GLOBAL COMMUNICATION REPORT
2024 AUTHOR
Fred Cook
CONTRIBUTORS
MYRIANT BY UNITED MINDS
Ben Kalevitch
Emily Caruso
KRC RESEARCH
Abby Ferdinando
Colleen Learch
Ben Davies
Allison Smith
CENTER FOR PR
Ron Antonette
Grayson Wolff MA ‘24
Michael Kittilson MA ‘25
Mystie Ng MCG ‘24
SPECIAL THANKS
David Michaelson
Marcie Carson
IE Design + Communications
USC ANNENBERG CENTER FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS
2024 GLOBAL COMMUNICATION REPORT
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 2024
SINCE THE RACIAL JUSTICE PROTESTS IN THE SUMMER OF 2020, our research, and that of many others, has shown a surge in corporate activism. Many companies that had never addressed a topic not directly related to their core business made public statements in response to the events of the day. Disney opposed “Don’t Say Gay” legislation in Florida. Lyft protested anti-abortion legislation in Texas. Nike stood behind Colin Kaepernick against the NFL. Dick’s Sporting Goods discontinued gun sales. Yvon Chouinard gave the company he founded, Patagonia, to an environmental group.
According to a Yale study, more than 180 U.S. companies issued statements related to the Israel/Hamas conflict.
This dramatic upswing in corporate activism has been driven by several factors. First, a prevailing sense that government has not fulfilled its role in society, combined with a belief that corporations possessed the resources and expertise to solve some of these major problems. Our research indicates the primary reason business stepped up engagement with social issues is the rising expectations among its stakeholders. A year ago, we reported that
69% of consumers, 71% of employees and 89% of investors believe companies have the responsibility to help solve some of society’s problems. Today, those numbers have dropped significantly with consumers (-8%) and employees (-7%) but have increased with investors (+7%).
Over the past decade, the terminology for social engagement that falls outside of normal business activity has evolved from philanthropy and corporate social responsibility to PURPOSE — a belief that companies who embed a deeper mission in their business that reflects their stakeholders’ values earn brand loyalty, public recognition and a higher valuation. PR professionals became the primary advocates for this powerful narrative, infusing purpose into their internal messaging and external programs.
Polarization also emerged as a powerful force in the battle for hearts and minds. At Annenberg, we did a four-year study of this phenomenon, which yielded several interesting discoveries. Overall, polarization in the U.S. has remained at the same high level since Trump left office. Yet, the issues
that drive polarization have shifted considerably. For example, the conversation around abortion has intensified, while the debate around climate change has cooled. Healthcare, which was a divisive topic during the Trump administration, has been eclipsed by the disagreement over the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. Together, these moving parts form a Rubik’s Cube for corporate communicators, who must anticipate how every word they say, about every topic they face will impact a diverse set of stakeholders, who wield the power to protect or damage their brand, with social media as their primary weapon.
We also discovered that Polarization is no longer simply the result of disagreements between people with different opinions. It has escalated into a culture war, where the lines are being drawn by politicians and media who seek to increase ratings, raise money and get votes. Because there is no room for nuance in a polarized environment, operating from the extremes has become an efffective brand building marketing strategy, with no signs of abating.
In this unprecedented year, purpose and polarization are colliding head on, posing a challenge for CEOs. They’re walking a tightrope in a hurricane. Balancing the weight of competing demands from their stakeholders, while withstanding turbulence from a category-five political storm. It’s tempting to hunker down until it blows over, but silence isn’t a sanctuary for companies with strong values and close relationships with their employees and customers.
Leaders need to be prepared for this high wire act with a deep grasp of the issues, an intimate understanding of their stakeholders, and sound judgement on when they should engage. We hope this research will help you find the right balance.
FRED COOK DIRECTOR, USC ANNENBERG CENTER FOR PUBLIC RELATIONSThe first step in the Balancing Act is to gauge stakeholder expectations, which we did for this report. It is probably no surprise that we found many Americans believe our country is headed in the wrong direction.
OVERALL, WOULD YOU SAY THAT EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, OR ARE OFF ON THE WRONG TRACK?
You may be surprised that communication professionals are the most pessimistic, with only 16% saying the country is headed in the right direction. Along with investors and business leaders, they give higher marks to the economy, because these groups benefit from it more than the average consumer. Senior executives give themselves an A for leading their companies in the right direction, but employees are harder graders.
