Hello and welcome to When It Hits The Fan BBC Radio 4's podcast about what's really going on in the never-ending PR battle for your hearts and your minds and what the people who pull the puppet strings do when the puppet strings snap.
With me, David Yaland. And me, Simon Lewis. In this episode, we're asking, is it time for the business world to enter the great public debates of our time? And is it bad, PR, if you don't? X versus Blue Sky. What is the exodus from Elon Musk's social media platform mean for the way we all communicate and how companies communicate with us? And, Kelly Rooney's PR Coon. We're looking at what the I'm a celebrity star can teach the communications great and good about how to get your message across.
We're asking a very big question this week. In some ways, the biggest we've had so far on fan hitters. And this, folks, is our 50th episode. Yes. Happy birthday. Happy birthday to us. So we thought we'd mark it by saying this. Has business lost the argument? Has it lost the public? And what would that mean if
That was the case. And there's a reason we're going to ask that. We're going to talk later about big pharma. The US and the European and UK drug companies are what Robert Kennedy Jr's nomination as health secretary in the US means for them. Have they?
lost the argument. We're going to look at a very fascinating crisis at the ice cream makers, Ben and Jerry's, who sure do like controversy, they really like politics, so we're going to look at that. And then we're going to look at one particular UK boss, a chap who's really breaking through into the mainstream mass market, by which I mean BBC News and the Sun and the Times and the Mail, not just the business pages. He's a brave chap too, and I think
A very interesting one. To illustrate this, we're going to play a clip from BBC One's Question Time last week. This is an interaction between daily telegraph journalist Tim Stanley, who in answer to a question from the audience is talking about renewable energy. And Greg Jackson, who's the person I'm talking about, who is the founder and CEO of Octopus Energy. When you have a period like we've recently had, where the wind dies and where the sun doesn't shine, what happens?
I can give you an authoritative answer on what we do. It's always windy somewhere. It's always sunny somewhere. When they're windy, we get their power. When we're windy, we sell us them. And by the way, we're one of the windiest places in the world. This is an unusual thing to hear in the public square this. It's really, really fascinating. Here we have Greg Jackson, a self-made half billionaire on the way to being a billionaire.
interacting with the journalist and correcting him in real time in front of a mass market audience. Now, we're gonna go on time to talk a lot about this, but basically, I think that Greg Jackson is as good a communicator with the public as we've seen in a long time. He's right up there with Richard Branson, in my opinion. And I think, you know, we need to talk about this because it's interesting what happens when business does step up and correct facts that are wrong in front of millions of people.
What do you think, Simon? Well, I think he's redefining Greg Jackson, how we think about and talk about big energy customers, and what is after all a traditionally very old-fashioned industry. It's not just Greg Jackson, it's Dale Vintse of Ecatricity, and let's give a shout out to Chris O'Shea of Centrico, the biggest player in the market. Now, I think the interesting question is, why is this happening?
The energy market is changing and it's obviously opening up to newcomers. I mean, it's extraordinary, isn't it? Octopus has only been going for nine years and already has 7.7 million customers. And renewables, which that question was kind of about, that now represents over 40% of our energy market needs and wind power itself, which was referred to 30%. So there's been huge structural changes
And this business is now the biggest electricity supply in the UK, partly for that reason. It's come from nowhere to join what was always called mytasia centric of the big five. Obviously, it's bought a lot of companies along the way, bought barber, bought shell energy retail. And now it's competing directly with my old company, British gas centrica. And you're David, it's your talking. I was thinking, what you really need to win in this space is you need brand impact to create that sort of presence you refer to. And it's a kind of new type of leadership.
to embody the brand. Do you remember Hans Snoop David? I do. Of Orange. Yeah, yeah. Long time ago, but he was very similar. Great name. Great dress sense as well. He embodied the brand. The other thing about Octopus is it's a great case study. I think how they communicate with their customers. They're very consistent. They're very direct. I have to say they're completely different. And this is to the old British gas where there was wait for it, a customer complaints department. That's how it's all their customers. It's all a long way from Tel Cid.
You can now tell Greg directly on Greg at octopus.energy or call his mobile if you're a customer and have you a concern and he genuinely does respond. So what is it about their customer service that really cuts through? It's completely interactive. There's lots of shortcuts, quick fire answers. And I think David, what we're seeing is that the energy market is becoming a tech driven business.
