An interesting thing about Cristiano Ronaldo’s Coca-Cola snub at the European Championship is the way in which the target audience is juxtaposed with the sponsee. For many Europeans, the tournament is a reason to get together and celebrate. Celebrations, of course, tend to go hand in hand with equally festive foods and drinks. The world of the football player could hardly be more different. They are under enormous pressure as their nation expects a top-quality physical performance from them. It doesn’t come as a surprise that if you interview the players in an almost pub-like setting with beer and cola on either side, there will be at least some sort of reaction. That isn’t to say that Cristiano Ronaldo was 100% in his right to do this, however. In this blog, neither Ronaldo nor Coca-Cola are the antagonists. This story calls for a more elusive ‘bad guy’. That is, our extremely brittle interest in the truth amidst a hype-riddled world of digital (social) media. It turns out that the true cause of Coca-Cola’s value decrease is much more nuanced. Ironically, our consumption of such news is similar to the junk food being advertised as it provides short-term euphoria but has dire long-term consequences.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Although it seems like a peripheral issue in this matter, I actually think it’s the most concerning one. Cristiano Ronaldo caused Coca-Cola a loss of $4 billion, or so the (social) media wildfire that ensued would have us believe. It’s an interesting dynamic. Cristiano Ronaldo snubbed Coca-Cola in the afternoon of June 14th around 4 pm Dutch time. That same day, Coca-Cola’s value had dipped by 1.6% where the market value had decreased relative to the day before with $4 billion. The conclusion was drawn that Ronaldo caused the $4 billion dip.
Firstly, just because one event precedes the other does not imply a causal relationship. Secondly, the event of Ronaldo’s snub did not even precede Coca-Cola’s market dip. It was on the decline already! Forbes provides some interesting facts. The $4 billion dip was recorded before Cristiano Ronaldo’s press conference moment. Forbes mentioned that the whole market was on a low that day. Ford was also down $2 billion. Coca-Cola’s stock actually went up by $1.3 billion by the end of that trading day. Forbes also showed that June 14th was Coca-Cola’s ex-dividend date, which may have caused a downward adjustment of share value. In light of these facts, would you still be convinced that Coca-Cola’s dip was 100% attributable to the single factor of Ronaldo? I wouldn’t.
Do we Care for the Truth?
Ronaldo’s story describes how a single man can take down an entire corporation. We humans always find appeal in such David and Goliath-esque narratives. We’ve all felt like David facing a Goliath at least once in our lifetime; whether that be a difficult job interview or an important sports match. There is no surprise in the fact that we romanticize it. That we want to believe it. That we seek to uphold this sense of hope that there is some kind of moral structure to our world. Suddenly, the true facts are a buzzkill. A boring letdown. Suddenly, we are biased.
The answer to the question I asked in the header of this section is a renowned “no”, according to the argumentative theory of reasoning. It posits that the purpose of human reasoning has to do with building arguments to convince peers of our ideas. It makes sense by the fact that we are social creatures and, as such, survive and thrive through interactions. Of course, the truth is not redundant. Without an interest in truth, there would not have been science. Without science, well… The takeaway is that interest in truth can vary greatly across states of mind, objectives, or contexts and our ‘default’ setting may not be all too favorable.
Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity (VUCA)
The popular Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma showed how easy it has been for us to live in a personalized world. One with information that fits like a tailor-made suit to our preconceived notions. Some have dubbed it a “post-truth society”, as we have lost a shared framework for what constitutes the truth and what doesn’t. It is especially interesting from a leadership perspective because how does one deal with the risks and uncertainties in such an environment?
If you want to know more about this, I recommend looking into the deeper meaning behind the VUCA acronym. It firstly states that leaders must deal with volatility: the fact that the world around us changes rapidly as well as the change in pace. It requires innovativeness and adaptiveness in decision-making. Being able to do this with sufficient speed is the key factor. Secondly, leaders must deal with uncertainty: it becomes difficult to unravel clear patterns on the basis of which a decision can be made. One must be willing and able to go a different route but preferably with the same long-term focus. I.e., flexibility is key. Thirdly, many components of the environment may be interconnected, making for high complexity. The key to dealing with complexity is to adopt a broad perspective to decisions and problems and to consider a broad range of potential scenarios. The fourth point is most strongly related to the post-truth society, ambiguity: there is a lack of clarity about the meaning of information or events.
How to Trust?
We are characterized by our ability to communicate. Information is our greatest tool. Quite literally, information is a means to an end. For instance, to convince someone to get our way or attract attention to positive characteristics of ourselves. In the case of many media outlets, it’s simply a way to make money. Interesting stories attract traffic, which in turn attracts interest from advertisers.
This realization, I think, is the first step to deal with the massive uncertainty that shadows us. Furthermore, it is not only the contents but also the source of the information that counts. Does this person or organization care about the truth and to what extent are they accountable? It is especially important to consider this when the information is in favor of your views because that’s where the bias creeps in. As I said in the beginning, knowledge assimilation is like (junk) food consumption, be conscious about what you decide to take in and you will remain healthy!