Communication also means commitment

“We do not believe that you or your statements are racist. […] We firmly believe that everyone can make mistakes and learn from them. And we are of the opinion that it is precisely this ‘going head-to-head’ that ultimately does not help anyone.” With these words, Ikea publicly addressed the influencer Mimi Jäger, who was unceremoniously labeled a racist by the media and on social media after her admittedly imprudent statement.

Let’s go back to the beginning:

On June 13, 2020, Mirjam Jäger expressed on social media her irritation with the demonstrators of the Black Lives Matter movement. The reason: They ruined her Saturday plans in the city. What followed was a shitstorm nobody saw coming. Two days later, several business partners respond and publicly distance themselves from the statement made by the former freestyle skier. At this point in time, the only support she received was from Ikea. Criticism of the Swiss Post’s hasty response followed. Swiss Post subsequently apologized publicly to Mimi Jäger for its reaction.

And then, a few days after Ikea’s heroic stance, this large corporation also retreats, terminating its contract with Mimi Jäger.

You may be confused that my example refers to an influencer, and yes, as a person, Mimi Jäger may have little significance for you and me. But her story is indicative of the way companies and communication departments react to shitstorms. They appear to be morally and value-oriented and thus hide the fact that they are actually blowing with the wind when it comes to action — although “action” could easily be interpreted as too active here. The wind — that’s us, the public. At least the few percent of the population who are loud in the comment column and thus appear to be representative of an entire people. The crux of the matter: Nowadays, it is enough to make a guess and companies jump on it. They are called “the yellow” and “the orange” giants, but they fail to show their colors and stand up for their values.

This contradictory communication leaves me a little unsatisfied. And also a little irritated. Everyone knew that Mimi Jäger also had her own opinion when the contract with her was signed. Where are their backbones? Or have they always followed their commercial sense rather than honest values? A bit more integrity and courage, please 

For me communication also means being willing and able to make a commitment. To stand by one’s values. Not to take actions based on a comment section. This commitment is what I’m missing in communication at the moment. Instead, it seems that communicating each commitment is intended only for commercial purposes. As if it were a karma point system. Mimi Jäger reports about us: + 20 points. Mimi Jäger fails: -10 points. Public shitstorm: – 30 points. Drop Mimi Jäger: + 20 points. Criticize the firing of Mimi Jäger: – 10 points. Public apology: + 10 points. With that we are back to zero. Hurray!?

And yet I still have this bad aftertaste about a company that constantly bases its actions only on immediate, short-lived developments and on the loudest voices, rather than on real, genuine values. This behavior makes companies appear increasingly unbelievable. My trust in them is waning, although they actually wanted to achieve the opposite with their actions.

But it is backbone and integrity that give companies the pizzazz that makes them likeable, almost human. As Ikea wrote: We make mistakes and can learn from them. But it is also important to show your character and stand by your values. This is what constitutes real, authentic communication and, when used correctly, by no means excludes economic benefits, but rather fuels them.

An example of this level of integrity is the Christa Rigozzi case. At the beginning of the year, she posted on social media a call to boycott the Alpenrose restaurant. A shitstorm broke out on her. And yet, none of the partners distanced themselves from Rigozzi’s statements or from Rigozzi herself. And that is what such a partnership should be about: a cooperation in which critical questions are raised, but mistakes and other opinions are also allowed. We know it from our own friendships: If we stand by the other person even when they make a mistake, the result is an even more genuine, more beautiful relationship. I would also like to see this kind of relationship in day-to-day business life. Then, quite unexpectedly, an artificially agreed upon goal would become something truthful, something sustainable.