The Mark Carney Mic Drop in Davos

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stood up in Davos and didn’t waste words. He gave a speech that cut through the noise. 

The room stood. The world noticed. 

He said, “If you're not at the table, you're on the menu.” 

People replayed that line like it was a lifeline.

 This episode of The Week Unspun comes straight from the snowy peaks of Davos, but the questions are sharp and wide-reaching. 

Can speeches still move people to action? 

Can we trust the Edelman Trust Barometer, or has its credibility fractured like the world it measures? 

And as the World Economic Forum eyes cities like Detroit and Dublin, what happens when the name “Davos” no longer fits the map?

 Listen For

:51 What made Mark Carney’s Davos speech go viral?
6:54 Why do some PR pros hate the Edelman Trust Barometer?
9:38 Are we living in a “retreater” era of trust and communication?
12:40 Should Davos be moved to Detroit or Dublin?
18:15 Is short-form, flashy content reshaping public opinion?

 The Week Unspun is a weekly livestream every Friday at 10am ET/3pm BT. Check it out on our YouTube Channel or via this LinkedIn channel

Folgate Advisors

Curzon Public Relations Website

Stories and Strategies Website

Request a transcript of this livestream

Chapters

• 0:51 What made Mark Carney’s Davos speech go viral?
• 6:54 Why do some PR pros hate the Edelman Trust Barometer?
• 9:39 Are we living in a “retreater” era of trust and communication?
• 12:41 Should Davos be moved to Detroit or Dublin?
• 18:20 Is short-form, flashy content reshaping public opinion?

Transcript

Farzana Baduel (00:03):
Hello, happy Friday everybody. My name is Farzana Baduel and welcome to the Week Unspun, a weekly live look at the world through the eyes of PR pros around the world. My name is Farzana and I am in London.

David Gallagher (00:16):
I'm David Gallagher and I am in Austin, Texas.

Doug Downs (00:18):
And I'm Doug Downs in Canada's Rocky Mountains.

Farzana Baduel (00:21):
So our attention will be on the events that have been happening in the snowy town of Davos. The reports we're going to be looking at are the Edelman Trust Barometer, which is the main report for our industry. And of course we're looking at the possibility of the forum moving from Davos to other locations. And we will begin with the speech that cut through by the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. And we want a response from our resident Canadian. Over to you, Doug.

Doug Downs (00:51):
How about that? Hey, yeah, how about a Canadian stepping up and stealing the show? And it's not about hockey. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney absolutely stole the room at Davos this past week. It's a speech that didn't just land well. He earned a standing ovation in the room and a wave of praise across the globe. Even Australia picked it up fast. Treasurer Jim Chalmers calling it a stunning speech, said they're now sharing it and talking about it inside the Australian government. That's what we need. And it's easy to see why this worked. Carney gave the world a few lines built to replay. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. And the warning that really stuck with a lot of people, the cliché clicked. If we're not at the table, we're on the menu. Remember that recipe, kids, stories, statistics and soundbites. That's what works in the speech.

(01:42):
It was so perfect. The only reply from President Trump was, well, you can't be on our board of peace now, back at home. Critics are already saying great words, prove it. I mean, eventually in comms, it's not about how you make people think, and it's not entirely about how you make people feel. It's what you make people do. That is the measurement for comms. And Canadians have withstood this from Mark Carney, where there's a lot of talk and we just don't see the action, but still a great speech. Here's a little bit of cold water. The speech itself was not really picked up by folks like Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron. They've been critical of Trump for sure. It's Australia and Mexico that are picking up on this idea. And here's the problem for me, Carney isn't actually offering to lead anything. He's calling for decentralised coalitions. So is this a real plan, a leaderless effort where everybody agrees nobody moves. Another great speech that simply becomes academic theatre. For me, Farzana, that's the risk. Words don't change the world. They might be a beginning, but they don't change things. Action does.

