The FIR Podcast Network Everything Feed: Recent Episodes

View Details

Most agency owners probably haven’t thought much about shadow AI (the name for when employees use their personal ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini accounts to do work). In fact, owners may be doing it as well. In this episode, Chip and Gini walk through what the risks are and how to respond without overreacting.

The instinct to crack down is understandable but wrong. Employees are going to use their own tools regardless, often because personal accounts are better trained or more accessible than whatever the company has set up. The goal should be education, not elimination. Most employees don’t know that personal accounts default to feeding data into training sets, or that a single toggle can turn that off. That one fix alone is worth a conversation with your team.

Vibe coding and a plain-language AI policy get discussed, in addition to educating your team. Gini’s team runs weekly micro-learning sessions to help people use AI as a thinking partner, not just a drafting tool. Both Chip and Gini advise that owners and employees who aren’t using AI meaningfully within the next year or two are putting their careers and businesses at risk. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 312: Managing “Shadow AI” at your agency appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Veteran communications leader Mark Dollins joins “On The Same Page” as co-host. Mark and Shel address the “voice” leadership applies internally, as opposed to (or consistent with) the voice they employ with external stakeholders. Should it be the same? How different? What considerations drive the inside-the-company voice? And why does it matter?

Leave comments below, or send them to https://fircommentes@gmail.com, where you can attach up to a 3-minute audio file. (You can create that audio file right here — look for the “Send Voicemail” tab on the right side of this page.)

Learn more about Mark at his LinkedIn profile and at the website of his consulting firm, Northstar Communications.

Links from this episode:

• A Message from Airbnb Co-Founder and CEO Brian Chesky
• Better.com CEO to take time off after firing hundreds of employees over Zoom

Raw transcript:

Shel Holtz: So, Mark, an executive’s voice. I’m curious: In your experience, do you find that executives use the same voice with internal stakeholders as they do with external stakeholders?

Mark Dollins: I think in most cases, they do not, and that’s actually a great point for us to talk about—why that is. Because when an executive uses one voice on the outside and changes it on the inside, people know, and they want to know why. It sounds incongruous to them.

So I don’t think executives do it all the time. Sometimes it happens naturally, and sometimes I think it’s intentional, so we should talk about that.

Shel: When I’m talking to my wife, it’s a different tone of voice than when I’m talking to, say, my accountant. Is it inappropriate to talk differently to investors than to employees?

Mark: Is it inappropriate? Probably not. But you have to really think about the nuance of the tone, because people know when they’re being “messaged,” and internal stakeholders don’t want to feel like they’re being messaged. They also want it straight.

They’re going to hear a lot of the financial implications from the external stakeholder version of the story. What I find is that often those things aren’t included in the internal communication. There’s almost an assumption that internal stakeholders aren’t listening to or aware of what’s happening externally. That’s a problem.

Shel: Hi, everybody, and welcome to Episode 5 of On The Same Page. I am Shel Holtz. I’m Senior Director of Communications at Webcor. We’re a commercial general contractor operating in California and headquartered in San Francisco.

And I would like to introduce you all to the new co-host of On The Same Page, Mark Dollins. Mark, it is awesome to have you here.

Mark: Shel, thank you. I feel like there should be confetti and a marching band, but thank you for that introduction. I am honored to co-host this with you. I’m really excited about it.

Shel: I think we’re going to have a great time and cover a lot.

I want people to get to know you a bit before we jump into this topic of finding your leader’s voice—and, in fact, even your own voice—for internal stakeholders.

You and I met—I can’t remember how long ago this was—but it was in Chicago at what was then Quaker, which was owned by Pepsi. You were VP of internal communications at Pepsi. That’s where we got to know each other. It was through Sharon McIntosh, who brought me in at the time.

But tell people about yourself. What has been your career trajectory?

Mark: The big picture is that I started as a journalist. I worked for ABC News in Washington and then went to the Midwest as a newspaper reporter for a couple of years. I couldn’t make enough of a living to support myself, so that’s what brought me to the world of corporate communications.

I spent 10 years in gas and electric utilities—a lot of fires, gas explosions, power outages. After all that, it was a lot more fun talking about Cap’n Crunch and Rice-A-Roni, so that’s what brought me to the world of consumer packaged goods, with Quaker Oats Company in Chicago.

I loved working at Quaker. Quaker became part of PepsiCo in 2001, and I did a couple of stints back and forth. I ended up being their chief communication officer for food, so Frito-Lay in addition to all the Quaker and other food products in the portfolio. Then I was their chief communication officer for the beverage division as well.

From there, I began my consultancy. I got pulled back into the corporate world and ran executive and global employee communications for DuPont as it went through a $130 billion merger with Dow in 2017.

So there was a lot of change communication, which we’ll talk about at some point in this series. Then I went back to consulting. Now I’m doing work in employee and change communications, and employee engagement is really where I’ve found my sweet spot. I have a great love, passion, and expertise in this area, and there’s nobody better than you to partner with to talk about it.

Shel: It’s going to be great. You’ve also written a book that I really enjoyed.

Mark: You mean these?

Shel: Yeah, the ones on the wall behind you.

Mark: Yes. I partnered with John Stemmle at the University of Missouri School of Journalism. I’m an adjunct there as well these days and have been teaching a class based on this book, Engaging Employees Through Strategic Communication.

The first edition came out in 2021, and the second edition just came out a few months ago this year. I’m really excited to have added new case studies and a few new chapters, including one on artificial intelligence and how employee communicators are beginning to use it in lots of different ways, and another new chapter on crisis communication.

So there are lots of new things. It’s constantly evolving, and I think we’ll be doing a third edition before you know it.

Shel: And I know that you also do a survey on the use of AI for internal communications.

Mark: We’re about to release our fourth consecutive annual study on AI and communications, specifically looking at it through the lens of employee communicators: how we’re using it both for productivity and for more strategic applications, and what our attitudes are toward it.

There have been lots of changes in four years, as you might imagine, so I’m excited to talk a little bit about that at some point as well.

Shel: In fact, for listeners to this podcast who also listen to For Immediate Release, Mark is going to be talking about that survey on an FIR interview coming up in, I think, just a couple of weeks.

Mark: I think we’re recording it next week, Shel, so I can’t wait to talk about it.

Shel: I know Neville and I are both looking forward to that as well.

One more thing about you personally before we start talking business. In your personal life, I know that you’re into wrestling.

Mark: I am. They have Masters tennis and Masters swimming, and they actually have Masters wrestling as well. I’ve been active in that space for about the last 10 years or so. I wrestled in high school and college. I coach. I also just got my Gold Level certification from USA Wrestling.

It’s their highest level of coaching certification. I went with the Under-23 national team to the Pan American Championships a couple of months ago, and then helped run a development camp at the Olympic Training Center for under-18-year-olds.

So my coaching journey continues, as does my athletic and competition journey in wrestling. I love it. It’s a lot of fun.

Shel: Great. People should get to know you better as we carry on with this podcast over the months.

But let’s talk about this idea of voice. In my framework, I think it fits very nicely in a couple of places. One is consultation, as we work with executives to help them become better communicators. I also think it fits really well with the channels we use. If executives are a channel for communicating, they have to do that effectively, and we need to manage that channel.

Mark: And we need to help other communicators. If you work in executive communications, there are ways now to accelerate your drafting process and put content more into a comfortable voice that works both for you as the counselor and coach, and for your executive, who needs to find his or her voice and stick to it.

I’ve spent some time working with CEO types on how to do exactly that. Anything we can do to help our colleagues advance their productivity, become more efficient, and get better at supporting their executives—while still preserving their role as coach—I think would be helpful.

Shel: I went looking for examples of an executive employing a great voice with internal stakeholders and then an example of executives not doing it so well.

The positive example I found is Brian Chesky, the CEO of Airbnb. This is not an obscure example.

This was around a layoff in 2020. It was really awful news that he was delivering. They were eliminating nearly 2,000 jobs, about 25 percent of the company.

His May 5 employee message was very human. It didn’t sound like somebody had crafted it. He explained what the business circumstances were. He talked about the uncomfortable truths concerning the future of travel. This was just as COVID was sending people home.

He explained how the company decided which jobs they were going to eliminate. He laid out the principles that guided the cuts, and then he gave an extraordinary amount of detail about severance, equity, healthcare, and job assistance.

And he was willing to say that he felt real emotion—a real connection to the people with whom they were having to part ways.

That could have sounded mawkish in some other CEO’s remarks. But in the context of their culture and everything else in the message, it sounded like him. It was very authentic.

Authenticity, I think, matters a lot in how an executive talks to employees.

Mark: I agree, Shel. The thing is, a lot of executives don’t have that authenticity naturally when they’re communicating to large audiences.

If you’re talking to them one-on-one, they’re as authentic as they can be. But you put a couple more people in front of them, or they’re talking in front of thousands, and all of a sudden—if they’re shy or struggle to find a tone that fits the situation—it becomes more than apparent. You think, “Okay, this person is either not telling the truth, or they’re just a crappy communicator.”

That’s where the role of an executive communications coach comes in. We’re the ones helping them by saying, “Gosh, that feels a little stiff. Let’s use this technique to help you come across more naturally.”

There’s the tone—making sure it’s transparent—and then there’s the content, to your point. Are we actually moving the needle with content that’s believable and transparent?

Or are we sugarcoating it? Are we telling one thing to shareholders—“Hey, we’re taking a $130 million charge. We’re going to cut 13,000 jobs,” or whatever it’s going to be—and then the internal message is, “We’re going to try to save as many jobs as possible”?

It’s incongruous, and employees pick up on that very quickly. That’s not transparent. It’s just bad practice.

Shel: It’s funny. I met somebody who was in a room with Hillary Clinton—just a small group of three or four people and Hillary Clinton—and this person said she was absolutely shocked at what a great communicator she was, how warm she was, how conversational and authentic.

She said, “I’ve seen her speak so many times. I was expecting this distant, cold, on-message sort of person.” But that’s not what she was like in person.

So it is important to work with executives so that they can convey what they’re like in front of one person or a small group when they’re talking to hundreds or thousands.

Mark: Yes. And I’ll tell you someplace where I see this popping up more. There are examples where that authenticity and care for internal stakeholders are brought into an external environment.

You and I both know that employees today are getting information from their companies and their leaders on channels like LinkedIn as much as they are on their internal channels. They’re watching. They’re listening. They’re reading that kind of stuff.

A couple of examples: I’ve been working with Pittsburgh International Airport. Their CEO makes it a point, every time she’s talking about what’s happening at the airport, to acknowledge the hard work of her team members and internal teams. They just built and opened a beautiful $1.8 billion terminal there, but every time she’s out talking to stakeholders, she acknowledges the hard work her team members have done to make that happen.

Another example is Signet Jewelers. They own Jared, Kay, and Zales. Their CEO, J.K. Symancyk, when he’s doing quarterly earnings, talking to CNBC, or doing something on LinkedIn, invariably talks about the contributions of their team members.

That’s authentic. Our job in helping and coaching executives is to say, “Make sure you don’t forget that,” because in the heat of the moment—maybe it’s live broadcast TV—putting a little note or even a sticky note that says “team members” is a great way to help them bring that authentic voice forward so it doesn’t come across as scripted and unbelievable.

It sends a huge message of authenticity to internal stakeholders: “Yeah, you had a great quarter. Yay, shareholders. But don’t forget who actually made that happen. That’s us—the people behind the scenes doing the work.”

So I’m a big believer in not forgetting the channels that cross over, and in providing that kind of coaching to an executive leader to ensure his or her voice comes across as appreciative of the hard work of the company—but more importantly, the people behind it.

Shel: Do you remember Jacques Nasser by any chance?

He was with Ford Motor Company, and he would send an email to employees—I think it was monthly. I read about this in a Fortune magazine article. It had to be 20 or 25 years ago.

He would not let anybody review it. Not his communicators, not his lawyers, not HR. He said, “I want this to be me, unfiltered, straight to the employees. I don’t care if there are typos. I don’t care if I say something you don’t want me to say. I’m willing to risk that in order to be completely unfiltered and authentic.”

They told a story about one of these emails where he said, “I know there’s a lot going on in the company, and I should be talking about what’s happening at work. My daughter is graduating from high school this afternoon, and that’s all I can think about. So I want to tell you all about my daughter and everything she’s done in her school career.”

He got notes of congratulations from union shop stewards.

But I think he is an exception to the rule. I don’t think being unfiltered and being authentic are necessarily the same thing.

I think executive voice is disciplined authenticity.

Mark: I agree.

I’m going to jump a little bit to a different topic: how you find that voice.

I worked with the CEO of a major company in the last 12 months who couldn’t really describe his voice. I said, “Tell me what you think your voice is.”

I went through a lot of things that were publicly available, and I ran them through some reviews using what we’ll call artificial intelligence. It was able to help me identify things like tone, pacing, timbre, word choice, and things like that.

Then I was able to go back to the CEO and say, “Is this how you would describe your voice? Does that feel right?” And I had specific examples pulled forward.

“Yeah, that sounds like me. That sounds like me. That doesn’t really sound like me.”

So it was interesting to arrive at a definition of what that voice was.

The purpose was, first, to get alignment with him, but also to help the executive communications professionals working with him. They were having a really tough time getting him a first draft that was close to his voice.

The content was roughly okay, but the voice was all wrong.

So there are ways of doing this. It’s about helping executives recognize and reflect on what their voice is and what works for them. Then sometimes you have to say, “Yeah, it might work for you in some cases, but it’s not so great in others. You’re pretty stiff, so let’s come up with some agreements about how we can fix this.”

You still retain what works for them and their voice, but add some nuances that let you polish it and make it work for other stakeholders.

Shel: One of the problems is that we tend to try to label an executive’s voice with adjectives, right?

“You’re approachable. You’re conversational.”

I think you need to get more detailed than that. You need to ask questions like: Does this executive explain why before saying what? Do they use stories or evidence? Do they acknowledge uncertainty? Are they funny or self-deprecating? How do they sound when they’re taking responsibility for things?

Mark: How often do they say “team”?

Shel: Exactly. What would they never say?

Then you bring all of that together and ask, “Is this your voice?”

If you’re going to use AI to help with this, those are the kinds of things you have to feed it. These are words they use all the time. These are words they never use. These are the approaches they take to supporting a point they’re making.

Mark: And the world is changing constantly.

It could be a new CEO who comes from outside the company. It could be a very senior-level person who has moved into a CEO role and needs to refine that voice because maybe what worked in the previous role doesn’t work as a CEO.

We have to keep those things in mind as we provide that counsel and coaching: “Okay, you have a great voice for this, but you know what? You’ve got a whole new world here that you have to work with. Let’s talk about how we can refine that and make it work for all the stakeholders, including internal employees, whom we have to reach and who have to believe in us.”

Shel: One thought before we wrap this episode up: It doesn’t matter what the executive’s voice is if what they say does not align with what they do.

They can be heartfelt, and they can get choked up when they’re talking to employees. But if their behavior is inconsistent with that, that is a failure of integrity.

That creates a say-do gap.

Mark: We’ve seen examples of that, right? People who want you to believe, “I’m open, transparent, and a decent human being,” and yet they do conference calls or send out a blanket email to fire 35,000 people at once.

I’m not really seeing the connection there.

You’re right. Their actions have to be consistent with how they want to be seen.

Shel: By the way, you mentioned bad layoffs. I had said I found an example of an executive doing this badly.

Vishal Garg, with Better.com, laid off 900 people at the same time. He invited them all to a Zoom call—this was in December 2021—and told them they were part of the unlucky group whose employment was being terminated.

Then he accused some of the terminated employees of stealing from the company by being unproductive.

There was considerable backlash, so much so that he had to apologize for failing to show respect and appreciation. The board actually announced a leadership and cultural assessment as a result.

That’s what executive voice looks like when it goes badly wrong.

Mark: Not a lot of love shown there.

I think a lot of people are familiar with that story, but it’s good to be reminded that this is real stuff that happens. It makes you wonder: Was there an internal or executive communication person even there in the room?

And if so, was he or she ignored?

There’s a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking about that stuff, but you just wonder: How the heck does that happen?

Shel: You have to believe either there was no communications perspective in the room or it wasn’t listened to.

This is why I think we have to talk about the “seat at the table,” even though I get really sick of that conversation.

Mark: Me too, Shel. We definitely have to talk about that.

AI is a great example of where people are saying, “Yeah, we never get a seat at the table.”

And I’m thinking, “You have no idea the opportunity that is in front of you right now, this very second.”

Shel: We’ll definitely do an episode on that.

But that’ll do it for this episode. I hope listeners will send us your comments and questions. Just head over to firpodcastnetwork.com and find the show. You’ll get all the information on how to comment.

And until next time, Mark, this has been great. I’m really looking forward to continuing this.

Mark: I’m loving it. What a great partner. Thanks, y’all. I look forward to continuing this journey with you.

The post OTSP #5: Finding Your Leader’s Voice for Internal Stakeholders appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Most companies are experiencing some level of turmoil over their adoption of Artificial Intelligence. They should be able to lean on their managers to interpret these issues at the ground level. Research, however, finds that training has left managers out. They may be getting some of the same training all employees are getting, but nothing to help them guide their teams. That will become more and more problematic as challenges continue to mount—like the two issues that have emerged recently: companies shifting the models they’re using, and employees stepping out of their areas of expertise because AI can give them information they would normally turn to internal subject matter experts for.

Links from this episode:

• ‘Tokenmaxxing’ hits limits as workplaces look for cheaper artificial intelligence
• Workers are crossing job boundaries with AI, OpenAI research shows
• Managers say they don’t feel ready to lead an AI-fluent workforce

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR is tentatively scheduled to drop on Monday, August 24.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Shel Holtz:

When companies change something they’ve been extolling for the last six months, managers are expected to support that change. When employees step outside their lane, managers are supposed to manage that. But can managers do these things when they haven’t been prepared?

That’s the case with some of the fallout from the introduction of artificial intelligence in organizations. The details are coming up in this short midweek episode of For Immediate Release.

Hi, everybody, and welcome to episode 524 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz, and you’ve got just me again this week.

I have three artificial intelligence stories to share with you. Organizational communicators are going to have to live at the intersection of all three of these issues, whether we’re ready or not, so let’s tackle them as parts of a bigger whole.

I’ll dive into these stories right after this.

Let’s start with the whiplash.

For the past year or so, companies have been in what some have come to call the “token-maxing era”: Throw AI at everything, reward employees for burning through as many tokens as possible, and worry about the ROI later.

Nvidia’s Jensen Huang was quoted as saying that if your half-million-dollar engineer isn’t burning $250,000 in tokens, something’s amiss. Meta reportedly ran an internal competition rewarding token usage.

That was the mood last spring.

Summer’s mood is different.

The Associated Press—and, by the way, this same reporting ran in The Washington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and elsewhere—describes companies now hitting a wall. Costs went up, productivity didn’t keep pace, and the bill is coming due.

We covered this in episode 517 back in early June, but just as a reminder: Uber blew through its entire annual AI budget in four months, according to its CTO, and has since rolled out spending tiers starting at $1,500 a month per employee.

Some companies aren’t just tightening budgets; they’re switching platforms entirely. One AI startup called Lindy moved 100% of its traffic off Claude and onto DeepSeek, the cheaper Chinese alternative. Its CEO told CNBC that the cost curve “crashed to the ground.”

Multiply that kind of switch across every company currently having the same conversation, and you’ve got a specific communication problem: How do you explain to a workforce that, after spending months enthusiastically evangelizing one tool, you’re now moving employees to a different one—possibly overnight—for reasons that are mostly financial and don’t actually involve the employees who have been building things on the original tool?

That’s problem number one.

Problem number two is going to make problem number one look simple, because it’s not just about which tool people use. It’s about what people are allowed to do with it.

Axios got an exclusive look at new OpenAI research drawn from more than 800,000 work-related ChatGPT messages from business users. The finding is that workers are routinely doing other people’s jobs.

Roughly 44% of occupation-specific requests involve tasks typically associated with a different profession. After stripping out generic activities such as drafting emails, customer service employees, designers, and HR professionals are the biggest boundary crossers. Something like three-quarters of their profession-specific prompts touch work that belongs to somebody else’s job title.

People are using ChatGPT to draft marketing materials, troubleshoot software, run financial calculations, and interpret regulations—jobs that used to require reaching out to a specialist for help.

OpenAI’s chief economist told Axios that the boundaries between jobs are already becoming more flexible because of this.

Now, if you’re in communications, you can probably already hear the governance questions stacking up.

Who’s accountable when a well-meaning employee uses AI to draft something that touches legal, financial, or regulatory territory in which they have no training?

What happens to your carefully built subject-matter-expert review process when everyone feels like a generalist?

And when something goes wrong because of bad advice, off-brand sentiment, or a compliance miss, who owns that failure? Is it the employee, the tool, or the manager for not seeing it coming?

That brings us to the third piece, and honestly, it’s the one that worries me most.

HR Dive reported on new research from Indeed and YouGov. The headline number is that 43% of managers say they feel poorly equipped—or not equipped at all—to lead a workforce that’s fluent in AI.

More than half of workers say they’re not getting the AI training they need. Employer expectations for what workers should be doing with AI are running two or three times ahead of what workers actually feel comfortable doing.

Indeed pointed out that companies have spent two years building AI-ready workforces. The next challenge—and arguably the harder one—is building AI-ready leaders.

Now, put these three stories together and you get a pretty clear picture.

Companies are going to keep switching models and vendors as the economics shift. Employees are going to keep wandering across job boundaries because the tools make that easy and, honestly, tempting.

The people standing in the middle of both trends—the frontline managers who must explain the switch, catch the boundary problems, and answer the “Wait, am I even allowed to do this?” questions in real time—are the group companies have prepared the least.

That is a communication problem, and it’s ours to fix.

If managers don’t understand why the company moved off the model they spent six months championing, they can’t credibly explain it to their teams. They’ll either go silent, which breeds suspicion, or they’ll improvise, which is worse.

If managers don’t have clear guardrails explaining what kinds of AI-assisted work outside someone’s lane are acceptable and what kinds require a specialist’s involvement, they’ll either rubber-stamp everything or block everything. Neither option serves the business.

And if leadership training lags this far behind workforce adoption, managers become the bottleneck at exactly the moment the company needs them to be the translators and interpreters.

Here are three things I’d be pushing for internally right now:

First, build the change narrative for platform and model switches before you need it. Develop a plain-language explanation of why these decisions happen that managers can use without having to invent their own justification on the spot.

Second, give managers an actual decision framework for cross-boundary AI use. Provide a simple test for determining when an employee’s AI-assisted work needs specialist review so managers aren’t left guessing.

Third, take the Indeed numbers to leadership. Make the case that you can’t roll out AI training for the frontline while skipping the people who manage the frontline.

It’s the difference between an AI rollout that sticks and one that quietly falls apart at the manager layer.

Thanks for putting up with a lone voice again this week. With luck, Neville will be back in the saddle next week.

As I mentioned last week, Neville and I are set to have lunch in San Francisco on Thursday. It’s the first time we’ll have seen each other face-to-face in almost seven years, if I’m remembering correctly. I’m looking forward to that. Watch for photos.

And that’s a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #524: Are Managers Ready to Lead an AI-Fluent Workforce? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Neville has been ill and unable to record, so Shel is on his own in this episode (except for Dan York’s Tech Report). This shorter-than-usual monthly long-form episode includes reports on rethinking thought leadership, maintaining “brand sovereignty” in the AI era, and whether hedging in your communication can serve a useful purpose. Dan’s report was recorded in Vienna, Austria, where AI was front and center at the 126th meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force. Dan also reports on Bluesky’s Attie AI feature, Instagram’s plans to charge for AI access, Beehiv’s new community feature, WordPress’s plans for version 7.1, and some UK social media regulatory updates.

xx

Links from this episode:

• How Marketers Should Rethink Thought Leadership
• Treat Thought Leadership as a Lasting Asset, Not a One-Off Campaign
• A 5-Step Framework for Genuine Thought Leadership
• Why thought leadership is no longer optional for tech companies
• The ROI of Thought Leadership
• CEO thought leadership can drive $367M in value
• Why Thought Leadership Is Failing — and How to Solve It
• Reclaiming Brand Sovereignty In The AI Era
• The paid brand mention problem in GEO
• Can Hedging Make You a Better Communicator?
• Effectively communicating uncertainty: The persuasive impact of different types of hedges
• The Role of Different Markers of Linguistic Powerlessness in Persuasion
• Hedges, Tag Questions, Message Processing, and Persuasion

Links from Dan York’s Tech Report

• Bluesky’s AI assistant Attie expands into an open social research tool
• Attie: AI for the Atmosphere
• Instagram will charge for AI access
• Newsletter platform Beehiiv now lets subscribers chat with each other, adds AI
• Roadmap to 7.1
• Investigation into TikTok’s compliance with duties to protect children from encountering harmful content under section 12

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR is tentatively scheduled to drop on Monday, August 24.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Shel Holtz

It’s an unusual FIR episode today, with just me and three reports for this long-form installment.

Thought leadership isn’t what it used to be—or at least it shouldn’t be what it used to be. With AI summaries increasingly becoming the way people get the information they’re looking for, how do you maintain your brand’s sovereignty over the information that gets shared about it?

And do you hedge in your communications? There’s actually research into whether hedging is a good or a bad thing.

That’s what’s coming your way in this shorter-than-usual monthly long-form episode of For Immediate Release.

Hi, everybody, and welcome to episode number 523 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz in Concord, California. This is our monthly long-form episode for July 2026, and I am on my own.

You may have noticed that we didn’t post a short midweek episode last week. Neville has been quite ill, with an infection in his chest and some other issues, some of them related to the ridiculously intense heat they have been suffering in England. It has kept him from being able to record.

He is planning a trip to the U.S.—here to the Bay Area, in fact. We are scheduled to have lunch on my birthday while he’s here, and right now he is focused on doing everything his doctor has told him to do so he can make that trip. That’s a decision I fully support.

It has been way too long since Neville and I have seen each other face to face in the same room. I am really, really looking forward to it. I hope you’ll join me in wishing him a speedy recovery.

Rather than skip this episode, I’ve decided to do it on my own. We used to do this fairly routinely back in the day, when both of us were full-time consultants and traveled a lot to meet with clients.

Frequently, one of us wouldn’t be available on the day we were recording. The other would record solo, or occasionally, if I had enough notice, I would find a guest co-host.

But today, you get just me.

At this point, we usually start with Neville providing a wrap-up of the episodes we’ve recorded since our last monthly long-form installment. I will take that on, along with a comment or two we have received related to those episodes.

Episode 520 was our long-form episode for June. It covered the PR meltdown that was going on among the big AI frontier labs.

There were five other topics, including one about Wowcher, a U.K. coupon company that sent an email with a promotional statement that upset just about everybody.

It was related to a young child who had been picked up and put into a crocodile enclosure and was in critical condition, the last I heard. Wowcher’s email said, “Snap up these deals quicker than a croc can catch a kid.”

Yes, if you didn’t hear the episode and you’re hearing this for the first time, this is not a joke. This is not The Onion. This was a real promotional message from the company, and it got hammered over it.

Tim Sutton left a comment saying:

“Your closing line is the whole thing, Shel. The ‘AI approved it’ defense itself is never enough. An approval step is not bureaucracy. It’s where a human asks the question no machine thinks to ask: How does this read on the worst possible day? Strip it out to move faster, and you have not saved time; you have removed the brake. I have seen the aftermath.”

Episode 521 focused on Ford rehiring people it had previously let go, ostensibly because AI would be able to do their jobs. AI was not able to do their jobs.

Rick Segal found it interesting that Microsoft, his alma mater from the 1990s, had decided to let the graybeards and their institutional knowledge walk out the door through early retirement rather than undertake the hard-core and honest “Oops, we overhired” cuts.

The decades of knowledge walking out Redmond’s door, he said, are going to be felt eventually.

Eric Carroll replied to Rick, saying:

“They will pay for replacing expertise with engines of mass satisficing. Just as you say, how long will the blast take to propagate? From what I am hearing and seeing, the return on misinvestment is way faster than I expected.”

Episode 522 was about Podcasting 2.0, a new set of protocols Adam Curry is working on with an engineering colleague named Dave Jones.

We talked about whether this would be good for podcasting and podcast listeners, the likelihood of widespread adoption, and some of the obstacles standing in its way.

Vincent Bruneau wrote:

“The slower-than-hoped-for adoption is the most interesting part of the Podcasting 2.0 story. Richer metadata, transcripts, chapters, and better accessibility are genuinely useful features. So why hasn’t it moved faster? That gap between good technology and actual adoption is always where the real communication lesson lives.”

Juraj Schaefer, a podcast producer and editor, wrote:

“Interesting perspective. As podcasting evolves, ownership, discoverability, and meaningful connections will become even more important.”

And Dakshina Senadheera, a podcast editor and manager, shared this thought:

“Interesting conversation, especially around keeping podcasting open while improving the listener experience.”

Thanks to everybody who commented on our previous episodes. You are always welcome to comment.

You can leave comments on LinkedIn, where we announce the episodes, as everybody whose comment I read today did.

You can also send us an audio or text comment by email at FIRComments@gmail.com. You can record a comment directly from the FIR website, FIRPodcastNetwork.com, by clicking the “Send Voicemail” button on the right-hand side of the screen.

Or you can leave a comment in our show notes. There are all kinds of ways you can comment and participate in the show.

I also want to let you know that the interview we did with Pete Blackshaw about the Answer Economy is now available.

It has been getting some really good reactions. People have found real value in this discussion about how AI answers are now the answers people are getting about your product, regardless of where the information the frontier models accumulated came from.

You can find that in FIR Interviews.

The latest episode of Circle of Fellows is also available. Episode 131 is about the evolving media landscape and what it means for media relations.

Our panelists included Diana Degan, a new IABC Fellow from the 2026 class of Fellows, along with Ned Lundquist, Martha Muzychka, and Jennifer Wah.

They talked about whom we reach out to when there are fewer reporters available to tell our stories through the mainstream and trade press we have been accustomed to.

The next episode, coming up on the third Thursday in August at 6 p.m. Eastern, is about AI and the kinds of pivots communicators will have to make as AI becomes a more widely used tool in the communication toolkit.

The panelists will be Bonnie Caver, Adrian Cropley, Theomary Karamanis, and Mike Klein. I’m looking forward to that.

Now I have three reports, as I usually do in the monthly long-form episode of FIR. You just don’t get three from Neville.

As I mentioned earlier, this is going to be a shorter episode than usual.

Two pieces landed in the search press recently that I think belong together, even though they were written a few weeks apart by people who probably weren’t talking to each other.

The first is by Bill Hunt at Search Engine Journal. Search Engine Journal has been around a long time and has been a great source of information about search and adjacent topics.

Hunt points out that, for 20 years, digital strategy meant driving people to webpages. We deliberately fragmented our information across dozens of pages, each optimized for a different stage of consideration.

The example Hunt uses is Ford and its F-150 pickup truck.

The homepage sells the lifestyle. Model pages introduce the trim levels. A configurator lets you picture yourself owning it. Feature pages handle towing and off-road performance. Specifications live even deeper in the site, next to regional offers and financing.

For a human being, that architecture is beautiful. Every page does a job.

For a machine, it’s just friction.

When an AI can’t find a dense, complete answer on your own domain, it doesn’t give up. It assembles the best answer it can from whatever is easiest to retrieve.

Consider the story that broke last week about an OpenAI model escaping from its sandbox and hacking its way into Hugging Face.

What was it looking for? It was looking for the answer sheet—the cheat sheet for the test it had been told to solve.

Rather than do the work to solve the test, it went hunting for the cheat sheet that had all the answers in one place.

That’s no different from this.

Hunt searched for the gas mileage of an F-150 Raptor. The AI Overview built its answer from Reddit, an automotive publisher, and a local dealership. It never touched the Ford website.

Ford has that number. Ford has every number.

Gemini just found it easier to assemble an answer from somewhere else where all that information was in one place.

Hunt calls the thing you’re trying to protect “brand sovereignty”: your ability to remain the authoritative source about your own products, services, and expertise, no matter where the answer eventually gets delivered.

He is emphatic that this is not a search engine optimization problem. It is a governance problem, because no single team owns the whole picture.

Product information, documentation, customer support, legal policy, and commerce are all owned by different parts of the organization. All of them shape how your organization gets represented, and they have been evolving independently for years.

His summary line is one I would hang on my wall: Your website is no longer your digital asset. Your knowledge is.

Communicators have spent 30 years arguing that the corporate website is the front door.

Hunt’s case is that the front door is now a machine reading whatever knowledge it can find. If yours is scattered across content management systems, PDFs, and support portals, the machine will find the gaps—and it will fill them from Reddit.

Meanwhile, Gaetano DiNardi, writing in Search Engine Land—not Search Engine Journal, but another great, longstanding search-focused publication—looked at what is being sold to companies that want to fix exactly this problem.

Once the industry decided that off-site brand mentions drive AI visibility, a market miraculously appeared to sell them. He audited several highly rated vendors selling brand-mention services.

What they are selling turns out to be variations on one thing: renting space on websites nobody reads.

Some of it involves placement on what the SEO world calls private blog networks. These are clusters of sites that exist for no purpose except to sell mentions and links to whoever is willing to pay for them.

DiNardi found those going for 10 to 15 times what a comparable link cost in the old SEO market.

Some of it involves placement on sites with no actual subject-matter focus.

One example he cites has a page about learning-management software sitting alongside listicles ranking the best crypto wallets. That is basically a billboard that will print anything.

Some of it is Reddit astroturfing.

Agencies use what are called aged accounts—profiles built up over months so they look like real community members—and use them to post brand mentions in subreddits that have nothing to do with the brand.

Those posts are frequently removed within 30 days for violating community rules, which tells you exactly what the communities make of them.

Then there are the mechanics.

There is a Slack workflow. The agency generates a placement opportunity. A junior marketing assistant with no way to evaluate whether the publisher is legitimate approves a fee.

In DiNardi’s example, that fee is $250 to add the mention. The agency pays the publisher and then invoices the client to recover it, on top of the retainer.

The Federal Trade Commission’s endorsement guides—and that is a U.S. agency, so these are applicable only in the U.S.—require clear disclosure of paid placements.

These pages generally are not updated to say that the mention was purchased.

Lily Ray, who is quoted in the piece, says this is another evolution of spammy link-building. We have seen this movie before, going back to Google’s first Penguin update in 2012.

The reason it appears to work right now is that large language model citation systems are still immature compared with Google’s spam detection.

Volume from low-quality sources may be rewarded in ways it would not be in old-school search.

DiNardi puts that window at perhaps one to two years before the platforms build countermeasures. He also notes that marketers chasing volume may be confusing the models about their own entities in the process.

Here is why I mashed these two stories together: They are the legitimate and illegitimate answers to exactly the same question.

Who controls what the machine says about us?

One answer says: Organize your knowledge so you are the most useful source available.

The other says: Pay strangers to say your name.

The first is a governance project, and it is the one you should be focusing on rather than waiting to be invited to participate.

Nobody else in the building has responsibility for how the organization is represented as a whole. That is within the purview of the communication function.

The second is going to show up on your desk as a pitch or proposal, probably coming from the marketing department, probably with a persuasive percentage attached to it, along with a deadline.

When it does, the questions you should ask are the old ones.

Is it disclosed?

Would we be comfortable if a reporter published the invoice?

Are we buying a spot on a page that also sells spots to our competitors?

We spent a couple of decades getting pay-for-play out of media relations. I would hate to watch us import it into AI visibility just because the metric is new.

Dan York

Greetings, Shel, Neville, and FIR listeners all around the world. It’s Dan York coming at you from Vienna, Austria, where I’ve been attending the 126th meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force, or IETF.

These are the engineers and others who make the internet work through all the various protocols—HTTP, email, and all those kinds of things.

One of the big topics this week, of course, was AI. There were a number of sessions looking at what kind of work needs to be done.

For instance, in a world where everybody talks about “agentic, agentic, agentic, agentic,” do we need new protocols for communicating when an agent goes to book airfare and interact with all sorts of systems? Are new protocols needed?

Part of the genius of the internet is that it is built from small building blocks that can be used to do things and then reused in many different ways.

One of the things people are finding is that many of the existing protocols work well. But we are still trying to figure out, in this new world, what is happening and what new things are needed.

One thing happening in the standards world is the same thing we are seeing throughout the rest of the communication world: a lot of slop.

There is a positive side to this. The IETF conducts all of its work and develops all of its standards in English. If you are not an English speaker, or English is not your primary language, it can be challenging to help create new standards.

Back in the early 2000s, before we had all these new tools, I helped some people for whom English was not their primary language. It was painful because they were trying to create standards and describe how they worked, but their English was difficult to read. I helped them improve it.

Now, with these tools, people can contribute in English. They can put their material into the large language model of their choice and get good English back in the format of an internet draft or standard.

That is the positive side. Suddenly, millions or billions more people around the world are able to participate in the standards process in English.

The negative side, of course, is that people are generating so many contributions that they take a long time to triage. This creates a tremendous amount of work for reviewers, leaders within the IETF, and others. Everything is taking much longer.

We have seen this in many other areas. Put up a job advertisement and you get a bazillion applications. Publish a blog post and you get a ton of comments. All these things are happening.

One thing I had not paid as much attention to was the fact that all these email tools now have a feature that says, essentially, “Write a better email.”

People are using that feature, turning what might have been short, not particularly well-worded emails into big, voluminously long messages. That is generating a lot more traffic on the email lists people use within the IETF.

It gets us back to the situation we have seen many times: You have five bullets, feed them into an LLM, and it generates a long block of text. Then the text is too long for someone to read, so they use another LLM to turn it back into five bullets.

There we are, with the snake eating its tail.

There have been a lot of interesting conversations. We’ll see where all this goes.

Speaking of AI, a couple of other things have happened in the broader industry.

First, you may or may not have noticed that Bluesky announced Attie—A-T-T-I-E—its AI assistant. It started as something you could use to build social feeds within the Atmosphere, the broader AT Protocol ecosystem.

You could use Attie to create these feeds. Bluesky has now announced that it is expanding Attie into more of a chatbot that you can ask for information and news from across the broader Bluesky network—the Atmosphere, as it is called.

I don’t have access yet. I’m on the waiting list.

They say these are not chats. They are “quests.” Yes, you heard that right. They are quests—a new way to explore the Atmosphere.

You could ask questions such as, “What’s trending in my network today?” “Who’s worth following in climate tech?” or “Put together a daily briefing on indie game development.”

We will have to see what this looks like, how it works, and all those kinds of things. But it is another example of AI coming into the Bluesky space.

AI systems, of course, cost money to operate. Instagram chief Adam Mosseri has said this is really expensive and that the company will eventually have to throttle people or ask them to pay.

If you are a communicator who has been using Instagram’s built-in AI to generate campaign content, create images, or perform similar tasks, casual use is still free right now.

At some point, however, if you use it at high volume, you will probably wind up being charged for credits or have to take those costs into account.

Stay tuned on that.

Switching to newsletters—but remaining on the subject of AI—Beehiiv, B-E-E-H-I-I-V, one of Substack’s competitors, had a major release this month.

It rolled out something called Communities, which lets you create a community around your newsletter that people can join, where they can chat with one another and do those kinds of things.

At the same time, Beehiiv added AI components, including an AI assistant that can help you examine your content and subscribers, particularly on the administrative side.

Again, we are seeing more AI appearing in different places.

Speaking of AI—as that seems to be the theme of my report this month—I’ll also tell you that WordPress 7.1 is currently scheduled to arrive on August 19, before my next report. The timing aligns with WordCamp US here in the States.

The release will bring a number of new features, including more of the collaboration functionality that was part of the original plan for WordPress 7.0.

It will include notes and other features, along with more collaboration and AI elements. That is coming on August 19.

Finally, let me close with a policy topic.

The U.K.’s Ofcom is pursuing two different initiatives. It has announced a forthcoming ban on anyone under 16 using social media. I’m not entirely sure what that means in practice.

It has also announced that it is investigating TikTok’s compliance because it does not believe the platform did enough to prevent people under 13 from using it.

This will be a test of the U.K.’s law, so we will see where it goes when it reaches the courts.

There is also a proposal under which people younger than 16 would be banned from social media, while 16- and 17-year-olds would somehow magically be blocked from using social media between midnight and 6 a.m.

It remains to be seen how any of that can be turned into reality.

The other problem people have pointed out is that all you are doing is blocking children from seeing some of the harmful material. You are not actually getting rid of the terrible content on the internet.

Everybody else is still exposed to it, including seniors and others who may have as many issues and challenges with it—if not more—than some of the young people in that space.

Anyway, that’s all from here, Shel. I think I’ll go get some Wiener schnitzel and a beer.

Until next month, that’s all. Back to you.

Bye for now.

Shel Holtz

Thanks, Dan. I really enjoyed that report. I was particularly struck by two of the items that you reported on. The first was Addy for Blue Sky. I just really like the idea of using AI this way within social networks. That would come in so handy if I could do that with, say, LinkedIn, rather than use the current search tool, which is fundamentally worthless unless I’m just looking for a person.

Or a company, but if I’m looking for threads around certain topics, it’s really tough, and something like that would be very useful. I’m not on Bluesky enough to really make a difference, but you know, on LinkedIn, maybe even Facebook, that would be awesome. Maybe they’ll pay attention to this and follow suit. Also, beehive with the communities, I think, is terrific because building a community around a newsletter can be tough.

And I think this might signal a way that Substack and Ghost and the others might be able to play in that space. So it was all interesting, Dan, but those were the two that stood out for me.

We talk about thought leadership from time to time on FIR. It has been a tried-and-true content marketing tool for a long time.

It has also been a source of some cynicism.

A stack of research has landed over the past few months that says two things at once: Thought leadership is producing measurable financial value, and most of what organizations are publishing under the label of thought leadership is utterly worthless.

Since two things can be true at the same time, both of those things are true.

The gap between them is where the opportunity lies for those of us who do this kind of work.

Let me start with the number from Axios that got my attention in the first place.

In April, Axios reported on a study from a firm called Cardinal 40 that found high-quality CEO thought leadership was associated with an average of $367 million in shareholder value in a single week.

Here is how the researchers got to that number.

They analyzed more than 1,000 examples of CEO thought leadership from S&P 500 companies and measured each against abnormal stock returns, deliberately excluding anything tied to market-moving news or disclosures.

They were trying to isolate the effect of the words themselves.

Then they did something really interesting.

They tested more than 60 common writing traits—tone, readability, and the kinds of things we all obsess over when we are editing copy.

They found nothing that explained why some pieces outperformed.

So they used AI, because of course they did.

They compared each document with a curated canon of genuinely standout thought leadership and found that communications that sat semantically closer to that canon were associated with stronger returns.

The gap between top-tier and bottom-tier thought leadership worked out to about a nine-tenths-of-a-percentage-point swing in stock performance the following week.

For the biggest companies, that is not a rounding error.

The report estimates as much as $25 billion across the Magnificent Seven—the seven megacap U.S. technology companies: Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and Tesla.

The research also found that more thought leadership does not produce more value.

Weak or low-quality communications correlated with neutral or negative outcomes. In the age of AI slop, volume is not merely useless. It can cost you.

Compare that with The Harris Poll’s research on the ROI of thought leadership.

Nine in 10 executives say thought leadership is critical to building authority, and only 20 percent say theirs is actually effective.

Executives in that study estimated a 14-times return on investment, and Fortune 100 executives put the annual value at about $3.6 million.

I need to hedge here a little.

The Harris fieldwork was conducted in May 2022 among 500 U.S. employees at the director level or above. It is still being cited in 2026 as though it is fresh, and it is not.

Second—and this applies across the board—nearly every organization publishing research on the value of thought leadership sells thought leadership.

Harris has a thought-leadership practice. IBM’s Institute for Business Value is a thought-leadership shop. Cardinal 40 evaluates thought leadership for a living.

That does not invalidate the work, but it should temper any enthusiasm you feel about the research.

For what it is worth, IBM’s research is the most consistent of the batch.

Eighty-eight percent of executives consume thought leadership, 87 percent say it shaped a purchase decision within the previous 90 days, and about half of C-suite leaders credit it with driving revenue growth.

One more data point from the Axios piece is something I cannot stop thinking about.

Mentions of “storytelling,” “narrative,” and “storyteller” on corporate earnings and investor calls are up 65 percent since 2020, according to AlphaSense.

The language of our discipline has migrated into the language of capital markets.

It is important to treat the dollar figures as directional rather than literal. Correlation is doing a lot of work in these studies.

Coherent, original executive communication may well be a proxy for a well-run company rather than a cause of its performance.

But the through line across all this research is consistent, and it is the one you can actually act on: Quality is doing the work, and quantity is doing damage.

If the value is real, why is only 20 percent of it working?

The Content Marketing Institute brought together a group of practitioners in July to work through exactly that question: Jill Roberson from Dataweavers, Andrea Ames from Eaton, Lindsey Hagen from Conductor, and the Content Marketing Institute’s own Robert Rose, one of my favorite people to read and listen to.

I love This Old Marketing with Robert Rose and Joe Pulizzi.

Jill Roberson made a point that stood out for me: We have to reset expectations for what thought leadership even is.

Hagen’s point was that the bar has simply risen.

You have to be useful and unique now, and the standard for what qualifies as valuable is much higher than it was.

Roberson recommended putting the hypothesis at the beginning of a thought-leadership piece and making it unmistakable, then delivering on it immediately.

If people are not getting the insight they came for, and getting it quickly, they are gone.

But delivering quickly is not the same as creating quickly.

Ames’s advice was to slow down and be genuinely intentional about the topic.

Robert Rose made the observation that I suspect a lot of you have been waiting for someone senior to say out loud: Our industry has convinced itself that speed is its foundational value, and it just isn’t.

Then there is gating.

Ames said Eaton does not require contact information for its content. There are no forms you have to fill out before you get the download link.

Her reasoning is the reasoning of 2026: She wants large language models to be able to include Eaton’s thought-leadership pieces in the results they produce.

Being exclusionary, she argues, mostly hurts you.

That means the lead-capture form—which has always been a tax on distribution—is now also a tax on being cited by the systems your buyers are querying before they ever contact you.

The Content Marketing Institute also ran a piece in the fall by Abid Rahman, written with Kate Houston, who runs executive thought leadership at Amazon Web Services.

Their diagnosis is pretty blunt.

AI can draft, polish, and structure this content with remarkable efficiency, but it cannot supply credibility, lived experience, or judgment.

It reads as though anyone could have prompted it because anyone could have prompted it.

They offer three ingredients for the real thing.

The first is credible experience.

I talk about “genuine lived experience” somewhat derisively because I read people on LinkedIn saying, “AI has no lived experience,” and then I look at the kinds of things they are writing, which required absolutely no lived experience.

But in the case of thought leadership, it really does matter.

You have to have credible experience to support your ability to make these proclamations.

You also need a genuine audience need and an insight that not many other people can provide.

Then you apply a five-step framework: Define the goal. Choose the focus. Shape between one and three core themes. Build a voice ecosystem of leaders, customers, and advocates who actually have some standing. And map the stories to the right channels.

Their measurement point is one I would like to tattoo on a few people’s foreheads: Thought leadership is not an engine for marketing-qualified leads.

In one of their programs, they do not blast out content at all. They put a CEO in credible venues.

Under those circumstances, brand awareness among the ideal customer profile rose from 17 percent to 51 percent in one year, and request-for-proposal volume increased three-and-a-half times.

Could they attribute a single article to a single lead?

Of course not.

That is the honest answer most of us should be giving.

Now, a different angle.

Yogesh Shah, writing in Entrepreneur—and this goes back to January—argues that the problem is not the thinking. It is the container.

We are in a zero-click world. Audiences do not leave the platform they are on.

Roughly 90 percent of decision-makers say they are more receptive to companies producing high-quality thought leadership, yet engagement keeps declining anyway.

His question is: If a report can be summarized in ChatGPT in seconds, why would anyone read it?

His answer is what he calls experiential thought leadership.

Turn the insight into something people are in rather than something they open.

Think of a live discussion, a workshop-style webinar, a tightly curated roundtable, or a podcast that puts listeners inside a recognizable scenario instead of offering an expert monologue.

He is emphatic that this does not require a large budget. It requires one well-designed moment in which attention is protected.

You can see the tension between these two pieces of advice.

The Content Marketing Institute says to slow down and do the deep work. Entrepreneur says the document is the wrong delivery mechanism.

I do not think those ideas conflict.

There is a line in a Savanta piece from June that I think captures the entire argument in 12 words: You can replicate a product, but you can’t copy a point of view.

The case study from the author of that piece, Matthew Mott, is aimed at technology companies, but I think it applies elsewhere.

A competitor can reverse-engineer your features, match your pricing, copy your positioning, and even hire your people.

What it cannot copy is a track record of saying interesting things that turned out to be correct.

That builds slowly, and it compounds.

His second observation is that buyers cannot really evaluate an AI product.

The technology is opaque, and every vendor’s claims sound alike. Buyers stop assessing the product and start assessing the people behind it, looking for evidence of judgment.

They are conducting that assessment before they ever talk to you.

The sales conversation does not start from zero. It starts from whatever reputation you have already built.

He also argues that relatively few companies are publishing practical, original research on AI right now.

Most of what exists is either so hedged that it is useless or so optimistic that it is not credible.

In a few years, everyone will have a program, and standing out will cost far more.

So, if you are already publishing thought leadership or planning to, what does all this mean for you?

I have a list.

Of course I have a list.

First, audit your top pieces from last quarter and apply the swap test.

If a competitor could have published the same piece with its logo on it, you did not produce thought leadership. You just cranked out content.

Second, find your proprietary data.

This is where I think communicators sell themselves short.

You have more than you think: your own operational data, customer-service logs, field observations, and the ability to conduct surveys.

Survey your employees. Survey your customers. Survey the industry.

The Content Marketing Institute’s Jasmine Williams makes the case for treating thought leadership as a platform rather than a campaign.

One flagship study becomes the hub, and articles, webinars, sales enablement, and employee advocacy become the spokes.

That is a repeatable model.

Third, put the thesis in the first 60 seconds.

Not the context. Not the setup.

Put the claim in the first 60 seconds.

Fourth, reopen the gating conversation and reframe it.

It is no longer lead capture versus reach. It is lead capture versus being cited by the machines your buyers consult first.

Segment your library.

Some assets should stay gated because a download genuinely signals buying intent. But your flagship research probably should not be among them.

Fifth, take one asset you published this year and turn it into an experience: a roundtable, a working session, or a recorded session with someone who disagrees with you.

I think we call that a debate.

Sixth, change what you are measuring—and change it before someone asks you to defend it.

Measure speaking invitations. Measure journalists citing your framework. Measure analysts referencing your numbers. Measure employees sharing the work without being asked.

Denise Brosseau of the Thought Leadership Lab calls the underlying discipline “stick-to-itiveness”: the willingness to keep showing up long enough for any of that to accumulate.

Seventh, protect the executive’s actual voice.

This is the piece only we can do.

AI is a genuinely useful accelerant. It can turn an interview into an article, sharpen the structure, and catch the flabby paragraph.

What it cannot do is have a point of view.

If your CEO’s byline reads like a competent prompt response, you put your CEO’s and your company’s credibility at risk.

Let me end this segment with a little history.

The term “thought leader” is generally credited to a fellow named Joel Kurtzman, who was editing Strategy+Business back in 1994.

He meant something specific: someone addressing the questions senior executives were actually wrestling with.

More than 30 years later, the term has become a punchline.

It became one because we industrialized it. We turned a description of rare people into a content category with a production quota.

The research that came out this year is essentially the market telling us it can still tell the difference—and that it is willing to pay for the real thing.

That is not a bad position for communicators to be in, is it?

Now for another awkward transition to my final report.

I’m going to end with something a little lighter, although there is a real point buried in it.

Knowledge at Wharton wrote up a new research study published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology titled “Effectively Communicating Uncertainty: The Persuasive Impact of Different Types of Hedges.”

You know hedges: “That could work.” “That might be a good approach.”

We all hedge.

Yet most communication training treats hedging as a bug to be trained out of us.

Jonah Berger’s research team ran seven studies and split hedging into two dimensions.

The first is likelihood.

Is your hedge low-probability—“might,” “could,” or “it feels like”—or higher-probability—“likely,” “should,” or “arguably”?

The second is perspective.

Is the hedge floating free, as in, “It sounds like”? Or is it attached to a human being, as in, “In my opinion,” or “It sounds likely to me”?

All seven studies agreed: Higher-likelihood hedges and personal-perspective hedges are more persuasive because they make the speaker seem more confident.

Berger’s example is a mechanic saying, “The repair might work,” versus, “I believe this repair will solve the problem.”

Both statements convey uncertainty, but they have a completely different effect.

The personal version means someone is taking ownership.

Berger describes this as a communication sweet spot. You get the protection of not overclaiming without paying the credibility tax.

It is important to point out that the effect weakened when the communicator was a brand rather than a person, because confidence mattered less.

That is one more argument for having actual humans deliver your message.

I went looking for research that either supports or contradicts this, and it turns out the findings land right between two camps that do not agree.

On one side are decades of work on what is called powerless language: hedges, hesitations, and tag questions.

This research suggested that hedges may be the most damaging of all the powerless markers.

Researchers found something genuinely alarming: When a topic mattered to people, powerless markers did not merely make the speaker less appealing. They flattened the arguments.

Strong arguments performed no better than weak ones once the hedges were added.

On the other side are the uncertainty-communication researchers.

Researchers at the University of Cambridge’s Winton Centre have spent years studying how to convey uncertainty in facts and numbers.

Another study involving more than 10,000 participants found that putting a numeric uncertainty range around COVID statistics slightly reduced trust in the number itself but had no effect whatsoever on trust in the source.

Being candid cost the communicator nothing.

A meta-analysis published this year finds the overall effect small and highly dependent on how uncertainty is expressed, with verbal hedges doing more damage than numbers.

Put all of this together, and here is my take: The problem was never uncertainty. It is vagueness.

Saying, “Here is what we know, here is what we do not know, and here is what would change my mind,” reads as confidence.

Mumbling, “It could go sort of either way,” reads as evasion.

It is the same actual state of knowledge, but the way it is expressed produces the opposite effect.

I would argue that this matters more for us now than it has in years, because the machines drafting our first drafts hedge constantly—and they hedge in the weak way: low likelihood, no perspective, and nobody’s name attached.

You may have noticed that Neville and I hedge our way through every episode of this podcast.

We say things like, “This is correlation, and correlation is not causation.” We say that you should treat a figure as directional.

We note, as I did just a few minutes ago, that a survey being cited is four years old.

It turns out that hedging might have been the right call.

Or let me try that again.

In my view, that was almost certainly the right call.

I would love to tell you when the next monthly episode will be, but Neville and I have not settled on that yet.

Nor do I know when he will be up for recording a short midweek episode.

I may do one solo. We’ll see how it goes. We’ll see what kind of news or research crosses the transom.

Until I get answers to all those questions, that will be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #523: No Brand Is An Island appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Local newsrooms keep shrinking, journalism schools keep closing their doors, and the reporters who remain are stretched thinner than ever. For organizational communicators, that shift changes the math on media relations. It’s no longer enough to know how to write a pitch. You need to understand who’s left to receive it, what standards still govern their work, and how to build the kind of relationship that gets your story told well instead of not at all.

Circle of Fellows #131 features four IABC Fellows with deep backgrounds in journalism and media relations. Moderated by Shel Holtz, SCMP, the panel discussed what’s changed in the newsroom, what hasn’t, and what it means for the way communicators do their jobs.

The panel dug into what that means day to day for communicators, including:

• Thinking local and strategic. Where does your story actually need to go, and which relationships and networks get it there?
• Knowing journalistic standards and principles (JSPs). Understanding what reporters can and can’t do — and where the real limits are — makes for smarter pitches and fewer frustrated calls.
• Respecting deadlines and information needs. How communicators and journalists can work together, rather than at cross purposes, to produce the stories both sides actually want.
• Getting to know the people in your “journalism ‘hood.” In a shrunken media landscape, personal relationships with the reporters who remain matter more than ever.

About the panel:

Diana Degan, IABC Fellow, ABC, CAAP, BAAJ, is the founder of Diana Degan & Associates. Diana is an award-winning communication leader, educator, and strategic advisor whose 35-year career has strengthened communication practice, elevated professional standards, and advanced human-centered communication across Canada and beyond. She has led work spanning the full spectrum of the profession, from strategic planning, brand development, and integrated marketing communications to crisis communications, stakeholder engagement, internal communications, and accessibility-focused communication design.

Edward “Ned” Lundquist is a retired U.S. Navy captain with 43 years of professional public affairs and strategic communications experience. His company, Echo Bridge LLC, which provides outreach and advocacy support to government and commercial clients. He served on active duty for 24 years in the U.S. Navy as a surface warfare officer and public affairs specialist. Captain Lundquist was a Pentagon spokesman with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, Director of the Fleet Home Town News Center, and director of public affairs and corporate communications for the Navy Exchange Service Command. His last tour of duty was commanding the 450 men and women of the Naval Media Center. He is an accredited business communicator and award-winning communicator who served as president of IABC/Hampton Roads and IABC/Washington, director of U.S. District 3, and chair of the International Accreditation Council. He was named an IABC Fellow in 2016. Captain Lundquist received the Surface Navy Association’s Special Recognition Award in January of this year, for his service on SNA’s executive committee and chair of the SNA communications committee. He writes for numerous naval, maritime, and defense publications and chairs and presents at communications, naval, and maritime security conferences around the world.

Martha Muzychka, ABC, MC, speaks, writes, listens, and helps others do the same to make change happen. Martha is a strategic, creative problem solver seeking challenging communications environments where we can make a difference. She helps her clients navigate competing priorities and embrace communication challenges. Martha offers strategic planning, facilitation, consultation services, writing and editing, qualitative research, and policy analysis. Her work has been recognized locally, nationally, and internationally with multiple awards.

Jennifer Wah, MC, ABC, has worked with clients to deliver ideas, plans, words and results since she founded her storytelling and communications firm, Forwords Communication Inc., in 1997. With more than two dozen awards for strategic communications, writing, and consulting, Jennifer is recognized as a storyteller and strategist. She has worked in industries from healthcare and academia to financial services and the resource sector, and is passionate about the strategic use of storytelling to support business outcomes. Although she has delivered workshops and training throughout her career, Jennifer formally added teaching to her experience in 2013, first with Royal Roads University and more recently as an adjunct professor of business communications with the UBC Sauder School of Business, where she now works part-time to impart crucial communication skills on the next generation of business leaders. When she is not working, Jennifer spends her time cooking, walking her dog, Orion, or discussing food, hockey, or music with her husband and two young adult children in North Vancouver, Canada.

