Ipsos Corporate Reputation

Communicating with Millennials – Attitudes and beliefs within the ‘echo-chamber’

Millennials can be challenging to communicate with, but corporate comunicators often do not think in terms of age, but rather attitudes and behaviours.
The most worrying phenomenon concerns ‘echo-chambers’
Millennials trust companies and engage with those that are transparent, responsible and have something to say. However, true loyalty is hard to achieve.

In recent years Millennials have become a group of great interest, coveted because of their spending power and influence, yet seemingly misunderstood and misrepresented.

The recent Ipsos MORI report ‘Millennial Myths and Realities’ observes that ‘unfortunately, many of the claims made about Millennial characteristics are simplified, misinterpreted or just plain wrong, which can mean real differences get lost’. Responding to this, we asked Reputation Council members what, if anything, makes Millennials different and how to communicate with them effectively.

It’s not all about age

For many companies, communicating with Millennials represents a complex, but not necessarily overriding core challenge. That’s because the objective of generating true engagement is based on audience segmentations derived from a range of attitudes and beliefs, rather than age cohort.

"WE DID ALL SORTS OF FANCY STUFF ONLINE TO TARGET THE SUPPORTERS OF A PROMINENT NGO AND IT IS NOT A DEMOGRAPHIC THING ACTUALLY. IT IS ATTITUDES, INTERESTS… I THINK FROM A CORPORATE REPUTATION STANDPOINT THE ISSUES ARE NOT DEMOGRAPHIC ISSUES."

In discussing the topic of communications based on age, Council members make a distinction between ‘brand’ and ‘corporate’ communications.

The targeting of brand-oriented communication is determined by the specific markets at which it is aimed. Therefore, in an area such as financial services, the over-35s are of greater importance than Millennials. Furthermore, corporate communications have traditionally been oriented towards the over-35s, though some Council members note that on certain subjects, such as recruitment, it is increasingly necessary to target Millennials more specifically.

What emerges most clearly from the discussion regarding age targeting is that Council members do not have a standardised method, with tailored approaches being adopted based on the individual needs of the company and the objective of the communication.

MILLENNIALS DO NOT TIE THEMSELVES TO A BRAND, LIKE PEOPLE USED TO IN THE 1980S
Breaking through the ‘echo-chamber’

Communicating with Millennials involves building a targeted experience that will grab their attention right from the start. Council members note that you need to appear authentic, and to put into place systems of listening and dialogue that have very short reaction times.

This is not necessarily unique to Millennials (see our report that debunks the myth that Millennials are worse than goldfish), but the fierce competition to be noticed is real. Though social media is ideally suited to these needs, it also an environment where companies feel they have little control. Unlike traditional media, there is no established modus operandi and therefore established communication practices may not be fit for purpose.

"TODAY THERE IS AN ATTENTION DEFICIT. MILLENNIALS HAVE AN INCREDIBLY LOW ATTENTION SPAN, AND SO WE NEED TO CATCH IT. IT IS A FIGHT WITH EVERY OTHER PLAYER, AND NOT ONLY WITH PEERS. HOW DO YOU CATCH THAT ATTENTION? THAT IS THE QUESTION."

Further challenges are faced through the way in which Millennials acquire information, where the opinions of a single individual, expert, institution or company are often all placed on the same level. As our ‘Millennial Myths and Realities’ report highlights, Millennials are consummate triangulators of views, using numerous channels – but the increasingly filtered and tailored world they inhabit still provides a challenge. 

In addition, Council members note that there has been a fragmentation of channels and tendency for people to operate in a comfort zone where they engage only with those who share their opinions. This behaviour is compounded by algorithms on social media, giving rise to the dangerous phenomenon of echo-chambers. The credibility of the source is pre-determined and the pool of potential information becomes very closed, making it very difficult to communicate effectively. It is a problem that concerns everyone (including the over-35s, with traditional media engendering a similar effect), but it is particularly common among younger groups on social media.

