Margot Edelman - Trust This!
Margot Edelman stops by The Business Brew to discuss corporate communications as well as the Edelman Trust Barometer (see https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2021-01/2021-edelman-trust-barometer.pdf). Edelman is an award-winning global public relations consultancy firm. Key findings from the 2021 Trust Barometer are as follows:
- Trust in business increased in 17 of 27 countries
- Trust is technology declined a substantial amount
- People turned to their employer for facts/trust
- There was a fairly substantial reduction in trust in China
- Social leaders are not trusted to do what is "right"
We hope you find this conversation educational and entertaining.
Margot Edelman is the General Manger of Edelman’s Bay Area Hub, where she leads a team of skilled practitioners and innovators in Edelman’s San Francisco and Sacramento offices as they deliver industry-leading communications strategies that build brand trust and visibility. Her clients range from private equity and venture capital firms to technology companies and well-known individuals.
Before becoming General Manager, Margot led the Bay Area Tech team, advising executives and business leaders in Silicon Valley. Prior to moving to California, Margot led the firm’s Research and Insights group in New York. Margot is a regular contributor to Edelman’s Annual Trust Barometer and host of the monthly “Meet the Press” series for Edelman, which features speakers from the FT, Bloomberg, NYT, and other top-tier media outlets.
Margot is a graduate of Harvard Business School and Harvard University.
This episode is brought to you by Koyfin, one of the fastest-growing platforms for financial data and analytics to research stocks and understand market trends. Check out Koyfin.com to see what a Bloomberg-lite, with tons of high-quality fundamental data and a powerful graph engine looks like.
Album art photo taken by Mike Ando.
Thank you to Mathew Passy for the podcast production. You can find Mathew at @MathewPassy on Twitter or at thepodcastconsultant.com
+ Transcript
Bill: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to The Business Brew. I'm your host, Bill Brewster. This episode is brought to you by Koyfin. Koyfin displays financial information simply and elegantly. Koyfin is one of the fastest growing platforms for financial data and analytics to research stocks and understand market trends. I discovered them, thanks to their very passionate user base, many of which are my friends. I hope that all of you are using it by now. If you do use it, then you no longer need to just imagine a Bloomberg-lite with tons of high-quality fundamental data, a powerful graph engine that can show it all clearly, and a user interface that is super slick, and doesn't look like it was built in the 1990s. Instead of imagining it, now, you're dreaming about it. It's that slick.
If you're an individual investor, research analyst, portfolio manager, or financial advisor who hasn't checked Koyfin out, go do it right now. You're not going to regret it. Sign up for free at koyfin.com. That's K-O-Y-F-I-N dotcom. This episode features Margot Edelman. She is the General Manager of Edelman's Bay Area Hub, where she leads a team of practitioners and innovators in Edelman, San Francisco and Sacramento offices. Edelman delivers industry leading communication strategies that build brand trust and visibility. They are a award winning global public relations consultancy firm. I really enjoyed speaking to Margot. A lot of our conversation centers around Edelman's Trust Barometer, which they release annually. I found the conclusions of the Trust Barometer to be very, very interesting, and I'm going to drop a link to the Trust Barometer in the show notes. I would highly encourage everybody to take a look at the Trust Barometer before they listen to this episode, so that they can have some sense of what Margot and I are talking about. Don't think any disclaimers are needed for this show. As always, though, do your own due diligence, and I hope, you all enjoy this one. So, Margot, how you doing today?
Margot: I'm good. How are you? Excited to be chatting.
Bill: I am very well. Yeah, as I told you, before we were on the air, I chatted with our mutual friend, Oren Falkowitz, friend of the pod.
Margot: [laughs]
Bill: One of the early guests. So, that made my day a little bit better. I'm always happy to chat with him. He recommended that we talk, and he was very, very excited that we were recording this. Do you mind giving people a little bit of a background on yourself, and what you do, how you came into it, whatnot, and we'll take the conversation from there?
Margot: Yeah, I'm happy to. I lead the office for Edelman, which is the world's largest PR firm out in the Bay Area. I've been out in the Bay for over six years now, and it's no coincidence that my last name is the same as the name of the company. My grandfather started the business actually in the early 1950s. My dad runs it. So, I'm actually the third generation in the company. And by this point, lead a team of nearly 200 out in San Francisco focused mainly on technology companies, but we also work with healthcare companies, financial services, etc., and very excited to be here to talk a little bit about what it's like to work in a family business, a little bit about communications, and then also a little bit about Edelman's signature piece of IP called the Trust Barometer, and why we do it, and the impact on communications, and the industry at large that it's had.
Bill: Well, I appreciate you taking the time. I can't imagine that it's easy to carve out time after running teams that large and I thank you for stopping by.
Margot: Yeah, the key thing is to have good people working with you. So, you are kind of, "Okay, you know, everything's taken care of," because you can rely on people with you to help make sure everything's going fine. [giggles]
Bill: I think what you do is really, really interesting. I found you, Oren, obviously talked about the trust index. Do you mind talking about some of the origins of that, when it started, and what you all were thinking when you came up with it and whatnot?
Margot: Yeah, sure. It started in the early 2000s. I think, we've actually been doing it for over 20 years now. I was still in school at that point, and not yet working in the business. But I think the reason it started was because actually, my father who started it. Richard noticed that there were four key institutions that seem to be the most important in terms of the landscape of influence in the communications world. That was media, government, business, and NGOs. So, he basically was like, "We should actually look at trust among these four key institutions and actually study this not just in the US, but in key markets around the world to understand what is the level of trust in these four key institutions." Then got results that year. Then the really interesting thing is, we just kept doing it over time. So, what ends up being a longitudinal data that really shows what's going on in the state of the world in that moment. So, for example, if you look at 2008, 2009 during the financial crisis, obviously, there is a massive drop in trust in business, and in particular, drop-in trust in the financial services sector, specifically. No surprise, again, because of what was going on in the world, which is, you have Lehman Brothers failing, you have bailout of the large banks by government, what's seen in the data is very much a reflection of what's going on in the world.
