Edelman UK is looking to Stockholm to accelerate its creative ambitions consolidating its capabilities under the Edelman Deportivo banner.

Stockholm based Deportivo was described by Contagious in January 2017 as the “best and the bravest on the planet” for its innovative work that pushes the boundaries of PR and marketing for brands including UNICEF, Renault and Absolut Vodka. They have won every major Advertising and PR Award in Sweden, as well as attaining global reach as AD Age’s 2017 Innovator Standout award.

Deportivo CEO, Mattias Ronge, is to become Chairman of Edelman Deportivo UK, working with Deportivo co-founders Stefan Ronge and Anders Hallen. The team will split their time between London and Stockholm and will report into Edelman UK’s general manager Toby Gunton, who already leads the UK’s existing team of 70 creatives, planners, designers, technologists, content specialists, social and paid experts. Toby Gunton, GM, Edelman UK said of the approach: “Edelman Deportivo has established itself as the agency to watch. It has delivered effective and award winning campaigns and we’ve been working closely with the team in Stockholm for some time. It’s fantastic to be able to move this on to the next stage and officially bring their energy, creativity and approach to Edelman’s clients in the UK.”

Mattias Ronge, CEO & Co-Founder, Deportivo said: “We are proud of the reputation we have built as communications pioneers and we now have a crucial opportunity to build our reputation and body of award winning work. Some of the best creativity in the world has been delivered from London – being a part of this is an opportunity we do not want to miss”.

In my 2015 post reflecting on the Mobile World Congress, I made a side comment that the show is not ‘about saving the world from disaster.’ Collecting my badge for MWC 2017 stamped with logos of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals suggests it could now be where the industry is turning its attention.

Though the headlines from MWC didn’t entirely reflect this ambition, on the ground, in amongst the robots, drones, VR headsets, model cities and phones, it’s clear something is dawning. Can mobile save the world? Here’s three new reflections from my time at the greatest mobile show on earth.

THE LOW-CARB DIET

Entering the Fira this year, me and Justin Westcott took an alternative approach and started at Hall 8. Here we were greeted by a stand built entirely from recyclable cardboard by Sigfox (Edelman client). For me this was a thought provoking statement from a company that is delivering low-power wireless networks for Internet of Things (IoT) devices.

On the topic of sustainability, the GSMA website points to a 2008 report by the Global e-Sustainability Initiative(GeSI), predicting that the overall footprint of global telecoms would rise to 350 MtCO2e in 2020 with mobile alone counting for 51% of this figure.

Winding forward, while telecoms wasn’t broken out separately, a more recent report revised down a range of forecasts for the Information & Communications Technology (ICT) sector due to trends toward greater energy efficiency. More broadly, these trends point toward mobile and ICT contributing to the sustainability goals across all industries and sectors.

Andreesen Horowitz’s Benedict Evans once blogged that Mobile is Eating the World. So if it is going to save the world, the industry must keep up this ‘low-carb’ diet.

A HEROIC ACT OF MOBILISATION

In walking the halls (42km in two days for the record) it was encouraging to see the number of trade delegations in attendance, flying the innovation flag for their respective countries. These collaborations speak volumes for how mobile can and is stimulating growth and transforming economies.

The entrepreneurial spirit was also in abundance at the IoT Stars where budding start-ups pitched their wares to a group of industry gurus. Fringe events such as these offer interesting perspectives on what is happening or about to happen in the mobile ecosystem. One thing for sure is that if we thought mobile apps were transformational, IoT is about to unleash a wave of unimaginable innovation.

The biggest question this looming era of technological disruption must answer: How do innovators realise the unprecedented opportunity on offer while protecting the exponential amount of data it generates from our private lives?

Here, government and business cooperation is critical. However, here is where a heroic act of mobilisation is also needed. For example, tensions between European regulators and telecom chiefs over rollout of the 5G networks that will play a major role in the development of IoT could significantly slow down progress.

The main concern is that issues such as these push certain nations and regions ahead leaving others behind. But in my opinion, when mobile saves the world, there can be no losers.

FOR ALL MAN AND MACHINE KIND

Ethics and morality in a mobile age was a feature of discussion in multiple places; from a keynote by Softbank CEO Masayoshi Son predicting ‘the singularity’ (the point when machines become smarter than humans) would arrive within 30 years, to a fringe event we attended debating who would win in the battle between Technology and Humanity.

At the latter event it was interesting to hear the topic of Mark Zuckerberg running for US president continue to garner discussion. Though he continues to distance himself from such an idea, in a mobile society, could we eventually see a tech CEO run for public office?

