The Calm in a Crisis: Effective Communication Strategies for K-12 Schools

Research released by Comsint Communications, a leading reputation consultancy and advisory firm, confirms that the intensity and range of media and social media conversations about crises confronted by America's schools continue to grow. Schooled by Strife: Crisis Communications Trends Impacting America's Schools identified five primary drivers behind this crisis communications trend: school violence, parent activism, educator misconduct, labor issues, and Title IX.

"Our report puts into context what we've been hearing from leaders in education for a long time: that they are increasingly pulled away from student services to address a growing number of public-facing crises," said Nick Puleo, president and founder of Comsint Communications. "From school violence to parent activism to Title IX, the frequency and volume of conversation on these issues online and in the media is on the rise. Understanding this landscape is critical for school leaders' ability to best prepare to defend their reputations and minimize the impact on students."

Schooled by Strife: Crisis Communications Trends Impacting America's Schools combined in-depth interviews with dozens of senior leaders from public school districts and private schools with a comprehensive, AI-driven analysis of US-based traditional news sources and social media content. Additional reports leveraging similar methodology are in process.

Key findings from the research:

• In 2023, there was an average of 130 news stories per day in US media outlets covering school violence, ranging from weapons to violent incidents to bullying.?
• Social media conversations about parent protests and/or political action around school board hearings increased by 63 percent from 2022 to 2023.?
• On average, social and traditional media conversation around teacher or school administrator arrests lasts for 31.2 days, with additional spikes in interest occurring during key steps in the legal process.?
• Labor issues received 386 percent more attention in the news and online in 2023.?
• There was a 2,280 percent increase in coverage of educators found to have OnlyFans accounts.?

"The drastic increase in volume across key topic areas makes the need for robust communications protocols and planning clear," added Puleo. "If issues are allowed to fester or are inadequately addressed, the reputations of schools and their leaders can be seriously damaged. Insights such as these are valuable tools for leaders to examine areas in which they might be vulnerable and begin addressing those issues early."?

Click here?for the full report.?

What You Need to Know About Campus Protests

by Nick Puleo

Higher education is no stranger to political protest. In fact, campus activism can be traced back hundreds of years: from the Butter Rebellion at Harvard University to student occupation at Columbia University in the 1960s to anti-apartheid activism in the 1980s.?

But for many of the college communicators we’ve spoken with, today’s protests feel different.?

Negative perceptions of higher education continue to grow. In recent surveys, nearly half of New Englanders say that a four-year degree isn’t worth the cost. Media coverage of higher education increasingly focuses on turmoil. In fact, in research conducted by Comsint for an upcoming white paper, our team found that negative coverage of higher education increased 27 percent between 2022 and 2023. That was before the recent string of highly publicized issues. And, of course, there is social media.?

The role of social media in today’s campus issues cannot be understated. According to McKinsey & Company, 58 percent of college-aged students are spending one hour or more per day on a variety of digital platforms.?

This audience data is a critical insight for communicators as they seek to navigate the current environment. It illustrates how students are consuming and distributing information (but granted, most knew this already). More importantly, it sheds light on some of the communications dynamics that could be driving these audiences and thus igniting new or further action on campus. In any consumer-facing PR campaign, communicators look for factors that will engage audiences and drive action; campus communicators seeking to quell crises must reverse engineer that process.?

Understanding the role of social media can also contextualize the true challenge many campuses are facing in addressing the speed and volatility of digital activism. Institutions have tendencies to communicate by committee and/or have marketing-communications functions aligned to support advancement and admissions, not reputation and crisis. And true to academic philosophy, many try to win the day through rational argument in their external communications. In today’s media environment, both factors can worsen a crisis.?

Here, we dive into some of the factors that may be driving on-campus activity and what communicators can do to best craft their response strategies. Note that we’re not discounting any of the factors that compel political activism. Rather the goal of this piece is to best help communicators understand the motivations and influences at play as they work to navigate crisis.?

THE NEUROSCIENCE BEHIND SOCIAL MEDIA?