Just this past year, what was interesting is that there was actually a rise in trust in government actually coinciding with the pandemic, although, it's now since fallen a bit just because really, government stepped in and played a key role in making sure that people still had jobs, people had food that the world kept going despite COVID. And then also, if you look more at trust in different industries, trust in the tech sector actually fell significantly, which is also interesting showing the reckoning around tech and people's trust in the industry plummeting in recent years as well. So, again, the data really reflects what's going on in the world and looking at it in aggregate over 20 years is a very interesting reflection of the rise and fall in these four key different institutions.
Bill: Yeah, it's striking how much trust there has been in tech traditionally. Tech has really benefited from a lot of trust, which is not what my perception would be based on the headlines, and who's getting called into Congress. But as you noted, the trust is declining a little bit, right?
Margot: Yes, exactly. I think the key thing is, Tech has gone from having this halo around it. The iPhone that allows me to order my Uber, that allows me to order my food, it's my computer, it's all these things that make my life better to tech as something that's maybe a little bit more scary. Like Facebook now has all of my data, Google knows all of my search history, my phone knows where I go. So, it's gone from something that helps me in my day-to-day that's something that people are a little bit more worried about in terms of privacy and security, and nowhere is that more, I think obvious that in social media there I think trust in social media was in like the mid-30s, it was extremely low. So, trust in social media, which I know is different than tech, but I think it's a reflection of the mistrust in certain parts of the technology industry.
Bill: Yeah. I was shocked to see trust in search engines in the mid-50s.
Margot: I agree with you. I think it's a little bit of people just generally don't necessarily believe what they read in the media, and I think search as part of that.
Bill: It's just odd, because if I don't trust something that I read in the media, I go directly to Google.
Margot: Search. Yeah, sure. It's true totally.
Margot: [laughs] So, if we're getting to a point where people don't trust what they're searching for, then what in the world-- how do you even find information, and I'm friends with a man named, Jim O'Shaughnessy and he's got this theory that we're approaching the Shannon's limit of, there's just so much information that our brains can't even handle it, and figuring out where to turn for the information that you can trust is certainly something to ponder. I think, it's interesting that it appears as though people seem to be turning to their employer based on the previous study that you did in 2020, right? That they were [crosstalk]
Margot: Yeah, people trust information from their employer. The employer has become the new source of news and the truth for people which is extremely interesting, and an at once an opportunity for business and for companies, and at the same time, I think a little scary the fact that people are not trusting outside sources they're going to their employer instead, something else that's interesting is the Democrat-Republican divide. The Democrats do trust the media and Republicans don't, or people who are Trump voters don't trust the media, and Biden voters do. So, a lot of this is also falling along political lines as well.
Bill: Yeah.
Margot: Perhaps, not surprisingly. [giggles]
Bill: Yeah, for sure. I think that that was going on for a while. The election, it seems like exploded the partisan divide among who trusts what. It seems like that was a really big event.
Margot: I don't know if the election made it explode. I think this has been something that's been gone-
Bill: Festering.
Margot: -for a while and maybe it was just brought further out by the election, but you can definitely see sort of, people who trust media, liberal. People who don't, generally conservative.
Bill: Yeah. I do think that neither and when I say sides, I'm just going to for lack of a better term, say CNN and Fox, and reduce it a little bit to television. Neither side did a very good job remaining down the middle during the Trump years. I wonder how much of the distrust in media is driven by a profit incentive of the media companies to drive clicks, and more generally, as the dissemination of information, and attention expands and explodes into different sources of information, what incentives that creates to create clicks is something that I spend a fair amount of my time as someone that runs a podcast and would probably be better off having super bearish guests on for instance, they're really good for ratings.
Margot: Yeah, totally.
Bill: And I kind of wonder how that all intertwines.
Margot: Yeah, I know. It's a really good point. People now are speaking in extremes as a way to get clicks and as a way to get people to watch their show, read their content. So, you're totally right. I think if you look at the news media, it's becoming more that way, too. If you read the editorial sections of the New York Times, it's become incredibly liberal, and I think maybe 10 years ago, it wasn't quite as extreme in that way. So, I think this is affecting not just more fringe commentators, but also publications that are a mainstay of the news today.
Bill: Yeah. I think it's not unfair to say that whether it's AOC, whether it's Trump, whatever the notion of saying things that are maybe somewhat inflammatory as a strategy has been something that I think politicians have embraced, and maybe it's because I'm paying more attention or maybe not, I don't know. But it's been interesting to watch, and I can understand why a natural progression towards less trust would be the outcome of that.
Margot: Yeah, I agree. I do think the election of Biden versus Trump was maybe a vote towards the middle, but at least in terms of news and in terms of Congress, it doesn't necessarily seem like that's-- Yes, there's Biden, but then there's also so much extremism on the other sides.
Bill: So, when people are turning to their employer as a source of information, it seems to be big, meaningful information, right? Thoughts on vaccines. How is the CEOs role changed in today's world and what do brands or businesses need to think about from a messaging standpoint, both internally and externally to help, I guess, facilitate trust for lack of a better term?
Margot: Yeah, no, that's a great question. Well, first, actually, what's interesting is that the CEO is actually not the most trusted spokesperson for a business. So, the most trusted spokesperson is actually a technical expert, which is interesting. So, as the company is thinking about who should be speaking about it, of course, the CEO needs to be out in front and speaking. But you also need to have a chorus of voices including regular employees, people like myself, a technical expert, all of those folks are highly trusted spokespeople versus the CEO. Then, what's interesting is for the CEO, they're no longer expected just to talk, be able to only talk about the results and the business of the business. They're expected to have a point of view on societal issues, and they're expected to have a point of view on climate change on basically DEI in the workforce. It's a much broader license to have a point of view and also to lead the business in a specific way.