Farzana Baduel (02:49):
Doug, how could you say that, we are storytelling. My God, you'll put us out of business. No, words do change the world. And they have. Now, I think you raise a really valid point because often people think of a piece of content, be it a speech or a post or a report, as how it landed in terms of impressions and reach and sentiment. Was it all positive? But actually you have to always dial your way back to not these sort of vanity metrics, but actually what is the purpose of the person who actually pushed out that piece of communication. So Carney in this instance, what is he trying to achieve? And so some people would say that, oh, maybe his speech backfired because he's no longer on the board of peace, but was that something that he was looking to be on or was he aware of what the risks and the implications of his speech were? So I think it's always important when you analyse communications that you don't look at it from your lens or vanity metrics. You look at it from the person who is actually pushing that piece of content out. What is their strategic aim? And I think when you roll it back, I think it cut through. It has made him look like a leader with purpose, a leader that is actually stepping up and also getting cut through and respect from some people who are waiting for a leader to stand up to President Trump.

David Gallagher (04:13):
Yeah, I concur. I thought it was a home run. I really do. In terms of being quotable, memorable, seizing the moment, I really think people were eager, almost desperate, for there to be some sort of counter message to really what we heard from President Trump. So I thought in the moment it was exactly what was required. I think in terms of what's being replayed, it's interesting, and I look at this as we all do from a PR perspective. We tend to think of speeches as a set piece, 15 or 20 minutes script, and we think about its entire structure, but really there's about 17 seconds that people are sharing and repeating and remembering. And you kind of quoted that either you're on the table or you're on the menu, Doug. So I think it was a home run. To your bigger point, I do think actions start with words and you've got to start somewhere. And I will predict that we're talking about this will of the middle coalition long after we're talking about the board of peace. I think that this could be the beginning of an interesting realignment of geopolitical powers and that might be why Starmer or Macron or others didn't jump on it because they're happy members of the G7 right now. They may not, they probably were caught a little ill prepared. But I think there may be a little bit of discord there.

Doug Downs (05:34):
And it could be from your comment, maybe things are happening behind the scenes and that's great. Terrific speech. My point is we've got to see follow up. And as Canadians, we've gone through about 12 years of blah blah blah at the top and not a lot of do do. So we're gun shy about great words.

David Gallagher (05:54):
I know the whole show is pretty much about Davos. Just one insight sitting here in traffic listening to the radio, the real world isn't paying as much attention to Davos as we might be. Even on NPR it's a story, but it's not the only story. I just think that's interesting because I know we've been fixated on it, including, and Farzana, you alluded to this, the annual release of the Edelman Trust Barometer that comes out every year. It's their look at where people are placing their institutional trust, whether it's companies, charities, governments, even religious houses. And I'll come to the findings, but what was interesting to me this year is literally I was kind of waiting for it to come out. I think it's a great piece of thought leadership. A trade journalist, one we all know and respect, texted me and he said, why do PR people hate the Edelman Trust Barometer so much, and it really took me by surprise.

(06:54):
But I have heard a lot of complaining about the Trust Barometer. I suspect it's mostly built on jealousy. It is the most quoted piece of research in our industry every year. Now maybe some people say that that doesn't speak well of it at all, but it is the most widely quoted source of research. And I think it is on an annual basis sort of a good barometer, as the title suggests, on where public sentiment is. This year the message was sobering, maybe a statement of the obvious, but worth repeating in their words, public trust is becoming more local, more conditional and more fragmented. I just want to share a couple of comments from the report itself and get your take. And you might have slightly different views. Richard Edelman, Edelman's CEO, warned that there's no such thing as business as usual. And he says that his confidence erodes in international business.

(07:48):
Domestic businesses must be the source of trust and confidence for people. IBM's Arvind Krishna goes a step further. He basically says the international business model is dead. I don't know if that's in the actual research, but that was his take. And then a critic. And this, as I say, this report always gets at least as much criticism as it does support. There's a clinical professor of business at NYU, Alison Taylor. I have huge respect for her, but she's not a fan of this instrument in particular. Paraphrasing, semi quoting, she says, it sure sounds like meaningless waffle given that employers are laying people off like crazy, failing to stand up to government, galloping into surveillance, abandoning responsibility. Maybe we should take a deeper look into these dynamics, with a question mark. So Doug, we chatted a little bit about this earlier in the week. You're not a PR person who hates the Barometer. What's your take on the Barometer? Do you think it stood out this year? Give me a quick take and then we'll come to you, Farzana.