The other thing, I want to say the final point, is that these newcomers also, I think, tapping into a deep dissatisfaction with how energy companies have often taken their customers for granted, and of course, a very strong public mood about green energy. Look, there's so much to talk about here, but I think what we're really talking about here is the risk business faces of losing the argument entirely, of being seen as part of the problem.
and not the solution. And this has been the case for quite a long time now, but I think in two sectors in energy around climate change and in health, which we're going to go on to talk about in a minute around vaccines in particular, you only have to listen to Mariana Spring, the BBC's superb social media investigations correspondent to understand that those are the two areas where the misinformation industry, which is massive and well-funded,
has been very active. So Greg Jackson in his sector and the health CEOs, which we're going to talk about later in their sector, aren't just dealing with pushing back against the times and the FT and doing traditional 20th century PR. They've got an avalanche of misinformation around there. Now we could do a whole program on who is funding misinformation around climate change.
and around vaccines. But it's big money. It's probably a lot of Russian money involved. There are people who, it is in their interests. Believe it or not, fur as not to believe in climate change science. Not the traditional oil and gas companies, not BP, not people like that, but there are people in the US that are funding this. And you know, Marianne talks about it all the time. So what Greg Jackson is doing is taking a big risk. I mean, for example, what does misinformation mean?
We're told all the time that China is only investing in coal-fired power stations. Greg Jackson on question time also said that 59% of all renewable energy in the world is currently being built in China and everybody in the energy sector knows that the Chinese, they are building a lot of fossil fuel stuff, but they're also very fast moving towards renewables. And you never hear that.
and you never read that. Now, 20, 30 years ago, it was probably quite wise to say to CEOs, you know, don't step in. Let's just leave it. It's fine. The press will do what the press will do, sort of thing. In the age of misinformation, if you don't step up and you don't step into the public square, you risk losing the entire debate and the consequences, as we can see in Washington at the moment, for the big farmer are huge.
I'm not suggesting that CEOs should become politicians. Clearly, they can't do that because these big global businesses are in so many different countries. Which particular country would they engage in? It's very difficult for them. But let's look at Ben and Jerry's. Let's look at a company, Simon, that decided to be controversial right from the start and see how that has gone for them.
Yep. In our world, David of PR, we are fascinated, aren't we, by successful brands, because they kind of live and breathe and they evolve over time. And as you say, a great example is Ben and Jerry's ice cream business created in 1978 in Vermont, in the US. It's been a phenomenon. It's not just its focus on innovative ice cream products, but its commitment and its words to make the world a better place. Now, of course, the world changed for them in 2000, when Unilever, the great big global consumer goods business,
bought them for $326 million and the founders left. David, that's a lot of tubs of ice cream they must have sold. But you know what? They tapped into something new, a values-based business. There was some really great names for ice creams. Cherry Garcia and Chubby Hubby, just to name two. Chubby hubby. Chubby hubby.
There was always, I think, likely to be a clash of cultures given Unilever's size and scale and caution and Ben and Jerry's commitment to activism. We believe they say ice cream can change the world. It led to an awkward semi-independent status within Unilever with a separate independent board, and I quote to defend Ben and Jerry's equity and integrity. Now David, it might all sound a bit west coast, although Vermont actually isn't the west coast, but they have been consistent in their approach.
But now we have Ben and Jerry's filing a legal complaint about its parent company in a New York district court. The complaint alleges that Unilever has breached an agreement to allow the brand to pursue its own social mission, in this case preventing it from calling for a ceasefireing Gaza or voicing support for refugees.
The agreement they're talking about follows a previous dispute between the ice cream maker and Unilever over Israel and the Palestinians. Now the current lawsuit says Unilever is required to respect the knowledge Ben and Jerry's independent board's prime responsibility over Ben and Jerry's social mission.
So that's all very clear. Anyway, Unilever told Reuters that it rejects the claims made by the Ben and Jerry's social mission board and would defend our case very strongly, they said. The statement also said that our hearts go out to all the victims of the tragic events in the Middle East.
Now, they were just to complicate matters. Unilever is seeking to spin off or sail or do something else with its ice cream brands, including Ben and Joe's Magnum and, yes, of course, Cornetto. It's a portfolio worth nearly £7 billion.