So, maybe Benioff, obviously, is on one end of the spectrum on that, and you can see that with him saying, if you are a Salesforce employee and you live in Texas, we'll move you out of Texas, given the most recent ruling on abortion for example. But I don’t know, he's maybe an extreme, but it seems like at least in the data that more and more CEOs have the license to operate that way, and have a point of view, and to move their business in a way that's more focused on the business' role in society versus just producing numbers every quarter.
Bill: Yeah. Well, we saw that a little bit with the stakeholder capitalism movement last year. I don't know how much of that is signaling to politicians that maybe they realize the inequality gap has gotten a tad too wide, and maybe labor needs to participate a little bit more, the communities need to participate more, or whether or not it's like truly a first principles move towards stakeholder capitalism. I'm not 100% Sure.
Margot: Yeah, fair. I'm not sure either, and it seems like some of this is actually being led by the employees themselves. Employees themselves are actually demanding that their company have a point of view their company do something. So, I don't think it's just coming from politicians. I think it's coming from the workforce.
Bill: How much of this-- I guess, I have two thoughts. One is, it's got to be a really complicated needle to thread when almost by definition, if a organization is truly diverse and has truly diverse thought, it's not going to be more than 60/40 liberal conservative internal, [crosstalk] right?
Margot: True.
Bill: So, to then impute the need for a CEO to have views, it's a big ask on a CEO. As a communications adviser, how do you think about that to the CEO, and I guess, the real question is, do you say it's more important to lay out how you think about the world and how you think about the corporation interacting with the world as opposed to the conclusions that you come to? What should people think about from a messaging standpoint to be effective in communicating whatever they're being asked to communicate?
Margot: That's a really great question. I think the most important thing is to be authentic, both to the CEO and to the company. So, where a CEO is going to have the most level of authenticity is where he or she feels comfortable engaging. I think some CEOs are like Marc Benioff and they feel comfortable engaging on a whole range of topics. Some CEOs really just feel comfortable engaging on earnings or what's the product roadmap. You're advising CEOs along that spectrum. So, I think you need to meet the person where they are and maybe nudge them a little further. If they're not the type that really wants to speak out, could they have a single issue that they take on, maybe, it's something around the environment and climate change, for example, which is a huge topic right now. Something where they feel comfortable versus expecting them to speak out on every single issue out there.
I actually do think for the CEOs that want to speak out on every single issue. In a lot of ways, it's actually better to have a little bit of-- a here are the three ones that we think are important for you, and you're the three ones that you consistently need to speak about, because if you talk about everything, seems a little bit too much-- too diffuse, and almost like the message gets lost. So, I'd say, you know, engage CEOs where they are and either move them a little bit forward on one issue, or if they want to talk about everything, get them to focus on three core things that are important.
Then, in terms of the company, again, I think it's important for a company if they're going to focus on an issue or cause to have it relate back to their business. So, for example, for technology companies like Microsoft to Google, we work with Infosys for example on this, a big thing they've done is around job retraining, because a lot of their technology could potentially displace workers or the workforce that they have is not necessarily right for the products that they're creating now. So, it would be about retraining their own workforce, and then actually partnering with schools or with companies like Coursera to help train up students and people who are looking for what's right with second careers in how to do that and spending money there.
Bill: Yeah, that makes sense.
Margot: So, I'll say like, that's actually a very authentic thing for technology companies to own is job rescaling. For example, both for their own workforce, and then for American students, and people looking to get other jobs.
Bill: Yeah, that makes sense, because I noticed in the report that one of the key sources of mistrust is at least or distrust and/or declining trust in tech is probably the most appropriate way to say it is the fear that some-- [crosstalk]
Margot: Job loss.
Bill: Yeah, that's right.
Margot: Yeah, it's job loss. It's a huge thing. That's something where I do think tech companies can absolutely play a big role, and it's absolutely credible for them to do that.
Bill: Yeah, and I mean, how much conversation, because I think that part of the problem is the perception that companies are coming to displace people's jobs. To be fair, a lot of jobs maybe displaced. How much of the conversation that you have is about messaging out to the world know that's not what we're trying to accomplish or what are some of the hurdles of getting that message out? Because I do think if the conversation is being had a lot internally, externally, it's not resonating in a way, and I think the reason that I can hang my hat on that is it shows up in the data that you're showing that-
Margot: Yep.
Bill: -trust is declining, right? How do you think about getting that message out as a communications professional?
Margot: That's a good question. First of all, it's just being able to have the conversation with the company that they need to even recognize that this is an issue. Because I think sometimes in the value, there's so much excitement and interest in the new, and in what's disruptive and what's changing the world making things more efficient, it's being able to have a conversation of like, "Hey, when you take a step back, your product is actually going to displace all of these truck drivers, or Uber drivers, or delivery people. It's displacing people who need the gig economy for wages or even bigger issue like, people like truck drivers who make a decent living every year, and they're going to potentially be displaced by autonomous trucks."
It's having those conversations of saying, "Hey, you actually need to think about the implications of your product for real people, and what's actually going to happen." What is going to be the repercussions when your product debuts? It's not just efficiencies, it's also changing people's lives. So, I think even just getting recognition that that is something we need to look at and talk about is the first step just because I don't necessarily think those are always the conversations happening immediately in the value around these types of products. It's much more about like the excitement and the efficiency and the step forward.
Secondly, I would say, it's not just about messaging, it's also about actions. So, going back to our discussion around companies, investing significant amount of capital and retraining their own workers, and then partnering with educational institutions to help retrain Americans for the jobs of tomorrow, that's putting your money where your mouth is. So, it's not just saying, "Oh, don't worry our products are good."
Bill: Yeah.
Margot: It's basically taking an action to make sure that that happens. It's about pairing messaging. Yeah, of course, but then also around what a company is actually doing. That's the most important thing.
Bill: Yeah, it seems to me that the difficult thing to watch is somebody that's not in the Valley. And I say this as somebody who has a very fortunate position in life anyway, but so, I don't know that I have standing to say this, but I think I do is, it's hard to see the valuations of some of these companies explode and see how much money is being created for the founders and the shareholders, and then at the same time, the blue-collar America appears to be hollowed out a little bit, and it's like, "What are we doing to take care of the fabric of society for lack of a better term?"