I’d argue this isn’t a terrible idea. On my journey back home from the show I finally watched Werner Herzog’s Lo and Behold, a documentary film seeking to understand the ‘reveries of the connected world’. Herzog skilfully brings to our attention the promise and peril of life in the mobile age. Assuming you agree with the observations, you’ll see why a President Musk or Zuckerberg might be the type of individuals we need at the helm to welcome a new form of intelligent being to our planet.

Especially if this ‘super being’ has the capability to save the world for all man and machine kind.

Who among us doesn’t love reading? And perhaps more pertinently this week, who among us cares about where we buy our books from (assuming we still deal in paper and ink rather than downloads)? The answer is more than you might think given the thunderous reaction to the news Waterstones has been using unbranded, independent style bookshops to attract more customers.

For the last two or three years, the UK’s leading bookseller has been going undercover with what it calls “quintessentially local bookshops” in Suffolk, East Sussex and Hertfordshire. Why? To try to cash in on a growing consumer preference for the little guy rather than the giant conglomerates of 21st century High Streets.

Yes, it’s been argued it’s a little misleading and a bit gauche. Especially now they’ve been rumbled. But do Waterstones really deserve to be quite so roundly castigated? Isn’t their only sin to have tried a different – dare I say clever – marketing strategy? After all, it’s not like they were charging people entry nor (as far as I know) attempting to command a premium for the ‘local experience’.

How is it different to anything brands, and by proxy our own communications industry, do every day? We identify a consumer need or desire. We think about creative ways to meet it. Then we execute a plan to deliver it to the best of our ability. It’s not underhand, it’s just how the business of selling stuff works.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not for a moment endorsing outright lies. Product untruths, broken promises and false claims are unforgivable and, in a world of heightened consumer scrutiny and rampant social sharing,  probably a going-out-of-business model anyway. Just ask any of the hotels and restaurants found to be writing their own TripAdvisor reviews.

But for me, that’s not what Waterstones did. They simply realised customers in certain places like certain things, and acted accordingly. Does every coffee chain look the same? No. Is adding the word ‘Express’ to the name of a small, inner city supermarket deceitful? Surely not. Is going on a first date in your best clothes rather than the trackie bums and T-Shirt you normally slob around in unfair on your unsuspecting potential partner? If so, I’m glad I’m off the market.

Just like a lot of people, I like to buy from independent, local businesses when I can. And I don’t like feeling hoodwinked. But, ultimately, I also like nice shopping experiences that deliver what I want, where I want, whether it’s something for me to eat, wear, read, whatever. If a brand – no matter how big or small – finds a way to deliver that, should I really care what their store looks like?

First-time voters in the 2020 general election feel an urgent need for reassurance about their future, but have no faith in any current politicians to offer it, according to new research for the Edelman Trust Barometer. The study shows that the 1,000 16 to 18-year-olds surveyed fret about their place in a world that is changing too fast for their comfort. It paints a picture of an angst-ridden generation, worried about their chances of success in adult life.

• The pace of change is too fast. 3 in 5 think social media is changing too quickly, 2 in 5 are concerned about AI and robotics, and nearly half feel the pace of change in mobile technology is too fast.

• Party politics and current political leaders are disdained – asked to choose who they might vote for to be Prime Minister, the clear winner was ‘None of the Above’

• Facts still matter. Youngsters are more trusting of experts than their elders. 9 in 10 say they are influenced by fact-based arguments rather than emotional appeals, and 3 in 5 expect their sources to be grounded in evidence

While the national survey shows that tomorrow’s adults are alarmed by the legacy of Brexit, and agonise about their financial security, they are distrusting of all institutions to do what is right for their future.

YOUNG ADULT EDITION RESULTS

If you have any questions about the survey or would like any further information please contact Kayleigh.Ryan@Edelman.com.

On Tuesday 28th February, Edelman brought together Ed Williams, Ed Balls, Gemma Cairney and a panel of 16-18 year olds, representing all UK regions, to hear their concerns, frustrations and challenges about the future.

See the highlights film from the event below:

Watch the recorded live stream here.

For further data and analysis, you can view the full UK results for the Edelman Trust Barometer 2017: Young Adult Edition here or see the deck below:

They are a generation who feel the world is turning too fast. Social media, technology, the whirl of fashion and entertainment, are all changing more rapidly than they feel comfortable with.