Raw Transcript

Uh, hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 131 of Circle of Fellows. Uh, this is the monthly panel discussion featuring usually four fellows of the International Association of Business Communicators talking about topics of interest to communicators, especially those pursuing certification or looking to, uh, further themselves along their career paths. And we have a topic that should resonate with a lot of communicators today, especially those engaged in media relations, uh, and that is the shifting landscape of media, uh, and media relations, and have four great panelists to discuss this. Before, uh, we get to their introductions, I’ll let you know who I am. Hi, I’m Kjell Holst. I am senior director of communications at Webcor, a commercial general contractor headquartered in San Francisco and operating throughout California. Uh, I’m also the vice chair of the Global Communication Certification Council, which explains that little SCMP that you see after my name. And, uh, if you are watching live, I hope that you will participate in the conversation. The best way to do that through YouTube is just to, uh, use that live commenting feature. I’ll see it here, and I will be able to share that on the screen, and always nice to be able to digress, uh, to answer a question from somebody who’s watching in real time. Uh, and with that, let’s meet the panel, starting with Diana. Hi. Hi, Kjell. Thanks for having me today. Thrilled to be here with my illustrious, uh, group of, uh, other people, f- other fellows. So I am an IABC fellow. I am a, a IABC Canada Master Communicator. I’m based in Guelph, Ontario, um, just an hour west of Toronto. I am the founder of Diana Deegan & Associates, and I am also a professor at Conestoga College, teaching, um, a number of different, um, communications and, um, public relations and marketing courses. Great. And a special welcome to you, Diana. You are a member of the 2026 class of fellows. I am. I am. Thank you very much. So exciting. So exciting. Martha, you’re up. Hi there. Thanks for having me. It’s always a pleasure. I’m actually the, in the far east of Canada, in Newfoundland and Labrador. I run my own consultancy in strategic communi- communications and policy research, and I also teach communications and writing skills with the local business center at the university, Memorial University of Newfoundland Thanks, Martha. Ned? Uh, good day, everybody. Uh, I’m Ned Lundquist. Uh, I’m an accredited business communicator and an IBC fellow. I’m a retired naval officer, and my wife likes to tell me that I’m retired, period, at this point. Uh, I still have, uh, a few clients. I still do some writing. Uh, just attended a conference on maritime security and safety in, of all places, St. John’s. And, uh, Martha and her husband, John, scooped me up and, uh, I got a whirlwind tour of, uh, the far eastern segment of Atlantic Canada. It was fascinating. So, uh, Kjell and I and, uh, Jennifer go way back. Diana, uh, is, uh, a new colleague that I haven’t connected with, but, uh, as a fellow fellow, I’m sure we will going forward. So Kjell, thanks for doing this, and thanks for having me. Well, thanks for being here, Ned. And Jennifer? Hi. I’m in North Vancouver, Canada, and I’m pleased to be here today on a warm summer day. Um- Mm … I’m also an SCMP. Uh, I’m proud of that certification, and, um, really happy to have some listeners here who are pursuing certification. Uh, I specialize in strategic storytelling as a consultant, and, um, like, like many of you, also teach at the Sauder School of Business, uh, business communications to, uh, to business school students. I love that intersection of business and communications, which is, of course, something we’ve all, we’ve, we’ve all been working toward and uplifting for a long time. Looking forward to today’s discussion. It’ll be a great discussion, Jennifer. Thanks. And, you know, um, in, in my early days doing media relations, uh, whether it was for an employer or after I moved into consulting, uh, for a client, it was pretty routine to hear somebody say, “I want the front page of The Wall Street Journal,” or- “I, I wanna be here,” or, “I wanna be there.” And that was the remit, right? That was what you set out to do, at least to get them good coverage that could show them that they moved the needle. And you had built relationships with reporters at the various, uh, mainstream media publications and trade publications and the like. Uh, and you knew how to pitch, you knew how to do a targeted press release distribution, and you got that coverage. Not so easy today with these media outlets constricting, uh, considerably and, and many of them vanishing. Although it was interesting, I just read that I think it’s The New York Times is opening a local newspaper in Minneapolis, so we may see a new model emerging here- Wow if there’s revenue, uh, that they can derive from that. But, uh, for now, uh, it’s a challenge to earn that third media coverage. Third media or, you know, uh, earned media coverage is, is critical, uh, if we’re going to show up in AI search results, the, the overviews and the research results and the like, uh, because, uh, I’ve seen data that says 85% of what, uh, the AEO and GEO engines are producing come from earned media, only about 12 or 13% from a, a, a, a brand website. So we have challenges in front of us. So let me, let me start by asking you, you know, what’s changed most fundamentally? When we, when we say that media relations has changed, which change matters most? Is it, is it the loss of journalism, journalists? Uh, is it the collapse of, of newsroom business models? The, the fragmentation of audiences? Something else? What are you seeing out there? Well, I’ll jump in. Uh, my, my feeling is that, uh, we’re, we’ve lost a whole segment of, I’ll call it local media. Uh, small town papers, small town dailies and weeklies, uh, sec- sec- uh, supplements, uh, with local news in the large papers. Uh, so I’m not exactly sure where people go for that news. I know there are online sites that provide local news, but I, I just think we’ve lost a whole tier of connectivity to connect citizens with, with government, with business, uh, uh, with things to do. I, I don’t think that people are going to the web to fi- uh, to these new, uh, sites. They’re, they’re just browsing and, and finding what they can anywhere, kinda hit or miss. I agree, Ned. It’s been a huge loss to see the decrease in the small town papers, because one of the best things I found with my media relations work was connecting those editors with local people on the issues that I was trying to promote. And being able to provide local content, local contacts, um, and that local context was really critical, uh, to the success, because you don’t want to always just having, coming from head office or the principal city, because, uh, sometimes there are resentments that all the news gets funneled one way. And, uh, it also meant that people could see in different areas how the story could play out depending on that regional context Yeah, I would, I would agree. Um On the, on the community news reporting, uh, element of things, uh, we had a tragic event here just in, in my community, which is not a small town, uh, this week, and what I noticed was that in the absence of, um, hyper-local reporting, so in other words, metro-wide reporting was existing, that nuances around the community that I live in were… went missing. So, you know, the name of the shopping center where the, where the tragedy happened, um, the, uh, you know, even the way that streets were referenced and businesses were referenced. Those kinds of things became slight inaccuracies that added up to a broader sense of, you know, if you’re in that community, kind of go, “Okay, well this doesn’t feel… This doesn’t pass the sniff test.” Um, right through to, uh, you know, important things like traffic reports and, um, and, and those kinds of things. We, a local, I’m sure as in, as in many markets, uh, we had the news a couple of weeks ago of, um, several local radio stations shutting down that are all serving local, local markets. And, um, so that amalgamation and consolidation continues to really shape the way our communities and, and the way our communities show up and the way we show up with each other. I was gonna bring up that point, Jennifer, and um, and it was all the r- it was five Rogers stations across Canada were shut down, and at one of them was the Kitchener station, which is right next door to where I live and, and has a huge impact on this entire area because it was a major radio station, and the outcry locally was huge. So many of the community members were so upset that this station had closed down because it had been around for a very long time and had a very, um, long history in the area, and everybody was outraged. And this goes to how the business model has changed for so many of these, uh, for the media, um, and how that, uh, corporately is changing journalism, right? And that the reason these, I mean, it was so coincidental that this happened the day after Rogers announced that they were buying back a lot of the stock and taking over the Rogers entertainment and sports, uh, franchises. And so, well, look at that. They do this one day, and the next day all of these stations are being closed. And you can’t look at that and go, “These, this is not an isolated situation. These are tied together.” And so there was a lot of outcry going on because of the effect that it has on the daily lives of a lot of these people because of the communication, because of what is, um, the role that these network, uh, networks, that the papers, that the radio stations all play for the communities that they’re in. My community, Guelph, does not have a, a printed daily paper anymore, and we’re not a small community. What had d- has cropped up in the meantime are two online newspapers. Um, what is interesting is that this week, um, because I’ve got my eyes open because we were talking about doing this podcast today, Village Media, which is based, uh, out of, uh, northern Ontario, um, announced that they’re launching 15 local newspapers in the United States along with the Knight Foundation. So they’re taking this model of being online, and they’re now taking it into the United States because it has done so well here in Ontario. So that was really interesting because it is a not-for-profit organization, a charitable organiz- that is providing the funding, and they’re going into, I think it’s three states, uh, Wisconsin being one of them, in, in the US. Um, because they’re recognizing that a lot of these smaller communities don’t have anything anymore. The media are being pulled from these communities. Uh, so it is, there’s a lot of changes that are happening that are robbing the communities of the information that they have traditionally had. I’d like to just add to that when we’re talking about radio stations, and I think it’s true for TV and, and, uh, and print, but particularly with radio, there are companies that are buying up. There’s no restriction, uh, for how many, uh, media outlets you can own anymore in the United States. So we have companies that are just buying up all the licenses, uh, and they may be converting them all to, uh, the same format such as the K-LOVE format, which is now virtually in every market. And, uh, this has really had an impact on local jour- journalism and local programming i- uh, for, for, uh, radio, TV and, and print. Yeah, yeah. When the funding for public radio, public media was, was cut by Congress in the US, it didn’t put an end to NPR and PBS. What it did was it shut down, uh, small local, uh, stations, and a lot of those were in news deserts. It was the only access to local news that people had. And we have a comment from Brian Kilgore, uh, and, and he makes the point that wh- when, when you look at what space is available in the publications, a lot of it’s being fill- filled with what he says is, is repetitive politics. Uh, I, I subscribe to our local newspaper, the East Bay Times, uh, here in the San Francisco East Bay, and as I flip through it, it’s AP and it’s Reuters and it’s other wire copy. Uh, it’s from their affiliate partners with the, the New York Times and, and the Washington Post, which means that we’re not learning about what happened at the zoning commission. We’re not learning what happened at the school board, and I think that stuff is important. I don’t know how important it is from a media relations or a corporate communications standpoint, but, uh, yeah, I think from a democracy standpoint, uh, it’s, it’s, it’s absolutely critical. Um, I’ll tell you what I’m doing is I have, uh, s- set up, uh, a, a skill in Claude, the AI large language model, that scours all of the local government websites for both upcoming meetings and what they’re going to be talking about in the minutes of past meetings, and it builds me a little newspaper, uh, that I can read every day. It also covers things like where there’s gonna be street closures around me. Uh, it does a little police blotter. Um, I’m- I keep tweaking it, and one of these days I’m just gonna set it up so it automatically publishes to the web, not just to, uh, my Claude implementation where, where I can see it, uh, so that there is a local newspaper here that, that does cover that stuff. Um, just, you know, because I can. But y- it, with, with this introduction of, we’ve now heard of two, uh, Diana, what you mentioned and what I heard about The New York Times doing, it’s, it sounds like there’s a bit of a resurgence underway. Are, are there parts of the media ecosystem that are still healthy or, or at least healthier than, than people assume? You know, Shel, just to build on what you’re talking about, I do think this, uh, perhaps, um, uh, responsive rise in citizen, citizen journalism, uh, is probably the wrong terminology in this particular case, but what you’re describing. I mean, uh, like many of you, um, I’ve switched to following a lot of independent journalists. Um, and while that’s in response to shifts in the media, the media landscape to do with what you were talking about, Ned, that kind of broader ownership issue and the influences and independent thought, et cetera. I like the varied and diverse tone that that brings to my understanding of issues in a way that, um, in a way that is, uh, perhaps more insightful than I might have had previously. Now, is that sustainable? I have no idea, honestly, how some of these, in some cases, very well-respected, um, high-profile individuals are funding their independent ventures. But, um, but I do think it’s, uh, it’s not an unhealthy shift in terms of, again, that, uh, diversity of, of, um, presentation of thought. Uh, Shel, I just wanna add something to what Brian said. Thanks for listening, Brian. I know you’re our, our, our, our best patron. Uh, y- an, uh, a news hole abhors a vacuum, and so they’re gonna fill it with something. Uh, that’s why I’ve always said, uh, give ’em something, uh, ’cause sometimes they, they just need to plug a hole. But, uh, you’re, we’re all right. Th- there, there’s no longer the local, uh, budget, uh, going around for, for covering things like the school board and the city council and those types of things that… And, uh, that, that was a, a mission for local, uh, journalism for decades You know, and I’m saying, and h- that was always the reason for, um, local media, right? Like it was, they were always the reason th- why we had the local reporters and the local papers, was to make sure that they were there to cover off what was happening locally for politics, locally for, um, what was going on in your city so that you knew what was happening. My 85-year-old mother constantly talks about the fact that she is not computer literate, and quite frankly, I don’t want her on a computer because she’s been the victim of fraud several times now. Um, and I just know if she was on the computer it would be so much worse. Um, and sh- but she’s constantly saying, “I don’t have access to the news. I, I am not, I don’t know what is going on.” So she’s getting it through me, um, because there is no other way for her to get any information, um, because we don’t have a, a local newspaper anymore. And, um, because of that she’s not getting the information that is coming out about what’s going on in our city. Um, and there are a lot of other, um, vulnerable people in our society who are not getting the information ’cause they don’t have access to getting anything online because they don’t have, um, internet or, or what have you. And, you know, and that is a sign of democracy within, uh, a community and within our countries. Um, and if you don’t have that, how are you getting that information, right, about what is going on in your city? And nowadays it is so important to be making sure that you are getting true information, truthful information, and not misinformation. Um, and when you’re not getting that provided, how are you ensuring that what you are getting is proper information? Um, now the other side of that as well is that, um, there… When I’ve been doing media relations over the last couple years, one of the big changes that I have found is that publications that were always, um, you were able to talk to to get, uh, information to work with with your clients now all of a sudden are wanting money. You know? They are wanting advertising. You can only get a story if you are going to b- be buying advertising, and that has been the other change that I have found that, uh, shocking in some ways, um, because that was not what was happening prior. Um, and so that has been another business model shift that I have found that has happened. And Dia- Diana, you’re 100% right about that because, a- and, and when you have a publication that goes to pay to play, uh, I personally- Uh, view it as just a big, uh, publication of press releases, and I think a lot of other people do. So I think the journalism still has a place for professional journalists And, and it was not even, um… And it’s not because that’s not what they look like. If you’re reading it as a consumer, you would not know. I mean, there’s certain publications you look at and you go, “Okay, they’ve paid for that spot.” These are not publications that when you look at, and traditionally they were never that way, and when you’re looking at these publications, you’re not looking at it going, “Oh, they’ve paid for that, that placement.” Right? Uh, and it’s so disheartening to see that that is now what is happening. Um, and interesting enough as well, I was, um, scrolling through my Instagram, uh, on the weekend and came across, uh, She Would Be a Beauty Editor, and she had put a post up about how often now she is running into, um, PR people, um, from product companies saying, “Where’s my coverage? I sent you product. Where’s the coverage for the product I sent you?” And she’s going, “Hey, hey, wait a second here. You don’t automatically get coverage because I sent you… Because you sent me product. That’s not the way it, it works.” But this is a change with these expectations now because of social media. So, uh, it’s interesting, uh, th- how social media and influencers and have changed this dialogue as well. I, uh, I thought that was a r- really interesting comment to come from an editor, uh, at a, um, a beauty magazine as well with these expectations too. I would, I would say to them, “You gotta, you gotta give me more than just product. You gotta give me a real story with, you know, has news value.” Well, and it was interesting ’cause she actually said, “You don’t just get by sending me product. There actually has to be a reason. There has to be, you know, I actually have to try it. I actually have to like it. Um, you don’t just get.” Like, it, it was… Uh, and I actually responded to her, um, and said, “Yeah, there has just been this change.” Um, and these, these like, you know, and, and, and it’s one of these things like, okay, I, I remember the… Like, I feel like, you know, my grandmother now. Like, “I remember the days of, you know, when we walked in snow and it was 15 feet high.” You know, it, it, it, you know, it’s like I’m now, I’m now of that era, right? But because, uh, it, th- just the way the expectations have changed because of social media and influencers, and you give me something, I’m gonna say something, right? And it’s gonna be nice, right? Well, yeah, yeah, there’s also the expectation that you’re gonna pay for play, uh, not, uh, uh, in a more traditional context. I’ll give you an example. About a week ago I got a call from a production company. They’re under contract to CBS News. So I mean, CBS News is embroiled in its own stuff right now. Uh, but it’s still one of the major news outlets, uh, am- among the broadcasters. And they’re doing 35 segments around the America 250 theme. Uh, and each segment’s about four minutes, and they wanna do one on construction. They wanna come out and highlight our company. I’m on the phone 20, 25 minutes with this guy, talking about, you know, what we could talk about and what we’re doing in, in sustainability and, and things like this that would be of interest to an audience. And the producer is, is getting very excited and, and we’re starting to make arrangements and, and then, and this is, this is a, a classic example of bearing the lead. He says, “By the way, there is a $60,000 buy-in.” Uh, yeah. It’s like, “I thought you were under contract to CBS?” Well, yes, they’re under contract to produce the items, but they have to raise the money to handle the costs of production on their own. So you’re seeing more and more pay to play like this in order to play in traditional mainstream and, and, and trade media I’ve been approached by two different publications since I’ve become a fellow Um, for, you know, the story. Um, and my qu- you know, and it’s like I’m now asking the question of, “And is there a cost to be involved?” Because I’ve- Yeah … you know, we’d like to- You gotta- … feature you. Yeah. Right? And it’s like- Gotta, gotta start with that. Well, exactly. Yeah. Right? I clicked in pretty quickly. Um, and it’s like, lovely opportunity, what’s the cost? Right. Right? Um, which is unfortunate. I think a really big question here is we need a broader conversation about ethics when it comes to media coverage, when it comes to communicators. Um, our association, we have a code of ethics. Um, there are a number of news agencies. CBC, for example, has the JSP, which is standards and principles, journalism. And, you know, a number of news organizations and practicing journalists, for example, have been working with, uh, mental health agencies on how they can, uh, cover appropriately, uh, news stories in which, uh, individuals have died by suicide and what can be done. And often now you see at the end of these stories, um, a link to mental health resources. So there’s a, a conversation happening around how we can approach conversations ethically. And the other side for me about, um, the changes we’ve seen in, uh, media ownership and how stuff is covered, um, the flip side of shrinking organizations means that you have a loss of triangulation. So as a social policy researcher, I try to collect information in different ways. What are the studies that have been done? Can we do a survey? How about testing some of those results in a focus group? What about consulting and holding public meetings with key informants? So that you can test what you find. And the loss of multiple media services means that ourselves as consumers of media, we don’t have the ability anymore to test what we learn against other sources. And when you have media influencers, when you have, um… And I’m not talking about the journalists who are doing really interesting work on their own and publishing that through Substack or other means. But when you have people who say, “Oh, I’m gonna whip out a phone and cover this and tell you the real truth,” to provide the hot take on issues, that’s not necessarily grounded in knowledge or evidence-based, uh, information and research. Um, w- we have a deficit of critical thinking and analyzing because we also lack all those sources in which to, um, assess. And so in my work with media relations is I try to connect people with different kinds of sources, so at least within a piece that results- Um, there can be multiple sources of information about the issues from reliable, trustworthy contacts. And I think that’s part of the bigger conversation when we encounter pay-to-play, because then we’re only getting single source, uh, information I, uh, I’d like to add something to what you said, Martha. I’m so glad you brought up the IBC Code of Ethics, because it really does underpin everything we do. Uh, and, and that is, uh, when we’re dealing with the media, whether we’re an editor dealing with, uh, one of our journalists, uh, or a source, or we’re a journalist dealing with, uh, uh, sources or readers, uh, it all comes down to trust, and trust has to be truth-based. Uh, when, when we, uh, are writing or we’re reporting, uh, we’re consuming information and sharing it, it all has to be based on the truth. And that’s where a, a, a lot of media have, uh, gotten away from fact-checking and gotten away from, uh, uh, ensuring sources are legitimate. Uh, but, but as a communicator, uh, dealing with our bosses a- and, and dealing with our, uh, consumers, our readers, writers, uh, viewers, uh, uh, listeners, it’s, uh, it’s gotta be truth-based and we, we gotta build trust with our, with our, uh, constituents, and we, uh, you have to keep earning it all the time. If you lose it, it’s, uh, it’s, it’s something that’s extremely hard to, to restore. Right. And when we put that, our own professional communications code of ethics, when we use that as our, um, as our, as our filter, as our, our compass, et cetera, in these discussions about, um, the media landscape and, um, the value of ethical communications and, and journalism as it relates to that, uh, really that can, that can help guide us in a kind of a, a, a, a more meaningful way than even some of the tactical, uh, examples some of us are discussing, right? So pay-to-play, for example. Um, uh, you know, I think our code of ethics gives us some guidance about that. And, uh, and that will be, you know, you’ll need to… Will each of us need to figure out how to apply that within our organizations, uh, uh, whether they be educational, um, corporate, not-for-profit, uh, et cetera. Um, so yeah, I think we, we have that guidance within us. And Martha, as you say, and I’m sure all of us speak to students about this, you know, I say like fi- if whatever community you find, whatever path you choose, there will be a code of ethics. So it’s not just ours, it’s, it’s, um, it’s the journalistic code of ethics. It’s all of those things that, that keep us true to the truth. Yeah. Uh, um, Jennifer, you and Martha both raised something I want to talk about for a minute, and then we have a comment from a listener. Uh, but, uh, you, you, you both talked about what journalists are doing, uh, if they don’t want to be associated or affiliated with a mainstream publication anymore, or if they have been let go. A lot of them are starting their own media companies, uh, or they’re just starting to crank out a Substack. Uh, they’re continuing to employ the practices and principles of effective journalism. They’re just doing it, uh, through a different channel. And I, I haven’t checked, but I don’t think that Cision and the other PR services companies that are configured to help you reach journalists are making this transition and identifying all of those newsletters on Substack and Ghost and all of the other platforms that are available for this, uh, all of the YouTube channels that are being set up a- a- as media outlets for some of these journalists creating their own media outlets. Uh, and it, it, it seems to me that it would be a lot of work, uh, to identify those. Um, you know, where I work, uh, we are trying to shift, uh, the perception in the marketplace of the kind of markets where we are active, because that has pivoted. Uh, so that wasn’t that difficult, you know, 10, 15 years ago. It’s a nightmare now. How do you find those? And how effective is it if you pitch one journalist with their Substack newsletter as opposed to the journalist who’s in the publication that’s being read by for- far more people And that is why we do a lot of work. That’s the relationship building part of what we do, right? Um, and that is, that’s what we do. That is, that is what media relations, um, that’s our job if we’re doing it well, is to stay connected and to find out, uh, who is doing what and where people are, and to, to build those relationships, and to understand the areas that we are working in and who is doing what in any given, you know, at any given time. It has always been part of our job to understand who is where, because they were always moving around, always changing, um, and they were. Um, people within the media, uh, were moving from beat to beat to beat within, um, you know, newspaper or TV or whatever at any given time, and it has just become, m- you know, more complex and more compounded and more fragmented than ever before. But as you are doing, you know, building those relationships, and that is, that is what we have to do today. We have to maintain those relationships, and we have to stay on top of that, and we have to, um, understand who is where so that we can, um, be the type of person, um, um, who makes the journalist’s job easier. Um, so that we can have those relationships, foster those relationships so that we can do our jobs. And one of the things I used to do, Diana, when I handled media and communications for a public health organization here in the province, is I tracked the issues that might, uh, attract attention. And so one day I, I… well, I’ll sign up for different Google alerts for different topics to see, A, what’s being said and how they’re writing about it, or how it’s being covered, or what are the kinds of things that people are latching onto. And, you know, came across my, my email that there were, uh, there was a report from out west in Canada of a type of a vaccine that they were experiencing some shortages with, and it was a vaccine that’s used often in the schedule for children, uh, aged one to five. And so I thought, “Oh, this is interesting.” Um- I’ll go and talk with the medical officer of health. And so I went and I said, “Hey, um, you know, this came across my desk. Are we having any issues?” And he said, “Where’d you hear that?” And I said, “Well, it was a reliable report from CBC up in the western part of Canada.” And he said, “As a matter of fact, we just got an update, um, about the shipment of vaccines and how it’s gonna be rolled out because of the supply chain issues.” So I said, “Oh, well, very good. You’re on top of it. No worries.” Anyway, two hours later, I get a call from a local reporter who does this exact same thing, but from a different perspective as a journalist, to call me up and say, “Hey, Martha, I read this story on our sister website. Um, are we having any issues here in this province?” So there are ways that you can use, and, and this is one of the things that I think is positive, um, about search engines and subscribing to updates, is that it can do the work for you of trawling a number of sources so that you can then take time to evaluate and say, “Okay, I regularly want to receive information from this person because I’ve reviewed their content and they’re a reliable source.” And so there are tools that we can use. Um, and as Diana said, one of the things I would always do is also get to know the people in your neighborhood, and sometimes move out of the neighborhood, and sometimes new people move in. So you have to cultivate those relationships and see what their understanding is. And I’ve never had an issue cultivating a particular reporter with an aspect of a story, because different reporters are intrigued, attracted, uh, drawn into a story for different reasons. And so being able to provide multiple angles that might serve my multiple journalistic audiences, uh, was always a helpful approach, because people like something that’s different. They don’t want to be sharing the same information, uh, as their competitor. And, uh, it’s an advantage for you, and it’s also a plus for them. Martha, you raise such a great point about that reporter who called you. Uh, he called you because he trusted you. Uh, and also, and ’cause you already had a trust- a trusted relationship. Yeah. But also, uh, if you hadn’t heard that, that could’ve been the first, uh, information you had received about this, and you could have gone to your boss, who may not have heard about it as well, and become the bearer of this information that came from someone who’s connected with the issues, uh, and, and contacted you as a reporter because he or she trusted you. Um, Kjell, I wanted to just quickly come back to your initial question around, um, you know, where do we as communication professionals focus our time in this, in this new landscape with a lot of independent and, um, perhaps sing- more singularly focused, uh, journalists? Um, do, do you, do you nurture the relationship with someone in their Substack audience or do you look to more mass-market, uh, media choices? And like everything we do, I would say that needs to be audience-driven. So it’s about finding where our audiences are for our particular message, in your case, construction. Um, I used to do a lot of work in healthcare media relations and, um, nurtured some long-term relationships with reporters who were looking for very specific health research stories that I, you know, over a period of time, uh, they would, they would learn to come to me and say, “Okay, it’s, um, heart, a heart month. Um, you know, what have you got?” Or I would have come to them kind of thing. Um, but it is a, it is building, building the trust and also from an organizational perspective, knowing how, what the best channel to my audience is. Yeah, as some of you may know that I am a podcaster and have been for a long, long time. Uh, and I probably get six or seven pitches a day for guests to appear on my podcast. Uh, generally they’re at least somewhat on topic, sometimes completely off topic. Uh, every now and then we’ll actually respond to one that looks good. Uh, I would say probably one out of 50, uh, we’ll, we’ll respond to. Uh, are you- pitching podcasts? Uh, have, have you heard of other communicators doing it? Because I’m doing it now. I’m trying to get our subject matter experts and our thought leaders onto the appropriate podcast. One of the, uh, markets that we’re active in is aviation. We do a lot of work at airports, uh, building terminals and things like that, and, uh, we want to have the, the people who understand what it’s like to be doing construction airside with the security and the safety issues there. Uh, we wanna get them in front of the people who are making the decisions about who are we going to invite to bid on this project. Uh, and, you know, trying to find the aviation podcasts that they might listen to is a bit of a challenge. Uh, AI is, it has been helpful. Uh, but I’m out there actively pitching, uh, podcasts. Is, is that something you’re hearing about? I’ve been building some media lists, um, and I’ve actually been sort, trying to find some podcasts as well, uh, some very specific podcasts. It is on my radar because, um, the, you know, some of the podcasts may be small, um, but they are the target audience that I’m trying to reach very specifically. So again, I think it’s, we’re trying to h- I think when you’re doing, um, the job of media relations, um, that we want to do, uh, you’re trying to get to your audience, right? And I think podcasts are one very specific way to do that Um, and I think, you know, it, it getting to, um, I was looking at Cision’s State of the Media report that was done this year. Um, and it’s interesting the point that you just made, Shell, about, um, whether or not the pitches that you’re getting are the right pitches. Um, and in the, in the report, it said most journalists say that less than 25% of the pitches that they’re getting are actually relevant to them, and so that’s really key. Um- Yes … right? So, uh, and n- not that that has changed, ’cause I think that, that is what most journalists have said for many, many, many years. I think that’s one of their pet, pet peeves. Um, and so we always have to keep that in mind. And I, I just wanted also to point out that, um, 80- in the same survey, that 84% of the journalists actually said that they wanted, um, media communicators to reach out to them via an email and introduce themselves before they ever pitched them, and, um, start a relationship with them ahead of time- Yeah before they actually ever started pitching them. Um, and to start that relationship, introduce themselves, um, and to put some context around why they might be reaching out to them. Um, and so it’s all part of that relationship building ahead of time. So yeah, you know, identifying who you could be reaching out to, you know, and if that’s ca- uh, that podcast is the right source for you to be, um, connecting with the end audience, then that’s the right way to go It’s, uh, a- as, as a writer, I, I write for a lot of trade professional journals, and, uh, if you have a relationship with an editor, they, that they know that you’re gonna write something and send it in that’s gonna be, uh, pretty good and pretty close to on time, uh, th- then they, they don’t say, “What is it? Just send it along. I, I got a space for it.” Uh, but if you don’t know that editor, uh, it’s very hard to crack, uh, crack the nut. You, you really have to send all kinds of clips and, uh, examples of, of things that you’ve done and, uh, answer a lot of questions about what you’re gonna write. Uh, so, so b- getting that relationship, once you’re there, uh, it makes all the difference in the world. I think that’s the absolute key to having a, a successful media relations, uh, component to your communications practice. It’s connecting with the people and understanding what their needs are. They get hundreds of emails, and lots of them get funneled into the spam folder. Um, they don’t have time to read, uh, a pitch from someone who’s just sent out 1,000 emails hoping something will stick or catch somebody’s eye. And- Pray and pray … respecting their time is critical, and also understanding how they want to receive information. I once got a comment from a journalist who said, “You know, I can’t actually do anything with your news release.” And I said, “Oh dear, you know, what did I do wrong?” And he said, “No, this is exactly how I would write it as a story, but I can’t just run it 100% as is.” And I was thinking, “Well, okay, that’s pretty cool. I haven’t lost my journalism training,” ’cause that’s, I did go on to do a journalism degree after my undergrad. But, um, being able to present the information in the way that they can use, and so I do a lot of work supporting people who want to write op-ed pieces. Um, and space is a consideration, and word count is a consideration, and being tight and concise and focused is huge. And sometimes people call me up, and they’ve got 1,500 to 2,000 words, and I said, “Guys, no one’s gonna publish that,” right? Even though there is a market for long-form journalism, and there’s been some really incredible work done, but when it comes to an editorial piece or a commentary, you need to be really tight. And so being able to work with people who know that the stuff I’m going to send them is going to meet their specifications is already a step ahead in, in being able to achieve that coverage. ‘Cause then if it attracts the attention of the op editor, then they can move into, “Oh, well, maybe we should pursue this in the news section.” Um, and sometimes I’ve done that, and I’ve pitched that and say, “Hey, you know, this person has written this piece. It’s being published on Wednesday. But there are other nuances or aspects to the story that you might wanna consider as a separate standalone news piece.” So being able to cultivate those relationships, to have the trust, but also to respect their time and what their needs are is, is super important. Just to go back to the podcast thing, Shel, for a second, um, I will say that, uh, at least in my observation of the next generation of, of business leaders, communication professionals, and, and our audience frankly, in other words, the, the students I’m seeing in the classroom, when I ask them about channels, you know, “How would you get… If you were, if you were in, imagine you were working for an organization, how would you get your message out?” I would say podcasting would, would be, the vast majority of them would, it would be in their top two or three, if not their number one, in part because that’s their, they have a more intimate relationship with podcasts and podcasters than perhaps previous generations have had. And so in fact, there’s this, um, there’s this, uh, new form of, of connection and trust that is built between liter- listeners and audiences and, and podcasters, uh, that I think needs to be taken into account in the ways that we show up as communication professionals. I’d like to add to that, Jennifer. You know, we, we’re Luddites, right? Uh, if you’ve been around long enough to be considered to be a fellow, you’re, you’re, you’re entrenched in, in the old ways. Uh, except for Shel. Oh, come on, Dan. Speak for yourself. He’s always… So I, next, I’m sat next to this w- young lady on a plane. She was an influencer. She had millions of followers on Instagram and, uh, and Facebook, and I’m watching her and she’s going like crazy with her thumbs. And I, I said, “How do you do that?” She said, “What do you mean?” I said, “You go so fast with your thumbs.” And she goes, “Well, how else do you do it?” And I said, “Like this.” And she gives me the, she gives me the, “Okay, Boomer” look, you know? Right. Yep. Uh, yeah, the other thing to think about with podcasts is, is that they do end up getting quoted now in the mainstream media. It’s, it’s, uh, sort of the, the new man on the street. Uh, you, you end up seeing so-and-so said on a podcast. Uh, in fact, I’ve started listening to some podcasts because they get referenced, “Oh, you need to listen to this interview with this guy on this podcast,” said Paul Roetzer on his podcast, right? So, uh, I, I think there’s a, a way to get amplified if, if you’re on a podcast. Uh, I do wanna share a couple of the comments that we got, starting with, uh, Mirko Pecevic, uh, who says, uh, yeah, basically kudos to me for my little local online initiative. Uh, he does say that it doesn’t fill the gap of critical reporting, and, uh, it, it absolutely does not. Uh, it’s, it’s just finding facts and, and publishing them. Uh, what practices can comms pros adopt to support local reporting? And I’ll, I’ll turn that over to all of you in a sec, but I, I do wanna direct people to Alabama News Center at alabamanewscenter.com. It was started by Alabama Power, uh, because they saw a vacuum in local reporting where they could get their own stuff out. So you’ll see a lot of Alabama Power coverage in here, but you’ll see coverage of other things. Business, community, innovation, food and drink, and weather, uh, are the categories they have. There’s no politics addressed here, but, you know, if there’s a, a parade, I, I’m looking at a, a story here that, uh, you know, Run for the Wall motorcyclists stopped in Tuscaloosa, Alabama to honor veterans. Uh, those types of stories. So, you know, this is, is one model is if you’ve lost the local media outlet that you relied on to get information to your stakeholders, start your own Uh, all news is local, and if you can find a way to find someone in your organization who’s, who’s, uh, achieving something, accomplished something, uh, has an interesting story to tell, uh, that localizes your, uh, main messages a- and, and gets you some opportunities in, in more local media. Uh, some of, uh, in, in an earlier lifetime, uh, in the Navy, I was responsible for the fleet hometown news center, and we sent 1.13 million individualized press releases a year to local media, to, uh, radio, local, local newspapers, high s- uh, college alumni associations, uh, about the accomplishments of someone localized or, uh, someone who went to that school, who lived in that town. Uh, these are their parents, uh, and this is the accomplishment. They, they won an award, uh, they graduated from a special course, a- and this was local news. And the vast majority of our newspapers, our editors, uh, used it because it was local, and people will look for something that they can connect with locally The problem becomes now that the end source to be able to put that into something is now gone, right? So- Yeah … right? ‘Cause I, I know exactly what you’re talking about, and now those papers or those places are no longer existing. So where do you send something like that, right? Um, and they’re just not there. They’re just not there anymore. Um, it’s funny ’cause Martha was just talking about, um, uh, news releases that, you know, they can’t run them anymore. Now, I, I actually wrote a news release for becoming a fellow, um, and I actually sent it to the local, um, online newspaper, and they actually ran it word for word. Um, so y- you lo- you gotta love it, right? It’s always, it’s… Y- you love it when they actually run the, the news release you wrote word for word. Um, and they actually ran it in the online, um, local newspaper that I had become a fellow. Um, and so it is that same kind of local story. Um, and they, you know, so them doing something like that, but there’s a lot of places that just don’t have, um, the capacity to actually be able to do that anymore. Um, I have seen a number of, uh, as a judge for the Gold Quills or, uh, an evaluator, I have seen a number of, of submissions come through where corporations or companies are actually including in their, um, corporate newsletters, uh, places where they’re talking about what is going on in their local cities. Um, and so there are companies that are, are taking up that gauntlet and including information about what is going on within their company newsletter, so that’s always nice to see. Um, um, doing something like that. It’s a good way to humanize your organization. Yeah. People like to be seen. People like to be recognized, and organizations that have, uh, departments or divisions or teams, um, in different parts of the country or, or their provinces or states, um, do well to include those perspectives rather than always seeing it come from head office. Um, it’s a challenge in Canada where a lot of the media outlets in terms of national coverage are concentrated in central Canada. Um, it means that the local voice gets lost, and it’s a bigger challenge if you want to, um, really get some national coverage. And I work with a, a company in Ottawa, and one of the things that we have found is that the, uh, what media wants is something that will connect the issue to the people in the area that they are servicing, um, in terms of news, however it is, in terms of the web or an actual publication, a radio broadcast or a podcast. And sometimes you’re finding crossover where some former newspaper outlets are now including, uh, video coverage in their stories so that they can show the progress of a news conference. Um, so being adaptable and responsive, I think, um, is challenging when that funneling thing is happening with centralization of news sources. But if you can connect people to other people in their different regions, then it, from an internal communications perspective, it really does build solidarity, uh, and humanizes, as Ned said, the, the workplace because people see that their employer recognizes that unique aspect of them in terms of if you’re in the south or the north or the west or wherever. Let me, uh, get this last comment in from Brian Kilgore, and h- this is fascinating, and I, I don’t disagree with this at all. Uh, this is looking at this from the other angle. Sources at the decision-making level won’t talk to reporters or appear on camera, and instead only issue statements. I remember a few years ago, I, I read a, a piece, uh, I think it might have been in, uh, the Columbia Journalism Review or, uh, the, the Nieman Labs or, you know, one of the journalism reporting outlets, uh, that said that, uh, The Washington Post had approached a big company, I think it was Clorox, about participating in a, a report that they were doing, and the response from Clorox was, “No, thanks, we don’t need you,” to The Washington Post. Uh, if coverage is important, how do we convince our, our, our leadership that we need to be doing this even as, as, as we see the erosion of the, the media landscape? Well, I think, uh, it’s funny, I had, uh, I had coffee with a journalist friend yesterday morning and, um, she was talking about an article she was working on for The Economist, so, you know, pretty high-profile piece. Um, and she approached a, um, a federal cabinet minister whose, whose, um, purview it was, it is to, to, um, uh, who is a subject matter expert and, um, and his office, uh, said, “We’ll provide a statement.” And she said, “This is The Economist.” Um, “I think I can … I th- I, you know, I think an interview is warranted.” Um, to which they agreed, uh, but it sort of took that ri- reminder. But what I, something related to this, Shell, that I wanted to mention is the, is this kind of, um, dissemination of responsibility for sharing the news, which we’ve been talking about in a, in a variety of ways, that comes to us as organizational communicators, but it also ne- it also takes into account the weaving, the new, the new look of the, of the media landscape. Um, the, uh, the same journalist friend is, runs a major journalism program here in, in British Columbia. It’s a recognized program across Canada, and they’ve stopped intake of their journalism program and are reevaluating its, um, its role, its relevance, its purpose, et cetera. However, one of the really interesting things she’s been talking to us about is the, is the distribution, the desire to ensure that the distribution of those skills continues at the s- at the school. So in other words, um, they still want, uh, uh, to ensure that students have good writing skills, uh, critical thinking skills, all of those things. So where this comes back to your question about the executive level presence is the, is the reminder that we are, uh, like with many roles, we’re wearing many hats, uh, and executives need to see themselves that way, um, need to see themselves as part of, um, not just a contributor to or an observer of or a bystander of the news cycle, but an actual participant in the news cycle, which we as communication professionals are in a new way as well. We’re partners with journalists. Many journalists are working in communications. Um, and, and so I think we can bring a re- a refreshed understanding of the way that landscape works in a way that means we build trust and community within each other to get those important messages out. Uh, uh, no, no other thoughts on Brian’s point? Well, I think we’re seeing more of it. Sometimes it’s because people have less time and it’s easier. They feel that way they can control the message because it’s the statement, so the statement gets quoted. Um, and I think it’s interesting what Jennifer said because there is still a lot of fear in terms of how you might get treated by the media and how your words may get used. And so I think people see it as the easy way out to say, “Okay, we have, um, a statement. Um, they have a photo of the person who’s speaking. They can run with that.” And so I work with media relations coaching and performance presentation, and getting people over that fear, uh, is one of the things that comes up every single time. And I had to throw up on the screen a comment that we got from Diane Chase saying, “Yes, Jennifer.” So. Thanks, Diane. We are about out of time. Uh, less than 90 seconds left. Uh, so I do want to let everybody know what’s coming up in August on Circle of Fellows. Episode number 132 will take place at 6:00 PM East Coast time. Uh, the time shifts based on who’s on the panel, and this time on the panel, uh, we have Adrian Cropley, uh, from Australia, so the time has shifted to accommodate his participation. I still think it’s gonna be a, a, a very early hour for Adrian. But, uh, we will be talking about artificial intelligence issues in communication, notably pivotable, pivotal points for the profession. Um, and I’m, I’m not gonna guess what we’re gonna be talking about in a month because the whole landscape could change again, uh, in, in, in 30 days. I mean, you look at the news just recently and it’s all about open weight models from China. Um, reading Chris Penn saying, you know, y- y- you can’t block them because they’re the only ones that people can use to develop their own models, uh, even if it’s a US, uh, research company. Uh, so I mean, all kinds of interesting things that, that we can talk about. That panel, in addition to Adrian, uh, will include Bonnie Caver, uh, Pia-Mary Caramanis, and Mike Klein. So it should be a great panel. And to Diana, uh, Martha, Jennifer, and Ned, thank you so much for your participation today. I think this has been a great discussion. Uh, just a, a, I, I think a sign of what a really good conversation does. I didn’t get off question one on my list of- … of questions. It just kind of snowballed from there, and we had a, we had a great conversation. Uh, so, uh, until next month. See you all later, everyone. Thanks, Sal. Always a pleasure.

The post Circle of Fellows #131: The Evolving Media Landscape and What It Means for Media Relations appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Podcasting 2.0 is the open-source movement launched by Adam Curry and Dave Jones to preserve and extend podcasting’s open, RSS-based ecosystem. In this episode, Shel and Neville explore the initiative’s core features — including the Podcast Index, enhanced RSS metadata, transcripts, chapters, podrolls, live notifications, and listener-supported “Value for Value” payments — while weighing its potential to reduce dependence on dominant platforms such as Spotify, Apple, Amazon, and YouTube. The discussion also addresses obstacles to adoption, including limited awareness, uneven support across hosting providers and apps, added complexity, and the need to demonstrate clear benefits to listeners. For communicators, the larger implications involve channel ownership, accessibility, content reuse, AI discoverability, resilience, and the risk of building audiences entirely on rented platforms.

Links from this episode:

• Podcasting 2.0 — Making Podcasts Better for Everyone
• What Is Podcasting 2.0? And Why Should I Care?
• Podcasting 2.0
• What Is Podcasting 2.0?
• What You Need to Know About Podcasting 2.0

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, July 27.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Neville Hobson: Hi everyone, and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 522. I’m Neville Hobson

Shel Holtz: I’m Shel Holtz, and Neville, we’ve been doing this show for more than 21 years. When we started, there were maybe 400 podcasts. There was no Apple Podcasts to help people find and subscribe to shows, and every podcaster was what today they seem to be calling an indie podcaster. What’s not an indie podcaster? That would be Joe Rogan, for example, on Spotify collecting money. He’s not an indie, he’s mainstream media. So I try to follow the podcast industry. I subscribe to some newsletters. I read some people who talk about it. But somehow I only recently encountered Podcasting 2.0. This thing has been around since 2020. Despite the name, it’s not a new audio format. It’s not a new app or a replacement for RSS. It’s an open source movement launched by, guess who? Adam Curry, the podcasting pioneer, along with a developer named Dave Jones. God, there’s a lot of Dave Joneses out there. Its mission is to preserve, protect, and extend the open podcasting ecosystem. Now, that word open matters. Traditional podcasting works because creators like us publish an RSS feed that many different apps can read. Nobody has to upload a separate master copy to each player. But over time, discovery and listening have become concentrated in large corporate directories and platforms like Apple, increasingly Spotify, Amazon, and YouTube, but there are others. These companies set their own rules for their own services. Spotify’s rules explicitly say that it can remove content and suspend or terminate accounts. You can call that moderation, deplatforming, censorship. There’s no denying the underlying power these services have. Spotify can remove a podcast from its service. If the creator independently controls the RSS feed and hosting, Spotify can’t erase the podcast from the entire internet. The danger comes when creators and audiences become so dependent on one proprietary platform that removal there is effectively removal from public view. Podcasting 2.0 was designed to reduce that gatekeeper risk. Its answer isn’t that every app has to carry every show, it’s that no single app or company should be able to make a show disappear everywhere. Now, the initiative has several major pieces. The Podcast Index is an open directory that apps can use instead of depending on one company’s catalog. I checked, and FIR is listed, as are our other active shows on the FIR Podcast Network. The podcast namespace adds new backward-compatible tags to RSS feeds. Those tags can provide creator-controlled transcripts, richer chapters, information about hosts and guests, live stream notifications, alternate audio and video versions, licensing information, and a podroll of shows creators recommend. Remember blog rolls? This is podrolls. There’s also PodPing which alerts apps quickly when a feed changes, and there’s a really much-discussed thing called Value for Value. It’s a model that lets listeners support creators directly, often through tiny Bitcoin payments called sats, S-A-T-S, and attach messages known as boosts or boostagrams. And, yeah, I was listening to the Podcasting 2.0 show with Curry and Jones, and they were shouting out everybody who gave them a boost the Bitcoin element gets disproportionate attention, but it’s optional. Podcasting 2.0 is much broader than cryptocurrency. And by the way, there’s a vertical market application of Podcasting 2.0 called Godcaster. That’s a defined community of religious podcasters who have embraced Podcasting 2.0. The question is whether this model could work for, say, corporate ecosystems, universities, trade groups, nonprofits, and the like. And that explains why communicators should care or at least know about all this, because this really is a conversation about channel ownership, interoperability, accessibility, and resilience. Accurate transcripts improve access and make our content easier to search and reuse. Chapters and person tags make expertise more discoverable. Podrolls let organizations recommend trusted voices without surrendering discovery to Spotify or YouTube and their algorithms. And open distribution reduces the risk of building an audience on rented space. Now, there are caveats. Support remains uneven. I didn’t even learn about it until a couple weeks ago. Hosts like Libsyn, which hosts FIR, and podcasting apps implement different subsets of the standards. Open infrastructure doesn’t eliminate legal obligations. It doesn’t change hosting company policies. There are other choke points. And decentralization doesn’t automatically make the content accurate, ethical, or responsible. But the core idea is important, and that’s that podcasting began as an open medium, not a collection of corporate content silos. Podcasting 2.0 is an effort to modernize that open model without giving up what made podcasting distinctive in the first place. For communicators, the lesson extends well beyond audio. Distribute widely, but retain control of the source, the identity, and the relationship with the audience

Neville Hobson: Yeah, it’s quite a story, Shel, I think. Like you, I hadn’t really heard of this other than the fact I did come across Podcasting 2.0 website when Adam Curry launched it back in, what was it, 2021, 20- 2020. But since then, no, haven’t heard anything about this at all really other than some kind of, aside comments here and there on on a couple of tech podcasts. And I’m thinking what you’ve outlined or makes complete sense to me. So why hasn’t this been thought about before even? I think it has in part. I’ve read people talking about this online, particularly on making content more easily consumable as they see it and there we’re talking about an idea that’s not new. Apple’s been offering this for a while, which is chapters, splitting up your content into chapters. But that’s only Apple. It doesn’t transport, and therein lies one of the issues with this, I think. How could you put it? There are some concerns I can see. I’ll come onto the pros in a minute. But I think is this not fragmentation of something that’s going to require quite a bit of a learning curve to figure out what to do with this? I’m also thinking that, is this going to open another standards race? Open standards only work if enough people adopt them, otherwise there is becoming another well-intentioned technical layer that only enthusiasts use. We’ve seen that. But, A broader, top-level question is, are we looking at the next stage in podcasting’s evolution, or are these features primarily serving podcast creators rather than podcast listeners? In other words, who’s getting the greatest benefit? That’s what I’m wondering. And I think it, it does… The fragmentation issue I think creates complexity. Features, bolting on new features more metadata doesn’t compensate for weak storytelling, and you have to have that sorted out. And I think there’s a risk of enthusiasts becoming excited by all this, while listeners simply want worthwhile content. The interesting thing, though, a-and you pointed this out in your intro, that the where we’re at now with podcasting is the marketplace is largely controlled or dominated by big platforms. You mentioned Spotify, you mentioned Apple. If we go to look at the analytics on Libsyn as to where, how people get our content, there’s a long list of 20-plus podcast platforms. Some of them, some of them never even heard of, yet there’s, you can imagine an episode has got, six downloads on that platform and 200-and-something on another platform. So it’s like we like to say, “Listen to us wherever you get your podcasts.” So how do we introduce this into that landscape in a way that literally isn’t complexity from the fragmentation? Because it will be fragmentation. And not– And who’s not– who’s to say that Spotify and the others aren’t going to respond not in a positive way to this, ’cause this is their control slipping away. So this is what I spot as some of the issues. I think the… Another standards race is maybe- more concern one of podcasting’s great strengths has always been its relative simplicity. Wasn’t like that when we started, mind you, but that’s how it is today. This introduces another layer of standard, certification, and implementation. We’ve seen this before. Social media standards, RSS extensions, schema markup, countless proprietary platform features. So it’s not a pretty looking landscape, I would say. Plus as we are talk– We’ve talked about this ourselves, but others are talking about this. This is podcasting’s time. It’s going to play a bigger role in organizational communication, particularly as podcasts play a growing role in organizational and employee communication. So how does this all work, where you’ve suddenly got these things that sound appealing to very appealing to creators? I think probably not so much from listeners whose sense complexity is what they’d be looking at. So you’ve have to make it very easy and simple. That said, I think there are some big advantages from it. You’ve mentioned some. One that strikes me immediately, richer, more accessible content. It turns an audio file into a more complete communications asset, it seems to me. So transcripts, chapters, structured metadata makes a podcast easier, and this is a big appeal, Shel I would say. Easier to search, easier to quote, easier to repurpose, easier to reference internally, and make accessible to people who cannot or don’t want to listen to something. So you make it broader. So you could also say, many organizations already struggle to maximize the value of long-form content. These features make it much easier to reuse a single conversation across newsletters, blogs, social posts, knowledge bases, internal communication. We’re always talking about content reuse as communicators. Podcasting 2.0 makes that much easier because the structure is built into the episode itself. There’s tons more we could talk about in this vein, but I think that’s enough for now. I think there are some major cons that would worry me if I were thinking about, let’s see how we can take advantage of this. It’s got a homebrew feel about it, which isn’t a criticism by any means. That’s how podcasting started. The landscape’s way different now. I could see a big role for AI in constructing the landscape, if you like, constructing it and helping you bring this into your plans. But this again it’s big work to get this done, it seems to me.

Shel Holtz: yeah, I think the biggest challenge that Curry and Jones face with this is building awareness and support. If I’m a podcaster for 21 years and hadn’t heard of it, you heard about it when it launched and heard nothing since then there’s a serious awareness problem here. And that’s what’s going to keep this from adoption. I’m not worried about fragmentation. Podcasting started with the RSS feed. This is something that Dave Winer came up with working in hand-in-hand with Adam Curry, who developed the podcatcher that would recognize that extension that Winer created. This did not render those RSS feeds useless to the RSS newsreaders that were out there. They still got them. They just ignored that extension because they didn’t have any way of playing a media file. So they still saw it. I have to believe that an RSS feed with all the new stuff in it is still going to be an effective RSS feed. The problem is that you have the hosting services, as I mentioned, we have been hosted with Libsyn, not since the very beginning, but pretty darn close

Neville Hobson: Yeah

Shel Holtz: Right. Let me start that thought again. The problem is convenience. If you make Spotify the place you go for podcasts and they’re listening to FIR and we say something offensive and they decide to take us off they’re not going to go look for us elsewhere. They’re just going to find other podcasts because they use Spotify. If you do a deal with Spotify, and you have to be pretty good, pretty famous guarantee a lot of downloads. But if you do a deal with Spotify, that’s the only place people are going to find that podcast. And again, you do something that violates the terms of service or their standards and they take you off, then you’re off. You’re gone everywhere. So I like the idea of this standard. I would just like to see some agreement across all of the hosting platforms and the discovery platforms that we will enable all of these on our platform so that listeners get the benefit. And you articulated some of those benefits to the listener. They don’t have to know that’s courtesy of Podcasting 2.0 any more than they need to understand that there’s an extension in the RSS feed in Podcasting 1.0. They just know that this is what they get when they subscribe to a podcast. But I love the idea of they’re not having to go to the show notes on our website to get the transcript. And frankly, I like the idea of people who love the show being able to support it with a micropayment that sends a message to us. I think that enhances the listener-podcaster relationship more than just commenting on a LinkedIn post or on our website or whatever. So yeah, I think there’s a lot to, to recommend this, but I think there are lots of obstacles in the way. And as you mentioned, there are also issues that don’t get resolved because of this Yeah, and Dave Jones is a developer, so I’m sure he’s working on all of this and probably has answers to some of those questions. I think it’s largely in his and Adam Curry’s hands to get the word out about this. If I were them or if I were counseling them, I would suggest that the audience that you need to be aiming at is podcasters the creators. And the message is tell your hosting service that you want these features implemented. The more they hear this and the more they see their customers changing hosting platforms to one that does embrace all of this, the faster they’re going to adopt the standard, and this will work for everybody. But I don’t see that effort underway, and I would advise listeners if you’re curious about this, visit their Podcasting 2.0 website, but also give a listen to the Podcasting 2.0 podcast. It’s typical Adam Curry. There’s a lot of digression and a lot of talk about completely off-topic subjects. But when they do zero in on Podcasting 2.0 it’s really interesting to hear them talk about this and where it is and where it’s going.

Neville Hobson: I would say Libsyn, we’ll be in touch

Shel Holtz: You can count on it. And that’ll be a wrap for this episode of For Immediate Release

The post FIR #522: Is Podcasting 2.0 The Future of Podcasting? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Your brand is no longer defined solely by what you say about yourself. Increasingly, it is defined by the answers AI gives when someone asks about you.

That simple but profound shift lies at the heart of The Answer Economy, the forthcoming book by Pete Blackshaw, entrepreneur, founder of BrandRank.ai, and former Global Head of Digital and Social Media at Nestlé.

As AI assistants and agents become increasingly influential in how people discover information, evaluate products and make decisions, organisations face a new communications challenge. It’s no longer enough to tell your story well. Your organisation also needs to be accurately understood by the AI systems that increasingly act as intermediaries between brands and the people they serve.

In this FIR Interview, Pete joins Neville Hobson and Shel Holtz to discuss why AI should be viewed less as another marketing channel and more as an auditor of organisational credibility. Together, they explore why trust, transparency and evidence are becoming more important than marketing claims, how different AI models develop different perspectives on brands, why communicators need to think beyond traditional search optimisation, and what organisations can do today to prepare for an increasingly agent-driven future.

For communicators, the implications are profound. Success in the answer economy won’t depend on producing more content. It will depend on whether an organisation has earned the evidence, transparency and trust that AI systems increasingly use to evaluate every claim it makes.

In this conversation, we discuss:* Why Pete believes AI is becoming an auditor of organisational credibility rather than simply another information retrieval tool. * What he means by the idea that “your brand is as strong as its answers.” * Why evidence increasingly matters more than messaging in an AI-driven world. * The concept of a “book of truth” and why organisations need to make trusted information easier for AI systems to understand. * How and why ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and other AI models can develop different perspectives on the same brand. * Whether communicators need to understand AI “worldviews” as well as human audiences. * Why corporate communications could become one of the most strategically important functions in the age of AI. * How organisations should prepare for AI-generated reputation challenges and new governance responsibilities. * What AI agents could mean for marketing, purchasing decisions and brand influence. * Pete’s advice for communication professionals on becoming “answer ready.”

About Pete BlackshawPete Blackshaw is founder and CEO of BrandRank.ai, an AI visibility and brand intelligence platform that helps organisations understand how AI answer engines evaluate brands.

A two-time technology entrepreneur, Pete previously founded PlanetFeedback, one of the earliest consumer feedback platforms, which was acquired by Nielsen, where he later served as a senior executive. He also established Procter & Gamble’s first interactive marketing team before spending nine years as Global Head of Digital and Social Media at Nestlé, leading the company’s worldwide digital transformation initiatives.

Throughout his career, Pete has focused on the intersection of consumer trust, digital communication and brand reputation. His forthcoming book, The Answer Economy: How AI Agents Will Decide Your Brand’s Future, published in September 2026, draws together more than two decades of experience helping organisations navigate the evolving relationship between consumers, brands and digital technology.

Resources Pete Blackshaw on LinkedIn * BrandRank.ai * The book: The Answer Economy: How AI Agents Will Decide Your Brand’s Future * Pete’s The Answer Economy* newsletter * Search previous FIR interviews with Pete Blackshaw (2005, 2007 and 2009) on the FIR archive site.

TranscriptA transcript of this conversation follows, lightly edited for clarity and length.

Shel Holtz (00:04)
Hi everybody and welcome to a For Immediate Release interview. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson (00:09)
And I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz (00:11)
And we are thrilled to have Pete Blackshaw back with us. Pete, this is your fourth appearance, I believe, on FIR. And it’s been a while. I think is what? It was 2009, I think, was the last time. But it’s great to have you back. I’ve been following you ever since then. Certainly read your content on LinkedIn and subscribe to your newsletter. So very happy.

Pete Blackshaw (00:21)
It has been a while.

Yeah.

Shel Holtz (00:38)
Anxious to have this conversation and the reason we reached out to bring you back on FIR interviews is because of some research that you have been doing for a couple of years that has resulted in quite a LinkedIn post and a new book coming out in September. tell us about all this and yourself.

Pete Blackshaw (00:57)
Yeah, sure. Well, I’m a native Californian who’s here in kind of adopted Cincinnati as my is my home. I have kind of had a mix of is my s you know, two time startup founder, first one I sold to Nielsen, which was in that space that you and I were talking about, you know, viral complaints and early social media. And and I’ve always been, you know, if there’s any through line across my career, I’d say it’s

The consumer meets trust meets digital. And both of the books that I’ve written kind of cover that. But in addition to being a startup founder, I’ve also worked in a large lot of the large, you know, multinational corporations, you know, many of whom I’m, you know, the types of companies I’m selling to. So I co founded P and G’s first interactive marketing team. Remember when we called it that back then? I

was a senior executive at Nielsen after I we sold my first startup to them. And then most significantly I spent nine years at in Switzerland as the global head of digital for Nestle. And ironically that kind of came in the wake of a a bit of a crisis that we all remember, you know, with Greenpeace, where they kind of recruited me in to kind of help to address all of that. And then I did a five year stint

Neville Hobson (02:18)
Ha ha.

Pete Blackshaw (02:22)
after Switzerland was recruited by P and G and Kroger and some of the Cincinnati companies to launch a startup accelerator and did a little bit of work in venture capital. But I’ve loved being back in the startup world and yeah, looking forward to the conversation.

Neville Hobson (02:39)
Terrific. So we should to kind of warm us up. I’ve got a question to start with that is a very, very simple one, actually, Pete. when I was looking into the the book that you’re publishing and looking at the content, what you’re covering and all that stuff, I saw I saw some huge kind of resonance with what we talk about in FIR. And there’s a lot of overlap, which I which I found really, really exciting because that that’ll fuel some of what we’re gonna talk about today, I think. But

Pete Blackshaw (02:45)
Yeah.

Neville Hobson (03:09)
First question, which is kind of a framing question. You’ve been talking about consumer trust and digital influence since the early social media era, if not earlier than that even. So this question this is my question. What feels genuinely different about this AI moment compared with previous platform shifts?

Pete Blackshaw (03:29)
Yeah, it’s a great question. I think what’s fundamentally different this time is

Is accountability. You know, I often say that, you know, the big aha for me when I quit my last job to launch brand rank, my current startup, is that I was shortly after Chat GBT came out, kids were asleep, we were skiing, and I was just doing what I typically do, what I’m sure you guys do all the time, just exercising my curiosity. And then typing in things into ChatGBT like, can Nestle be trusted? Are Pampers diapers really sustainable?

And it dawned on me within seconds that this medium that is evolving is the world’s greatest BS detector. And and we started to see some of the platforms are really on the extreme side of that, like anthropic cloud, where you just can’t throw spinner slogans at them. They just kind of cut through it. And that was like the big unlock for me. It’s like, my gosh, this is not only gonna become a new purchase funnel.

This is going to become really tricky terrain for marketers that are used to controlling the message, managing the spin, maybe getting away with overflated claims. And and I was like, my gosh, I gotta measure this. Someone’s gonna have to create like a Nielsen ratings of what these answer engines say. And I really wanted to focus. I know there’s a lot of players that are out there doing.

you know, AEO or GEO, but I really wanted to focus on the hard issues, like, my gosh, are brands going to be held more accountable for sustainability? Are these very sophisticated LLMs going to just digest an entire supply chain and either say thumbs up or thumbs down? Are, you know, and and maybe and and maybe, just maybe, will brands finally be forced to do some of the things that you all three of us have been talking about across the four sessions.

Which is, are they finally gonna kind of start responding to feedback? Are they gonna start inviting questions? Are they gonna start acting more with empathy? Because remember, digital started there. Digital started, we called it interactive. And the whole promise was like, we’re gonna be able to answer questions for consumers. They’re gonna come to us. And I remember when I started interactive marketing at PNG, that was like the North Star. And then we kind of moved into targeted advertising at scale.

We got very programmatic, we got digital, we kind of forgot about the consumer in control. And now I think that’s really waking up. However, one of the things I say in my book is

Listen, we totally messed up search two point And I’ve talked to the folks that wrote books about that, like John Battel, or like, my gosh, that quickly became a tragedy of the commons. Nobody could tell the difference between organic and paid and and even when it moved to mobile. And we as an industry are gonna have to decide like, do we want to preserve this incredible gift to consumers? And the things that are good for consumers are also really good for business, where they’re getting, you know.

reliable, trusted, you know, answers that are just solving like everything for them. Or do we want to pollute the commons by moving too aggressively the paid advertising? Do we want to dance in the gray zone? And so the book is kind of a the answer economy is this true shift and we have got to get in front of it.

To make sure that it is nurtured in the right way. And the timing couldn’t have been better because just last week, you know, all the folks from OpenAI are running all over cons trying to grab ad dollars. And that’s that’s good. You need, you know, you need an advertising model, but marketers have a historic tendency of dancing in the gray zone. And I just think we need to really get in front of it. And that’s like the heart and soul of the answer economy. We are in a world where the brands that actually answer the questions win. It’s such a basic

pre-digital concept that now is kind of getting extra life. Brands that tell the truth win. Why? Because the answer engines kind of call your BS. you know, so so that’s kind of the heart of what I’m getting into. And I just think it’s a really important conversation. And I’m hoping that it dusts off some of these conversations that we had in the past that maybe just were too damn early.

Shel Holtz (08:06)
Yeah, I remember those days, what, around 2004, when everybody was talking about how we were now going to have brands and consumers engaged in conversation and this was going to change everything and really didn’t. But Pete, you outlined this prescription of making everything sourced, timestamped, structured, LLM findable. that’s good hygiene for sure. but you’re describing how to feed the model, the inputs it

reward. So if a brand does this well enough, hasn’t it just learned to pass Claude rather than actually be trustworthy? I mean, how how would how would Claude or or you tell the difference between a brand with real substance and a brand with just a really great brand book of truth?

