How to Communicate Authentically

Shahar: Welcome to ‘Always On’, where I am talking to leading communicators about how they protect their company’s brand and reputation in today’s volatile world. So today we shift our focus to Amsterdam, and we have Kim Larsen as our guest. Kim Larsen is the head of global communications and brand experience at ING, which is a leading European bank with more than 60,000 employees and 38 million customers in over 40 countries. Hope I got that right. Welcome, Kim.  

Kim: Thank you. Yeah. I think it sounds about right.  

Shahar: So, I have a lot of questions for you today, but let’s start with the simple part. Who is Kim Larsen? How do you describe yourself to people who don’t know you?  

Kim: So I’m a Danish guy, now lives in Amsterdam. I used to live and work in Copenhagen in comms. So I did some agency work and now I’ve been on the corporate side for around 15 years, and when I’m not working, I am traveling, eating, and, you know, trying to do all kinds of other things than work-related stuff. 

Shahar: So tell us a little bit about how you started your career. What got you into communications?  

Kim: Yeah, no, I didn’t really go into communications intentionally. I wanted to change the world. So I started in journalism. When I was younger, I was a political activist and I wanted to change the world, because I thought, you know, there’s a lot of stuff in the world that I think could be better. So I did a lot of activism and then I went into journalism school. 

And then I did a few years of journalism, but then I realized that, you know, you don’t really necessarily change the world through journalism, and also, I got confused, you know, to what it needed to change to, and also I don’t think you’re paid very well. And also I think there’s something around journalism, which is you’re always looking for flaws and something that somebody did wrong and you’re looking for, you know, holding somebody accountable. And, for me, it just felt like it became very focused on things that weren’t working rather than looking at things that are actually working. And so then, by chance, I started consulting with a communications agency. And then from there on, I’ve been in comms, as I said, on the agency side, and then for a number of years on the corporate side. But I didn’t really choose it, but it just happened. It came from an intention to make the world better, I guess.  

Shahar: Well, hopefully that intention is still there.  

Kim: Well, on good days. On a cynical day, I just want to make it through the day. But no, but seriously, I think comms is important because, I mean, I think sometimes we forget that comms is really about bringing people together. It’s about building bridges, it’s about creating, you know, a shared understanding, a shared starting point. It’s about, you know, creating shared progress.

 You know, I think that was the origin of comms and I think we need to remind ourselves that comms plays an extremely important role, you know, inside of organizations, between organizations, and in the world in general. And the world needs more uniters, not more dividers. And I think in that sense, not to be grand about it, but I think that is really what comms is about, bringing people together.  

Shahar: Agree. And how do you think the profession has changed over the years since you started out?  

Kim: As a discipline, I think we’ve become more advanced, and I think we’ve become more sophisticated. I think, you know, we’ve gone from… I mean, when I started in comms, most of it was like former journalists who did PR and they charged a lot of money for writing press releases and knowing the secrets of what happened in the news organizations. And now I think it’s become a much broader discipline. It’s about, you know, culture. It’s about ethics. It’s about purpose. It’s about navigating a complex world. So I think that’s one. 

I think it’s obviously also become much more digital. The number of channels that we have to manage, you know, the types of assets that we have to create, the types of stakeholders and audiences that we’re dealing with has also exploded. So I think there’s… it’s changed in a lot of ways. And I think for the better. I think there’s also a change in perspective. I think in the beginning, or at least when I joined, and maybe that was just for me, maybe it was different for everybody else, but it was more, like, it was more about persuasion. 

You know, this is how we see things. You know, we want to do comms so we can get everybody else to see things the same way as we do. And it had like a, it had like a, you know, almost like a, yeah, like a persuasion perspective.  

Shahar: The propaganda phase of comms.  

Kim: Now I think it’s much more about understanding, you know, driving conversations, you know, creating this shared understanding, which I think is much better. 

So I think it’s changed in a lot of ways. I think it’s also become apparent to most organizations that it’s becoming increasingly complex, but it’s also becoming much more important strategically to understand how to navigate and interact with a world that’s become increasingly — some people use crazy, you can also just call it complex. 

So I think it’s changed profoundly and I think the skills that you needed to have, you know, 20 years ago, you know, they’re not the same. The skills we need now are completely different from the skills you needed 20 years ago. And I think it’s also become a much more mature profession, also in terms of leadership and stuff like that. So I think it’s changed quite drastically over the last 20 years, which I think is good.  

Shahar: For sure. And let’s unpack some of the things that you mentioned, because some of them are topics that I want to talk more about. So let’s start with this idea of complexity. This is partly why we we call this ‘Always On’, because we feel “always on” captures the state that corporate communicators need to be in today. Would you agree that you’re “always on”? And if so, how are you “always on”? What does that mean?  