They’re anxious about the future too, particularly about the effect Donald Trump will have on the world. They are no fans of populism. They prefer the old fashioned ways of logical argument and the opinions of experts to the rantings of demagogues.

They are a generation that worries burgeoning automation will produce a smaller future workforce. In their trepidation, they gather their family and friends around them and turn their back on the world, because they have simply had enough of their political representatives.

Who am I describing? The troubled Baby Boomers? Baffled silver surfers? Or their children, the Millennials, who have lived through house price inflation and a digital revolution that turned life in modern Britain on its head?

None of the above. The generation I am describing, revealed in a special survey Edelman has conducted in the past couple of weeks, are the children of Generation X, the grandchildren of the Baby Boom. They are in fact 16, 17 and 18-year-olds, Britain’s next cohort of voters; they are young people with worry in their hearts, and a driving urge to find some hope from their elders.

They are Generation Angst.

Forget Theresa May’s “JAMs” or Trump’s “struggling American families”, who have next to no faith in the system.

Britain’s older teenagers are the demographic that feels most disenfranchised and disconnected, even more worried about the turbulent change of the world and, to boot, they never even wanted their parents and grandparents to take them out of the EU.

Disillusion with politics among the young is hardly new, but what has changed now is a political disengagement unique to our age: despair about, even fear of, the future. It is driven by the impact of technological disruption and fuelled by a sense that politicians have no answers.

Young voters who could be getting politically active ahead of voting for the first time in the 2020 General Election are instead resigned to sit on their hands. On the political mainstage, there is not one current leader that young people would choose as Prime Minister. We found that only one in five teenagers thought the government understood them or the issues they faced.

We face an age-old problem: a complete misunderstanding of young people. The truth is much more complex and nuanced. Youth has become a drawn-out process – young people are taking longer to settle down, buy a house and have children, but they’ll also be working far later in life than their parents’ generation.

We’re quick to dismiss the gig economy as evidence of young people flitting from job to job because they’re fickle, have short attention spans and unrealistic ideals about what work ought to look like. The truth is that job security is no longer a guarantee.

It’s no wonder the majority of teenagers do not see the future as a place jewelled with opportunities. Instead, most think they will be worse off or the same as their parents’ generation.

They are, amazingly, more concerned about the pace of change in life than older citizens. Almost 60% think social media is changing too fast and not in a good way. The crucible of their anxiety is the prospect of automation and AI, underpinned by the sense that education has not equipped them to prosper in that future.

The World Economic Forum says 65% of children entering primary school in 2017 will work in jobs that don’t exist today; 7m jobs will vanish in the next five years due to automation. So what does this mean for our politics?

For politicians seeking to change the tide of turnout in 2020 and engage with new voters the challenge is three-fold. The first criterion is the biggest challenge: credible responses to the issue of technological disruption.

Automation is a big public policy issue that affects everyone, but somehow we assumed that young people were comfortable in the new digital era and we overlooked their fears.

Our young people don’t want or expect the waving of magic policy wands, but at the very least they want politicians to acknowledge their concerns and listen. They know the problem is complex, but they need reassurance that the downsides of disruption are being anticipated as much as the upsides – that we’re not just waiting for robots to rule the roost.

The second challenge is: Brexit. These young people couldn’t vote in the referendum and overwhelmingly (69%) would have chosen Remain. They are not Remoaners; they are Resenters. They believe their parents left them a poisoned legacy.

A government hell bent on delivering Brexit, come what may, is not, in its current form, addressing or salving their concerns. If the Conservatives want young people to vote for them, they have their work cut out to convince this new cohort of 2020 voters that a Brexited Britain bodes well for young people.

But could this group, as Tony Blair claims, “rise up”? It’s unlikely. Only 1 in 10 think it’s important to participate actively in political debate or public life.

The third issue at the heart of reengaging young people in politics is leadership, or rather, lack thereof. Asked to choose who they would vote as Prime Minister, among 17 names of current political leaders, the clear winner was: None of the Above.

Generation Angst are lucky to have been born into a world where technology means their lives may last into the 22nd century. But they are far from certain that it will be a fun, or even safe, journey.

To prevent them falling into deeper cynicism and either checking out completely or looking for populist answers, we need mainstream politicians to emerge who will cherish, nurture and protect the voters of the next eight decades. Even understanding them would be a start.

I first used the term “post-truth” last summer, before it was cool. By the end of 2016, “post-truth” had become various dictionaries’ “word of the year” and I had become sick of the sound of it. It has become an excuse for vanquished liberals like me to avoid confronting our own political mistakes.