Pete Blackshaw (08:50)
Yeah, well, I think a lot of that goes hand in hand if you do it right. And again, you know, there’s a difference between a verified, trustworthy book of truth and marketing. I mean, they’re not the same thing. And so what I’ve learned, you know, I’ve I’ve been at this for two years, have worked with about 80 of the world’s top brands, big brands that you know that really, you know, have really challenging issues.

In fact, the whole business model started on sustainability, you know, Nestle Canada. And I they kind of invited me in for Earth Day. And we really took a hard look at, okay, will Nestle be rewarded or punished? And the good news is that they were severely rewarded. But there are ways where you need to market. I and maybe not the word market is the wrong term. You need to make your the good work that you’re doing.

Discoverable. So for example, I have found that a lot of the companies that I’ve worked with are getting lower sustainability scores than they deserve. You know, if you look at their science and their commitments, it’s actually pretty damn good. However, they’re so backwards on digital strategy that they put all of their science in PDFs, which LLMs can’t read. And we call that content liquidity. So there’s it’s not about manipulation. It’s a lot of it is like about getting the credit that you’re due. Now, I say that.

I don’t want to sound naive with that because I realize there’s a whole industry that’s mushrooming around me that’s all about manipulation and gaming and whatever it takes to kind of get credit you probably don’t deserve. I’m not playing that game. I think there is so much upside for companies that are actually already doing good things, have products that actually work, have credible supply chains, treat their employees well, that aren’t getting the credit they deserve. And I like those.

Challenges and we’ve been able to significantly move the needle with a lot of big companies just by making sure that they load up their FAQs with their sustainability commitments that are already verified by third parties or by these LLMs are very biased towards trust signals. And so we’ve always known that quality seals, BBB, you know, fair trade,

Good housekeeping, those have always mattered, but they’re really important to the LLMs. Because if you think about what’s happening right now,

They’re in a arms race to be the single source of truth. And so they are very, very biased towards trust signals. There’s a lot of misinformation out in the marketplace that everybody goes to Reddit first. That’s not true at all. They go to the brand websites first because they know those are places where content is typically vetted, reviewed by lawyers. Brands kind of are close to their stuff and they look at that. And then if they don’t have what they want, then they’ll go to other sources.

So what marketers do, what we do is we focus on three simple metrics. And I try to, yeah, I think a lot of us in the industry are just throwing too much vernacular, too many metrics. And I try to keep it really simple. Visibility. Are you visible? So what’s the best podcast show that has to do with, you know, you know, public relations or crisis? I suspect you would probably show up. If not, then I may become your digital coach to make sure you do.

Neville Hobson (12:14)
Yeah.

Pete Blackshaw (12:15)
You know, vulnerability is the second one, which is how do you show up? And it’s different than sentiment because I often say the visibility gets you seen, vulnerability gets you remembered. And I think companies underestimate the degree to which you can be visible, but in a very negative context. And a good pre-AI example is that when I was running digital at Nestle, Wikipedia was a big pain in the butt because you type in

Nestle into Wikipedia and like 40% of the entry had to do with the company’s history with activist. And so it was like the gift that kept on punishing all the time. And so you know, A and and AI kind of compounds that it’s almost like you can’t. so that gets into misinformation, hallucination, and then what I call brand alignment, which is do the LLMs fundamentally agree with the promise that you’re putting out there on your website, your Amazon page, your TV ads?

And this is very, very humbling. Sometimes executives throw chairs at me, but that’s where the big unlock takes place. And the third area is readiness. Do you head out and market to algorithms? and then we focus on three buckets. You know, availability, do you even have available content that algorithms can read? clarity, do you speak in a consumer language? And right now, at least, they’re very biased towards conversational vernacular, which I think is good. And then the third one is depth, where

You have to have substance, the third party seals, the the validation. And so I think right now the criteria they’re using is good for the consumer, because I think it means a consumer’s more likely to get a good and a trusted response. And I think for the good actors out there that actually really that don’t BS and actually live up to their claims, I think they’re benefiting as well. but it’s gonna be very tricky environment where you’re gonna have lot of bad actors that don’t deserve to be at the top. They’re gonna

fight the bloody hell to get to the top. And there’s going to be a million vendors out there kind of say, we will get you to the top. And so it’ll be interesting. But that’s why I think we have to really think about like what this is our this is our moment right now. Like what type of digital space do we want? We messed up the previous ones. We’re 25 years into us. We still are like deluged with spam. My entire phone is loaded with artificial voices pitching me on stuff. None of them are real. And

So now we’ve got this chance to like really nurture something special. Can we do it? I don’t know.

Neville Hobson (14:42)
It’s good one. It’s a good one. Pete, one thing that really struck me is how you describe AI as an auditor rather than simply an information retrieval system. So you say, for instance, AI answer engines are now the auditors of brand credibility. We’ve talked a lot on FIR about organizations needing a human in the loop for AI. But and indeed, there are examples that are large, highly visible, very prominent of organizations who’ve really screwed up on that area.

by not having a human in the loop. But what you’re suggesting, I think, is almost the reverse. AI is now putting organizations themselves in the loop, constantly evaluating whether their behavior matches their claims. Is that how you see it?

Pete Blackshaw (15:28)
Yeah, no, it no exactly. I think the and I think there’s a number of different yeah, so what we’ll do, it’s it’s my favorite part of the model. It’s a little bit evil, but but it really is crazy insightful to clients. So we’ll take your brand promise, and every company has one, and then we’ll take like the top 10 comp claims. Oftentimes the things that you you’re sending out to the marketplace or the analyst, and we will kind of have each of the LLMs interrogate.

those claims. And then we’ll come up with scores one to ten. And it’s absolutely fascinating. And this is the ultimate unlock in understanding how the algorithm thinks. Like, you know, and and again in the book I get into all these different segments, like how does Claude think? How does Grot think? I mean, you know, right now at least, Claude is like the student radical who just is like doesn’t believe the man is like

y they’re just not gonna believe marketing whatsoever. And so I did a brand alignment test on our dashboard with Amazon. I’ve got a dashboard with Amazon. I can send it to you afterwards where I had Amazon has this statement like Earth’s most consumer centric company and then you know blah blah blah. And then I had the LLMs interrogate it and you know who gave it the lowest score? It was Claude. Claude gave it like a four out of ten.

Shel Holtz (16:47)
Claude?

Pete Blackshaw (16:51)
And then they got into all these specifics about why they simply don’t measure up. Now, the irony and the beauty of that is that, you know, Amazon is a huge partner with Claude. In fact, Claude is what undergirds Rufus or Alexa for shopping. I think Amazon’s even put some money into Claude. But, you know, this is like the beautiful irony of these, of these crazy systems. They’re kind of holding everyone accountable. And I’m like,

And what I’ve been telling brands lately is that, you know, you got to be really careful before you spend a ton of money on paid advertising, where, you know, people are just one question away from calling your BS. and then the other thing that I think is getting really tricky, and you’ll love this. One of the things that I’ve been doing lately is really telling.

Corporate communications teams, CEOs, boardrooms design for Clyde, because this is one platform that continues to grow and influence.

They act like a college radical and they are absolutely loved for better or worse by journalists, NGOs, determined detractors, yeah, financial analysts. And so I always say, like, if you can pass the Claude test, you’re probably in a good place. And I’ve actually done briefings with clients before earnings calls where I’ve literally looked at the data from like Claude, where they’re just like, no, we don’t believe it. We don’t believe it.

And they’ve almost become practice fodder to kind of figure out how do you really but the point is that yeah, we’re in this tricky environment where you got to be really accountable for what you say because these very, very smart algorithms are like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I don’t necessarily agree with you. And marketers have never lived with that type of accountability. I mean, it’s like Spin City, and I’m I’ve been part of that. And so I do think, yeah, the marketers that really have superior products can back their claims.

But they’re also gonna have to think about all these other areas that are gonna creep into the algorithmic judgment. Like I do think you talked about human in a loop, and you had a lot of CEOs. You know, you have Mark Pritchard was talking about that at Khan. I mean, I think everyone’s gonna be talking that, but these algorithms will kind of know whether you’ve completely sold everybody out to AI or whether you’ve kind of kept a blend. And I think some purchase behavior is gonna be based on that.

I mean, I could I could see I could see frustrated teenagers that are like already skeptical about AI creating shopping tools that say, I’m only gonna buy from companies that don’t go go too far on AI. It’s not difficult to hack, you know, on on one of the vibe coding tools.

Shel Holtz (19:32)
Pete, you out you outlined the the concept of a brand book of truth, mentioned that a few minutes ago, and I’d I’d I’d like you to sort of articulate what that is. But if every brand builds one and f and floods the zone with sourced timestamped LLM findable proof, does does Claude’s discernment survive that or do you end up in an arms race where the brands with the biggest content budgets win again? And

Pete Blackshaw (19:56)
I did.

Shel Holtz (20:01)
That’s the dynamic that that you’re saying is dead.

Pete Blackshaw (20:05)
Yeah, I do. I think a lot of the listen, I think some of the LLMs will submit to the chaos that you described. But I do think yeah, I think I think these, you know, it’s interesting because Claude is not as dependent on a paid ad model or getting all their money from subscriptions. So I think the ones that’ll get really trickier are are open AI and some of the other, you know, Google’s already a little bit fuzzy.

but they’re still, you know, wowing consumers with, you know, you know, AI overviews. But yeah, they’re just gonna have to be really careful about how they they blend. But I think it’s, you know, it’s a fair point. But I do think that you know, when I talk about book of truth, it’s not just the marketing slogans, it’s like how the product’s made. It is literally, is it truly superior and can you verify that?

You know, yeah, how do you stack up versus competition? Who are the people behind the brand? What’s the supply chain behind the brand? They’re kind of looking for all those different ingredients, even even for the purpose of like Amazon. I mean, this stuff is so real. I just put out a note to my clients this morning. I put a little blurb on LinkedIn as well, but

Amazon Prime Day was really insightful. I didn’t go, I couldn’t, I didn’t go to con last year, but I did stay glued for four days straight on Prime Day. And it was probably the biggest conversational boost we’ve seen in the history of commerce. Almost every single, you know, now it’s like every product you look at is surrounded by questions. I mean, what the hell’s going on? And then a lot of the you know, I’ve saw a lot of advertising trying to work into that. But on that platform, you can go in there and say, is this product sustainable or should I buy sustainable products?

Or should I I mean in and it’ll really give you very, very deep perspective before they start shoving products your way. And that is an absolute game changer. And so and I do think like the smart retailers will want to make sure that that the consumer kind of gets what they need. So so I may be, you know, long way of saying I’m optimistic. Where where it can get scary, you know, is if where everything got out of whack.

before was it Google was a monopoly and they had like 90% market share screw they can do whatever they want. I do think because you’ve got genuine competition, there is this real effort to like provide maximum value to the consumer. And that’s why I say we’re in a moment. You know, the answer economy is a moment. Either we’re gonna screw it up like we did before, or we’re gonna kind of turn it into a true win-win for consumers and business alike. But it’ll take some work to do that right.

Neville Hobson (22:53)
Interesting that is. I’ve been thinking when I listen to what you’re saying, Pete, a question I need to I I’m really curious about this because it I’ve been asking myself this question as I try to figure out where we’re at with all of this. What do you think? Could two different AI models, whether it’s Claude and ChatGPT or any any two, develop materially different views of the same company, the same brand?

What will that look like, do you think?

Pete Blackshaw (23:23)
it I I do this every day for clients. I we literally kind of give them we filter them through all the major LLMs, you know, from ChatGBT to Deep Seat to Perplexity and Grok. They all have different personalities. It’s no different than going after influencers, right? And influencers kind of, you know, they beat to different drummers. And so and and again, I would say Claude is the extreme librarian. They just don’t like marketing BS. They kind of just focus on the facts.

The credentialing, the science. you know, Grok is almost like hard to predict. And they do lean on a lot of the former tweets that kind of fall into it. but they are a little bit, they’re definitely they almost like personify not the politics of Elon Musk, but definitely like the almost like the unpredictable side of him and what you see. It’s like a different personality.

Gemini still, you know, you know, it’s it’s you know, the the it depends on if you’re looking at Gemini AI overviews. I mean, they all have different thinking processes in terms of the way they synthesize data, but absolutely, and I would say the new, you know, just in the same way that like a PR term might you might say we gotta we’ve gotta figure out how to break through the New York Times, the Financial Times.

And so and so you gotta think the same way. It’s like they they they think differently, they source differently. And so this is I spent the whole weekend doing this fascinating source analysis where I looked at, you know, tens of thousands of prompts and then I analyzed the sources and they have different favorites. And just recently the New York Times is finally starting to to creep into open AI, which does start to impact the character of their output.

You know, Claude tends to look a little bit more seriously at consumer reports than Joe’s review site. And so you have to know this. I mean, this is like the new PR. This is like the new influencer management. If you do not know how these LLMs think, if you don’t know what their brand archetype is, if you don’t know what they eat for breakfast from a content perspective, you’re not on top of what your client needs, in my view.

Shel Holtz (25:42)
I have a follow up to that question. Does does does this mean a brand needs to have a message strategy for every LLM or is there a through line that satisfies them all?

Pete Blackshaw (25:44)
Yeah.

Know if they have to have different messages, but they need to be very attentive to how they are filtered. I do think all the LLMs, like for example, in my analysis this weekend, they all pay a lot of attention to your brand website. Far more than I think the media has let on. And I know because I’ve just run like a million audits and I see this all the time. And so

Brands have a lot of leverage in influencing the story, especially when there’s bad information out there and the brand website or the own media is in a position to kind of correct the record. And we’ve done some really interesting work around crisis or recalls where some brands have been able to actually train the LLMs within 12, 24 hours based on getting that right information in there. But but yeah, I mean you’ve got

So I don’t think brands need to overcustomized. I think they need to be very, you know. I mean, if I were, you know, if I were heading corporate communications today, I would probably say, yeah, there’s some that I would focus on the ones that are most critical. You know, and the the ones that are most critical often have also tend to be the most loved by other influencers.

that we care about, like journalists and NGOs and the like. And so, so that’s where I would kind of put the focus on in that. Now, now that said, they’re all going to be introducing, with the exception of Claude, advertising models. And so those will be micro opportunities to influence. And we saw, you know, a lot of that, you know, OpenAI is already doing a lot of that. And there’s gonna be, you’re gonna have they’re gonna have to study like, you know,

Is it appropriate to advertise? I do have a strong point of view there that if you have high vulnerability, you shouldn’t advertise. If you have low vulnerability but low visibility, I’d say, yeah, spend all the money you want on advertising. But brands are gonna have to be really sensitive about they’re gonna have to learn the art of not making things worse. And I don’t think brands, I mean, again, going back to the conversations that we’ve had for 20 years, brands don’t know how to manage conversations. I mean, they’re like, I mean, they’re like.

Most brands are maybe are barely there on like the first question. But in the answer economy, I have this term that I use in the book called ask through, not click-through. Click through is like if I can just get that one click. You and I know we’re we’re using these tools all the time. It’s a sequence of questions. You go in there with a health query, and it’s like multiple. And every single additional question that’s satisfied that gets you further down the sail.

Or further down the path of happiness. And like brands don’t know how to do that at all. and so, but the the second you submit to these ad models where you’re sitting right in the middle of the prompt, you almost have to figure that you always have to know that stuff. So this is gonna be really tricky. It’s not gonna be one of those push a button kind of get media. You know, there’s gonna be a whole accountability that comes with it when you’re kind of in the answer stream.

Neville Hobson (29:05)
Hmm. Let’s I let me talk go back to I I guess something we discussed just a short while ago. In fact, Shel’s question about should brands ever tailor themselves differently for different models, which I if I understood you right, Pete, you basically say that’s ultimately a dead end, not really what what what they should be doing. So I’m thinking you mentioned Claude hates marketing BS or corporate spin or whatever whatever it might be.

and you describe the models like Claude or like Grok, etc., almost as having editorial personalities or or value systems. But that’s fascinating, I think, because I’ve sometimes questioned that myself, because organizations, brand managers have spent years trying to create one consistent narrative about their brand or or their organization. So I think

The question I had originally was worded are we, in other words of question. I think it’s more like we are as opposed to are we, which is entering a world where communicators have to understand not just audiences, but different AI worldviews. And I think it’s it it is interesting. my experience in this is not deliberate trying to get an answer to this, but I use myself usually a mixture between Claude and Chat GPT. So I I alternate between the two.

Claude is more rounded and rich because I fed it with so much information about who I am, a lot more than ChatGPT has. That I I I’m okay with I’m literally asking vague questions a lot of the time, and it never disappoints my experience so far. Chat GPT needs a little bit more nurturing in that regard, although it does surprise me at times with the depth of answers I get to some things when I’m doing research. So I guess I I

confuse myself even because I have no idea what the answer to this is. But I think it is something communicators should think about. Those who haven’t settled on one, you know, notwithstanding the topic Shawn and I’ve talked about recently where, you know, shadow AI is is growing like crazy in companies as people use their own thing, ignore what the what the company says. So it what what would you what would your advice be to communicators in this earth? Yeah.

Pete Blackshaw (31:25)
No, it this is the new this is the new you’re knowing it. I mean, this is the new influencer

marketing, right? That’s always been at the core of like issues management and communication and and you know, you have to know your influencer, you have to know their hot buttons, you have to know their biases, you gotta know you know, how they evolve and there is a lot of evolution and and again this is where I think we may find a year from now that hey, you know.

They’re patty cakes with brands because they want the ad dollars. Who knows? I don’t know. But but yeah, and so and brands need to think this through. And I didn’t want you to think you made the comment about dead end. I I obsess with the nuances of the platforms, but I’m not convinced brands need to over tailor the message to different…

I again I think there’s a few where they gotta be really careful about the BS factor, like anthropic, where it’s just they just gotta make sure that their claims can hold water with these judges and these filters that are processing their their information. And I think I really think brands are just they’re not ready. In fact, what I’ve concluded is that across all the major, you know, Fortune 1000 companies, they’re only like 20% AI ready.

I mean, the most obvious thing is, you know, and sometimes companies get, you know, annoyed with me. And I have been doing this all the way back from my plan of feedback days, but like most companies cannot answer questions. I mean, you can go go to your after this podcast, go to your favorite brands and like type in a really basic question, like, how do I use the product? What’s in the product? Is it sustainable? But 90% of the time they’re gonna slap you in the face with a pop-up ad. They’re not gonna, they’re either gonna fire a blank.

Or they’re gonna answer something completely differently. Like brands don’t know how to do this. In the last 25 years of digital, the most basic human need of interactivity, I want to question brands can’t do it, including the big ones. They get all the awards and spend all the money. It’s crazy. And there’s a lot of people on the inside that are like, hey, that doesn’t matter, that doesn’t pay out. Or consumer services was always considered a non-strategic call cost center.

But again, I’m sort of saying the answer economy, that’s the new purchase funnel. Like this is the new skill that we need to learn. So it’s not only how to influence the algorithms, it’s almost like how do we fundamentally change our mindset where we’re more receivers of intent. And then we have to use that as the new engagement. You know, to some extent, when someone casts Amazon’s CEO had a great quote that everybody in marketing should put on their forehead, where he basically said it was so beautifully simple.

Neville Hobson (33:59)
Mm-hmm.

Pete Blackshaw (34:12)
He was doing an earnings call and he’s talking about the progress of Amazon Rufus, which I think at that time was already generating like $10 billion in incremental sales. And he said, Hey, it’s pretty simple. Every consumer that asks one question is 60% more likely to buy. And this is almost like the North Star that brands have always been looking for in terms of engagement, right? A click half the time you’re trying to get rid of the brand, right? So get out of my face. A question is like a big lean in.

Where if you can’t convert that. And so I think brands need to understand that, like, you know, inviting the consumer to ask a question, making the website more receptive to questions, not only wins with the consumer, but it builds your database to feed LLMs. You know, because where brands are underrepresented in all the LLMs, if they that book of truth is partly an inventory issue. It’s like you have to have enough.

Scenarios, you know, how to use the product, what’s it made of, blah, blah, blah, to even start to market the algorithms. And brands don’t do that. They you’re lucky if you see maybe 20 FAQs. And of course, brands could be problem solvers for like a million things if you do it right. Tech companies are very good. So I’m I I want to be careful here. Tech companies, I think, are very good. Apple has a fantastic and have for many years, pre-AI, have just

Bent over backwards to make content available when you have a challenge. And that’s why almost every app Apple question you ask through an LLM is like pretty much right. Same thing with Microsoft. I think tech companies have always been good at having a lot of FAQs and knowledge. Bigger brands that spend the big bucks on the Super Bowl are really, really, I gotta be careful what I say, have opportunities.

Shel Holtz (36:08)
Yeah.

Pete, in in chapter nine, see, I I actually went through the book, y you argue that the next big comms crisis isn’t going to be a social media firestorm, but an AI generated answer, a brand can’t correct. because the infrastructure for rebuttal was never built. This is really interesting. I was just on a panel in Covington, Kentucky, by the way. If I’d known you were in Cincinnati, I’d have given you a call. where

Pete Blackshaw (36:33)
no way.

Shel Holtz (36:37)
We talked about pre bunking as a way to address crises, that you’ve all got all this content out there already. but y you’re saying the crisis is going to come because they haven’t done this. The con the content isn’t there to rebut what the the LLM is is saying. Can you walk me through what that crisis actually looks like and why the old crisis playbook is not gonna be effective in these circumstances?

Pete Blackshaw (36:55)
Yeah.

One of the big issues that I’ve had with a lot of our top clients is about kind of crisis and governance, which is that

You know, winning with answers is a governance issue. And it’s a big reason why I’m been really hesitant to

you know, suggests that this is all about SEO 2.0 or this is something that the search manager deals with. I mean, and you know, if your brand is as strong as your answers, a lot of people are implicated. And I think where companies really struggle in crisis is figuring out who owns it and who’s accountable.

And I do think, you know, I do make a pretty strong pitch in the book that brands have really got need to get in front of this. And, you know, there is a there’s an accountability. Like the they’re they’re bullshit detectors, who’s accountable? they’re kind of saying your products aren’t made the way you claim. Who’s accountable? there’s there’s all sorts of legal liability issues, and I think we are just in the very early stages. At some point you’ll need to interview my

My co-founder Hank Hudipol, who’s doing some really breakthrough breakthrough work around hallucination and accuracy. But you’ve got states that are now filing laws that if if the answer comes out wrong, even through an LLM, you are liable. Think about that in the health zone, right? And so so who so who is responsible? Is that the marketing team? Is that so there’s a you know, I think brands need to start thinking now, and I’m having a lot of leadership meetings and summits on this topic, they’ve really got to figure out the governance area here. And, you know, and it’s one reason why we’re trying to keep the metrics relatively simple so they really have a clear eye into what’s going on. It’s a big reason why we put almost I’d say vulnerabilities is kind of at the top of the list. But let me tell you what you get if you have governance. So without naming names, yeah, we work with some brands that have had

Very, very severe crisis issues where misinformation is even from the government is kind of stirring up the pot in terms of, you know, how the answer engines. And you’ve just you’ve got to get RD to the table, you gotta get legal compliance, marketing, even the CEO, you know, they need to kind of play a critical role. And the good news is there is I’ve done a lot of boardroom discussions and

There’s a lot of heightened sensitivity when a CEO says, My daughter just typed in this and they say we’re this. And they’re like, Why the hell is that? And who’s responsible? So But yeah, these these issues are really, really tricky, and a lot of stakeholders need to come together. And and that is and I think it’ll probably be a little bit blurry in terms of who owns it. Like right now, brands have these AI

Heads of AI. I don’t know if those jobs will last very long. Sometimes you know are they gatekeepers, are they enablers? Are they just, you know, I mean AI is now kind of part of everything. So I think who owns what will be a bit fluid for the coming years.

Neville Hobson (40:17)
Yeah, that’s that’s really good. I think it is. Yep. So it actually interesting Pete what you’re saying, listening listening to how you describe it it amazes me how some companies just are so off the trail with with a lot of what they need not to be in that position. They need to to truly pay attention to where this is all going. And we’ve mentioned this in a number of episodes where we could

Pete Blackshaw (40:24)
That helpful?

Neville Hobson (40:51)
you know, share many examples of where we see instances where that is simply not happening. so let’s talk about AI agents. Yeah. Mm.

Pete Blackshaw (40:58)
But but in fair but in fairness, in fairness.

Let’s just put this in perspective. We’re still only what a little over three years into this. I mean, we’re up to like five billion prompts a day, and this stuff started three years ago. So yeah, companies are always gonna be slow. But the good news with this, I do feel like

There’s a feeling of a sense of urgency. Like there it’s it’s a bit of an shit moment. Like we’ve got to figure this out. And so and then, you know, how do you, you know, how do you really capitalize on this? And even it’s funny, like launching a startup, the one thing you dread is like, my gosh, it’s gonna take forever to get to get a vendor number. And we’ve had some companies that typically take like three years to get a little small startup in Cincinnati a vendor number to literally three weeks. So I do think there’s

There’s a memo, there’s a bell that’s ringing inside the organization. It’s like, shit, the purchase funnel has changed. we are really accountable. Every stock analyst is now digging up dirt on us. Or good news, through these tools, we’ve got to act. Then they’re like, Well, who owns this? Is it wait? It’s digital, right? No, well, wait, maybe it’s RD because they’ve got the most substance, you know, to kind of put to the table, but we don’t really think about them as marketing.

Neville Hobson (41:55)
Mm mm.

Pete Blackshaw (42:22)
Or may is it sales? You know, it’s just like it’s a bit of a cluster right now, but it’s a good conversation. Companies really haven’t had this discussion in earnest for a long time. I think digital is a little is like conveniently tucked into marketing. And now you’ve got a whole different world order that companies need to think through. And it’s gonna be a really big test for like CEOs out there. Who gets it? Who you know, CEOs are gonna play a critical role in orchestrating this stuff. And

And, you know, we’ve been working with a few companies that I won’t name where the CEOs have made a massive difference and in kind of leading, you know, organizations where nobody’s really accountable for doing it to like getting organized around it.

Neville Hobson (43:08)
Yeah. I’d love to hear more stories of people, you know, organizations who really are on the ball with all this because I’m getting tired of hearing all the stories about these companies who are not. They’ve the not that they’ve dropped the ball, they haven’t even grasped the ball yet. In fact, Shel and I’ve talked on a couple of episodes, two conflicting surveys. One about how CEOs are are really coming to the fore and taking control of developing AI rollouts in their in their companies.

and are providing leadership and are doing all these things. Then another survey has completely conflicting information to them. So I mean you just gotta go visit LinkedIn and you’ll see conflicts all over the place, including everyone’s got an e book they want to sell you. That’s that’s the kind of magic, magic bullet handbook.

Pete Blackshaw (43:52)
It depends on how you

classify it. Yeah, I’ve I’ve read all those studies too and you know, and and my view is like a lot of this is it’s is it an AI strategy or it’s something you should have been doing a while ago? So I posted something last week, you know, and you know, almost as a little bit of a counterpoint to the con lions, because I was kind of like, why don’t they ever give love or rewards or recognition to brands that just answer the boring question?

Neville Hobson (44:05)
Right, right.

Pete Blackshaw (44:22)
Right. At some point we’re just gonna say, God, that brand really went out of went out of their way. We should have a recognition. So I just created what I called, you know, the answer cans. And so and I started like and and I and I cited some of the companies that I wrote about in the book that and I don’t even think they use the word AI. Like, yeah, w what do you think is one of the most the best index companies on the web right now in in AI that just shows up consistently.

Neville Hobson (44:34)
Yeah.

Pete Blackshaw (44:49)
Well, I’ll give you a little hint. So if you ask anything related to like sustainability, like what company shows up first?

It’s like Patagonia. They’re everywhere. They’re everywhere. Now, I don’t, I doubt they even use the word AI there. You know, but they have been absolutely committed to driving radical transparency in their products, flooding their content with meaningful content. and they have been training the LLMs for years. Sephora, a brand in beauty that’s always been very

Neville Hobson (44:59)
Okay.

Pete Blackshaw (45:26)
Come to the calendar and I will answer you questions. I think that that model lives in the way they approach digital as well. They are severely rewarded by the LLMs. I mentioned a few of the the the I mentioned a few of the tech companies that do that particularly well. A lot of young companies that don’t have big bucks for advertising, they are very intuitive about.

Everybody that goes on my website could be my last customer. So let’s just give them the love of knowledge, of guidance, whatever they want. They are being disproportionately benefited. In fact, one of the things that I have found is that and I work with a lot of big companies that own massive budget. I’ve consistently found that, you know, for big companies, market share under indexes, over, you know, over indexes answer share.

Which means that the younger companies are actually they’re kind of winning on answer share, partly just because they’re it’s not like that they’re trying to spike the system. They’re just wired to answering questions. And so this is where the the the thesis of the book is really simple. I’m almost trying to say this without all the buzzwords and the tech gobbledygook. It’s sort of like if you treat the consumer, you know, if you kind of

Create a bit of a Wikipedia to kind of help the consumer answer every question, you will win big time in the AI world. I have seen that correlation left and right. Instead, most brands make it really complicated. We need an AI strategy. We need an AI strategy for the AI strategy we need. They create all these damn layers. And then you go to their website and they still can’t answer a question. And so this is why it’s almost like forcing the question. It’s like, you know.

The answer economy, not the AI world, the answer economy. And so we’ll see if I’m successful or not.

Shel Holtz (47:24)
All of this when I picture somebody actually doing the things that you talk about, not not from the brand perspective, but from the consumers perspective, I see them going to a chatbot and and entering a question. Sam Altman has been laser focused on the transition from conversational assistance, the chat bots, toward autonomous workflow executing agents. and he says this is a shift you’re going to see.

in the front end of Chat GPT. God knows I spend as much time in Claude Cowork as I as I spend in Claude. what is this shift toward agents, assuming all of the LLMs move in this direction, what does that do to this whole concept?

Pete Blackshaw (48:12)
Yeah, listen, I mean, I write about it a lot in the book and you know, the the tet the subtitle is, you know, how AI agents will decide your brand’s future. yeah, so a lot’s gonna be delegated, but I don’t think it’s gonna I I think there’s a little bit of overhyping that consumers are gonna completely like delegate everything to agencies. I’m not. And and I frankly, I enjoy, you know, the ask through of asking health questions. It’s sort of like, you know, and so I don’t, you know, there are gonna be certain areas where we’re gonna be totally comfortable with like

Delegating the agents, or there are other areas where we’re just gonna wanna be more in control of it. And so, but I don’t think what I’ve said earlier.

impacts any of that. I would say that i in an agentic world, brands still need to catalog their truth and make it marketable and make it visible. And and and you could almost argue that it’s going to be more important to get your act together on marketing the algorithms. Cause here’s one of the things that’s going to be really, really tricky for brands, especially in like these industries that I’ve worked in, like consumer goods and

Food is the algorithms have a very strong bias towards store brands and private label. Now it’s not because they’re tilting the scale in their favor. It’s just that in an agentic world, think about what consumers are going to do. They’re almost going to be brand agnostic. And they say, give me good product at a good price for my family of four, right?

And they’re they might even set a spec, like it’s gotta have X percent product performance. And then the algorithms are gonna do their homework and they’re come back and they say Kirkland. And then they’re gonna be saying Kirkland, Walmart equate. Because you’re gonna find that these store brands where where the and retailers are getting really good at volunteering what their products do, even their green scores, where you know, if you if we overdelegate to agents, I do think brands are in for a really rude awakening that a lot of the

Neville Hobson (49:54)
Mm-hmm.

Pete Blackshaw (50:13)
Grocery lists are full of private label. you know, where it may be the Kirkland product may be 90% of the product superiority of the comparable brand, but at like half the price. And so this is where, you know, so brands, so what brands are gonna have to do, whether they’re preparing for tough questions from consumers like us, or preparing for these agents that are gonna go looking for relevant data to kind of render a judgment, they’re still gonna have to train them.

They’re gonna have to really think about, you know, how to do that the right way. Now we may see different things evolve. Like I’ve talked a lot about the word rep website. I’m probably gonna write a column that suggests that maybe we need a new name called, you know, like a an inventory locker that’s kind of like very, very agent, agent, agent friendly. But but yeah, I think I think brands, yeah, everybody’s waxing poet have got agents, but I keep reminding brands like careful what you ask for on this one.

because you are not prepared and you are going to be really, really surprised at what these agents are recommending. And you’re going to probably lose even more control. So brands are going to have to really think about that one carefully.

Neville Hobson (51:24)
So to that point then, if AI agents increasingly recommend products, services, suppliers, even employers, companies to work for, for instance, what happens to traditional brand marketing?

Pete Blackshaw (51:38)
Well, think it’s gonna have to wrap around a lot of that. I mean these some of you know, listen, I mean branding has always been in the you know, content marketing’s been a big thing well before AI, but they will have to, you know, keep doing some of that, but they may need to dial down the BS factor, they may need to dial down the hyperbole, they may have to dial down the exaggeration.

I mean, here’s one of the things that’s happening. You’ve got two very interesting trends going on. You’ve got the answer economy, you got the creator economy. Everybody at con was gaga about the creator economy. And there’s no question the creator economy is creating massive reach. But hey, one of the interesting things about the creator economy, they do not index in answer engines. Maybe a little bit meta because they’ve got tick to they’ve got, you know, Instagram and but generally, you know, the creators are not getting the love from the answer engines. And why is that?

I think they’re very hesitant. There tends to be a lot of hyperbole and a exaggeration among the crater economy about what the products do. And I think and and sometimes they’re paid, but they’re not disclosed. And so it’s just it’s just it’s a it’s a less it’s a complicated area for the algorithms to kind of take seriously. And so I just think, you know, all these things are gonna have to be really, really carefully thought, you know, thought through, you know, as pr as brands try to

Neville Hobson (52:35)
Hm.

Pete Blackshaw (53:00)
You know, you know, I th I I probably haven’t used the word trust enough. I think what’s gonna be more important than ever goes back to our very, very conver very first conversation when we’re talking about the the rise of blogs. But yeah, brand trust will be critical. And I do think the brands that really think hard about what that means are gonna win. And I know brand trust tends to be a little fluffy. Every I’ve even had investors like, what the hell? How the hell the hell does trust sell cases? But we all know that.

Trust is the currency of advertising in all relationships. And I think AI is just gonna magnify that in a big way. So brands are probably gonna have to really double down in that particular area.

Shel Holtz (53:43)
What about B to B? is is it the same situation? do they need to think differently? No different.

Pete Blackshaw (53:47)
No different.

No different. I mean, every B2B supplier is using Chat GBT to vet other suppliers to vet. If anything, I think B2B is gonna get a massive turbocharge. I do think AI systems are, you know, you know, I I have to worry about that too. It’s like I got RFPs with other, you know, big companies, and you know, they’re kind of using AI to basically kind of, you know, do their research on us versus competition, but

No, I think it’s it’s kinda shy. I mean, I and I’ve done scorecards. I’ve done I have all sorts of indexes that I’ve created, including a B to B one on what are the best vendors across all these different areas, who shows up, who doesn’t. And now there may be certain my guess isn’t on the B to B side, Claude will again probably be the one that is most most focused on. Actually I th I think copilot isn’t bad either, but

But yeah, there probably will be some favorites that the procurement officers use as they’re trying to figure out who’s the right vendor that’s that’s that’s out there. But zero difference in my view.

Neville Hobson (54:55)
Hm. Okay. So what would you advise communication professionals to start doing differently tomorrow morning?

Pete Blackshaw (55:03)
Well, I think they need to look in the mirror, which is, you know, an AI is a mirror and they should, you know, really get their organization internalizing this new reality that your brand is as strong as its answers and these new influencers are shaping their answers. And so I would number two, I would tell every communications professional that they have more leverage than they realize. That brand website, especially the corporate website, which I think generally are more optimized for curiosity than brand sites. Brand sites are very optimized for conversion.

If you go to a corporate site, you know, Nestle.com, I think they’ve done a really, really good job. They even have a section called Ask Nestle, which I love, and have encouraged them to kind of take to the next level. But all that probably is more valuable than it was a year ago. And I would I wouldn’t, you know, and I think some of those things are underfunded. some of them are afterthoughts. Some of those are like, that’s the brochure, but that is really.

powerful. And I also think corporate communications in particular has a lot of leverage to lead because it’s really hard to get like fifty brands within the franchise to kind of like get their act together. And I do think the book of truth may be best developed at the corporate level. But then again, it has to be tomorrow’s definition of corporate communications. I think if you ask brands, they’d say corporate communications is is backwards. They slow things down.

They’re naysayers. They’re not a progressive force in the organization. They’re overly conservative. And if I were heading corporate communications, I would be, no, no, no, no, no. We can actually, we are the lever to win in the answer economy. We have always been sensitive about substance, you know, you know, doing what we say, checking off the compliance boxes. Those, those are all the things that really matter to the LLMs. So yeah, if I were giving that that.

Neville Hobson (56:44)
Mm.

Pete Blackshaw (57:10)
that college football speech to, you know, corporate communications, I would be saying, My friends, this is your day. And let’s look in the mirror and let’s go. And let’s make our CEO a hero because, you know, the the the stakes are going to go up. We’re not going to get the credit we deserve unless we’re more proactive. But we can. Something like that.

Shel Holtz (57:30)
Yeah, remember Richard Edelman saying that about social media and it just didn’t happen. Pete, you probably remember from your previous appearances that we always end with the same question, and that is what didn’t we ask that we probably should have, or that you were expecting us to?

Neville Hobson (57:31)
Yeah.

Pete Blackshaw (57:48)
gosh, what didn’t you ask?

I don’t know. Fair You you do I was surprised you didn’t ask, so Pete did you use AI to help write your book? You know.

Shel Holtz (58:02)
Yeah.

Neville Hobson (58:04)
But

but but you did. In fact, you got a really good page in the in the galleys that I saw explain yeah. Yeah, i that is super what you wrote, really, really and truly. It a it adds

Pete Blackshaw (58:08)
Did you like that? I love that page. I love that.

I love that. And I

did well the funny thing is like I’ve been listening, I mean, you know, sometimes I’ll take a chapter, throw it in a clod and say, Tell I’m fully shit. You know, it’s like but it was all me, but it did help me navigate. And I have this term that I use called dog walk journalism. I’ll take my dog on a walk and I’ll bark out my random thoughts. And AI is wonderful at connecting the first thought with the last thought and kind of giving you a starting point. But but I did have this really intense editor, her name was Angela Morrison.

And she was actually the editor, the partner to William Sapphire, who wrote the column on language. So she was really good. She had this really intense long island draw. And she’s Pete, don’t take it personally, but I am totally blunt. But my gosh, she like took me to town on indefinite pronouns. I thought I felt like I had never learned writing, but that was like the great, it was like a great human in the loop epiphany because she was hitting things that even the LLMs

Neville Hobson (58:59)
Yeah.

Shel Holtz (59:04)
Ha ha ha.

Pete Blackshaw (59:12)
Could not catch. And I I was reading the book. I was like, my God, I’m so blessed to have had a really good editors. So

Shel Holtz (59:19)
If I ever work with her, I’ll

Neville Hobson (59:20)
Brilliant.

Shel Holtz (59:21)
be sure to have my copies strunken white by my side.

Pete Blackshaw (59:24)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. And if you know of any, you know, you guys bump into all sorts of folks and cor my one of my goals, I really want to wake up a lot of corporate communications departments. That’s that’s my sweet spot. I’ve always loved the balance of brand defense and offense. But the offense, the defense side is I I think more urgent and more challenging. So yeah, as you know, you know, I’m doing a lot of I’ll be doing a lot of wake up calls, speeches and workshops. But yeah, if you know folks that need the help, let me know.

Shel Holtz (59:53)
And how can people get in touch with you?

Pete Blackshaw (59:56)
just Pete at brandrank.ai or the answer economy dot com. or they just type my name into an answer engine and you know they can they can they can vet me first and but yeah, it’s in in I’ll I’ll give it to you as well when you advertise the the the the the podcast. But yeah, it was great talking to you guys. I miss I miss our conversations.

Neville Hobson (1:00:16)
Guys.

Yeah, likewise. That was good. Appreciate it.

Shel Holtz (1:00:22)
Yeah, thanks so much, Pete.

Pete Blackshaw (1:00:23)
You bet. Always.

The post AI, trust and the answer economy – Pete Blackshaw on the future of brand credibility appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Everyone from CEOs to politicians has been talking about the likelihood of AI-related job loss, and several companies have already let people go in anticipation that AI can do their work. Ford Motor Company is the latest to rehire those workers when AI proved inadequate for the job. Elsewhere, many of the managers who have let people go regret their decisions, and some companies are revising their hiring plans. To remedy the chaos, Neville and Shel discuss the importance of strategy and knowledge management systems, among other things.

Links from this episode:

• ‘Talent refresh’ | Ford rehires human staff after AI quality-check tools fail to deliver
• Ford rehires human engineers after AI fails to match quality checks
• Return of the ‘greybeards’: AI backfired – so Ford had to rehire humans
• Ford Has Been Rehiring Quality Inspectors After AI Fell Short
• Ford rehires ‘greybeards’ after AI tech fails to deliver

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, July 27.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Shel Holtz
Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 521 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz

Neville Hobson
And I’m Neville Hobson. Here’s a story that should make every one of us pause before we get too comfortable handing things over to AI. Ford, the automaker, has just rehired somewhere between three hundred and three hundred and fifty veteran engineers. Note the word rehired. The company had let them go in recent years as it leaned into AI-driven quality checks. Ford calls them greybeard engineers. That’s not a throwaway nickname. It’s the whole point of the story. These are the people with decades of experience across multiple product cycles, and Ford let a lot of them go only to discover it needed them back because the AI wasn’t working the way Ford expected. We’ll look into what happened right after this Charles Poon, Ford’s vice president of vehicle hardware engineering, put it plainly on a call with reporters. Here’s what he said: “Mistakenly, we thought that by just introducing artificial intelligence and ingesting the design requirements that we had, that would produce a high-quality product.” Think about that for a moment. Ford didn’t skip a step. They fed the AI everything that was written down, every design requirement, every documented specification. It still wasn’t enough. And it wasn’t just one system. Ford had installed around nine hundred AI-assisted cameras on the production line specifically to catch quality issues. Nine hundred cameras, and still they couldn’t replace the trained eye of an experienced technician who knows what a problem looks like before it becomes a visible defect. Ford’s chief operating officer, Kumar Galhotra, added more context. He said the company had been leaning more and more on automated quality systems, and the results were disappointing. Teams across software, hardware, manufacturing, and supply chain had also been working in isolation from each other, which meant defects were being caught late and fixed under pressure rather than prevented early. Galhotra described this as a find and fix mentality that Ford is now trying to move away from towards genuinely preventing problems before they start. The returning engineers sit right at the center of that shift. They now run mandatory weekly quality and design reviews, hunting for failure points before a single part reaches the factory floor And here’s the part I think matters most for us. A lot of the people who held that hard-won judgment had already walked out the door to suppliers, to retirement before anyone at Ford thought to capture what was in their heads. Poon admitted as much. “Over prior years, we didn’t pay as much attention as we should have to the experience of our most knowledgeable engineers who have been with us through many product cycles,” he said. So Ford had to buy that expertise back three years into this process at real cost. Was it worth it? By Ford’s own numbers, yes. The company has just topped the J.D. Power Initial Quality Survey for mainstream brands for the first time since twenty-ten. That’s sixteen years. CEO Jim Farley says the rehired engineers are already contributing what he called literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in savings, largely through reduced warranty and recall costs. Ford’s even projecting around a billion dollars in cost reduction this year on the back of this quality push. Now, here’s a tension worth sitting with. This is the same Jim Farley who said publicly on other occasions that AI is gonna replace rough-roughly half of all white-collar jobs. And yet here’s his own vice president standing in front of journalists explaining that Ford’s entire quality turnaround depended on bringing back the very human expertise the company thought it could do without. To be clear, this isn’t really a story about AI failing and humans winning. Ford isn’t walking away from AI. Those returning engineers aren’t just doing inspections. They’re training junior staff, and they’re reprogramming the AI tools themselves, feeding them the judgment that design requirements alone couldn’t capture. It’s a hybrid fix, not a retreat. But for anyone in our line of work, comms, knowledge management, anyone thinking about where AI fits into institutional expertise, there’s a sharp lesson underneath all of this. Documentation isn’t the same as judgment, and once the people carrying that judgment are gone, you don’t get it back for free or quickly or easily. I think there’s a bigger question here, too, about how organizations are handling this handover between human expertise and automation, and whether Ford’s experience is a one-off or a warning sign for a lot more companies than just car manufacturers. Shel

Shel Holtz
Yeah, I think it is a warning sign. But I, I don’t think it’s a trend necessarily, the idea that AI AI layoffs are being reversed everywhere. Yeah I’d just be careful about overstating that. There’s really only a handful of well-documented company examples of this. I think it’s easier to say that the way many organizations overestimated how quickly AI could substitute for the experienced judgment of their staff, I think that’s a reasonable way to look at it. Increasing number are recalibrating toward AI human collaboration rather than there are examples though. IBM has reversed course. They didn’t rehire the same people, but they’ve really reversed course on this whole replacement idea. An AI system deployed to take over HR work handled about 94% of incoming requests, but the 6% it couldn’t resolve including situations in- involving ethical judgment, really revealed the limits of all of this into the hands of a large language model. And then the company announced that it planned to triple its US entry-level hiring this year. That’s a pretty significant reversal. Klarna’s the one that … that’s the poster child for all of this. They were one of the first to announce that they were going to replace their customer service with AI. A year later their CEO publicly reversed course, admitting that customer experience had gone down the tank, quality had fallen the company had over-prioritized cost savings which most companies seem to be doing. They’re looking at cost savings and not other ways AI could really improve things or even help the organization grow and that human customer service remained essential. So they went back to hiring customer service representatives, and they expanded their human support. They la- even reassigned engineers and marketers into customer support roles while they were busy rebuilding the support organization that they had decimated. CEO, I think it was he who was quoted saying, “Cost, unfortunately, seems to have been too predominant evaluation factor.” that said I think it is worth noting that according to one research organization, I hadn’t heard of them before, but OrgView, 39% of business leaders made employees redundant due to AI deployment, and among that number, 55% admit that wrong decisions about those redundancies made, 32% of US hiring managers said they eliminated a role primarily due to AI later rehired for the same or similar positions, that according to Robert Half. This is definitely something we need to be looking at. I think what Ford has done is, as you say a warning sign, but I don’t think there’s a clear trend yet that people who off in order to accommodate AI are suddenly reversing and rehiring yet

Neville Hobson
No, I agree. That doesn’t seem to be a trend. What is a trend is the laying off element of it as opposed to rehiring. So the… I think there, there’s a good question for our audience in all of this. How many organizations right now are automating roles without first extracting what the people they’re letting go know, their knowledge? Ford’s mistake wasn’t using AI, I mentioned earlier. It was letting the knowledge holders leave before capturing anything from them. That’s a sequencing failure, not a technology failure. So is knowledge capture before AI rollout ever ac-actually built into transformation plans, I wonder? Or is it always an afterthought that only gets addressed once something breaks?

Shel Holtz
It’s an interesting question.

Neville Hobson
Yeah.

Shel Holtz
when we first started this show 21 years ago, knowledge management was a big issue, and we talked about knowledge management and knowledge management systems, and they have fallen by the wayside even though there are still efforts to build them out. I think the need for clean, consistent data in order to run AI inside your organization is bringing the idea back, although not with the kind of notoriety that it had. There were books being written about knowledge management back 20, 20 years ago. But knowledge capture is an interesting thing because, there’s so much ta- tacit knowledge walks out the door and goes home every night. It’s not implicit knowledge that you can store in a database, and this was the problem with knowledge management systems, right? Is you’re trying to capture tacit knowledge, and it had to be tagged, which meant the people looking for it had to know which tag was used in order to retrieve it. That knowledge could be sitting there, but if you’re searching with the wrong tag, you’ll never find it. So it, it remains a challenge how to do this. I remember one effort at knowledge capture. Was it Intel? I’m gonna struggle to remember, but it was an early wiki where people would just leave their knowledge that occurred to them. “Oh, this is how you do this,” and they were trying to capture it that way. I don’t know if that’s still around. I never hear about it anymore. I- like I expect, I can’t even remember for sure what company it was, but have been efforts at this.

Neville Hobson
Yeah

Shel Holtz
and with the AI situation and companies like Ford finding the knowledge isn’t there once the people leave and the AI isn’t equipped to handle everything just based on was in the databases that it had been fed, I think we’re gonna have to revisit this whole idea of knowledge management and get it right this time because it’s still far from perfect

Neville Hobson
Yeah. Thinking about Jim Farley and what he said that AI will replace half of white-collar work, while his own VP describes a turnaround built on rehiring the humans they’d let go. I-is this Ford being inconsistent, or is it actually a realistic picture, AI displacing some roles while creating new dependency on a smaller pool of s- pool of senior experts? I wonder if that’s it. There’s also a related point to that. Could this be a warning? You, y-you mentioned– You used that word a minute ago in this case about h-hollowing out effect. If companies keep pushing out mid-career and senior staff in favor of AI, who trains the next generation of greybeards when today’s greybeards retire for good? ‘Cause that will happen sooner or later.

Shel Holtz
There’s also this idea of institutional knowledge that is not necessarily captured in any systems. It’s because they have been there, as was pointed out in this article, through multiple product cycles. There are things that they learned that are not a specific quality measure or whatever it is that they’re using in their work that now is gonna be done by the AI. They bring that institutional knowledge to the job, and y- you may not need as many of them as you had before if the AI can legitimately do some of this work. But some of those people who have been there through those product cycles and have acquired that institutional knowledge, they’re still gonna need to be there. I don’t know how you capture institutional knowledge. I have seen this in an organization that shall remain unnamed, but that you and I are b- both very familiar with, that, that hollowed out staff and let its institutional knowledge go, and is paying a dear price for that

Neville Hobson
Yeah. It got me thinking a bit about I guess drawing upon some science fiction movies that I’ve seen over the years but also now looking at where we are with technology tools that make it very easy for people to literally dump their knowledge about something into a device or a system that records that saves it. Could we be seeing a, the beginnings of something or the idea certainly that may catch on with people that this needs to be built into behaviors in an organization that depending on your role, and I can’t say it could be everyone, but maybe it should be, that you’ve got some means that you work on a project and part of your in a sense, your the kind of conditions of your employment, let’s say, is that on completing a project or planning a project and then com- wha- whatever it might be, you’ve gotta record your thoughts on the planning and execution of that project how you did this or that. And that’s then saved. Okay. I haven’t– I’m not even getting into privacy i-issues or data protection or none of that. That may well be the case. I’m thinking of one science fiction film I saw where, a few, some years ago now, where people had, It reminds me of Plaud, actually, a little credit card sized tool.

Shel Holtz
say

Neville Hobson
Yeah.

Shel Holtz
that. Yep

Neville Hobson
That they spoke into, recorded something. It then saved it to their account, let’s say, on their employer’s website or someplace or whatever it might be, that then broke it down into all the constituent elements that the company needed to have in order to retrieve that information on demand or make use of it in some other way. So some of the tech exists to do that, but certainly not on an organized scale such as what we’re discussing that might be. But how long might it be before that happens?

Shel Holtz
Aside from the privacy concerns, wearing a device that captures everything you say, having all of that from all employees fed to an AI that’s able to sort it out and put it in the appropriate place so that now that becomes part of its knowledge base, I can see that. I just can’t see employees tolerating it very well. I certainly wouldn’t want to have every word I’m saying during the day recorded and saved by the organization, and I’m a senior executive. That’s just ethically wrong I think. But technically I think we’re not that far away from

Neville Hobson
No, we’re not. We’re not.

Shel Holtz
do that now

Neville Hobson
You raise a good point but I would counter that in a sense arguing that it’s gonna be if you don’t do it, someone else is gonna do it, and you’re out of a job if you don’t do that. I’m thinking of some of the things that you see around you nowadays as a matter of course, ranging from things like police, ambulance workers fire department people wearing video camera, body cams that record everything. I have a friend of mine who’s just bought one that he feels safe wearing this on his commute to work on the train. He goes to London and then on the underground train. I can, I can–

Shel Holtz
use case. These are, these f- yeah I think,

Neville Hobson
it’s not. It’s not. It’s rec- it records the picture of him. That could be– The purposes might be very different, but the tech would be the same.

Shel Holtz
Oh, the text’s the same. The

Neville Hobson
Yeah.

Shel Holtz
is

Neville Hobson
Yeah. For now it is. Yeah, it is. But this could become a matter of course. I’ve considered that too. If I were still actively working in a traditional job, getting in a commute to London or whatever it might be, I would probably get a body cam

Shel Holtz
Yeah, the okay, the use case there is voluntary, right? You choose

Neville Hobson
I do have that choice

Shel Holtz
Think of Meta, which was capturing the keystrokes of every employee in order to train its models, and the opposis- opposition to that grew so loud that they recently said, “Okay, this is now a voluntary program. Only employees who opt in will have their keystrokes recorded.” And it– now you’re talking about every

Neville Hobson
Yeah, I know, but,

Shel Holtz
the workplace?

Neville Hobson
sure.

Shel Holtz
gonna happen. Yeah.

Neville Hobson
so this is– enters that bigger debate precisely on is it gonna happen or is it not? So in the case of Meta, what they did, I’m thinking back now to the Cambridge Analytica scandal of twenty eighteen, they did this ov- covertly without telling people, and then they lied about it all. So why the hell would you work for a company like that in the first place? That, crosses, crosses my mind. But

Shel Holtz
Yeah

Neville Hobson
I think the one other point occurs to me that the in the case of Ford, that has got me thinking. The fix they had, i.e., rehiring the people they, they got rid of, works because those engineers were still available to rehire, right? So what happens to the next company that has the same realization five or ten years from now when the generation with that tacit knowledge has genuinely retired and isn’t coming back? That’s arguably the real warning sign, not this instance, but the next one

Shel Holtz
Oh, absolutely. They’re gonna have to go for the next best thing, which is hiring humans that can handle the more complex problems that arise, but they don’t have the institutional knowledge. They haven’t been through any product life cycles. Maybe they hire away from competitors. Maybe they hire their old engineers back by offering them more money than they ever dreamed of, but yeah, that sort of defeats the purpose too, doesn’t it? No, I think what has to happen is that the companies that are considering replacing people with AI don’t just count the number of who are doing the job and how much an AI can conceivably do, and then get rid of the equivalent number of staffers. You’ve gotta be really strategic about this. I think you need to inventory all of the tasks that you’re talking about performing and identify which of those are better done by AI. Heaven knows there are things that AI is not good at,

Neville Hobson
Yeah

Shel Holtz
pretty widely recognized sets of activities. So looking at what you’re gonna need people for and then determining, okay, if we’re gonna let people go how many we still need in order to avoid the kind of outcome that Ford experienced? And I think if they’re strategic, if they apply some formulas to this again, inventorying absolutely every task you’re gonna be looking at replacing and figuring out which of those are going to work with AI you’re probably gonna end up making better decisions and not have to do what Ford did. The other thing that I would look at though is how does all of this align with your values? Because no matter what you do, it is in conflict with your stated corporate values, which are hanging on the wall in the conference rooms and, employees have copies of them, and in my company, they’re on every truck that’s out there you’re gonna end up with a very disengaged cynical workforce

Neville Hobson
Yeah. The cynical part of me suggests that’s actually happening a lot already. G-question mark, do they really believe those values on the side of the trucks down the road, all that kind of stuff? So it’s a kind of fluid environment we seem to be in. And I’m wondering w- as well, will we begin to see, I don’t know on your CV or your resume on LinkedIn one of your major selling points is gonna be the fact that you have deep institutional knowledge. You probably wouldn’t wanna say about your employer, but what you really want to be saying is about the industry or about something that sa- that kinda says, “I’m very portable from the get-go.” So maybe we’re gonna see that

Shel Holtz
Oh, could be. It would certainly be better than open to work as a little arc on the pr-profile photo on LinkedIn. And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of “For Immediate Release.”

The post FIR #521: AI Layoffs Are Here. Wait. Strike That. Reverse It. appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Most agency owners will tell you accountability is something they value, but fewer will realize they’re often the biggest obstacle to it. In this episode, Chip and Gini offer suggestions for how to stop being the bottleneck at your agency.

Chip tells of his own recent experience where he missed putting out a newsletter after an emergency root canal. Even with Jen repeatedly pinging him, the decision of whether to get something done rested with him. Most employees won’t push back hard because they know who signs the paychecks. The exceptions are rare, and you can’t build your accountability system around them.

Gini’s structural fix has been making “less founder dependence” an explicit OKR, tracked at every leadership meeting. When the goal shows up red on a dashboard, the visibility creates its own pressure. Chip thinks it’s less about any specific single system. AI has helped him stop some procrastination, but it’s also added new projects he’d never have attempted before. His takeaway is that you need to figure out what works for your specific wiring, and not rely on someone else’s approach.

For external accountability, peers, coaches, and organizations like YPO or Vistage can help, particularly for big-picture questions you wouldn’t bring to your team. But formal advisory boards are another story. Both Chip and Gini are skeptical, since even paid corporate directors with legal obligations frequently fail at the oversight function. For owner-led agencies, the complexity almost never justifies the benefit. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 311: How can agency owners hold themselves accountable? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In the long-form FIR episode for June, Neville and Shel consider the causes and implications of surging anti-AI sentiment in the US (which is also growing in other developed countries), as well as the increasing use of “shadow AI” in organizations. Other reports include studies documenting the continued erosion of trust in mainstream news media, the growth of personal branding among communication professionals, a shocking self-inflicted reputation crisis for a UK business, and evidence that employees aren’t reading your internal communications (unless maybe they are). Dan York shares information on Collections in the Mastodon 4.6 release and the W Social situation in his Tech Report.

Links from this episode:

• ‘Shadow AI becomes a massive enterprise liability’: New study claims most of us are now using unauthorized AI tools at work
• FIR #510: Should Companies Embrace Shadow AI?
• FIR #419: Is Shadow AI an Evil Lurking in the Heart of Your Company?
• The Rise of Shadow AI is a Double-Edged Sword for Corporate Innovation
• Americans Have Turned Against AI in Incredible Numbers
• AI’s Public Relations Emergency
• AI Data Centers and the Public Relations Challenge for Business Owners
• Wowcher apologises after email appears to reference crocodile attack on toddler
• Digital News Report 2026
• From Invisible To Influential: The Personal Branding Shift In Corporate Communications
• Wowcher apologises for email referencing toddler crocodile attack
• Wowcher ‘extremely sorry’ for crocodile attack email
• Wowcher apologises over email that referenced crocodile attack on boy
• LinkedIn post (Queen of CRM): “I’ve had 16 messages about this email…”
• LinkedIn post (Flo Powell): Wowcher ‘extremely sorry’ for crocodile attack email
• The Attention Recession: Why Your Employees Aren’t Reading What You Send
• State of Workplace Communication 2026: Why 44% of Employees Tune Out

Links from Dan York’s Report

• Designing Collections
• Mastodon 4.6
• The Untold Story About W Social: Unconventional Beginnings, Strategic Pitches and Conflicting Signals
• W Social, Public Institutions and the Theater of European Digital Sovereignty
• W Social, Fictional Metrics and the Beauty of Open Data

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, July 27.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Shel Holtz: Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 520 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz in Concord, California.

Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson in Somerset in the UK.

Shel Holtz: And it’s good to be back with you for our long-form episode. We really enjoy doing our short midweek episodes, but these are an opportunity to dig into some meaty topics. And we have six for you this week. Obviously, we’re going to be talking about some artificial intelligence, but not exclusively. So we have some other communication-focused topics to share with you, and some comments from listeners from the last month’s worth of episodes. And to get to those, Neville, how about a recap of what we’ve talked about in the last month?

Neville Hobson: In the long-form episode 515 for May, on the 25th of May, we led with the rise of AI agents, the harms they could cause, what companies should do to ensure these agents deliver benefits, and how communicators can take a leading role in addressing the issue. We also talked about AI copyright lawsuits, Google’s search overhaul, what’s becoming standard media relations practice on podcasts, the question of whether the time is coming for value to be at the forefront of client billing, and the rise of short-form video clippers. A lot of content in that bumper issue. Hefty but good, as we like to say. And then The Economist is building two versions of its web presence: one for human readers, one structured for AI agents. In FIR 516 on the first of June, we discussed what this means for communicators and raised an important counterpoint. Websites aren’t going away. We said the answer is to do both, not abandon one for the other. And we have at least one comment on this one, don’t we, Shel?