Politics also impacts people’s opinion. Republicans are significantly more likely to be feel negatively about the direction of the country and the economy. The percentage that are positive is only in the teens. This negativity will likely continue throughout the presidential campaign, at least with the 47% of Republicans who think their party is headed in the right direction. Democrats are more positive across the board, but they are also mixed on the direction of their party.
■
■
■
■
■
IN YOUR OPINION, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING GROUPS IS PLAYING A POSITIVE ROLE IN ADDRESSING SOCIETAL CHALLENGES?
We found that less than half of Americans believe that any group is meeting their expectations in addressing social challenges. Consumers and employees give the most credit to nonprofit groups and the least to major corporations. Investors, business leaders and PR professionals rank the role played by big business at the top of their lists — much higher than their stakeholders do.
■ PR PROFESSIONALS
■ BUSINESS LEADERS
■ INVESTORS
■ EMPLOYEES
■ CONSUMERS
DO COMPANIES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS SOCIAL ISSUES?
Most stakeholders agree that companies have the responsibility to address social issues. For consumers, the percentage who agree has dropped 8% from last year. For employees, it declined by 7%. Public relations professionals had a smaller drop of 4%.
These changes are significant and may be a sign of a broader shift away from purpose. On the other hand, the percentage of investors who hold companies responsible for addressing social issues rose to 96%!
Looking deeper, almost three fourths of Democrats agree that business should play a role in society, compared to slightly over half of Republicans. While, 66% of Gen Z respondents believe companies should engage compared with 56% of
Boomers. The percentage who expect companies to get involved also rises with personal income levels. These profiles reflect the demographics of polarization.
BIG BUSINESS RESPONSIBILITY TO PLAY A ROLE VS. CURRENTLY PLAYING A POSITIVE ROLE
■ RESPONSIBILITY TO PLAY ■ CURRENTLY PLAYING
When you compare each group’s expectations of big business with their perceptions of the positive role it is playing in society, you see some significant gaps, especially with the most important groups — employees and consumers. These gaps represent
both challenges and opportunities for business. Many CEOs are calculating whether the opportunities are worth the risks and the answer is different for every organization. The only way to find out what works for your company is to ask your stakeholders.
The second step in the Balancing Act is understanding the issues that are important to your stakeholders. The list is long and it changes all the time. What was important to them last year may not be next year, but rest assured something else will replace it.
HOW MUCH DO YOU KNOW ABOUT A COMPANY’S STANCES?
HOW MUCH DO BUSINESS LEADERS THINK YOU KNOW?
■ VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE
■ SOMEWHAT KNOWLEDGEABLE
■ NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE
Begin by finding out what stakeholders actually know about your company. Executives can easily overestimate the level of awareness both employees and consumers have about their company’s positions and their programs. This knowledge gap can be a blind spot in decision making and a disconnect in a crisis. Stakeholders can only evaluate an organization’s current actions in the context of their previous ones. The more they know about you, the more they will support you.
■ CONSUMERS
WHAT ISSUES ARE YOU, AS A CONSUMER, FOCUSED ON?
WHAT ISSUES SHOULD COMPANIES FOCUS ON?
■ PERSONALLY FOCUSED ON
■ COMPANIES SHOULD FOCUS ON
In this survey, we asked consumers which topics they were focused on and which ones they thought the companies should focus on. In most cases, consumers want the brands they support to focus on the issues that are important to them,
with a couple of exceptions, like the upcoming election which is near the top of their list at 72%, but closer to the bottom of what they expect from companies. This should be welcome news to organizations who want to avoid political controversy.
WHAT ISSUES DO YOU THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO YOUR CONSUMERS?
WHAT ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT TO YOUR COMPANY?
■ IMPORTANT TO CONSUMERS ■ IMPORTANT TO COMPANY
To find out how well senior executives know their customers, we asked them which issues they thought consumers cared about the most. Then we compared that to the issues which their companies were focused on. They freely admit that many issues are not as important to them as they are to consumers.
There are too many social issues for one company to tackle effectively. Our previous research says they should focus on no more than three, which should be aligned with their values, legacy and expertise. They can address the other issues that matter to their stakeholders in more measured ways.
■ BUSINESS LEADERS
■ CONSUMERS
BUSINESS LEADER PERCEPTIONS VS. CONSUMER REALITY
OVERESTIMATE FOCUS
UNION WORKERS’ RIGHTS
TRANSGENDER RIGHTS
THE
CLIMATE CHANGE
This graph is a good illustration of the tightrope executives must walk. As you can see, their preconceived opinion about the importance consumers place on the economy is right on the money, but there are sizable gaps between the perceived
and real importance with many other topics. When the issue is serious, the divide can become difficult to bridge. Comparing different stakeholder groups to each other exposes the existing friction points and helps avoid creating new ones.