“Post-truth” and its children “fake news,”, “the rise of populism” and “trolls” are all new variants of the ancient lament: “The public are stupid and the media is lying to them. If only they could see the truth, they’d agree with us.” Fake news is real (and has an inglorious history that precedes the internet, from the Hitler Diaries to the Hillsborough disaster) but it is a distraction. Instead of reflecting on why their ideas have lost their political potency, opinion formers have retreated to the oldest excuses in the book.

The current panic about fake news is convenient for traditional media groups, struggling to monetise their content. Trusted brands command a premium and these organisations hope that this might be the differentiator they’ve been looking for. Politicians, meanwhile, find old certainties disappearing in the digital age and are seeking ways to regain control.

Edelman’s 2017 Trust data found that the focus on “fake news” is out of kilter with the public mood. The majority of British people trust algorithms (59%) over human editors (41%) when it comes to filtering news. British and German politicians are applying pressure on Facebook to moderate more of its content, but the public doesn’t want to install a new set of human gatekeepers, they prefer the wisdom of the crowd. And whilst trust in the media overall collapsed dramatically, trust in digital-native brands (the ones typically blamed for propagating fake news) has risen by 5% over the last five years worldwide, whilst trust in traditional newspapers and broadcasters has fallen by 5% during the same period, closing the gap to only six points.

THE CRISIS IN JOURNALISM

The public doesn’t believe the problem is fake news, it’s news in general that has the problem. The collapsing economics of traditional journalism mean that news is increasingly shaped by narrative rather than fact.

Comment is cheap, news is expensive. Opinion is proprietary, facts want to be free. Social drives news consumption and it is the most-shrill voices we like to share. As journalism has become harder to monetise, it has suffered a brain drain. Increasingly, news is presented to us by ideologues, motivated by a desire to reshape a world they no longer have the time or expense accounts to learn about.

The case of Michael Brown highlights the problem. Brown’s fatal shooting in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014 was a catalyst for the creation of the Black Lives Matter movement. Media reports at the time reinforced the idea that Brown was a victim of racist, militarised policing, with his hands up when he was killed. As the Washington Post would report months later, this version of events was a lie. On March 16, 2015, The Post’s Jonathan Capehart wrote:

“What DOJ [Department of Justice] found made me ill… Brown fought with the officer and tried to take his gun… ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ became the mantra of a movement. But it was wrong, built on a lie… In fact, the false Ferguson narrative stuck because of concern over a distressing pattern of other police killings of unarmed African American men and boys around the time of Brown’s death.”

That should have been the end of the matter. The court reached its verdict. A paper of record set the facts straight. But the narrative did not die. It is, to this day, repeated on a regularly across the media and “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” is still the unchallenged rallying cry of Black Lives Matter. In January this year, The Guardian devoted its “long read“ to the incident, smothering the facts of the case in thousands of words of agitprop.

This kind of narrative-driven journalism is undermining trust in the media. The public might enjoy a polemic – and they’ll share ideas they approve of – but they have decreasing respect for journalists as experts. As Michael Wolff told Reliable Sources recently:

“Individual journalists, in many cases, are having a nervous breakdown. A good example is The New Yorker. For 100 years, it has had one style of journalism – very detailed, very close reporting. Since the election, the editor has gone off in fits of bloviation, never seen in the New Yorker before. No facts… The Trump strategy is to show that media people are hopeless prigs, out of touch with the nation.”

THE TYRANNY OF ‘SOMEONE LIKE ME’

But the root cause of the post-truth world is not our lack of trust in the news, it is the growing trust we place in “someone like me.”

For the last 17 years, the Trust Barometer has been tracking the long-term decline of trust in authority figures and traditional sources of information. Individuals are more trusted than institutions. Regular employees are more trusted than CEOs. Leaks are more trusted than news releases. Unpolished, off-the-cuff speakers are more trusted than scripted answers.

This trend began as healthy scepticism and a willingness to hold power to account. But it has gradually tipped over into tribalism. Ironically, this makes us less likely to hold power to account. The 2017 Trust data found that around 40% of people would overlook exaggerations from politicians as long as they were on the “right” side of the argument and we are four times more likely to ignore information that does not support a position we believe in. Like the journalists covering Ferguson, we believe truth is less important than the cause.