Shel Holtz: We have several comments on this one, starting with Sylvia Cambié, who says: “A really interesting episode. Your point about the need to be deliberate when we write copy for websites and think about what an agent would extract is fascinating. Here’s a task that communicators can do well. Great to see new tasks like this emerging for comms. It is funny to hear that AI likes Q&As. When I was a journalist, this was considered a real no-no, a sign of lazy journalism. How times change.” By the way, The Economist has published a great article by Harvard Kennedy School fellow Shui Fang about the world entering the age of machine audiences and agents. And Neville, you replied that her point about Q&As is spot on, and you hadn’t thought about it from a journalism angle before. It’s a good example of how context changes everything. What signals laziness in one setting becomes good or best practice in another. And yes, communicators are well placed to take this on. Structuring content with clarity and precision is what good communicators do. The agent readability requirement just makes the skill more explicit and more consequential. Then we have a comment from Sally Getch, rhymes with “sketch.” She says: “I started this comment on the website, but realized I needed to revise it. My first thought is, WTF is wrong with The Economist’s regular website that it’s unintelligible to AI agents? In my experience, AI does a pretty good job of reading and understanding websites, and it seems to be able to find and do things that the search engines we have all spent decades trying to appeal to could not, like transcribing PDFs and audio files. We use them for those purposes ourselves. Likewise, images with good alt text improve the understanding of both bots and humans. It felt like a flashback to the days of ‘we need to make a separate mobile website.’ I don’t think you need a separate site, but you might need a better one. I asked Stefan about this” — that’s her husband and a software developer — “and he said that the reason for the markdown is because it’s fewer tokens for the agent to consume and therefore costs less. There are some new and therefore not widely tested WordPress plugins that can convert your pages to Markdown and index them to LLMS.txt. If you edit a page or a post, they generate a new .md file. Another thought I had was that one thing that might interfere with agents ingesting content on media sites is ads. They sure do that for humans.” And then Vincent Bruneau left a short comment saying: “Parallel content architectures for human readers and AI agents is the clearest signal yet that the two audiences have genuinely diverged. And if The Economist is doing it, the question for every communications team is not whether to think about this, but how far behind they really are.”

Neville Hobson: Good comments. I think Sally’s in particular had me thinking. And I think all I’d say to Sally’s really good, insightful opinion there is, I recommend you read The Economist article explaining in considerable detail why they’re doing this. I think we link to that. The trouble is it’s behind a paywall, but there are ways around that kind of thing. Anyway, thanks to those commenters. So then in episode 517 on the ninth of June, we looked at what communicators should do when leadership makes a loud public bet that doesn’t pay off. Yes, it’s AI we’re talking about. And what happens when the bills start piling up and companies realize the cost isn’t tenable? Can communications repair the resulting damage from such a management failure that wasn’t a technology one? Partially, we said, but only if leaders are willing to be honest about what happened and why. And there are comments.

Shel Holtz: One comment, and this is also from Vincent Bruneau, who has also left a comment on 518, and I just want to tell Vincent, thank you for being such an interactive participant in our episodes. It’s great to see you here. Vincent writes: “The gap between the loud public bet and the quiet walk-back is where employee trust goes to die, and communications can only repair it if leadership is willing to be honest about what actually happened. Partially is the right answer, and probably more than most organizations will achieve.”

Neville Hobson: Terrific. So next: PR misread social media in 2007, and the internet in 1995, and desktop publishing before that. The disciplines that grew from these were largely built by people outside the profession. Are we about to do it again with AI? In episode 518 on the 15th of June, we explored why PR agencies still seem unable to figure out billing models to replace the now-useless hourly rate, we would argue — and we did — and what they should be doing, noting that time freed up by AI only has value if organizations know what to replace it with. That’s a very concise summary of that episode, but we talked about a lot in that episode. And we have comments, right?

Shel Holtz: Again from Vincent Bruneau. He says: “‘Time freed up by AI only has value if organizations know what to replace it with’ is the line that exposes most current AI strategy in PR. Efficiency without redirection just produces idle capacity, not transformation. The return to relational, face-to-face work as the actual opportunity is the most hopeful and least obvious takeaway.”

Neville Hobson: Now, we have known about the media bias effect for decades — the belief that the media is biased against your side of a debate. New research finds that the same belief applies to misinformation. In FIR 519 on the 22nd of June, we looked at what this hostile misinformation effect means for organizational communicators, discussing what strategies might look like, including pre-bunking and the value of calm, rapid response. If you look up pre-bunking, by the way, you’ll get an answer on Google. So now you’re up to date on FIR episodes.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and by the way, I was on a panel at the PRSA Public Affairs and Government Section Summit in Covington, Kentucky, right across the Ohio River from Cincinnati. We had the panel on Friday, just yesterday. Good God, I was in Kentucky yesterday. And pre-bunking came up there as a way to address misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. It’s really just the notion that you can anticipate what people are going to attack you on. And if you already have the content that addresses that, it becomes very easy to point to it. And you don’t look reactive when you’re pointing to content that’s already there. You’re not inventing new stuff to address it. So that’s, I think, an important practice for communicators to consider given the state of the media environment these days. Circle of Fellows is going to be posted very, very soon. We did record it. It was two episodes on the same day. Brad Whitworth hosted the first one, I hosted the second one. And the reason for this was that this is the episode where we introduce our new fellows, and there are five of them, and they are across time zones. And the only way we could make this work for people who are in Australia and all over the world was to break this into two. So those will be posted soon, and you’ll have the opportunity to meet our five new fellows. The next episode of Circle of Fellows — episode 131, and we do this once a month, so 131 of these is, I think, noteworthy — that will be on Thursday, July 23rd, at noon Eastern time. The topic is the evolving media landscape and the value of ethical journalism. I’ll be moderating that one with Diana Degan, who is one of our 2026 class of fellows, Ned Lundquist, Martha Muzychka, and Jennifer Waugh. So if you would like to participate in that in real time, mark that on your calendars. That covers our pre-topic discussion. We’ll start the conversation around our six topics right after this.

Neville Hobson: Shadow AI is a topic we’ve returned to more than once on For Immediate Release, and with good reason, because the story keeps developing and the numbers keep getting harder to ignore. Shadow AI is the unauthorized use of artificial intelligence tools, applications, or models by employees without the formal approval, monitoring, or oversight of an organization’s IT or security teams. It typically happens when workers use public, consumer-grade tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or third-party browser extensions instead of tools approved by the employer — Copilot, for instance, a common one — to speed up tasks, brainstorm, or analyze data. Cast your mind back to July 2024, when in FIR 419 we asked whether shadow AI was an evil lurking in the heart of your company. At the time, a Cyberhaven report had found that 27.4% of the content employees were feeding into AI tools was sensitive: customer data, source code, confidential HR records. It was a striking figure, and it pointed to a tension that was already building between what employees wanted to do and what their employers were prepared to sanction. By February 2025, in FIR 449, we were reporting that employee use of shadow AI was surging — half of all employees, some studies were suggesting. The appetite was clearly there. The question was whether organizations were keeping pace, and by most accounts they weren’t. Then in April this year, in FIR 510, we put a sharper question on the table: should companies simply embrace shadow AI? Not fight it, not just manage it, but lean into it? Because by that point it was becoming clear that the crackdowns weren’t working, and the productivity gains employees were quietly achieving were real. Now we have new data. And it moves the needle again. A June 2026 survey carried out by Wakefield Research for PagerDuty — a digital operations platform that automates incident management, alerting, and on-call scheduling for IT and DevOps teams — reported that two-thirds of US workers, that’s two in every three, are now using AI tools at work that their company hasn’t approved, in spite of knowing the rules. More than half received informal warnings to stop. Nearly half faced formal consequences — official warnings, disciplinary action — and they carried on regardless. Perhaps the most telling finding is this: 88% of those workers have shared work-related information with public AI systems. We’re not talking about using a tool to draft a meeting agenda. People are uploading emails, sharing meeting notes, entering customer information, and in nearly a third of cases, inputting sensitive business documents, financial data included. There’s also a striking confidence gap emerging. Nearly three-quarters of workers and 77% of senior leaders believe they understand AI better than their own tech teams. Whether or not that’s true, it tells you something important about the dynamic inside organizations right now. This isn’t a case of employees feeling lost and reaching for unauthorized tools out of confusion. They’re reaching for them out of conviction. And this is worth noting: one reason employees may feel less obligated to follow AI rules is the perception that company policies are inconsistently applied. According to PagerDuty’s report, while 86% believe their company has formal AI policies in place, more than four-fifths — 81% — believe those rules are applied differently to leadership than to the rest of the workforce. So here’s the question I want to ask. If two-thirds of your workforce is already doing this, if warnings, policies, and even disciplinary action haven’t slowed it down, is the era of the company controlling its employees’ AI use effectively over? Is the current wave of anti-AI sentiment sweeping the US playing a role here? Shel, we’ll be talking about that in a bit. If the era of the company controlling its employees’ AI use is over, what does responsible AI governance actually look like now?

Shel Holtz: AI governance is just in complete disarray, I believe, right now. I’m sure there are some companies that have their AI governance in good shape, but I think overall — and the research seems to bear this out — it’s chaos out there. I think you probably have a variety of different situations from organization to organization. You have governance that people look at and say, “This is ridiculous.” You have governance that employees are not aware of, or that has not been well communicated. I think there’s a variety of reasons that we’re seeing this — governance that even leaders are not adhering to, and you alluded to this, and that’s very visible. You hear stories of employees being told, “You have to use Copilot because we’re an Office 365 shop and we get Copilot with it, and it’s been extended to all of your Office 365 tools, your Outlook email, your Microsoft Word and PowerPoint and Excel — all of these things are now AI-enabled, so use Copilot.” And then you hear that the executive vice president for operations is happily using Claude all the time, while you also have somebody in HR who’s using ChatGPT, and employees roll their eyes and say, “Well, if they’re going to do it, I’m going to do it. I’m just not going to tell anyone.” They’re using their own accounts or billing it through their expense system for twenty bucks a month, and nobody’s even noticing, because who’s paying attention to a twenty-dollar-a-month charge? It’s terrible. And I think there’s a lot that has to happen, and it should happen, and it must happen, in order for organizations to get their arms around this. The first is more communication from leaders about their expectations. We just had a town hall where our CEO told employees explicitly, “We want you to use this.” He talked about caution about exposing client information or anything else that’s proprietary. He talked about the fact that our Copilot account allows us to keep all of this data in the company. It doesn’t get exposed to the models for training purposes and the like. And that’s one of the reasons we want employees to use that. And that was the caution he gave: if you’re using the others, you’ve got to be really, really careful about that. But I also think that employees need to have a voice in this. If they’re going to embrace it, they need to feel like they own it. And again, I’ll talk about where I work. And I’d love to take credit for this, but this was not my doing — there is an AI committee. And this is not IT people and leaders and the like. We have project engineers and project managers, frontline people on this, including one or two who were skeptical at the outset. And it’s a very enthusiastic group, and we’re planning a company-wide activity because we want employees to have that voice in this. We want them to feel like they’re part of what the direction is with AI — what tools we adopt, what policies we adopt. It’s like anything else in the organization. I mean, think about value statements, for example. If employees feel like they had a say in determining what the company’s values are, they’re going to embrace them. If it’s leadership coming out saying, “Here are our values, live these,” and employees go, “Well, wait a minute, I don’t see that in practice in the organization, and they don’t align with my values,” then you’ve got trouble. It’s the same thing here. So if this is foisted on employees who are already figuring out other ways to do this that are better for them, you end up with all kinds of problems. One, for example, is you’ll find that there are employees who have solved big problems in their jobs and made themselves more efficient and more productive, or have been able to grow something beyond where it was using AI, and they don’t share it, because they don’t want to admit that they used some tool that isn’t authorized in the organization. So you have fifty other employees doing the same job the old way and not benefiting from what this first employee learned. That’s terrible. We need to get our arms around this. And I think communicators have a huge role to play here, because let’s face it, this is not about policy. This is not about technology. This is entirely about communication.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. And I think the policy hypocrisy point, if I can call it that, needs pushing on directly. According to the survey, if 81% of workers believe AI rules are applied differently to leadership than to everyone else, that’s not a compliance problem. It’s a legitimacy problem, surely. No AI governance framework can work if employees don’t believe it applies equally to the people setting the rules. So that makes total sense to me — it won’t work. Do you think, if this is widespread — and there’s the worry, it seems to me, if it’s widespread — do you think any organization can recover trust on this without visible, demonstrable accountability at the top? Where does the buck stop in that case?

Shel Holtz: Absolutely there needs to be visible accountability at the top. But if there is, yes, you can recover trust. You lose trust a lot faster than you can rebuild it. So rebuilding it is going to take time, it’s going to take a plan, but it absolutely can be rebuilt. And again, I think this is where communicators come in, to say, “Okay, let’s develop a plan and a strategy around this.” Does your company have a committee that engages the front line in the discussion that is leading to this? If not, consider that. Does your company communicate the policies well? Does it share success stories with employees? There needs to be a strategy for this. You can’t just throw it out there like, you know, a new HRIS — we’ve adopted Workday, you let everybody know once, and they start recording their time there and requesting their PTO there, and everybody figures it out, and it’s no big deal. This is not that. We need to have a long-term strategy that we can adapt as things change, because as you know, in the AI world things change a lot, quickly. I don’t know if you read that Sam Altman has announced that there are going to be massive changes to the ChatGPT interface. He said the chatbot is over — this is an agentic thing now — and what you’re going to see on ChatGPT will reflect that. So people who think of AI as a place where you go type a query into a box — I’m sure there’s going to still be a way to ask a question and get an answer, but that’s not the focus anymore. What does that do to employees who are going to a tool and seeing these changes? We need to be able to pivot pretty quickly. But we need a plan that will accommodate that kind of change, but also move us forward in getting the benefit from AI and also rebuilding that trust. And by the way, one of the things I think employees would love to hear — and I don’t remember where I read this, it was just in one of the newsletters I got, it may have been Shelly Palmer — is that we’re not talking enough about using AI to grow the organization. We talk about being more efficient and saving money and saving time, which is all great. But AI can actually help your organization grow. And we’re not talking about that. We’re not talking about how to do that. We’re not talking about the role employees could play. And if employees knew that that’s what they were contributing to, I think there might be a bit more enthusiasm around it.

Neville Hobson: Let’s take a look at this confidence gap a bit. This is where nearly three-quarters of workers believe they understand AI better than their own tech teams. This strikes me as genuinely new territory. Shadow IT was about convenience, right? This feels more like a values clash — employees who believe they are the more capable party, acting accordingly. Is this the moment, do you think, where the traditional model of IT as gatekeeper finally breaks down for good?

Shel Holtz: Yes and no. I think those employees are right to a great extent. They know how to use this tool for their job better than IT ever could, because this is not Excel, right? It certainly isn’t something like an enterprise resource planning system or a customer relationship management system, where IT is clearly going to be an effective gatekeeper. This is where every employee is going to use it differently based on their job, based on their role, their department, their function — and they know best. And I think where IT still needs to be the gatekeeper is on things like cost. If employees are out there creating agents that are just continually looping 24 hours a day, you’re going to burn through a lot of tokens, and the company’s going to have a pretty considerable impact on their bottom line. So there’s absolutely a role for IT to play, but it’s on the technical side, not the application side. How it’s used — I don’t think IT can help you much there at all. They’re not experts at prompt building. They’re not experts at skill or agent building. That’s really not their job. They’re looking at the nuts and bolts of it. So I think there’s still a role there, as a gatekeeper on that side of it. I think policies about how much you use agents and how often you run them and how many tokens you burn through, and education around that — that’s probably an IT thing. And communicators should be working with their IT teams to convey that information. But in terms of how I’m going to use this — man, IT can’t tell me how to use this as a communicator, and I don’t think they have any interest in doing that either.

Neville Hobson: That’s good. Although I would argue that there’s probably a learning experience ahead for IT in that regard, because IT has had a history, I suppose, of dabbling in stuff that is not their domain at all. They see everything as an IT project. So some behavior change is due, I think.

Shel Holtz: Heck, yeah. I remember in the early days of email, there was a company I was doing consulting for that had a CIO who had to approve every email that went to all employees. And I didn’t work there very long, because I looked the CIO right in the eye and I said, “Really? Does your printer approve everything that goes out in print?” Because that’s essentially what it was, right? But no, I think there are more IT departments these days that recognize, especially with AI, that their role is not to tell engineers how to use this or accountants how to use this. Certainly our IT department is very supportive of having employees figure out what the use cases are. They’re not even dabbling in that. Well, let’s stick with this topic of AI, because AI has lost the public. We’re not talking about some public skepticism. This is a flat-out rejection by the vast majority of the American public. And Neville, when we talk about this, we’ll also talk about the UK and Europe. But how vast is vast? There’s a new Pew survey out this month that found that just 16% of Americans believe AI will have a positive impact on society. Sit with that for a minute. 16%. Forty percent expect the impact on society to be negative, and about a third think it will personally harm them. Right? Got that? A third think that AI is going to be harmful to them. The people most hostile to AI are the young. Among Gen Z adults, nearly half think AI will be bad for society. And yet that same group uses it more than anyone else — two-thirds of them. Alex Kantrowitz at Big Technology makes the point that this is the real emergency, because the attitudes people form in their late teens and early 20s are the ones that stick for life. Advertisers have always known this. And right now, an entire generation is forming an anti-AI view at exactly the age where those views get locked in. And this isn’t just polling either. It’s gone public and physical. We’ve had graduates booing AI at commencement ceremonies across the country this spring, at one point literally drowning out former Google CEO Eric Schmidt as he tried to tell them to go shape the technology’s future. And then there are the data centers, which is where all this abstract unease turns into a concrete fight. Seven out of ten Americans now oppose having an AI data center built in their area. And that reminds me — I saw in The New York Times just this morning an article that said this community actually wants an AI data center. Like that’s a newsworthy thing now. Community opposition has blocked or delayed something like $64 billion in projects. This is showing up as a talking point in the 2026 midterm elections. And in a handful of disturbing cases, it has tipped over into threats and even violence, with workers on the construction sites of these data centers being assaulted by members of the community. And the resistance isn’t just coming from outsiders. It includes the very employees we’re trying to get to adopt AI inside our organizations — which goes back to our preliminary conversation, Neville. Think about it. If only 16% of the public thinks AI is a net positive, it’s likely that that many, maybe even more, among your employees feel that way. Pew shows usage and approval moving in opposite directions. Half of adults now use these tools, up from a third just two years ago, and a lot of them are using it because their boss told them to use it, while at the same time they distrust it and maybe even despise it. And that’s the gap we have to manage internally. We can talk about the PR challenge AI companies are facing, but let’s talk first about what communicators actually can do about this internally. You have to acknowledge the fear instead of dismissing it. The job-loss anxiety is rational, and pretending otherwise just torches your credibility. We need to separate adoption from advocacy. People can use the tools well without having to love them. We’ve seen this with other tools. I remember — I can’t remember what the tool was that I was using for charts and graphs, this goes way, way back into like the 1990s — but I wanted to use Harvard Graphics, and I was told, “No, our IT department doesn’t support Harvard Graphics.” So we really have to help people understand: look, this is the tool we’re using in the job. You don’t have to love it, you just have to use it. We have to give employees a voice in the rollout rather than just a mandate, because forced use with no input is exactly what breeds resentment. As I mentioned before, I’m on the AI committee where I work, with other frontline employees and non-IT managers and people who are being asked to use it. And we need to lean on trusted peers to carry the message, not executive proclamations, because executive enthusiasm is part of what employees are skeptical about in the first place. As for the AI companies themselves, they’re in damage control right now. They’ve lost the chance to set the agenda. The most striking sign of that is this latest techlash. Tech still polled better than politicians. Today AI polls below every major political candidate, which means the political cost of cracking down on it has basically evaporated. They had a window to set expectations early, honestly, with community buy-in. They missed it. And now they’re negotiating from a deficit. And from where I sit, that’s an argument for startups to embrace PR and communications, because I don’t think any of them really did. If they did, they would have had a PR person telling them that going out there and saying, “This is going to cause massive job loss,” is a really stupid approach to building support for what you’re doing. And yet that’s what they did.

Neville Hobson: It certainly is a muddy picture, it seems to me. I was looking at the Pew report whilst you were talking, and this is a hefty piece of research, I have to say, but a lot of striking contradictions appear to me in trying to understand why this is happening. I mentioned when we were chatting earlier that I don’t see news headlines in the mainstream media in the UK about groundswells of anti-AI sentiment in this country. Not to say there isn’t any, but it’s certainly not driving the news agenda in any way that I could tell. But I found it most interesting — just to break out some snippets from Pew’s research — they say the share of Americans who say they use ChatGPT, which they say is the dominant one of all the chatbots, the one preferred by most people, that usage by Americans has more than doubled since 2023, which is when it became part of public consciousness. Interesting, I think. They report using ChatGPT far more than other chatbots. They say the second most-used platform is Gemini, followed by Copilot and Meta AI. I was surprised at that, because I’ve started using Claude, and that’s way, way down their list, according to Pew. They also talk about — I found this interesting in the context of something else that I mentioned — that Americans are more likely to say, according to Pew, that chatbots help rather than hurt their productivity, knowledge, and creativity. That would explain why more people are using it. But what about the folks who — what about all this anti-AI sentiment that’s emerging? Are they not using this? Are they part of the other percentage that doesn’t? An interesting side explainer, I suppose, to understanding the wider picture about smartwatches, smart home devices, and other things like smart speakers, where you can also use AI. The thing is, though — and clearly I’m not the demographic here, Shel, so this comment is anecdotal —

Shel Holtz: They are using it. Yeah, I’m sure they are.

Neville Hobson: You end up using AI and not realizing you’re using AI. So I’ve taken to using Google’s little widget that they run, the AI mode. 99% of everything I search uses that, unless I’m asking just for a phone number, which is not the kind of thing I normally ask, actually — I don’t phone anyone these days. I often ask questions like, “How many miles is it from A to B?” I often ask that kind of question. And if I use Google’s AI mode, it will ask me, like, “What do you want — kilometers or miles? Direct line, as the bird flies, or roundabout?” I don’t want those questions, right?

Shel Holtz: Yeah. “Freeways, no freeways,” yeah.

Neville Hobson: Exactly. So that’s interesting, all that stuff. A majority of Americans — 60%, so that is a majority — say they read AI summaries at the top of search results. I would imagine that that is growing. Another 10% aren’t sure if they do that or not. Interesting. So Americans predict AI’s impact on society and on them will be more negative than positive. So notwithstanding the majority of people using it, which has doubled since 2023 on ChatGPT, most say the impact on society and them will be more negative than positive. So is that what’s driving the anti-AI sentiment? Younger adults are more wary of the potential impact on society and on them than older groups, yet the younger groups are the ones using it most. So there’s, to me, a paradox there. Roughly two-thirds of Americans say AI is advancing too quickly. So you can now see that you can actually grab some metrics that are the “yes, but” to the “I use it, I’m getting benefit.” Yes, but — so maybe this is about balance. So another metric: most think AI will make their personal information less secure. And there’s that kind of niggle in the back of your mind. Then there’s some political stuff they go into in some detail here. But it got me thinking: maybe you can have this. “This is beneficial, I get what I want out of it, but I hate it.” Maybe that’s what’s going on here. But nevertheless, either way, this is not a good landscape to be gazing at in the context of where AI companies are developing their products. As I mentioned, I’ll be using Claude a lot in my migration experiment. I use Claude and ChatGPT interchangeably. I’ve got too much invested in ChatGPT just to give it up. And in fact, some of the stuff I ask ChatGPT to do, particularly if it’s summarizing something, I quite like what it provides — sometimes better than Claude. Sometimes I do both: give me this, and I give the same prompt to the other one. Projects and those kinds of things in Claude I’m not using as much as I thought I would. So the point, though, is that maybe there is, Shel — you can embrace two different perspectives at the same time. “I get benefit from this, it helps me do what I’m doing. I don’t trust it. I hate what it’s doing to society, and so I’m anti-AI, but I find it useful.” Is that what’s happening?

Shel Holtz: I think so. I think there are a lot of employees who recognize that if they want to be employed in five years, they’re going to have to know how to use this. And they’ve —

Neville Hobson: Yeah, but this is not just about employees. This is people generally in society.

Shel Holtz: Sure. Yeah. I think there are people who are getting benefit from it, better than they can from other tools, and they recognize that, and they still distrust it. They still don’t want the data center in their backyard. I know people who don’t use it at all. And one of the reasons among some of those people is that they think the whole thing is based on theft. I even saw this as a post on LinkedIn — some discussion of AI, and one person left a one-line response saying, “All AI is theft.” I was very tempted to leave a comment saying, “You’re talking about generative AI, there are other kinds of AI.” But the notion that it’s all based on scooping up everything that’s on the internet that people created, and they weren’t asked and they weren’t compensated — you know, Bernie Sanders, I think, has a proposal that there be a sovereign wealth fund where some of the profits from AI go into that fund and are used to benefit people, because it’s their content, it’s their intellectual property that is fueling all of this generative AI.

Neville Hobson: But it seems to me, though, that those kinds of big-picture statements don’t have any impact on people. I hear that argument a lot. “AI is theft, it scrapes content” — which it does, hence all the talk, particularly here in Europe broadly and here in the UK in particular, on permissions and the new regulations that they’re bringing in that are related to copyright and intellectual property ownership. Good luck with all of it, I say, because these are geographically based laws, and we’re not talking about geographically based protections. So I don’t know how on earth they’re going to solve that. I’m not sure that they can. In which case we’ve got something, have we not, that is almost an impossibility: that if this continues like this — and to your point you mentioned earlier, and I have seen reporting of that here too, of very strong anti-behaviors, including violence — that we see an increase in that. Data centers here don’t seem to be a prominent topic of debate; i.e., it’s not like dozens of them are sprouting up all over the place. It’s not like I read recently in the US, there’s this town somewhere in Oklahoma, I believe — might have been Texas — where the town’s council that runs the town, it’s about 2,000 people in this little town, agreed to the investment program of a company who wants to build a data center there. And to do that, they’re going to need to build, including the infrastructure for energy generation, that would serve a city the size of Chicago. So the whole nature of the whole living environment is utterly changed if they go ahead with this. So —

Shel Holtz: Are you suggesting that more than 2,000 people live in Chicago?

Neville Hobson: Just a few more. So I get the logic of that, but it seems to me that there doesn’t seem to be any strong desire at government levels, whether national or local, to seriously address people’s concerns here. And there you have the paradox, because, “Yes, I love what I can do with this AI tool, it’s wonderful, but I hate it. I don’t want it building a data center in my town, but I want the benefits of using this AI.” Is it what we call in the UK NIMBYism? You’ve heard of the acronym?

Shel Holtz: Yeah, “not in my backyard.” Certainly.

Neville Hobson: Right, but I don’t mean to belittle people who do. It’s not all just that. There is some of that, clearly. But these are genuine concerns people have.

Shel Holtz: Well, I mean, in this instance, where you don’t want it in your backyard, it’s because it’s going to drain your water. There are places where data centers have been built where you turn on the tap and it trickles, because all the water’s going into the data center, and electricity rates are rising because of the consumption of the data centers. I think the companies that are building and running and operating these really need to make the investment in energy infrastructure so that they are actually contributing something rather than taking it away. By the way, I looked it up: KPMG did research. In the UK, 42% of adults are willing to trust AI, so the majority does not. 57% are willing to accept or approve AI use, meaning nearly half remain hesitant. 78% are concerned about negative outcomes from AI, and 72% are unsure whether online content can be trusted because it may be AI-generated. 80% believe AI regulation is required, and 91% want laws to combat AI-generated misinformation, and only 29% trust the UK government to use AI for its tasks. So that’s —

Neville Hobson: Well, addressing the issues — that’s the 91% who want that happening — that’s in train, as it were. But I get a little cynical about some of these surveys, particularly where you’ve got such huge numbers that you then say, “Therefore the majority of people don’t support this or do support this,” or whatever. I want to know how many of the “don’t knows” or didn’t respond or whatever. But either way, it’s a hot-potato topic, more so in the US than here, that’s a fact, because you’ve got situations happening that aren’t happening here yet, particularly related to data centers. There’s not dozens of them springing up everywhere. Hey, we’ve got a nuclear power station being built further north of here, but that’s not quite the same thing, right? So I don’t believe there’s a way to solve this cleanly that will keep everyone happy. Like most things in politics, you can’t please everyone. But this in the US certainly, according to all this research, is a growing issue.

Shel Holtz: I think the frontier labs — OpenAI and Anthropic and Google — certainly need to put their heads together on a strategy to turn this around. This can’t be something that they just shove into the background. The frontier labs are going to have to get together and really figure this out. I know they’re trying, because I’ve seen the $400,000 salaries for storytellers, which is a cute, very precious way of saying they need good PR. And we need better communication, and stronger strategic planning in our organizations. This is a perfect storm that has to happen, and I don’t know how it will, but I’m sure we’ll be talking about this in the future.

Neville Hobson: Yep, I’m sure too. So let’s move along and talk about the decline of trust in news. Trust is one of those words that gets used so often in discussions about media and communication that it can start to feel abstract. But every year the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford puts a very concrete number on it. And every year for the past several years, that number has been going in the wrong direction. The Reuters Institute Digital News Report is now in its fifteenth year. It covers 48 markets and draws on responses from around 97,000 people worldwide, which makes it one of the most comprehensive ongoing studies of news consumption habits anywhere in the world. We’ve referred to its findings many times over the years on For Immediate Release, and it remains, in my view, the essential annual benchmark for anyone working in or around journalism, communication, or media. The 2026 edition was published just recently, and I want to focus on one finding in particular — not because it’s the only important one, and we may well return to other threads from this report in future episodes, but because it captures something important about the environment in which all of us as communicators are now operating. Global public trust in news has hit a new low, says Reuters. Just 37% of people worldwide say they trust most news most of the time. That’s down three points from last year. Falls were recorded in 29 of the 48 markets surveyed. In the United States, the figure has dropped to 25%. Among right-leaning Americans, it’s 15% — the lowest figure recorded for any demographic in any country in the entire 15-year history of the survey. In the UK, where I’m based, the picture is also stark. Trust has fallen five points this year, to 30%. But here’s the figure that really stopped me: that’s 20 points lower than it was ten years ago. Twenty points in a decade. That’s not a dip. That’s a structural collapse in the relationship between news organizations and their audiences. And it’s not as though people have stopped caring about news or stopped believing in what journalism should be. The same report finds that 48% of people globally still say they prefer news with no particular point of view — an endorsement of impartiality as an ideal that has barely shifted in years. People still believe in what journalism could and should be. They just stopped believing that’s what they’re getting. So when trust has fallen this far, this consistently, across this many markets, is there a realistic path back? Or have we crossed a threshold where declining trust in news is simply the permanent condition of the information environment we now inhabit? Shel?

Shel Holtz: I think it’s not something that’s going to be solved easily, if ever. The fact that right-leaning Americans distrust news more than centrist or left is consistent with the data that we talked about on the last weekly episode, when we talked about — I mean, the episode was about misinformation, or actually disinformation, and media bias. But the media bias effect that we talked about in that episode, that has been around as a measured phenomenon since the 1980s and has been reaffirmed with research ever since then, is at play here, because it finds that right-leaning Americans are more inclined to believe that media reports are biased against them than centrist and left-leaning. Now, centrist and left-leaning also believe that media reports are biased against them, just not to the same degree. So this is that. This is people getting into their bubbles, feeling that media bias effect, and not trusting the media. I think you see a lot of reporters, journalists, leaving the outlets they work for and starting their own media companies, starting Substacks, because they as individuals find that they are trusted; it’s the outlet that they work for that isn’t. So we’re seeing a shift in where journalism comes from. And when you talk about this shift toward social media being the source of news for people, a lot of that is journalists who have started media operations that present their content through social media. The other thing that I find interesting is that 70% of adults in the US say they have a lot or some trust in information from local news organizations. That’s way higher than those who say they trust the national organizations. Republicans trust local news more than national — 64% trust it more. So it seems to me that — I mean, we could speculate about what news media organizations, the New York Timeses of the world, the Washington Posts of the world, the CNNs and NBCs of the world, what they can do about it, but that’s really outside our area of expertise, isn’t it? What do communicators do about this if they’re trying to get news coverage in outlets that people don’t trust? I think the first thing to do is start looking at those local news organizations. And you know that there’s been a serious decline in local news because of the internet and because of social media. I think business needs to invest in local news. I don’t know that you want to go as far as what Alabama Power did — we’ve reported about that on FIR. They actually created a local news outlet that they maintain is independent and unbiased, but it definitely skews toward the topics that are relevant to them. But I think we need to find a way for the business world to help bring local news back. And I think there are other ways that this can happen. I’ll tell you, I set up a Claude Skill, because there is no local news where I live in Concord, California. There’s something in the next community over, it’s called the Clayton Pioneer. It is absolutely awful. You don’t find out what the city council did, or the zoning commission, or the school board. It’s all puff. So what I did was I set up a skill, and it goes out and it checks the minutes of the last city council meeting and the zoning commission and the planning board and all of these agencies in the city, and it builds a newspaper. It’s just for me at this point. And every day I get — it’s like five pages, in a PDF. It also talks about where streets are going to be closed and stuff people actually need to know. I keep tweaking it, but when I get it where I want it, I’m going to buy a domain and I’m going to have this skill publish it as HTML to the web, so that there is an outlet. And I’m going to get out there on Nextdoor and other platforms and let people know it’s there. It’s not a place where opinion is shared. This isn’t puff. You want to know what the school board decided? You want to know what the zoning commission approved? This is where you’re going to find that, in addition to today’s weather and street closures and the police blotter and things like that. But this is where I think businesses need to start building relationships with reporters — in the local news media, because that’s what’s trusted. The other is that they need to do the owned stuff and start doing that external-focused journalism. Not press releases, but journalism.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. There doesn’t seem to be a huge groundswell of interest in doing any of those things, though, I would say. But I found it interesting that this whole trust paradox is not resolved at all. So audiences say they endorse impartiality as an ideal. And that makes complete sense to me, particularly your point, which I agree with. You’re talking about journalists starting Substack newsletters and all that kind of business. I see it not just that — I see it more as, who do we trust? We don’t trust an algorithm to create news, do we? We trust a journalist writing the news. And that plays very clearly to your point about people connecting with a journalist much more than the medium they’re writing for. So hence many people have moved on from the employment in the newspaper to running their own newsletter, some people making money at it, doing quite well. I think the Reuters report also mentions something: 48% globally say they prefer news without a point of view. I agree, I’m in that group, I have to tell you. I don’t want editorialized news. I do not want to read news that’s dressed up as news, and it’s not, it’s an opinion piece. You see that a lot, particularly online. Here in the UK, we’ve got a move in regional newspapers up and down the country, many of which are owned by large monolithic organizations, that publish AI-generated content as their news stories. And we’ve talked about this before. A lot of it is the sports reports, for instance, but just generally local news. And I’d be amazed if they have a sustainable business model. Or could it be that people don’t actually care, because it’s gone beyond — “I can’t do anything about this, I don’t see any change, therefore I don’t care anymore,” so they’re looking at other places to get the news from? And therein is a paradox of your idea of doing what you proposed — creating news content. That, to me, is a smart way of doing it. Your example of the Alabama Power Company, I think, wouldn’t meet the impartiality test, no matter how good they say their content is. And I think there is the problem, then, with businesses trying to do deals or trying to cozy up to journalists: you need to have genuine impartiality. So there’s probably few business models in that mix there, I would say. But in the small town where I live, there’s only 9,000 people here, so it’s actually quite a large town by UK standards. Local media is pretty good online. There are a number of reporters I like, particularly the ones who talk about things like you mentioned — planning applications, roadworks and diversions, all that stuff. It’s good, it’s up to date, and they’re using Facebook mostly, and there are lots of groups that you can join to follow this. But that’s all individual actions and a couple of local newspapers. There’s nothing scalable in that at all. So I don’t know where this actually happens, Shel. I don’t see — people haven’t given up on what journalism should be. They probably don’t even think about the word “journalism” in all of this. They just want impartiality in their news reporting. They’ve given up on it. Is that fixable, do you think? Is there a fixable gap here?

Shel Holtz: I’m sure there is, but I don’t know what it is for the news media. I just have to think about what communicators do to get their news out in this environment. That’s what concerns me. And I think a number of things we need to do. One — it’s interesting that Cision and the companies that do the press release distribution and the contact with the reporters, they all know the reporters that work for the mainstream news outlets. Do they have the Substacks from professional journalists, or the Ghosts, or whatever service they’re using? I don’t think so. I think somebody might be able to make some money by offering a service that does what Cision does, but with those independent journalistic enterprises. But I think as communicators, we need to find the journalists who are doing that and have big followings, and start to build relationships with them, just like we have been with those who work for the newspapers and the TV news. We need to find the podcasts. Increasingly we find — and we’ve talked about this on FIR — that the interviews on podcasts make news. You want to get the word out, get on a podcast that is influential in your industry or whatever your area of subject matter expertise is that you’re dealing with. But we need to move where the trust is. And getting your news out through outlets that people don’t trust, I think, is not a viable solution. But it’s what we’re accustomed to, and it’s what agencies get paid to do. And it’s a shift that I think will be very, very slow, but we have to start.

Dan York: Greetings, Shel and Neville, and everyone of our listeners all around the world. It’s Dan, coming at you on a gorgeous sunny day, the first Saturday without rain in Shelburne, Vermont, for quite a while. So we’re enjoying it. But right now I want to talk about Mastodon, and specifically about collections and helping people get started with finding accounts to follow. This has always been a challenge, right? When you start up with a new service, you go in there, and who do you follow? What’s your feed doing? Now, Mastodon has had for a while a thing with some recommended accounts that you could follow, but those were ones that Mastodon, the central entity, put together, and they were looking for a way to do something broader. In the meantime, of course, Bluesky came out with what they called starter packs, where anybody could create a starter pack full of people of a certain topic, whatever else, and you could then discover one of these starter packs, and you could follow everybody. You’d be able to get on there and see that, and boom, your feed suddenly is full of a lot of different activity and things that were there. So people in the Fediverse were looking at what Bluesky did to make it easy, and there were several different experiments people have tried. There are actually some people calling something starter packs. There are some other people trying other different ways to go and do it. But there wasn’t something quite from the central Mastodon company until this latest 4.6 release, where it has created these collections. Now, it’s actually interesting. It’s kind of the beginning of the journey, because with this release, what they did was they made it easy to create collections. You can create them, you can have a link to share, but there’s not as much about finding them, and the rationale makes sense. They said, you know, before we can really get a lot of search and discovery working, we need to have collections. So this release, 4.6, was all about getting the mechanism to create collections out there, and then in subsequent releases, they will work on making them more searchable and discoverable, so that they could replace, for instance, the recommended accounts that Mastodon has when you first join. Now, there are a couple of interesting aspects. One criticism of Bluesky’s starter packs was that your Bluesky account could be added to one without permission. So if I wanted to create a starter pack of people I don’t like, for instance — I don’t know why you would do that, but I could. I could add accounts to something, and if you didn’t feel comfortable being part of that, maybe you don’t want to be there. There wasn’t a great mechanism when Bluesky first came out with that. So collections brings that in in a big way. When you go and add people to an account, first of all, they have to have turned on — or not turned off — a switch in the settings which allows them to be used in search and discovery. So that’s one way: if you just don’t want to be in anybody’s collections, you can turn that off, and then people will have no ability to add you to any of these kinds of collections. Now, the other aspect is, when you are added to a collection, you get a notice that you have been added, so that you can choose to remove yourself from a collection if you want to. And at any point in time, if you find that you don’t want to be part of that collection, you can go and remove yourself. So it’s a much more consent-based thing. And also, in this initial phase, they are not putting a “follow all” button. So there’s no way to just go and click on “follow all” and do it. You just have to go down through the collection and click, click, click, click — follow the people that you want to. Other note: it’s right now restricted to only 25 accounts, not the 150 that were in Bluesky starter packs. And again, partly it’s to learn and to see what was there. They found one of the criticisms of some of the Bluesky starter packs was that they became stale, with too many dead accounts. So this is partly a forcing factor to go and see what’s there, and they want to learn, and that may change over time, and we’ll have to go and take a look at what happens. But it’s very interesting. I’ve created a couple of collections. One added factor here is that Mastodon is a collection of thousands, tens of thousands, of servers, each one of which has to be running the 4.6 software for the accounts to be on it. So I could add Neville, because he was on a system that was upgraded. I couldn’t add Kjell, because the system he’s on is not upgraded. So there’s a factor here that will take some time for this to be able to work with. But it’s an interesting way to go about how do you do this form of discovery and how to work with it. So it’s called collections. If you go to my account on mastodon.social, Dan York, you’ll actually see on my profile page now there’s a link to where these collections are, and you can see them. I have kept mine public. There’s also, of course, a feature to make them unlisted so that people couldn’t find them. But it’s something interesting, something new to try, and we’ll see how this helps with the further adoption of the Fediverse and Mastodon. Speaking of Fediverse and Mastodon and other stuff, I want to just tell you that there’s a woman out there named Elena Rossini — she’s from Italy, but living in Paris — who’s been writing some amazing articles right now about the service called W Social. It was launched to great fanfare at the Davos meeting, where all sorts of folks are, and what’s happened in the past several weeks or so is that the accounts from Bluesky of the European Commission, its president, Ursula von der Leyen, the European Central Bank, and other different people have moved from Bluesky over to these W Social servers. There’s a lot more than I can talk about in the scope of this report, but to say that it’s a very curious thing, because the people announced this, then they seem to have seized on using Bluesky, the AT Protocol, that piece of that. They’ve launched their service. They’ve then moved their code to be closed-source, and they’re just doing a bunch of different kinds of sketchy things. They’re promoting it as a social network that will require age authentication, age verification, age assurance — I’m not sure even which term they’re using — but you have to prove your identity or provide a government ID to show your age, and they’re working with another entity called W Identity to create this. There’s a lot of splash, a lot of fanfare, but it’s turning out they haven’t actually been talking to people in the “atmosphere,” as it’s called, the set of people working with the AT Protocol. So I would encourage people to read the articles from Elena Rossini, and to think about what is really going on here, and is this actually something that will provide a true, decentralized, open service for the Europeans, or is this somebody else trying to create a centralized service that happens to be Europe-based? Not clear yet. Lot of unanswered questions in all of this. I’m going to leave it there, send it back to you guys. Back to you, Shel and Neville. Thanks for listening. Bye for now.

Neville Hobson: Thanks for the report, Dan. We’ve not had a chance to listen to it, but I’m very interested to hear what you have to say with regard to W Social, because that is something I’ve been paying attention to. I signed up for it way back, some months ago now, when they first announced they were coming. I’m still on the wait list. But I’ve seen a number of reports literally raising cautionary notes about this, along the lines of what you’ve included from Elena Rossini, for instance. A really good website, by the way, I would say. So I haven’t read her report yet, but I’m keen to listen to what you have to say about this. So I’ll be doing that once we’ve published the recording.

Shel Holtz: Me too, Dan. I got home at, what, about one o’clock this morning, and I barely made it to the scheduled start of this recording. So I’ll be listening to you a little bit later. Always look forward to it, though. There is a shift going on. I suspect a lot of our listeners are living through this, whether they’ve put a label on it or not. And I read about this most recently — it’s something I’ve been aware of, but I just read this piece by Geetikka Bangia, who heads PR and corporate comms for Stryker in India. The oldest rule in our profession has flipped. Think back 20 years. The best PR people were the ones you never heard about, unless it was through a professional association, right? The Gold Quill Awards or the Silver Anvil Awards, that type of thing. They were invisible, but they were essential. We built the brands for everyone else — the CEO, the company, the product. That’s what we wanted to shine a light on, and we stayed in the shadows. That was the job of PR. In fact, if PR made the news, it meant something went wrong. Well, according to Geetikka, that rule is now dead. Today the most effective communicators are the ones publishing thought leadership on LinkedIn, speaking at conferences outside of the industry, putting their insights out in public. Her line — and I love this, because it’s pretty blunt — is, if you’re still operating like it’s 2005, “brilliant but invisible,” you’re playing a game that no longer exists. Your personal brand, she says, isn’t vanity, the way the industry used to see it. Today, it’s survival. So what changed? Social media, and LinkedIn in particular, democratized visibility. Suddenly junior people were building audiences, mid-level communicators were publishing, and employers noticed. Trust is in play here. Edelman’s data keeps showing that peers now outrank CEOs in credibility, which means your own authentic, consistent voice can actually enhance your employer’s brand — or, if you get it wrong, you can certainly damage the brand. When Bangia looks at the people who do this well, there’s a clear pattern. They add value beyond their job description. They share insights. They don’t promote themselves. They build trust. They’re not looking to build follower counts. Her example is Parag Agrawal, who built a reputation as a genuine tech thought leader with educational posts long before he became the CEO of Twitter. So his personal brand signaled expertise, not ambition. But again — and this is where it gets interesting — she’s very honest about the dark side. The line between personal opinion and professional representation is thinner than we think. And in PR, where we manage reputation for a living, our own missteps get magnified. You know the Weber Shandwick stat that nearly half a company’s reputation is attributed to its CEO? She extends that logic right down to the individual communicator. If you’re credible, your employer benefits. If you’re controversial, they pay the price. She says she’s watched comms professionals torch their employer’s reputation with a poorly timed political post — personal brand is damaged, employer brand becomes collateral damage. So we need to figure out how to navigate this. And she offers what she calls a Goldilocks zone, right? Not too much, not too little. She has four rules. Be visible but purposeful — don’t post to post. Stay opinionated but professional — you can hold strong views without being divisive. Build your brand, not your ego — be known for something valuable, like crisis management or storytelling, not just chasing virality. And this is the one I’d underline: know when to stay silent. Know when to shut up. Not every trending topic needs your take. PR people, of all people, should understand message discipline. Her bottom line is, the question isn’t whether to build your personal brand anymore, it’s how — with intention, integrity, and the understanding that in our field, your reputation isn’t just yours, it’s intertwined with everyone you represent. And the thing I want us to think about is the organizational flip side of all this, because if every employee is now a brand voice, then our job isn’t just building our own visibility, it’s helping the whole organization navigate theirs.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. I remember the days — I’m sure you do, Shel — when anything anyone wanted to say about the company externally was not allowed at all. It had to go through official spokespeople. And in fact, it was a disciplinary offense if you uttered something that was quoted in the newspaper, for instance, without permission. Imagine that today still. Imagine if that was still the case today. But the landscape is utterly different to what it was in the 90s, never mind the 2000s. What Geetikka talks about is the visibility thing first, that struck me. Because back in those days, none of these platforms, none of these tools, none of these channels existed. So there was limited means by which you could talk publicly about something and attract attention to you as the person saying these things. Things changed when blogs hit the scene back in the early 2000s, where suddenly anyone could be a publisher. And we relished those times, didn’t we? We wanted everyone to be doing this. We got our wish, so we had good stuff and bad stuff. But I can’t imagine this changing. If anything, it’s going to become more microscopic, in the sense of, you are under a microscope all the time. And hence her advice, Geetikka’s counsel in this really good post, is that you need to be cognizant, very, very aware, of literally everything you do and say online. And the thing that never ceases to amaze me, Shel, is the people in responsible positions, with authoritative opinions and presences, who don’t do that. It amazes me — where someone who’s a CEO of a company, or a senior politician of some type, says something, gets all over the tabloids in particular, and that’s it, your reputation’s toast. And before you know it, after a few months, that person’s gone, probably. But there is damage. And in fact, Philip Bourne has talked about this quite a bit too, the damage resulting from loose lips, if you like. So it is something to pay attention to. And I like the way she says that personal branding isn’t about becoming an influencer — heaven forbid — it’s about being known for something valuable. I utterly agree with that. And I think, if some of the people I know who were journalists or reporters on a national newspaper of some type, or were senior people in organizations who are now gone independent themselves, who retain the credibility they’ve earned from their previous experiences and roles —

Shel Holtz: A lane for that, right?

Neville Hobson: Right, exactly right. That’s carried forward to what they’re currently doing, because they are still trusted by people. So their reputation hasn’t changed, because they haven’t changed the consistency of how they walk the talk of their brand, if you will, as a means to talk about their client or their employer. So it makes common sense to me, much of this. Yet I am constantly surprised when I see examples of common nonsense being spouted, where, you know, “What were they thinking?” I say to myself every time I see it. So “know when to stay silent” is a very good one. And there are far too many people with verbal diarrhea, it seems to me, who have an opinion on everything and they will spout it. And I see that myself, particularly on LinkedIn, as literally, “Look at me, look at me, I’ve got these things to say, and it’s great, and I know all these topics.” That’s what I’m seeing. So that’s our landscape, Shel.

Shel Holtz: Well, yeah. And there are figures circulating out there that something like 70% of employers now consider a personal brand more important than a resume. And even LinkedIn has researched that people with active personal brands see nearly 50% more inbound opportunities than those without. So this is something that you want to do. And the other thing is that, as other employees in the organization and other parts of it are doing this, this is something to coordinate. We’ve got a guy who does an occasional post, maybe monthly. He’s out on one of our most important projects, and he does these great posts about milestones they’ve reached and what it took to do it. We end up sharing it through our advocacy platform. Now, what if other employees were doing that? The advocacy platform is one thing — it gives employees our content to share in their communities. But I’d love to see some of our subject matter experts, the people who really understand concrete, become — their personal brand in social media is now concrete, that sort of thing. And then we can coordinate that, and we can leverage all that as PR opportunities, and then we can share that in the advocacy tool for other employees to amplify. If people are doing this, communicators need to get their arms around it, not just manage their own personal brand.

Neville Hobson: They get known for it. They get known for it. Yeah, lots to learn from this, I’d say, Shel. Okay, so sound advice, very nice article. Now let’s talk about a reputation crisis — a PR crisis, but a reputation one. And this is something quite extraordinary that I want to share here. Sometimes a single incident cuts through the noise and forces a conversation that the industry probably would have been having for a while. Recently, a week or so back, that incident involved a UK discount voucher website called Wowcher, a three-year-old boy, and a crocodile enclosure in a zoo. Let me give you the background, because if you’re not based in the UK, you may not have followed this disturbing story, although I have seen it talked about in media around the world, actually.

Shel Holtz: I read this on CNN and The New York Times, so this has made the rounds.

Neville Hobson: Right, yeah. So on Thursday, the 18th of June, so not long ago, a toddler three years old was pushed by a stranger into an enclosure containing Nile and saltwater crocodiles at a zoo in Huntingdonshire in England. The child suffered serious injuries and was taken to hospital in Cambridge, where he remains in a critical but stable condition. It’s a deeply distressing story. A family’s worst nightmare played out in public, and a news event that dominated the UK media cycle for days. It gets worse, Shel. It really gets worse. Two days later, on the Saturday, just two days on, Wowcher sent a marketing email to its customer distribution list — so we’re probably looking at tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people on that list. The subject line of the email read: “Snap up these deals quicker than a croc can catch a kid!” Exclamation mark. Well, as you can imagine, the reaction was immediate, universal, and unsparing. Marketing professionals, commentators, and members of the public condemned it without reservation. There was no debate about —

Shel Holtz: Russell Brand thought it was hysterical.

Neville Hobson: We don’t talk about Russell Brand, sorry. There was no debate about whether it was misjudged. There was no defense offered from any quarter. Just about all mainstream media in the UK, including the dozens of regional press outlets, covered the story. It featured in the news podcasts and across social media. LinkedIn lit up. Email marketing specialist Beth O’Malley, whose post on the subject drew widespread engagement, described it as reflecting a wider problem: that the drive to get the open, to get the click, to make the metrics go up, has overtaken something more fundamental. As one commenter put it simply, whoever was involved in creating and sending that email forgot that there are real human beings on the receiving end. Wowcher issued an unreserved apology. They described the wording as unacceptable, said it should never have been written and was never approved for use, and committed to urgently reviewing and strengthening their creative approval and sign-off processes. Which, of course, raises the obvious question: if it was never approved, how did it reach what is presumably a very large mailing list? We don’t know the full answer to that yet. There has been speculation that AI may have been involved in generating the content, and that’s possible. But I want to be clear about something. Whether a human wrote those words, or an AI generated them and a human failed to catch them, the root cause is the same. It’s a failure of humanity. You hear this word “humanity” applied a lot, but it’s a real word, and it’s worth paying attention to. A failure of empathy. A failure to pause for even a moment and ask the most basic of questions: how would the family of that little boy feel if they opened their inbox and read this? That’s not an AI problem. That’s a people problem. And it sits at the heart of a broader crisis in email marketing culture, one where the relentless pressure to perform, to stand out, to optimize for attention, has gradually crowded out the human judgment that should be the last line of defense, if not the first. So here’s the question I have. In a world where content is created faster than ever, approved under pressure, and distributed at scale, who is actually responsible for ensuring that basic humanity remains in the loop? And what does it take for an organization to lose sight of that so utterly completely?

Shel Holtz: It’s unbelievable. Just staggering. I have no problem with newsjacking — this is the term that David Meerman Scott coined. He wrote a book about it. He had great examples of it. I even have a Claude Cowork skill set up that runs at 4 a.m. every Monday morning to scour the news for stories that I can leverage and write on their coattails. I haven’t found one yet that I’d actually want to use, but it’s giving me some interesting stuff, and I’m convinced that one of these days it will. I’m tweaking it every now and then based on the results I see. I am a fan of newsjacking, but for God’s sake, use your head before you go with one of these things. Was the wording clever? Yeah. It was also insensitive and inhuman and horrible. I don’t know what else to say about this. I will comment, though, on the apology. I love the fact that it was an unreserved apology. They were unequivocal in their condemnation of it. But I think they needed to end the apology by saying, “We will report on the steps that we are taking in order to ensure that this doesn’t happen again, and we will continue to report on what we learn about how this happened,” and then follow up on that. Just to leave it to say “we’re going to change our procedures” is woefully inadequate. I think people need to know that you’re actually taking the steps that you say you will. The trust gap is huge here. After you have done something like that, just to say, “We’re sorry, we’re fixing it,” is not enough.

Neville Hobson: Yet it looks like people are willing to accept that. So, I mean, this is a business that is hugely successful. They do really imaginative, creative TV advertising campaigns. And the play on the name Wowcher, you know, “voucher” with a “wow” — I mean, it’s smart, it’s very clever.

Shel Holtz: Sure. Well, it’s like Groupon — “group” and “coupon,” right?

Neville Hobson: Yeah, very clever. Yet — what bothers me, I think, is, are we as a society — you know, condemnation was universal, people expressed horror at what they did, all that, and the poor little boy was savaged by crocodiles — yeah, they’re still buying stuff from Wowcher. They’re still doing business with Wowcher.

Shel Holtz: No boycotts, huh?

Neville Hobson: I’m not suggesting, for instance, that they shouldn’t be doing all those things. But isn’t what happened so grotesque that you’d think it would stimulate people to be, “That’s it, I’m not doing anything more with this company”? And the campaigns online — I’ve not seen anything like that. So what does that tell us about our society, is my kind of rhetorical question, I expect. But I think the point that Beth O’Malley raises — that this reflects a culture in email marketing where anything that drives opens and clicks is tacitly approved — is worth looking at. Is this a Wowcher problem? Or is it symptomatic of how the entire performance-metrics model of email marketing has just normalized a race to the bottom in judgment and taste? What do you think?

Shel Holtz: I think you’re looking at two sides of this issue. The first is the creation side, where all of what Beth O’Malley talks about comes into play. And yeah, I think she’s right. I think the drive for clicks is overwhelming the application of judgment and common sense. The other side is the reaction, where people are horrified for 15 minutes and then they continue to use the product. They’re not boycotting. It’s not a revocation of their license to operate. So I think on the societal side of this, I wholly agree. I think we tolerate a lot more these days. We tolerate corruption in government a lot more these days. I mean, Vice President J.D. Vance was on some show — this happened while I was traveling, so I just read it in passing — but basically he said, if what Richard Nixon did that cost him his presidency happened today, it wouldn’t last in the news cycle for 15 minutes. And I’ve read news outlets say, you know, he’s probably right. It’s not that what he did wasn’t illegal and probably should have ended his presidency. It’s just that today people would have shrugged and gone, “Yeah, just business as usual. Those marketing guys, they’re terrible, but I love their product.” So yeah, I think the bar has been lowered considerably for what we’re willing to — I mean, outrage is everywhere, so I’m reluctant to say “outraged about” — but what we’re willing to act on, that bar has dropped precipitously, I think.

Neville Hobson: ‘Tis.

Shel Holtz: Yep. Let’s move on to our final report, which is really fascinating, because there are two studies that have reached entirely different conclusions. And I have to say, this casts any study that I look at into doubt when I see this. So let’s take a look at these, because they’re both studies that would be of interest to anybody engaged in internal comms. A Fresh Intranet Employee Attention Recession report, which came out in May, found that just 12% of employees read internal communications in full. That’s 12%. The other 88% are skimming, filtering, and ignoring it unless a manager flags it, or they’re handing it to an AI tool and reading the summary instead — at the same time that they’re saying, “I don’t like AI.” Now, here’s the part that makes that number really uncomfortable: 91% of those same employees say the communications feel relevant to them, always or most of the time. So this isn’t disengagement. These are people who want to engage, who say the content speaks to them, but the sheer volume has made reading the whole thing an unsustainable act. Mike Klein, writing this up for Strategic — a great magazine, if you’re not reading Strategic, you probably should — points to the cause. The single biggest factor in whether someone reads a message in full isn’t the subject, the sender, or the format. It’s the cumulative weight of how many other messages arrive before it. And the internal communications index backs this up. Most employees now have ten minutes or fewer per day for internal comms. The most common answer is five minutes, and that window’s been shrinking every year since 2023. Now, here’s the twist on this, and it’s why I wanted to pair these. A second study, from Corbett and Reworked, which Chuck Gose’s ICology was involved with, found almost the opposite. Half of workers say the volume of messages they get is about right, and yet 44% still tune out. Chuck Gose’s read on this is the scarier one. This isn’t overwhelm, it’s passive disengagement. And when employees stop noticing that they’re overwhelmed, your satisfaction scores start lying to you. 89% of workers are only moderately confident that they’re not missing something important. So, which is it? Too much volume, or something else? And I think the answer is both, and they’re not actually in conflict. Volume genuinely destroys attention, but cutting volume alone won’t fix a tune-out that’s really about relevance and trust. Because when you dig into what makes people actually pay attention, it’s specific. 57% engage when a message is timely or urgent. 56% when there’s a clear action required. What makes them tune out is repetition. And I think that’s important, because a lot of communicators operate under that formula that says you have to tell people something seven times before it sticks. They also tune out because of vagueness, and content that could have been sent to anyone. There’s a brilliant one-line test in the report: before you hit send, you should be able to finish the sentence, “After reading this, employees will ___.” If you can’t fill in that blank, the message isn’t ready. And the finding that crosses every one of these studies is about who’s talking. 73% of workers say the sender is the number one factor in whether they trust a message. “From the leadership team” doesn’t cut it. People trust people, not titles. Which leads straight to the manager gap. Across all of these reports, managers are the most trusted, most critical link in the chain, and the most under-supported. 87% of comms pros call manager capability their single biggest risk, and fewer than one in four organizations actually give managers a toolkit. And there’s one more thing I want us to really pay attention to: Mike Klein’s argument that we’re measuring the wrong thing entirely. 70% of comms teams are still tracking opens, clicks, and page views. Only 12% measure anything close to business impact. As Mike puts it, reach without understanding isn’t communication, it’s noise. So the question he leaves hanging, and I’ll leave it here with you, Neville, is whether the profession responds to all of this by refining its content or finally changing what it measures.

Neville Hobson: That last option — changing what it measures — is the one that interests me, because AMEC is a big proponent of, let me call it, proper measurement. Opens and clicks don’t cut it, the same way how many impressions something has got — eyeballs. It’s like, I don’t care how many eyeballs saw the content. I want to know what they did when they saw the content. Did they just move on? Did they click something? What did they do?

Shel Holtz: Yeah, outcomes-based.

Neville Hobson: So I think it’s most interesting. And reading about the other survey that you mentioned that was in the other publication you shared, ICology, that had some interesting findings in there too that struck me as worth attention. You mentioned one: direct managers are the missing link most organizations keep overlooking. Employees trust their manager more than anyone else — yeah, absolutely. But I found this one interesting, the shadow comms finding. That’ll resonate, if you listened to the story earlier, with anyone who’s worked in internal comms. They’ll recognize it immediately: when official channels fail, employees don’t stop getting information. They just go somewhere else — Slack DMs, WhatsApp groups, text messages, hallway conversations, all of those things. So that’s shadow comms. That’s a good way of describing it. Not approved channels. But it has ever been thus, hasn’t it, Shel, for goodness’ sake? It’s not new. The tools and the means have shifted over time, but this has always been the case. You’re going to find other ways of finding out what Harry down the hall thinks about something and share your thoughts with him. And now you’ll do it on WhatsApp. Before, you might mosey down to his cubicle and surreptitiously chat with him. Look, if you haven’t seen the show The Office —

Shel Holtz: About the —

Neville Hobson: — but it’s nothing new in all of this. And yet we still don’t seem to be addressing these things. I wonder why that could be. Could it be it requires some big changes to happen in how you act as a manager, how the leaders behave, and so forth, and indeed how regular employees themselves behave? That’s a leadership issue, it seems to me, first and foremost. So there’s plenty to digest in both these stories. Mike Klein’s piece is a good one, I agree with you. And I think “not measuring the wrong things” is excellent. And Richard Bagnall at AMEC would have some views on that, I’m sure. Are we measuring the wrong things? So plenty to take away from this show.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, absolutely. And the shadow communications has always been real, and more so now that there are digital tools that enable it. How many communicators have mapped their influence networks? If you know who people go to when they want to know about something, then you can reach out to them and say, “What are people asking about?” And you can figure out what communication has been missed. But if you don’t know who those people are, you can’t do that. So we’ve been talking about mapping employee influence networks. I know Katie Macaulay likes seven different networks. If you can only do three: who do people go to when they need to know how to do something? Who do people go to when they need to know if something is true? And who do people go to if they want a reaction to what they’ve heard? So, “How do I do this? What’s going on? And should I trust this?” Those are three separate influence networks, and people tend to go to different people for those things. But if you can do some research and find out who those people are, then you can get ahead of this game. But I’ve got to tell you, I’ve been thinking about this. I’ve been thinking about using our intranet tool for a greater targeting of information to the audiences that care about it, and not sending it to the people who don’t, so that our communication is more relevant. And I have been thinking about our next internal comms survey. I’m going to rethink the questions around these issues, and then I’m going to think about a substantial change to our internal comms that may be phased in over a couple of years. But I absolutely see this applying to us. We have people out on project sites who are on ridiculous time schedules, and how much time they have to read a 2,000-word article is none. I don’t need to do the research to know that. So this needs a serious rethink.