Humans are hardwired to gravitate to things we enjoy. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter that plays a significant role in pleasure and motivation, is released when we engage in pleasurable activities and its effects are powerful. When dopamine is released, it triggers a reward pathway in our brain causing us to desire the original stimulus more. For example, exercising releases dopamine which may cause us to work out more for another hit of that feel-good feeling. Unfortunately, the release of dopamine and the rewards pathway it triggers can occur from a myriad of stimuli, not just healthy behaviors.?

Social media is a dopamine releaser. The fluttery feeling in your chest you get when someone likes your Instagram post? You have dopamine to thank for that. The surge of happiness you feel when someone retweets you? Dopamine again. The reward pathways that are created every time you receive positive reinforcement on social media can become incredibly strong and persuasive. If you are garnering likes, shares, and comments praising you for that content, it will become increasingly difficult to stop seeking that attention.?

In corners of the Internet where influencers are sharing things like new recipes or funny parenting advice, this cycle can create communities that encourage and support healthy behaviors. The inverse is also true. On pages where content creators share political propaganda, sow disinformation, or value signal, the effects of dopamine are the same and can create an insidious and dangerous feedback cycle.?

A NEED FOR CONNECTION AND ENGAGEMENT?

Part of what makes social media so addictive is the endless opportunities for dopamine hits coming from people supportive of our posts. Connecting with people who share our values or interests creates a sense of community and security. The desire to stay connected and valued in the group can entice us to say or do anything to maintain our status. This kind of “herd mentality” celebrates those who conform to the group ideals and often demonizes those who fall outside of the carefully held parameters.?

While more pronounced on social media, these kinds of echo chambers now created online have existed as long as people have had opinions (see Federalist 10). What is different now is the speed at which these ideas can circulate and the immense reach they can have.?

VOLUME PUSHES UNIFORMITY?

The parasitic notion of groupthink found a willing host in social media. When it comes to pushing a particular worldview, volume is key. Said another way, the more people in a group, the fewer unique ideas there will be. More importantly, the ideas of a large group can be easily manipulated by a large influx of voices saying the same thing, essentially drowning out the competing ideas (here’s one more link for Federalist 10). We see this happen most clearly in the use of “bots” online.?

BOTS MANIPULATE EMOTION BY SIMULATING PERSONAL EXPERIENCE?

Bots infiltrated social media as software applications that run automated tasks, generally with the intent to imitate humans. For example, bots can be programmed to seek and respond in a prescribed way to all posts on a platform that use a defined set of words or phrases. This rise of online bots, and the public discourse about them, has brought with it a wave of intense distrust. The ability of bots to take on a variety of personas with distinct global opinions makes them appear very human and it is often very difficult to distinguish between one made by a bot and one made by a human. Our own biases also play into this dynamic, as we are far more likely to perceive comments that reflect a contrary viewpoint to be false.?

SOCIAL MEDIA IS A DRIVER OF PROTEST PARTICIPATION

An analysis of social media activity found that this groupthink follows similar trends. A triggering event occurs, which is subsequently reframed to spark moral outrage for a particular audience. It is then organically or intentionally targeted to micro-influencers who, in turn, share it with their audiences, leading to virality. Something going viral within a particular campus is a much lower bar than the entire internet.?

With that viral content comes calls to action. Based on the above, it should come as no surprise that research has found a positive correlation between social media use and protest participation. In fact, one study found that frequent Facebook users are 18 percent more likely to engage in political protest than non-users. Given that the barriers to entry to campus protest are low - after all, many students need only travel a few hundred yards - it is easy to see how only activism on a particular topic can quickly morph into real-world demonstrations.?

WHAT ALL THIS MEANS FOR COMMUNICATORS?

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to addressing political turmoil on campus. Factors such as institutional culture, location, contested issues, and the level of outside influence all play critical roles in crafting a plan and responding to strife. However, there are seven key strategic elements that every campus can employ.?

