Corporate communication: from message to audience perception

Why is the reader never neutral?

For a long time, communication theory assumed that messages travelled directly from sender to receiver, like a sealed letter sent from one person to another. In this model, the recipient merely opens and reads the message without altering its meaning. Reality, however, is far more complex.

Each time someone reads a text—whether it is an article, an advertisement, or a social media post—they do not passively absorb it. They interpret it, and they do so in their own way. This means that there is no such thing as a “neutral” or “passive” reader; every reader actively constructs meaning.

This idea was clearly articulated in the 1970s by Stuart Hall, one of the most influential communication scholars of the twentieth century. Hall, a Jamaican-British sociologist and founder of the “cultural studies” approach to media analysis, argued in his seminal essay Encoding/Decoding (1980) that the meaning of a message is not fixed—it is produced in the act of reception.

According to Hall, those who create content encode it with certain intentions, but audiences decode it in diverse ways. He identifies three main modes of decoding:

• Dominant reading, in which the audience accepts the intended message;
• Negotiated reading, in which the audience partially accepts but adapts it to their own context;
• Oppositional reading, in which the message is reinterpreted in a contrary sense.

A similar reflection appears in the work of Italian semiotician Umberto Eco. In his book Lector in fabula (1979), Eco describes the text not as a closed container of ready-made meanings, but as a “lazy machine”—it only functions if the reader activates it. Each reader, Eco argues, relies on their own personal “encyclopedia,” a set of experiences, emotions, and cultural references that shape interpretation. In other words, everyone reads with a different intellectual and emotional background—and this background profoundly transforms understanding.

This is why communication is never linear. Writing well or speaking clearly does not guarantee that the message will be understood as intended. Every reader brings a perspective of their own, and that perspective plays a decisive role in shaping the final meaning.

What happens when a message is not received as intended?

Many companies still operate under a dangerous illusion: the belief that they can fully control their message. They assume that careful wording, a consistent tone, and an editorial plan will ensure predictable outcomes. Yet, as we have seen, audiences are not passive receivers—and this changes everything.

Communicators must face an uncomfortable truth: messages do not always arrive as planned. Quite often, they are reinterpreted, distorted, or even inverted by the public. When this happens, the original meaning may transform into something completely different—or even opposite.

The Bud Light case (2023)

A striking example occurred in 2023, when Bud Light partnered with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney to strengthen its appeal among younger and more inclusive audiences. Intended as a celebration of diversity, the campaign provoked fierce backlash from conservative circles, leading to boycotts, declining sales, and a full-blown reputational crisis amplified by U.S. media outlets (si v. Bud Light boycott – Wikipedia).

Deliveroo and the illusion of personalization (2024)

In 2024, Deliveroo’s Valentine’s Day stunt in the UK involved sending customers handwritten “love letters.” Meant to amuse, the campaign instead sparked confusion and criticism when recipients believed the notes were from secret admirers. The result was disappointment, social media backlash, and public apologies for misleading marketing (si v. Deliveroo apologises for ‘misjudged’ Valentine’s Day marketing stunt).

American Eagle and the “genes/jeans” double entendre (2025)

More recently, American Eagle launched a campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney with the slogan “Great Jeans / Great Genes.” What was intended as a playful pun was interpreted by many as an allusion to exclusionary beauty standards and racial implications surrounding the idea of “good genes.” Despite the brand’s clarification, the campaign faced heavy criticism for perceived insensitivity (si v. American Eagle’s ‘good jeans’ ads).

These examples underscore a key principle of modern communication: the final meaning of a message is determined not by its sender, but by its audience.

For corporate communicators, this entails a significant challenge: it is not enough to consider what one wishes to say; one must also anticipate how it will be perceived, in light of the audience’s values, emotions, and expectations. In today’s digital context—where every reader can comment, share, or criticize in real time—messages do not circulate in a closed channel but in a public arena, where they can be debated, reshaped, or even ridiculed.

Ignoring the active role of audiences can lead to misunderstanding, reputational damage, and loss of credibility.