What comms leaders and CEOs spoke out about in 2024

Communicators understand that reputation is a form of currency, and that often requires considering the reputational impact of where our organization show up externally—and in what context.

Recent research from Ragan and HarrisX, conducted before the 2024 U.S. presidential election, asked 437 CEOs and comms leaders how brand safety and speaking out on global issues played out in practice this year. Their responses highlight the increasing importance of brand safety as companies navigate global conflicts, political polarization, and reputational risks.

Now, with the election behind us, the findings offer valuable insights into the challenges organizations faced and continue to face in balancing corporate stances alongside brand integrity.

Protocols in practice

Though fielded before the election, the study shows that brand safety was already standard practice for corporate leaders throughout the year, as 90% of CEOs and 83% of other communications leaders expressed familiarity with the concept.

Meanwhile, 69% of leaders said that they apply brand safety protocols frequently in marketing, communications and advertising—81% of CEOs and 61% of other comms leaders.

Comms leaders also see the benefits of brand safety to their organization—61% of those whose organizations apply brand safety protocols a said they do so because it has proven beneficial, while about half (52%) understand that it removes risk from the comms, marketing and advertising decisions executives make. Nearly as many (47%) say they use brand safety protocols because they see it as the industry standard.

The most common protocols implemented include monitoring social media comments and engagement (49%), monitoring ad placements (43%) and blacklisting unsafe websites (35%).

Specific tactics become pretty scant from there, with the least popular including just over a quarter of leaders whitelisting safe websites (26%) and fewer than a quarter setting age restrictions on ads (21%).

Despite over half of respondents expressing their belief in the value of brand safety, however, over half (58%) of CEOs felt that brand safety had been overapplied to the point of hurting relationships with media outlets and advertisers, an assessment that just 42% of other comms leaders agreed with.

This disconnect between understanding the value of the protocols and believing they need to be applied more strategically also illuminates the tension inherent in engaging meaningfully with public issues while minimizing risks.

Working with your marketing colleagues to spell out what outlets, sites, platforms and contexts your organization can and can’t show up in—then reviewing it with your legal team—will align relevant internal stakeholders to audit future brand partners more effectively and put a strategic reputational safeguard in place.

The high stakes of polarizing stances

Data on how communications leaders spoke up about the Israel-Hamas conflict and the war in Ukraine reflects the complex dynamics organizations faced in addressing sensitive global and domestic issues.

Many companies opted not to take public positions on these topics, consistent with a broader decline in corporate commentary on contentious issues compared to 2022.

Among those that did speak out, the responses were mixed—some regretted taking a stance, while others wished they had done more to reflect their values.

Looking at how more leaders wish their organization spoke out about the Israel-Hamas conflict (30%) than those who wish it hadn’t (25%), the data highlights the high stakes of engaging with such a polarizing issue, where any public position risks alienating key stakeholders.

The war in Ukraine presented a different challenge, as 30% wish their organization had spoken up about the conflict versus 20% who said the same in 2022, a jump of 10 percentage points.

While support for sovereignty and democracy resonated with many, the fear of backlash in certain markets deterred broader engagement.

These examples illustrate how global events demanded nuanced decision-making from communications leaders. But they also illustrate how extending brand safety protocols to specific issues like these may require vetting potential media and ad partners with an understanding that some could connect their stances on the matters to yours by association.

The risk of partisan backlash

The study also emphasized the heightened risks of partisan targeting in the months leading up to the November election. Many respondents anticipated at least some potential backlash from conservative (45%) or liberal (39%) groups based on their organizational values or public stances.

This concern shaped strategies, with many companies avoiding divisive topics or intensifying social media monitoring to mitigate potential reputational fallout.

It emphasizes how the polarized political climate at the time posed significant challenges to aligning public positions with corporate values. One can safely expect that culture of polarization to continue with the incoming administration.

In the months leading up to the election, many comms leaders perceived risks to corporate reputation (54%), communication strategies (57%), and internal culture (57%). Medium and large organizations took particularly proactive steps, like increasing news and social media monitoring.

Now, with the election behind us, the findings remain highly relevant as organizations reflect on their strategies and refine their approaches to navigating contentious global and political events. The ability to align corporate actions with core values while mitigating risks will continue to define organizational resilience in a polarized and unpredictable world.

Download the key findings report here, and stay tuned for more coverage in the new year.

This analysis is the opinion of Ragan and may not reflect the views of HarrisX.