) down payment assistance program created by Fannie Mae in 1991. The EAH can help companies cut employee turnover in half and save as much money as it costs. It works by providing qualified employees’ funds for downpayment and closing costs as a loan that is forgiven over a period of time, as long as the recipient stays with the employer. This may also have the added benefit of ameliorating the racial homeownership gap.The Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) details that some employers are starting to offer home-buying support benefits, which assists workers to reach their homeownership dreams. This, in turn, bolsters recruiting, hiring, and retention of employees. Something employees indicate they care about. When you develop your employer value proposition, it’s time to go far further than decent dental and vision benefits!What we learned & what we can doHeadlines drive your workplace experience because they are employee experience issues. The workplace experience is where employees have a societal experience. Organizations have the power to influence change — through content, interactions, policies, and directing the powerful energy of capital with purposeful strategic intent. When we consider employee experience broadly, we can impact important societal issues. And it’s not all upside because inaction and inattention comes with the risk of moral hazard and losing your best people to companies making a difference. Find the original blog post here. Ethan McCarty is the CEO of Integral, an award-winning Employee Experience Agency. He lectures at Columbia University in New York City and is a member of the Forbes Business Council. He currently is a member of the Institute for Public Relation’s Board of Trustees and is Director of the IPR Organizational Communication Research Center. ...

This whitepaper is provided by the IPR Measurement CommissionFull PDF: Identifying and Prioritizing Stakeholders for Public RelationsStakeholder management is fundamental to the practice of public relations. This paper builds on the seminal 2006 paper by Professor Brad Rawlins, Prioritizing Stakeholders for Public Relations. It provides practitioners’ perspectives on defining stakeholders in corporate and non-profit settings, in addition to applying the prioritization models presented in Professor Rawlins’ paper to a case study. Marianne Eisenmann is a former communications research consultant and past member of the IPR Measurement Commission.  John Gilfeather is President at John Gilfeather & Associates and is a past member of the IPR Measurement Commission. ...

IPR is featuring some of the many AAPI pioneers who impacted the field of public relations in celebration of AAPI Heritage Month.Gobind Behari Lal was born in Delhi, India, in 1889. After relocating to California in 1912, Lal earned a journalism degree from the University of California, Berkeley, where he developed a passion for science communication.Lal began his career in 1925 as a correspondent for the San Francisco Examiner. His ability to explain complex scientific concepts to the general public led him to be appointed the science editor of the San Francisco Examiner.In 1927, Lal began working for the Scripps Instutiton of Oceanography. His ability to blend storytelling with scientific accuracy helped advance the field of science journalism. In 1934, he helped form the National Association of Science Writers. Lal understood the value of scientific writing and informed the public about the dangers of centering scientific research around war efforts. Lal joined the United Press in 1937 as a science editor and received the Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on contemporary advancements in science. He was the first Indian-American to receive this award and remained a trusted leader in science communication over the next two decades. In addition, Lal was a civil rights advocate who fought against racial discrimination in the U.S. and for India’s independence. Lal’s efforts on behalf of India’s independence earned him the Padma Bushar honor in 1969 and the Tamra Patra in 1973. He died in 1982.References:https://www.sciencebuff.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/AsianAmer_Month_web.pdfhttps://www.thejuggernaut.com/kym-gobind-behari-lalhttps://www.nytimes.com/1982/04/03/obituaries/gobind-behari-lal-reporter-shared-pulitzer-prize-in-1937.html ...

This summary is provided by the IPR Organizational Communication Research Center Dr. Moonhee Cho, Dr. Sifan Xu, and Dr. Brandon Boatwright researched the factors associated with CEO advocacy and how these factors influence the sense of belonging amongst employees. CEO advocacy occurs when an organization’s top executive embraces or participates in political and social issues. An online survey of 429 U.S. employees was conducted in March, 2020.Key findings include:— Employees felt a greater sense of belonging when their values aligned with the values of the CEO.— When employees’ values aligned with leadership at an average level or below, they perceived the CEO’s views to be less representative of the organization as a whole.— When employees’ values were highly aligned with those of the CEO, these employees still felt a greater sense of belonging to the organization even when they didn’t think the CEO’s views were representative of the organization as a whole.— Greater employee accessibility to information about CEO advocacy slightly magnified the positive effects of their value alignment with the CEO.Find the original report here. ...

This blog is provided by the IPR Behavioral Research Insight Center.As he always does, Chris Graves from Ogilvy’s Center for Behavioral Science, gave an inspiring, albeit brief lecture on the development of a “Sensemaking Genome” for stakeholders.  No longer, admonished Graves, should we slice and dice our stakeholders by common demographics but elevate our analyses to the underlying psychological make-up of our publics.Graves, with his global behavioral science group at Ogilvy, has developed a proprietary system to discern types. This new “genome” helps understand and target stakeholders. It is based on an integration of accepted and peer-reviewed behavioral science studies and composed of three areas: 1) personality trait science (not Myers-Briggs); 2) cognitive styles; 3) identity-linked worldviews.For personality traits, they use the “Big Five” OCEAN factors:  An individual’s level – low or high — of “openness to experience” (think King Charles vs. Sir Richard Branson), “conscientiousness” (think Ron Weasley vs. Hermione Granger), “extraversion” (think Bruce Wayne’s Batman vs Tony Stark’s Ironman), “agreeableness” (think Game of Thrones’ Cersei vs. Oprah) and “neuroticism” (think Star Wars’ Yoda vs. C3PO).  They also include an array of “cognitive styles” (how one thinks) and “identity/cultural cognition” (one’s worldview tied to a social tribe) to create a “genome” of type which can better target stakeholders with more effective messaging, delivery systems, and influencers.”  This pioneering approach has now won six global awards. Credit: Chris Graves, OgilvyReflecting on Graves’s content, three key points were made by the merry little panel that followed.  Made up of Dr. Terry Flynn, Academic Director at McMaster-Syracuse University, Dave Scholz, Chief Strategy Officer, Leger and Director of the IPR Behavioral Insights Research Center, and myself, the discussion focused on three areas for practice and research:1)    When conducting preliminary (and ongoing) research on your stakeholders, explore the “biases” they bring to your subject matter rather than the typical demographic derivatives. Understand past experiences, influences, leanings (political and otherwise) so that barriers and affinities toward behavior change can be more precisely targeted.2)    Become an aficionado of behavioral science theory and apply them to your strategies from the start. For instance:  o   If a “structural” bias is poverty which restricts transportation, then planning events where stakeholders must come to you rather than you going to them would alter tactics, messaging, and more.   https://publicwise.org/publication/social-structural-barriers-to-voting/o   If a “psychological” bias is a past history of distrust of your subject for a variety of reasons, then breaking down behavior change into small, digestible bites that are encouraged by trusted influencers and communities might be more effective.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7808310/3)    Build programs with the goal of changing behavior rather than creating awareness, modifying opinions or attitudes. This single shift can lead to big results as behaviors are much easier to measure as results (or lack thereof) are easier to see. Start with small goals (think about a continuum of small behavior changes that can lead to bigger changes later) and work on those. Then as you see results — or don’t and therefore need to apply different behavioral insights — you will increase your expertise.  (Note: truly this is something we are doing every day with our families, colleagues, and staff, you just may not realize it!) Stacey Smith is Senior Counsel and Partner at Jackson, Jackson & Wagner. She is also a longtime member of the IPR Behavioral Insights Research Center and the Commission on PR Education (CPRE). ...