I think, it's interesting to open up your study and see that it appears to me that, that the distrust or the declining level of trust is not just the United States. It appears as though there are many countries, most of which are developed that are going through this.
Margot: Yeah, it's developed. It was Western Europe.
Bill: Yeah. So, it's not shocking given what we've seen with populism in general, but it's interesting conundrum that we find ourselves in.
Margot: Absolutely, and I think the latest of that is what's going on with the crypto industry where you have some people who have made literally billions of dollars in crypto, and I think now the government's looking there and being like, "Oh, wow, what the fuck is going on? We need to step in and regulate." But I think that's an interesting area, that's the next frontier potentially around regulation, and what does it mean for--, what was before, what's to come, and what's the role of government in regulating it, basically?
Bill: Yeah, it's a conversation that comes up in my life a fair amount where, for instance, I have one friend that's really into NFTs.
Margot: Yeah.
Bill: I think that there is a reasonable amount of crypto speculation and NFT speculation that is of the mindset of, "You know what, this is all just pretend anyway." So, why do I have any faith in fiat currency, some pretend government idea versus computer idea. I have more faith in math and computers than I do in governments. It's hard for me to not see a connection between the explosion of crypto and the continued level of declining trust in institutions.
Margot: Yeah, no, you're completely right. That's completely true, and I think in particular for bitcoin, that makes a lot of sense. But yeah, I totally agree with you. It will be very interesting to see what happens because it seems like it was pretty unregulated. Now, it seems like the SEC is seriously cracking down and it should be interesting to see. The same thing with SPACs. They're obviously potentially cracking down SPACs. So, it should be interesting to see where the regulation ends up.
Bill: Yeah, and then, the other side of it is with all the explosion and options trading and whatnot, I think that there's a perception among at least a percentage of the population. That's like, "You know what, I might as well just bet this on options and leverage because the stock markets rigged anyway. So, what are we doing?"
The thing that's hard for me to separate is, how prevalent this thought is versus how new it-- I don't know how prevalent it is. It feels very prevalent to me largely in part because of social media, and then also, how new is it or do the ideas just spread quicker? I really find myself thinking about this a fair amount. I have not come up with a good answer.
Margot: That is a very interesting question. I also wonder like, how much of it was just people being home during the pandemic and literally having more time to trade on Robinhood?
Bill: Yeah.
Margot: That's an interesting question, too, of like, how much of this was produced by people not being able to socialize? You're like, "Oh, I'm going to interact with people online, which includes trading stocks on Robinhood or whatever other platform?"
Bill: Yeah. When you say like trust in tech, tech is so broad.
Margot: It's true.
Bill: How do you categorize that in your own head? Is the survey is done among--
Margot: We just [crosstalk] tech, So, I think, we allow people to define it on their own. But that's a really good question. Social media is broken out is something different. But when we say tech, it means everything from technology around Amazon delivery, to your iPhone, to your computer. I don't think most people think about databases and things like that. But it also includes that when you think about it, if you work in my industry and promote these kinds of things. I think we allow people to take the phrase as they want. I think that's telling us how people would interpret it.
Bill: Yeah, I can't help but think that social media has an outsized role to play on the respondents. I only say that because maybe it's my own head, and that's a sampling bias. But I find it interesting that trust in tech somewhat declined over the last year when we were all locked inside, and the whole reason that we were able to exist is how good tech is at enabling today's life.
Margot: You're totally right. It would have been completely different year if it happened 25 years ago. I do think it's that combination like you brought up of job loss or fear of job loss and displacement. I think that that's huge. Then I think also fears around privacy and security. That's another big issue with technology companies. I think, it's a combination of those couple things that I think have exacerbated the fear of tech and the drop in trust in technology for sure.
Bill: You know an interesting debate that is starting to fester at least in my community, and I say that in the investor community is the amount of money that Apple makes on their app store. The perception among I think most of my friends is consumers, how much they love Apple. I'm working with Twitter on this idea called the super follow. People pay to-- for me to produce extra content for them. I noticed yesterday, if people are listening, don't super follow me. I don't have enough tools to really give you something. I'll tell you when I do if I ever do, but I'm working with Twitter to help them. I love Twitter.
Margot: Yeah, cool.
Bill: So, I'm helping them. But Apple takes 30% of everything that I get.
Margot: I've been following through the Apple epic which is interesting. Listen, I think, it's good to have a company challenge them. Listen, we don't work with Apple, they obviously produce incredible products, they truly do, and products that have changed basically the lives of millions and millions of consumers. But I do think it's good that companies are challenging them. That's why we live in the US, and that's why we have a judicial system that allows that, and ultimately could be a potential check on what could be a monopoly.
Bill: So, when a company, let's just talk about Apple theoretically--, well, it's Apple. It's not theoretical. But if there is a crack in the trust, how carefully do you have to watch that as a brand? Because it seems like so much-- Well, I think it doesn't seem, I think it's actually true that so much brand value is sort of this amorphous feeling of trust and hope his brand represents that once trust is lost, it's got to be very, very hard to get back.
Margot: Yeah, no, that's absolutely true. I think that was true of a lot of companies. For example, in the financial services sector which all happened during the financial crisis back in 2008, and it's taken them over a decade to rebuild anywhere where they were before. I think, in terms of Apple, I think it would be really interesting. I don't have data on it, but I think it would be really interesting to see the data on it, and for a company like Apple to actually track trust over time, I think would be-- also by market would be incredibly interesting.
Bill: Yeah.
Margot: Because I'm sure given how prevalent Apple is, they would be able to get a very good read on where they stand. I think what we're actually trying to do with Edelman is actually, first of all, understand what the drivers of trust are. What actually makes people trust a brand? I think it's things around like, trust them to do the right thing, It would be that they care about the environment that they're working in that we have these core trust drivers that we've identified. Then we're also looking eventually to link trust to an outcome.