Doug Downs (08:47):
I've always loved the Trust Barometer and I find it ironic that it suffers from a lack of trust amongst some. But anyway, the Trust Barometer has always put into context for me, I think over the last couple of decades, that the person people trust is someone just like them. I trust someone just like me, and that's always been number one. And I've always taken that to heart in any plan that I've built. If other studies have been saying exactly that, they don't say it as clearly. They don't say it as well, and they don't get that message out. And I still think a lot of PR folks miss that. I thought Edelman stood up and told us kind of what we already know in our bones. He called it the era of insularity, a cold name for a cold reality. The world has grown small and we no longer trust the person across the sea or even the person across the street unless they're just like us.

(09:38):
Edelman spoke of polynational models. To me, this is just a fancy way of saying the big shared world is dead. We are retreaters now. We're building digital fortresses, huddling in the niches that we self identify in, that the mass audience has splintered like dry wood. And I admire the clarity of the Edelman Trust Barometer. Edelman measures the rot with a steady hand and then it calls it a metric. He's telling the elites that their global stage has been broken into a thousand private rooms. It's an obvious truth to me, but a truth that needs to be said out loud in the mountain air. David, for me, Edelman isn't just tracking a trend, he's performing an autopsy on the idea of the common world.

David Gallagher (10:25):
Autopsy is a strong word. Farzana, what do you think?

Farzana Baduel (10:30):
I mean, my thoughts are, is it rocket science that we are increasingly distrusting more far away institutions? I think proximity, close proximity, has always had a relationship with trust, and I don't think that's anything new. I think what's happening is perhaps Western corporates no longer have that immediate trust in emerging and frontier markets that they used to, because I think we're moving from this unipolar to multipolar. And so therefore, I think people are demanding leadership and conversation and branding and marketing and comms that is aligned to their culture. I think people are looking for authenticity from their own lens. And I think also deference is dead. And so that's why people just aren't interested so much in leadership or the biggest company in the world or whatever. So I think that's kind of what we're seeing is a breakdown of trust because people want to listen and tune into perspectives from people who look like them and who are from their region.

(11:38):
And maybe we're all becoming a bit tribal. Interesting. I sort of picked up Larry Fink, the co chair of the World Economic Forum, and of course the CEO of BlackRock. He moved the idea of moving Davos to another location. And I think they're toying with the idea of Dublin. They're toying with the idea of Detroit, so very much staying within the D category. So of course as PRs, we approve because we believe in alliteration now. He believes the event has outgrown its current venue largely because of the sheer number of delegates that are attending. And of course there are two types of delegates. You've got the white badge holders, the halo delegates, the ones who get in, and they're roughly about 3000, I think, official participants. And then you've got a massive 15,000 plus apparently unofficial attendees who just dwarf the 3000 official. And so of course they're thinking of moving.

(12:40):
But of course the problem from a brand perspective is actually the World Economic Forum is often, the term is sort of interchangeable with Davos. And most people use Davos. They don't use World Economic Forum or WEF. The acronym doesn't really flow. And so what's going to happen if, is it going to be the World Economic Forum or WEF in Dublin or Detroit or is it going to be weirdly Davos in Detroit? And so there is a bit of a branding challenge if the forum moves. And of course what lucky city is going to get the World Economic Forum, because think of all of the economic benefits of the tourism, travel, hospitality, et cetera. Not to mention all of the media attention and the senior leaders that come in who are capable of consequential decisions. And of course that means that the sleepy little town of Davos, I mean what it's become, other city states must be salivating thinking about it and no doubt thinking about offering some eye watering incentives to attract it.

(13:44):
And that's why you have other platforms such as the World Cup and which countries around the world just clamour and spend enormous amounts of money, because it's huge, huge value to hosting these and a lot of it is money can't buy. And I wanted to lean into David now. If they move the forum from Davos to somewhere like Detroit or Dublin, what do you think would be the major challenges in terms of the brand? Because it is known as Davos, we call it Davos. And of course you have advised the World Economic Forum in the past in terms of brand. So tell us a little bit about your perspective there.