1. Centralize Communications: Many campuses, especially larger ones, have dispersed communications functions. It’s essential that messaging is deliberate and coordinated across the organization. In addition to uniformity, centralizing communications provides the agility needed to address emerging threats to reputation. Ideally, a plan for centralizing communications in times of crisis should be in place before issues hit.?
2. Staff Appropriately: Communicators at many institutions have deep expertise in supporting advancement and enrollment. Navigating cultural and political issues requires a different skill set to support these team members. This could mean embedding an existing government relations team within communications or hiring an outside agency. It’s also critical to ensure that your social media accounts are being run by or in consultation with someone who deeply understands how to navigate these issues. Where we see institutions get into trouble is when they attempt to apply a status quo strategy in the face of an involving issue.?
3. Monitor Diligently: Monitor online conversations across platforms consistently to understand the types of causes stirring passion in your students, the volume of such conversations, and what emerging calls to action might be. During a crisis, such information can be critical in coordinating both an operational response and a communications strategy. Moreover, it is a vital tool in assessing outside influence on your campus.?
4. Develop Clear Messages: Clear messaging is key. In any crisis, institutions need to reaffirm their mission and values. When facing campus protests, it is also important to communicate limits and boundaries. For example, it must be clear what types of activities a campus will permit, and the limits imposed by student codes of conduct. Given the nature of social media, it’s important to note that traditional holding statements are likely to be inadequate in stemming the tide of online criticism.?
5. Communicate Regularly: When issues embroil a campus there is often a tendency to focus solely on one audience or inbound media requests. That leaves the needs of groups like alumni, donors, admitted students, and partners ignored. Those key constituencies need to understand that leadership has control of the issue, that the institution is firm in its mission, and that a path to resolution can be found. Lacking this understanding, additional issues may emerge, including drops in enrollment and additional calls for leadership change.?
6. Respond With Appropriate Scale: By monitoring online conversations and tailoring messaging to the issue at hand, institutions can craft a strategic response to political unrest. But it’s a fine line: an inadequate response can make an institution appear disengaged or uninterested, and over-responding can elevate campus-level issues to a national scale. With monitoring and the right team in place, campuses can craft a right-sized communications strategy to defend their reputation.?
7. Seek to End the Conversation: There is a tendency in academia to attempt to win the day through rational argument. While that may work in the classroom, it can be disastrous in external communications. Prolonged debate extends the news cycle and often raises additional, difficult questions for stakeholders. The best approach in any crisis communications scenario is to seek to end the public conversation as quickly as possible.?

This is an incredibly challenging time for communicators in higher education. But a clear strategy can help you navigate these waters with your reputation intact. To learn more about how to implement such a strategy for your institution, contact Comsint today for a free consultation.?

The Danger of Negative Reputation (Higher Ed)?

by Nick Puleo

In 2020, I wrote a piece on The Dangers of Negative Reputation.

It’s been a source of a lot of conversation between me and both peers and potential clients. And, for me, the points I raised four years resonate even more deeply today.

That’s why it came as quite a shock when I recently heard someone comment: “We’re in higher ed. That corporate branding stuff doesn’t apply to us.” Just to be clear: there’s a distinct difference between branding and reputation; that’s a topic for another post. But that “reputation stuff,” that does indeed apply to higher education.?

It’s true that individual campuses have challenges; however, the entire higher education industry has a reputation problem. More than half of New Englanders say that college wasn’t worth the cost and 67 percent of businesses nationally say higher education doesn’t prepare students for the workforce. Combine that with rising costs and nearly a year’s worth of coverage of campus protests, and you start to see a real perfect storm.

So, without further ado, here are the Dangers of Negative Reputation, Higher Education Edition.

LOSS OF REVENUE

According to Sallie Mae, 1 in 4 American students are at risk of not finishing college. That, in part, is due to financial concerns. If colleges and universities suffer from a reputation of not providing return on investment to students, then their propensity to unenroll when finances get tight increases. That lost tuition revenue only increases the likelihood of further price hikes, perpetuating the cycle.??

LOSS OF ACCESS TO DONOR FUNDS

Increasingly, donors – and big dollar donors, in particular – are choosing to walk back their support of colleges and universities facing crisis. For example, hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin recently announced that he would no longer support Harvard University (Griffin had previously given more than $500M to the school). While some may see this as elite donors seeking to have oversized influence, the fact remains that crisis situations are leading to a loss in donor funds.