So, for example, our companies that are more trusted, do they have a better stock price? Are people more likely to purchase. So, we don't have these metrics yet, but we're in the process of trying to figure out trust is great, and it's always good to be trusted. But then what is the outcome when you have trust, and what is the outcome when you don't have trust, and what's the gap?
Bill: Hmm.
Margot: Because ultimately, I think that's what probably what companies care about is, "Yeah, trust is nice, but what does it mean for my bottom line, what does it mean for my stock price?"
Bill: Yeah, that's interesting. I can't think that trust would not drive bottom line. One of the companies that I'm thinking about is Dollar General. I drive sometimes to go see my father. He lives in Appalachia. If I'm driving on that the road, if I see Dollar General sign, I'm like, "Okay, that's a brand I trust, I know that I can get an experience I can count on, I can get what I need in there." It's not the sexiest example, right? People aren't like, "Oh, yeah, Dollar General," but they're really very good at what they do. The idea that that doesn't result in higher throughput for their stores and more repeat customers would be very-- I bet they would be high on the trust index. Do you do consulting with--, I know tech is a real world company, but sort of like more brick and mortar-type companies?
Margot: Yeah, absolutely. Edelman works with a lot of brick and mortar companies. Some of our biggest clients are companies like Unilever.
Bill: Oh, cool.
Margot: For example, which definitely makes tangible products. We work with a number of drug companies like we work with J&J, we work with AstraZeneca, we work with Genentech, and then we work with Starbucks. That's definitely a brick and mortar company. I feel like in some ways, it's similar to what you're describing with Dollar General where if I see a Starbucks, no matter where I am, I'm like, "Okay, I know I can go in there, get a latte, get like a sandwich and I'll be good." So, same thing.
Bill: That's going to be super fun to consult on those companies.
Margot: Where I think we can uniquely add value or where we've come in is being able to tell more of an innovation story for some of these more legacy brands. So, that's fun, too. For example, we've did a little bit of work with positioning the Starbucks CTO for example. So, helping tell the story around how Starbucks is actually a tech company.
Bill: Yeah.
Margot: Because every company is now a tech company.
Bill: We did a good job. The investors really like that story. I'll tell you that.
Margot: Exactly. I think, that's part of the interest for a lot of these companies is looking at a Wall Street audience and saying, "Okay, how can we look and get the valuations that tech has?" In a lot of ways, it's true right? Every company has an app, every company has an online presence. So, it's really different than 15 years ago.
Bill: Yeah, Domino's is another one that comes to mind that their app is a really integral part of their offering, and also a very important way that Wall Street views them right is, this is the way of the future, it's on your phone, it's a seamless experience, it gets to you quick, you can trust what you're getting. I think the innovative part is non-inconsequential.
Margot: I think something else we end up getting asked a lot along those lines are helping comms for recruiting for tech talent. Because every company now wants to have engineers, and has a CTO, and wants to recruit around that. So, we get a lot of asks around help us position ourselves favorably for recruiting technology talent?
Bill: Yeah, I would think that's a very, very tough. That would be a competitive field, right? Because you've got all the biggest money in the world that can just shower candidates. So, if you're not one of those, I mean, for the example that I brought up, if your Twitter like how do you recruit versus Facebook, it's almost got to be the way that I--
Margot: [crosstalk] First is Domino's, right? Because Domino's is trying to hire tech talent too. It's all a little bit of competition, agree on. Yeah, there's Twitter versus Facebook. But then there's also versus the companies that needed technology strategy despite being brick and mortar.
Bill: Like financial services companies, for example.
Margot: Absolutely. That's true, too, and that's a whole other interesting area, because there's so many requirements around data and making sure that the data is secure and who they work with around that. So, probably same with government contracts as well. So, that's another interesting area. [crosstalk] I think a lot of our tech clients actually work with financial services companies, and they have these great case studies, and then we unfortunately are unable to go to market with them because it's always tough to get-- [crosstalk]
Bill: Mm. [crosstalk] regulated or whatever.
Margot: Yeah, it's always tough to get companies to want to talk about what they're doing or customers to want to talk. Same with a lot of industries. Actually, it's tough to get customers to go on the record sometimes.
Bill: Why do you think that is?
Margot: That's a really good question. I think a lot of times people just want to make sure-- make it seem like things are happening seamlessly. They don't necessarily want to be famous for relying on XYZ technology vendor to help them with their transformation.
Bill: Yeah. That seems a little silly to me. I'm not trying to put you in a tough spot. I guess my comment is, I think that we're entering a world where if you're hiding from-- I think, everything is coming in the open.
Margot: True.
Bill: So, I think embracing that strategy and leaning into it and saying, "Yeah, you know what, we don't have this core competence in our company. So, we've outsourced it to this great vendor and look at how good we are at picking the right vendor and look at the outcome." I think that's like a much--
Margot: Hey, I'm with you. I'm totally with you. You sound like me. [laughs]
Bill: You know, because I mean, everybody knows everybody's not a jack of all trades anymore. I don't think that you can hide from that.
Margot: That's true. I completely agree. I think being open and transparent, and communication is good, and we counsel our clients that exact thing.
Bill: Yeah, well, I think you're right for what it's worth, but I'm just a guy with a podcast.
Margot: I'll take it. Thank you, Bill.
[laughter]
Bill: So, what was it like to walk into this global consulting firm and communications firm? You're pretty green out of college, right?
Margot: Pretty green out of college. That's definitely true. Out of college, it was good as I got to work in a couple interesting places. I actually worked in Shanghai for a little bit, I worked in London, so, that was a lot of fun. I got to see the world a little bit much more than I had just growing up in New York. Where I would say, I got my real training and real boots on the ground were-- first, I actually at a business school worked on our data and insights team really learning, "Okay, how do you make communications more grounded in data?" I worked for a guy who had been a pollster for Mike Bloomberg, for Hillary Clinton. So, that was very much jumping right in and getting a lot of training, you made a mistake, just keep going fix it yourself. So, I got a lot of hands-on training in terms of data and analytics for comms. Then I actually moved out to the Valley when I was 27, and that was some more definite very hands on training in terms of, I managed to win a couple clients, mostly people who were my friends who were like, "Hey, Margot, if you're smart, you want to use Edelman, why don't you do our comms? We'll hire you." So, doing that a little bit and really learning on the job, and learning a little bit through-- sometimes through doing things that were great, and sometimes through making mistakes and being like, "Oh, shit. Well, I guess I'll never do that again," and then just keep going.