MIS/DISINFORMATION
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE ISSUES
MENTAL HEALTH
GUN VIOLENCE
ABORTION
UNDERESTIMATE FOCUS
WHEN SHOULD A COMPANY LEAD, FOLLOW OR AVOID?
This is an interesting look at what issues stakeholders feel a company should take a leadership position on. The first three groups — employees, investors and executives — are strikingly similar in their opinions on almost every topic. Surprisingly,
the communication professionals are the contrarians. They think companies should lead on DEI, climate change, misinformation, but be more reticent to get out in front on immigration, gun violence and union workers’ rights. This data can be viewed
in two ways. As communication experts, they gravitate toward familiar subjects that are natural for a business to address. Or, as corporate counselors, they shy away from controversial
subjects with a higher risk factor. In either case, they should be conscious of the expectations of their stakeholders and willing to assume some level of risk for the right cause.
■ BUSINESS LEADERS
■ EMPLOYEES
HOW FOCUSED IS YOUR COMPANY ON EACH OF THE FOLLOWING TOPICS?
To gauge the alignment and the perceptions of employees and employers, we asked them both to rank their companies focus on issues and then rate how they are performing against their goals. The employers reported they were most focused on the economy, mental health and DEI. Employees said their
employers were focused on the same issues, but with less intensity. Although some employees surveyed stated their knowledge is limited, this chart shows that employees are fairly well aligned on what their companies are focused on overall.
HOW WELL IS YOUR COMPANY DELIVERING ON ITS GOALS RELATED TO EACH OF THE FOLLOWING TOPICS?
Notably, the executives gave themselves high marks for delivering on their goals. Employees, despite their overall critical view of big business, also feel that their employers are delivering on their commitment across the long list of issues, even on the tough topics, which demonstrates the importance of effective internal communications. Moving forward, if organizations begin to pull back on purpose-driven messaging to employees these scores will likely decline.
The third step in the Balancing Act is to become fluent in the language of the stakeholder, especially the ones who speak the loudest.
AS A CONSUMER, WHAT ACTION WILL YOU TAKE IF A COMPANY’S POSITION ON AN IMPORTANT ISSUE ALIGNS WITH YOURS?
In every group, there’s a subset of people who are more “active” than the rest — more political, more outspoken and more extreme. If they’re fans of your brand, they will be your biggest advocates. If they aren’t, they can be your biggest detractors.
In a polarized society, the negative voices often receive the most attention, but the activist stakeholders, who believe your values align with theirs, will buy your products, promote your brand and defend you in a crisis.
■ CONSUMERS AS A CONSUMER, WHAT ACTIONS WILL YOU TAKE IF YOU DISAGREE WITH A COMPANY’S POSITION ON AN IMPORTANT ISSUE?
SEND A LETTER TO THE COMPANY EXPRESSING DISAPPROVAL
EXPRESS MY OPINIONS TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY
EXPRESS MY OPINIONS ON SOCIAL MEDIA
NOT MAKE DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE COMPANY ITSELF
KEEP MY OPINIONS TO MYSELF
NOT POST MY OPINIONS ON SOCIAL MEDIA
SELL MY SHARES IN THE COMPANY
KEEP MY FINANCIAL DECISIONS SEPARATE BOYCOTT THE COMPANY
KEEP BUYING THE PRODUCT BECAUSE I LIKE IT
Based on our research, we believe activist stakeholders who are willing to publicly protest, criticize online, or boycott products represent less than 10% of the stakeholder population. But, their actions have the ability to influence the other 90%,
if those are the only voices they hear. In the media echo chamber, negative new travels faster and farther than positive news.
If a company is planning to make a statement on a politicallycharged issue, introduce a divisive policy or launch a
AS AN EMPLOYEE, WHAT ACTIONS WILL YOU TAKE IF YOU DISAGREE WITH YOUR COMPANY’S POSITION ON AN IMPORTANT ISSUE?
controversial product, the PR team can anticipate the response by taking a deeper look at their most vocal employees, investors and consumers with their own research, instead of relying only on the opinions of HR, IR and Sales. Being fluent with your stake-
holders is critical to decision making. In our digital world, social media has added a new dimension to Newton’s third law, which now should read: Every action creates an equal and opposite chain reaction.