Kim: You know, I think there’s been a shift. I think when we first started moving into this, you know, understanding how audiences felt and what they needed and what their expectations were, I think that was a… that was a shift that happened, and then everybody got obsessed with understanding and, you know, doing research and all of that, which was great. 

But it also in some points led to, in a way, handing over responsibility for your own reputation and telling you what to do to other audiences. So it was like, “Oh, these people want this, these people want this, these people want this.” And then it became apparent that you can’t be everything for everybody. So you have to take responsibility for your own strategy. You have to take responsibility for your own responsibility. And ethics is not about asking people what they want and then finding a way to deliver that. 

So I think… so I think, you know, as an organization, I think, you know, you can’t respond to everybody all the time, and you can’t meet the needs or expectations of everybody. So I really think it starts with having a strong sense of, you know, purpose, direction, strategy and understanding of what’s important to you and then mapping that against what’s important to other stakeholders, and then finding that balance and then manage that. 

And then I think, increasingly, it comms also becomes a discipline of ignoring the noise and focusing on the things that really matter. Because, you know, you can wake up every day and then you can go on X and you can go on TikTok and you can go on, you know, all these channels and you can read all of the… you can go on Reddit, you can go everywhere, and if you think that is your job, then you will die, right? As an organization, but also as an individual. So I think it becomes more and more important to have a clear set of priorities, purpose and a strategy and then be driven by that. 

And then the organization needs to be “always on“ when it comes to understanding those audiences, understanding those issues, but also being able to, you know, ignore the noise and the distractions and all of the baits that people are putting out there for you to kind of get engaged in something that’s not really any of your business. And I think that’s… I have more and more conversations internally about ignoring what seems to be an external perspective, whereas 20 years ago, our role was to make sure that people internally understood the external perspective. That’s still our job. 

But a big part of what goes on outside of the world is also just noise. So I think that is part. And then, of course, you have to be “always on”, not as an individual, but as an organization, you need to make sure you have the skills, the capabilities, the tools, the research, whatever it is to understand what’s happening around you. But I think another thing that’s happened in comms that has become… 20 years ago, I felt it was very individual, right? You know, “I’m the comms guy, so I need to be the person who understands all of it.” 

But now I think it’s become clear, because the world is so complex, it’s not about, it’s not one person or a team. It’s like the organization as an organization needs to understand how to navigate that. So I’m not “always on”. I mean, I work a lot, but I’m, I don’t have any… you know, I’m not delusional enough to think that, you know, it’s all about me. It’s not about me. It’s about the organization.  

Shahar: But that’s a good way to think about it, actually. Part of your role is to enable the organization to be “always on”, not necessarily yourself to be “always on”. But in this complex, multistakeholder environment, how do you still… I mean, as you say, there’s a lot of white noise, but how do you still manage to keep consistency of message across different stakeholders that constantly want different things? 

Kim: So I think the first thing you have to do as a comms person is to, you know, let go of this idea that it’s about control. I mean, the era of being “on message“, I think is gone, right? Because there is no way that you can control everything that happens. I mean, every employee is on LinkedIn, is on, you know, X, is on everything. 

Every leader wants to communicate to his or her team. Everybody in the organization is communicating all the time. So I think, you know… I think the first thing we have to do is let go of the idea that our job is to have control. I think a lot of corporate comms people still struggle with that and we still think that it’s our job to try to make sure that nothing comes out of this organization which is not completely approved. 

But I think there’s another way to think of it, which is our role is really to empower the organization to communicate in a way that’s aligned with what we want to achieve, aligned with our purpose, aligned with our values. And how do you do that? Well, it’s complicated. But I think first again, I think it’s about having a very clear strategy on what is important and what’s not important. And then I think it’s about creating narratives and messages that resonate with the organization, right? So that empowering people to communicate is not about telling them what they can’t do, but it’s about making them comfortable and making them understand and own and internalize our logic and our values on the things that matter, and I think that’s what we need to do. 

And then, yeah, consistency, I think, is not about the words people use. I think, in the past, comms teams, at least the ones that I know, spent a lot of time auditing and editing people. You know, “You can’t use this word. This is how we talk about it.” But I think it’s more about internalizing and socializing the logic. And, you know, the pitfalls we want to avoid and then make people comfortable with communicating. I think that’s… it’s by the way also a much more positive role as communicator that you don’t have to go and tell people what they can’t do, but you help people do things that they want to do, but in a way that’s aligned with the organization. 

I also think our risk appetite, in terms of, you know, yeah, sometimes people say it a little bit differently. Sometimes it’s not the way that we would have talked about it, but you know, come on, is it really, is it really a big risk? Sometimes it’s not. And then I think on the things where it really matters, of course, then you need to be a little bit more auditing and editing and a little bit more careful. But I think the era of “stay on-message, stay on–script, don’t do this, only do this.“ I mean, I think that’s gone. 