The interesting thing about the Valley is, it's very network-based place. So, once you have a couple clients, and you do good work for them, more people start hearing about what you're doing, their investors will hear about what you're doing, they'll read a good article about the company, they'll be like, "Hey, can I talk to your PR person or hey, like, I saw the work you guys were doing here, that looks really interesting if you can do it for us." So, it starts a little bit of a flywheel where it starts to build from there, and you get a little bit more of a reputation, and then from there, getting new clients gets a little easier. So, it really all is about I think doing good work and having the right clients in the beginning, and from there, it becomes a lot easier to grow a business.
Bill: When you say that people will read about what you did, how important are things like trade journals and local papers anymore? I mean, is there-- [crosstalk]
Margot: We did what we did. They look at my client, Business Insider or whatever, and be like, "Oh, you got that piece. That's cool."
Bill: Yeah. So, the answer is not very important or potentially.
Margot: The trade and [crosstalk] publications.
Bill: Yeah.
Margot: Listen, I think they are important. For example, there was an article in PR Week actually, now over a year ago that talked about how Edelman didn't have a chance in the Valley and only boutiques were good, and I was reading it, and I was like, "The PR Week team quoted somebody who worked for Edelman six years ago, they don't know about our current roster of clients." We actually have a great roster of clients that are innovative, interesting, disruptive companies, and these guys are to me like I've gotten it wrong. That to me was important, because it's what everybody in the industry reads.
So, to read the outdated view of Edelman, I was like, "This is stupid. The guy should have called me." But also, I should have known him and have been able to give him a different perspective versus having him rely on somebody who worked with the company six years before. So, I think it is important to know, because there's always chat and talk in that world, and I think it's important to know the people who are writing about it. Otherwise, you'll get misrepresented in this publication. So, not good.
Bill: Yeah. How long did it take-- I mean, you walk into a family business, how is that dynamic?
Margot: That's a good question. I think ultimately people just want to know that you can do a good job that you can help them, and that you have their best interests at heart. Maybe, it takes a little bit longer to make people feel comfortable. That's who you are. But I think once that's established that level of going back to trust, that level of trust, and that level of understanding that you're there to help, you're confident, you can add value to their business, I think, it can be a really great thing. It just maybe takes a little while to get there.
Bill: Yeah, I would think so. I personally would think that having the same name in the beginning would be a little bit of a burden, because I think that the perception is like, well, you were given this right?
Margot: Yeah, it's true. You know, I would say where I ended up benefiting-- First of all, in external setting, it's really helpful. So, people will take meetings with you, people will give you a little bit of time when they wouldn't necessarily give somebody else the company and listen it. At the end of the day, a lot of the PR business is about access. So, I think from that perspective, it's very helpful, from an external perspective. Then, if you show up, you can't be an idiot. You have to show up, be smart, people will give you a conversation, and then from there, it's up to you to convert into something real.
Then, I would also say something that I ended up doing was really trying to win my own clients. Just because in that way, I didn't have to say, "Oh, hey, count, lead, please bring me to see your client, please trust me." I was kind of like, "Okay, this is my client, and it's my team, and hopefully we'll do a good job." But at the end of the day, it's my butt on the line. So, I think just having my own base of clients was really important too, and clients that one trusted me, that hired me, and then built a team around that.
Bill: How was it when your dad thought that things should go some way and you thought things should go another?
Margot: That's a great question.
Bill: [laughs]
Margot: I would say, given that I was out in the Bay Area, I was the one ultimately who was the decision maker, which was a good thing. But we've definitely had discussions that way. We're having a discussion now around return to office where he's very insistent that we need to be back in the office three days a week. I'm like, "Yeah, the team is fine, remote," and I think part of that as a geographic thing, we're on the East Coast, everyone's really gung-ho about going back in and especially on the West Coast, it seems like people are a little more comfortable, I think, with remote work.
Bill: How do you deal with remote work in keeping like a team together? It's something that I've thought a lot about, but there is something about being at the office where spontaneous conversations can happen.
Margot: Yeah, it's true.
Bill: You know, you're in like a creative industry, right? So, I would think that, how do you foster creativity and bouncing ideas off each other even though you're not.
Margot: That's a great question. I do think there's a huge amount of value to being together. You're absolutely right, and I think no matter what happens in terms of remote work versus being in the office, I think, ideally, the team would be in the office together, at least a couple times a month. In order to foster that, I think right now, just given where we are in the pandemic, I think it seems like it's premature to ask everybody to go back in just for where we are right now, but I agree with you. I think you do lose something by not being together.
In terms of keeping team cohesion, what I'm trying to do is just ensure knowledge sharing. So, for example, we do an all hands once every two weeks for an hour where we have different teams showcase the great work that they've done, debut new offerings, so really making sure that people are connected, they see great work being done, they feel connected to the office as a whole. So, I try to have those which I think help. This sounds cheesy, but we put in like a mentorship program, where we're ensuring that people are connected to a mentor, who they meet with at least once a month that can ideally help facilitate being on new pieces of business that are interesting, have conversations about their career outside of just their direct boss. So, trying to at least, maybe, it's in a little bit of a forced way, but encourage those connections. That would happen, I think, maybe more naturally, if we were all in the office together. I've also created a book club.
Bill: Oh, yeah?
Margot: Again, I'm trying to do things that are like fun, and, again, keeps the social aspect of it up.