Neville Hobson: What to do, indeed.

Shel Holtz: Yep. And that’ll wrap up this episode of For Immediate Release. We hope that you will comment on any or all of the stories that we have discussed today. Send email to fircomments@gmail.com, drop a recording in there and we’ll play it. It’s been forever since we’ve had an audio comment. We make it easy: if you go to the FIR Podcast Network website, you’ll see SpeakPipe voicemail on the right-hand side of the page, and all you have to do is record. You don’t need your own recording equipment for that. And then we’ll get it. You can leave comments on the post on this at firpodcastnetwork.com, or on LinkedIn, or on Facebook, or Threads, or Bluesky, where we share the release of each episode. We want to hear from you about these. And Vincent, we want to continue to hear from you. We enjoy your comments. We would love an audio comment from Vincent one of these days. And the next monthly episode will drop on Monday, July 27th. We’re planning to record that on Saturday, July 25th. But in between now and then, look for our short midweek episodes.

Neville Hobson: We have an interview coming up with Pete Blackshaw.

Shel Holtz: We do. Pete Blackshaw, who — I believe he was the first person we ever interviewed on FIR Interviews, wasn’t he?

Neville Hobson: No, he wasn’t the first, but he was in 2005 when we started. We’ve interviewed him three times, up to about 2009, and now we’ve got this long gap till now.

Shel Holtz: So looking forward to that. He’s talking about using artificial intelligence in order to figure out which product you want to buy, as opposed to other mechanisms, and why it’s better. I have lots of questions for him. We’re not going to get to them all. I’m sure you do too, but —

Neville Hobson: We do. Yeah, we’re interviewing Pete on Monday the 29th of June, and that interview should be published within a week or so of that.

Shel Holtz: Looking forward to that. And that will be a 30 for For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #520: AI’s PR Meltdown appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Most companies have corporate values. Most companies get them wrong. In episode 4 of “On the Same Page,” Shel and Steve look at what works, what doesn’t, and why, with examples and tales from their own experiences.

Transcript:

Steve Crescenzo

Hey Shel.

Shel Holtz

Steve, how you doing?

Steve Crescenzo

Doing good, doing good. We’re doing this on a record I’m doing this on a Saturday, which is fun. well, I mean it’s it’s what else am I gonna do? It’s too early to drink, so what yeah, this is this is good time spent. but I’m really glad I’m excited about our topic. More importantly this this week. we decided to talk about values, corporate values. And I think there’s there’s two camps of people when it comes to values. There’s people that really believe they can drive the culture and affect how people feel at work and how they work and how they treat each other and

Shel Holtz

Yeah, is it?

Steve Crescenzo

All that good stuff. you know, and there are companies where that happens. I I’m not gonna say there’s none. Second camp is people who just think they’re completely worthless and they just are posters on a wall and nobody pays attention to them, nobody can name what they are. And I’m in the third camp. I think they do some damage at some a lot of companies for two reasons. Number one, they’re they’re too generic. You look at it, I could pull up any and it’s it’s integrity, respect, excellence, agility. Teamwork, putting people for you it’s all the same crap. So it’s so generic that everyone just agrees with them, and of course who’s not gonna agree with that? the second thing though is that if you don’t live your values, if it’s I I go into so many corporate communications departments at companies where one of the values is innovation, and their intranet looks like it’s from nineteen ninety five. they’re not innovative. they’re in a you know, so agility, no no. Transparency, absolutely not. Not so you gotta poster on a wall with this list of stupid words, and everybody sees what’s in front of them and says, That’s not us. That’s not us. So I think they actually might do more harm than good.

Shel Holtz

Well l let me read you some corporate values. these are from one company, these are their values integrity, respect, excellence, and teamwork.

Steve Crescenzo

For the swords I said. Who’s it?

Shel Holtz

Yeah. Yeah. You see anything wrong with those, other than the fact that they’re generic?

Steve Crescenzo

I I think that’s great. I’m glad they operate that way. That’s great. you making

Shel Holtz

Yeah, well that’s Enron. Yeah, it is. Liv they were literally Enron’s values. excellence and teamwork.

Steve Crescenzo

teamwork. That’s classic. Yeah, that’s that’s my experience too. I I’m I’m with that I’m with I’m with that example.

Shel Holtz

Well, we will talk about that. We will talk about your other issues too, because I think they’re spot on. But I do believe that when it’s done well and done right, they can really rock an organization.

Steve Crescenzo

Not gonna disagree with that, but let’s talk about it.

Shel Holtz

So before we jump into the values discussion, I did want to share one comment we got over on LinkedIn where I shared the last episode where we talked about employee voice. This is from Vincent Bruneau, who is commenting pretty regularly on our show and also on my other podcast for immediate release. and he’s always got he’s he’s he’s got great stuff. I I I want to know more about him. but he says in terms of employee voice, the most effective employee listening strategies don’t start with asking more questions. They start with demonstrating that previous feedback led to meaningful change. When people can see the connection between their input and organizational decisions, participation becomes much easier to sustain. Yeah.

Steve Crescenzo

Absolutely. That’s why that’s the point you made, is that we don’t have a survey fatigue. We have a nothing happens when we take a survey fatigue.

Shel Holtz

Yeah, the way I heard it at a conference was it’s it’s not survey fatigue, it’s bullshit fatigue. yak because if we if we survey you and then don’t tell you what the survey results were or how things are changing as a result of that, that’s bullshit.

Steve Crescenzo

Yeah, you know, Cindy does probably, you know, she’s she’s our measurement arm of Crescent Communications. She does, you know, fifty surveys a year. And her first question is, Why are you asking that question if you don’t if you if you it’s ac if you don’t have the power to change something? And they do it. They load the survey up with a j a wish list of things and they can’t change any of it. And they still ask and nothing happens and then they do it again the next year.

Shel Holtz

And nobody wants to take that survey. Right. Yeah. All right. So let’s jump into values. And I think a good place to start is what are corporate values supposed to be? And the way I see it, the way I’ve always heard that values are supposed to be presented to employees, is these are the underlying beliefs that drive decisions and behavior in the company. These are the things that we believe. And how do you get to that? I I I think, you know, first of all.

Steve Crescenzo

Right, exactly.

Shel Holtz

It has to be shared between the leaders and the employees. Nothing is going to turn employees off more than leadership coming to them and saying, hey, everybody, these are our values. And employees look at it and say, well, first of all, I don’t see those values reflected in decisions or behaviors. And second of all, they’re not my values. I worked for an organization once and I left them in 1993. They have changed owners a couple of times. I don’t think anybody is there. Who was there when I was there? So I’m going to go ahead and name them. It was Allergan, a pharmaceutical company. where yeah, they came up with the values and and I wasn’t involved. I was director of communications, but this was like the executive committee. And they came to me and said, we’ve decided these are the corporate values, go communicate these. And I looked at them and I I said, do we have employee buy-in on these? And they almost literally said, Employee buy-in, hey, this is my way or the highway. If they don’t like these, they can go work somewhere else.

Steve Crescenzo

I remember that. Yeah. my God. Shell, so we’ve done this kind of work with five or six companies over the years, mission, vision, and values. And you know, our we they they hired us to help them write these statements in these words. And our thing was we always said, we’re not gonna do it unless we can talk to employees first. We’re gonna do focus groups. So this company sent us to London, Paris, Singapore. We did focus groups globally to get to the mission, vision values, what people really believed, what was in their core, what brought them to work every day. You know, we did. Cindy led the focus groups and she’s good at that, and we got such great stuff. Then it came time to present it to the C suite. This was a big company. And here’s why everything ends up sucking so bad. It’s all written by committee. Like we we gave them three great examples pulled from their own employees that were unique. You couldn’t pull them out and give them to any other company. They were, they were good. And by the time we walked out of that half day session, they had been watered down. Because yeah, you had eight eight guys in there, eight guys and two women, and they all had their own ideas and they all just wanted to be safe. Well, safe. Yeah, they all always default to safety. Like, let’s just be safe. That’s why you get integrity. Who’s gonna argue with integrity? Transparency, who’s gonna argue with that? Well, by the time I d I don’t even know what they ended up with, but I know that they watered it way down from what we gave them. And our communications people loved it. Our clients loved us. We worked with them again and again and again. But when you’re up against that C suite in that that lemming like thing like to not take a chance to just be safe and you know and they wanna be kinda corporate and we gotta be serious and that’s where it all falls apart. It’s writing by committee. You wanna have values. I mean it just it’s really hard.

Shel Holtz

Yeah, and another place this falls apart is what you mentioned at the outset, which is that the behaviors don’t match the values. I’ll tell you, I was doing a focus group with employees of a technology company. It was in their Los Angeles office. They’re headquartered up here in Silicon Valley, but this was in their LA office. And their values were printed on the back of the security badge that they all wore on lanyards around their necks. And I said, What do you think about those? And they laughed. I literally laughed out loud. And I said, Okay, tell me about that. And one of them turned his badge around and he read off the values. He says, You see all of these? There was a guy who was just promoted to executive vice president and he violated every single one of these. He he he got the car and the stock options and the huge bonus potential. And he violated every one of these, but he blew his numbers away. So

Steve Crescenzo

Ha ha.

Shel Holtz

Every employee in this company knows that we can do what these things say or we can do what gets us ahead based on what we see actually happen in the organization. And that’s where values become a source of incredible cynicism and derision.

Steve Crescenzo

Yeah, yeah, I I I can I I can tell three or four different clients that we’ve had. One of the one of the values was transparency. no, I’m sorry, one of the values was innovation. I have a transparency story too. was innovation and ri risk taking. You know, that was the that was in the values, that was in the then we did focus groups with employees and they’re like, You’re they’re out of their mind. If you make a mistake around here, you’re punished. Like I and you’re not gonna you’re you’re not allowed to fail forward. You’re not allowed to try things. I mean, you’re you supposedly are. But you’re gonna spend time and money doing something, you’re gonna go after what you know is gonna work. You’re where they’re not being innovative. So it’s it’s preached up here at the top, and it’s not happening down there. The other one is transparency, right? Everyone’s got that one lately. I was working for a big oil company, and transparency was one of the values, and I was doing focus groups, and everyone kept saying it I we just don’t feel leadership is transparent. We don’t think they’re transparent. Transparent, we don’t think it kept coming up. The number one theme out of like fifteen focus groups. So I go to give my report to the communicator and he loves it. Then we got to take it to the next level to a bit one of the leaders, not yet the big guy. And he looks and he goes, stops me like six slides in and says, You’ve already mentioned lack of transparency three times, and that’s not the case. I said, Well, that that’s what I heard. I mean, I I did fifteen talking, I talked to 110 people or whatever. And he goes, No, that’s not the case though. They’re they just don’t understand what we’re telling We we are very transparent. I’m like, all right, I can see exactly how much good this audit’s gonna do. And it’s just it’s it’s so it just doesn’t happen up there often enough to make a difference down here where people are doing the work.

Shel Holtz

Yeah, and you know, when you’re sharing things transparently, and I this is a bit of a digression. It also needs to be relevant. I did work with a media company whose name everybody listening or watching this podcast would recognize in a heartbeat. And I was interviewing their CEO, who’s very famous, and he said, we actually don’t need employee communications. He says, you know, the cachet of working here. Is is all we really need because people go out at night and say, I’ll tell you when we stop recording. But I went out and did the focus groups and I heard the same thing i i in every focus group. and what they were saying was they keep talking to us about our international expansion. And I am a producer on a US-based show.

Steve Crescenzo

Well now I I don’t know who it is.

Shel Holtz

International expansion doesn’t mean anything to me. I’m not going to be involved in that. There are other things I want them to be transparent about. I don’t ever hear about that. And then what they said was every year we’re told what our financial goals are. And from January to October, everything is great. Everything is rosy. we get these all company updates where they tell us how wonderful everything is. Then in October, we’re far behind budget and we have to

Steve Crescenzo

Yeah.

Shel Holtz

Take measures to to to fix things. And I asked this of the CEO when I had my follow-up call with him. And he said, Well, if we told employees what was going on earlier in the year, in 10 minutes it would be on the related blogs and all of this stuff would be out in public and it would affect our share price. And I said, Okay, so your employees don’t trust you. And you don’t trust your employees, but you don’t need employee communications. Yeah, it was that was a I I went in there thinking that was going to be a fun gig and it it it ended up being really, really challenging. But anyway, another problem with values is a lot of leaders make them aspirational. You know, so employees in the focus group say they’re not transparent. And leadership says, No, that’s what we’re working toward. That’s not values, right? That’s a maybe a strategic plan.

Steve Crescenzo

Yeah. No, no, no, no. That’s that could be a vision. That could be yeah, something else, but it’s not values are how what we do every day right now. What are our values?

Shel Holtz

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. What are the what are the beliefs that underscore everything that we do, every decision, the way we behave, the way we treat each other? You mentioned innovation. Innovation is one of the values at my company, but it’s real. Nobody doubts this. We do very complex, yeah, we yeah, we do very complex things that other, you know, some of our competitors turn down these projects, saying that can’t be done.

Steve Crescenzo

no, that’s what yeah.

Shel Holtz

Yeah, we we did one it was a hotel in San Francisco that we built and the footprint was ridiculous. There was no place for staging. you had a building right abutting where the back was and two abutting where the side was like a vacant lot between two high rises and the building on the street behind it, right there. no place to put a crane. I mean, all kinds of issues and we innovated ways. To do I’ll tell you one great innovation story if I can digress a little on this. We we built the California Academy of Sciences, and there were two things in that building that were challenging. And one of them was that we needed fire suppression systems in a not a vacuum-sealed room, but you know, an airtight room. And this ended up being a challenge. And somebody said, Well, you know, who lives in that kind of environment is people on submarines. So we went to a submarine manufacturer to find out how they did it. the other one was in this simulated rainforest. Yeah, the other one was the rainforest it in this dome had this sort of curving walkway that you could it it started at the top and winds its way down. And you see, there’s no stairs that do this. What does it? And somebody looked at the design and said, you know what it looks like?

Steve Crescenzo

That’s that’s that’s cool. That’s a great story. That yeah, I’m

Shel Holtz

It looks like a roller coaster. So we worked with a roller coaster company on this walk. So this is things other people go, we you can’t do that. And that’s innovation. And you know I that’s relevant to the people in the organization. And yeah.

Steve Crescenzo

That’s cool. Yeah. Yeah, you know so we we were lucky enough to do work with Sandia Labs. and you remember any old days Dan Dan Baum? He wrote he wrote like a funny corporate column in the in the in the Sandia Lab News. And he was like a Mike Roykko level comic columnist. But anyway, I digress. He’s retired. But we went on there innovation’s one of their values, and of course Sandia Labs. They’re they’re making weapons and and they’re

Shel Holtz

I did some work with Seth. They’re great. Yeah.

Steve Crescenzo

They have to be innovative, right? So innovation’s all over the place and it’s a value and it’s it’s really driven into the DNA. But then what w if you had to guess in the United States, what’s the most innovative healthcare organization in the in the United States?

Shel Holtz

Mayo clinic would would come to the top of my mind. Mayo clinic. Yeah.

Steve Crescenzo

If you think Mail Client? Yeah, exactly. That’s one of our clients. And there’s a one he’s retired now, I think, but think he retired just last year. Hoy Cinemore was one of the best corporate editors in in my in in that I’ve ever stated him. He was a brilliant writer, brilliant editor. And he go and he and he measured everything. Every article he would measure the you know, everything. How long they stayed in the page, metro opens, clicks, w everything. He goes, Steve, if I ever want to guarantee that nobody reads a story that I write. somebody else writes, I’ll put the word innovation in the headline. It’s just so beaten to death. It’s beaten to death. And Mail Clinics as innovative as anybody gets, but they don’t talk about it all the time. They they just tell stories. They they would tell that story. And they might say the word innovation in there, but they don’t constantly talk about how innovative we are because

Shel Holtz

No, no, no. You can’t beat people over the head with this stuff. in our internal comms department, we have a test. What value or values does this article reinforce? Doesn’t mean we put the value in the headline or even in the story. But it has to align with at least one of in some way. Yeah.

Steve Crescenzo

I love it. Shut up. And I have seen companies in the in the employee on the internet, back when back in print even, that have a little icon for each value and they would just stick the icon next to it. So it wasn’t in the headline, it wasn’t like that, but it it was a way to kind of reinforce that, you know, these things matter. This is th this is this is what we’re saying and this is how we’re working and that’s how they blend together.

Shel Holtz

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, the other thing that I like about where I work is that I know because I’ve been in the room a few times, that the executive leadership tests decisions against the values. Yeah.

Steve Crescenzo

That’s awesome. So that’s a g that’s great. I mean, if that more people did that, they wouldn’t be so either useless or harmful. When I was doing the focus when Sydney was doing the focus troops for that large company globally, one of the things she would ask was now we’re gonna talk about now I want to talk about values. We talk about mission, vision, values, but you know, corporate values is a very strange concept, she would say, because there’s fifty thousand people in this company. How can they possibly all have the same values? Now think about your personal values. Which what are your values, Shell? I know yours. You’re you’re kind, you’re a deadhead, you take care of people, you mentor people, you’re generous. Those are your values. Always have been, always will. not everybody has those values. I would argue that certain politicians today certainly do not have those values. So a value should I why what do I a value is valuable when it forces choices. You know what I mean? Like it’s gotta force choices.

Shel Holtz

Exactly.

Steve Crescenzo

If you’re if one of your values is transparency, there are going to be some leaders that don’t agree with that and they may want to go work somewhere else. If one of your values is speed and agility, and you’ve got a worker who is precise and he came from a Swiss watch company and he’s not the kind of worker that likes to go move fast and break things, as all the tech bros say. Like they should values should force people to make decisions. Like, is this the kind of company I want to work with?

Shel Holtz

Well, it should force leadership. It should force leadership to make decisions too. And there’s there’s a great example one you know, one of the archetypal crisis communication examples, case studies, is the Tylenol tampering. It was right there in Chicago where you live. and yeah, you know, it’s taught in every business school. we look at that through rose colored glasses. I was talking to somebody who was there at Johnson and Johnson

Steve Crescenzo

Right. Well yeah, that’s the main thing. god, yeah. on there, yeah.

Shel Holtz

At the time that happened. And yeah, it was was saying, you know, everybody says this was this immediate thing that the board decided, that the executive team decided. It actually took three days and it took a lot of harping from I can’t remember his name, but he ran PR back then in the company. But what he kept telling them was, you know, because they they only wanted to pull the product in Chicago. You pull it nationwide, that’s a real hit to earnings. that’s going to affect the shareholders, and that’s bad.

Steve Crescenzo

really?

Shel Holtz

and his point, well, he had two points. One was if there’s an incident outside of Chicago, it’ll kill us if we leave the product on the shelves. But the other thing is, if you look at our credo, they called it a credo, but it was their values, it was their beliefs, was that our patients come first, our employees come second, the communities in which we operate come third, and shareholders come last. And if we pull

Steve Crescenzo

Yeah.

Shel Holtz

product only in Chicago and leave it up when there’s a risk in the rest of the country, that’s not what we say our values are. We’re putting the shareholders first. So they ended up agreeing. They pulled the product nationwide. They took a huge hit to their bottom line, but they innovated the safety seal. They reintroduced the product with a safety seal. No other pain reliever had this. Not only did they get their own customers back, but they got a bunch of customers who had been buying competitor

Steve Crescenzo

Yeah, good.

Shel Holtz

Products because the competitors didn’t have safety seals. Shareholders made out like bandits. Take care of your customers, take care of your employees, and the bottom line will take care of itself, you know. but you have to live your values. And I think this is why crisis tabletop exercises at least twice a year are so important because it builds the muscle memory when you’re in the midst of a crisis and have to make decisions really fast. You have to test them against your values. Right? I mean value should cost something.

Steve Crescenzo

without a doubt. Values should cost something. Like I I don’t know what Target’s values are. but I’m sure I’m I’m sure they’re I’m sure somewhere in there I’m sure they violated them when they didn’t speak up what was happening in Min Minneapolis. I’m quite sure that they value they they violated seven or six six or seven of their values. you know what you know who actually get another copy that gets it right, Shell is right in your neighborhood and you might not like because they, you know, they’re utility and nobody really likes the utilities. And they they yeah, PG and E. We’re doing a lot of work with them right now. through with Brad Whitworth over there and and the rest of the team. And we went out there and we gave a speech to 600 of their managers. And Patty Poppy is the CEO, and she led off. And then I fought we follow Cindy and I followed her, and she was just fantastic. I I I’ve been blown away by some really special CEOs in my life. mostly I’m disgusted by them, to be honest. but this one she blew me away. She was so transparent.

Shel Holtz

P G and E.

Steve Crescenzo

And real and authentic. And the 600 managers, you could just tell the that the culture in that room was vibrant and it was there. And you know, they they have values, and their values are their values are very actually very unique. They’re what was it? I forgot curiosity. There there were good values. but they also have you you talked a little bit about values being aspirational. So they have their values, which are cool, curious. all sorts of i I’ll remember later. but then they have what they call their stands. That’s this is what we’re gonna we’re gonna where we’re gonna take a stand, what we’re gonna make a stand on. And their stands are everyone and everything is always safe. If everyone you work for utility, well Shell, you’re in construction. Everything is safety, right?

Shel Holtz

yeah. S yeah, second most dangerous occupation in the country is is construction. Oil and gas.

Steve Crescenzo

Yeah, I don’t with the first. well, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So everyone and everything is always safe. Aspirational, right? Catastrophic wildfires shall stop. It’s almost like biblical. Is it it is enjoyable to work with and for PG and E. Clean and resilient energy for all. Our work shall create prosperity for our customers and investors. You know what? I would look at that if you didn’t know I didn’t know the backstory there and who she is and what she does. I’d be like, that’s they’re full, that’s just words, words. But they’re not with her. They’re not. They they she

Shel Holtz

Yeah. But they’re also not values. They’re they’re not trying to convince people this is what we this these underscore our behavior and activity today. They’re they’re aspirational and they’re separating those from their values. Yeah.

Steve Crescenzo

Exactly. And that’s that’s why I love it. And then but then the the values come into play and then the the strategic initiatives are tied to those two things and it’s all very mapped out and and smart and it makes makes a difference. I mean the the employees feel c connected. And you know what’s funny is when Patty Poppy came on board there, you know, they were losing money, they were they were in dire straits, they had gone through some I think lawsuits or whatever, I don’t even know. but she goes, If you came here for me just to turn the books around, I’m not your girl. I’m not your I’m not your person. I’m here to change the culture of this company. And she did. And that’s why I feel bad saying all values suck, because when they’re right, like Southwest Airlines used to get it right. I’m not sure if they still do. When they used to get it right, I remember having dinner with Ginger Hard, she just passed away recently. Did you hear that?

Shel Holtz

I didn’t know that. I’m sorry to hear that.

Steve Crescenzo

Yeah, I saw it on LinkedIn. She was a wonderful woman. She headed up all of employee communications for Southwest Airlines. And I had dinner with her once. And I said, What is it about you guys with this weirdo Kool-Aid drinking culture? Why are your people so nice on the flights? Why do people seem to love working here? And she gave it, went back to Herb Kellerher, of the CEO, the founder. And they said, because Herb always said, every other company says the customer’s always right. We’ve always said our employees are right, and then we trust them to take care of the customer.

Shel Holtz

Yeah, she was.

Steve Crescenzo

And that was a value and employees got that. And I mean y it can make a difference if it’s community if it makes something to begin with that came from employees and it’s communicated properly, it can make a world of difference.

Shel Holtz

I I I heard a story. I I don’t know if this is apocryphal or if it really happened, but there was a marketing team brought into Southwest. They did the dog and pony show for their their marketing slogan, and you know, they had the the big reveal and Herb Callaher and the board is there, and Callaher’s kind of looking at it, and he’s grimacing and and he says, You guys don’t get it. Here’s here’s our slogan: smiles on faces, butts in seats, money in the bank.

Steve Crescenzo

Now that’s real. That’s cold. I love that.

Shel Holtz

Yeah. Yeah. Hey Steve, I got one more thing I wanna talk about with values, but before we do, I wanna let everyone know that this episode of On the Same Page is sponsored by the strategy studio. Why don’t you tell us about that?

Steve Crescenzo

Just a couple of seconds, not an ad necessarily, but we started the str Crescenso Communications. My wife Cindy, myself, and Zach started the strategy studio. Our son, Zach. Start we started it about a year and a half ago. And it is a private community paid, but a drop in the bucket compared to going to even one conference or one one webinar, even. we got about 140 people in there now, and we share ideas in there. We do weekly live sessions. So we we just did one, we just interviewed Mary Lou Panzano. On her new book out, Cementing Change. She’s a board member of the studio. So we talked to her for an hour. We do live interviews. We do a lot of trainings on things like AI and content creation and measurement and strategy and planning and weekly live sessions. You know, they’re 20 minutes, they’re 25 minutes, micro trainings, so you can do it over lunch. And then we have we have the water cooler thread in there where people just go out there and say, It just happened last week. Someone goes, Hey, I’m thinking about proposing these changes to my employee newsletter. My boss is gonna be a little skeptical. Any advice? 20 people get out there and say, Yeah, do this, do this. And they’re just like sharing stuff all the time. So would love to have anybody listening join the studio. And here it is. Constrategy studio dot com.

Shel Holtz

Higher, higher, higher up. There it is, yeah.

Steve Crescenzo

All right. Check it out. Check out our check out our website, crescendo dot com, and if you wanna you can get there from there too. So yes, we’re so proud to sponsor this because you’re my mentor. Not everybody gets a chance to talk to their mentor twice a month. That’s really cool. So thank you for having me again.

Shel Holtz

Out. Yeah. my pleasure, and you’re my mentor too. you mentioned you mentioned AI. So now I have two things to talk about before we wrap this up. Yeah. Well, this is this will be pretty quick, but AI is really the values test right now. You know, I mean there are companies that are laying people off and claiming it’s AI. How do you message that? are you disclosing what is machine generated? These are all, you know, values decisions in disguise, aren’t they?

Steve Crescenzo

Haha Well I knew and I should have got you off out of God damn it. Absolutely. Yeah, I d absolutely. I think companies are really gonna struggle with it. I really do. And here’s another ethical AI thing that has to do with values. You have all employees are equal, right? All associates are equal, all partner, whatever you wanna call your employees. Well we’re seeing with a lot of our clients is the only AI they’re allowed to use at work is Copilot, right?

Shel Holtz

yeah, because they were already Microsoft Office three sixty five customers. Yeah, yeah.

Steve Crescenzo

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. So they can only use copilot, but there’s two versions of copilot. There’s a standard version that comes with it and everybody gets that kinda. But then they have Microsoft copilot enterprise, which costs money. And that’s where you get the stored memory, that’s when you can train it, that’s where AI gets powerful.

Shel Holtz

It’s it it it it maintains all the inputs from your queries. It doesn’t share that, yeah. So

Steve Crescenzo

Absolutely. So it’s a whole d it’s two two different tools. and we have communication teams that we’re working right now where two of them have the enterprise version and five of them don’t. it’s gonna create a a have and have not world here because they gotta pay for each individual ticket. So it’s like Willie Wonka’s golden ticket. So how can you tell values, get back to values, how can you tell your employees they’re all valued equally and everyone’s great and we respect diversity, blah blah blah. And then you’re giving two people a professional advantage.

Shel Holtz

Yeah.

Steve Crescenzo

And you can’t afford to give the I mean, that’s gonna be a big deal. Come on, why mark my words?

Shel Holtz

absolutely. The only way you can get away with that is if you say we’re piloting it right now and we have a a group of pilot testers. Yeah, there’s another one that tests the values here, and that’s where you say the only thing you’re allowed to use is co-pilot, and then you hear that the CEO is using Claude and the the the president is using Chat GPT. Yeah, so that that’s another one. The the the other thing I wanted to mention though is the importance of values in recruiting, because people who are looking for a job, especially coming out of college, but pretty much anybody looking for a job.

Steve Crescenzo

Right, yeah, right.

Shel Holtz

is looking for a company whose values align with theirs. We’ve we’ve had people join us coming from some of our competitors. Why are they coming? culture. And what drives culture? Values.

Steve Crescenzo

Yeah. No, you’re right. I think it is a dis a d a dis distinctive thing. I think it can set a company apart. I mean, especially nowadays, people are just more into their own values. It’s like we’re not that’s fifties or sixties where we just went to a company, you worked fifty years, you got your watch, and you went home. People are jumping and around and moving around and taking different and they they can go to I don’t know how long it’s gonna last, but they put values values matter to them. They don’t want to work for a company they don’t believe in.

Shel Holtz

No, they really don’t. So for everybody out there working on their values, let us know how you’re approaching this.

Steve Crescenzo

Yeah, we’d love to hear. If you have values that are actually working and that means something, please let us know. I I’m always looking for a great case study to teach in the strategy studio. So I’d love to hear from anybody.

Shel Holtz

Yeah, send an email to FIR comments at gmail.com. You’ll see that we’ll post this when it goes live online on LinkedIn, on Facebook, on on threads, and on Blue Sky, whichever one you’re on. Leave a comment there. Let us know how you’re approaching values or what kind of challenges or struggles you’re facing or what kind of success you’ve had. we want to hear it all. So share it. By the way, you can send us an audio comment. That would be awesome if we could play an audio comment or even a video comment would be great too.

Steve Crescenzo

Yeah, those are fun. That would be even more fun.

Shel Holtz

Yeah, we’ll see you in a couple of weeks on the next episode of On the Same Page. See you later, Steve.

Steve Crescenzo

All right. Take care, Shel.

The post Episode 4: Are Corporate Values Useless, Harmful, or Necessary appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

We have known about media bias effect for decades: the belief that the media is biased against your side of a debate. New research finds that the same belief applies to misinformation. While the research was focused on political issues, the underlying cause applies equally to misinformation about brands, companies, and business issues. In this short midweek episode, Neville and Shel find that the PR industry has not yet acknowledged the phenomenon, which requires strategies to address it.

Links from this episode:

• Think the Media’s Biased Against You? You Probably Think Misinformation Is, Too
• The Hostile Media Effect
• The Influence of Hostile Media Perceptions on Misinformation Beliefs and Sharing
• Hostile Media Effects on Twitter, Social Identity, and Media Bias Perceptions
• Fake News Has Real Effects on Consumer Demand
• The Impact of Fake News on Consumer Behavior and Market Outcomes
• Political Identity, Media Trust, and Susceptibility to Misinformation

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, June 29.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Neville Hobson:
Hi everyone, and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 519. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz:
And I’m Shel Holtz. When you think about all the misinformation out there—fake news, bad-faith spin—do you think it’s mostly aimed at your side of an argument or the other side? Most of us, if we’re honest, feel like it’s aimed at us. And there’s now research saying that feeling is nearly universal.

Even though the research was based on political discourse, it has a direct connection to organizational communication. We’ll explain right after this.

All right, let’s start by backing up for a second. There’s a concept called the hostile media effect. It’s been around since the 1980s. The original study showed pro-Israeli and pro-Arab students the exact same news coverage of the exact same event. Both groups walked away convinced it was biased against their side.

Everyone saw exactly the same footage, but they reached opposite conclusions. And the more committed you were, the more certain you were that the media was out to get you.

That finding has held up for 40 years, and it’s a big reason trust in news has collapsed as politics has gotten more tribal.

Now let’s add the new wrinkle. A team at the University of Amsterdam asked whether that same instinct applies to misinformation—to fake news. They surveyed 4,000 people across Germany, the Netherlands, and Poland around the 2024 European elections.

Nearly half said their preferred party was particularly targeted by misinformation. Ask about the party they liked least, and that number got cut in half. They’re calling it the hostile misinformation effect, and it got stronger the more politically engaged people were. The more plugged in people felt, the more victimized they felt.

Now, Neville, you might think that’s a political science finding. But the mechanism underneath isn’t about politics; it’s about identity and motivated reasoning. Every brand, every company, every department is an identity group.

Your most loyal customers are partisans. Your most engaged employees are partisans. The research says the people most attached to your organization are exactly the ones primed to believe any criticism out there is unfairly targeting them.

Now think about a crisis. Your defenders don’t need convincing that your critics are unfair. They already assume it. The minds still open are the uncommitted people in the middle.

Among neutrals, knowing more made them see less bias. It’s only partisans who dig in.

So if someone criticizes a brand that some people love, the brand’s biggest fans may see that as an attack rather than just an honest review—and respond in kind. There was no crisis, but now maybe there is.

There’s an internal angle here, too. Picture a layoff memo or a return-to-office announcement. Leadership reads it as fair. But every faction inside the company—by department, by level, by tenure—is wired to read the same message as unfair to them.

“We said it neutrally” is no defense because neutrality is in the eye of the beholder.

This notion reveals a trap for communicators. When bad coverage hits, it’s tempting to wave it away as misinformation. But “fake news” self-destructed as a term the moment it got weaponized to mean “any story I don’t like.”

Cry misinformation every time you’re criticized, and you train your audience to tune out the label. You also look evasive to the exact neutrals you need to reach.

So this is where I want to bring you in, Neville. We’ve spent years on this show talking about declining trust and the misinformation environment. This research says the problem isn’t just that there’s more bad information out there; it’s that people are wired to feel personally besieged by it.

And I’m not sure our profession has reckoned with what that means.

Neville Hobson:
Yeah, it doesn’t sound like it, Shel. I don’t think so.

It’s actually quite fascinating looking at the Nieman Lab article you shared with me in our Slack channel and seeing the depth of the research on a topic that I had no idea was even a thing to look into.

I found it interesting in a number of areas.

For instance, the study you quoted from the 2024 European Parliament elections got me thinking. The tendency to see misinformation as directed at you seems more pronounced the farther right politically someone is.

That caught my attention because isn’t that precisely what we’re seeing in the United States with the Trump MAGA movement?

Here in the UK, we’ve got Reform and an even newer party that’s emerged further to the right. Those groups often function as an echo chamber for the kinds of messages Trump promotes. They’re constantly criticizing anything anyone else says as an attack and talking about issues in ways that rile people up and stimulate hostile reactions in return.

We see a lot of that in this country right now.

It’s interesting that this study has been done, and I think the way you’re connecting it to organizational communication is a good call. It certainly gives us a lot to think about.

One question it prompted in my mind concerns the point about engagement and partisanship. If the more engaged and partisan someone is, the stronger this effect becomes, does that mean an organization’s most loyal stakeholders are actually its most vulnerable to this kind of perception?

What do you think?

Shel Holtz:
Absolutely. I think that’s exactly the connection we can draw between this study and organizational communication.

If somebody criticizes the company based on an experience they had—and let’s say that criticism goes viral—and it was sincere and well-intentioned, then the partisan defenders of that organization are going to feel attacked. They’re likely to respond in kind and escalate a situation that probably would have faded into the background if left alone.

I think that’s one of the fallouts organizations can experience from this phenomenon. The more partisan you are, the more besieged you’re going to feel when you perceive something being said about the brand or organization as unfair—even if it was perfectly fair.

Neville Hobson:
So how do you address that within the organization?

Shel Holtz:
That’s an interesting question, and it’s hard to fight because you really can’t argue people out of it.

One related concept is the third-person effect—the idea that other people are more susceptible to media influence than we are ourselves.

In other words: I can see what the media is trying to do, but other people are going to be fooled by it.

When you stack that together with the idea that your group is being unfairly targeted, you get a complete worldview: I’m clear-eyed, my group is the victim, and everyone else is gullible.

There was a fascinating study where researchers took 661 Coca-Cola drinkers and showed them a real fake-news story—a 2016 hoax claiming that Dasani water was being recalled because parasites had been found in it.

The finding was that the people most confident in their own ability to spot fake news were the most convinced that other people would be fooled by it. They were also the ones most loudly demanding that Coca-Cola take corrective action.

Sometimes the stakeholders who are screaming “Do something about misinformation!” aren’t reacting to the actual threat. They’re reacting to a belief that other, less discerning people are being duped.

That makes the challenge even more complicated for communicators.

Neville Hobson:
Yeah, it’s weird, isn’t it?

The next question that comes to mind is this: If both sides feel targeted regardless of what’s actually out there, what should communicators do? Is there an approach that works when perception is this detached from reality?

Shel Holtz:
From an organizational standpoint—and I’m less interested in the political implications for purposes of this podcast—I think there are a couple of things.

First, the more prebunking you can do, the better.

When one of these situations comes up—a bad review, criticism from the media, negative reporting—you can immediately point people to information you’ve already published that addresses the issue. Having a bank of credible material you can reference may keep people from getting unnecessarily riled up.

The other thing is to respond quickly, but not emotionally.

If you can maintain a sense of calm—or even a sense of humor—you increase the likelihood that others will follow suit.

If people see that the company isn’t feeling besieged and isn’t acting attacked, that may help tamp down some of the reaction.

Neville Hobson:
So this becomes a major issue for trust, doesn’t it?

And I imagine the role of artificial intelligence in all of this only exacerbates the problem. Is that how you see it?

Shel Holtz:
Yeah, I do.

The flood of AI-generated slop out there—content targeting your organization, your brand, or your leaders—is only going to increase exponentially.

If somebody has an axe to grind and wants to flood search engines or AI summaries with negative content, AI makes that dramatically easier.

Now, to be fair, the research we’re discussing focused on information published through media outlets. That may be an important distinction.

People might be more skeptical of something posted on a blog or LinkedIn than something published by a mainstream news outlet.

That’s where this research suggests people feel especially attacked.

Neville Hobson:
That was my thought as well.

Going back to the study, we’re looking at this from a political perspective. We all consume information online, and most of us have preferred sources.

Meanwhile, mainstream media is going through what seems like a growing crisis of trust.

You see constant battles online between people citing one newspaper versus another. It’s distracting, and it wastes an enormous amount of time and energy.

It also got me thinking about how I react to some of this. The suggestion that people on the political right are more susceptible to this phenomenon doesn’t really describe me. I’m more in the middle.

I don’t react the way I see some people reacting—especially on that delightful conversation platform known as X.

People vent their spleens there. Maybe it makes them feel better, but I don’t think it advances understanding in any meaningful way.

Then again, perhaps that’s not the point.

The point seems to be: I win, you lose.

And that’s very much the Trump approach. It feels like that’s where much of this is headed.

Shel Holtz:
Yeah.

One of the stranger findings from the research was that when researchers examined whether people felt more victimized after their party lost an election, the results weren’t what you’d expect.

You’d think the losers would feel most targeted.

Instead, the people whose party won were more likely to believe their side was being targeted by misinformation.

Feeling besieged isn’t necessarily about being under threat. It’s about identity.

And since you mentioned X, there’s another interesting strand of research.

People may dismiss something because they saw it on X. But researchers found that the source of a message can trigger hostile media perceptions independently of the content itself.

Your company’s name on a statement can be enough to act as a bias cue for people who already have feelings about you.

The exact same words can land very differently depending on whose logo appears at the top.

That’s worth thinking about because it means message discipline alone can’t solve a credibility problem.

Neville Hobson:
This is a bigger dilemma than it might seem at first. A real conundrum for communicators.

The Nieman Lab article is lengthy, but it’s definitely worth reading.

Shel Holtz:
Yeah. And there will be links in the show notes to some of the original research on identity bias as well.

The reason I chose this topic is that I’ve never heard it discussed in PR circles. I’ve never seen it covered in PR textbooks or books about public relations.

This was completely new to me.

That’s one reason I’m still struggling with an answer about how to deal with it.

But it certainly starts with recognizing that it’s happening.

Neville Hobson:
I agree. It was new to me as well.

The more I think about it, though, the more it seems to describe the environment we’re operating in today.

Now we just have to figure out what to do about it.

Shel Holtz:
Yes, we do.

And that will be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #519: Is Misinformation Biased Against You? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

You’re using AI to handle more of the work that your team used to do. That’s exactly why the human side of the business has become a competitive advantage.

In this episode, Chip and Gini make the case that as AI slop floods everyone’s inbox and feeds, the bar for genuine human interaction has dropped so low that clearing it will make you stand out. Demonstrating real experience and expertise in conversation — not just in content — is where agencies will win.

That starts with having actual conversations. Chip argues that meetings have become more valuable, not less, because you can’t fake a real-time interaction the way you can a written deliverable. And Gini adds that it extends to one-on-one meetings with your team, which can be used to get the specific decisions needed from you.

Written content is increasingly hard to trust, and Chip admits even he can’t reliably tell his own writing from AI output. Video helps close that gap for now. So does the handwritten note, which Chip still sends to podcast guests when he can track down an address. He jokes that the illegibility is proof of authenticity.

In person beats everything. Chip pushes agency owners to budget for it deliberately, with clients, prospects, and remote team members alike. Gini mentions the Augusta Rule as one way to offset some of those costs, though both are quick to say talk to your accountant before you try to benefit from it. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 310: In the age of AI, people skills matter more than ever appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

The history of public relations over the last 30 years is a litany of one failure after another — failures to recognize and embrace technologies that represented seismic shifts in how people and organizations communicate. The internet. The web. Social media. Smartphones. The video shift. And now, with AI, the industry seems poised to do it again. As many organizations explore how AI will reshape them, PR agencies still seem unable to figure out billing models to replace the now-useless hourly rate. In this short midweek episode, Neville looks at a post from Stephen Waddington that laments the industry’s intransigence, and Shel and Neville discuss what PR should be doing.

Links from this episode:

• The future of jobs in PR: will we get the third technology shift wrong too? (by Stephen Waddington)
• It looks like PR has its head in the sand about AI (by Neville Hobson)
• Senior practitioner neglect of digital/social skills a huge threat to PR’s future (2015 post by Shel Holtz)
• Once Again, This Time with AI, the Communications Profession Will Be Late to Embrace a Valuable Technology (2023 post by Shel Holtz)

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, June 22.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Shel Holtz: Hi everybody and welcome to episode number five hundred and eighteen of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson. So here’s a question I want to put to you right at the start, and I’d like you to sit with it as Shel and I work through this topic today. Public relations as a profession has faced two seismic technology shifts in the last 30 years. In fact, more than two, but I’m just going to mention these two. The internet arrived in 1995. Social media arrived around 2007. And in both cases, PR largely got it wrong. Not wrong in the sense of ignoring the technology. Wrong in the sense of fundamentally misreading what it meant. In 1995, we thought the internet was a publishing problem. In 2007, we thought social media was just another broadcast channel. And the disciplines that grew out of both—search, content marketing, influencer marketing—were largely built by people who weren’t us, people outside the profession who saw what we missed. So the question is: are we about to do it a third time? We’ll address that question in just a minute.

That’s the challenge Stephen Waddington lays down in a piece he’s just written for Influence, the member magazine of the CIPR, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations. Stephen is someone whose thinking I respect considerably. He’s been one of the sharper and more honest voices in UK PR for years. And this article comes off the back of a book he’s just co-edited, AI and Public Relations: A How-To Guide for Implementation and Management, published in May. And what he’s arguing in this piece is that this is no longer a theoretical debate, as job reductions are happening now. He gives specific examples. Three account executives doing media monitoring—that’s now one tool. A two-person intranet team—that’s now a fraction of the effort. The UK government has listed public relations professionals among the twenty occupations most exposed to large language models. We’re on the list. Early career employment in those sectors is also in relative decline.

Now, Waddington is not a pure pessimist. He sees a plausible optimistic path. The career pyramid becomes a diamond. Firms building roles around insight and risk management rather than billable hours. A rough near-term reduction of perhaps fifteen to twenty percent in entry-level positions, followed by net growth as scope expands and new roles emerge, the way digital did after 2000. He thinks in-house teams especially have an opportunity here. When AI absorbs the routine, it frees space for the work that corporate communication teams have always needed but rarely had capacity for. But he gives serious, genuine weight to the pessimistic case too. And this is where I think the article gets interesting. He references Martin Ford, author of The Rise of the Robots in 2015, and Ford’s argument that previous technology waves hit one tier of the workforce and the tier above absorbed the displaced.

This time Ford says there’s no tier above. The advisory work that absorbed previous shifts is itself the target. Waddington doesn’t fully accept that in his article, but he doesn’t dismiss it either. And then there’s the argument that I think should be keeping every agency head and comms director awake at night—the pipeline. He’s hearing a common response from firms right now: freeze your apprenticeship schemes, freeze your graduate intake, let AI cover the production work. And he calls that, bluntly, organizational self-harm. Because in five years, those organizations will have nobody who understands how the systems actually work, why they fail, and crucially when to override them. You cannot run an advisory profession without a pipeline. And you cannot build a pipeline if you spent five years dismantling the entry points. So that’s where I think we should start today’s conversation. Not with the technology, with the choices.

Because Waddington’s closing argument, and it’s what I find compelling, is that human agency still exists here. The technology isn’t making decisions. We are. The question is whether we’re making them wisely, or whether for the third time in thirty years, we’re about to hand the future of our profession to people who aren’t us. Shel, what’s your instinct on this?

Shel Holtz: Very much what yours and Stephen’s is. I have been saying for decades that the public relations industry is always, always, always late to the game when there is a new technology that is going to shape the way communicators do their jobs. We were late to the internet, for sure. We were late to the World Wide Web. My first book on communicating online—well, actually, my first book was on intranets, but the first one that got any attention was Public Relations on the Net—came out before the World Wide Web, before there was a graphical user interface. So there were plenty of opportunities for PR before the web, based on the capabilities of the internet. Then we missed the web, then we missed social media. In between we missed some other seismic shifts—mobile, being able to communicate with people based on the fact that they now had this computer in their pocket. We missed the pivot to visual communication, we missed the pivot to video communication. And now, yeah, we are poised to miss the pivot to AI. And that’s not to suggest that PR people aren’t using it. I think they are, but I think they’re using it at a very superficial level and are succumbing to a lot of the hype out there about things like job loss and “get rid of your entry-level people.” That’s all mundane drudge work that the partners and senior people don’t want to do—the account execs—so hand that all off to the AI and you don’t need to pay those people anymore.

And you’re exactly right. I was listening to a podcast over the weekend where they were talking about the same issue, but they were talking about it in the context of law firms. And they were making the point that the associates that are brought in out of law school do the drudge work that the partners don’t want to do. They write contracts, right? They do things like that. And now that the AI can do that, who needs them? Well, the question becomes: where do the future partners come from when the ones who are already at the partner level retire? There’ll be nobody to take those jobs. We are not rethinking the industry, and we’re not rethinking it from two perspectives. One of those perspectives is the agency. The other perspective is the in-house side of communications. They’re two sides of the same coin. But I think we need to split them apart and look at them in terms of how we need to reinvent the profession. You and I have talked about reinventing how we bill, how we price, because the hourly model makes no sense anymore. But what does an entry-level person do if the AI can handle a lot of that drudge work? And it can.

I mean, we’ve talked about on this show that I’ve set up a Hermes instance and it is out there. In fact, I haven’t checked my Telegram account yet, but there should be 10 links to recent news stories that are prime for me to news-check because I set up an agent to do that. I have an agent set up, a skill set up, that I can deploy anytime I want to. It is set up to analyze the websites of twenty-two of our competitors. And all I have to do is tell it what I want it to analyze. Do I want it to look at how they handle their project portfolios? Do I want it to look at how they handle their thought leadership? I can ask it any of those questions and it’ll come back and give me a very nice report. I could absolutely set it up to do media monitoring. I’m starting to question the need for my media monitoring service at work, although the agent that I have set up to do some of this certainly can’t get behind the paywall the way that the media monitoring service can, because they pay the licensing fee for all of those. So if the AI can assume all of this work, it’s not a question of saying we don’t need entry-level people. It’s a question of reimagining what entry-level people should be doing.

In terms of AI: What should they be doing with AI, and what new things can we be having them do that we haven’t thought of before, or that we always wished they could do if they didn’t have all of this drudge work that they had to spend their time on? It’s time for a reinvention, and I don’t see anybody talking about that. I haven’t seen a whole lot of ideas about where all this should go.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I’m with you on that a hundred percent. Exactly my sentiment as well, that you don’t see people talking about this in a truly serious way. I see on LinkedIn—if that’s any barometer, I don’t know if it is or not—but I see people mentioning this now and again and “we ought to do something about that.” But there’s no webinars, no seminars, no get-togethers on the topic of reinventing the agency, let’s say. It’s a topic I’ve written about myself, and value-based pricing versus time-based pricing. And it’s interesting how Stephen Waddington addresses that topic in his article. It’s quite a pointed observation he makes that’s worth pushing on. If you’re still selling time rather than value, he says, AI will break your model. That’s a direct challenge to the billable-hour structure that much of agency PR still runs on. So the firms getting this right are building around insight, outcome, and risk management instead. It’s worth asking how many firms are actually making that structural shift versus just talking about it. Not enough. Doesn’t mean to say they’re ignoring it. Far from it. I think it’s largely because they don’t know what to do. How do they address this? So there’s an opportunity for someone with some insights and answers to help educate firms like that. There’s a consulting opportunity, if you like.

Shel Holtz: I was thinking exactly the same thing. If somebody’s looking for a pivot in their career, that sounds like one to me.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, yeah. So we are at that place. Again, go back just three years, 2023, when we wrote our pieces about that CIPR survey, and twenty-five percent of the respondents said they’d never ever use AI. It was pretty absolute, the answers. Here we are, three years later, and I bet you that number’s down to five percent, if not less. I can’t imagine anyone—and it causes a very broad question, “would you use AI, yes or no?” It’s a bit like “should we stay in the EU, yes or no?” I mean the Brexit referendum—well, people, what a dumb question. But so that’s where we’re at. But I believe a lot of the landscape is now so polluted with everyone’s opinion that it’s very confusing to zero in on what are the issues I need to be thinking about in an organization. Plus, I see so many people—I saw one just this morning—someone’s got a PDF book on how to move your business to selling value, basically, not time. And it’s not how many hours you did, it’s what did you deliver to the client.

So it’s great, but it needs to be more authority than that, I think. And this is where the profession comes in—professional bodies like the CIPR, the PRSA in the US. The CIPR has done a good job in raising awareness about AI in the right way, in context related to public relations. They’ve had this AI panel for some time now with senior practitioners leading it. This book’s come out and it’s got a lot of support from practitioners in the UK and beyond. So maybe now is the time that this is going to get taken a bit more seriously than people do. I think though what Stephen worries about—and I think it’s not a misplaced worry—is the point that people are being laid off. Layoffs are happening all the time and most people believe it’s because AI is going to be more efficient and all that kind of stuff. And there must be some truth in some of that. But he also mentions something quite interesting in his article, because he says that most of the conversation about AI and jobs focuses on redundancy risks from above—leadership cutting roles. We’ve talked about that quite a bit. But Waddington notes a quieter pressure running in the opposite direction. Junior and mid-career practitioners are walking out of organizations they consider too far behind the curve.

So firms that move too slowly aren’t just at risk of getting the technology wrong, they’re at risk of losing the people who could help them get it right. The talent drain is bi-directional. Now that’s an interesting element to bring into this discussion, I think—that it’s those folks who are walking away. He doesn’t say, and I hadn’t found anything before we started recording, as to where they’re all going. Are they leaving the profession entirely, or are they just looking for a place that—in a sense they feel it’s worth going to this company because they’ve got it switched on, that they’re clued into this? So maybe that’s the state we’re in. Doesn’t answer the questions, mind you, and they’re coming thick and fast now, I think. I see, again, LinkedIn is a kind of barometer of sentiment, if you will—not in the analytics way, but the feeling you see expressed in some posts from some people who are worth reading about it. And that includes many of the people that I follow and that you would follow as well. So you’re seeing this, but it’s all very random. That’s the thing. And it requires something more than that. And voices like Stephen’s, yours when you were talking about this—we’ve missed about three, four, five times, that sort of thing. What’s going to make people really pay attention to this?

Shel Holtz: I hate to say it, but it’s the same thing that has always made the industry pay attention, and that’s when they suffer financial pain. The reason we have not embraced as an industry these technological changes is our billings were fine. We were doing just fine as an industry financially. So why should we make this risky change to something that we don’t quite understand and we’re not convinced is going to have all that much impact or will necessarily stick around all that long? That leaves an opening for other industries—advertising and marketing—to sneak in. It also leaves an opportunity for boutiques that specialize in this to start up and take money off the table that was there for the PR agencies that were already in business. And this seems to be a recurring pattern: if we’re not feeling the financial pain, we’re not gonna make any change. As soon as we start to feel that pain, as soon as we see our clients going to the boutiques and going to the marketing agencies, then we go, “we better change.” And then we’re behind the curve. So I think that’s the big issue and the big challenge—to be proactive rather than reactive when these technologies create these opportunities, or create the requirement, if we wait, that we must change because we’ve already seen these revenues go to somebody else.

One thing to keep in mind: absolutely there have been layoffs within the industry and they have been attributed to AI. It is important to keep in mind though—and this was reinforced in that very same podcast I was listening to that I mentioned earlier—that if you look at economic data, there’s no evidence of mass layoffs as a result of AI. The unemployment rate is pretty much where it was before all of this. The number of new jobs that are being reported, at least in the US, has actually been pretty strong. The jobs report the last month was quite encouraging. So we keep hearing about the mass layoffs and they may be coming. They may not.

Because frankly, what I see—and I don’t know if this is unique to the construction industry, I doubt it; I think it may be a bigger issue in the construction industry, but I think this is probably true of most jobs—is it’s not the job that gets replaced by AI, it’s tasks within the job. And then there are other tasks that the AI can’t do. The other thing is that there are things that we have wished that we could do, but haven’t had the time to do, from an internal comms standpoint and even, I suspect, a PR standpoint from inside the organization, the client side. I mean, I remember when I was in my first corporate job. This was with Arco. I was there from ’77 to ’83 with some brilliant communicators, but the company believed in it. So they funded the internal comms department. We had 25 employees in internal comms in five cities.

And each of us had beats, just like you were a newspaper reporter with a beat. I had two beats. I had Arco Petroleum Products, which was the gas stations and the merchandising of cans of motor oil and things like that, and Arco Marine, which was the oil tankers that transported oil mainly from Alaska down to the refineries along the West Coast. And I spent time—I mean, that was my job, was to go hang out, to spend time, to shadow somebody, to do a ride-along, to ride on a tanker, to spend a day at one of the gas stations and really get a sense, and to be able to report on this a little more intimately than just calling somebody and doing an interview over the phone. And in public relations, I think it’s important to remember that “relations” part of the public relations label. How do you build relations? Well, if AI really does take away a lot of that drudge work that we spend the time doing while we’re sitting at our desk, then we have time to get up from our desks and go out and hang out with the publics that we are dealing with and build those relations. And why wouldn’t we want to do that? AI can’t do that. AI can’t get up, get their car and go to where the public is. Maybe it’s a community relations organization, maybe it’s a division of your business. Maybe it’s a customer base that is gathering—well, let’s say it’s Ford Motor Company and there’s a car club that’s meeting. Whatever it may be, we have the opportunity now to become much more entwined with those publics.

And do a much better job of understanding them. Yeah, we still want to do the data, we still want to do the analytics, but there’s nothing like sitting with them and looking them in the eye and talking with them to build an understanding that’s going to help you communicate with them and help you build trust among them. That’s just one idea of what we can do with this freed-up time. And this is an important point—and I saw this in one of the reports that came out just last week, I think it was—the value that we get from saving an hour because AI can do it just leaks out of the bottom of the organization if we don’t know what we’re going to replace that hour with that has value. And we hear about all the savings of time that AI is going to give us. I haven’t heard a whole lot about how organizations are figuring out how to reallocate that time among those employees.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, yeah, neither me. No, I agree. And you do hear a lot of talk about the concept of that. I mean there’s lots in this topic, Shel, really, and you’ve thrown some bright light on some of the things we should be doing. I like the idea of going out to meet your publics, as it were. It’s winding the clock back, actually, to how we used to do all this back in the day, before all this tech was there.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, it really is.

Neville Hobson: We had to go out and find the sources and interview them face to face and, you know, meet down the pub or whatever. So maybe we need to examine what worked in the past and bring it to the fore again.

Shel Holtz: When I was a newspaper reporter, before I made the switch to corporate communications, I was with a local community daily newspaper, and I used to go hang out at the bar after work where all of the government workers hung out after work. Got to know them, got to listen in, got some pretty good stories out of that. But also I could pick up the phone and call some of these people because they knew me. I wasn’t just the reporter who called when I needed a quote or needed some information. I was the guy they just had a drink with.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, exactly. Lessons to learn there, I think. So yeah, lots of good ideas here. I think Stephen Waddington did a good job in literally describing the landscape and expressing some of his concerns. That’s prompted this conversation. So let’s hope this adds to the topics that people need to be talking about. So listeners, hope this is helpful.

Shel Holtz: And listeners, if your organization is actually making some changes and doing some pivots, we’d love to hear about it. And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #518: Is the PR Industry Blowing It Again? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Most agency owners think their clients have it easy. But the gap between how you believe your agency operates and how clients and prospects actually experience it is often wider than you’d expect, and it’s usually the small, everyday frictions that do the most damage.

In this episode, Chip and Gini ask if you were on the receiving end of your own agency’s processes, would you be happy? The answer, for a lot of agencies, is probably not. Their point isn’t that agencies should cave to every demand, but if you market yourself as a partner, act like one.

The friction can start before someone even becomes a client. Contact forms loaded with qualifying questions scare people away. And back-and-forth emails to find a meeting time have no excuse in 2026. Use a scheduling tool, have a link ready, and make it especially easy for prospects. Once someone is ready to talk, the goal is to respond fast and remove every obstacle.

When it comes to the handoff from prospect to client, agencies should have a standard proposal template so they can turn paperwork around in 24 hours, not days. Make invoicing and payments as easy on the client as you would want it to be if you were in their shoes. And when it comes to project management tools, if the client already has one they’re using, just use it. The tool matters less than having one. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 309: Is your agency easy to work with? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Are employees suffering from survey fatigue?

The question is asked often, frequently because someone high up in the organization doesn’t want to hear what employees think. But if employees see change as a result of someone taking their feedback to heart, you can survey them all day long. If you’re sending emails, publishing articles, and posting videos, but not asking employees for their perspectives, you’re not communicating.

You’re just messaging.

In this episode of On The Same Page, Steve and Shel discuss how to ensure employees’ voices are heard in meaningful ways to drive engagement and business success — and to avoid crises, since employees’ voices can serve as the organization’s smoke alarm.

Links from this episode:

• Return to Office 2025: The Corporate Mandate Wave Reshaping American Workplaces
• How CEO Satya Nadella Reset Culture at Microsoft
• Strategy Studio

Transcript:

Steve Crescenzo: Hey Shel, how are you?

Shel Holtz: I’m great, Steve. How’s everything with you?

Steve: Awesome. Friday, sunny. Got the boat this weekend. We’re heading out on the boat, so everything is good. We’re about an hour away from happy hour.

Shel: Anything to keep your mind off what’s going on with the Cubs, huh?

Steve: All right, enough is enough. Dodgers fan. Nothing’s worse than Dodgers fans with all your money. anyway, but you know, before we start, I know we’re gonna talk about the employee voice today and the importance of giving employees a voice. And before we start, you know, I’ve heard you talk about this, I’ve read what you’ve written about this, and I know in your communication model, which I really respect, you’ve got it as one of the four drivers of employee engagement, along with strategic narrative, engaging managers, which we talked about on our first podcast, employee voice and integrity. And I don’t argue with any of that. I agree with ninety five percent of everything you’ve ever written about this or said about this. Employee voice matters, I get that. Employees should be you know, communication should be a conversation, not a broadcast. Employees should be treated as part of the solution, not part of the problem. You know, all of that I get. No argument for me. But do you think maybe employees are getting tired of being asked about shit? And here’s why I ask. I mean, think about it. Surveys, pulse surveys, engagement surveys, stay interviews, focus groups, listening tours, town halls. The average employee’s been asked for their opinion so many times they’re ready to send the company an invoice. I mean, these employees have completed enough surveys to qualify for a minor in organizational psychology. And after all that voicing and talking, employees will still say in every company we work for, nobody listens. Which makes me wonder if we’re solving the wrong problem. Maybe companies don’t have a problem with employee voice. Maybe they have a leadership listening problem. I think most companies, I think, have plenty of ways for employees to speak up. It’s not whether they have a microphone; it’s that nobody on the other end is paying attention. So employees end up feeling like, you know, they’re yelling into a well. Which is why most face to face town halls when there’s Q&A time, nobody says anything. So the question is: Is it about giving employees a voice, or is it more about coaching leaders to listen? And that’s what I’d like to talk about.

Shel: Yeah, I would frame that just a little differently. I agree with you a hundred percent. The way I usually talk about this is saying that you know, we constantly hear about survey fatigue. Employees have survey fatigue. And my answer to that is there’s no such thing as survey fatigue. What there is is bullshit fatigue. And that’s being asked for your opinion and then finding that nothing is being done with it once you share it. I once had a senior VP of HR, I reported to him. This was on the client side many years ago. And I wanted to do an environmental survey, find out what employees thought about the environment in which they worked. And he said no. And I said, But Rick, you wrote a book about employee surveys. Why don’t you want to do one? He says, Well, if you read my book, you’ll find that the only time you should do a survey is when the leadership has an appetite to make changes based on what they hear. And the leadership here has no appetite to make changes based on what employees say. So there’s no point in doing a survey. And I think that other companies should take that to heart.