So David, not a great backdrop for a major disposal for Unilever. What do you think the PR fallout is going to be? This is a really interesting case study in what happens when business is set up and purposely decides to be not just political.
but incredibly controversial. I mean, the most controversial issues in the world, you know, the Israeli-Palestinian situation, asylum seekers. You know, this is the business Ben and Jerry's, which attacked Priti Patel when she was home secretary and said she was showing no humanity. And put out the statements and said, people cannot be illegal. Do you remember that? That was Ben and Jerry's. And she attacked them, by the way, and said that they sold quote-unquote overpriced junk food now.
people love Ben and Jerry's right it's one of the biggest ice cream brands in the world it's proof that controversy and politics can sell and also if you stop somebody in the street right now and said Ben and Jerry's they say oh yes please I like Ben and Jerry's if you said Unilever I'm not quite sure they would know what that was now Unilever might say that's fine because what we like to do is we like to communicate through our brands but you know what
their most popular brand or the most famous beloved brand, it may well be Ben and Jerry's. So I'm not saying, as I've already said, that business should become more political. But I think in the context of what we're talking about today, which is the fact that business has left the public square to the conspiracy theorist and the media and said, look, we don't want to get involved in politics for years. This isn't just happened now. It's happened for decades. I've been in many boardrooms over the years.
and I've been told by the communications chiefs and by the CEO, we don't want to be political. Even if they're in businesses that are really political, they're selling, for example, education, they're selling books and websites that serve in schools and universities around the world. Even people in those businesses say we don't want to be political. The reason they don't want to be political is they don't want to lose friends.
But actually, the world is changing so fast now that I think this entire thing needs looking at, because you could argue, if you were being controversial, that what happens in big business is they contract out the controversial bit to their public relations advisors, the firms and businesses, Simon that you and I have spent many years working for, but they don't actually take any risk.
And Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield took the opposite view. They took massive risk from the beginning. And it's an example of how that can work. Yeah. You know, ultimately Unilever owns this business outright and the decision to sell the company obviously was made for, I'm sure all the right reasons for the people who own it. But I think ultimately they're going to have to find a way of sorting this out because actually it's been a difficult and challenging sort of halfway house, hasn't it? And it would be very interesting to see where the court case ends up.
Yeah, and as I've said, the court case may be a tactic anyway. Let's see what happens. But one thing's for sure, the Ben and Jerry's brand will continue to grow whatever happens. Now, let's have a look at what's happening in America. We talked last week at great length about Donald Trump and what it means on the hill and what it means for the American economy and political class.
We got the situation for the big pharma companies. You know, GSK, obviously British, Pfizer, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, Sonofi, all their share prices fell last week. When it was announced that Robert Kennedy Jr. is Trump's nominee and Secretary of State for Health and Human Services.
That would mean that a vaccine skeptic, a guy who is on record, saying that vaccines are the worst thing in the world, would be in charge of the US Department of Health, the Center for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration, which decides which drugs are permitted for use in the huge United States market.
I don't know what you think, Simon, but I think this is a very good example of what happens when business doesn't involve itself in the argument, because this is a guy that's gone out there and said that the COVID vaccines do not work. This is in the country, the United States, where official US government figures themselves
say that a million, maybe 1.1 million, lives were saved thanks to the COVID vaccine. Another 10 million people were kept out of hospital because of COVID vaccine. Now, in this country, 127,000 lives were saved. In Europe, 1.4 million lives were saved. But when do you hear the drug companies and their CEOs saying this? When's the last time you switched on the telly and saw the CEO of a drug company saying that? And that's what the problem is.
The problem is they are not making the argument, so they have left it to the conspiracy theorists to make the argument. And now we have a conspiracy theorist who may well, you've got to get through the Senate nomination process, but may well become the Secretary of State for their industry. That is what happens when you don't do politics.
Yeah, if Robert Kennedy Jr. is true to his word, David, I think businesses will need to speak up. I mean, as you say, he hasn't yet be confirmed by the Senate. But you know, business is naturally so cautious, isn't it? And I was thinking, as you were talking, let's go back to the Brexit referendum here if we want to, if we can. I mean, the fact about the key thing about the referendum is that a lot of businesses felt exposed because they went out and they advocated in favor of staying obviously in the EU and
The decision went the other way. And I think as a result, business felt exposed. There were some organizations who talked about them before, like the CBI, who really put in a very difficult position because they were seen to have advocated for a particular outcome. So I think businesses generally always worry about taking a stance where their licensed operate is impacted.
And what do we mean by that? We often talk about it. We mean being a position where political decisions might be made that stop them doing what they want to do in terms of their kind of get on with the business. So I think it's worth just reminding ourselves that sometimes the caution of businesses is kind of understandable because they don't really understand where the politics is going to end up. But this is definitely, as you say, one, we need to watch.
I agree there and I understand about the caution that and I've seen it have experienced that but what I'm worried about is that that caution comes now at a huge cost and actually the question needs to be asked for our whole industry really is whether business is just talking to itself and not to the people that need persuading. People are ditching Elon Musk's X for an upstart social network called Blue Sky.