And I think that also prompts a different way of doing our job as comms people. We need to be much more flexible and we need to be much better at making… driving influence in the organization rather than just cascading messaging. And that’s a completely different, I think, mindset.  

Shahar: So the days of being “on message” are gone, but the more white noise there is, and the more shifting environment you have, the more you need to cling to your North Star, which is what you talked about before, the purpose and the higher… the higher ethos or the brand, right? And that does need to be consistent. So I guess you do, on one hand, you give some more leeway to people, but on the other hand, I guess you want them to stick to that North Star even more than before, no?  

Kim: I agree, but I think it’s also… I mean, everybody’s well intended, right? If you wake up every day as a comms person and what you see is a risk, “Oh, that person might communicate this or this person might ask this or this“, then that’s what you see, and I think that prompts a certain mindset. But if you wake up every day and you see, “Oh my God, there’s a lot of people here who want to communicate about ING. 

There’s a lot of people out there who is interested.“ I think that prompts a different way of thinking about it, and it also prompts a different approach. And then I think it’s about, you know also editing, you know, really making sure that on the things that are important…. so for us, for instance, sustainability, it’s a huge strategic priority, right? We feel that the financial sector has a big role to play, but there’s also a lot of controversy around the financial sector and stuff. So that is an important conversation. 

And for us, you know, that is a conversation that we prioritize to show up in. It’s a conversation that everybody finds relevant. So we talk about that also internally a lot to make sure that people internally understand what we’re doing, that leaders in the organization feel, you know, comfortable talking about it and that they can do it in their own way. So we spend a lot of time on that. And then obviously there’s all of the stuff that we do, like our commercial operations, our business, our clients, our customer focus. That’s the other big thing that we’re really obsessed about. So we talk a lot about that. So that means we’re trying to make that clear that these are the things, these are the things that are important for us. This is how we normally talk about them. And that’s a better way than controlling people. 

And then there’s a lot of conversations that are happening that are either not that important when you look at it from a big picture. “Okay. Let them go. Let those conversations happen.” And then there are some conversations where, you know, the hot button issues, where I think it’s important that we don’t take the bait. Obviously, we spend some time on trying to avoid being drawn into discussions that we don’t want to be part of and that we have no part of, right? And that sometimes means telling people, “Please don’t engage in that discussion. Or if you show up in that discussion, please be mindful of this.”

But again, if you start by assuming that everybody is well intended, and everybody’s trying to do a good job, then I think you have a different perspective than if you think every time somebody does something, it poses a huge risk and your job is to make sure that that risk goes away. I think that really is gamechanger in the way that comms people need to operate.  

Shahar: This point about the hot button issues is another dimension of “always on”, because there’s also rising expectations from CEOs to take a stance and I guess part of your role is to also weigh in, or at least advise the CEOs when and how they should weigh in and how do you determine that?  

Kim: But first I want to challenge that notion that there is rising expectations. I don’t know. Is there? I mean, what I hear is… I mean, I think we have a global discourse that is incentivizing polarization, division, radical views and, you know…. so I think we have a whole system, media system, social media system, a political arena that incentivizes craziness and radical, you know, points of view. The more crazy you can sound, the more attention you get. 

And apparently attention is what we’re looking for, right? And then there’s all these notions flying around. “Oh, you know, millennials are expecting their organizations to stand for something and, you know, politicians are expecting to hear from CEOs and…”, but I’m not sure that’s always the case. I think, you know, I think we need to be cautious. I don’t think the world needs more communication. I think the world needs better communication. 

So I think that’s one way to go. And then I think there is another perspective, which is: just because you’re the CEO of a huge and powerful organization, do you have the legitimacy? You’re not an elected official, nobody… that was not a democratic process that put you in there, so you’re not really representing the people. So this idea that, you know, we need to hear from CEOs. I think that CEOs have an interest in making sure that some of the issues that are relevant to the corporate sector and the company and the specific sector that you work on, they get part of the conversation. 

Like, so for instance, if you want to make sure that there’s a longterm perspective in politics when it comes to sustainability or when it comes to, you know, nurturing a good, you know, a commercial environment and stuff like that, then I think we have an interest in doing it. But I think that’s something different than people expecting to hear from CEOs just because reporters call you and they would like to see if you can say something controversial so they can make new headlines is not the same as that there is an expectation.  

Shahar: I think it’s usually more among the employees.  

Kim: Yeah, but I think there’s… so I’ll get to that… but I think there’s an expectation from society that organizations care about more things than their own profitability, right? So, yes, there is definitely an expectation that we take many more things into consideration when we run our business. You know, ethical, ESG, all kinds of things. 