Steve: Ha ha. Bingo. You’re exactly right. Once again, I can’t disagree with you, Shel. I think the reason there is survey fatigue I think there is survey fatigue, but it’s not because they hate filling out surveys, it’s because nothing ever happens. Why waste your time?

Shel: Right. I think employees will fill out surveys all day long if every time they do they hear about what’s changing as a result of that.

Steve: Yeah, exactly. Exactly.

Shel: Sure

Steve: So before we dive back into that, and I can’t wait for that conversation, I got a nice comment from a Carrie Knight on Substack, believe it or not. She put it on my Substack, which I didn’t even post this podcast on my Substack, but I’m going start doing that. It’s about episode two when we talked about this mythical knights of the round table, get-a-seat-at-the-table. And she said, Currently midway through listening to On the Same Page, second episode: There is no table. And she quotes us and says, There’s no table, it’s musical chairs up there. She said, Brilliant. I’ve been on the side of earning a seat at the table, but this conversation is shifting my perspective from what I thought that meant to what I actually believe in real time. Then she quotes us again and says, We don’t need a seat. You know what we need? We need influence. We need access and we need respect. And how do you get those? You earn it. And she says, Carrie says, I don’t disagree with this at all. Perhaps it’s this concept of a table that’s broken. Leaders show up at every level of a business, which I love that line. Leaders show up at every level of a business. That’s brilliant, Carrie. In my honest opinion, leading from within is the biggest flex over having a seat or job title that demands leadership. And then she quotes us again and says, You do it by speaking truth to power, by letting leadership know that you can provide counsel. She said such an insightful episode that expands into the disconnect between leaders and employees’ cons and channel choices. And she closes it with another one of our quotes Leaders choose channels based on convenience, and employees choose channels based on trust. Fabulous episode. Thanks, Steve Crescenzo and Shel Holtz. Keep coming. And we sure will, Carrie. Thanks for the comment. love to hear feedback from our listeners.

Shel: Absolutely, Carrie. Thanks for listening. We had a number of comments come in through LinkedIn as well. one of them from Vincent Bruneau saying the seat at the table conversation has always been a proxy for the real question are you actually shaping decisions or just being informed of them afterwards? Consequential is the better word, and it’s available to more than one person at a time. referencing that notion that only one communicator in a company can have that seat at the table, regardless of how many. Communicators work there. Louise Thompson said, Hmm, not sure I’m with you guys. Moaning about it? Agree, that needs to stop. We know what we need to do and how, but as someone who has been in the room and out of it, there is no doubt that being an active participant around that table, and yes, it does exist, is going to lead to better outcomes for the organization. And yeah.

Steve: Right. I think that I don’t think we should read any comments that disagree with us.

Shel: That’s not a good idea, Steve. Yeah. Yeah. Right. That’s true. We’re gonna listen. Communication is a two-way activity. And yeah, I understand what Louise is saying, but again, you know, there are organizations with hundreds of communicators, there are organizations with dozens, there are organizations like mine with a handful. But if there is a communicator at that table, it’s only one.

Steve: That’s what most companies do. That’s what today’s all about. Employee voice. Our employee We are gonna listen.

Shel: So for every communicator to say, I want that seat at the table, that doesn’t fly. But any communicator can start to wield influence and have consequence. So I think that was our point. Janet Hitchen said, Halle-flippin’-lujah. That was her comment. Love that. Kathleen, yeah, Kathleen Bell said, Ha, so 1990, totally agree. And then Jared Brough, you know Jared, in New Orleans.

Steve: Love in Jared Brodkin.

Shel: Yeah, he said, I remember that discussion. My response is if you wait for an invitation it never comes. You get your seat by walking in the room and taking it.

Steve: I think he sa I think I actually had drinks with him in Orleans and he said, No, you don’t you know you know you kick down the doors, I think is what he said to me, which I was I always remember that.

Shel: Yeah. But you have to have built that influence and have developed that consequence or they’re just gonna throw you out of the room or have you escorted out of the room and away from the table.

Steve: Exactly. Or you’ll be or you’ll be a token. You’ll they’ll they’ll give you a seat, but you won’t have any influ I mean having a seat doesn’t give you influence. Influence being respected as a counselor gives you influence. You could have a seat at the table. I have a seat at my dinner table and I it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t no nobody listens to me. You can have a seat, but it doesn’t mean they’re gonna listen to you.

Shel: Well, you have mostly cats in the house, so they don’t listen to anybody.

Steve: Right, that’s true. That’s true.

Shel: So today we’re talking about the employee voice, which is, as you mentioned at the outset, one of the four enablers of engagement. you know, there are people out there who dismiss employee engagement in general, but I’ve I’ve made it one of the four inner circles of of my framework for internal communication. I do yeah if if you just do the Gallup survey and try to get to that final number, then it’s nonsense. But

Steve: Yeah, I

Shel: If you’re looking at the elements that contribute to engagement and take action b on each of those based on the results of the survey, then it can have a real positive impact.

Steve: I think that’s I’m not a I’m not a big engagement guy because of the way it’s practiced with the Gallup stuff and the best friend at work stuff and all that nonsense. Employee engagement’s a very real thing, but it’s sh always shifting, right? If you could be fully engaged on Tuesday, you get a new boss on Wednesday and you’re disengaged. I mean it just shifts. It’s almost a it’s like nailing jelly to a wall, but go ahead.

Shel: There’s an organization out of the UK called Engage for Success. It’s a chartered organization by the government or the Crown or whoever does the chartering in the UK. And they say that the employee voice is the smoke alarm in the organization. I kinda like that characterization. that works real well for me. But yeah, bottom line is the communication is a is a two-way thing. if y communication is the act of sharing.

Steve: That’s cool.

Shel: Knowledge and information. So it’s a two-way street. And a lot of organizational communication is not. It’s one way. We’re sending information to employees. We’re not listening to them. As far as I’m concerned, that’s messaging. That’s not communication. It has to be two way to fulfill that definition of communication. So finding the mechanisms to give employees that voice, I think, is important.

Steve: Yeah, I do agree with that, but I don’t think it’s a channel thing. I don’t think it’s a mechanism thing. I think it’s an ego thing more than anything else. I really I think these leaders get into a position of leadership and they think that they’re more plugged in, they think that they’re more knowledgeable, they think that they’re smarter probably, they think that there’s a reason there’s a leader, they’re supposed to lead, they weren’t put in this place to let the employees lead. So you could have town halls and suggestion boxes electronically and slack and w you know, whatever. You can have all the employee voice channels in the world. If leadership has too much ego to listen to it, I mean you think they’d be smart enough to realize that guess what? The people closest to the work might have a good idea on how to improve things. The people closest to the clients, the customers, the products, the people that are creating all those things, you think they might have good advice about the company? Well, of course they do. But I think most leaders are either afraid to listen to employees because they think they’re just gonna bitch, or B, don’t respect their ideas. So I don’t think it’s a matter of setting up the channels as much. I mean, you have to do that, I agree, show. But I think you also have to work closely with leadership to say, you gotta listen to people. You gotta listen to your employees. These people are way closer to the work than you. You may be up here in the stratosphere driving strategy and dealing with Wall Street and numbers and EBITDA and all the other crap that they do, which they’re very good at. But these people are down here doing the work. And A, they might be able to help the company. And B, if you want them to be engaged and have a good culture, then it has to be a two-way street. And I think unfortunately, a lot of especially the older leaders don’t let don’t have don’t don’t let that happen. I think a lot of younger leaders coming up today that grew up with social media, digital natives, so to speak, I think they’re I think things are gonna get better in this area. I think people are gonna start paying attention more to employees. I hope. I mean that’s my not my hope. But I agree. Set up the channels, but work the other end of it as well. Work the leadership end of it because a lot of those people just don’t listen.

Shel: Yeah, I think getting them attuned to paying attention to what employees are saying is one thing, but I think where communicators have a role to play here is in presenting what employees are saying in a way that is digestible and understandable for the leader. So they’re not getting hit by messaging of different types from all sides and not understanding what they’re supposed to do with it. I think if we can give them here’s the daily summary or the weekly summary of what we have heard. And put it in categories and make it something that they can actually get through and make decisions based on or factor into discussions that they’re going to have. that makes it easier for them to do exactly what you’re talking about. But if we’re not there coordinating this as an activity, then it’s just overload for them.

Steve: Yeah, yeah. I no, I agree. You know, I in some of my workshops I show a model that says, you know, it’s up to leadership with the help of communications to communicate the what and the why down to employees. And you do it very clearly. Here’s what we’re gonna do, here’s the initiative, here’s what it is, here’s why it’s very important to both us and the company, and then communicate the how up. And you do that through helping managers get the how and you c opening up these channels. Most companies just aren’t willing to do it. They’re more than willing to do the what and the why down and then forget about the how. And that’s the problem. But if you can tap into that how at that work level, at that employee level, I mean you’re unleashing a dragon there. I mean, you are unleashing a lot of power. But let me ask you a question, Shel. And you kind of alluded to this with your HR story to start the podcast. What’s worse? Not asking employees their opinion at all, or asking them and not doing anything about it?

Shel: I think asking and not doing anything about it is going to create tremendous cynicism and dissatisfaction. I think if employees understand that the culture is one where leadership makes the decision and you just do your job, I don’t like it. I wouldn’t want to work in that organization. And there may be people who decide that they’re not going to work in that organization, but at least they understand what the deal is.

Steve: Yeah.

Shel: But to have that say do gap, right? We are interested in your opinion and we’re going to ignore it. I mean, there’s a great example of this. I’m trying to remember the company that did this. I think it might have been Amazon Web Services. it may have been JP Morgan Chase, but they had an employee feedback mechanism. And when they told employees that they had to come back from COVID after telling everybody it was okay to work remote, they shut off. The mechanism that allowed employees to share their opinion. When they said 99% of employees agree that coming back to the office is a good thing, they got a massive petition signed by a huge number of employees saying that’s nonsense. That’s just not true. So there are organizations that say we want to hear from you, and then when they hear from employees, they shut off the channel, they ignore what they’re hearing. It’s not good.

Steve: Yeah, no, no, no. No, I agree. I agree. And no th that l that leads me to another thing I was I was thinking about when I was thinking about this topic. You know, there’s an old theory out there that out of a hundred percent employees, you have you have the ten percent of the Kool-Aid drinkers, right? They’re the ones that wear the company windbreaker and the company hat and they love everything about the company. they love where they’re working, everything’s great. Then you have the ten percent of, you know, the lunatic fringe I call that are very, very discontent. They’re just unhappy.

Shel: Cheerleaders.

Steve: You they’re just unhappy in mind, no matter what you do. They’re unhappy in life. They’re alcoholics, they go home and kick the dog at night. They’re just not happy people. And the eighty percent is the people we need to communicate to. I do you think that there’s a factor that le with leaders that they’re worried that when they open it up for conversation in a town hall, a Slack, online channel, they’re only gonna hear from the ten percent because the other eighty percent are, you know, they’re fine, they’re just going along doing their job, they’re fine. The ten percent

Shel: No matter what.

Steve: I love where they’re working, so they’re pr they’re probably not gonna go out there and say how much I love where they work. They’re just happy. So you’re gonna hear from the cry babies, the people that are unhappy, and it’s gonna give make the whole place look naked. Do you think that’s a thing or?

Shel: I think that’s a cultural thing. I think there are organizations where the 80% feel just fine about sharing their ideas or their opinions because they’re taken seriously. There’s a history in the organization of listening to those things. I think it’s the organizations that don’t give that shrift to those 80%, where they just shrug and say, What’s the point?

Steve: Yeah, yeah.

Shel: You know, and the ten percent at the bottom, yeah, they’re the ones who are gonnare gonna whine and that’s why these leaders don’t want to engage with employees at all.

Steve: Yep, I agree. I agree, unfortunately. And let me a let me ask

Shel: But I mean if you yeah, if if you look at organizations that have made a point of soliciting the employee voice, you get a sense of what you can get out of that. I mean, you know, look at look at Microsoft. When Steve Ballmer left, Satya Nadella was anointed the CEO. he inherited this culture of siloed departments waging internal political battles. Microsoft was falling behind on some pretty important Categories, mobile, gaming, social. And the turnaround was built on employee voice. He solicited honest feedback through surveys and meetings. He made an open show of being ready to listen. He bypassed hierarchy so low-level employees could be heard. He invited junior staff to meetings, brainstorming meetings that previously only senior people went to. And the mechanisms that they implemented, they were they were concrete, they were they were comms adjacent. they created employee hackathons to generate employee input on the culture change. Yeah, you remember that? even the leadership framework of model coach care was developed over two years using employee feedback surveys. And the outcome was improved sentiment scores, better, better customer feedback. And of course the market cap story everybody knows. it wasn’t a soft initiative running alongside their strategy. I mean, it was the strategy at Microsoft, yeah.

Steve: I heard about those, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It was as strategic right. Well, you know, let me let me let it brings me to another topic, not another topic, another angle on this thing. Do you do employees really want a voice? And here’s why I ask. just in the last couple of years, Cindy and I worked for a large, very large healthcare institution, and they were going through hell. They were going through hell. They were losing money after COVID, they were ha gonna have to downsize, they were gonna have to cut funds, they were gonna have to cut funding to certain programs that people loved, people were being shifted into different positions. I mean it was like a you know the big Chop consultants got involved the at the at the big level it’s the business consultants and it was ugly. But they had a fantastic CEO and when he brought us in we got it we h we had him start doing town halls, right? And they were not regular town halls. We said we outlawed PowerPoint. We worked with him and his executive team there was four of them that sat up there as a panel for the town hall And we said it’s gonna be 30 minutes of you guys having a conversation, talking about what’s happening, what’s what’s being decided, what’s you know, all the good stuff, and then 30 minutes of Q&A, guaranteed. And the town halls were fantastic. And the people that were there and the chat, which I don’t know if they would have the nerve to stand up live and do this. That’s why I love virtual town halls. I don’t even want to do live town halls anymore because virtual, they get to that chat and you can vote questions up and down, and so. We would run that chat and we would feed the leaders the questions and it was a fantastic system. We did two a month for four months. And even then, with all the change that was happening, with all the turmoil, with all the angst, with all the fear, we still got like thirty-five to forty percent of people to show up to these town halls. And it was it wasn’t mandatory, obviously, but anybody could come. All you had to do was log in. Now Granted, it’s healthcare, so a lot of people are working. But even the recordings weren’t weren’t that great. I mean, what do you do when you’re doing everything right and you’re opening up the channels and they did everything right? They begged for the employee voice. They took their they hard dealt with hard questions. They you know, all they did everything right. And they still had a minority of the people showing up to participate. I mean, what’s that all about?

Shel: Well, yeah, I mean I don’t know. my answer would be to ask, to go out to employees and say, hey, you know, we’re giving you this opportunity. Why aren’t you taking advantage of it? And you know, find out. Are they too busy? are they intimidated? do they not care? there is data that shows that employees increasingly don’t want to be involved in, say, extracurricular stuff at work. I mean, there have always been employees who don’t care, right? They just want to come in. Do their work, get paid and go home. They’re not going to get involved in volunteering for a task force or a committee. they’re not going to do volunteer activities after work. They’re not going to go out with people for a beer after work. they just they just wanna do their job for eight hours, pull their lever for eight hours and then and then go home. which is fine. You have to respect those people and what they want out of work. But a lot of people, you know, work is their purpose.

Steve: Yeah.

Shel: Work is what gets them up in the morning. And that’s frankly the majority, from everything I’ve seen. I have seen data that says the number of people who don’t want to do things that are extracurricular is growing. And I don’t know what is behind that. But it I’ll find that. I have that report somewhere saved. But yeah, you have to ask. And again, that’s giving employees a voice, right? Asking them why.

Steve: Really, I’d love I’d love to see I’d love to see that.

Shel: Don’t you want to take advantage of these opportunities to share your voice? One thing that we do where I work, when there’s going to be a town hall, is about a month before the town hall, because they’re quarterly, we’ll open up an anonymous comment line. Yeah, it’s it we use a tool, it’s on the web called Free Suggestion Box. It’s absolutely anonymous. It’s a third party thing. So Employees know that it’s anonymous and we’ll get questions through that from people. Maybe they know that they can’t be there at that meeting, but they still want their question asked and they can watch the video later or read the transcript. maybe they’re just not wanting to share their name with the question that they’re asking. But I mean, even having a card on the seat, if people are coming into an actual room that says, write your question down, no need to put your name on it, we’ll collect these.

Steve: Yeah, we’d I’ve done that. I’ve done that.

Shel: Right. I mean that takes a lot of the intimidation out of asking a question of the senior leaders. I mean, a smaller company, most employees know the leaders. in a bigger company, I mean, you know, if Jamie Dimon is your is your CEO and he’s doing a town hall standing up and asking him a tough question, I th that can intimidate a lot of frontline workers, you know.

Steve: Yeah it sure could. It sure could. You know, one of the other things is I think a lot of I think a lot of leaders confuse voice with venting. they think that employees are only going to complain. If we if we open up the channels, they’re gonna complain because employees complain about a lot of stuff. how do I’ve always struggled with this. How do we coach leaders into understanding that voice isn’t e i Well, it’s a venting. I mean some people might vent. Sure, there’s always gonna be people who vent. But voice is more about constructive conversations. And I think if leaders could understand that, that yes, there’s gonna be some venting, don’t let it kill ya. I mean that case study I was talking about, you should have heard some of the questions that came in through the chat. It was pure out venting. Leadership of this company has never demanded accountability from leadership, and that’s why we have a bad culture. I that kind of stuff came in and we fed it to the leaders and they answered it. So there was venting. But I would say 85% of the comments were A, I really appreciate you taking the time to communicate to us this way. And B, here’s what we need to do about this and that and the other thing. Here’s my suggestion. I mean, it was mostly positive. And I think the leaders in that organization, I don’t know if they expected that, but I know they got we got resistance about allowing people to just ask questions like that. So I think leaders are always afraid.

Shel: Yeah. I think it’s a I think it’s a matter of tying this to a strategy. rather than, you know, we’re just gonna have this free for all where people can s say whatever they want through these channels that we’ve set up. But yeah, I think there’s a number of ways to approach this. First of all, there are initiatives. You know, we are going to be developing this program, we’re gonna be developing this process. We would like your input to make sure we’re doing something that is going to meet your needs. satisfy your expectations. Please participate in this. There is feedback on things that have been said and done. I mean this is as simple as having a comment section on your intranet for every article that gets posted, things like that. then there’s just the ongoing stuff. I mean there are companies that have had these, companies like Volkswagen for example and Boeing, where you know they said these are channels where you can tell us what’s going on, so that we can be aware. And then employees at Volkswagen said, Well, you know, this debt on the diesel emissions is not right. This is going to cause problems. Boeing, people said, you know, the safety culture here is really deteriorating. There are problems down here. We need to address these. I think it was Boeing. I’m not sure, but one of them actually had a process for finding a way. To get rid of these employees. You know, monitor the ones who are raising these concerns. And you know, if we see them coming in two minutes late, we have cause to to terminate them. Yeah. So I mean, you know, but companies that want to take this seriously can have these mechanisms, and like Engage for Success says, this becomes a smoke alarm for something that could cause you real grief down the line. I mean, look at what happened to Boeing, look at what happened to Volkswagen when

Steve: And look and look at Boeing now. Yeah.

Shel: The arrogance at the senior level saying this is what we’re doing and yeah. Yeah. I mean, a Boeing, it was all about profit. It was the people who came in and said, you know, we have to cut costs so that we can return greater amounts of money to shareholders. At Volkswagen, it was, well, our emission numbers have to look good, so we’re gonna we’re gonna game those numbers. this if they had listened to what the issues were, they might have taken action and prevented

Steve: Right, ego goes back to that.

Shel: The consequences of those things. And I and I think this is what we counsel them on. Yeah, there are going to be people who whine. Why don’t we have a larger share in our 401k plan coming from the company match? thing things like that. But I think counseling them to say, look, there are some real issues that might surface that you’re not aware of, or a decision that you made is backfiring. And you need to know that. as the communicator who is going to help you process this two way communication, we’ll we’ll filter all that and give you summaries. Yeah, we if twenty employees are saying the same thing, we’re not gonna make you read twenty comments. We’re gonna give you a summary of what they’re what they’re saying. Make this all something that you can manage. Yeah.

Steve: Yeah, we’ll help. And you know what, Shely? You just you stole my idea like you often do because you’re smarter than me. that’s the key, what you just said. Structured voice, structured feedback. You don’t have to open it up and say, Here, if you want to complain that your coworker has body odor, this is the place to do it. If you want to complain that you have to work on Fridays or you gotta come back and then No, you structure the input, you structure the feedback around certain initiatives and that’s A great way, we’ve done that at companies where they didn’t have any feedback, you weren’t allowed to comment on articles on the intranet. The way to kind of break the ice a little bit with leaders who are either you know s suspect or they’re just suspicious about the whole idea of listening to employees, you structure it by tying it to initiatives. Here’s what we’re doing, it’s incredibly important that we do this right, and we’d love to hear your feedback on on this on this particular initiative or this particular project or this particular something. And if you tie it to actual things in the workforce and not just open it up to say, hey, it’s the wild west, say whatever you want about anybody you want and whatever, it’s in you know, I don’t know where you stand on this, but I don’t like anonymous comments on intranets. I love having your anonymous suggestion box. That’s perfect. And you can filter out the nut cases and the nut jobs and everything else and take the real ones. But when you allow anonymous comments on the intranet, not sure how you stand, I think it opens up it’s a bad it’s a bad I think it sets a bad precedent.

Shel: Yeah, I agree with a caveat. my general view is you should have the strength of your conviction when you say something. And if you’re not going to stand behind it and be identified, don’t say it. in organizations where there where the culture has been one where people are not comfortable sharing and you’re trying to change that culture, I think having an anonymous intranet input.

Steve: Right.

Shel: Functionality can be a temporary benefit to the organization. People say, look, they listened to that comment. maybe next time I’ll put my name on it. So yeah, I think as a transition thing, it might be helpful. Yeah, but generally, no, I agree with you. I don’t I don’t like it. I think people should stand behind their you know, the interesting thing is that Zoom, if you’re doing your webinars or your feedback sessions on Zoom, there is the ability to share a

Steve: Yeah, could be, could be.

Shel: A question anonymously if you if you’ve got the q and i’m pretty sure it’s the default i may be wrong about that but i notice a lot of employees are anonymous and i don’t think they mean to be it’s just the way it’s set up but let me share two stories with you real quick you know the first one this was when i was consulting i had a client it was a big company in the consumer package goods space

Steve: Is it really? I didn’t know that.

Shel: And they brought me in because employees weren’t paying any attention to the intranet. Their analytics sucked. And I took a look at their intranet before I came out and met with them. And you know, by God, the intranet was great. I mean, this was a great intranet. The articles were short and concise and relevant and useful and aligned with strategy and values. They did a lot of short videos that were very consumable. I was really impressed. So why weren’t employees paying attention to this? I really wanted to know. And we started off by interviewing the executives and they said, the intranet is great. We really want employees paying attention to it. This is the official source of truth in the organization. And then we did focus groups. And the focus groups from the middle managers and the focus groups from the frontline employees told us the same thing. The frontline employees say, I can’t be looking at the intranet. My boss is gonna see me doing that and give me a hard time. And the middle managers say if my employees are looking at a video on the intranet, they don’t have enough work to do. So that’s where the problem was. And you know, if you didn’t go out and surface that employee voice, the leaders would have never known that middle managers were undermining their approach to getting the word out to employees. Yeah. But where I work, we have an annual survey. This is nothing that my department

Steve: Yeah, I heard that. Happens all the time. Happens all the time.

Shel: Is responsible for. We do the communication on it, but this comes out of HR. And it’s a leadership survey. And you will get the survey specifically, will identify the leader you’re being asked to evaluate. It’s the person who runs your project or your department or your team. We’re not talking about the senior leadership unless you report to somebody in senior leadership. And every leader gets the results of that survey and has a meeting with an HR business partner to develop a plan. To make things better based on the results of the survey. And I did an article for the intranet with one of those people who was the subject of the survey. And he said, were one of the lowest rated projects last year. My light went off. We were one of the Lowest rated projects last year. did the survey. I got the results. I made some changes. This year were the top-rated project. So employees notice this when they give feedback and things change. You know, they do notice that. And I think that leads that leads to engagement, that leads to commitment, that leads to all good things from employees in the organization.

Steve: Yeah, without a doubt. I couldn’t agree more. I just don’t think it happens very often where leaders actually listen. My close would be: I think you need three things. And I think very few companies have all three things. One, you have to have the channels and the mechanisms to listen. you have to have those set up. Two, you have to have leaders who actually give a damn, who will actually listen to constructive feedback. And three, you have to have employees who feel enough trust in leadership that they feel trusted enough to speak up and they feel engaged enough to speak up. So if you have engaged, responsible, professional employees, leadership who can check the ego at the door and actually listen to those employees, and the communications people have set up easy to manage channels, it would be nirvana. But getting all three of those things lined up is very, very hard.

Shel: And that’s where our counsel comes in. I think we need to explain to leaders and we share examples, right? And if you can share examples from the same industry that you’re in, so much the better of what happens when leaders listen to employees, what happens when they don’t. And you know, take baby steps. try something that is not that consequential initially.

Steve: Exactly. Yep, yep. Yep, try to hook it to an initiative. Yeah. Yeah, I’m a big fan of taking baby steps. They need the baby steps. They’re not gonna run into this thing. So start small, let it build, let it but realize that, my God, the sky’s not falling because we let people talk and offer opinions and ideas and surface problems. The sky didn’t fall. And once they realize that then it can kind of build and build and then you get to the kind of culture where people feel empowered to use a really bad buzzword. They feel confident that they can be heard and they will speak up.

Shel: And then we get two way communication.

Steve: Which is the end goal.

Shel: Yeah, praise be. See you next time, Steve.

Steve: All right, Shel, I’m off to happy hour.

The post Episode 3: If It’s Not Two-Way, It’s Not Communication appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

First, they were told to use AI. Experiment! Add it to your workflows! Go wild! Then the bills started piling up, and companies realized the cost was not tenable. Now the walk-backs are happening. Usage caps! Caution! Slow down! Among the issues communicators need to address is employees questioning leadership’s judgment. In this short midweek episode, Shel and Neville explore approaches communicators can take to help employees understand the pivot while maintaining the perception of leader competence.

Links from this episode:

• AI can cost more than human workers now
• Microsoft reports are exposing AI’s real cost problem: Using the tech is more expensive than paying human employees
• When AI Costs More Than the Worker It Replaced
• AI isn’t paying off in the way companies think. Layoffs driven by automation are failing to generate returns, study finds
• AI layoffs may be backfiring on companies
• Uber, Microsoft, and Others Burning Through AI Budgets. Now What?
• Uber burned through its entire 2026 AI budget in four months. Now its COO is questioning whether it’s worth it
• Uber Burns Its 2026 AI Budget In Four Months On Claude Code
• Sam Altman says OpenAI’s top token spender uses 100 billion tokens a month — and they’re not even the world leader
• OpenAI CEO Sam Altman admits AI token costs are becoming ‘a huge issue’ — company seeks improved value as overspending becomes a meme
• Token Billing Exposes AI’s Missing ROI And Puts Billion-Dollar Bets At Risk
• AI savings misses should make executives uncomfortable
• AI saves workers a day a week, but they don’t know what to do with it

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, June 22.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Neville Hobson: Hi everyone and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 517. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz: I’m Shel Holtz. In some companies right now, that AI that was supposed to replace expensive humans is costing more than the humans it replaced. The numbers are kind of breathtaking. Uber burned through its entire 2026 AI budget in four months. In fact, I just heard today that they’re introducing a monthly AI spending cap of $1,500 per employee. One unnamed company, a real one though, spent half a billion dollars on AI in a single month because nobody had bothered to set a spending limit. An NVIDIA executive flat out admitted that for his team, compute now costs more than the engineers using it. A lot of these companies didn’t just overspend, they made decisions on the strength of what they thought AI could do. And in plenty of cases, those decisions cost people their jobs. The pitch was that AI can do this work for a fraction of the cost.

Then Bain and Company studied a thousand companies and finds that most aren’t getting those savings. Gartner found the layoffs delivered no better returns than not laying anyone off at all. In its study, Bain looked at the books and saw money leaking out of the top, companies spending the budget without the savings showing up. And Boston Consulting Group went and asked employees and found that the leak runs from the bottom too. Over 40% of regular AI users say they’re saving a full workday every week. But Boston Consulting Group’s point is that saved time doesn’t automatically become value. If nobody tells an employee where to redirect those reclaimed hours, that value just evaporates. So two consultancies looking at two completely different ends of the organization landed on the same diagnosis. This is a management failure. It’s not a technology failure. So put yourself in the shoes of employees who are still there.

They watched colleagues walked out the door because they were told the machine could do it cheaper. And now they’re watching leadership start to walk it back. In most cases, walk it back really quietly. What does that do to employees who see their leaders’ judgment, their competence? Because that is where this becomes a communication story. It’s about trust, credibility, and what we as communicators are supposed to do when leaders make a big public painful bet that doesn’t pay off. We’ll share our thoughts about that right after this.

Now there’s a lot we can talk about with this story, like communicating a suddenly altered governance model. But let’s start here. The bet companies made was about people, that AI could replace human labor at a fraction of the cost. When that turns out to be wrong, employees don’t just see a line item on a P&L. They see leaders who either didn’t understand the technology they bet the company on, or who used the AI story as cover for cuts they were going to make anyway, what we’ve come to call AI washing. Both of these readings are poison. The second one travels fastest. A communicator’s first job is to make sure that the accurate story is the one that gets out there. And to add a little context to that idea, Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, just recently said that this cost discussion is new. It started early this year. Before that, nobody was talking about it. And that’s probably because before early this year, most employees were prompting AI chatbots, and that didn’t blow up budgets. What changed early this year? Agents. Now employees have agents running complex tasks in an endless loop, and that burns tokens like nobody’s business. I heard about one employee who burned through a billion tokens in a month. That means costs are exploding. It’s not something anybody really anticipated, and a lot of CEOs were caught unaware. You know, they paid for the subscription cost to say Anthropic, now they’re paying the subscription, but they’re also paying for tokens. So Neville, if you were leading a comms department in a company that laid off a bunch of people because AI could do their jobs, and now it’s either costing more for the AI to do those jobs, or the AI isn’t doing it as well as the people did, how do you communicate that without making leadership look like fools?

Neville Hobson: Yeah, it’s a good question, isn’t it, Shel? I mean, you’ve painted a picture that’s pretty dire, it seems to me. And I like to think that this is a kind of outlier territory we’re in. This is not the mainstream. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. You know, I don’t recognize this in the UK, so it could not yet be a big deal over here. But I’m thinking you mentioned that the original AI narrative, if I can describe it that way, was sold to people as we’re replacing you with robots or we’re replacing you with tech. I wonder, is that the case everywhere? Because I would have thought it was, many would have sold it as additive. It’s AI plus you, not AI instead of you. And that’s a wholly different kind of message if that were the case. Either way, they’re walking it back. And I think there’s a handful of things the communication leader should do. And that person would also be the counselor and the advisor to the leadership of the organization. So I think one of the first things, if not the first thing, is that you mustn’t let the leadership hide behind euphemisms. You know, restructuring, right sizing, optimizing for the future, that kind of stuff.

Employees see through all of that, particularly in this example. And it makes things even worse, I think. The communicator’s job is to push for plain language, even when that’s uncomfortable. So that’s one thing. The second, and again, this may well be the first. I’m just putting these out there as bullet points effectively without saying which is the most significant. Acknowledge the whiplash directly. Acknowledge it. Don’t pretend that the earlier message just didn’t happen. All those lovely messages about this rosy future’s coming when we’re introducing AI. You could say, we told you AI would be a productivity multiplier for everyone. We believe that. The reality has turned out differently, and you deserve an honest explanation of why. Of course, your next bit is so what are you going to say? But that’s the framing you need to do. Separate the human cost from the technology story. The people losing jobs are not a line item.

Communication that treats them as a budget adjustment will destroy trust with everyone who remains behind. And the people who remain are watching very carefully. Give the survivors something real, not platitudes about the future, concrete information about what the new operating model looks like, what’s expected of them, and what support they’re getting. And there’s a harder truth for communicators, it seems to me, and this kind of popped out of the woodwork sideways when I was looking into this. If you’re the comms person in a situation like this, and leadership won’t let you be honest, won’t acknowledge the contradiction, they won’t speak plainly to people losing their jobs, then you have a professional and ethical problem, not a communication problem. And that’s a different ball game. And if you’re in that situation, I would say, easy to say this naturally, is get your resume brushed up and start looking around someplace else. You don’t want to be in that kind of environment. So the best communication advice in the world can’t fix a leadership team that wants to paper over a broken promise. And that’s worth saying out loud. And I think these are the things that should be on the communicator’s to-do list in a situation like this that could, I suppose, go some way towards restoring or maintaining some level of trust in the leadership, where we do, we hate what you did, we’re angry at you, but we believe that you are willing to fix it in some form. And even saying like, yeah, I’m with you on that, you thought this would work and it didn’t. So there’s other questions that will arise too. But either way it’s going to be an uncomfortable journey to get to an outcome that you like.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, to your first point, no, I don’t think every organization is going through this. I think it’s the ones that are actually providing employees with a budget to use tokens. I mean, we heard the stories about the leaderboards that were encouraging people to rise to the top of the leaderboard for the number of tokens they were burning, because that would indicate, it would signal that they’re using AI, which the companies wanted them to do. But you know, the models, the frontier labs were not really forthright with their pricing structures on the tokens. This was something new. They introduced it. It’s not very transparent. Not all of them even have the ability to show you how many tokens you’ve burned through. A couple of them do, but it’s not clear what that means in terms of your costs or what you have left available. But you know, from the communication standpoint, yeah, the trap I see here is that the original decisions were announced really loudly.

Shel Holtz: They issued press releases. They had all hands meetings. It was discussed on earnings calls. The correction here is happening more like a whisper. Spend caps are being added quietly to governance language. I know Uber is out there talking about it, but not everybody. The leaderboards for those token maxing exercises are just vanishing without explanation. Contractors are appearing in company offices to do the work that the AI was supposed to do. Some of them are the employees who were laid off in the first place. So, you know, when you boast loudly and walk back quietly, employees are going to fill that silence, right? Information abhors a vacuum. And they’re going to fill it with the worst possible interpretation. But, you know, leaders do have this instinct to either double down, you know, this is what we said we were going to do, and by God, we’re going to do it. Or they go quiet, and both those approaches are wrong. I think what actually rebuilds credibility isn’t a groveling apology. It’s a clear here’s what we expected, here’s what the data actually showed, and here’s what we’re changing in response. I think that reframes what looked like a wrong bet into a process that we employed to arrive at the best outcome.

And it’s a continuum, and we’re here at the continuum. We’re not at the end game. We’re still learning and adapting and adjusting, and we still believe in the promise of AI, which by the way, I do. Look, employees don’t lose respect for leaders who update their thinking. They lose respect for leaders who pretend they were right all along when they weren’t. So we should counsel leaders to stop measuring AI adoption and hours saved, and start measuring whether that saved time is actually being reinvested into something that matters. We should never have been celebrating who can burn through the most tokens the fastest. In communication terms, that’s like focusing on which communicator can produce the most articles for the intranet and ignoring whether people are modifying their behaviors or reinforcing their support for company goals or whatever other outcomes you had determined that those articles were supposed to produce. Deciding what an organization celebrates, what it puts on the scoreboard, that’s partly our job.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I’d say you’re right. It’s interesting. I think there’s a kind of an underlying question behind all this, it seems to me, that I was mulling over when I was looking at this. The real question is, can communications actually repair the damage that’s been caused by this? Can it? I think the honest answer is partially. So good communication can reduce the damage, preserve some trust with the people who stay and give the organization a chance to rebuild its credibility over time. But it can’t undo the promise. It can only help people understand what happened and why. Now that may sound like, well, in that case, this is doomed. No, not at all. Because if you get to that point, help people understand what happened and why, you’ve then got a foundation where you can build from, it seems to me. And that’s connected directly to your point you just made, that you have to, you know, grasp the nettle as it were, take the bull by the horns, etc., think of the metaphors, and be honest and truthful, fess up. It’s not like, yeah, we screwed up, not at all. We made the bet, we had all the research, everyone was convinced this would work, and indeed our vendors who persuaded us to sign up for all those tokens were saying the same thing.

There’s also another element. I’ve been reading about this in, I’ve forgotten, one of the US papers that I subscribe to, about this supposed huge AI backlash in the US that isn’t happening here. Yeah, it’s not happening here, although it’s a whole different landscape here in that context. Not on the scale that you have in the States. But I’ve been reading a bit about that. Maybe that needs to be factored into this as well, because that would fuel people’s anger, I think, at the outcome that they’re experiencing, particularly if there’s kind of iffy communication somewhere in there that doesn’t resonate with employees. So it’s a complex picture. But I think the real question is, can communications actually repair the damage? And I think the answer is precisely that, partially.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, you raise a really interesting point. If 70% of the population is feeling negative about AI, you have to figure that that is reflected in your employee population. And now you’ve got this piled on top of that. That’s just fueling those views. So you have to factor that into the approach that you’re taking to communication and maybe even into the employee profiles that you’re using to craft those communications on that whiplash that you were talking about. Important to remember that for, you know, like a year, employees were pushed. Yeah, there were mandates, those leaderboards I mentioned. They were pushed to use it as much as humanly possible, and now they’re being told, oops, use it carefully. Yeah, and I think communications does set the narrative that connects those two poles. You know, without it, the reversal just looks like leadership didn’t know what they’re doing.

Shel Holtz: And again, that reads as incompetent. So I think we do have to build the bridge. We learned something on the road. Here’s what’s changed and why. It doesn’t mean that the promise of AI isn’t still there. It’s just the road that we are taking to get there is a little more winding than we expected. And by the way, speaking of the whiplash, according to that Boston Consulting Group survey, nearly half of workers, 47%, say they spend more time managing and directing AI than doing the actual work they were originally hired to do. Think about that against what leaders promised, because the pitch was that this was going to be a labor-reducing thing, a productivity improver. And what employees are actually living is the labor didn’t get easier, it just got transformed from doing the work to supervising the AI that does the work. Boston Consulting Group found that four in ten reported an increased cognitive load, which is, I have to say, exactly what I have been experiencing. I’m not spending less time, I’m spending more time, and AI is part of the reason for that. So when the lived experience doesn’t match what was said in the announcement, the gap is where leaders’ credibility can go to die, right? It’s the communicator’s job to close that gap. Make sure that the story leadership is telling matches the work that people are actually doing and the experience they’re actually having.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I would subscribe to that view. I’m also thinking, Shel, that, you know, the way this has been presented, let’s say, is as if, you know, lots of communication when this started, big promises from leadership, and then silence. And now there’s this, we’ve got to rethink all this and you’re not going to be able to do that. So there was no effective communication in the meantime, there was no updates on what’s going on and this is what people are doing and these are the benefits they’re having. So I feel there was a lack of continuity in the communication. Otherwise this wouldn’t have landed as a big surprise, or as big a surprise as it has to many. There would have been signs that might have prompted some to say, whoa, hang on a second. I’m getting this little note here saying I’ve used so many tokens. I mean it could even be, what are these tokens it keeps talking about? How was that communicated? That every time you do this, this is going to happen. And I’m thinking of my own experience as an individual and the experiments I’m running with Claude, for instance, that when I was experimenting with Claude Cowork, it would, or it might have been the project, I can’t remember which one it was now, but there was a little script I could put into the model that told me how many tokens I used. And it didn’t tell me that and then some kind of tech gobbledygook that I wouldn’t have a clue what the hell does that mean. It actually told me this project you’ve done used so many tokens, which is nought point one two percent of your total allowance until the next reset. Now that makes me think, that’s okay.

So, did they have anything like that in the organization that enabled people to just keep a running total on what they’re doing? You know, it’s kind of like the average MPG in your car kind of thing. Everyone knows that kind of thing. That’s helpful, even though it’s not very scientific or detailed, but it would be enough. And maybe I haven’t encountered it myself. I see people talking about this on LinkedIn quite a bit, where they are getting fed up with this tool telling me I’ve reached my token limit, and I’m thinking, okay, they’re obviously doing the kind of work that not everyone is doing that burns through tokens like this. And it’s quite tech oriented, those kind of comments. So you’ve got to take that into account. But I think it does come back to, from a comms point of view, that you told people this is what was going to happen, this is why we were doing this, and there’s this lovely rosy future for all of us. Did you explain the detail about how things were going to actually happen? Probably not, I would say. So otherwise there wouldn’t have been the backlash at the end. The backlash would have started earlier and you might have been able to head it off. You might have been able to make a difference. So these are all, you know, what-ifs perhaps, but nevertheless, it comes back to that underlying question, that can communicators actually repair this? The answer is partially, it seems to me.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and I could definitely see myself burning through a lot of tokens without a tech rationale for it. If I set up ten agents to scan the media environment 24 hours a day, seven days a week, each with a different area of focus, and they’re just constantly running, that’s tokens being burned. That’s like the car never being turned off and going through the gas. So, by the way, imagine the message that companies can send to their employees if the company was more deliberate and slower about the implementation of AI. They know it’s coming. They’ve given Copilot to employees, but in terms of everybody going out and building agents and things like that, well, we’re still remediating our internal data to make it useful for an AI model. And we haven’t launched our training yet. No, they can rub their hands and say, you know, being slow and deliberate paid off. Look what’s happening to all these other organizations. We’re pretty smart leaders here in this company. By the way, one other communication opportunity I want to address before we wrap up, and that’s around governance, because there’s, you know, a remarkable detail in this story. The companies that overspent mostly already had the tools to prevent it. You know, spend limits like you set up in the agent that you had that told you how many tokens you’d gone through. Routing simpler tasks to cheaper models. I just heard this morning on a podcast that there’s something you can sign up for if you use their tools, it’s automatically going to route you to the right model for the task. So you’re not always using the high-end model, the reasoning model, the thinking model, that costs a lot. Budget caps, all of these rules have always existed as capabilities inside the platforms, the companies just never switched them on. So for a communicator, that’s a gift because it lets leadership say we’re putting real discipline in place without it sounding like punishing employees for using too many tokens, like they were initially told to do. The framing here is everything. The governance change needs to be framed as here’s how we make sure this actually pays off for us. And it lets employees know the company’s approach to AI is maturing. If you frame it as AI use is now restricted, well, that signals panic and confirms the exact incompetence story you’re trying to tamp down in the first place.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. Again, what was communicated, how was it communicated, to what depth was it communicated, and how did you know that people absorbed it well? So what kind of feedback mechanism did you have to see if people understood the message? But I think there’s also another element, this is an organizational one, which is, you know, you’ve got a hundred and fifty employees, let’s say you’ve got five hundred employees in your company, did every single one of those five hundred need unlimited token access to do anything they wanted? No, they shouldn’t have done. So the example you mentioned, a tech person or enabling someone to be monitoring something twenty-four seven, not everyone would need to have that. And in fact, you’d need to structure it so that only these guys who need to do that. And I would imagine you’ve done a comparison to say this is definitely going to be cheaper than doing it that way, which you’ve always been doing it. So that would make sense. I wonder how many didn’t even do those kind of, you know.

Shel Holtz: Many, if not most. Yeah.

Neville Hobson: Right, I wouldn’t be surprised. So perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at this outcome that we’re discussing here. And again, that is now the fifth time I think I’ve mentioned this, that communications can only repair this damage partially. And I think the bits it can repair are going to have some good outcomes, I would say.

Shel Holtz: One other thing that communications can do here is to set the stage. It’s, this is not the end game. We have not reached the place where, now we get it, everything’s right. The message is anticipate more change from this. I mean, the frontier model companies, Anthropic, OpenAI, you know, they’re going to change their pricing models because they know that people are dissatisfied. They know that it’s opaque. They know that it’s costing more than people and companies can afford. So you can look for this to get changed. I just recently heard somebody suggesting an outcome-based pricing model as opposed to a token-based model. I don’t know how that would work, but it’ll be interesting to see what they come up with. But you need to prepare employees for more change. You can’t let them be surprised again. Look at what agents did to the way this has pivoted. There’s going to be more of this on the horizon. You know, prepare yourself, but in the meantime, we are still on the right path of figuring out how to apply this to the organization’s best advantage. And that’ll be a thirty for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #517: How to Communicate AI Whiplash to Employees appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Most owner-led agencies know they should be doing more than media relations. One barrier has always been capability: you can’t execute paid media if nobody on your team knows paid media. AI is removing that barrier, and Chip and Gini dig into exactly how.

Gini built a PESO model operating system AI that prompts you instead of you prompting it. Many agencies are strong in one or two media types and need scaffolding to think through the rest. The tool can be used to help agencies execute unfamiliar disciplines step by step.

Chip frames this as an opportunity to do things that were theoretically possible two years ago but practically out of reach. A paid campaign to amplify a blog post no longer requires hiring a specialist. Beyond drafting, both hosts made a case for AI as a learning tool instead of merely a content machine. Gini tested this directly by vibe-coding a PESO model diagnostic, working through multiple versions with AI troubleshooting each step.

The practical upshot is that you can use AI to build separate knowledge-rich agents for each media type, loaded with client messaging and context, and treat them as thought partners for areas where your team lacks depth. It won’t eliminate the need for people or strategic thinking, but capability is no longer a credible excuse for staying stuck at one letter of PESO. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 308: Using AI to extend your agency’s PESO Model expertise appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

The Economist has gone public with an experiment: it has created a shadow website featuring an AI-friendly version of its front-of-paywall content. The idea is to improve the odds of this content surfacing in AI answers and responses to AI queries. It’s based on a new standard, llms.txt, which has been described as the robot.txt of AI. What does this mean for communicators? Neville and Shel break it down in this short midweek episode.

Links from this episode:

• The Economist tests AI-ready web pages
• The Economist prepares for a two‑track internet: one for humans and one for AI agents
• The Economist is testing content read by AI agents
• How The Economist is using AI to extend its global reach
• The next version of the web will be built for machines, not humans

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, June 22.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Shel Holtz: Hi, everybody, and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode number 516. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson.

Something quiet is happening to the web, and The Economist is one of the first major publishers to talk openly about how it’s responding. A piece published by Digiday last week describes how The Economist is building what its VP of generative AI, Josh Munker, calls two versions of the web.

One version is the one we’re all familiar with: richly designed pages, feature photography, navigation, everything optimized for a human reader browsing with intent. The other version is quite different: stripped back, structured around questions and answers, designed not for you, but for an AI agent acting on your behalf.

Now, if that framing sounds familiar, it should. In episode 515 last week, we spent some time on what Google announced at its developer conference in May: that searching the web will increasingly be done by AI agents rather than by humans, and that people will focus on acting on the information those agents surface rather than clicking links themselves. I made the point then that the question for communicators was shifting from, “How do we get found?” to, “How do we become part of the information environment that AI systems draw from?”

What The Economist is doing is a direct practical answer to exactly that question. And here’s what makes this particularly interesting. The Economist itself published a piece last December describing this shift in precise terms: a move from a pull internet, where people initiate actions, to a push model, where agents act unprompted, setting up meetings, flagging research, handling tasks, often without a human ever typing a query. They wrote about it then as an emerging phenomenon. Now, six months later, their own team is operationally responding to it. They’re not just observers of this trend; they’re participants in it.

The logic behind their approach is straightforward. A growing share of people, particularly in B2B contexts, no longer start their discovery process with a search engine or a home page. They start with ChatGPT or Gemini or Claude. They ask a question, get a synthesized answer, and may never visit the original source at all.

For a publisher like The Economist, that creates an obvious problem. If your content isn’t structured in a way that an AI agent can parse and surface clearly, you effectively become invisible. Not because your content is poor, but because the intermediary can’t read it properly.

So The Economist is experimenting. Right now, the focus is on content that already sits outside the paywall: marketing copy, B2B sales material, the kinds of pages where you want a potential subscriber or corporate client to find you. They’re building parallel versions: the polished human-facing page alongside a clean, agent-readable equivalent. The aim is to show up accurately and usefully in AI-generated answers.

Now, why does this matter to communicators beyond the publishing world? Because what The Economist is describing isn’t a publishing problem. It’s a communication problem.

And it connects to something that one researcher quoted in The Economist’s December piece put plainly: Marketers and communicators may need to pitch not to people, but to agent attention. The audience increasingly will be algorithms, and the humans will act on what these algorithms surface.

Think about your own organization’s public-facing content: press releases, executive bios, policy statements, corporate FAQs, product and service descriptions. All of that content is increasingly being read and summarized by AI agents before it ever reaches a human. If that content isn’t structured to be understood accurately by an agent, you lose control of how your organization is represented in AI-generated answers. And unlike a Google snippet, you may not even know it’s happening.

Alessandro DeSantis, a media consultant quoted in the Digiday piece, puts it bluntly. He calls agent optimization a defensive baseline, not a competitive advantage, but the minimum requirement to remain visible at all.

There’s a deeper question sitting underneath all of this, which we’ll get into: Who do you trust in the AI-intermediated world? What does it mean for the communicator’s job when the first reader of your content isn’t a person at all?

Shel, you and I discussed the Google side of this in FIR 515. Here’s a publisher responding in real time. What’s your take?

Shel Holtz: I have lots of takes on this.

This is, I think, a big issue. The first thing I want to point out is that, as I read the commentary of people who are talking about this, there’s an expectation that in the not-too-distant future, the AI version is all that we’re going to need to publish because we’re going to be publishing for AI as people rely on AI to get their information. I find this a troubling idea.

I think people are ignoring the fact that right now, 25 to 60 percent, depending on the nature of the site, of visits to a website are direct. They are not coming from a search engine. It’s somebody who already knows the URL. As I mentioned in a post I published to LinkedIn last week, nobody going to Amazon starts at Google and says “online retail site” and waits for the URL to come up. They just type Amazon.com.

There are a lot of people who know the URLs. There are URLs published in magazine articles, in advertising, in TV commercials, for example. And then there is the dark web: I send you a link by email or in our Slack channel, and you click it. There’s no search involved at all, so there is no opportunity to see that AI overview.

So I think we have to keep in mind that there are still a lot of people who are coming to our websites, not through Google or some other search mechanism, or starting with Claude or ChatGPT or Gemini or what have you. They’re coming directly to your website, either because they know the URL or it has been shared with them by somebody else. So I think we do need to keep that in mind.

The other reason I think we need to maintain our own websites is because we own them, and we don’t own that intermediary. You publish that Markdown version of a web page and you provide the proper router to it. Was it called LLM text, I think? They’re calling this the robots.txt of the AI era. And it’s going to share with the person who’s making the query what it shares. It may not be exactly what is on your page. So now you’re down to using a third party.

Neville Hobson: Something like that.

Shel Holtz: So, yeah, it’s good to have at least as a statement of record what your original content was. I have some other thoughts about this, but I’ll let you react to that first.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, no, I get it totally. Yet the trend seems to be quite clear. This is the way it’s moving. And I would say that, from what I’ve been reading, not just this, but The Economist is actually a probably good signal for what other media properties may or may not be doing or might want to do, depending on the outcome of The Economist’s experimentation. Being discoverable in this new way is critical; otherwise, you are invisible.

And I think the behaviors of people are gradually changing, not to the extent that it’s a groundswell. I don’t see it like that myself. Maybe it is generational, potentially, I suppose. But I think applying that kind of “it’s because of age differences in the different generations” is a bit of a tired argument nowadays, I think, as a kind of answer to everything.

We’re seeing a shift in how people not only find information, but how they think about going about finding information. So the idea of thinking, “Okay, let me just type into this search box: How do I do so-and-so? Where do I go to?” or whatever words you might use. I kind of talk in literally conversational language when I’m searching for something, and I’ve had more good experiences, way more than not good, with Google Overviews as a result.

And again, I sometimes stop and think, “What did I just do then?” I took Google Overview and I didn’t go any further than that because it gave me exactly what I wanted. And not only that, I’ve got a list of all the sources it looked at as well. So why am I going to spend any more time on this? I got what I need. So this is evolving fast, even though it’s still not totally clear exactly what’s happening.

And I think the idea — and this is my take on this, Shel — the idea of, as a matter of course, sharing URLs in an email or in a WhatsApp message with colleagues in the workplace, that ain’t going to be the way it’s going to be as a matter of course. There are going to be other, better ways of doing it than that, generally speaking, of course.

So this isn’t suddenly going to happen next week. This is going to take some time to evolve. But it seems from what I’ve read, Digiday being one good example, and a handful of others I’ve also looked at, this is the clear trend that’s evolving. And The Economist is clearly betting on their experiment that AI-agent content prepared for AI agents is an essential move for them to take as a publisher so that they do not become invisible. And I get that.

Shel Holtz: I agree that it’s an essential move. I’m not suggesting that organizations not do this. I’m just suggesting that they not abandon their websites. For now, we’ve got to keep that 25 to 60 percent that are coming directly to your website in mind.

You also have to keep in mind that your website may have things on it that can’t be duplicated in an AI Overview. In fact, the advice that’s circulating out there is that if you want to drive traffic still to your website, you need to have that kind of content. It may be calculators, for example, interactive elements that just can’t be summarized. You have to get to the website and interact with that tool.

I know that the ability to purchase from an AI Overview is coming. It’s not here yet. I haven’t heard a timeline for when it’s going to be here. It’s coming, but for now, if you want to make a purchase, you need to go to the website to do that. So I’m suggesting that there are still reasons to provide a website. You need to do both.

Now, when I say you need to do both, I think it’s important to understand that you don’t need to have a one-for-one of all of the content on your website. You need to make a judgment about what on your website you want to have summarized by AI and what is unnecessary or superfluous, or what you otherwise just don’t need to spend the time on. It doesn’t matter if the AI gets this particular content summarized in Markdown so that it can give you the AI summary.

So I think you have to do some strategizing. But undoubtedly, what’s coming from the web development platforms that are out there is the automation of this. I think it’s inevitable that WordPress and Wix and Squarespace and Webflow and all of the other services out there for creating websites are going to add the ability to automatically convert this page to Markdown and put it in the right place. I think that’s probably going to ease this. I haven’t heard any conversations from these website creation companies about this, but I do think it’s inevitable.

Neville Hobson: It is, I agree. One hundred percent, it’s inevitable. And like I said earlier, this is not sudden. So your point about keeping your website with links and all that stuff — for some years, that’s still going to be the case for many people, but it’s going to decline.

I think it’s interesting what you said about some stuff not lending itself well. I totally agree. And in fact, one of the tips for communicators that I came up with from all the stuff I’ve been reading is to go through your key external pages in your organization — the About page, FAQ, leadership bios, product or service descriptions — and ask, “If an AI agent were summarizing this, what would it say?”

And you talked about the examples you made: content buried in carousels, PDFs, JavaScript-heavy pages, or dense narrative prose is harder for agents to parse accurately. So restructuring even a handful of high-priority pages into clear, direct, quick Q&A formats is a practical first step. It could matter a great deal.

And the other thing, which I picked up from Digiday, but also from some others, is worth noting for everyone, I think. The technical landscape is still forming. Nobody has the full picture yet. But as The Economist example tells us, they’re not waiting, and neither should we as communicators. You start with what you can control: your own content, your direct audience relationships, your messaging clarity. And as Digiday concludes, the organizations that experiment now, even tentatively, will be better positioned than those waiting for a definitive playbook that may never arrive.

And I think if I were doing this — and again, it’s easy to say, “Well, if I were doing this, I’d do X.” It sounds easy, doesn’t it? — but the idea of literally kind of duplicating your website for this purpose is quite a bit of work. But it could stand you in good stead where your competitors haven’t done that and they’ve still got these beautifully designed, laid out, immaculate photos and stuff that’s animated, designed for human readers, without the version designed for the algorithms.

And I think that, to me, would be a key thing to truly investigate thoroughly in your organization: What am I committing to if I say, “Okay, our gorgeous website wins awards for its design, and here are all the metrics showing all the leads it delivers and all that kind of stuff. What do we need to do to get on the radar of the AI agents version?”

So you build a version. What’s entailed with that? One thing I didn’t see in Digiday’s piece, and I haven’t found it anywhere else yet, is what exactly is involved in creating a duplicate of your website designed around this? Where, for instance, you’re treating everything as structured data, not just copywritten text, which doesn’t translate well to an agent-intermediated world, to quote Digiday.

So it talks about, you know, starting to think about your key messages as discrete, unambiguous statements that can be lifted and represented accurately without context. That doesn’t mean dumbing things down. And this bit I did like: It means being deliberate about what an agent will extract if it only gets 30 seconds with your content.

Now, there’s a good pointer that the way of thinking about how you present yourself online now isn’t about beautifully designed websites and the nuanced meaning of words and phrases that are emotive about your products or service. It’s about data. And you need to appeal to — and this is a human emotive statement, which isn’t really applicable — but you’ve got to appeal to the AI agent. What will appeal to an AI agent? It doesn’t care, using the word “appeal.” It’s what will make it index you and include you when someone types, speaks, or whatever it is that produces search results, where the engine or tool you’re using goes out and pulls in all the information. You want to be sure you’re included in that. So it’s a bit of work to do.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. It’s not a one-to-one copy and paste from your existing website. In fact, we know that AI likes Q&A, for example. If your website’s not already in a Q&A format and the text can lend itself to that, you’re going to want to repurpose it that way.

We know that it likes what’s in the top 30 percent of the content, so you’re going to want to front-load the most important information. And frankly, if you’re not doing this, then your company is not going to show up in those AI summaries, or at the very least, it’s not going to show up represented the way that you want it to.

I do have two other issues to point out. One of these is the increased use of agents. You mentioned an agent, but it’s an agent that’s working on behalf of the model. Now I’m talking about the agent that’s working on behalf of me. In which case, that LLMS.txt file is going to become the routing layer to your official content.

And this is a big deal for regulated industries, because people have to find the canonical information. They have to find the approved information, not necessarily the one that was created for AI. So if you’re doing this, you do need to make sure that what you are creating for AI is official. It is going to present the information that the lawyers have approved, that is going to pass muster with the regulators.

The other thing is that if I can rewrite the text of a web page for the AI version of this that I’m creating, I can put something completely different on that page. And this becomes an ethical issue that we need to watch out for. People might try to game this. I mean, remember the early days of SEO and all of the gaming of SEO that we saw with tags that had nothing to do with what was on the page. They just knew that this was a popular search term, and it would drive traffic there.

We can see the same kind of gaming with this LLMS.txt routing to the AI-compliant pages, with information on it that’s there to get you into the search results, there to get you into the AI summary, not necessarily to give you the same information that you would have found on a web page. So this can be problematic, and I think it’s something that the industry’s going to be watching for.

Neville Hobson: I agree. So you compile your list of “these are the things we need to pay attention to,” but again, in the back of your mind, you’ve got this reality: The technical landscape is still forming. No one has the full picture yet. That would include what are the requirements of this, that, or the other. So assume it’s going to be like we currently have, although I would argue it’s not going to be like we currently have. It’s going to evolve, but that’s going to take time. So you need to do that precisely.

I would say pay attention to experiments like this. And again, this is a media company doing this, so they are publishers of content that might mention your brand. That’s why it’s important to you that you show up in these kinds of search terms as well. So a lot to pay attention to here, Shel, I think, really.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and remember, The Economist isn’t doing this with their articles yet because that’s still behind the paywall. This is all that stuff in front of the paywall. I mean, eventually it’ll get there to some degree, although I don’t know how you do this behind the paywall when it’s just showing up on, you know, Google Search or…

Neville Hobson: No, again, the technical stuff is not worked out yet. They’ll find ways here.

The other thing to mention — I’m glad you mentioned The Economist. I meant to mention this, but the final point in Digiday’s piece, I thought, was really interesting. It’s a reminder, I suppose, that for all the experiments, The Economist sees AI as infrastructure rather than authorship: something to speed up research, workflows, and product delivery, not a shortcut to churning out more copy.

So AI is not going to be writing their content, they say. It will do all this stuff at the back end, if you will, that would enable its journalists, its human journalists, to do the stuff that they do well. That’s admirable. And I think The Economist has a track record of that kind of behavior in its history. So it’s great.

I think it’ll be interesting to see what other major properties do, including the big ones in the U.S., the big ones here, and elsewhere in the world. And I bet you they are working on stuff like this, too. They have to be.

Shel Holtz: No doubt. And that will be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #516: Your New Shadow Website appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Losing a client is never fun, even when you saw the writing on the wall. The only question is how you choose to handle it. In this episode, Chip and Gini cover the practical and emotional side of client departures, from the moment you get the news to the lessons you take away.

Gini points out that there are plenty of reasons a client could terminate the relationship, which may have nothing to do with your work. Strategy changes, budget cuts, and leadership turnover all end client relationships that were otherwise going fine.

Chip’s advice is to not react immediately. Ask for a couple of days to review the agreement and put together a transition plan. That space lets you get the emotion out before you say something you’ll regret.