What hasn't been around for a long time is Blue Sky, the social media. We'll call it the Exodus from Exodus. It looks and functions a lot like Twitter. Maybe Elon put a little bit of the thumb on the scale. It seems like some time on what you see on X.
Well, now, David, a story that's got the social media world buzzing over the last few weeks. Two million people and rising have left X to go to blue sky. This follows the election of Donald Trump and his appointment of Elon Musk, the owner of X, as head of a new department of government efficiency when Trump takes charge as president in January. Trump says that Elon Musk will advise on government cost cutting, slashing excess regulations and cutting wasteful spending.
It doesn't help probably that X have changed the function of the block button, which I think hasn't gone down very well. But the fact is there's a new kid on the block. What is Blue Sky? It describes itself as social media as it should be, or decentralized alternative to Twitter. On its website, it says, Blue Sky was created to put users and communities in control of their social spaces online. The first generation of social media platforms connected the world, but ended up consolidating power.
in the hands of a few corporations and their leaders. Our online experience, they say, doesn't have to depend on billionaires. You're not actually making decisions over what we see. On an open social network like Blue Sky, you can shape your experience for yourself. Now, it's created by the former head of Twitter, Jack Dorsey. It seems to be coming through. I spoke to two people. I'm going to call them city grandis, David, this week, both of whom who signed up already. Now, Jack Dorsey has stepped down from the board. I think it may.
because he said Blue Sky was making all the same mistakes as Twitter slash X. He's still an investor. David, I know you already signed up. You're always ahead of the curve. What do you think of X versus Blue Sky and what does it mean for the PR world?
Yeah, I have signed up. I'll talk about that in a minute, but let's look at the background of why this is happening. I love podcasts, and I don't just listen to this one. I listen to Kara Swisher's podcast, who is the leading commentator on the U.S. West Coast in the Valley, and she has a complex and fascinating relationship with Elon Musk. But she said, and I listened to the podcast that she did the day before the election, when obviously she and none of us knew what was going to happen.
And interestingly, she said, this is not the podcast election, as everybody's been saying, this is the Elon election. And she said, he's gone old school oligarch. He is a tech drama queen. And, you know, she is quite right. He has gone completely over the top. And there is real evidence, you know, on the same podcast, he had Zoe Shiffer on, who's written a super book about Elon Musk and Twitter.
And now runs her own website, by the way, in a West Coast Corps platformer, which is one of the real go-to places for news about what's happening in the tech world. She says that there is real evidence that he has to use her words
put his thumbs on the scales of the platform, i.e. on X on what we used to call Twitter, to basically give more followers to people on the right than people on the left. To use the algorithm to create anger, to create discord, and that's why people are leaving it. There's a fundamental difference. You know, when you go on to Blue Sky, it feels like Twitter felt when it started out.
It's a kinder place. It's a more collaborative place. You know, when you post something, people come back and say, yeah, that's interesting. How about this? Have you thought about that? That's what Twitter used to be. When you're on X now, you post something and you get absolutely bombarded. The algorithm has, it would appear,
been engineered to help create Donald Trump's America. I don't think that's putting it too far. There's no law being broken there, by the way. Elon Musk is entitled to do whatever he wants with his platform, but the question for all of us
is whether we want to spend time on it. And if there's a big schism in this world now between Twitter and Blue Sky, we're going to talk about that in a minute. It creates quite a lot of challenges, doesn't it, Simon, for people in our world, for PR people. The fact is people are leaving in their millions, and this is a real story, isn't it, Simon?
Yeah, look, something is definitely happening. The Guardian has left X, maybe not a surprise, but they have 27 million followers. They said we think the benefits of being on X are now outweighed by the negatives. Stating the platform promotes, in their words, far-right conspiracy theories and racism.
Now, at the other end of the spectrum, the other end of the bridge, the Clifton suspension bridge, that it would no longer post due to the rise in inappropriate content and decrease in meaningful engagement. Now, that post, and this is the most interesting thing, got 4.5 million views. So I think the question people in our world, Dave, will be asking, both advisors like us and people in companies, will being on X or blue sky affect my brand.