But there is a difference between taking something serious and then being very vocal on something and being part of that, you know, heated debate all the time. I think that’s one. And then I think, yes, organizations, employees and not just millennials, but everybody, obviously want to know that they work for a company that has great values and that has a great leadership and that is doing the right thing. 

So, yes, there is an expectation, but I think more so that’s also about communicating internally and letting our organization know what we stand for and how we do things and how we deal with these paradoxes and dilemmas. And then on some issues, you know, it’s important that we also show up in the public sector because either there is already a discussion around our role in a certain topic or it’s a topic that’s interesting to us. 

But I think it’s become an increasingly important and challenging discipline to make that assessment of, you know, “When is something important for us to talk about and why is it important? And are we doing it for the right reasons?“, because I think in the beginning of this, when all these companies wanted to get out there and be vocal on social issues, whatever it is, I think a lot of it was, like, performative. 

I think it was because it felt good. You know, people wanted it. You got popular, you got likes, you know. There was a good vibe around it. But I don’t necessarily think that there was a lot of strategy or strategic thinking behind it. And frankly, I also think there was a lot of these statements made that were just performative. You know, we were just doing it for the sake of doing it so that, you know, it felt good for a while. 

And I think now it’s become clear to companies that you can’t do that, because if you make a statement in one direction, there’s going to be a bunch of people who disagree with you. And you only want to be part of that, you know, disagreement, if it’s important to you. Why would you want to get involved in a heated debate if it’s not important to you, or, you know, to your stakeholders?  

Shahar: And how do you define important?  

Kim: First of all, is it important to our business, right? Is this something that is really, really important to us? So, for instance, sustainability? Yes, important. Diversity, equity, inclusion? Yes, important. Business environment, the conditions under which we do business, you know, are we creating a competitive economy? Are we helping our companies, you know, grow… stuff like that.  

Shahar: So you’re saying relevant in a sense, right? Is it relevant to our business? Is it relevant to our employees?  

Kim: Relevant, but I think relevant and important because a lot of things are relevant but without being that important, right? So that’s one way to start. The other thing is then, is it important to our stakeholders, right? Is it important to our employees? It is important to our clients? Is it important to, you know, the political environment or whatever? Then that’s another lens. And then I think there’s a third lens, which is how divisive polarizing is it, right? And then I think the real discussion sometimes is not whether we’re part of a conversation or not, because you can’t always do that, but it’s also how you show up, right? 

And I think, you know, the world needs more uniters and less dividers. And on any given issue, there’s going to be people on one side, extreme, and then extremists on the other side, but there’s always going to be somewhere between 60 to 80 percent of people who are just normal, average, decent human beings, middle of the road, who just wants us to progress, you know, as a society. And those are the people that we talk to. We don’t talk to the extremists because they’re not in the conversation to be convinced that they’re wrong. They’re just there to cater to their own base, to talk to their own kind of constituents and do that in a way where they become more and more popular within their own base and hoping, of course, to expand the base. 

But if there is not enough forces who talks to the normal people, the decent people, the middle of the road people, then over time, the middle of the road will be smaller and smaller and more and more narrow. So I think as a corporate, we have a strong responsibility, at least that’s how I think about it, not only on which topics do we show up, but also when we do then show up in a conversation, that we’re mindful of how we show up and what purpose are we showing up with? Are we just showing up to be popular? 

Or are we showing up in a way where we’re trying to create shared understanding? So we’re not just creating more division and more polarization. That is an important discussion across all issues, especially as a corporate because, as I said, I feel like the whole system is incentivizing the radicals and the crazies and the haters and the dividers. And I think that if you look at the data, trust in institutions is declining.  

Shahar: That’s exactly why people look up to the CEOs because they’re more trusted.  

Kim: In some markets on some issues, but as a CEO, your responsibility is first and foremost for your own organization.  

Shahar: Right. You’re saying the fact that you’re trusted doesn’t mean you need to have an opinion about everything.  

Kim: No, and I think it also means that when you then do have an opinion, then it should matter more. And I think all these CEOs — not all, but some CEOs who over time think they’re becoming very good at running a company, then that can also lead to them thinking, “Oh, because I’m good at running the company, I can also do everybody else’s job, right? And now it’s my obligation to go out there and let people know how I think that people should run their jobs.” But there is a reason you’re a CEO, not a politician. And there is a reason a politician is not a CEO, right? 

So I also think we have to have respect, but I think for many corporations, this is obviously a big… it’s a big challenge, especially for global communications, global corporates, because, you know, what is an evident point of view in one part of the world is a very controversial point of view in another part of the world, or, you know, some stakeholders expect us to do something and then other stakeholders don’t like it. So therefore you cannot be driven by what stakeholders would like you to say. You have to be driven by what you think is right. Otherwise you’re going to get lost.  

