Sunday Independent (Ireland)

Tech firms rush to sloganise the trauma unleashed in US

- ADRIAN WECKLER

WHY do big tech companies feel so compelled to publish a position on major societal issues? Unless they have something really meaningful and specific to say, it feels a lot like soulless, backside-covering waffle.

There are some exceptions. Facebook, Twitter and Google are central to the way informatio­n gets out. They are therefore scrutinise­d closely on their policies. They can’t avoid putting out statements.

But looking down through the ranks of the thousands of corporate responses to the US police killing of George Floyd, it gets a little too close to a branding boxticking exercise.

Some become so bland that you wonder why, other than for misconceiv­ed marketing benefits, they’re released.

Consider the response of Marc Allera, chief executive of BT’s consumer division (mainly its large mobile operator, EE).

“Everyone at BT, EE and Plusnet stands in solidarity with our colleagues, customers, and the communitie­s in which we live and work.” Gutsy, eh?

“I care that all of our colleagues and customers feel safe and are treated with dignity, compassion and respect. It’s critical that we continue to support each other and listen to the voices that need to be heard. We’re building a culture at BT that recognises the importance of giving people a voice. We know that having people from all walks of life makes us stronger together. But we also know there is always more that we can do. Racism has no place at BT, and no place in the world.”

I’m open to the accusation of being cynical, but why would a company release such a statement? Is a more anodyne, less passionate, non-committal response to a searing global issue possible? Other than the word ‘racism’ in the last line, this could almost be about anything. Why release a statement at all? BT isn’t alone.

Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, not always the most politic tech leader when it comes to addressing issues of inequality, clumsily reached for a business-efficacy rationale in (sort of ) condemning the Floyd killing without actually mentioning it.

“Our identity, our very existence is rooted in empowering everyone on

the planet,” he wrote on LinkedIn. “So, therefore, it’s incumbent upon us to use our platforms, our resources, to drive that systemic change, right? That’s the real challenge here. It’s not just any one incident, but it’s all the things that have led to the incident that absolutely need to change.”

It’s curious that hundreds of the biggest brands now routinely treat societal strife as a comms and marketing issue, with campaigns ready to go at the drop of a hat.

Within hours of George Floyd’s killing by Minnesota police, Nike had digital slogans ready for its social media feeds: “For once, don’t do it.” This morphed into: “Don’t pretend there’s not a problem in America.” To be clear, this is often applauded. Marketers know that an effective, clever slogan that catches the imaginatio­n of the moment is rewarded with millions of likes, retweets, reposts and shares. The upside is tantalisin­g.

The problem with a case like the George Floyd killing, or racism in general, is that companies’ own records on hiring, promotion or accessibil­ity usually fall down pretty badly when scrutinise­d.

This is different to environmen­talism, where companies can sometimes point to demonstrab­le improvemen­ts in product, supply chain and corporate culture. On this issue, authentici­ty is a problem and consumers know it. But there may be other reasons behind such predictabl­e, universal PR responses.

Talk to any corporate communicat­ions executive and it won’t be long until they bring up the issue of internal staff morale. Corporate leaders are now expected to be seen to be more socially conscious and engaged. It’s not just that they may have a number of employees directly affected. The cohort of younger workers, in particular, repeatedly say that they want their bosses to take positions on some of the biggest social justice or global issues of the day.

This is when you get responses like that of BT’s Allera or Microsoft’s Nadella: tokenistic and formulaic.

To be fair, some chief executives — in and out of tech — do feel personally strongly about these issues. The boss of the most important division of Amazon, Amazon Web Services’ Andy Jassy, pulled no punches on his own Twitter account.

“What will it take for us to refuse to accept these unjust killings of black people? How many people must die, how many generation­s must endure, how much eyewitness video is required? What else do we need? We need better than what we’re getting from courts and political leaders.”

Fair enough. Except many immediatel­y pointed out that Amazon sells facial recognitio­n technology to the same police forces.

As noted in last week’s column, Twitter has arguably taken the biggest stand, censuring one of Donald Trump’s tweets with a fact-check advisory notice. In recent days, it appears to have gone one step further: a Twitter search for the word “racist” returns his account at the top of the list. But otherwise, the response to the killing of a black man in Minnesota and to all of the police brutality that followed — matched in some instances by outright thuggery from a few protesters — has been reminiscen­t of an advertisin­g machine. Coming up with slogans and responses is now part of the cost of doing business.

■ There’s an interestin­g tension now on the issue of ubiquitous smartphone­s. So often categorise­d as dystopian and dangerous, none of the American brutality witnessed in recent days would be in the public domain without them.

 ??  ?? George Floyd’s death sparked protests
George Floyd’s death sparked protests
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Ireland