Will it polarise the social media space? And as we said, it's a theme for today. Business would always rather be in a neutral place. And let's see what this means in terms of that neutrality. I think what you've said is absolutely right. And I've been asked by people now, you know, businesses, what should we do? I think my advice is this.
go to blue sky but stay on x for the time being you know the danger for our world is that there's this big sort of split and you only get right wing stuff on x and liberal stuff on blue sky and never the train will meet and that represented a risk for business and for pr we need to you know be in both worlds really in the perfect world we need a platform that isn't fixed
And the algorithm isn't fixed just to benefit one side, but unfortunately we're not going to get that on X. I think that's pretty clear. No, and just a final word for me. I think the reality of companies and PR and businesses posting on social media is that actually don't forget it's your communication itself that needs to be well-crafted enough to satisfy the requirements of any platform. Could be X, could be blue sky, could be Instagram, could be threads. That's what it's about. Our core skill is about communications. Yeah, agreed.
Can you imagine if Lady Dana had had done a wag at the Christie? I just don't know if because I was just that safe and tired of it. It was Jaina. I felt ashamed, because I'm not that type to play things out in. But you did. I just felt like it was putting on a show for the whole world.
We're going to end this week, Simon, talking about one of the great communicators in our midst. And that is not a footsie company, not the Prime Minister, not even the royal family. It is Colleen Rooney. Not Wayne Rooney. Not Wayne Rooney, not even Wayne Rooney. I was struck at the weekend how, you know, anyone that goes into, I'm a celebrity, which is what Colleen's doing, does a whole series of interviews. That's what you do, particularly for her because she's the big star of this season.
She managed to get the same headline on the front page of four national newspapers, which was basically that Wagatha Christie is history, that she was trying to put and is trying to put that battle with Rebecca Vardy in her purse. Now, we can talk all day about this, but fundamentally, in our game, in the PR game,
how unusual is it Simon to get the same headline on the front page. That requires huge amounts of work of getting the messaging right, that's what we call in the PR game, you know, messaging that you want to say, to get that right, to say it in a powerful enough way that they take it and to make sure you don't say anything else that's anywhere near as interesting so that you secure the headline. So she's a very wise, a very smart woman is Colleen Rooney and I think she needs a little bit of credit.
Completely agree. I mean, let's take our bush tucker hats off to Colleen. I know. And we were on other sides of it. How difficult it is trying to get the headline you want into any form of media. And doesn't matter with your number 10 or the best stuff. In fact, the worst question a PR advisor can ever hear from a client is now, what's the headline you want to see for this? Because we all know.
You're never going to get the headline. And let's be honest, Colleen has done it. I'm sure she's very well advised. And she's delivered what she wanted, which was to frame her time in the jungle. And they say you can never write the headline you want, but Colleen has come close. So let's say she's done a great job. And let's see whether she comes through as the winner of the I'm a celebrity process.
I think the reality is that Colleen and the people that advise have a lot to teach the rest of us. And she is extremely good at what she does. And people love her, of course. And the reason they love her is she's very clear about what she stands for and what she says. Also, we've got to appreciate that Colleen, I think, has her eye on the future. There's talk of a future deal with ITV and she is a brand ambassador for Applied Nutrition. Now, David, this time last year we were talking about Nigel Farage.
And what impact going into the jungle would have on his profile and political prospects have stood for, obviously, the general election had taken place. Well, let's just say, despite there being many to choose from, the bookers at Ima Celebrity haven't yet chosen a single politician to enter the jungle this year. That is very true. And, you know, I'm not sure that far as we've done as well as he did at the election, if it wasn't for the fact that he went into the jungle. And that's something else to think about.
Absolutely right, but well done, Colleen. You've got off to a flying start and we can all learn one or two things about PR from you. Yeah, absolutely. Well, that's it from both of us for this week, but do remember to get in touch with us if you have a PR question you'd like answering. On WhatsApp, you can text the word fan to 03700100444, then start a new message with your question either as a text
or better still a recorded voice note. Or you can text us a question by SMS to 848.4. You'll find all these details on the when it hits the fan contact page on the BBC's website and do make sure you subscribe to us on BBC Sounds. Until the next time, thanks for listening. Bye-bye. Bye.
In 1984, an IRA bomb planted under a bath in Brighton's Grand Hotel, came close to killing Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet. It was the biggest direct assault on a British government since the gunpowder plot.
From BBC Radio 4, I'm Glenn Patterson. And in the Brighton bomb, I tell the story of the deadly attack, unraveling the threads that brought all involved often by heartbreaking chants to that place and time, 2.54 a.m. on the morning of the 12th of October. And I reveal why the police only just averted a follow-up bombing campaign aimed at England's beaches.
To hear the Brighton Bomb and many other great history documentaries, search for the History Podcast on BBC Science.