"THE OTHER INTERESTING CHALLENGE IS THE PHENOMENON OF THE ECHO-CHAMBERS: PEOPLE NOW ARE USED TO ONLY SEEING WHAT THEY ARE INTERESTED IN, AND THE SOCIAL MEDIA AND SEARCH ENGINE ALGORITHMS ARE INCREASING THIS TREND. WE ARE ALL — NOT ONLY MILLENNIALS — MORE ‘CLOSED’, LOOKING ONLY TO OURSELVES."

To engage with Millennials, it is essential to make use of multimedia tools and ensure that a constant, evolved presence on social media is maintained. Our report on Millennial behaviour shows that while access to social media is not that different between age cohorts nowadays, the intensity of use is at a different level with younger groups. At the same time, dependability and empathy have to be pursued: it is necessary to communicate authentically and transparently, placing great focus on the relevant issues, whether you are communicating to potential customers or setting up a recruitment process.

"THEY HAVE GROWN UP WITH A VERY DIFFERENT MIND-SET; THEY ARE DIGITAL NATIVES AND TO SPEAK THEIR LANGUAGE IS TO DISCOVER ANOTHER LANGUAGE FOR US OLDIES, WHICH IS WHY IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE MILLENNIALS IN YOUR TEAM."
Trust, not loyalty

Among the commonly held beliefs about Millennials, one that resonates most strongly within the context of corporate reputation is that they are less inclined to trust companies. Recent Ipsos MORI data serves to debunk this myth and, when it was presented to Reputation Council members, it was notable that companies from Anglo-Saxon markets found it more surprising than their counterparts in other markets.

 

At a time when traditional institutions are going through a crisis of trust, Millennials are searching for something they can rely on: they are sceptical, but full of hope, with a desire to talk and be listened to. Looking across our generational research, we see the Millennial engagement issue as more about relevance and efficacy than trust – that’s where companies should focus their efforts, rather than wringing their hands about a trust crisis that is beyond their control. Corporations can solve practical problems (unlike politics), and brands can help Millennials to define and identify themselves.

"AT PRESENT, COMPANIES ARE EVERYWHERE. THE BRANDS ARE LIFE TRENDSETTERS REGARDING NOT ONLY WHAT TO CONSUME, BUT WHO YOU ARE… BEFORE, PEOPLE WROTE ABOUT A POLITICAL PARTY, BUT NOW IT IS ABOUT A BRAND. SO, YOUR IDENTITY AND [ITS] FORMATION HAS NOWADAYS MORE TO DO WITH BRANDS AND WHAT THEY EXPRESS VERSUS POLITICAL PARTIES."

All of this goes hand-in-hand with the behaviour of successful corporations – a willingness to hold a dialogue, relational flexibility and the personalisation of engagement have all contributed to a climate of trust. This trust is also supported by the ease with which Millennials share their data and personal information with the companies of which they are customers.

The selection is made in advance; they identify the brands that they want to trust and the companies that interest them. However, Council members warn that this trust must not be confused with loyalty: Millennials do not tie themselves to a brand, like people used to in the 1980s. Instead, they love to have new experiences, moving safely between brands based on a careful review of existing information. In this way, trust becomes a precursor to consideration.

Final thoughts

Of the challenges discussed, it is echo-chambers which Council members find the most concerning. In an environment where technology increasingly encourages us to operate in tribes, it becomes ever more difficult for companies to have crossover appeal and become relevant outside of their core audience. Breaking this cycle in an echo-chamber, where you have little control over the communication flow, is a growing challenge.

Nevertheless, Millennials’ willingness to interact openly with corporations creates a number of opportunities for communicators. Companies that succeed in this environment operate transparently and achieve authenticity through all communications and behaviours being aligned with their core values. Should these conditions be met, then corporations and their brands can benefit by establishing the relationships of trust that Millennials are seeking.

Methodology: 127 interviews conducted with Reputation Council members between April and August 2017.

Read more from the Reputation Council...

Read more from the Ipsos Global Reputation Centre...

Unlocking the Value of Reputation: Full Report

THE DEFINITIVE LINK BETWEEN CORPORATE REPUTATION AND BETTER BUSINESS EFFICIENCY

Looking to make your company run more effectively and efficiently?