David Gallagher (14:22):
Well, advice might be a strong word. I did work with them on a project a while ago, my first introduction to the Forum, and really tackle that exact question. How do they associate and build the brand of the World Economic Forum, which is the actual name of the organisation, to its annual meeting, which is almost always held in Davos. I think there's been a couple of successions. They also have what they call summer Davos, which has been historically held in two different places in China. But definitely the brand value has been attached to this location. And I think they struggled with this for years about how to acknowledge that that's how they're considered, but also the fact that they work on a year long basis. They do a lot of things that don't have anything to do with Davos and they've got value that transcends this one conversation.

(15:06):
So I think it's a legitimate question to ask and it's been on their minds, I think, for a long time. But it kind of interestingly leans into a couple of other things. Is this a lean into popular populism? Is this a step away from charges of elitism, which is something that the Forum has struggled to address or tried to address over the years as well. So is this a way of opening up the Forum and bringing its considerations, its deliberations, the spotlight into other markets? As you know, I'm a big fan of the Forum overall. I think they have instigated a lot of important conversations. I think they shine a light on the issues that we need to be looking at. And I think that the brand, like all brands, probably is due for at least a reconsideration. And this would be one thing at least that you'd look at. I hadn't seen what the reaction is yet, but I think it's a legitimate question to ask, even if it's one they decide not to pursue.

Doug Downs (16:02):
Davos was always more an idea, right, David, more than a location, and neutral Switzerland was the chosen location. Understanding that there are different ideas, different cultural philosophies that come with the idea of uniting a world. But the challenge in 2026 is we don't assemble by appointment anymore or really by place anymore. Right? Case in point, Netanyahu and Putin couldn't go, right, for fear allegedly of being arrested at the airport. So I thought Larry Fink spoke well. He spoke like a man who knows the weather is changing. He didn't hide behind the old Davos jargon. He talked about failure. He called the Forum an echo chamber. And I didn't take it as humility from him. I took it as a kind of strategic tactical retreat. He sees the populist tide rising and he's trying to build a breakwater, if you will. He talks about Detroit, you're right.

(17:04):
But he also talked about Jakarta. So he's willing to break the D alliteration and he wants to put on a work shirt and he wants to stand where things are built. He doesn't seem to want to do the work, but he wants to stand where the things are built and he's trying to wash the mountain air off the money. He knows that if the elite don't admit that they're out of step, the world will simply stop listening. Fink is not seeking an apology for the global elite. He's seeking an insurance policy for their relevance. He's not changing the game, he's changing his jersey so he can keep playing. And in terms of should Davos move, maybe there's a hybrid model here. And I didn't realise they already sort of had one with summer Davos as brought to you from China. But maybe there's a hybrid model they can start to identify, Farzana, that would work for them.

David Gallagher (17:55):
Absolutely. Just one last thing before you read this out. Doug and I alluded to this earlier just in terms of how news is reviewed. And I've had an opportunity to, sitting in my dad's house, he's a regular person, he's a normal human, he's not a professional communicator like us. And I see him literally scrolling on his iPad, usually through videos. Short form, loud and bright are the ones that get people to stop. And it's not just my dad. And they usually get no further than 20 seconds in at the max before they move on to the next one. And something's got to be pretty attention grabbing to pause and read through it. It was just a wake up for me that we take things in parts and analyse them in full and assume that contributes to a wider understanding. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but it's just how we've been trained to do it. And I'm not sure that's how people actually experience the news of the world. I saw that play out over and over as we were closely watching what was happening in Davos. That's not the way most people were experiencing it. And I think their views are probably more important than ours when it comes to understanding how the public's responded.

Doug Downs (19:13):
As always, thanks to our superstar producers, they're amazing. Emily Page and Solomon Ibeh, they're so great. Just ask them. The Week Unspun is a co production of Curzon Public Relations, Stories and Strategies Podcasts, and Folgate Advisors. Recordings on Apple, Spotify and YouTube. Give them a listen. And our final thought for this week, an African proverb. If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. Have a great weekend.