LOSS OF ACCESS TO TALENT

Recruiting and retaining top talent also becomes more difficult as organizational reputation declines. According to Glassdoor.com, "Sixty-nine percent of job seekers would not take a job with a company with a bad reputation, even if they were unemployed." Even if this stat isn’t completely aligned with the job market for academic, universities still depend on the work of hundreds and even tens of thousands of non-academic staff to operate.

LITIGATION

Trust is a key driver in deciding to attend or support an institution. A lack of trust among prospective families, donors, or other stakeholders will cause suspicion around an institution’s actions, regardless of how well-intentioned or well-designed they might be. That suspicion can often lead to litigation. It’s no wonder the colleges and universities have seen a string of high-profile lawsuits in recent years. Moreover, the internet is flooded with blog posts and forum questions asking something along the lines of “Can I sue a university or online college for false promises???

INCREASED REGULATION?

Consider this: Fifty-five percent of undergraduate students receive federal financial aid, Congress earmarks $1.3 billion for colleges and universities, and federal funding for research tops $54 billion. So, regardless of whether your institution is public or private, the government has substantial interest in higher education. This flex of oversight ability was made clear in the recent string of hearing called by North Carolina’s Rep. Virginia Foxx, hearings that led to the eventual resignations of university presidents.

Warren Buffett famously said that "It takes years to build up a reputation while it takes minutes to destroy it." The chipping away at higher education’s reputation has been ongoing and growing for years – that does not come without cost.

Colleges and universities will be best positioned against the decline in higher education reputation only if they are able to manage their own reputations in a way that transcends the industry. That requires strategic creativity and an “always on” approach to media relations, recruiting, and donor relations.??

How Young People Consume the News

by Nick Puleo

It is tempting to condense down the habits of young people into catchy partisan-sounding clips, but when you dive into the research of how young people get their news today, in particular Gen Z, the results are fascinating and surprising. We know that the younger generations are more engaged than ever before in politics, activism, and their communities. It's even been reported that 53% of 18-29 year olds plan to vote in the 2024 presidential election and the way Gen Z consumes news media really reflects that high level of engagement. Even though the mediums may have changed, the interest in current events and the news of the day remains high for the younger generation. Here’s a glimpse into what that news consumption looks like in practice.?

Gen Z lives online

Newspaper routes have gone the way of the landline, with most young people today getting their news from online sources. As the first true digital natives, over 50% of Gen Z teens and adults report that they get their news exclusively from their smartphones. With tiny computers at our fingertips, finding a physical newspaper is wholly unnecessary and Gen Z reportedly spends almost half of their waking hours online.

Social media is everything

If it’s not on social media, did it even happen? That certainly seems to be the sentiment and with 35% of Gen Zers spending over four hours a day on social media, it’s basically their digital playground. Unsurprisingly, social media is also where Gen Z goes for current events with about one-third of adults under 29 regularly scrolling TikTok for news. The benefit of social media as a news platform is that complex topics are often broken down into bite-size clips and easy to understand language. A major con? User-generated content means that not everything that is labeled as “news” is trustworthy. McKinsey & Company explained how Gen Z sees the news like this, “The news is serious business, while news can be the latest on the Pete/Kim romance or cool science facts. While 39 percent of people under 24 prefer to get the news from social media, 34 percent seek out trusted news sites or apps when it comes to current events.” Said another way- big news media isn’t dead for Gen Z, but it is not the first stop.?

Gen Z is using their listening ears

Podcasts continue to soar in popularity and in 2023, there were an estimated 24 million monthly American Gen Z podcast listeners. Over the past five years, monthly podcast listening among Gen Z has surged by 57%, with 47% of Gen Zers (around 24 million people) tuning in over the past month. Among these listeners, 66% use podcasts to stay informed on the latest topics, and 61% listen to stay updated on social issues. The most interesting takeaway from this particular study is that, despite the common trend of multitasking while consuming content, 82% of Gen Z listeners reported that they listen to podcasts without doing anything else.

TL;DR: (Too long; didn’t read) Gen Z is still reading the news. They are assessing the news they consume for trustworthiness but are drawn to engaging and user-generated content. And of course, Gen Z is not a monolith- differences in media consumption vary widely from person to person, but distilling down some of the wider trends brings one thing into clear focus: Staying current on the news is a priority for Gen Z, but they are going to do it on their own terms.?