Shahar: Let’s talk a little bit about the role of data. So, in this “always on” world, how do you see technology and data helping?  

Kim: I mean, it’s everything, right? So the way… again, going back to when I joined, when I started in comms, I mean, there were no data points, right?  

Shahar: It was gut feeling.  

Kim: Yeah, the gut feeling and then the data point that once we were all measuring, you know, old-school media mentioning, and then somebody came up with this very random multiplicator, like, so if you have an article and it’s this size, and then if you were to buy an ad the same size, that would be the cost, but because we know editorial content is more credible than advertising, then we just multiply it by six or eight or whatever metric, right? That was the metric, yeah. 

And now, of course, you know, with the digital channels, there’s so much data available on, you know, audiences and reach and interactions and engagements and stuff like that. And I think in a way it’s also unnecessary because we will never run out of channels. We will never run out of… will never run out of things to communicate about. So in terms of prioritizing, you know, channels, audiences, topics, you know, data obviously becomes extremely important. 

It becomes important across the whole… across the whole spectrum of comms. Also internally. One of the biggest problems we have in internal comms is “infobesity”, right? We’re just flooding people’s inboxes with all kinds of random communication. And frankly, you know, I think in most instances, we don’t know whether it works. And then there’s always going to be a need for more communication. And then we do more communication. And I think we’re just… we’re just exhausting everybody. And then how do you prioritize, right? How do you know which channels work? How do you know what people… so there’s data everywhere. 

And I think that will help us. I think we need to shift from… you know, I think in the more immature organizations, you measure to demonstrate your value and to show how successful and how good you are. I think when you do it right, and you measure to understand impact, to drive discussions on strategy and efficiency, then I think it becomes really helpful. 

But I think, you know, to be honest, also in my own organization, we’re starting on this, we’re using a lot of data, but it’s still pretty immature, I’d say. If you look at the brand marketing space, which is also part of my remit, I mean, on brand and marketing, obviously much more mature, much more rich data sets, much more analytics and predictive analytics going on. And I think the comms space, yeah, it’s playing catch-up still.  

Shahar: So can you actually talk a little bit more about it, because you’re in this privileged position where you have both marketing and comms under your remit. Can you talk a little bit about how both sides of the team use data for what purposes? What kind of data?  

Kim: On the brand marketing side, we have data across the whole funnel, right? So, you know, we understand, you know, our brand strength. We understand, you know, we use the Kantar model, which is all about demand power. And then, you know, we understand what drives that demand power. We understand how that works. And then we have data on how, you know, how effective our funnel is. And then we obviously have conversion acquisition targets, and we have market mix modeling. 

We have predictive analytics so that we can, in the most advanced market, so that we can predict what the return on investment is on some kind of marketing activities, right? So that’s best in class. So we use that across everything. 

On the comms side, you know, there’s, you know, also two spectrums. There’s the aggregate: we measure our reputation, right, in our bigger markets. And we’re moving towards doing it in all markets, to understand, you know, how are we actually being seen? How is our reputation actually developing? And it’s not the individual measurement: “Oh, we’re doing well.“ It’s like looking at the big picture, the trends, right? “What’s going down? Is it going up? What do we see?“ 

And also, what are the drivers, right? So that we understand the components of our reputation rather than just, you know, “Oh, yeah, we have a score of whatever metric you use. It’s 75. It’s average. That’s great.“ Okay, but how and why? And I think the one thing that we can do better is then correlate that with things that are happening around us, so it doesn’t become so random, but we can actually explain what that is. But then on the comms side, we also obviously use it when it looks at, you know, when we do comms on the different channels: how many people open our emails, you know, how many people, you know, click on things on viewer engage, how many engagements do we get, how much… you know. 

So we use data tactically on each of the assets, and then we use data to understand how do people feel about things. And then we understand… then we use data to look at what channels are most effective. And we also do some A and B testing with content to see, okay, what piece of content, you know, is more efficient and stuff like that. But still, on the comms side, I still feel that we’re a little bit more immature, and I don’t know if that’s across the discipline also in other companies, but at least for us, the brand marketing piece, I think, is much more mature than the comms side of things. 

Shahar: That’s quite ubiquitous, this situation. And partly it’s probably because it’s easier to measure impact in marketing because the outcome is very immediate.  

Kim: But I also think, let’s face it, it’s also, you know, most companies spend much more money on brand and marketing and therefore, you know, the pressure to understand the impact that it creates commercially is obviously bigger. I mean, the comms budget is of course significant, but in the grand scheme of things, you know, it’s not that. And I think also people intuitively understand that comms and reputation and relations and stuff is a little bit more difficult to…  

Shahar: Quantify.  

