Edwards, Lee

LSE Research Online

Cambridge	Analytica	and	the	deeper	malaise	in	thepersuasion	industryRecent	revelations	about	Cambridge	Analytica’s	strategies	and	tactics	have	caused	shock	and	outrage,	in	partbecause	we	want	democratic	processes	to	be	just	that,	democratic.	Decisions	arrived	at	through	popular	suffrage	–the	next	government,	the	decision	about	whether	or	not	to	leave	the	European	Union	–	are	ideally	based	on	people’srational,	evidence-based	opinions	rather	than	manipulated	emotional	drivers	such	as	fear	or	prejudice.	And	yet,	theCA	files	show	that	presenting	evidence	and	engaging	citizens	in	high	quality	debates	around	key	issues	may	be	aminority	interest	for	politicians.	On	the	contrary,	the	quick	and	easy	route	to	power	now	involves	deploying	emotionalarguments	online,	via	promotional	techniques	that	make	the	most	of	our	vulnerabilities	and	encourage	us	to	avoid,rather	than	engage	in	debate.Responsibility	for	these	distortions	has	been	laid	at	the	door	of	technology	companies	who	should	be	protecting	ourpersonal	data	more	effectively.	The	leaders	of	Cambridge	Analytica,	their	funders	and	their	collaborators	all	need	tostart	answering	the	accusations	levelled	against	them,	and	the	pressure	on	them	will	only	increase	as	the	extent	towhich	our	privacy	has	been	invaded	and	our	identities	abused	becomes	clearer.	Yet,	the	roots	of	this	scandal	do	notonly	lie	in	the	unfettered	ability	of	data-savvy	organisations	to	access	and	use	our	information	without	scrutiny.	Onthe	contrary,	in	societies	soaked	in	promotional	culture,	Cambridge	Analytica’s	work	is	the	thin	end	of	the	wedge	thatindustries	such	as	public	relations,	advertising	and	marketing	have	managed	to	insert	into	all	areas	of	our	lives	–politics	and	commerce	most	of	all.Histories	of	public	relations	and	advertising	in	the	UK	and	the	US	show	that	promotional	professions	have	longstruggled	to	control	our	opinions	and	behaviours	to	serve	political	ends.	The	advent	of	the	internet,	as	JosephTurow’s	excellent	analysis	has	shown,	simply	moved	this	struggle	online.	Big	Data	is	the	holy	grail	for	marketersattempting	to	manipulate	our	choices.In	the	Channel	4	films,	Cambridge	Analytica’s	CEO,	Alexander	Nix,	is	shown	keynoting	at	the	Online	MarketingRockstars	conference,	presenting	his	best	practice	techniques	with	confidence	to	an	appreciative	audience.	Whetherit	is	hyperbole,	as	Nix	claims,	or	not,	the	techniques	that	CA	uses	are	widespread	and	condoned	by	many	in	thepromotional	industries.	According	to	one	PR	consultant	writing	on	an	industry	association	web	site	only	one	yearago,	Cambridge	Analytica’s	tactics	are	far	from	being	unacceptable.	Rather,	they	provide	insight	into	how	to	dothings	better:	‘The	way	Trump	leveraged	Cambridge	Analytica’s	big	data	with	a	hyper-targeted	messaging	strategyoffers	an	insight	into	how	PR	can	utilise	technology	to	tailor	communications	in	future.’LSE Business Review: Cambridge Analytica and the deeper malaise in the persuasion industry Page 1 of 2		Date originally posted: 2018-03-30Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2018/03/30/cambridge-analytica-and-the-deeper-malaise-in-the-persuasion-industry/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/Moreover,	promotional	logic	–	the	normalisation	of	promotional	techniques	as	primary	tools	for	persuading	the	publicto	support	organisations	and	individuals	–	provides	the	link	between	Cambridge	Analytica’s	operations	and	theprevalence	of	fake	news	online.	