WHAT FACTORS WOULD PREVENT YOUR COMPANY FROM ENGAGING WITH AN IMPORTANT SOCIAL ISSUE?
When deciding whether to speak out on an issue, there are a lot of audiences to consider, especially for a global company operating in countries with different cultural and legal standards. When considering speaking out on an issue, the U.S. executives we surveyed said they were more concerned about alienating customers and employees than angering government
officials. This is a legitimate point because those two groups are the normally the most important stakeholders. But in our current political environment, when Congress is considering banning companies from operating in the U.S., it is wise to include the reaction of elected officials and prospective candidates in your calculations, especially in an election year.
HOW MUCH INFLUENCE DOES EACH GROUP HAVE ON A DECISION TO TAKE A STANCE ON AN ISSUE?
■ A GREAT DEAL
■ SOME ■ ONLY A LITTLE
■ NONE
■ NOT SURE/DON’T KNOW
Although senior executives state that customers and employees are their most important consideration when they are pondering involvement on an issue, they admit their executive leadership has more influence on their decision making. Even If they’re right, it’s important to find out if your customers and employees agree. Communicators are always talking about their audience,
which implies a large group of people sitting quietly in front a theater stage, waiting for an important person to tell them what they think. We should ban the word “audience” from the PR vocabulary, because today the roles are reversed. Stakeholders are not sitting quietly for anyone.
Stakeholder fluency isn’t: “This is what I think.”
Instead it’s: “This is what our stakeholders think.”
Whether you are in Chicago or China, understanding your stakeholders is the secret to maintaining your balance. Once that is accomplished, the rest of the trip becomes a walk in the park — unless an unprecedented election knocks you off your feet.
HOW COMFORTABLE ARE YOU COMMUNICATING ON THE FOLLOWING TOPICS?
In our survey, we ask each group how comfortable they are talking about the topics in our survey, communication professionals again ranked themselves lower than the other groups on the tougher topics, including gun violence, immigration and abortion, but higher on workplace issues like DEI and Mental Health.
It’s doubtful they’re less informed on these topics than consumers and employees. It’s more likely they understand the risks associated with engaging on difficult topics, like the Israel/Hamas conflict, which ranks the lowest on their list. Many PR people believe this war is one of the most challenging issues they’ve
ever tackled, because they cannot publicly support either side without alienating another group of passionate stakeholders.
Unfortunately, we are going to see a lot more situations like this in the future as the issues increase in complexity and the
stakeholders embrace them more passionately. Companies will need the courage to address them, even when they know they’re going to anger someone in the process. Those who try to avoid every controversy are going to find themselves in one of their own.
“
It doesn’t matter how many people hate your brand, as long as enough people love it. And as long as you have that attitude, you can’t be afraid of offending people. You can’t try and go down the middle of the road. You have to take a stand on something.”
Phil Knight NIKE, Inc.
HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO YOU THAT A COMPANY TAKE A PUBLIC STANCE ON THE FOLLOWING ISSUES?
When we examine previous charts through a political lens, the impact of polarization comes into focus. It becomes clear that consumers are sticking to party lines, with no hope of consensus. On every issue we researched, the percentage of Democrats who support corporate involvement exceeds the percentage
of Republicans who agree — often by 30 or more percentage points. For example, 80 % of Democrats say companies should be engaged on DEI versus 37% of Republicans. This is staggering gap on a topic that many view as a basic corporate necessity and there are many more like it.
■ PR PROFESSIONALS
■ BUSINESS LEADERS
■ INVESTORS
■ EMPLOYEES
■ CONSUMERS
WILL COMPANIES TAKE MORE OR LESS OF A PUBLIC STANCE ON ISSUES...
DURING THE 2024 ELECTION CYCLE?
DURING THE NEXT 4 YEARS?
Interestingly, a significant percentage of overall stakeholders, including those in the C-suite, expect companies will turn up the volume during the election. Communication professionals are the only group to lean toward a lower profile strategy. When asked about the future, one-fourth of them said the results of the election would determine their stance over the next four years. Are they being too cautious or do they understand the political peril better than the others? The answer is both.
In turbulent times, the objective is often to stay out of the news, especially when it is bad. For PR pros, the ability to kill a negative story has long been a valued asset. Today, the ability to avoid media altogether may be considered even more valuable.
These are the kinds of choices that CEOs will make every day this year and probably for the next four. Do they speak out or stay silent? They will look to their PR people for those answers.