Kim: … to quantify, although that has always been, that has also always been a big excuse for the comms community, right? Like, so when you come into the board after marketing, after legal, after finance, then you present and then people ask, but what’s the impact? Then we say, “Oh, don’t, we can’t, you know, it’s, it’s an emotion.” So I think using data also helps the comms discipline become much more professional. 

But I think the real challenge is not… is going from, you know, “analysis paralysis” to actually understanding what are the most important pieces of data and what do they mean? And how do we apply them in a forward-looking way? I mean, what does it mean for the way that we act and do things? And I think that’s always the difficult… …we have thousands of data points, right? And then we can do dashboarding and we do all kinds of things. 

But if they’re only used to explain what happened last quarter and they’re not used to guide us in terms of priorities and strategizing, and, you know, then it really has limited value.  

Shahar: Yeah, so maybe we can use your term from before, “infobesity”, and talk about “data-besity”.  

Kim: It’s a good step forward. I mean, first it’s like going from no data to having data, understanding that there’s data. But then I think it’s about curating that data and then translating the data. I mean, it’s a cliché, but translating that data into insights and then into actions. And it sounds easy, but it’s much more difficult. 

But again, it also comes from a mindset. Are we sourcing data to show that what we did was a great success? Or are we sourcing data to understand how what we did worked and what we could do better and what didn’t work? 

And I think that’s also a maturity thing, right? Are we able to have those conversations without thinking that if we could do things better, we somehow failed? You know, that’s obviously not the case, but it sometimes feels like it.  

Shahar: Now, in this context, actually, what you said before about the profession is changing and the skills and talents that you need, that’s also changing, and when it comes to what you just talked about, how do you use data a more actionable, more meaningful way? Are you also seeing that your team is changing the makeup, the kind of skills that you’re looking for in the market, more data analysts?  

Kim: Absolutely. But I think it’s a combination. So I think when I joined ING, I introduced, you know, a more data-driven approach together with the team on how we did things, and that led some people to feel, “Oh, all the creatives have gone. 

You know, you’re turning the brand team into, you know, consultants.” So I think you always need to combine the data with the creatives and all of that, because, you know, there are some things that can’t be measured, right? And people say, “What?” And you say, “Well, I’ll give you an example. My soul, for instance, has a lot of value, but I’ve never met anybody who’d be able to put it into a spreadsheet. So, as much as we…  

Shahar: I’m sure there’s somebody out there that can do that.  

Kim: Yeah, I don’t know, maybe. So, you know, I think as much as we want to be data-driven and we want to make sure that we have the skills and capabilities, again, I think it’s, you know, we’re not running a think tank or a university, so no skill has value if you can’t apply it in a relevant way. 

And relevance means, you know, looking at the data, but then also looking at the skills and the expertise and looking at other things and then putting it all together into one strategy. But we’re definitely ramping up when it comes to analytics, digital data, and data analytics is one. 

I think another way is then… another strength in data is, it also gives you a tool to have different conversations with the rest of the organization, because if you have a rest of an organization who finds this whole comms thing a little bit weird, then it becomes a way to talk about it in a way that… a language that the rest of the organization is quite comfortable with, and it’s the normal language. 

So I think on the brand side, we moved from, you know, having scattered, fragmented ways of monitoring and measuring our brand across markets, then we moved to one model, and that allows us to create, you know, a big-picture view every quarter. That report is shared with the board, shared with, you know, senior stakeholders in the business, and it’s now measured in the same way across markets, so we can also see, “Oh, this is how it goes in Romania. 

What about Germany? Oh, let’s look at Spain.” So it creates a shared language. And also it gives it a much more tangible kind of starting point. So, I think it works, but again… it needs to be seen in the context of, or in combination with, all kinds of other skills and expertises. And then it needs to be… we need to not just look at the data, but understand what they tell us and then put them into practice. 

Otherwise it’s just data. The better quality data you get in, the better insights and strategies you can build. But if data is a little bit, you know, weak, then of course the strength of the conclusions are also a little bit weak. If you think about reputation, I mean, I think most comms people are familiar with the situation where some colleague or executive wakes up in the morning, and sees something on social media, and then jumps from there to have a view on our reputation and then jumps from there to have a view on what we should do, right? 

So if we want to be the driver of the strategy, we first need to be able to explain what’s going on and not be driven by personal views or echo chamber kind of perceptions, but data. And so the only way to really understand whether something is big or not big or controversial, not controversial, is not to look at your own feed or, you know, consult with your own feelings, it’s about really creating that factual data–based foundation for a good discussion. 

And I think that’s also part of our role. I mean… and I think in the past, there was a lot of comms that were based on intuition and gut instinct, and that’s still a thing. I mean, I still use my intuition and gut instinct on many things, but we need to be informed by as much data as possible.  