Once you have your bearings, focus on making the exit clean. Read your actual contract, confirm the notice terms, and hand over everything the client needs: documents, passwords, contacts, work in progress. Chip is blunt about agencies that fight clients on the way out — it accomplishes nothing and just guarantees a bad final impression. Don’t burn any bridges and you just might see those clients come back or send you referrals.

Finally, be honest with your team about what the loss means for the business. If there are financial implications, say so before people start drawing their own conclusions. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 307: What to do when a client “fires” your agency appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Communicators long for “a seat at the table.” In this episode of “On the Same Page,” the internal communications podcast, Shel and Steve share their perspectives on this age-old aspiration and discuss the real ways to be consequential and wield influence with senior executives.

Links from this episode:

• 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer
• 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Reveals Trust is In Peril As Society Slides from Grievance into Insularity
• Why Trust Matters More in 2026 (PwC’s Global Workforce Hopes and Fears Survey 2025)
• Employees Prioritize Organizational Stability Over Feeling Valued at Work for the First Time in a Decade, Perceptyx Research Finds
• How To Reverse New Record Decline in Employee Trust
• Employees seek hope, trust from workplace leaders, Gallup finds

Raw Transcript

Shel Holtz: So Steve, I have a request. This is something that really rubs me the wrong way. I want the internal communications community to stop asking for the seat at the freaking table.

Steve Crescenzo: Hey, preach, brother, preach.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, you know what they sound like? They sound like the older kids at Thanksgiving. You know, the 13-year-old who says, “Why do I have to sit at the kids’ table? I want to sit at the grown-up table.” You know what? There is no table. There’s never been a table. There’s no one in the C-suite sitting around this polished mahogany slab thinking, “You know what would really make this strategic discussion complete? Having the person who runs the intranet here.” The table has become a metaphor for a participation trophy, and chasing it has made us sound needier than an MBA candidate at a networking happy hour. What we should be asking for isn’t proximity to power, it’s consequence. It’s doing work that’s so useful that the leaders come find you because they can’t make the decision without getting your input first. That’s more important than a seat in a chair that, let’s face it, isn’t all that comfortable and that can be taken away as quickly as it was given to you.

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah. You know, this table, they treat it like it’s the Knights of the Round Table and Camelot, King Arthur. There’s no table, it’s musical chairs up there. Everyone’s yanking chairs out for everybody. It just bothers me so much, Shel. And you’re right, it makes us sound pathetic—whiny, little, needy people, like we sit here in the basement and write our newsletters and ask why we can’t get up there and sit at the big table. We don’t need a table. We don’t need a seat. You know what we need? We need influence. We need access and we need respect. And you know how you get those? You earn it. You don’t earn it by doing a good newsletter, even. You don’t do it by having great tactics. You do it by speaking truth to power, by letting leadership know that you can provide counsel—that you can tell them their baby’s ugly. “You know what? Your blog is too stiff, it’s too formal, your messages aren’t landing. Why are you doing a nine-minute video when nobody’s watching a nine-minute video?” That’s how you get respect and access and influence. You don’t do it by whining for it or mooching around for it. So yeah, let’s be done with the table.

Shel Holtz: So, Steve, today we’re going to look at how communicators can become consequential and influential. This fits neatly in the consultation segment of the outer ring of the On the Same Page framework. The items in the outer ring are the things that we do every day, all the time, and providing counsel is one of those things. We can provide counsel to departments, to teams, to business units. I have great examples of all of these things, but today let’s hone in on providing counsel to the company’s leadership, the C-suite.

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, well, you know, Shel, that’s how you get a seat at the table—just kidding. But it is how you can get influence and access and all the stuff we’re talking about. Be a counselor, which means it’s hard work, Shel. Everyone thinks it’s easy, but it means telling people hard truths sometimes. It means being a reality check for leaders, which they don’t always like. They don’t always like being told stuff, but that’s what we have to be if we want to have that respect.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I mean, helping CEOs and leaders build trust should be at the top of the list that we’re counseling them about. Here’s a data point. The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer found 70% of respondents saying that CEOs are obligated to help bridge trust divides, but only 44% actually do it well. That’s a 29-point leadership credibility gap. And according to a leadership presence report from Ketchum, executives are two and a half times more likely than frontline employees to trust their CEO to tell the truth about what’s happening within their organizations. So Steve, how do you counsel a CEO who wants to build trust? And how do you counsel a CEO who doesn’t think he needs to?

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, you know what, Shel, it’s a great topic, and I’m glad we’re talking about it. I think one of the biggest mistakes communicators and leadership make is assuming trust is a communications problem. Most trust problems are behavior problems, right? There are very few CEOs—or any kind of leader—who are being as transparent as possible, acting ethically, treating employees the right way, telling them the truth all the time, and explaining why when they can’t say something, and doing all the right things, and still have a trust problem because they sent the wrong email or because their blog isn’t that interesting. If they don’t have trust, it usually comes down to missteps or something that’s happened. So I would say to leaders, and I would say to communicators: where is the trust issue coming from? If the CEO or the leadership are building a culture and paying attention to their values and doing everything they should be doing, trust will flow naturally. If they’re not, it doesn’t matter how much you communicate. You’re just yelling into a well. So I would look back at behaviors—maybe do some focus groups with employees. Not a survey; I think focus groups would be much more effective. Find out where this lack of trust is coming from. It usually doesn’t come down to communication issues. It comes down to missteps, to things they’ve done in the past. It comes down to: you put out these values and this mission statement, and then everything doesn’t align with what you’re doing. You’re not walking the talk, to use a bad cliché. I just don’t think you can communicate your way out of a credibility problem.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I think one of those data points that really provides some insight into where trust might come from is the fact that executives trust the leaders in the C-suite more than the front line does. And yeah, if you think about the executives in a company, they have more visibility with those leaders. They’re meeting with them all the time. They’re seeing them in the C-suite, which is a physical place where the leadership sits. There are a lot of leaders who don’t get out and meet face-to-face with employees very often. I remember—this was years and years ago, maybe 35 or 40 years ago—it was a Ragan conference at the Fairmont in Chicago, where they all used to be in those days. They had, I think it was the CEO of Avon, the cosmetics company, as one of the keynote speakers. And he said—

Steve Crescenzo: Those were a time. I remember this.

Shel Holtz: You remember him? Yeah, he said that he used to get out to the factory floor at least once a month to remind himself that these folks were all grown-ups. He would chat with them, and, you know, somebody operating a film machine was also the scoutmaster of a Boy Scout troop, or ran a side business with his spouse, or was the treasurer for the local Elks organization, or whatever it might be. These are smart people, and you didn’t need to treat them like children, which was a habit executives got into. He didn’t mention this, but at the same time, employees were seeing him come out there and talk to them. You’re bound to trust somebody that you see more often than somebody who’s just up there in the C-suite, maybe doing a quarterly video or something like that. That visibility is really important.

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, I think—a tale of two leaders, I can do that. We worked about 20 years ago for a huge defense company, maybe the largest, for one of their divisions. And I interviewed all their executives for the audit, and they were all on the seventh floor, in what the employees called “rug row.” And they never left the seventh floor. Their food was up there; they never left. And employees hated them—no trust, never saw them. Saw them maybe at a town hall once a quarter or once a year, I forget what it was. And morale, we did focus groups, was in the toilet—no trust, bad culture, all that stuff. The other tale is Schreiber Foods up in Wisconsin. It’s the biggest company nobody’s ever heard of. They’re a dairy company. They make all the cheese for McDonald’s and Burger King. They are global. They’ve got manufacturing plants everywhere. The CEO there was such a fantastic guy. He was on the same floor that we were meeting with the communicators on. And every time I walked out to go to the bathroom, he was never at his desk or in his office. He was sitting at somebody else’s desk talking to them. He knew everybody. And he said to me when I interviewed him, “I try not to answer any work emails till I get home at seven o’clock. My time here in the office should be spent talking to my people. I’ve got to be in meetings, I’ve got to do strategic work, I’ve got to do all that.” But communication wasn’t an effort for him. It wasn’t a checklist item; it was just a constant part of his job. To him, the CEO not worrying about communication was like a CEO saying, “I’m not going to worry about finances.” And it made a huge difference. End of the story, Shel: we took an Uber to the airport, and the Uber driver was a retired former Schreiber employee. He talked about the CEO and how much he liked him. We get into this little airport in Green Bay, Wisconsin, and we go up to the bar, of course, because that’s what we do. And the bartender’s this 60-year-old woman who’s a Schreiber retiree. We say who we’re working with, and she goes, “Mike! Mike’s my buddy. How’s my buddy doing?” First of all, she worked at Schreiber. Secondly, every time the CEO walked through the airport, he made a point of going to the airport bar to say hi to her. I don’t know if that’s inbred, if you have that skill or not. But even if you don’t, even if you’re an introvert, you’ve got to find the middle ground somewhere. You’ve got to be out there meeting with your employees, talking to them a little bit at least.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, there are definitely introvert CEOs out there. I’ve met a CEO who said his worst nightmare is having to work a room. But you’ve got to work a room. And if you just can’t—if that just terrifies you—then your number two should be somebody who can do that in your place. I remember I did some work, this has to be 20 years ago, for the International Monetary Fund. So nobody who was in leadership at that time is still there; the directors are all appointed.

Steve Crescenzo: Exactly. Yeah.

Shel Holtz: And they never came down and met with employees. The employees really resented this and had a very cynical view of the leadership—except for one, who ate in the lunchroom with everyone else. I was talking to a group at lunch and they were explaining this to me, and they said, “except him,” and they pointed at the guy with his tray. He was at the cashier, chatting with her. And they said, “Not only is he chatting with her, but he knows her by name. And he’ll come here and just sit down with a random group of people who work here and chat with them. Everyone in this organization would follow him into battle. The rest of them? Nah, forget it.”

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, I think most leaders think communication is something they do. Employees think communication is something leaders are. They see real people. They don’t say, “My God, he’s a great communicator.” They see him and say, “What a great guy. What a great woman.” And I’m seeing the same thing with our work with PG&E—Patti Poppe’s the CEO there. Same way: just accessible, transparent as all get-out, honest, and people would run through fire for her. And I don’t think you have to be Johnny Carson. I don’t think you have to be a huge extrovert. Be yourself, whoever that is, and make an effort to get out a little bit.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, find your strength and leverage it. I mean, PwC’s Trust in US Business Survey found 53% of business executives say they trust the senior leadership team to a great extent. Only 38% of entry-level staff say the same. Entry-level staff don’t know the leadership. I’ll tell you a great story. This was at Mattel, somewhere between 1985 and 1986, when I was doing communication there. The CEO at the time led sort of a town hall. It was in the cafeteria, but the cafeteria wasn’t big enough to accommodate everyone at headquarters, so it was manager-and-above who came to this meeting. Everyone else was excluded. And I kept pushing. I said, “We need to get everybody in. I know it’s not big enough, so let’s just do two of them and invite half the people to one and half to the other.” Finally they decided to do this, but he said, “We’re not just going to make it half and half. We’re going to have managers and above at one and everybody below at the other.” So we held the one with everybody below. The CEO gets up, makes his remarks, they do the presentations, and afterwards a group of admins comes up to him. He says, “So what did you all think?” And they said, “This was wonderful. It was great hearing what’s going on. It explains so much of the work that we’re doing that we didn’t understand. We just have one question: who are you?” He didn’t introduce himself. He just assumed that everybody knew who he was. He was the CEO, but they had no clue at that level.

Steve Crescenzo: That’s fantastic. That is great. What I would tell executives is that a lot of them say they have no time for visibility—no time to be out there. But visibility doesn’t mean being everywhere. It just means being somewhere consistently. Employees don’t expect omnipresence. What they do expect is evidence that this guy’s around, this woman’s around, that they care about us—that he’s not sitting up in a suite somewhere making decisions that are unrelated to what we do down here, where we’re doing all the work. They just want evidence of that. They don’t expect him to be at all places at all times, and they don’t expect him to be Mike from Green Bay, going through the airport asking about people’s vacations. The fact that that guy did it was fantastic. But that’s not what they expect.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. John Chambers, who used to be the CEO at Cisco, did a couple of things. First of all, they wanted him to do a CEO blog on the intranet. He was dyslexic, and writing was torture for him. You may remember that Cisco acquired the Flip cam—that little camera that had the USB that flipped out of it. You’d shoot your video and then just plug the camera right in.

Steve Crescenzo: I remember I used to use that little Flip cam, yeah.

Shel Holtz: Because they acquired that company, he would take that Flip cam and do selfie videos before the word “selfie” was even out there. Anything that popped into his mind—it was unscripted, top of his head—he would put on his blog. And people loved it. It was like he was looking them in the eye and talking about what was on his mind, what he was hoping they would do, what he was looking for feedback on. The other thing he did was everybody having a birthday that month would get together—I can’t remember if it was breakfast or lunch—with him. He would just wander around and chat with everybody. He couldn’t do this worldwide, but still the stories got around about him doing this.

Steve Crescenzo: That’s funny. You know, Shel, the more things change, the more they stay the same. We’re counseling all of our executives right now to do selfies with an iPhone, just like this. Thirty seconds, check in. And I always counsel them to just have one point—say one thing. It’s 45 seconds, it’s a minute, stick to one thing, do it once a week, once a month, twice a month, twice a week—whatever you’re comfortable with. But we don’t need a film crew, we don’t need a script, we don’t need a teleprompter, we don’t need lighting, we don’t need any of that. We just need a little bit of effort.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I think the authenticity of doing that is a big deal. And, you know, the 45-second, the 60-second clip—we know the younger audience is going to look at that. On my other podcast, For Immediate Release, we talked about the clipping economy and the fact that all of these clips people are doing are what people are watching, not the full-length video. So I’ve started doing clips of this podcast. If you want to reach that younger audience, do those 45-second videos.

Steve Crescenzo: Without a doubt. My son Zach, the third partner of Crescenzo Communications, just did a half-hour presentation in our master class about the younger generation. All that data is there. They’re a TikTok generation. They do reels, they do clips—30 seconds, 45 seconds.

Shel Holtz: Clips, yeah. YouTube Shorts, Instagram Reels, and TikToks.

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah. And that takes some coaching, though, Shel, if we’re being honest. That’s way out of people’s comfort zones. They’re used to a script, they’re used to perfect lighting, perfect everything. You know what? If there’s no evidence that an actual human being was involved, they’d rather hear the guy stutter and say, “Well, I don’t know about that—let me get back to you.” They want a human being, and that’s becoming more and more important than any kind of polish or corporateness or formality or slickness.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. Now, if you talk to executives, they’ll tell you that the number one thing they want from internal communications—the reason they fund internal communications—is alignment. They’re looking for alignment between employees and executives, between the employee population and the company’s business plan, its strategic plan, its goals, its values. Yet Axios did an annual report and found only 27% of leaders think their staff are entirely aligned with the business goals. And worse, only 9% of employees agree that they’re aligned. Eighty percent of leaders think their internal communications are helpful and relevant and provide the context teams need to do their jobs. Only 53% of employees agree. And that’s because executives are saying, “Here’s what you need to tell employees,” and nobody’s asking employees, “What do we need to know? What do we need to hear? What do we need to be exposed to in order to be aligned with what the organization’s doing?”

Steve Crescenzo: Well, first of all, I’ve got to ask you, Shel—as the buzzword hunter—when did “alignment” become the dominant buzzword of corporate communications and leadership communications?

Shel Holtz: I can’t pick a timeline for that, but I know that Zora Artis and Wayne Aspland out of Australia have done a ton of research on this. There’s a body of research from them that’s pretty good.

Steve Crescenzo: Is it really? I’ll have to take a look at that. I just taught a workshop out on the East Coast, a live writing workshop. When I do my writing workshops, I get all their data, all their information—newsletters, executive comms—and I thought I was at a chiropractors’ convention. Everything was about alignment: getting aligned, aligned, aligned, alignment. At some point, when you beat a word to death like that, it loses all power and it starts to just mean everything. So let me ask you, Shel—you’re the smartest guy I know—does alignment mean agreement? Is that the same thing?

Shel Holtz: I think it means that we’re in sync, that we’re working toward the goals that you’ve established.

Steve Crescenzo: So you could say, “I understand exactly where we’re going. I may not agree with it, but I understand it and I’ll help make it happen.” That’s the difference. You’re not going to get everybody in agreement, but you can get them aligned on the direction of the business. I think there’s a misunderstanding between alignment and agreement, and that’s something we need to discuss.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and I think that’s important. I’ve always said it’s not our job to make employees happy. I’ll tell you a great CEO-counsel story—another experience that I had. I won’t name the company, because this guy’s still kicking around and I don’t want to hear from him. I’ll tell you when we’re done recording. He was the president of the company, and the company was laying off 10% of its headquarters staff. If you look at layoffs today, by and large they’re done pretty horribly, but they’re not sprung on employees. It’s not that employees wake up, go to work, and suddenly there’s a layoff. The companies are signaling this—a week in advance, two weeks in advance. “We’re going to be cutting…” Even Zuckerberg and Facebook will signal that they’re going to cut 10% of their staff at the beginning of the fall, or whatever. But this guy didn’t want to tell anybody. He just wanted everybody to show up, and somebody would come to the desk of the affected employee, take them to HR, explain what was happening, and then have them escorted out of the building. And the employees sitting next to them—they’re friends, they’ve been colleagues for all these years—they’d be watching and wondering what’s going on, and this person wouldn’t come back. What would that do to morale? And what would that do to trust? Everybody would be waiting for the other shoe to drop: “When’s this going to happen to me?” Productivity would tank after that. So I made the case that we needed to explain to employees what was coming. He didn’t want to do that. He said, “If we do that, it’s going to get into the press.” And I said, “Well, this is a Fortune 500 company in a metropolitan area. You think this is going to escape the notice of the press somehow?” So we finally convinced him to do a desk-drop memo. This was before email, before employees had computers on their desks, so it was printed in the print shop and distributed desk to desk. It was waiting for employees when they came in that morning, so at least everybody knew what was about to come down in the next few minutes. And of course, the local newspaper got their hands on it and ran a story. The president came into my office, slammed the newspaper down on my desk, and said, “I told you this was going to get into the press.” I said, “I told you I knew it was going to, but look what it says in the lead. It says what we said in that memo. If we hadn’t distributed that, if the press hadn’t had that, they would have called somebody who’d been laid off, or they would have called the CEO who retired three years ago, or the senior VP who’s now running a turquoise shop in a strip mall. It’s not like they’re going to say, ‘We don’t have an official announcement from the president of the company, so we won’t write about this.’ Information abhors a vacuum. They’re going to go after those secondary and tertiary sources of information and write the story.”

Steve Crescenzo: They’re going to get their information, and they’re going to be right. It’s just a lack of common sense. It really is. It’s a fear of the story getting out. You know, “Don’t communicate anything that you don’t want to see on the front page of the Wall Street Journal.” That phrase has done more damage to employee communications, I think, than almost any other phrase. It’s going to get out, especially with social media now. Things are going to happen.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, you can’t control the narrative. Press releases were this fantasy that we were controlling the narrative, as though the reporters weren’t going to get their hands on the press release and write whatever they wanted to.

Steve Crescenzo: God, yeah. You know, is it just me, Shel, or has there just been a rash of horrible, horrible layoff announcements lately? What was the one that was done accidentally—somebody in HR sent it out before she was supposed to? That was just recently in the news. Nike’s message was just awful. I’m seeing layoffs happen everywhere. Layoffs are a part of life. Get out in front of them, communicate them well, and whatever story does come out won’t make you look bad. But when you communicate it horribly—people hear about an email that morning and everyone’s out the door by noon—it just makes the company look bad.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, transparency is just a given these days. The fact that the leaders of the organization aren’t saying something, or they say something that makes employees roll their eyes—what do they do? They go to Reddit, they go to Glassdoor, they talk to their fellow employees on Slack or Teams. If the job of communication used to be crafting the message, today it’s really pressure-testing whether the message is going to survive contact with employees’ actual day-to-day experiences.

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah. I think the old job was crafting messages. The new job is sort of helping leaders survive contact with reality. One of our clients is doing a fun thing: before every major announcement, they try to assign somebody to play Reddit. Somebody’s going to play Reddit. “You’re an employee on Reddit right now. Here’s the message. What are they going to be talking about out there?” Or Facebook, or whatever—pick your social media channel. Somebody should be playing the employee on social media. We spend so much time asking, “How should we say this?” instead of, “Should we say it at all? Does it need to be said? Who does it need to be said to?” We’re so worried about crafting the perfect message. You know what? You can’t dodge it anymore. You can’t dodge reality. People are going to take it, they might misconstrue it, they’re still going to talk about it. That’s the way of life these days.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, there are a lot of other things we can talk about when it comes to counseling leadership. One that I want to cover before we wrap up here is the channels that they use to communicate, because there are a number of studies that find executives gravitate to the channels they feel comfortable with or think are efficient for them. They’ll do email blasts or all-staff memos, or the really polished, scripted, rehearsed town halls. But employees, especially frontline employees, want something more human. Executives tend to default to email, the intranet article their internal comms people write for them. Employees want face-to-face. They want those short, unpolished videos we were talking about. Anything two-way—an ask-me-anything, or text if they prefer it—would work really well.

Steve Crescenzo: Yep, absolutely. You know what? I’ve always found that leaders choose channels based on convenience, and employees choose channels based on trust. It’s easy for a leader to have the communicator craft an email, have it come from his office, approve it, and hit send. It’s the old saying, Shel: the biggest danger of communication is the illusion that it happened, right? These leaders need to be told that. Just because you’re the CEO and you hit send on an email because it’s convenient for you doesn’t mean you’ve communicated. Don’t pick the most convenient channel. Pick the channel that employees will respond to the most, that they’ll trust the most.

Shel Holtz: Pick the one that works. There’s a thought. So, Steve, when you walk into a CEO’s office to provide counsel to them for a client, what’s the one thing you’ve found they’re most resistant to hearing about their own communication style? And how do you get them past that?

Steve Crescenzo: Well, that’s a great question, Shel. I think the thing they’re most resistant to is, unfortunately, adjusting to the fact that times have changed. And this is more true with older leaders, but attention spans have changed. Expectations of leadership have changed. This is not 1960 or 1970, where you went to work, you worked 50 years, you got a gold watch, and you went home. People want more information; they want more transparency. The good side of that is they want less corporate polish. Nobody’s ever said, “You know, I wish our CEO communicated less often but with better lighting,” or, “I wish she used a teleprompter.” The hardest part is getting them to understand that authenticity and being human matter more than being scripted and polished. We were working with a client—I won’t say the name because he’s still there—and this was a guy you’d sit in the room with and he was fantastic. Then he’d do his video and it was like he got paralyzed somehow. So we videotaped him one way with a script and a teleprompter, and the other way just talking, with the ums and the ahs and the stutters and the imperfections. And I said, “Which one do you like better?” And he goes, “Go with yours. Go with that one.” And he did, and it was a huge success. So it’s hard to get them to understand that they don’t have to be perfect. Employees don’t want perfect. They want human. Nobody’s perfect. Imperfection is perfection—I guess that’s one way to say it. I just made that up.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, they shouldn’t be perfect. So, like I say, there are all kinds of other things we can provide counsel on. We touched on some of them at the beginning. If they’re telling you to communicate something, don’t just go out and communicate it. Tell them, “This is not going to land with employees. I don’t know why you made this decision, but no one’s going to get behind this.”

Steve Crescenzo: That’s what I said in the beginning—that’s why communicators don’t have that seat at the table: because they don’t speak truth to power enough. They take the message from the CEO and they don’t go in there and say, “This is not going to land.” What we should be is their pipeline into the workforce, and we should be willing to bring harsh truths back to them. “Hey, that last town hall: too much PowerPoint, not enough dialogue. People didn’t get their questions answered.” “Hey, that last email you sent out—wow, you took three paragraphs to get to the point.” We need to be the pipeline, and we need to be an ongoing focus group for leadership into the workforce, so that we can constantly give them good advice. And not enough communicators do that, in my opinion.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. The listening element is in the outer ring of the framework model. But the point of listening isn’t just so you know—you have to do something with that. Mark Schumann used to run this great program when he was at Sabre, the software company that does the ticket reservation system. He called it the Culture Club. He had hundreds of volunteers around the company, around the world, and once a month—I think it was once a month—he would pull them together in a focus group, usually over Zoom, because it was a global company, but occasionally in person in Texas, where it was headquartered. He would pick one element of the culture and talk to them about it, and then he would record about a three-minute audio file summarizing what he heard and send that to the executive team. So on a regular basis, all they had to do was click play, and in three minutes—sometimes what they heard made them very uncomfortable.

Steve Crescenzo: That is a brilliant idea. Of course, Schumann is brilliant. Love Mark Schumann. Schumann is great.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, he definitely is. But that listening—and feeding back what you’ve heard from employees to leaders so they know how their decisions are going to land—I think is vital.

Steve Crescenzo: Exactly. That is exactly what a communicator should be doing. But you know what? That takes guts, and it takes work, and you just have to do it. Could it be, Shel—sort of a closing thought—that maybe leadership communication isn’t really that complicated? Less performance, more presence. Less messaging, more conversation. Less talking, more listening. Less acting like a CEO and more acting like a human being. I don’t think employees want perfect leaders. They want believable leaders. And that takes some coaching, because these people are hardwired to think they have to be perfect and have all the answers, because otherwise they’ll lose confidence and credibility. No—you have credibility when you admit you don’t have all the answers and when you’re a human being about it.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and trust employees to act like adults. If you treat people like adults, they tend to act like it. If you treat them like children, they’ll act like that. So we would love to hear from you, listeners—any examples you have of providing counsel to leadership, or your effort to get that seat at the table. Whatever you want to share with us, share with us.

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, a hundred percent, Shel.

Shel Holtz: Send email to fircomments@gmail.com. Leave a comment in the show notes on the FIR Podcast Network website, or on LinkedIn or Facebook, or wherever you found out about this podcast. Send us a note. Tell us how counseling executives in your organization has been going, or any great stories you have to share. We’ll share those on the next episode.

Steve Crescenzo: Shel, I always feel a little bit smarter after talking to you.

Shel Holtz: I feel the same way after talking to you, Steve. Look forward to the next one.

Steve Crescenzo: All right, well, I’m off to happy hour. My God, it’s 2:36 my time. I’m late.

Shel Holtz: It’s wine time now. Okay, I’ll talk to you next time.

Steve Crescenzo: All right, talk to you, Shel.

The post Episode #2: There Is No Table appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In the second of our special Circle of Fellows discussions, Brad Whitworth moderated a panel to discuss the remaining three chapters of the book, “The 7 Cs of the New Communication Compass.” The book’s author and editor, Dianne Chase, joined Brad, along with the IABC Fellows who authored the three chapters:

• Zora Artis, who wrote the “Cohesion” chapter
• Cindy Schmieg, author of the “Collaboration” chapter
• Shel Holtz, who penned the “Community” chapter

About the panel

Dianne Chase helps organizations and leaders harness the power of strategic communication to navigate crises, build trust, and drive positive change. With over two decades of experience in journalism and corporate communications, Dianne has developed a unique approach for training and consulting clients that combines crisis management expertise with the art and science of business storytelling. Dianne is an award-winning media, journalism, and strategic communication professional with profound expertise in communication disciplines, most notably crisis communication, issues and reputation management, media training, and executive communication. She is one of two people in the world accredited in the powerful GENIUS Business Storytelling methodology, created by international communications thought leader, Gabrielle Dolan. She is former chair of the International Association of Business Communicators, and author/editor of The 7 Cs of The New Communication Compass.

Although Zora Artis began her career outside the communications field, she has had an outsize impact on the profession since entering it more than 20 years ago to as an account director and then strategic planner with branding and integrated marcomms agencies. Since then, she has led her own brand and communications consultancy and served as CEO of a 20-person creative, digital, and strategic communication firm. In 2019, formed her current management consulting practice bringing together strategic alignment, brand, and communication expertise. She has received five Gold Quill awards. Her significant contributions to the profession and the body of knowledge include her original research with IABC colleague, Wayne Aspland, on strategic alignment, the role of communications and leadership – the first substantial research effort for the reconfigured IABC Foundation – and co-authoring a subsequent white paper, “The Road to Alignment,” supported by 27 senior communicators from five continents. Zora has also researched the correlation between strategic alignment and experiences and the impact on stakeholder value and brand. This has led her to develop her own proprietary Alignment Experience Framework. She has also examined gender equity, perceptions, and bias in organizations, and wrote a chapter on this topic for the Quadriga University e-reader, Women in PR. Since joining IABC a decade ago, she has impacted IABC as a volunteer, including roles as chair of the IABC Asia Pacific Region and IEB director; she currently serves as the chair of the 2022 World Conference Program Advisory Committee. A certified company director, as chair of the IABC Audit and Risk Committee she introduced proper risk oversight to the board’s processes. Zora has been honored with the 2021 and the 2015 IABC Chair’s Award for Leadership and was named IABC’s 2020 Regional Leader of the Year. She is also a Strategic Communication Management Professional, Fellow of the Australian Marketing Institute, and Certified Practising Marketer.

Cindy Schmieg is an award-winning strategic communicator. Her 30+ years of corporate, agency, and consulting experience focuses on making the communications function strategic within an organization. Cindy now teaches online in the Communications Master Degree program at Southern New Hampshire. She has served in many IABC leadership roles and is today a member of the IABC Audit/Risk Committee and Pacific Plains Region Silver Quill Award Committee, as well as assisting on the IABC Minnesota Annual Convergence Summit.

Shel Holtz, SCMP, ABC, is senior director of Communications at Webcor, a commercial general contractor and builder based in San Francisco. He is a member of the Global Communication Certification Council and will become vice chair of the Council in June 2026. Shel has written six communication-themed books, and his seventh, “On the Same Page,” a practical framework for implementing internal communication strategies, will be published later this year. He co-hosts the 21-year-old communication-focused podcast, “For Immediat Release.” Shel served for six years on IABC’s executive board and has also been president of the IABC Los Angeles chapter, along with other IABC roles. He has led communications at two Fortune 400 companies and had his own consultancy for more than 21 years before joining Webcor in 2017.

Brad Whitworth, ABC, SCMP, IABC Fellow, is a pre-eminent thought leader, lecturer, and author in organizational communication. He has led global internal and executive communication programs at HP, Cisco, Hitachi, PeopleSoft, AAA, and MicroFocus. He holds an MBA from Santa Clara University and undergraduate degrees in journalism and speech from the University of Missouri. Brad lives in California, a wine country, and he grows Pinot Noir on his property. A former broadcaster, Brad has made more than 300 presentations to executives, communicators, and university classes worldwide. Brad is a past board chairman of the International Association of Business Communicators and a Fellow of the association. He is one of the authors of The IABC Handbook of Organizational Communication and the new IABC Guide for Practical Business Communication: A Global Standard Primer. He chaired the Global Communication Certification Counsel in 2021.

Raw Transcript

Speaker: Well. Greetings and welcome to our monthly Circle of Fellows. This is episode one hundred and twenty eight. That means we’ve been at this for ten and two thirds years if you’re doing the math. Um, and today we’re talking about a new book, The Seven Seas, the New Communication Compass. And this is part two of our exploration of that book. And we’ll be diving into that. My name is Brad Whitworth. I’m your moderator, and I’m filling in for Michelle Holtz, whom you just saw for a moment. Your regular host, shell, is one of the contributing authors to that book. So he’s here as a panelist instead of the moderator, and he’s joined by two other contributing authors, Cindy Schmieg and Zora Artis and the lead author, Diane Chase. And I’ll let them introduce themselves in a moment, just to set the stage for what it is that we hope to accomplish in this next hour. And don’t forget that if you’re watching, you can jump into the conversation at any time. throws your comments or questions into the chat, and we’ll put them up and talk about them with the conversation. Amongst these four great contributors, the seven seas of communication, the new communication compass, um include collaboration, connection, compassion, cohesion, community congruency, calibration. And in episode one twenty seven, we did cover the ideas behind connection, compassion, congruency, and collaboration. So today it’s chapters one, three, four, and five. And just for the record, I’m the contributing author for chapter two. So we got one, two, three, four, five, all right here on the screen. But I’m going to introduce them one at a time and let them tell you a little bit about themselves and where they’re coming to you from today. And we’ll start with chapter one. Um, Cindy. Hi, I’m Cindy Schmieg. I’m typically in the Phoenix, Arizona area, but today I’m in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Okay. And chapter three is the lead author, Diane. Hello. Hello. Diane Chase from Charlotte, North Carolina. At the moment where it’s gray and rainy, but happy to be here. We’ll bring some sunshine and Zora Artis. Well it’s good. It’s good morning from me in Melbourne, Australia. And it is almost light. And it’s definitely gray and raining as well. Chapter five is Shell Holes. I’m coming to you from Concord, California. Uh, where this morning it was great and rainy. Yeah. Since we’re doing the weather report. Yeah. And I’m in California wine country, where we’ve got some big puffy white clouds and some blue sky and a little bit of sunshine. But we had some rain this morning as well. So, um, before we dive into those chapters, I’d like at least Diane to give a little bit of an overview of the new Seven Seas, and I talk about them as being new because I can remember listening to, um, a past iabc fellow, the late doctor Don Ranley, talking about the seven seas that were designed to gain credibility in writing and included clear, concise, complete, consistent, coherent, creative, and correct. Um, but Diane, it seems to me that the, you know, you really up leveled the game for all of us. We’ve gone from sort of very tactical communication, skill set worries of writing, which is still important. But now we’re talking about communication strategy and how teams and leaders behave. So why the seven seas and how did you pick them? Well, you know, I, I have been thinking about the seven seas as, as of communication, as core leadership competencies. And in our uncertain, volatile world, uh, across many, many areas, it’s really more important to elevate and empower and lead communication in a new way. And I feel like these seven C’s underpinned, again, some of the leadership competencies that are necessary in today’s world, not just in today’s world, but in in the future. Our AI driven future. What is that doing to the way we connect as human beings? And that is more imperative than ever. Because if we can’t build relationships through our strategic, authentic, trustworthy communication, we’re going to be subject to whatever AI determines that we do. So I just feel like a new mindset, a new approach, new thinking, and new empowerment for communication professionals and leaders writ large actually is really important. Well, I think it takes it to another level as well. I mean, it’s not just the tools and the channels and the communications that get put into those channels is really creating the communications environment in which all of these pieces come together. And I think communications people are up to that challenge now. So, um, what I love about the book and where you took this was that we’re talking at a whole new level about a whole different set of communication leadership skills. Absolutely. It really does underpin any successful organisation. Having communication leadership have it as a fundamental in your strategic plan, your business plan, your goals, and it it really drives a purpose driven organisation, especially because it’s how you engage people and you’re going to have greater results, greater loyalty, certainly greater productivity for the long term, if you’re able to connect with people through your communication skills as a leader. And I think it also parallels what’s going on on a number of campuses. I know both at Stanford and Cornell, so sort of from coast to coast in North America, um, communication skills are being taught to up and coming MBA students who before they get turned loose on the world or at least being exposed to the you better master this skill set as a leader and use communications as part of, um, everything that you know, besides finance and legal and all the other sort of functional areas. Um, Diane, I’m going to come back to you to dive a little bit deeper into your chapter three compassion. We did talk about it on the last episode. So people can go over there but don’t want to skip you over. What I want to do is sort of go through the book from the front to the back, and we’ll start with Cindy to talk a little about your chapter on collaboration. And I know, um, maybe you could just start with sort of what’s your definition of collaboration as you wrote about it? Well, I think that’s a good place to start, Brad, and to set up collaboration as a leadership skill is another element of the book. But I think collaboration is more than just sharing information or coordinating details, because it’s about building relationships and understanding multiple perspectives and creating outcomes or results. And to achieve these things, you really need a plan, systemic approach to collaboration. And that’s how you can create collaboration as a leadership skill is through that planned approach. You know, I shared a story in the book about I ran into a guy in a restaurant who was talking about, he got an award for collaboration and he worked at a global consulting firm. And I asked him, oh, what did you do to get that award? And he said, well, I don’t know. Now. I said, well, what was on the award? What did it say? And he goes, it didn’t say anything. It just said collaboration. And I just thought that that organization missed an opportunity to create a planned approach to collaboration, where you could bring employees up together to work on collaboration in the system systematic way. Right? So then through that, collaboration becomes a strategy and you hear companies using collaboration as a value and it can be a value. But without that approach and planning for collaboration, it’s not, it really isn’t going to go anywhere. So that value doesn’t mean a lot. Um, so if you have the approach bringing the employees together, you should get better results. And I know Brad mentioned earlier when we were prepping for the call about collaboration tools such as Zoom, Slack teams. And there definitely collaboration tools. But remember, it requires people to initiate the collaboration on all of these. So we need a human approach to collaboration, where we are all working together and creating that environment or culture that is collaborative. Um, and so you say, why would you need this now? Well, collaboration has always been needed, but there is still that continuing return to the office. So we really need to retrain employees on how to collaborate. I guess that really gets to the gist of what was talked about in the book. And of course, I’ve shared a lot of, uh, points that would help build collaboration, you know, through better team building and getting to know each other, relying on each other to, um. So did the time of Covid help or hurt collaboration? I mean, we have new tools to be able to collaborate and we’re able to have different communities that extend in different ways that didn’t exist. But is it a plus or a minus or jury’s still out? I think it’s going to be a plus, but I think there’s a lag time. We have to learn to use those tools better. And we also have to learn to put the human systems back in place to help us become better collaborators. So when we’re using systems like team, there’s a lot of information. There’s a lot of ways to connect people to people. But the value of the human side of it, you know, building the trust, the relationships, the reliance on other people, gaining all the multiple perspectives that has to come back into play when using those tools. Yeah. Um, Meg, go a little bit out of order here because I want to pull in Chelle for a second and have you weigh in because if anybody knows software and platforms and tools and technologies, it’s shell holds. I mean, you are the go to guy on all this stuff. Are you seeing anything sort of in this collaboration space that’s got you excited or scared? Uh, nothing terribly new. I mean, you know, we’ve seen during Covid the rise of Zoom, which is definitely a collaboration tool. Uh, we see Slack and teams which have been widely adopted, uh, they can, uh, under the right circumstances with the right guidance, be very effective collaboration tools. I think nothing beats face to face, but that’s not always practical. In fact, in bigger organizations, it’s rarely practical. Uh, what I’m seeing is, is AI, which worries me a little. Um, I shared with you all a little earlier an article from Business Insider that talked about the fact that employees are now entering, uh, a question into a prompt box rather than getting up and going to talk to somebody who knows these things. So even within the office, when people have come back because of a return to office mandate, they are still isolating, uh, and interacting with a model instead of each other. And, uh, there has been a noticeable and precipitous decline in collaboration happening in some workplaces. You know, shell going back to a different podcast that you were on and you were talking about AI as more of a hybrid, um, partner or employee at work. And I can see that happening because when I was putting the chapter together, I thought, boy, wouldn’t that be slick if you had a bunch of people sitting around a table or somewhere where you were collaborating on a project and there had you have your AI speaker there, and you could just say, hey, wait a minute. What was the results last year when we ran this ad? What happened then? and you could get that real time information. So to help boost the collaborative results. Yeah, I think that would be great. I have not heard a lot of instances of that. Mhm. That use case, but I’d love to see more of it. Me too. Uh, especially as people start talking to their AI more instead of typing to it. I’ve been experimenting with a tool called Whisper Flow that allows you to engage in that conversation more easily with all of your AI tools. So do we have to speak up? Yeah, you can speak up. Okay. But but it will hear you if you whisper for those open office environments so you’re not disturbing the person next to you. MM. Hence the name. Great name. In terms of the collaboration. Chapter two. What I love Cindy is, is the mindset that this offers opportunity for co-creation, which leads to greater engagement and buy in for whatever it is the initiative, the project, or, you know, the business success overall. Yeah, I see these collaboration tools also following the business model anyway. I mean, at one point, we did have the notion that an organization was bringing people together. And what we’ve seen is sort of a satellite version as companies are sort of exploding the value chain and outsourcing different component pieces and sort of shattering that oneness that used to define an organization. Um, you know, somebody outsourcing their manufacturing or they’ve outsourced their R&D or production or sales is being handled by distributors. Um, it used to be a vertically oriented structure to things in which communications was paramount. I think in some ways this, um, sort of new set of collaboration tools. um, sort of represents the way the environment is changing for organizations out there. So, um, there’s some parallel paths there, but I think what you’ve hit upon so well in the chapter is talking about the human side of it. Um, let’s not put aside these tools, but let’s make sure that we in them along with human behaviors as well. And maybe that ties into sort of the chapter three and compassion. And I want to come back to Diane to talk a little bit about that, because I’m seeing a lot of books that deal with that human side of leadership and management. There’s a one that you guys may have seen out there, love and Work by Marcus Buckingham, uh, a best selling book. And our, uh, iabc friend David Grossman has one called The Heart Work of Modern Leadership. So, Diane, maybe you could sort of talk a little bit about, uh, how did caring and compassion disappear from organizations. And why do we have to write books to remind people that that’s part of the equation? Isn’t it interesting, Brad, how, um, you know, historically in a lot of organizations, it’s been personals personal professionals, professional, never the twain shall meet. There’s a firewall, you walk into the office and you leave your humanity at the door. Those days are gone. And when we are engaging with Gen Z and especially upcoming Gen A, they have no time and they will not tolerate that approach in their work and in their personal lives as well. So again, back to the age of AI, when there’s a loss of human to human connection for a lot of people in their work and even in their personal lives. I know we’ve all seen the research about the unbelievable growth in loneliness that people are feeling, especially younger generations. There’s a there’s an isolation that happens, which is not healthy for across any level. Um, in our work, in our personal lives, whatever it might be. So compassion is, is really, I’m so glad to see it elevated as a core leadership skill and an imperative for working in today’s society. So to me, compassion is action. It’s empathy in action. And it’s, it’s something that takes thought. It takes some skill building in terms of we hear about active listening and, and that sort of engagement, but it really takes caring about another human being, whether it’s caring about why maybe they’re, they’re slacking off in their productivity or their engagement, much less, hopefully not getting to the point of undermining the organization’s goals. That happens as well with disgruntled employees. So being compassionate just means elevating the the critical nature of connecting with another human being in the workplace, as well as outside of the workplace. And it takes that idea of, um, sort of employees are our most valuable asset and said, you better walk the talk. It’s not just the words that are important, it’s the actions that take place. And, and you do see some of that in some places. But I think, um, one of the thought I had was, you know, years ago, it was like, don’t worry, the company will take care of you. Um, and there was a little bit more concern and there was a little bit of sort of, um, motherhood and apple pie kind of stuff wrapped around it. Um, and then it seemed to have disappeared where people were distant and it became more businesslike. And nobody I actually had an HR person said, I can never afford to have anyone as a coworker, as a friend, because I might have to take an action against them. So I distance myself from people and I thought, what a shame that they don’t know who their coworkers are and want to be close. Um, wow. You mentioned in the book the Covid period. Um, and maybe you could just explain a little bit of how that may have, uh, sort of opened our eyes to the human side of some people that were more remote and more distant. Mhm. Well, um, back to that disengagement and that isolation piece, which is impacting mental health and, and just productivity, feelings of well-being, personal and professional success. I think again, um, it was kind of a double edged sword in a way, because it created that sense of isolation for a lot of people. introverts were in heaven. But at some point that’s not healthy either. You have to have relationships. You have to connect with another human being. It’s really important. And, um, so the other side of that is that people were beginning to say, you know what? I’m not really going to spend my time and my effort and my talents with an organization that doesn’t see me as a human being and value me as a human being, appreciate what I do and who I am, not just in the workplace, but outside of the workplace. I’m coming to my work with my own set of experiences, my current challenges, and I want to feel I mean, the old, you know, cliche understood and heard and supported. So, I think Covid elevated compassion because of that. And I work for a company that actually measures, um, whether employees feel known, feel loved and feel proud to work for the organization. So the fact that this is a metric that’s sort of being looked at on a regular basis and how leaders are being judged sort of says, yeah, there is room for that in the workplace these days. Um, let me move on if I can, to chapter four and Zora. Um, and I think the sort of the intro to your chapter that sort of like, am I reading about the same Richmond or not? There are many of us who got hooked on TV’s Ted Lasso, and we quickly discovered it really wasn’t a show about sports or Premier League football. It was really about leadership. It was about communication. It was about caring for people. And it all was revolving around this fictional team called AFC Richmond in the UK. But your chapter is about cohesion, is about a real team. Um and it’s the Richmond Football Club. So same sort of name. It’s based there in Melbourne with you and it’s part of the Australian Football League. So different version of football because we do have different versions of that around the world. We have different rules. Um seventeen thousand kilometers away from Ted Lasso’s fictional team. But maybe you could explain how this case study that you have done for this book is about shared leadership and organizational transformation that you describe in the chapter. And what’s, what’s the story behind this case study and what makes it so relevant to this conversation we’ve had about leaders and comms professionals? Thanks, Brad. And I love the fact that your organization does that, that metric as well, because I think that’s something that Richmond Football Club would actually do as well, although I’m not quite sure, but the word love was mentioned quite a bit when I interviewed the CEO. The Richmond Football Club, which is also known as the Tigers, is is a a rules football team. It’s one of the oldest, most supported clubs in the country. And it’s, you know, over one hundred years old. And by twenty ten, the club hadn’t won a premiership, which is what you would call a championship. And in, in in thirty years, they had a huge debt. They had a declining membership down to about thirty, zero zero zero, a fractured culture. And they had this reputation for moving on coaches really quickly because they they weren’t delivering results. So it’s very it was very much performance focused leadership. And it was known for not being a finals contender. And most people had written them off completely. So what happened over the next decade was totally remarkable. And I’m going to admit, like I am a huge fan of this club. However, I looked at it with immense pride and I rode the waves with them for decades. So I had that sense of feeling. And those who are members and supporters of this club had been through that roller coaster of emotion. So for so long. So over the next decade, they had they had set out this huge vision, a really big vision that by twenty twenty, they would, um, win three premierships. They would eliminate all their financial debt and they’d grow their membership from thirty five to seventy thousand. So by twenty twenty, they had won three premierships in four years. And the final one was in twenty twenty. They grew their membership to over one hundred thousand. They eliminated all their debt, and they built what is probably one of the most admired organizational cultures in Australian sport. And then, just as importantly, they face a significant transition where their key leaders and their players moved on and they had to start to rebuild from the bottom of the ladder in twenty twenty four. But what was really interesting, in twenty ten, the CEO created this amazing strategic narrative that he it was a rallying call to the the club, to the organisation, to the players. And he put it out there. And I’ve included that narrative, which he wrote himself in the book, and it’s really quite powerful. And of course, the narrative leaked at some point. And he was just the media just went to town on him. They basically attacked. They said in an interview, one one of well known media commentator said, aren’t you embarrassed? And the CEO said, no, I’m not embarrassed. I’m proud. We have a vision to come to compete and to be the best on and off the field. If we’re not locked into that, we might as well pack up and go home. And he was incredibly passionate. He never let go of that. And that was quite amazing. Um, but what I want to really focus on here is that this is not just a story about sport, it’s about how organizational transformation can happen and how you can, and how you can create that alignment and the cohesion that you need. So it’s not a story about a visionary CEO, although he absolutely was. And he was there for fourteen or fifteen years. It’s not a story about the brilliant coach. And he, he was amazing. Uh, and they stuck with him even though they were losing for the first six years. They were showing improvement, but still losing. And they had a determined president. And the president, um, Peggy O’Neal, was from the South in America, and she had migrated to Australia and wanted to connect with Aussie. So she found herself a team, and that was Richmond. And she became the first female president of an Australian rules football club, which was quite incredible. So all three were really exceptional. But what Brendan Gale, the CEO, was determined to say was that the whole story is actually about shared leadership and that ownership and the accountability that’s distributed across the whole organisation, the vulnerability and the trust that they’ve built really quite deliberately and carefully, the love and the commitment that they had for each other. And they talk about love. And it was for it was that commitment to something bigger than themselves. And they had this incredibly deep connection to their members, to their partners, and to their community. And then they also have that financial and organizational foundation that they built that was made that performance possible. Um, so it’s a story that about any team or organization that needs to perform, to endure and to fight back when things get hard. Well, in your chapter, one of the other things that you do include is this idea of a cohesion cycle that shows organizations are not static. They, they move. And, um, there are four phases and maybe leaders know about them or maybe it’s not even taught in schools, but, um, could you say what these four phases are? And I think one of the things you point out is that a lot of organizations get tripped up and one of them that they tend to go wrong on and, and it has a cost that goes with that not knowing about cohesion cycle. Mhm. Well, when I was, when I was working through the story and looking at what what is happening with cohesion and performance and having that winning culture, but having a healthy culture as well. Uh, and looking at how Richmond went through the fight, through it. It occurred to me that cohesion is absolutely, absolutely not linear. And so I created this cycle because it’s very much cyclical and it’s got four phases. So the first one is creating that shared meaning and momentum. So getting people genuinely aligned around purpose, direction and moving forward, moving as one, building the cohesion and the culture. So establishing trust, uh, the behaviors and the ways that they were going to work today, work together and then sustaining that high performance, which is really maintaining alignment and avoiding complacency. And then the final, um, part of the cycle is the dynamic realignment and the renewal. So it’s adapting when the circumstances change, while you’re still staying grounded in your values, who you are. And that last phase is what I think is where most organizations struggle, because that renewal is asking something different of leaders and the people. It’s asking them to let go of, of what has worked and to sit with that uncertainty and to rebuild. And a lot of organizations don’t necessarily have the patience because it’s about speed or potentially even the self-awareness of where they’re really at. And so the cost of that is quite real. So they’ll either cling to something that made them successful or trying to protect that past rather than focusing on that future, or they might panic and make really reactive decisions that undermine those foundations that got them there. Right. So you’ll see them lose their way to a degree. So when you’re in uncertainty, you need to be able to work through what’s shifting around you with things that aren’t, that aren’t within your control. You need to be able to manage and move with what’s emerging. And that’s that added adaptation and the resilience, um, that Richmond has been putting in place. And it shows what that looks like. So once cohesion fractures under that pressure, rebuilding is a much, much harder task. Um, and when I spoke with the CEO and also with the, their high performing psychologists, high performance psychologist, doctor McLeod, it demonstrated that it’s really hard for them, but they have the real belief and they know what it takes. And the psychologist, doctor McLeod, she actually mentioned that it was really important for the team to learn how to fail. Well, because all the others who weren’t in the championships to date knew how to do that better than them. So they had to relearn things and I had to learn from that failure. So it’s a story that’s really telling you about how you can rebuild as well. And so everyone’s on board. They told their story. They’ve been telling their story well since twenty twenty four. They hit the bottom of the ladder. They’ve been rebuilding. Everyone’s on board with them within the organization, their community, their members, the players, everyone’s on board. So as they’re going through that phase, that ugly scrutiny that they used to get in there, the earlier years of the transformation just isn’t there anymore. So as comms people, what you can learn is that you can have a clear, honest narrative about where you are in that cycle, and that changes how people experience that journey, uh, with you as they move through that with you. Oh, and you’re going to have to keep us posted on the comeback. And I’m sure as a fan, are you a member? I am. Okay, well, send us the scores and keep us posted. And maybe there’s a new chapter, a new book in that. And then for those of us that are, we’re stuck with Ted Lasso. There is a new season of Ted Lasso coming. In case you haven’t seen all the sneak previews that they’re running. Uh, Ted goes back to the UK to lead a women’s football team. So, um, more or less, with the excitement going on there, and this Richmond Football Club has a has introduced a women’s team as well. All right. Well, maybe they’re, maybe they’re borrowing some storylines from your part of the world. Perhaps. Yeah. Um, let’s turn things now to shall. We’ve heard a little bit from you about some collaboration technologies and a few other things, but your chapter was focused on community. And I think you start out by sort of going, you know, there’s this standard standing belief out there that the reason companies exist is to create a profit, to make money. And some might argue that if you don’t have a profit, your company’s not going to be around very long. So it’s not really a nice thing. It’s really a good thing to have, but it’s not the only thing. And maybe you could explain where you’re coming from and how that sets up what’s coming in the rest of the chapter. Yeah. Well, I’ve heard this from a number of CEOs. When talking about a corporate purpose. They say our purpose is to make money. Our purpose is to return a profit to the investors, to the shareholders, to the owners, whoever they may be. Uh, and my answer to that is this is every company. How does this differentiate you in the marketplace? How does this help people understand who you are and what you do? And this is why we have statements. We’ve all heard about value statements and vision statements and mission statements and purpose statements. And I think a lot of organizations go through these as rote exercises without planning on taking them very seriously. I think the smart organizations are the ones that recognize that the profit is an outcome of living their mission well and living their purpose well. If they do that well, they’re going to make gobs of money, along with effective strategic planning and financial controls and the like. Uh, but if all you want to do is make money, you’ll do just about anything to make that money. It doesn’t focus you on audiences on customer segments, uh, or on marketplaces. So if we look at the profit motive as an outcome of, you know, primarily the organization’s mission, uh, then it’s a lot easier to define the approaches that we’re going to take to, to making that profit. And you talk in the chapter also about communities. And you take a sort of I mean, one of the cuts you looked at was this whole notion of generational differences and how they impact, um, the definitions of community, but also sort of the way we go about communicating with these different segments. Yeah. And in fact, it’s a very timely topic. Giving an email thread I was reading just this morning from among Ibcs fellows, uh, and there was an interesting, uh, contribution from one of the fellows who noted that they were no longer participating here in Circle of Fellows. Uh, because the younger demographic, the ones in their twenties aren’t going to sit and watch an hour long panel discussion. And we’re not going to appeal to that segment with, with this show. Now, I feel that that’s not mutually exclusive that the this Circle of fellows panel discussion, um, has value. Uh, even though we do need to find better ways to communicate with the younger demographic, but, uh, especially these days, given the influence of digital media and social media, uh, and the tendency to watch snackable content, we used to call it, uh, maybe ten or fifteen years ago, uh, bite sized content. I was just reading, uh, within the last couple of weeks. I didn’t know these existed before this. Their clip forms, uh, these are companies that pay freelancers to take long form content and create short thirty, forty five second clips out of them that the owners can then post to YouTube shorts or Instagram reels or, uh, wherever TikTok, uh, and monetize those clips. And I was talking at work about this with somebody who said, yeah, I never watched Saturday Night Live. I just watched the clips that get posted. Um, so it’s a real thing. Uh, the attention span is very short. And, uh, one of our new fellows who was in the classroom was saying in this thread that it’s hard to keep the students attention for more than a couple of minutes, that they’ve got their phones out. Uh, and they’re consuming this, this bite sized content rather than paying attention to, to longer form content. So as we look at connecting with communities, whether it’s internal or external, I think that demographic cut is, is really important. And by the way, Brad, um, since I think I’m the one who can see this, we have a comment from, uh, Mirko coming in. Yeah. It says, do you have any suggestions for prompting genuine conversations between colleagues of different generations? Because in my experience, chit chatting about Taylor Swift isn’t enough to bond. Yeah, that’s a fascinating question. Uh, and what if it’s the Grateful Dead? I mean, we can all bond there, right? That appeals to generate. I mean, there are new Deadheads coming on the scene all the time. Uh, Bob Weir believed that it was, uh, that they’d be listening to this music in three hundred years. So, I mean, I think that’s a fine way to, to bond with, with people. Uh, no, I think it’s important that there be some resources available in the organizations to help generations understand each other. Uh, there was a book many, many years ago about communicating with generations. And they had a, a series of, of matrices, uh, that, that explained exactly what the influences were from each generation and what their communication preferences were and the like. Um, I think, you know, updating that and making something like that available. Doing some training, uh, having some opportunities to connect with people from different generations, uh, is important, uh, by and large in the workplace though. Um, I think there’s, there’s more that the generations have in common than, uh, distinguishes them or sets them apart. Uh, and I think when we’re working on a team, when we’re working toward common objectives, it becomes less of an issue and less of a challenge. Yeah. I’ve said oftentimes when I was doing some global communications work that you get people together from all different parts of the globe, and there would be sort of like, you don’t understand us. You don’t speak our language. You don’t know our culture. Um, there’s no hope for you. And it’s like, we’ll get that out of your system because yes, we’re all different. Uh, I think that is not just different countries from which we come. It’s also we’re all wired differently. We’re made up differently. But get out of the system and let’s focus, as you said, on the things we share. And usually the list of what we have in common is, um, a whole lot longer than the, what is different about us because we are all humans. Um, so I think the other one that I would love to ask you about is that some of the values that you talk about in the book that are sort of, there’s the old school corporate values of things like quality and customer service and value for money that tend to show up as objectives for an organization. But they’re also being they’re not being thrown aside, but they’re being joined by others that are as important, if not more important, to other generations. Is that a way of sort of shaping what it is you said? Yeah, I think it is in some organizations. Uh, some are sticking with the old types of values. And then there are those where the values are just words on the wall that have no bearing on the reality in the in the workplace and lead to a lot of cynicism. Uh, employees, uh, but in organizations that take it seriously, I have seen a shift toward the adoption of, of values like trust and community. In fact, uh, community is one of the values of the company where I work. And it’s taken very seriously, both internally in terms of the community of employees and, and sort of the subcommunities that exist within that population, but also the communities in which we work. Uh, you could also look at the marketplaces we’re in as a kind of community, but, uh, if, if you have a value and you know, what do we mean by values? It’s basically, uh, these are the things that we believe that are going to drive our behaviors and our decisions. They’re our are core beliefs as an organization, and if we believe the community is important, then we are going to make decisions around how our decisions affect those communities. We’re going to bring the communities in to some of those decision making processes, and we’re going to support employees in their embrace of those communities, both internally and externally. I think if you believe in communities internally, you’re going to support the creation and the sustaining of employee resource groups. Those those sub communities can come together and engage with each other, but also be a resource to the organization about, you know, our needs, our differences, what we can contribute, what we’re looking for out of the organization, um, as well as providing the time and the resources to go out into the communities where we work. Um, and, uh, make a difference there. Uh, so yeah, I think the same applies to, to things like trust and some of those other values that, that we didn’t see, uh, twenty five, thirty five years ago. You mentioned the word trust there. And I know that Cindy had sent me a note earlier saying that one of her observations from looking at all the chapters and, uh, the whole book was that trust seemed to show up in all seven of the C’s. And maybe, Cindy, you could sort of, you know, how did you see this and connect the dots across the chapters and maybe after you have a chance to talk about it, we could get the lead author of the why did she trust all of us? Right. Well, as I tell my students, trust is needed in every relationship. And we always talk about trust is the ultimate value that communication can bring to the company. Because from there, like shell said, profits result in that in in terms of communication and collaboration, though, if you trust each other, you are much more likely to share information. So you better collaborate and you also want the other person to succeed more likely. So I think that that’s where the core of it comes in is that that trust is so important because it is the top of the pyramid in getting something accomplished between people. And Diane, did you see that as, uh, a subtheme coming through? Doesn’t trust doesn’t start with C, so we couldn’t include it. But, um, how key is it? Absolutely, absolutely. The future of communication depends on trust now more than ever. So trust is just fundamental to success. We are in an age of such a dearth of trust across our relationships in business and outside of businesses. And I think that stems somewhat from Covid. Um, the whole, the whole fake news and all of that really started to spiral spiral, um, this, this lack of trust. And that’s why there’s so much fear. And I believe so much polarization because we’re not trusting each other and we’re not actually communicating with each other in a way that opens up dialogue. We’re coming with our opinions and trying to, to get people to believe what we believe without first understanding where they’re coming from, why they care about what they care about. And back to the whole community building thing. What is it that we can do to find out the motivators we each have Uh, in our lives and build on those and, and build that trust, which is going to lead to all kinds of positive outcomes. Mhm. Can I jump in here, Brad? Please? Um, a couple of things. It occurs to me, and I’ve said this numerous times when I’ve run, uh, when I’ve worked on facilitating workshops with, with organizations about building, uh, culture and values and defining the behaviors and all that sort of thing. And when trust comes up as something that they want as a value, I push back on them. Because to me, trust is something that’s earned through someone’s experience. Um, with, with you, whether it’s as an organization, as a leader, as an individual. It’s not something it’s, it’s that person is granting that to a degree. So it’s not a value per se. It’s an Outcome and the behaviors, uh, it’s what makes you trustworthy. So, you know, are you, have you got that? Are you behaving with integrity? Um, you know, with congruence? Uh, is it, uh, are you accountable? Responsible, all these sorts of things. Do you deliver what you say you’re going to do? So it’s, you know, going back to Jane’s chapter, for example, that is that’s quite foundational. So I would, I would push back on that. And at the moment, what we’re seeing is there’s a huge gap in organizations between leaders and employees, and trust is breaking down. And when trust is breaking down, the employees don’t hear what the leaders are saying. They don’t listen. And so you have to really work on creating the right conditions for people to trust you. If I go back to my chapter in the book, uh, there was an Example of in at the end of twenty sixteen, uh, that football club had again was, you know, deteriorating performance and everyone started to jump on the bandwagon and attack them. Uh, instead of getting rid of the coach, they, he had gone, he had been sent to Harvard to do, um, some work on leadership. He came back and he did the triple H sessions with them. So he increased. He created an environment where he started first and he they shared stories. So they did three stories each. Every single leader in the in the team did that as well as every single player. And then that spread through the whole organizations. So they shared a story about a hero who shared a story about a hardship, some sort of defining challenge, and they shared a highlight for them. So some a moment of joy or an achievement. And they shared that with each other and that vulnerability, that space to be to share something about yourself that’s quite personal, that means a lot to you really created this environment of trust. And that’s where they lifted. And it did that through the rest of the organization. So and it just helped them work better together. They were able to collaborate better. They really had that sense of belonging and community. So trust is fundamental and Cindy is absolutely spot on. It is the common thread that runs through the whole thing. Now we have touched a little bit about on AI, um, artificial intelligence. And um, I loved what film filmmaker Guillermo del Toro famously said a while ago about this. He said, I’m not afraid of artificial intelligence. I’m afraid of natural stupidity. Um, which okay, there’s a lot of that going around these days. What I would love to know is a little bit about, um, you know, we’re now putting things into prompts. Are we going to start putting the seven seas into prompts to help us solve some of these issues that we’ve been talking about across our organizations? And do leaders have instant, you know, if I just give it to copilot, it’ll take care of things for me. Or is AI not a help in things that are so close to human? It could be a thinking partner for you across the seven seas, but at the at fundamentally what we’re talking about is fundamentally human, basically. So, you know, it’s built like a lot of the stuff that we’re talking about, whether it’s, um, collaboration, connection, cohesion, um, compassion, all of that is built through conversations. And that’s very much human, not necessarily the conversations with the AI. It can help you, but it doesn’t give you that it’s not that nuanced. That’s something extra. That’s something that’s unexpected, that will come through a conversation. I mean, people come into the workplace and into relationships because everyone is is unique and different in their own way. No two brains are the same. You know, you’ve got, you know, we’re all built on our own lived experiences, our cultures, our biases, all of that sort of stuff. And we’re bringing that into the conversation. The AI is not going to predict that. Absolutely. That’s that’s back to the human to human connection that still is going to be the differentiator. And humans will really still be driving creativity and innovation. They’ll bring judgment. They’ll bring relationship building that an artificial intelligence platform cannot just just spitballing here. Uh, I could see, uh, just theoretically Taking a PDF of the entire book and training my model on it, and then launching an agent internally to look at the email, uh, archive and look at what has been happening in Slack or teams and other collaboration platforms to identify trends that either, uh, support or, uh, represent examples of the opposite of what is presented in the text of the book so that the humans in the organization can take action on that. But, you know, it provides the context for identifying issues, uh, things that you might be able to leverage, things that you might be able to correct, but you wouldn’t know about them if it didn’t have the context to identify those trends. Uh, based on the principles of the book, just one idea of how that could work. Isn’t that the C in calibration? Yeah, I love celebration authors. Not here. Yes, I would like to add a point to that, that if leaders are going to lead authentically, they can’t rely on the AI to do it for them. They can rely on AI for the background, the information as well described, but they still have to put themselves out there to lead authentically. MM. Is there. Interestingly, I, Neville and I just did an episode of our show about a study that found that increasingly, leaders are delegating decision making to AI, which makes you wonder why they’re getting paid, what they’re getting paid, if they’re not bringing their experience and their thought leadership to, to bear on, on decisions and just delegating them, um, abdicating them to a model. Well, that depends on the type of decision, doesn’t it? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Um, is there a place that one can go besides reading the book to learn how to Navigate the seven seas and how do we get leaders to behave that way? Are they teaching this in schools? Are there classes besides reading? What else is there? I listening to this podcast. Yeah. There you go. I think, um, I think this is a massive opportunity in our world today for, for decision makers across an organization, not just communication professionals, but especially communication professionals to step up to lead. And this is where we can get traction with all of the wisdom from this work, with the thought leaders in our profession and communication to, to really take the strategic approach and underpin that with some tactical keys that can be implemented inside organizations. So, Diane, you have to be happy about this launch in the book and and the impact it’s had so far. It’s your first book. And I know it was not an easy process to get it out and about, but you did reach that number one spot in the Amazon leadership training category. Um, if one is if people want to get a hold of the book, how do they do that? And then any plans for a follow on? Oh great question. Well, you know, the ever present Amazon is the place to go to get it quickly. I, I will be in Toronto at IBC World Conference with some copies for anyone who would like to. And I’ll actually be giving some away at the crisis SIG on Sunday. So if you can be there for that. Um, I have several to give away there. Um, so Amazon there certainly reach out to me on LinkedIn. That’s kind of where I, I live most of the time. And yes, a second edition is rumbling around in my head because I know, um, all of you have had thoughts since since creating your chapters about how even in this short amount of time they have evolved, your topics have evolved somewhat. So, um, stand by. I’m going to, I’m going to give away a couple of copies in my, um, session on the Monday when I’m speaking. So, um, hopefully people come along to that and they can grab one of these awesome books. Okay, we need to get autographs from one another when we’re in Toronto because autographing doesn’t work well. Remote control. Oh, you could auction off a copy of the book that had all our autographs on it. Oh, that would be an achievement. I think there’s an auto pen that does that, right? It could be a collector’s item, for sure. Yeah. Put it on a baseball. Yeah. I’m delighted to have had a chance to converse with all of you and sort of probe a little bit more into what’s in the book. Certainly would encourage anybody to pick this up. And one of the things that I always like to put a plug in, it’s the conversations that take place in the circle. It is books like this that you, if you’re looking at doing certification, um, through the G, triple C for your career, these are the kinds of topics that you need to at least be aware of. And, you know, this sort of discussion and listening to people who’ve been at this for a little while are going to help prepare you for that next step in your career. So a little bit of a plug for, um, the global communication certification, uh, Council and for the book. Um, and with that, I think I would love to just thank you guys. Cindy Schmieg Zoro, artist, Shell Holtz, um and the lead author Diane Chase for taking part in this wonderful conversation. Our next episode of The Circle of Fellows will be taking place in June. Stay tuned. We’ll get you the exact time and date and watch the normal channels. One twenty nine is the episode number. Shall. We’ll be back in this seat, and it’s going to feature members of the new class of twenty twenty six Iabc fellows. Um, and they’re actually being introduced at IVC World Conference. So give them a day to decompress after that and then they’ll be on the program. We also have to thank Anna Willy, who’s our executive producer and our chief fellow herder. Um, and I want to also thank you guys for joining us and, and watching through this session and for the Iabc Circle fellows. I’m Brad Whitworth. Hi. Thanks all. Thank you. Thanks, Brad. Thank you.