As	Jason	Cabanes	and	Jonathan	Ong	note	in	a	recent	study,	advertising	and	PRexecutives	are	often	implicated	in	the	distribution	of	fake	stories	–	and	this,	too,	has	been	a	hallmark	of	PRpractice	for	many	decades.Lax	oversightArguably,	then,	the	origins	of	the	current	scandal	lie	not	in	lax	oversight	by	Facebook,	or	in	the	amorality	ofCambridge	Analytica	and	its	clients,	but	in	the	histories	of	promotional	industries	that	have	normalised	the	idea	ofmanipulation	in	their	professional	practice,	while	marginalising	ethics	and	the	public	interest.Given	this,	one	might	expect	the	promotional	industries	to	be	doing	a	bit	of	soul-searching.	Not	so.	A	search	for	thecompany	on	industry	association	websites	reveals	precious	little	comment	on	the	story	at	all.	Where	it	does	appear,the	focus	is	frequently	on	Facebook	and	the	challenge	for	the	brand,	which	has	lost	trust	and	reputation.	IfCambridge	Analytica	does	appear,	its	work	is	framed	as	a	‘dark’	art,	overstepping	ethical	boundaries.	The	desire	fordistance	is	palpable.Avoidance	of	scrutinyThis	avoidance	of	self-scrutiny	also	characterised	the	industry’s	response	to	fake	news	in	the	early	part	of	2017.	Inan	analysis	of	the	PR	industry’s	responses	to	concerns	about	fake	news	that	I	presented	at	a	recent	conference,responsibility	was	placed	squarely	on	the	shoulders	of	tech	companies	for	allowing	fake	news	to	circulate	unchecked;distributors	of	fake	news	were	presented	as	unethical	and	outsiders,	while	practitioners	were	encouraged	to	seizethe	opportunity	to	help	journalists	in	their	quest	for	truth	by	acting	as	a	reliable	source	of	quality	information.	Onceagain,	the	history	of	an	undesirable	practice	was	erased	in	order	to	make	the	present	more	palatable.No	promotional	practitioner	or	organisation	would	deny	the	importance	of	ethics,	but	at	the	industry	level,	there	isprecious	little	enforcement.	Codes	of	ethics	are	ineffective.	Penalties	such	as	expulsion	from	an	association	does	notstop	unethical	practice	–	only	clients	running	from	a	sinking	ship	can	do	this,	as	Bell	Pottinger	discovered	last	year.But	whether	it	is	data	mining,	fake	news	or	the	simple	fact	that	manipulation	is	the	basis	of	practice,	these	industriesmust	start	to	think	more	carefully	about	the	consequences	of	accepting	unquestioningly	the	tools	of	their	trade.	Moreimportantly,	regulators	must	start	to	turn	their	attention	to	the	power	that	these	industries	wield.	Arguments	for	self-regulation	appear	weak	at	best,	in	the	current	climate.♣♣♣Notes:This	blog	post	appeared	originally	on	LSE	Polis.The	post	gives	the	views	of	its	authors,	not	the	position	of	LSE	Business	Review	or	the	London	School	ofEconomics.Featured	image	credit:	Alexander	Nix,	CEO	of	Cambridge	Analytica,	by	Web	Summit,	under	a	CC-BY-2.0licenceWhen	you	leave	a	comment,	you’re	agreeing	to	our	Comment	PolicyLee	Edwards	is	an	associate	professor	at	the	LSE	Media	and	Communications	Department	atLSE,	where	she	also	serves	as	programme	director	for	the	MSc	Strategic	Communications.	Sheteaches	and	researches	public	relations	from	a	socio-cultural	perspective,	focusing	in	particular	onhow	power	operates	in	and	through	public	relations	work.	She	has	authored	various	books,including	Understanding	Public	Relations:	Theory,	Culture	and	Society	(Sage,	2017,	forthcoming).She’s	on	Twitter	@leemoya	LSE Business Review: Cambridge Analytica and the deeper malaise in the persuasion industry Page 2 of 2		Date originally posted: 2018-03-30Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2018/03/30/cambridge-analytica-and-the-deeper-malaise-in-the-persuasion-industry/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/

Cambridge Analytica and the deeper malaise in the persuasion industry

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/88955/1/businessreview-2018-03-30-cambridge-analytica-and-the-deeper-malaise.pdf

Cambridge Analytica and the deeper malaise in the persuasion industry

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online