Shahar: And not so much Twitter storms, but more…  

Kim: No, also because I think Twitter, or X, is becoming increasingly crazy. I mean, you show up to have a discussion on politics, and you end up being, you know, a right-wing fascist or a woke fool or something else. Like, there’s no middle ground there anymore, right? And now, I mean, I don’t know what your feed looks like, but mine seems to be just full of, you know, all kinds of craziness. And so, you know, I think there’s not a lot of… To be honest, I don’t think there’s a lot of valuable conversations happening on Twitter or X. I think there’s just a lot of people shouting and creating division and polarization. So it’s not, I mean, it’s not a place I go for any kind of debate or information.  

Shahar: No, and that also highlights the value of factual objective data, because that manages to bring you a better fact base than just a Twitter storm, which still a lot of executives… a lot of executives unfortunately still use Twitter as a source of, “Is it a crisis or not?”, right?  

Kim: That’s so crazy. I mean we also have discussions. So, obviously there’s a lot of activists around, right, on all kinds of issues. And so you post something on LinkedIn or you do some comms on something that’s important for you, like sustainability, and then because there’s always a group of activists who are very active, and then they go out and then they post something on LinkedIn or they react to your post, and then you have like 50,000 engagements, but there’s five negative comments from somebody from an activist group, right? Is that something that we shouldn’t have done because it prompted negative reactions? No. I mean, I think what companies also need to do is, we need to become much more resilient. 

In the past, corporations were not comfortable to be caught in any type of controversy. I think the understanding at the time, which I think was also the deal we… like, the unwritten rule was, if companies, you know, remove friction from a conversation, it kind of goes away, right? Media coverage would stop. You know, political reactions would mute. You know, it would go away. But that’s not how the world works anymore, because there’s always somebody who has a view on something, or there’s always someone who feels that they can use you as a platform for their political purpose. 

And therefore this idea that if you stay quiet, then it’ll go away is gone, right? So that doesn’t mean that we have to be vocal on everything, but it does mean (a) that we have to be more resilient and galvanize ourselves on these things. I mean, everything is controversial. Everything is being weaponized. There is no world where nobody has a view and everybody loves you. It’s not a success criteria. 

But then understanding which stakeholders on what topics are really important for us to not be disliked or to be part of the conversation and then use data to do that and then also use data to define or to look at the things that don’t really have an impact, although it seems very impactful, yeah. That I think is becoming increasingly important. Sounds very easy. It’s more difficult when, you know, when it comes to the realities.  

Shahar: What would you say are the biggest reputational threats, the potential issues that ING is facing? And how do you guard the organization against them?  

Kim: If you ask the question in a different way and ask, “What are the key drivers for our reputation?”, then I would assume that those key drivers would then also be, you know, the things that you don’t want to mess up. So we know that despite everything else that’s going on in the world, the key driver for our reputation, and I would assume for a lot of companies around world, is the core of our services, right? So we are a very customer–centric organization. We were born on an idea, on a mission to, you know, make banking easier, better, frictionless, right? 

So everything that has to do with that, if we don’t live up to that, or if we don’t treat our customers well, that is… you know, that is the biggest kind of problem for our reputation. If you look at a lot of companies that are embroiled in controversy, which is not us, but other companies, you see there’s a lot of noise, but often there is not a lot of impact on your actual reputation and also not on your customers or your business, right? 

So I think… I’d like to think about, you know, if you start looking at the world through risk eyes, there’s a lot of reputational risk everywhere. But if you look at what are the things that are driving our reputation and really focus on those, I think that is good. So everything that has to do with the service, the products, the pricing, the customer service, how we treat our customers, conduct, I think, is definitely one. 

Part of that as a digital bank is obviously also cybersecurity, right? So making sure that we’re, you know, we’re up and running, we keep people’s money, keep people’s data, keep people’s things safe is a key thing for us. And, you know, the world has become mad. So we spend more resources on cybersecurity also, you know, on the comms side. 

So I think that’s one. Then I think there’s obviously a reputational risk involved in operating in a world where more and more people disagree on more and more things, right? I mean, we do business in parts of the world that people don’t… …we’re a global bank, right? 

And part of being a global bank, we’re a systemically important financial institution globally. That means we operate across the world in sectors that some people might find controversial. 

Shahar: So how do you navigate that? I mean, it’s a very fine balance, I imagine.  

Kim: Yeah, but I mean, I think again, it starts with standing up for ourselves and the things that are important. So when people don’t understand… I think that the best way to protect an organization is to not be quiet on controversial topics that are important to you, right? 

So, you know, again, in the past, I think there was this idea, oh… …so, for instance for us, sustainability is increasingly important for us. I think amongst many audiences, we’re seen as a leader in sustainable finance, as an industry leader, but there’s also a lot of activists who use us as a platform their political kind of purposes. 