Thanks to search, Wikipedia and fact-checkers, facts have never been easier or cheaper to find, but they can be boring and uncomfortable – and sharing them can lose us friends. We prefer ideas and stories that make us feel good and allow us to signal our virtue by propagating them. We are fighting the good fight. And if we have to tell a few lies along the way then so be it. The ends justify the means. This phenomenon is not confined to any particular social group, it is universal – the product of our desire for purpose and belonging. As Brexit campaign strategist Dominic Cummings observed:

“We all fool ourselves but the more educated are particularly overconfident that they are not fooling themselves. They back their gang then fool themselves that they have reached their views by sensible, intelligent, reasoning.”

This is the public forum we have created. One in which narrative trumps fact and our fetish for “people like me” creates tribes and clusters immune to counter-argument.

It is not the fault of the journalists, whose wages we refuse to pay. It’s not the fault of fake news creators, whose click-bait stories feed our narcissism. It’s our fault. It’s you. And people like you.

Originally published on PRmoment.

If 2016 taught us anything, it was to not underestimate the power of the people. In a post-referendum world, life is viewed through the prism of Brexit – but what about the next generation of voters who were not able to have their say on the future of the UK?

On Tuesday 28th February to launch Edelman’s 17th annual Trust Barometer, Edelman will bring together a panel of 16-18 year olds, representing all UK regions, to hear their concerns, frustrations and challenges about the future.

Joining the panel will be former Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, who will respond as the voice of government.

Watch the panel event live below at 8.20am GMT on Tuesday 28th February 2017.

To read the UK findings of the Edelman Trust Barometer 2017 please click here.

Today marks the worldwide launch of Halo Wars 2, available on Xbox One and Windows 10 PCs.

To celebrate the launch, Xbox and 343 Industries brought the intensity of battle to gamers through a dramatic real-world combat experience inspired by the Halo universe.

Unaware of the test ahead, fans were led into a Halo-themed military command centre where a conventional demonstration quickly turned into an onslaught of action and chaos, as the frenetic nature of battle was captured with UNSC unit commanders requesting orders.

The new recruits quickly realised that they were in the hot seat, tasked with saving their own lives and their units, with no other tools other than their quick strategic thinking. Some panicked at the situation; others began to embrace it…

Before I got my first mobile phone, there used to be a time when I remembered each and every telephone number of my immediate family members and close friends. Fast forwarding a little over 10 years to the present, as advancements in technology have completely transformed the mobile market, I realise I have not only grown out of the habit of remembering these numbers but I also don’t necessarily need to.

“Never memorise something that you can look up”, said Albert Einstein, yet in the context of global digitalisation, his famous quote does not even remotely describe the extent to which we’ve entrusted technology to store and exploit our data. We have embraced the idea of smart devices memorising our personal and contact information, reducing the reliance on our own memories to a bare minimum. Now, our loved ones are on speed dial and just a tap away.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a great example of how technology uses input data to learn and perform better. Still, the human memory works in a very different way – you can exercise your memory just like every muscle in the body by repetitively feeding it with information. However, the information with no practical application that we don’t use or even make an effort to remember, is forgotten.

From a business perspective, this is nothing but bad news for brands.

Just three years ago, the Edelman Trust Barometer showcased that company messages should be repeated as consumers need to hear the same information three to five times to memorise it and consider it credible and believable. Certainly, the changing media landscape provides various opportunities to repetitively communicate the same message with consumers across different platforms. Yet, controversially, the biggest challenge organisations are facing today is that no matter how many times they repeat a message, consumers are likely to ignore information that supports a position or information they do not believe in.

But as platforms multiply and the number of organisations repeating the same messages all over again increase, we should start asking ourselves – where is the tipping point at which consumers stop listening to what we’re trying to communicate to them?

The cybersecurity sector is the perfect case study for addressing this question.

Odds are that if you open any publication today, you’d read at least one story talking about the growing number of cyber threats consumers and businesses are exposed to. If you try to keep track of the numbers thrown at you, soon enough you’d be more inclined to ignore the warning these numbers were trying to portray rather take measures to protect your digital footprint or secure your business better. The very proof of that is the fact that the number of security breaches continues to grow.

Where many might see this as a challenge, I personally like to think about messaging saturation as an opportunity to do things differently, to look deeper for the right story and the angle, which may have not been previously explored. For example, who is communicating the message and how are they communicating it? According to the Edelman Trust Barometer 2017, CEO credibility has dropped to an all-time low of 37 percent. It might be a time therefore to reassess the channels and the people telling the story as well as the story itself.

As creative storytellers, all of us here at Edelman, are on an ongoing journey to craft compelling, insightful and memorable stories for our clients, enabling them to communicate strong messages with impact.