Title: Burr Under the Saddle: How Media Coverage Influences Strategic Change (Fee or subscription required)
Authors: Michael K. Bednar (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign), Steven Boivie (University of Arizona), and Nicholas R. Prince (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign)
Publisher: Organization Science
Date Published: September 2012 online, forthcoming in print
The corporate world has a complicated relationship with the media. When times are good, firms often want news outlets to act as bullhorns for positive publicity. But when fortune fades, those same companies are only too happy to shrink from the spotlight. However, this paper finds a bright side to the bad news: Negative coverage can spur companies to embrace wide-ranging strategic changes. The media is neither an enemy nor an ally to upper management, according to the authors, but one of a number of key stakeholders that can significantly shift a firm’s direction, often for the better.
Previous research has focused on a number of effects that the media can have on business. For example, news reports can elevate a company and its leaders to celebrity status, subsequently broadening the firm’s range of options. The media can also act as a watchdog on management, encouraging decisions in line with shareholders’ interests. But despite growing interest in the relationship between media and the businesses media organizations cover, little is understood about the ways news outlets can provoke firms to shift their fundamental strategies.
To gain more perspective, the authors of this paper randomly selected 250 firms from the 2001 S&P 500 and tracked them for five years. Using the Factiva database, they analyzed about 40,000 articles in leading business publications, looking for negative keywords and phrases to gauge the tone of the coverage. Combining several other data sources, the researchers obtained information on the firms’ CEO characteristics, stock returns, profitability, strategic changes, and governance structures.
The authors controlled for an extensive list of variables that could potentially affect media coverage or strategic initiatives, including the number of earnings restatements, lawsuits, and analyst downgrades for each of the firms, as well as their size, their level of executive turnover, and the total media attention they received. To ensure they were analyzing only meaningful articles about the firms, the researchers eliminated stories that didn’t reference any of the sample companies in the headline or lead paragraph, that were less than 50 words long, or that mentioned more than four other organizations.
The negative language cropped up in multiple ways. Most came directly from the writers of the articles, discussing a disappointing aspect of the company. But the quoted words of CEOs or spokespeople also often contributed to a downbeat tone.
In their analysis, the authors found a link between the volume of negative media attention that a firm experienced and the likelihood that the company would subsequently undergo a strategic shift that was responsive to at least some of the problems that the press had cited. “Negative media coverage about a firm,” they concluded, “is a salient trigger that suggests to top managers that the current strategy needs to be changed.” That trigger is all the more persuasive, they found, for companies with higher numbers of independent directors on their boards, including members with fewer prior ties to the company. In those cases, board members may rely more heavily on external evaluations to inform their decisions—and they may be more forceful in prodding senior executives to address problems that the press is pointing out.
“When there are board members with familial or business ties on the board, they are less likely to be influenced by…outside perspectives, including the media,” said one of the researchers in a press release. “So that relationship between negative media coverage and strategic change gets stronger when you have outsiders on the board.”