Bill: Yeah, I don't think that sounds cheesy at all, because in an office setting, like you said, I was assigned to a team. So, that's not much different than a mentorship program. It's just we all sat in a pod together over the internet. It would maybe be rather than a spontaneous conversation, it's more scheduled. So, maybe in that way, it feels a little bit more forced. But I think, I have thought that training younger people would be very difficult in a remote world. I would think the mid-level people and higher can do their own thing remotely, but training up younger people, I think would be difficult.
Margot: Yeah, I agree. That's I think where we're missing out by not being in the office is, there're some people who are on my team have literally never been in an office, if they graduated this past year. So, it's a different thing. I think when you know how to be in an office, you know what that feels like versus when you've never been.
Bill: It's an interesting thing to ponder like the idea of whether or not we're going to stay in a remote world. The longer it goes on, the higher the probability that this is just the future, and it's what everything looks like, and it seems like things are running okay, but you know, not falling through the cracks would be tough.
Margot: I would also say from like a client perspective, it really does help to see people in person. Just because you end up having conversations about opportunities or things that are needed, that you might not necessarily get if you're going and talking to somebody virtually just because there is that informal aspect to it, and like you said, you can come up with ideas, the conversation can lead in different ways versus when you're just having a virtual conversation, it's a little bit more just set and cut and dry around. I need this, okay, you can deliver this great.
Bill: Yeah. I have this question in my head, and we can edit it out if it's too hard. But what would a traditional, I hire you, I'm a company, and I need some help.
Margot: Yeah.
Bill: You're in the Valley, the other office is in New York, how do you make sure that the message gets out to everyone? Because those are two thoughts, I don't want to say bubbles, but that's the word that's coming out.
Margot: You're absolutely right. Those are two bubbles. Listen, we actually have offices all throughout the middle of the country. So, we have a large office in Chicago, we have offices throughout Texas, office in Atlanta. So, we are not just a coastal firm, we absolutely work throughout the country, and I think that that's a big benefit. Part of the reason we've actually gotten hired by some tech companies in the Valley is because we can help understand, how do you communicate to buyers that sit in the middle of the country for their products? So, people that run manufacturing companies, for example or automotive industry, how do you communicate to them, how do I reach them? So, rather than saying, "Hey, we just want to go with a Valley Boutique?" They're like, "Oh, great." The fact that Edelman has reach in this area, which other firms don't is actually a huge plus.
Bill: Yeah, I would think, it would be.
Margot: So, no, that's a big part of our Valley proposition is that, we have offices all throughout the US and we understand how most of the US works, not just the embargoes Valley, or not just New York.
Bill: Yeah, I would think that would be, and then I would think the other thing that you benefit from is with a firm of your size, you can pour more resources into market research, right?
Margot: Totally. Yeah. We can afford to do the Trust Barometer. That's a big piece of IP that comes out every year, and I'm sure, it's a big investment from the firm, and I think, it's a huge benefit to the industry that we can do that. I think it benefits, of course, Edelman and our clients, but I think it benefits the industry as a whole to up level the conversation around why comms is important. We're lucky to be in a place where we can make that investment.
Bill: Yeah. Warren said, you present some of the findings in Davos. Is that true?
Margot: My dad does.
Bill: Yeah.
Margot: So, yeah. It's launched to coincide with Davos with the idea that it can help, spark conversation there and be part of the overall Zeitgeist of the week at Davos.
Bill: So, in a world where media is so distributed and bifurcated or whatever the right word is, where do you see communications going in the future?
Margot: It's a really interesting question. I think, we're approaching this in a couple of ways. First, it's just to know how media is being distributed. So, it's understanding that reporters are now on Substack or they're using LinkedIn. So, they're using different modes of communication and they're really becoming their own media brands versus relying on the head media brand of CNBC or the New York Times, etc. They're now creating their own media brands using these different technology tools to get their story out. So, I think that's one.
Two, I think, it's just it's the rise of influencers. I know, this is something that's happened now for quite some time. But in some ways, influencers are a lot like the press in the sense that you need to build a relationship, they all have a very distinct point of view, they have a set following, and so, I think, it's an understanding how to incorporate influencers into the conversation. It can't just be going to traditional press anymore. It's about understanding who are those influencers and how do we speak to them and incentivize them to or encourage them to talk about our brand, or the company that we're helping to promote. So, that's another thing.
Then, I think, it's about owned content for companies. So, using their own platform as a media channel. So, if you look at tech for example, Andreessen Horowitz is basically launched a media--, their own media publication. They really have an editor, and then they're also using their own channels like Clubhouse for example to have regular programming with the portfolio company CEOs. So, they're really starting to own-- getting their own message out there through the different channels that they have created. So, I think that's another aspect of comms. It definitely a dynamic and changing market. But I think the fact that newsrooms are shrinking, it doesn't mean that comms is getting smaller. It just means it's getting more complicated, and there are more places where we need to be looking to tell our clients message.
Bill: You know, it's interesting watching Andreessen Horowitz with Clubhouse because they started to host nighttime chats with senior management in Andreessen Horowitz which I don't think had as much access to the public without Clubhouse. It was interesting to see their strategy of driving traffic to that platform, and I could see how having the ability to aggregate attention and distribute your own content would be a huge benefit going forward in the future. How do you think about with Substack and influencers, generally, there's no editorial process, right? So, how do you think about the risk that somebody just goes rogue, who you've like tied your brand or message to for lack of a better term?
Margot: That's a great question and I think, it's a little bit like there's the new rules of the road. So, I think, first of all, again, it's about trust. It's about having a relationship. Do you trust the reporter that's on Substack to somebody that respects embargoes? Is it somebody that you have a relationship with and know that you can you can trust them? So, I think that's a big part of it. But you're absolutely right. It's a very different thing than the old traditional process of the reporter has the editor--, he is called the editor, if you feel like you need a correction like that doesn't-- it doesn't exist anymore. So, I think you even more so need to have an established relationship with the person that you're working with and have a level of trust in them, and they knew that you're telling them the right thing.
Bill: Yeah, it's odd. I find it odd that in a way, I'm an influencer.