WILL YOUR LEVEL OF INVESTMENT IN TRACKING AND REPORTING ESG INCREASE?
Last year, we stated that “Woke” had become a four-letter word. This year, ESG has achieved a similar status, with one less letter. The comparisons are remarkable. In 2023, 79% of corporate communicators said their companies would be investing more in ESG in the next five years. Twelve months later that number has decreased 33 points, which is a 42% drop.
A review conducted by the USC Center for PR , with data analytics firm Cometrics, found those three letters are being wiped from the corporate vocabulary. The majority of the 50 largest US companies are de-emphasizing their ESG reports and their sustainability efforts. Many have lowered their overall communication on climate change and other social issues, while quietly moving cause-related information deeper into their websites. This is a concerning trend in a time when these global issues need more attention, not less.
■
PR PROFESSIONALS WHAT IS GOOD ADVICE FOR A CEO WHO IS CONSIDERING ADDRESSING AN ISSUE BEING DEBATED DURING THE UPCOMING PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN?
Twenty-nine percent of the professional communicators in our survey believe it is good advice to tell a CEO to “stay silent” on issues that were being debated in the Presidential campaign. But 57% said it wasn’t. Forty-one percent agreed that “not taking a stand” was good advice and 30% disagreed. More than half said that “waiting to see what others do” was the way to go versus 29% who called that bad advice.
Obviously, counsel to a CEO varies widely depending upon the nature of the issue and the mindset of the stakeholders. But the range of responses to this question reflects the complexity of these decisions. There is no playbook for choosing when to stay silent and when to speak up. Those decisions are best made case-by-case, based on knowledge of the stakeholders. The majority did agree that if a CEO is going to take a stand on an issue it should be relevant to the business, its values and its stakeholders — not just the C-suite’s personal beliefs.
■ BUSINESS LEADERS
■ INVESTORS
■ EMPLOYEES
■ CONSUMERS
WHAT IMPACT WILL THE ELECTION OF JOE BIDEN HAVE ON THE FOLLOWING ?
When you compare the overall numbers for both candidates, the impact of who wins the election doesn’t appear to be that significant. More than half of each stakeholder group believe that polarization will improve under Biden. But for Trump, the numbers are not far behind.
WHAT IMPACT WILL THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP HAVE ON THE FOLLOWING ?
Under Trump’s administration, twice as many business leaders think government oversight will increase than under Biden.
■ DEMOCRATS
WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF EITHER BIDEN OR TRUMP BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT?
BIDEN WINS
TRUMP WINS
When the data is segmented by party affiliation, the numbers mirror each other in a portrait of polarization that is spread by cable news and shared on social media. On many topics there is a huge opinion gap, but over half of Republicans and Democrats agree that stakeholder demands and corporate engagement on societal issues will increase, regardless of who is elected. This will be a challenge for tomorrow’s CEOs who want to do the right thing. Because what’s “right” for some has become “wrong” for others.
Americans disagree about many things, but they have one thing in common. They respect companies who stand up for their values, whether it’s Chick-fil-A or Nike. A few may refuse to eat their sandwiches or buy their shoes, but most people aren’t surprised when these companies speak out against something that threatens their values. In fact, they’re more surprised when they don’t.
If we live in a time when it is impossible to make everyone happy, does it make sense to keep trying? Isn’t it better to stand for something and accept that some people will disagree?
Regardless of who wins and who loses, the outcome of this election will have a long-term impact on corporate communication. Some companies will feel less constrained after the battle is over, while others will wait until the dust settles, which may take a long time.
How will this saga end for the PR profession? Will we be the cautious ones, who are hesitant to stand up for what we believed? Will we be the wise ones, who provided sage counsel to protect our reputations? Or will we be the bold ones, who did what was right, regardless of the consequences?
The correct answer is all of the above. We have to be nimble to solve anomalous problems. We have to be smart to understand complex issues. We have to be brave to make difficult decisions. If we stay focused on purpose, we won’t fall.
This is the essence of the balancing act.
This survey developed for the 2024 Global Communication Report sought to delve into the crucial question of the role that companies should play in addressing social issues. Its objective was to gain a comprehensive understanding of how different audiences perceive corporate communications across specific social issues that hold immense importance in today’s society. Furthermore, the survey aimed to analyze the influence of the 2024 presidential election on individuals’ perspectives regarding corporate communications.