Management teams around the world face a variety of complex business situations daily. A great place to start boosting your business is by leveraging the power of your reputation.

Ipsos Global Reputation Centre research across 31 countries shows conclusive proof of the relationship between a good reputation and better business efficiency.

Our research explores:

BUILDING TRUST GIVES COMPANIES AN ADVANTAGE IN TELLING THEIR STORY IN TIMES OF CRISIS, MARKETING THEIR PRODUCTS EFFICIENTLY, AND TURNING STAKEHOLDERS INTO ADVOCATES.

Reputation and trust are powerful forces in business efficiency.

The social media landscape may be changing how people interact with companies. There may be regulatory issues impacting some sectors more than others. You may be doing business in a region that’s inherently more skeptical than the rest of the world.

But the bottom line remains the same: building trust builds reputation. And having a good reputation will result in better business efficiency.

Methodology: The latest wave of the Ipsos Global Reputation Monitor, conducted in September 2017, measured attitudes of more than 23,000 consumers from 31 countries toward 66 companies across nine industries.

Read more from 'Unlocking the Value of Reputation'...

Read more from the Ipsos Global Reputation Centre...

The link between trust, reputation and benefit of the doubt

BUILDING TRUST BUILDS REPUTATION. A GOOD REPUTATION BUILDS BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, AND ENSURES YOUR VOICE IS HEARD IN A CRISIS.

Trust matters. When you trust someone, you give them the benefit of the doubt. If that person gets in trouble, you will hear their side of the story before jumping to conclusions.

Companies seek to build the same benefit of the doubt among their stakeholders. Without a strong reputation, companies risk not having a receptive audience for their story when they need one the most.

Globally, people are generally willing to give companies the benefit of the doubt (24% definitely and 48% probably). This willingness to give the benefit of the doubt is tightly linked to overall trust.

Among people who trust a company a great deal, more than half (59%) say they would definitely give that company the benefit of the doubt in a crisis. Among people who are feel neutral toward a company, that percentage shrinks to just 10%.

How benefit of the doubt varies by industry

The imperative to build a strong reputation to get the benefit of the doubt is greatest in high risk sectors. However, EVERY company has risk and can obtain a competitive advantage by building a reputation that they can draw on in times of trouble.

At the industry level, technology companies are much more likely to get the benefit of the doubt than others. Highly regulated industries are viewed more skeptically.

Globally, technology and automotive companies have the strongest reputations and consequently the strongest benefit of the doubt.

Benefit of the doubt and trust are highly correlated. When companies build trust, they are building up benefit of the doubt.

The link between trust and benefit of the doubt are most tightly related at the ends of the spectrum - companies with the best reputation get the most benefit of the doubt, and least trusted companies generate very little benefit of the doubt. Companies in the middle (trust-wise), have more variance when it comes to getting the benefit of the doubt.

Airlines, telecommunications, and oil and gas companies have the greatest challenges.

How benefit of the doubt varies by region

Overall, Europeans are more skeptical of companies, while Latin Americans are more likely to give companies the benefit of the doubt.

Generally, a majority of people in every region say they would “probably” give companies the benefit of the doubt during times of crisis. This likelihood to extend the benefit of the doubt is why it is so important for companies to make sure they react appropriately to crises. An over-reaction due to a few hard-core skeptics can cause more harm than good. Companies need to remember that they generally have the benefit of the doubt and should therefore be forthcoming, rather than defensive.

Skeptical Europeans are a tougher audience than people from other parts of the world.

The impact of regulation on trust and benefit of the doubt

Oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications companies face the greatest amount of regulatory risk, and have the lowest trust and benefit of the doubt scores. While risk is also high for insurance and banking, there is also some evidence of people feeling these industries are over-regulated.

The desire for regulation is highest in Europe and North America, and lowest in APAC.

Methodology: The latest wave of the Ipsos Global Reputation Monitor, conducted in September 2017, measured attitudes of more than 23,000 consumers from 31 countries toward 66 companies across nine industries.

Read more from 'Unlocking the Value of Reputation'...

Read more from the Ipsos Global Reputation Centre...