And then that could lead to a conclusion where we say, “Oh, every time we talk about sustainability, some people come out and disagree with us and it creates disagreement and discussion and sometimes negative headlines.” That could lead to a conclusion to say, “So therefore let’s not do it.“ My perspective is the opposite. The fact that there are people out there who do not really fully understand what we do or have views on it is not a reason to not communicate. It is a reason to communicate, right? 

And if you think about it like that, the best way, I think, for us to protect our reputation is to be clear on intentions. Also be clear on the dilemmas and the paradoxes and get out there and not be afraid of being part of the conversations. Build alliances, make sure you get out there and you share your story. I think that’s… in the past, I think we had a more kind of reductive or careful approach. “Oh, it’s better to not talk about things that not everybody agrees on.” 

But given the fact that there is no topic apart from maybe even the weather, and I think even now the weather is being weaponized, there is no topic that isn’t full of discussion, and therefore the conclusion must also be the topics that are important for us or our stakeholders are also topics that we need to discuss and be part of the conversation on.  

Shahar: You talked a bit about how the profession is evolving, and I’m curious to hear your views about how your role, the role of the CCO, the chief comms officer, is evolving.  

Kim: I think it’s much more demanding. I think you need to be be very resilient as an individual, but I think you also need… we need to move away from this idea, which also, I think, a flaw that I’ve had, which is, you know, this… you know, “It’s me. I am… I am the one who takes care of the reputation of this organization. I mean, that whole “one man, one mission” hero complex, we need to get out of that, because it’s not about you. 

It’s about empowering and enabling your own team, your organization, to deal with this complexity and to navigate and to thrive in paradoxes. And then it’s also your role to help the organization thrive in that and understand and be able to navigate, right? And I think that’s different from, you know, some of the roles I had early on in my career where it was like, “I’m the fixer”, right? 

So I think a lot of comms people start their career as fixers, and then as we evolve and grow, we all realize, you know, you can’t fix everything because you don’t have the skills. You don’t have the time. It’s also not the right way to do it. And you need to scale the efforts, and you do that through the organization: your own team first and then the organization. I also think another… I think we talked about that a little bit earlier… in the beginning, I think our role was to make sure that the external perspective was there and we would always challenge, “Why don’t we change this, because the world doesn’t understand it?” 

I have more and more conversations now where just because you see this on X or on LinkedIn, or you know, there’s a lot of noise around it, it doesn’t mean that we have to change, let’s think about it, right? So in a way, that’s kind of weird, because I spent most of my career explaining what people outside the organization were saying and doing and talking about, because I felt like the organizations needed to open up. 

Now I feel like I use a bigger proportion of my life to say, “Don’t worry about it. It’s noise. It doesn’t really have an impact.” And I think being able to navigate that is different because it also requires you to have more skin in the game. It’s much easier to say, “Oh, people don’t like this. This is controversial. Let’s not do it.” 

But since that’s not an option, because nothing is ever not controversial, you also, as a comms guy, you also have to be ready to take… to make choices and make clear recommendations knowing that it’s… you know, you need to have more skin in the game and you need to be more flexible, and a decision that you made yesterday can turn out to be a shitty decision tomorrow, then you need to not be stubborn about it. You need to be open, and again, driven by data. 

So I think that’s different at least than I think it was 20 years ago when there was a more simplistic view on what comms is and the world that we operated in was, I think… it felt simpler and slower.  

Shahar: For sure. My last question to you is this. We talked about “always on” quite a lot. How do you switch off?  

Kim: You know, I don’t subscribe to this and I don’t… I’m not part of this narrative, “Oh, I’m always working, you know, there’s always things going on”, because it’s not how I feel. Yes, there’s always things going on, but I also have a team. I also have an organization and, you know, we’re able to manage it as a team. So I don’t want to…  

Shahar: You don’t have the need to switch off.  

Kim: No, I’m not joining this, “Oh, I get up at six and I go to bed at 11 and I work always.” I mean, I work a lot, I also like it, but I also… I’m the type of person who can, you know, leave the office and then something happens and then I can switch on for 15 minutes and then I can switch it off and then I forget about it. So, you know, that’s it. 

But when I don’t work, yeah, I do… I listen to a lot of podcasts. I read a lot of books. I think fiction is important. I think storytelling, to listen to other stories and these corporate narratives and this whole political world. And then I travel a lot. I think the world is a beautiful place. And I think when you go and meet people in other parts of the world, you always learn something new. 

And it’s also a way to think about things differently. And especially when you’re in a global company, I mean, you need to expose yourself to other ways of thinking.  

Shahar: For sure. I couldn’t agree more. Kim, it was a real pleasure having you here. Thank you so much for joining us today.  

Kim: Thank you so much. It’s been a pleasure.