METHODOLOGY
The survey was conducted online from February 28, 2024, to March 12, 2024, targeting consumers, investors, and business leaders. Additionally, communication professionals were surveyed online from February 20, 2024, to March 12, 2024, with invitations sent to
members of the USC Center for Public Relations mailing list, PR-related email lists and social media posts by the Center for PR and affiliated PR membership organizations. Each sample was asked similar questions, but tailored to their group’s specific interests and knowledge. Responses were subjected to extensive data cleaning to eliminate dubious response patterns and respondents who had misclassified themselves. The samples for this survey are “convenience samples.” Consequently, we cannot say that the responses are representative of the respective populations. Nevertheless, we believe this data offers numerous directional insights into the attitudes and beliefs of the public relations and related communities.
DESCRIPTIONS OF SURVEY SAMPLES
PR Professionals: Department/role is Communications/PR across various industries, N=163
Investors: Institutional investors in various sectors including commercial banks, hedge funds, insurance companies and mutual funds, N=54
Business Leaders: Position titles including C-Suite, President/CEO, Owner, or VP/AVP/SVP and hold primary decision-making role at their company, N=100
Employees: A subset of the sample of U.S. adults who have part-time or full-time employment, N=709
Consumers: A census representative sample of U.S. adults, N=1,537
UNDERWRITING PARTNER
PARTNERS
BOARD OF ADVISERS LEADERSHIP
DIRECTOR
Fred Cook fcook@usc.edu
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
Burghardt Tenderich, PhD tenderic@usc.edu
CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER
Ron Antonette ron.antonette@usc.edu
SENIOR STRATEGIC ADVISOR
Tina Vennegaard tinaven@usc.edu
SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW
Ulrike Gretzel, PhD gretzel@usc.edu
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Janine Hurty hurty@usc.edu
Jennifer Acree* JSA+Partners
Jonathan Adashek
IBM
Jessica C. Adelman
Mars Wrigley
Christine Alabastro* Prenuvo
Vanessa Anderson
AMPR Group
Dan Berger
Amazon
Clarissa Beyah
Union Pacific
Tala Booker*
Via Group
Judy Gawlik Brown
Downtown Agency
Adrienne Cadena**
Havas Street
Dominic Carr
Starbucks
Vijay Chattha
VSC
Janet Clayton*
Vectis Strategies
Stephanie Corzett*
Nordstrom
Carrie Davis
CD Consulting
Doug Dawson
Microsoft
Chris Deri
Weber Shandwick
Dani Dudeck*
Instacart
Bob Feldman*
Feldman + Partners
Beth Foley
Edison International
Matt Furman
ExxonMobil
Robert Gibbs
Bully Pulpit Interactive
Brenda Gonzalez*
US Citizen & Immigration Services
Cynthia Gordon*
Nintendo of America
Jennifer Gottlieb
Real Chemistry
Simon Halls*
Slate PR
Matthew Harrington
Edelman
Jon Harris
Conagra Brands
Sona Iliffe-Moon*
Yahoo
Bill Imada*
IW Group
Megan Jordan*
Claremont McKenna
Nina Kaminer
Nike Communications
Seema Kathuria
Russell Reynolds Assoc.
Megan Klein*
Warner Bros. Discovery
Chris Kuechenmeister
PepsiCo
Maryanne Lataif*
AEG Worldwide
Elizabeth Luke*
Kelly McGinnis
Levi Strauss
Gulden Mesara
City of Hope
Josh Morton
Nestlé North America
Torod B. Neptune*
Medtronic
Glenn Osaki**
USC
Erica Rodriguez Pompen
Micron
Ron Reese*
Las Vegas Sands
Heather Rim*
Optiv
Melissa Robinson
Boingo Wireless
Josh Rosenberg
Day One Agency
Kristina Schake
The Walt Disney Company
Barby Siegel
Zeno Group
Charlie Sipkins
FGS Global
Hilary Smith
NBCUniversal
Don Spetner*
Weber Shandwick
Kirk Stewart**
KTStewart
Michael Stewart*
Hyundai
Grant Toups*
Hill & Knowlton
David Tovar
Grubhub
Gerry Tschopp
Experian
Mya Walters
Athleta
KeJuan Wilkins
Nike
Julia Wilson*
Wilson Global & Hampton Univ.
Deanne Yamamoto**
Golin
Melissa Waggener Zorkin
WE Communications
*
USC alumnus
*CPR founding member
RESEARCH PARTNER
FOR MORE INFORMATION
ABOUT OUR WORK VISIT
annenberg.usc.edu/cpr