Margot: [laughs]
Bill: I don't fully understand it, but I also understand what I'm doing at the same time, but there's a lot of responsibility, I think that goes with it, especially, with finance. I see-- [crosstalk]
Margot: Okay, I trust you. If you say you're going to edit something out, I trust you well.
Bill: Yeah, well. Yeah, to be fair, if I didn't, I would lose all of my credibility in there. There that goes. That would be a foolish mistake.
Margot: Exactly. So, I think, it's that level of dialogue, I think. [laughs]
Bill: Yeah. That makes sense. What do you see for-- What does Edelman become in the future in this world? competing is interesting, it's ever shifting, what's your responsibility on behalf of your clients, on behalf of you as a leader in the company, how do you see all that?
Margot: So, a great question. I think in terms of our presence in the Valley and in San Francisco, I just want to make sure we continue to work with innovative and interesting companies, and that we continue to work with disruptors just because I think it's important for us to be at the forefront of different industries and helping those companies communicate about what they're doing. So, that's something that I personally just want to continue to do, and also pushing the envelope in terms of how we do it. So, not just saying, "Okay, let's go to the whatever traditional reporter of the journal, which is obviously great, but also thinking more broadly around who we go to and how we tell the story from just a tactical lens." And then for the company as a whole. I think in the next few years, we're really looking to shift out of just being a US-UK company to being a much more global, and we do have offices throughout Asia, for example. But I think continuing to grow our presence there is really important, because we're still undersized for the market.
Then something else we're focused on is for example, continuing to grow work we're doing with financial communications, helping companies with IPOs, things like that. Then on the public affairs side, advisory work there continuing to grow that business as well. So, I think we're both trying to continue to expand and deepen our geographic footprint, and then also continue to expand the capabilities that we offer as well.
Bill: How much of your time as a firm-- Let me ask you that this way. Do communication firms break down into, you focus on politics, you focus on business, you focus on NGOs or whatever, your trust index spans all of those entities? So, I guess some of my question is like, how do you think about where certain interests bump up against each other, and do you focus on-- do you have siloed teams that focus on different industries?
Margot: Yeah. That's a great question. We don't work for politicians. So, we don't do that aspect. I know, some other firms do, but we don't. We wouldn't be hired by the Biden administration or AOC, for example to help them on their campaign. So, that's not something that we do. In terms of how we divide up, it's less about who we're going to like, "Are we going to go speak to an NGO or we going to go speak to somebody in the media, and it's more about bisector?" So, we'll work for companies--, the financial services sector will work for companies and tech sector, health sector, so we divided up that way, and then also functionally by what we do for them. So, are we helping promote their products or are we helping promote the company as a whole from a reputation standpoint? Also, more functionally, what are we doing, because there are different specialties based on that?
Bill: Yeah, that makes sense. The financial services, the increase in trust, I think is interesting of 2009, I understand it was like at a super low base. But do you have a sense of how much of the increase in trust is due to some of these FinTech companies and the interpretation of empowering the user again versus--?
Margot: That's a great question. You know, I don't know the answer to that. I think that'd be something really interesting to explore. I don't know. But that's a really interesting question and a really interesting take on it, is how much of it is larger financial services, institutions having made amends and feeling like they're putting the consumer first or things like Goldman Sachs launching a fund for black-owned businesses or women-owned businesses versus how much his company is a Robinhood that do put finance in the hands of consumers? I don't know the answer to that, but I think it's a really interesting question.
Bill: Yeah, because I just wonder, it's interesting as somebody that came from a bank, I look at it, and I think, well, banks have a really important role to play in society in that they lend and they provide a lot of the capital that is required for supply chains to exist. On the other hand, people hate them. So, I look at some of the innovation in FinTech, and I say, "Well, this is gimmicky," but on the other hand, people really do seem to enjoy the experience of [crosstalk]
Margot: [crosstalk] think basic things like no overdraft fees that probably do go a long way in terms of making consumers feel like those companies are on their side, you know, things like that. I don’t know.
Bill: Yeah. Okay. So, the elimination of something like trading fees, it has been replaced by payment for order flow.
Margot: Yeah, totally. I think that has its own can of worms there which is not necessarily good for the consumer either. But it's just more hidden. So, I agree with you.
Bill: Yeah, well, it's an interesting communications thing, right? It's like, "Oh, we're not. You don't have to pay for things." I mean, you're paying for things, but you don't have to pay for things. But it's a messaging-- [crosstalk]
Margot: Listen, there's no such thing as free lunch, you know?
Bill: Yeah.
Margot: I do think from a communication standpoint, the best thing is to always be transparent. Because all this stuff comes out eventually, and it's better to tell it in the way you want to tell it with examples that you want to use to illustrate why it's either good for the consumer, what you're doing to put the consumer at the heart of what you're doing versus allowing somebody, an investigative journalist, disgruntled employee, whatever it is to come out with their own message around it. That's the tone that ends up getting set.
Bill: Yeah, I liked that way that you said that. I think that that's definitely right, and I would say that one thing that helps companies with communications and in my view is transparent letters to shareholders owning up to problems and being really honest about this is how we fixed it, this is what we did. I think that goes a long way when people can start to trust management, and then they can start to say, "Okay, well, if nothing else, I know that these people aren't hiding things from me." Then I've seen it work the other way where people are like, "I don't know that I can trust these people," and then even when they try to do the right thing, it doesn't resonate.
Margot: Yeah. No, no, I agree. So, I think the more companies can own their own narrative around it and be transparent, I think the better. They're better off in the long run.
Bill: All right, cool. I do appreciate you stopping by very much. I hope it was enjoyable for you, and I hope that when you listen, you say, I'm glad that I did that from a communication standpoint.
Margot: Sounds good. It was also just fun to chat and hang out.
Bill: Yes, indeed.
Margot: All right. Sounds good. Bye, Bill.
Bill: All right. Have a good one, and thanks again.
Margot: [crosstalk] Nice to meet you. Catch you later.