The post Circle of Fellows #128: The 7 Cs of The New Communication Compass, Part 2 appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

The SAGA Agency AI Survey results are in, and small agency owners are feeling great about AI. Maybe too great. In this episode, Chip and Gini dig into the numbers and find the gap between how owners think they’re using AI and the reality of what’s happening inside their businesses.

The headline figures look impressive: 89% of respondents report regular or widespread AI use, 74% use it daily, and 88% say they’ve seen productivity gains. But Chip isn’t buying it. He questions whether the sample skews toward early adopters, or more likely, whether agency owners simply don’t have a clear enough picture of what “good” AI use looks like elsewhere.

When 53% say they’re ahead of their peers but only 13% say they’re behind, the math doesn’t work. As Gini puts it, they’re probably grading themselves on usage habits, not operational depth.

Next, Chip and Gini look at what agencies are actually doing with AI. Most activity falls squarely into what Chip calls “generative AI 101” — drafting emails, writing social posts, generating blog content. The more interesting stuff is largely absent. AI-assisted design work barely registers.

Only 74% are even using AI to revise or edit content, a number both hosts find inexplicable given how easy and useful that is. Gini’s own example of running an article through an AP style agent before sending it to a notoriously precise editor at PR Daily illustrates exactly the kind of practical, low-friction habit that should be universal by now.

Another data point they discuss is the disconnect between productivity gains and revenue. Agencies report getting faster, but their top-line numbers are flat or down. Gini’s read is that AI efficiency is getting absorbed into existing scope rather than converted into new value.

Agencies are over-servicing clients at the same fees, filling freed time with more of the same work instead of building something new.

On the pricing side, almost no one reported clients pushing for discounts tied to AI use. Instead of a reduction in cost, the larger enterprise clients are asking about data governance, usage policies, and procurement compliance. Chip advises unless your agency has the infrastructure to manage those requirements consistently, that’s a market best left to someone else. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 306: What the Agency AI Survey results mean for PR and marketing firms appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Employees at the Pentagon have spun up over 100,000 AI agents. In the private sector, we’re seeing reports of 10,000 or more agents being deployed by employees at a variety of companies. The problem is that most organizations lack governance to address agents, and the problems this explosion of agents operating on employees’ behalf can cause are innumerable. In the long-form FIR episode for May 2026, Neville and Shel delve into the rise of agents, the harms they could cause, what companies should do to ensure these agents deliver benefits rather than problems, and how communicators can take a leading role in addressing the issue.

Also in this episode:

• AI copyright lawsuits are coming for communicators
• Google’s search overhaul could signal a post-citation era
• Placing your thought newsmakers, thought leaders, and subject matter experts on podcasts is becoming a standard media relations practice
• “I worked all weekend” is no longer an argument for the fees you charge
• Short-form video clippers are creating go-to content from long-form videos — including yours

Dan York outlines the big enhancements in WordPress 7.0

Links from this episode

• Slopaganda, the New Rules of Narrative Warfare
• AI Copyright Lawsuits Pose Growing Risk for Communicators
• Practical Considerations for Managing IP Risk in AI-Generated Content
• Best Practices for Mitigating Copyright Risks in AI-Generated Content
• AI in Litigation Series: An Update on AI Copyright Cases in 2026
• Powered by A.I., Google Changes Its Search Box for the First Time in 25 Years
• Google Search as You Know It Is Over
• Why Podcast Placements Are the New Press Coverage
• Including Podcasts in Your PR Strategy
• Podcast Guesting vs. Traditional PR: What Works in 2026
• U.S. Newsroom Employment Has Fallen 26% Since 2008
• U.S. Podcast Consumption Reaches Record High: The Infinite Dial 2025
• You Can’t Beat AI.
• Steve Rubel on AI, Media Analytics, and the Future of PR
• AI and the End of Billable Hours
• The Clipping Economy: How Short-Form Video “Clippers” Are Overrunning the Internet
• How Short-Form Clips Took Over the Internet
• The Clipping Economy
• The Case for and Against Clipping
• Inside the “Clipping Farms” Driving Fintech’s Marketing Boom
• Companies Have a New AI Problem: Too Many Agents
• Businesses Will Have Over 150,000 AI Agents by 2028, Says Gartner
• AI Agents Introduce a New Class of IT Management Challenges
• Why Most Enterprise AI Agents Will Fail — And What Leaders Are Missing
• How Smart Governance Can Contain Agentic Sprawl
• Six Capabilities Enterprises Need to Scale Agentic AI in 2026
• Pentagon Workers Vibe-Code 100,000 AI “Agents” to Use on Unclassified Networks

Links from Dan Yorik’s Tech Report

• Turn Your Blog Posts Into Podcast Episodes
• Google Search as you know it is over
• Google Changes Its Search Box for the First Time in 25 Years
• WordPress 7.0 Field Guide
• AVFTCN 040 – Returning From A Hiatus, and Plans for 2026

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, June 22.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Neville Hobson: Hi everyone and welcome to the For Immediate Release podcast long-form episode 515 for May 2026. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz: And I’m Shel Holtz, and we have six really interesting reports to share with you today. And not all of them are about AI. I’m not saying most of them aren’t, but a couple are on other topics of interest to communicators. Also have a really excellent report from Dan York looking at the latest upgrade to WordPress, a massive upgrade, one of the most significant upgrades WordPress has seen in some time, and Dan’s report is fascinating as he talks about this. But we are going to start by filling you in on a new podcast on the FIR Podcast Network. We haven’t had a new show on the network in a while. You know, we started this as just FIR and we needed a place to house multiple FIR shows. Those who have been listening a long time may remember FIR book reviews and FIR speakers and speeches. And we had a number of these. And then we had some people say, hey, can my podcast live on your network? And we said, as long as it has something to do with communications, sure. So all of them have pretty much faded except a couple that Chip Griffin continues to crank out, but now we have a new one. And the reason we have a new one is because I’m doing it as a new podcast by me and my longtime friend and colleague, Steve Crescenzo. And it is called On the Same Page. It is an internal communications focused podcast. We’re recording it twice a month, about 20, 25 minutes per episode. And each episode focuses on an element of the strategic internal communications framework that I developed. It was several years ago. It was actually before I took a job in the private sector again. I’ll have been at the company I work for now nine years in October. So yeah, I developed this a long time ago. Then I wrote 28 blog posts about it. Somebody said, turn it into a book. So I did. And I have found a publisher for that book. So the podcast and the book are companion pieces and the first episode of On the Same Page is out now. You can find it on the FIR Podcast Network or wherever you get your podcasts. For me, that’s Pocket Casts. For you, it may be Apple Podcasts or any of the countless places that you can get podcasts these days, including Spotify. So we’re there. We’re on Spotify, as is this podcast For Immediate Release. And speaking of For Immediate Release, Neville, we’ve done a few episodes since the last long-form monthly episode.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, we have published quite a few, four in fact, over the past month. All of them have listener comments and that’s unusual, pleasantly so, every single episode with comments. So let’s run them down. So in the long-form, episode 511 for April, on the 27th of April, our lead story was the tale of law firm Sullivan & Cromwell and how in spite of AI policies, training programs and guardrails, a public document went out filled with AI-generated errors. No human in the loop, seems, as we explored what went wrong and what it means for organizations trying to operationalize AI responsibly. We also talked about new evidence that AI is not leveling the workplace, why AI is raising the bar for PR, the rise of slopaganda, and much more. Comments, Shel, on that one?

Shel Holtz: Yeah, a couple, and a couple of responses to the comments. We’ll start with Wayne Asplund who said, for what it’s worth, I have a way I tend to think about this. Simpler work, smarter decisions, better customer outcomes. You should be focused on all three when working with AI. If not, you’re reducing quality and raising risk. The obvious example is what you talk about. If your only care is speeding up work and you’re not focused on the customer outcome, which describes many people, magnify the risk and reduce quality. You reduce the smart side of things too, because you’re not engaging with the content. The model works for all sorts of AI activities. And Neville, you had a response to that. You said, simpler work, smarter decisions, better outcomes is a good test of whether AI is actually adding value or just accelerating activity. The law firm example feels like a case where the first of those dominated: speed and efficiency, but the other two didn’t hold. And that’s where things break down. I particularly like your point about engagement. If people aren’t really engaging with the content, then the smarter decisions part never really happens. It just looks like it does. The balance you described feels like something organizations need to make much more explicit, not just assume. And then we had Philip Weiss who loved the word slopaganda. My thoughts on this are from an earlier post, and he shared the post that he wrote called Slopaganda, the New Rules of Narrative Warfare, and the link to that will be in the show notes. And Wayne Asplund replied to Phillips saying, “some of the creative terms coming out at the moment. One newspaper I read stoked the fear of job losses by talking about the job- the job-pocalypse. And another article I saw used the term e-idiots.” Definitely going to pinch that one.

Neville Hobson: Ha Excellent. Great to have.

Shel Holtz: And by the way, the idiot’s comment reminds me of a T-shirt that I saw the other day that said any fool can use a computer, many do.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, that’s good. Yeah, it’s good when we see that kind of engagement, comment discussion taking place in the all on LinkedIn, of course, right?

Shel Holtz: yeah, yeah, although I think I got one or two of these actually off of Facebook this month. I can’t remember which ones, but.

Neville Hobson: cool. Excellent. OK. So our next show, we asked the question, when does AI stop supporting decisions and start shaping them? In episode 512, published on the 4th of May, we explored a provocative idea that AI is becoming the new executive influencer. Some research suggests leaders are already relying on AI for the majority of the decisions. But what does that really mean in practice? We have comments, right?

Shel Holtz: Yeah, Vincent Brunel left a comment saying, accountability question is the one that keeps me up at night when AI shapes the outcome, who actually owns the decision? The algorithm suggested it can’t become the new, I was just following orders. And Dean Landaish, I’ve known Dean, God, I can’t tell you how long through IABC. Having done lots of genealogy work with AI, its use for policy and decision guidance frightens me. Even with safeguards in place, AI systems will eventually tell you what you want to hear rather than facts or even even-handed evaluation. Like the social media algorithms, it eventually feeds you what it thinks you want based on patterns. Aside from writing progressively more restrictive prompts to stop this, I’ve had to go so far as erasing and dumping my user history. I wonder how many neophyte business users will build in proper safeguards to prevent the bias creep that AI builds over time.

Neville Hobson: And next, a Harvard Business Review article about redesigning marketing organizations for the agentic age provided context in FIR 513 on the 11th of May as we explored what happens when AI moves beyond generating content to orchestrating workflows and organizational systems themselves. We discussed examples of using Claude CoWork and AI agents in communication workflows. Work that once took hours now happens in minutes. Comments, right?

Shel Holtz: David Bradfield from up in Toronto. Great episode, Shel and Neville. The shift to the agentic age is less of a tech hurdle and more of an accountability crisis. If a communicator can’t hold an autonomous agent accountable to the brand’s ethical and strategic guardrails, the operating model isn’t just slow, it’s dangerous. I’ve just launched Avalere Advisory, which is very much aligned to the opportunities you cover. The narrative code only works if you have the right cultural upskilling and governance to match. Moving managers from task supervisors to agent auditors is key. I love the focus on the narrative code. It’s something we were building into my last corporate role for our CEO and other executives. It’s the backbone of the unified model communication teams need to succeed. And another comment from Vincent Bruneau who wrote a year ago, this was demos. Now it’s workflow design and organizational architecture. The speed of that shift is what makes the experimentation point so critical. The gap between those who are testing and those who are watching is widening fast.

Neville Hobson: And finally, was Twitter a unique moment in media history rather than a repeatable model? That’s a question we asked in episode 514 on the 18th of May when we explored the growing arguments that text-based social networks are entering irreversible decline, not because text itself is disappearing, but because giant algorithmic public feeds may no longer fit how people want to communicate online. And comments, One comment.

Shel Holtz: One comment from Mark Hillary, who says, of smaller rooms is a good analogy. I have my friends and family on various private WhatsApp groups. This now serves the same function that social media used to perform. As social media becomes more more aligned with entertainment rather than connectivity to a network, everything changes for people who want to communicate to a wide group of people.

Neville Hobson: Brilliant. So now you’re up to date on FIR episodes.

Shel Holtz: Yep, that’s right, and 515 will get underway in earnest here in just a minute, but first I do want to let you know that Circle of Fellows is coming up, the May episode this coming week. It’s the second of our special episodes with Brad Whitworth moderating a panel to discuss the remaining chapters of the book, The 7 Cs of The New Communication Compass. The book’s author and editor, Dianne Chase, is going to join Brad along with the remaining fellows who wrote chapters who weren’t part of the last episode. That includes Zora Artis, who wrote the Cohesion chapter, Cindy Schmieg, who authored the Collaboration chapter, and me. And I actually was the moderator last month. This month, Brad is doing it so I can be there to talk about the chapter I wrote on community. The panel is going to be live streamed at 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time this coming Thursday, May 28th. Participants of the live stream will be able to ask questions, share comments, observations and experiences and be part of the discussion. But if you can’t join us live, there is, of course, the audio podcast and the YouTube replay coming up after the episode has been recorded. So as I said, we’re going to jump into our first report dealing with copyright right after this. I have two reports today that have nothing to do with AI at all. I hope that’ll be refreshing, but let’s start with AI. According to the law firm Davis and Gilbert, 99% of public relations firms are now using AI. That’s a pretty dominant number and it could be a rounding error that would take you up to a hundred percent, I suppose, or maybe there was one company that said, uh-uh, not us. But the top use cases should come as no surprise. They’re using it to write content, take notes and summarize meetings, spark ideas and monitor media. In other words, AI is touching just about everything communicators produce. And while we’re busy adopting these tools, copyright laws have been piling up. Now the specifics I’m about to cover are based on US copyright law, but copyright is a thing in most of the developed world. So even though these cases may not apply in the UK or Europe, principles, at least some of them probably do. So let’s look at an update from the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright published in March that walks through six of the most important AI copyright cases working their way through the courts right now. First, there’s Thaler versus Perlmutter. The Supreme Court denied cert on March 2nd, which means the rule is now settled, at least for now. Purely AI-generated work cannot be copyrighted in the U.S. Period. If a human didn’t, and here’s some core language to keep in your mind, if a human didn’t make a meaningful creative contribution, you cannot and do not own it. In Bartz v. Anthropic, the court ruled last June that training on copyrighted books was fair use, but storing pirated copies was not. Anthropic settled for $1.5 billion, the largest copyright settlement in U.S. history. The fairness hearing happened just this past May 14th, like a week and a half ago. The judge didn’t rule from the bench, she took it under submission, but observers expect final approval any time now, and authors are looking at roughly $3,000 per work. And by the way, I have applied for that relief for several of the books I’ve written. And if I get it, Neville, you’ll get a piece of that three thousand for the How to Do Everything with Podcasting book.

Neville Hobson: ha ha! Twenty years after we wrote it. Yeah, okay. Wonderful. Wonderful.

Shel Holtz: That’s right. But yeah, it’ll still earn you 1500 bucks if this all goes through. Yeah, in Kadrey v. Meta, we saw the same fair use conclusion on training, but a different judge in the same district disagreed with the Bartz judge on market harm. He basically told the plaintiffs they brought the wrong argument and signaled that a future plaintiff who actually builds on

Neville Hobson: Excellent. Look forward to it.

Shel Holtz: An evidentiary case on market harm, showing that AI-trained models flood the market and depress demand for the original works, that could win. Then there’s Disney and Universal versus Midjourney, where the studios are alleging willful infringement of their characters, Elsa, Shrek, Darth Vader, the minions, and ask for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per copyrighted work, plus an injunction and disgorgement of Midjourney’s profits. Now, here’s where the story has often gotten more interesting. Since Norton Rose published their article pointed to the Disney OpenAI deal, the one where Disney was investing a billion dollars and licensing characters for OpenAI’s Sora video app as a sign of two things. First, that formal licensing was becoming the path forward. And second, that every signed deal strengthens the case against AI companies that didn’t license because it proves a licensing market exists, which is exactly the kind of market harm courts look for in fair use cases. Well, on March 24th, OpenAI announced it was shutting down Sora. The consumer app went dark on April 26th. The API goes dark in September. And Disney’s billion-dollar investment, the so-called bridge between Hollywood and AI never closed. According to Deadline, a Disney insider said simply, the deal is not moving forward. So one of the most cited pieces of evidence that an AI licensing market was emerging, it just evaporated. That makes the legal terrain more uncertain for communicators, not less. You might still be tempted to say that’s an interesting legal story, but it’s a problem for the AI companies and law firms. Not for me, not so fast. A PRSA panel reported in a recent piece on the PRSA site titled, copyright lawsuits pose a growing risk for communicators, quoted Samantha Rothaus, a partner at Davis+Gilbert, who made the point that for communicators, accuracy in AI-generated content isn’t just about looking smart. Inaccuracy, she said, can be misleading and deceptive, and that creates regulatory and legal risk. Another panelist, Michael Lasky, said he sees significant gaps in AI policies and governance within the PR field, and those gaps create significant risk. And Debevoise & Debevoise & Plimpton article from early March written by attorneys who advise marketing and communication clients lays out exactly where that risk lives for us, for communicators, not for the AI labs. And it lives in three places. One, ownership. If your team uses AI to generate a campaign asset, a logo concept, a hero image, an ad headline, and there’s no meaningful documented human contribution, you can’t copyright it. You don’t own it, and a competitor could pick it up tomorrow and use it. And there’s nothing you could do about it. Two, vicarious liability. Debevoise, and I know I’m not pronouncing that name right. It’s the name of a law firm. They flagged this and it’s worth understanding. If you’re using a third-party AI tool, and you are, and that vendor’s model was trained on infringing material, courts have already held in non AI cases, that the company using the tool can be liable too. The rule is roughly this. If you benefit financially from someone else’s infringement and you had the contractual ability to control how they were operating, you can be on the hook, even though you didn’t do the infringing yourself. So the AI provider’s training practices and your indemnification language are now your problem too. Have you read your AI vendor agreement? Do you know what’s indemnified? What’s excluded? And third is output infringement. If an AI tool produces something substantially similar to a copyrighted work, even unintentionally, even because of a sloppy prompt, and you publish it, you can be sued. One analyst made the point that images are especially exposed. Reverse image search trolls are already a cottage industry, and AI is just going to feed them. So what should communicators be doing? Three things, none of them particularly unusual. First and probably most important is to build an IP clearance step into your AI workflow, the same way you’d clear a stock photo image or a freelancer’s contribution. Document the human contribution to anything you actually need to own and read your vendor contracts with your legal team, specifically for training data sources and indemnification carve-outs. The legal landscape is going to keep shifting fast, as the Sora story demonstrates. Communicators who get ahead of it now are the ones who will be in a position to keep using these tools aggressively. Everyone else is going to be playing defense, and defense is a really bad place to communicate from.

Neville Hobson: quite a picture. So I think that actually makes it adds a significant dimension to what we’ve already been talking about, not just you and I, but many, many people we have on this podcast. On the example I mentioned in an episode recently, we talked about the law firm that submitted, it was actually a document to a court in a bankruptcy case. It was a corporate bankruptcy, with big numbers involved, riddled with errors because no one had checked it. So that’s been the focus: human in the loop has got to check it. It’s deeper than that, There’s your kind of, in a sense, your obvious level of foundation of the things you need to do to ensure that you’ve done everything you possibly can to ensure that what you produce using an AI assistant to help you. It doesn’t contain errors that can trip you up because you didn’t check it. Here we got something that makes that even worse sounding, frankly. What troubles me most is the statistic in the PRSA’s piece, quoting the law firms report they did that 99% of PR firms are using AI. And we already know from other reporting that, you know, many of those, I’m not going to say most because I don’t know, don’t have the governance in place to protect them. Do they have a human in the loop? I’m getting very cynical about hearing that phrase because I hear it like it’s a nice thing to say and there’s absolutely no substance behind it whatsoever because we’re seeing evidence and prominent examples. So there are others that aren’t so prominent, but they’re happening where they don’t have a human in So we’ve talked about this before. You had an idea a few episodes back that you need to have verification specialists. Maybe it had got to come to that because not everyone has the ability to verify. And even if you do, what’s the legal implication of that person? Is that the responsible person on behalf of your firm? What if they’re the intern doing that? It’s got to have someone with authority to do that kind of thing. So 99% using AI, the top reason. writing content, 79 percent. That really does make this sound very serious indeed, that you could run into deep trouble. Now, I know you said this is the examples you gave under US copyright law and copyright law is jurisdictional and it’s based on geographies. It hasn’t changed any in hundreds of years in that regard. So if you’re a global firm operating in 20 countries, you need to understand the copyright law in each of those 20 countries. So the risks are high, I would say. And you painted some dark picture there of here are the potential consequences if you don’t do this. But this needs to be part of your thinking. You mentioned as well, reverse copyright trolling to find stuff that could land you with a request of payment for the copyright infringement, stuff like that.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, the digital version of ambulance chasers.

Neville Hobson: AI-generated images. Right. But that’s part of the landscape, I guess. So it’s something to take seriously. I did note the concluding part from the PRSA story where they’re talking about this same law firm did a survey last autumn. Thirty-seven percent of PR companies they surveyed were developing their own closed proprietary AI systems specific to their clients. Will that protect them? I think it gives a false sense of security because I doubt it would. So you can’t think, I don’t need to use, you know, take your pick, Claude, Gemini, chat GPT or whatever. Even I create a bespoke version of the LLM, I’ll build something unique. If you haven’t got safeguards in for this, it won’t matter. You’re still going to run into trouble. So this is huge, I think. I can see lawyers everywhere rubbing their hands with glee because this needs legal input to this in each of those different jurisdictions of the copyright law.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I’ll give you two quick examples just from my own experience in recent days. And by the way, Chris Penn, this goes back a couple of months, but he did publish a post on LinkedIn that gave you a prompt to use in order to check your output for copyright violations. And he said, it may not catch absolutely everything, but if you’re sued, you could pull up the fact that you did that as a good faith effort to ensure that you weren’t violating copyright. It could stand in your favor in a lawsuit, but presumably most of the instances it would actually catch. But these two instances that I’ve experienced recently, was a search I was doing. I use AI for tech support all the time. I find it better than tech support. And I was trying to resolve something. I won’t get into what it was, but it said, if And the language it used was very specific, right? It said, if you’re losing sleep over this, stop. Google has said that they understand that this is a bug. They’re aware of it. All of us are experiencing the same thing. They’re working on it. It should be fixed in a day or two. So I was looking for more information on this. So I went to Reddit and I did a search and there I found exactly that same language in a post that somebody had left in the discussion for this particular software product. So it’s not that Google Gemini had taken that information and put it in its own words. It had actually taken those words from whoever wrote that post and shared it with me as a response to a prompt on Google Gemini. So yeah, if that were copyrighted, that would be copyright infringement right there. And if I quoted it, that would be problematic. The other I shared on LinkedIn, I thought this was a really interesting story about somebody who uploaded a photo, an image and said, is an AI-generated image that I created. I prompted the model to use the style of Monet. And there were thousands and thousands, according to the article, there were like 1.6 million people who said, this is AI garbage, it’s slop, it’s horrible. Here’s what’s wrong with the art, the lighting, the brushstrokes. And then it was revealed it was actually a real Monet. It was not an AI-generated. He just said it was. And I shared that on LinkedIn, got some interesting comments. But one of the comments I got said, all AI-generated art is theft, presumably because all AI-generated art was trained on real art, just like all AI-generated text responses is based on text that it pulled off of the net. But with people having that attitude and the person who shared that comment isn’t the only one I’ve heard say that. You know that there are people out there who are looking for this. As I said a minute ago, the ambulance chasers of the digital era are the ones who are out there looking for something actionable and then going out and finding somebody to represent in a lawsuit based on that. So copyright and AI, especially in this period we’re going through right now with AI backlash in general, I think you’re going to see this activity ramp up. And I don’t see any reason why corporate communications using AI can’t be caught up in some of these legal actions.

Neville Hobson: There is plenty to think about in that case. So moving on to our next topic, if you’ve been following how AI is reshaping search, and I’m sure many of you have, we’ve talked about this on FIR before, including our discussion a few months ago about GEO, Generative Engine Optimization. Then what Google announced at the developer conference recently in May is the next chapter. And it’s a significant one. Two pieces caught my attention amongst the many reporting about this. Sarah Perez’s writing in TechCrunch and a report in the New York Times by Tripp Mickle, Kate Conger, and Brian X. Chen. Both cover the same announcement, but from different angles. And together, they paint a picture that communicators really need to sit with. Here’s what Google announced. The search box, that iconic long slender bar that barely changed since 2001 is being overhauled for the first time in 25 years. It is getting bigger, more conversational, and more interactive. But that’s almost the least interesting part. What’s really changing is what happens after you type. Instead, or you even speak, actually, now, instead of a list of links as part of an AI overview, Google will increasingly serve you AI-generated interactive experiences, custom visuals, dynamically built mini-apps, and what they’re calling information agents that work in the background around the clock, tracking the web on your behalf and alerting you when something relevant changes. TechCrunch makes the point starkly. Searching the web will increasingly be done by AI agents rather than humans. People will focus on acting on the information those agents surface rather than clicking links themselves. The New York Times goes further with a quote from Richard Kramer, a financial analyst with Arete Research. He said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that Google is reducing everyone to raw data providers. The open web, said, is on the way out. Now think about what that means for communicators. We spend years adapting our content strategies, first for SEO, then for GEO, trying to get our content picked up and cited in AI-generated answers. But what’s the strategy when the answer isn’t a list of links, isn’t even a text summary with citations, but a dynamically generated interactive experience that never surfaces a source at all? That’s the question I want to dig into. We’ve moved from SEO to GEO, and now we may be moving into territory where there’s no citation game left to play. I’ve got some thoughts about that. But first, though, what do you think, this means for communicators? And what should they actually be doing differently right now?

Shel Holtz: Well, I think communicators need to adapt. We always have. So has the marketing world and the advertising world. When Google first came out, I mean, you know, first of all, I have to say, I think this idea that it’s the end of the open web is utter nonsense. If anybody can go build a website, then the web is open. The question is, can they be discovered? Well, depends on how well they play the game. It could be that they just want to notify their customers that this is where you come to do X, Y, and Z with this company that you have aligned with. So, you know, that could be easy. But, you know, if you want to be discovered more broadly, you’ll have to figure out how that gets done in this new world. There’s going to be a way. I do think some of the things that Google has introduced here are interesting. The agents… I don’t know, man. They just seem to me to be the AI version of Google Alerts. How many of the emails that I get every day are based on the alerts that I have set up for things related to the company I work for and the topics we discuss and the markets that we serve and things like that. I have all of these Google Alerts set up. I’ll be happy to make them agents now on Google, that’s just fine. I don’t see that that’s going to change my relationship with it all that much. It’s going to surface pretty much the same information. I do like the multimodal capabilities that they’ve introduced. You can now include multiple images and things like that in a search. But they’re not getting rid of those 10 links down at the bottom. You just have to scroll all the way past the AI overview, which is getting more sophisticated and occupying more of the page, but those 10 links are still going to be there. In fact, I was listening to the episode of Hardfork that dropped yesterday, and they interviewed Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google. And he said, people are always going to want to be able to click a link, especially based on the kind of search they’re running. He says, that’s what Google does. We’re never going to abandon the links, but they certainly have pushed them farther down the page. And we know that the AI overviews have led to a significant decrease in the number of clicks that people are enacting on a search results page. So that kind of traffic has dried up to a large degree. So, you know, even though you can still get to those links, I don’t think that solves the problem for people who want to be discovered on the web. We’re going to have to figure this out. I would continue to look at the AEO slash GEO approach to visibility and also keep your eye on what the search experts tell us as they gain experience with this revised version of Google.

Neville Hobson: Hmm. I’m not sure that the links and AI overviews are going to stay as they currently are. I’m certain they’re not. One of the, in fact, three of the articles I read that go into quite significant technical detail about this are based on people’s interpretation, a lot of what was announced at the Google Developer Conference. So there’s no clean answer yet where this is going. We don’t know yet. But there are a number of directions worth looking at from a communicator’s point of view, I believe. So I’d start with if it means that the citation game, as I might describe it, was fundamentally about being findable. So you are signed, your content is cited, it shows up in AI overviews. So getting your content into the results that humans would click on. But that’s not what’s going to happen here. If agents are doing the searching and humans are acting on what the agents find, the question shifts from how do we get found to how do we become part of the information environment that AI systems draw from? That’s a subtler form of presence. It’s less about individual pieces of content, they’re more about sustained authoritative voice over time. This won’t happen quickly. So if you’ve not done prep, for overviews, you’re behind the curve on this because when this lands and becomes clear how it’s going to work, I think it’ll attract huge interest, particularly thinking about, we have a, one of the topics we’re going to talk about is on this AI agents topic, that you’ve got AI agents out there while you’re fast asleep or traveling or doing something else when you come back to your computer the next day or the next hour or whatever it might be. It presents you with the answers to your question. And they are unlikely to include links. They will be, in the sense, for many people, the complete answer to your question. You won’t need to click anywhere. That will appeal to a lot of people. So this is doing all the donkey work, as we might say. I think it suggests that owned channels will matter a great deal, not less. So a search as a distribution channel is being restructured. Direct relationships with audiences like lists, communities, podcasts, trusted platform, et cetera, become more valuable precisely because they don’t depend on being surfaced by an algorithm or an agent. The communicators who’ve invested in direct audience relationships are going to be better positioned than those who relied on search-driven traffic. And I think you made the point that AI overviews started something which was lessening click-throughs. And that is going to get even worse with this from a website owner’s point of view. There’s no click. So that whole model will have to change. So I think that said, there’s some other issues here too of interested communicators. The human moment is still the moment that matters. Even if an agent does the searching, a human makes a decision. So the communication challenge shifts to the point of decision rather than the point of discovery. That’s a more interesting place to operate, closer to the outcome, closer to the relationship. One of the downsides to thinking about this is you are still, let’s say, the human in the verification loop. You’ve got to check all this stuff. Do you just believe what the agent’s surface is? We’re not at the stage yet where it’s a bit like, self-driving cars, know, you’re 99% sure it’s not going to crash and kill you. Well, you actually need 100%. You don’t need 99%. And this could be in that kind of area.

Shel Holtz: I’m not even 100% driving my own cars 100% safe.

Neville Hobson: Well, you got it. You’ve got to conduct that. So the uncomfortable conclusion that I take from what I looked into was that some of what communicators have been doing for years, content volume, keyword optimization, SEO-driven publishing may genuinely be losing its value. So the honest conversation with clients and employees is we need to redirect effort from producing content for search algorithms to building genuine authority and direct audience relationships. That takes time and you will not see the benefit of that for a while. In the meantime, you’ve got utter disruption to the existing model heading our way.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, we definitely need to do that. But I do need to reiterate that as they were making the announcements about the brand new updates to Google search at I.O., they did double down on including reference links. Here’s what I got. Even though Google is transforming search from a simple box of links into an agent driven conversational interface powered by Gemini 3.5 Flash, they are integrating reference links deeper into the experience. There’s going to be a split over how that’s done. If you’re getting AI overviews doing a regular search, they’ll still appear at the top of the standard results page and you’ll still get the blue links visible right below it. If you go into AI mode, click the AI mode button. It completely replaces the traditional results page. Within AI mode, websites are either explicitly cited as references within the AI response or they receive no visibility at all as there are no traditional link positions under.

Neville Hobson: Right. So that comes into the area of there’s no clean answer yet. So you’ve got the kind of vested interest vendor saying, well, the link’s going to be down here. I’ve not seen that prominently mentioned in any of the tech reports that I did read. Indeed, I’ve seen one that said this is not prominent at all. Where does that fit then? Or is it going to be parallel? If AI agents are going to be out there on your behalf doing all the search work, you don’t have to do anything. How does that fit? Is it going to be like, well, if I don’t want to use AI agents, I can still use the old search. Is that how it’s going to be? No one knows yet. So this will emerge, I’m pretty sure. And it may well be right that they’re scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll. There are all the links I’m used to seeing. I don’t think that’s actually how it’s going to be, matter what they said in the I.O. Developer Conference. We don’t know.

Shel Holtz: or contextual.

Neville Hobson: So you and I are actually doing what everyone else is doing, speculating what it all might be. But there’s some clear direction, such as what I mentioned just now, for communicators in particular to pay attention to here, that you could see wind of change is blowing here. And whether there’s still going to be links at the bottom of the page or there’s an AI overview somewhere else on the page, you need to pay attention to this, what’s changing. The AI agents are going to really change things here.

Shel Holtz: Well, here’s the thing, even if there are links contextually in the narrative of the AI overview or there are still blue links below, people aren’t clicking them anyway because they’re getting that AI overview answer. And we talked about this when they first released the Amazon Echo because they talked about the issue of one. Yeah, we talked about the idea that this is one true answer. It’s not 10 links. And if you don’t like those, you can scroll to the next 10.

Neville Hobson: There you go. Four years and years ago, yeah, yeah.

Shel Holtz: It’s one true answer and you don’t know where they drew it from.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. But I think it’s shifting, though, the behavior, how it works, the idea that you enter a search term, either speak it or whatever it might be, and on the fly, will create interactive visuals. It will do all sorts of things that search can’t do until now. And so you won’t get an AI overview that’s just text. It might have links to it. Whenever links to visual, it’ll have the content there and then, as I understand it from what I’ve read, but hey, it’s not clear yet. So I’m sure we’ll see voices of people that you pay attention, that I pay attention to with some sensible analysis. There’s not enough information to go on yet. The trick I’ve been thinking most about is how do I separate, I won’t call it slot because it’s not, it’s just someone’s opinion that’s not informed from the stuff that is informed. So I’ve got a handful of the latter, and probably scores of the former. I’m trying to ignore all that stuff. To me, this is like the first alarm bell. Alarm is the right word, the first alert bell that you are about to see as a communicator, a fundamental shift in how search works. And it’s going to be, I think it’s going to be pretty. It’s going to be chaotic. So you need to pay attention to this in the right way. And that’s where you need I guess really to find voices that are authority that you can trust to hear how they’re described.

Shel Holtz: Well, let’s switch gears and put AI behind us for a few minutes and talk about something entirely different. Ron Culp’s blog, Culpwrit, ran a guest post earlier this month by Anuj Agarwal with a title that’s hard to argue with, Why Podcast Placements Are the New Press Coverage? By the way, I met Ron when he was running comms at Sears when I was doing some internet consulting there. Ron is one of the senior dons of public relations these days, and I do pay attention to what’s on his blog. In his post, Agarwal isn’t talking about having a podcast. He’s talking about pitching your client, your executive, your subject matter expert as a guest on someone else’s podcast. That distinction matters because that’s where actual news is happening. And if you’re not doing this yet, you’re already behind. Now let’s start with the audience math because the case is overwhelming. According to Edison Research’s Infinite Dial 2026, which they released back in March, 80% of Americans 12 years old and older have now listened to or watched the podcast. 58% listened in the past month. That’s about 167 million Americans, an all-time record. 45% listened in the past week. And among 18 to 34 year olds, weekly podcast reach is now equivalent to broadcast television. I want you to let that sink in. I’m going to say that again. Among 18 to 34 year olds, weekly podcast reach is equivalent to broadcast television. For your client trying to reach younger adults and appearance on the right podcast has the same weekly reach as TV. Now compare that with what’s happening on the traditional media side. Pew Research found that newsroom employment in the US dropped 26% between 2008 and 2020, and that bleeding has continued ever since. Newspaper newsrooms alone are down 57% from 2008. There are just fewer journalists and fewer editorial slots, which means there’s been a shift around where people are finding their content. Your clients still want earned media that channels worth pitching have just expanded. So why is a podcast appearance more valuable than a traditional press hit? Four reasons, and they’re all important reasons. First is the time on stage. A press mention is a paragraph. Even a feature article gives you a few quotes wrapped around someone else’s narrative. A podcast guest appearance gives your client 30 to 60 minutes of uninterrupted access to an audience that chose to be there on a podcast that’s likely to be specialized as opposed to generalized. That’s not just longer, more time. It’s a fundamentally different kind of exposure. The audience hears how your client thinks, not just what they say. They hear the tone, the texture, the moments of pushback. And Nielsen research has shown that listeners trust long-form audio hosts more than they trust traditional advertising. And that trust transfers to the guests by association. Number two is durability. A press hit spikes for a day and then disappears. A podcast episode lives forever. It sits in someone’s back catalog. It shows up in search. It gets clipped and shared on LinkedIn six months later. That’s the long tail at work. And Neville, I don’t know if I’ve shared this with you, but I get emails from the host of our archive site. Remember, we switched sites at one point and we archive the old site where many, many, many episodes of FIR live and I’ll get emails saying your site has exceeded the allowed site traffic for the month and won’t be accessible until the first of the month. Who’s going and visiting this site that hasn’t been active in 11 or 12 years and listening to those old episodes of the show? 40% of podcasts

Neville Hobson: Hahaha AI agents, I would hazard a guess. Yeah.

Shel Holtz: No doubt. I don’t know if they’re listening to the episodes, but they could well be scraping that site. But 40 percent of podcast consumers now name YouTube as their primary podcast platform, which means a single guest appearance can produce both an audio asset and a video asset all from one hour of your client’s time. And that’s content you can repackage and repurpose for multiple channels. Here’s the third reason. And this is the one I really want you to hear, because most communicators miss it. A podcast appearance is increasingly how you earn traditional press coverage. Newsworthy things your client says on a podcast get picked up by the mainstream media. And now they’re not just quoting your client, they’re amplifying an extended quote in context and they’re sending readers back to the original episode. Look at Jamie Dimon. A couple of weeks ago, he gave a podcast-style interview at a Norway Sovereign Wealth Fund conference where he warned that the private credit market is worse than people think. That’s a quote, worse than people think. That single cent has generated coverage across Bloomberg, Reuters, Fortune, the Financial Times, and erased about $500 billion in alternative asset manager value the same day. The Jensen Huang interviews, a Stratechery, BG2, the All-In podcast, those generated Fortune and CNBC stories, and they do every single time. Howard Lutnick told the All-In host that, “‘Boeing executives follow me around like puppies,’ because of how he was structuring trade deals.” Fortune quoted that line word for word in a feature on the Trump administration’s trade strategy. The podcast appearance was the press strategy. That’s the model. You’ve got to, you’re not just earning a podcast placement, you’re earning the cascade of secondary coverage that flows from it. And finally, there’s depth of message. An interview lets a thought leader actually develop an argument. In a newspaper, quote, complex ideas get compressed into one sentence, usually the wrong sentence, often the safest sentence. On a podcast, your client gets to explain the why behind the what. That’s where credibility gets built and where the next sales conversation gets seeded. Now, the catch, most podcasts aren’t worth pitching. Agarwal makes this point bluntly, and he’s not wrong, of the millions of shows indexed across hosting platforms. A lot of them haven’t published in months, maybe years. They have audiences that are minuscule. They’ll book anyone with a pulse. Recommending a weak placement to your client costs them time and signals that you’re vetting is getting lazy. So here’s what to actually look for before your pitch. Publishing pattern, you know, at least two episodes a month consistently over the last six months? The guest history, scroll back through 20 or 30 episodes. Who were the guests that they booked? If your client doesn’t fit that pattern, walk away. Niche depth over raw audience size. I mean, a 600 listener show inside your client’s exact industry will outperform a 50,000 listener general business show on almost every metric that actually matters. The host social application. A host who promotes new episodes on LinkedIn extends your client’s appearance for free. And listen to one recent episode before pitching. If the host lets guests just monologue without pushback, the audience tunes out and your client gets nothing. And here’s what your client needs to bring to the conversation. Not talking points, a point of view. One counterintuitive take, one framework that actually gets used, one honest answer to a hard question. Hosts are really good at spotting the difference between a guest with something to say and a spokesperson reciting messaging. The appearances that earn return invitations, produce shareable clips, and get picked up in tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal are built on original thinking. The PR pros who figure this out now, who develop a real podcast pitching practice the same way they developed a media relations practice 20 years ago, are going to look like wizards to their clients.

Neville Hobson: That’s quite a landscape you described there, Shel. I think I look at it in a way when I hear all these statistics being rattled off about how many people listening to podcasts, what’s up, my kind of eyes glaze completely because, you know, and then I hear about, you know, the Jamie Dimon of this world and these kind of, you know, CEOs of mega corporations and how they move markets with a phrase that gets picked up in the mainstream media. That doesn’t happen with, you know, as a matter of course for everyone. Amongst all the rubbish podcasts you outlined, where you’ve got minuscule audiences or not, I think about this, if I were advising someone to start a podcast and it was a business that’s a medium sized business, maybe a thousand employees in a not particularly exotic sounding industry, but they’re the market leader and they’ve got some interesting stories to tell. How is that relevant to them, knowing that the CEO of JP Morgan or whatever said something in the FT report, completely and utterly irrelevant and not likely to happen to them. So what would be of interest to a company like that who has, as I say, stories to tell, it’s worth doing something with them for a podcast for all the reasons you mentioned that how they get noticed and so forth. So that’s the trick, finding that relevance to convince them or to pitch them if you like on doing it. I mean, you’ve got some good stuff mentioned in this piece you’ve been discussing that are valid, absolutely would make a good way to pitch it. I did like the section in this piece where it talks about how to build the skill before a client formally asks. And totally. And it got me thinking, it says, identify 15 podcasts relevant to their audience and industry. It got me thinking immediately and this is where AI comes into play. Okay, so we can’t escape. This is about AI as well in this topic. Your example, where the experiments you’ve been doing, where you’ve been looking for podcasts in your industry that take guest speakers or all the criteria you’ve done and you’ve been sending out agents who’ve returned with amazing data. That is exactly how you would approach this. And you get your results fast and probably well, they’re probably definitely more accurate than if you do this manually yourself. So where the guidance talks to you about filter, filter these findings you get from shows that publish consistently and actively except guests, there’s your AI tool to do that for you. So you could apply that to this. And it would probably, again, depending which AI tool using, I would say it will give you things you didn’t know to ask even because you didn’t know, but it would find something. So AI would help you do this without doubt. But that’s not the main trust the story though. The thing you’ve outlined is very good. I agree. I just think you need to make it wholly relevant to your client who is not a Fortune 500 company, who is just a regular business, even with 20 employees, they still got a story to tell. If they’ve got a valid story to tell, there’s a chance that they’ll get noticed. And your goals might well be very different from that mega corporation example that you had, where it might be resistive temptation to listen to the sales guy to say, we want leads generated and I want to get 10 sales out of this. You might, but your goal might be different to that. Still got to be a measurable goal. So talking about our CEO will do a thought leadership piece. No, please don’t go there. You need a measurable goal. It could be leads, it could be something less esoteric than that, quite simple, raise awareness of something that you can measure. Now that then puts it in the area of something that you as a communicator know about measurable objectives. So I think scaling it back to reality is a way to do this, not just look at how many millions of people listen to podcasts, because that to me is a total eye glazing metric for most people.

Shel Holtz: Well, I think the point to be made from the number of people listening to podcasts is just that it’s a valid medium now as influential as TV. You know, if we had made this case 15 years ago, it would have been a tough sell. But the fact is that a lot of people have started to recognize the importance of being a guest on a podcast. I mean, this is something the Republicans figured out during the last presidential election cycle. So I think the scale is important, especially as you look at the numbers of diminishing opportunities in the mainstream press. In terms of Jamie Dimon, yeah, I mean, I made the point that he’s going to get on a general business podcast with 500,000 listeners, a million listeners and make news. But I also noted that for some CEOs, for some thought leaders is probably the podcast that has 600 listeners that’s in that niche area. Now, you mentioned the agent I created. It’s actually a skill. I created this in the Hermes agent platform that is configured when I launch it to go out into the podcast space and find the podcasts that meet these criteria that I listed there. But I’m able to enter the information about the person or the story or the thought leadership concept that I’m trying to pitch. So if, for example, I want to get a story out there with this guy that we have who works on all our airport projects. He is a design manager. He is really good. And he has some thought leadership ideas on construction work airside in active airports. Now, do I want to get that into the construction trades? No. What do I care if builders hear that? I want to get that into the airport trades. where the people who are hiring the builders will hear it and hear about his expertise and hear his thoughts and go, yeah, I think I want to talk to them about our next airport project. So yeah, I have the AI agent set up to go do that. It even does a first draft of the pitch based on what it knows about the host and the content of each of the podcasts it returns to me. But yeah, I have to go out there and make that pitch. I’ve got one going on right now based on a sustainability story. So it’s interesting finding the places where we want that story to go because everybody’s looking for more sustainable ways to build, but how does that affect our reputation? So I have to cue this skill in the Hermes platform to find ones that are going to be of high value for me. But I have no doubt that if my CEO gets on a podcast or that design manager gets on a podcast, and says something really interesting, it’s going to find its way into ENR, the engineering news record, which is the primary trade publication or building design and construction or any of the other trade publications out there. And that’s that trickle down. It’s not the scale of what Jamie Dimon can do, but it’s the same concept exactly just at that smaller, more niche scale.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I think that’s the key thing for me, certainly, is you’ve got to scale it relevantly to your client and their audience and market. The only other thing I’d add to that, Shel, is to let our listeners know, listen to episode 513, where you’ll hear Shel talk at length about the experiments he’s been doing with Claude CoWork, particularly, but also this example that you kind of touched on, as it were. It’s worth the listen.

Neville Hobson: Well, Dan, that was quite a report. I think an excellent assessment of what’s happening with WordPress. I know you’re a big, long time fan and user of WordPress. And so you did a good job in conveying the significant changes from WordPress 7. I think it’s worth emphasizing, and you did make the point, Dan, that a lot of the cool stuff that you talked about, AI-driven in particular, is only on the hosted WordPress, the WordPress.com service, not self-hosted WordPress. So no doubt that will be coming at some point, I would imagine. So

Shel Holtz: Yeah, the FIR site is on WordPress, but it’s the hosted version. And I’ve read about this. I upgraded it to 7 and went looking for these cool features and they weren’t there. that’s Dan’s report clarified that for me.

Neville Hobson: No, exactly, exactly. It’ll come, I’m sure. So thanks a lot, Dan. That was a really, really good report. So our next topic, going now back to the AI, the AI themes we’re following. Yeah, we can’t escape AI at all these days. We know that. But here’s the thing. There’s a Substack writer I follow called Ruben Hassid. He writes a newsletter called How to AI. And if you don’t know his work, He’s worth your time. There’ll be a link to that in the show notes. He publishes twice a week. He’s prolific. He’s sharp. And he has a gift for making uncomfortable ideas land without making you feel attacked by them. His latest piece is called You can’t Beat AI. And before you groan at the title, it’s not the piece you might expect. It’s not a doom narrative. It’s actually a remarkably clear-eyed analysis of what’s happening to the value of knowledge work and what to do about it. The core argument is this, AI is getting cheaper at a rate most people haven’t fully absorbed. We’re talking about a 6,000-fold reduction in the cost of AI intelligence over four years, he says. Not twice as cheap, 6,000 times cheaper. And crucially, not just cheaper, smarter too. So your salary is now being compared to a subscription, and the subscription is winning on price. The part in his newsletter that really got my attention was his argument about what this means for how we communicate our value. He makes the point that for decades, time spent was a proxy for quality. If something took six hours, that effort signaled something. It signaled expertise, diligence, craft. But now that production is cheap, now that a decent first draft, a market scan, a slide outline, a campaign proposal, can be generated in 30 seconds or less, time spent is a weak argument. He puts it simply, nobody cares that it took you all weekend. The better argument he says is, I understand the real problem. I knew what to ignore. I found the missing risk. I made the decision easier. I saved the team from doing the wrong thing beautifully. And that lands differently for communicators, I think, because most of us would say, Yes, of course, we’ve always sold judgment and strategic counsel. But here’s the uncomfortable follow-up question. Do our clients and employers actually pay for that? Or do they still at some level pay for the volume of deliverables, the press releases, the reports, the campaigns, and just assume the judgment comes with it? That’s what I want to explore, because if intelligence is becoming a commodity, communicators individually and as a profession, need to get much clearer and much more explicit about articulating what they offer that can’t be replicated for $20 a month. What do you think about all that, Shel?

Shel Holtz: Well, I think we’ve been talking about this issue of pricing in the AI era. Yeah, I mean, yeah, even well before AI, the hourly model has been questionable. I’ve shared this anecdote, I think probably five or six times on the show. But for those who haven’t heard it, when I was a consultant, Mark Schumann was visiting us. He worked for the same consulting firm I did at the time. And he was talking about value-add, which I opposed. I said, that should be baked into our hourly rate. And he said, okay, how does the hourly rate factor into the fact that I bring 35 years of experience to this job and I have a brainstorm in the shower that took me 20 seconds. I wouldn’t have had that brainstorm if not for that 30 years of experience, 35 years. But it still produces tremendous value to the client that may make them millions of dollars or save them hundreds of thousands of dollars. How do you value that 30 seconds it took to have that brainstorm? And I haven’t come up with a really good answer to that yet, except pricing based on outcomes. That said, I have to say that when I was an independent consultant, which I did for 21 years, I had some clients who wanted me on a retainer. And the retainer was so that they could call me when they had an issue. They didn’t want me to produce anything. They didn’t want me to write anything. They didn’t want me to create anything. They just wanted my counsel. They wanted an hour on the phone. So for X dollars, they got 10 hours a month and they could call and say, we’re going through this. What do we do? Or what’s your experience with that? I think you can still charge based on time for that. It’s the time you’re spending on the phone with them. So I don’t I don’t think charging. based on time vanishes, you just have to figure out what your formula is, where you can factor in how much time it took, where you can factor in what the overall value of it is. And then finally, what you can factor in as the ROI that the client has gotten from this, that you can come up with a formula to make a reasonable return for your effort. But the old model of saying, you know, he’s billed out at $375 an hour. It’s going to take 25 hours for this project. Here’s your price. And by the way, if there’s scope creep, we’re going to come back to you and tell you how many more hours that adds to the project. That’s not going to wash anymore. Not not under these circumstances. Especially by the way, I have to say, not when they can go to AI and ask the question before they come to you for that hour of phone time.

Neville Hobson: I think that’s a key. I mean, that’s the key thing. A client might say when you present the proposal, you just outlined, for instance, that they’ll say, you use AI. You’ve told us consistently how you’ve developed skills in how to use the tools that give you the results that you’re seeking. and you have expertise in that area. So if that’s the case, how come you’re me, you’re quoting me X hours at so much per hour at this price? So what’s your AI doing? better question might be, well, what are you doing in that case? So that’s something that we need to figure out. And I don’t think anyone has yet how to kind of Deflect that into the real questions that need to be answered, the real discussions that need to be going on, which is not that. That’s kind of an emotional based one. But the point you made, absolutely true. Anything you’re thinking of doing, the client’s already also looking at the AI tools they use to find an answer to that. They’ll be second guessing you even. In which case, that cannot sustain itself, that kind of model. It’s not going to suddenly vanish, I’m sure. And to your point too, I agree with you that some elements of service that you might provide that others will buy from you will probably still be time-based, such as the retainer model, for instance. Then again, I think your competition is the smart AI model, frankly. So that comes down to the, you you’re being… Your salary has been compared to a subscription now by the client in particular. So again, more change coming to communicators and not just communicate, but I’m focused on this. What does it mean to communicate? I’ve written about this a few times in my blog. I’ve had many conversations with people about this recently on how to counter the interference of AI. As one person put it to me, you can’t, it’s not interference. you’ve got to learn to live with it. You’ve got to learn to make the most of it, ally yourself with augmenting your ability and not just churning out stuff from a chat bot effectively and do what we’ve been discussing in previous episodes about hallucinations and setting out stuff riddled with errors because you didn’t check it. So your methodology has got to shift. And it doesn’t address the base question, which is how do we migrate as a general rule from time-based charging to value-based charging? I hear that question being asked a lot. I’m asking it too, and I don’t have an answer to that yet. So that requires some exploratory analytical conversation. And it may well turn out that there isn’t a single model that works for everyone, although there must be elements that will be consistent no matter what you do. And it requires significant input from your client or your employer to have that conversation that give you as the communicator, the kind of intelligent input you need from the business owner or your employer. What are they looking to achieve? What do they want exactly? And how can this help them achieve that? So we haven’t started any of that yet, other than asking the question. So we need to pay attention to this sooner.

Shel Holtz: yeah, we definitely do. But there’s one other factor to keep in mind here. And this is a phenomenon that I have been experiencing in addition to reading about it. And that is that for all of the productivity gains that we’re seeing from AI, and we are, mean, the time it takes my agent to go out and find those podcasts for me to do that would be hours with the agent. send it off. I go do something else and it delivers the results when it’s done, which is not hours and hours. It’s usually 15 or 20 minutes. But does this mean that I now have an extra day that I can take off because I have got all of my work done? No, I’m as busy as I ever was. I am filling those hours with work for my employer. I believe it is high value work and it’s either figuring out how to do something with the AI or managing those AI agents or creating the agents or skilling up the agents or it’s doing the things that AI can’t do. So yeah, I’m busier than I’ve ever been. And by the way, I know we’re not talking about the job-pocalypse here as we heard it referred to earlier. But increasingly, I know there are some things that AI can replace customer service agents being a great example. I think for most of the jobs out there, there’s elements of your job it can replace. It can’t replace the whole job. And for all of the companies I’ve seen announcing layoffs that are tied to AI, I have not heard one of them say, and these are the full-time agents that have replaced the full-time work that this person did. I think they’re just anticipating what they’re going to be able to do with AI. So I don’t think we’re going to see the job loss that we’ve been talking about because I think they’re going to realize that what we still need 70% of what this person does and he can devote more time and attention to that because the 30% that the AI can do, we’re going to let the AI do. So, the reason I point all this out. is that while companies may for a while think, who needs an agency? I can do all this with AI. They’re going to realize what they’re producing is slop, that they don’t have the time to put in the effort required to generate the right kinds of agents, the right kinds of skills, the right kinds of prompts. They don’t know how to assemble all of this together in a strategy. And they don’t want to take the time to work with AI to do it. my God, this is what agencies are for. I’m going to have an agency do it. So the agencies will take advantage of the AI, but I think there’s still going to be work for agencies to do. There just may be a valley as companies say, the AI can do all this for us before they realize, well, you know what? It really can’t.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I guess a short answer to this, there’s no single answer to how you do this. There’s no real way of proving value in an age of cheap intelligence, I suppose, to use that way of describing it. It’s going to get cheaper, according to Hassid, I agree, based on what he said in this, but also what I’m seeing others say. But there’s still a role. I think we need to be clear-eyed about what the future holds in this regard. And you’ve mentioned a good point, I think, about job losses and the way in which that’s currently playing out, where people are taking a big hammer to a tool that doesn’t require that at all to solve, where you’re just laying off people. You’ve got some leaders in some organizations who truly do not deserve to occupy those roles in those companies, the way they treat employees in this regard. But you’ve also got some very sensitive, empathetic people who don’t do it like that. So that’s the landscape we’ve got. In the meantime, I would say communicators need to think about this more. Even if you don’t know the answers, OK, compile all your questions then. Then do some research yourself even to find out what others say. Hey, I will help you do that. And at least get this on your radar before it’s too late.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and it is definitely going to get cheaper for no other reason that the AI companies don’t want to be spending the money they’re spending on their infrastructure, especially the power requirements. So they are investing in finding solutions to this, not because they are all deep, sincere environmentalists, but because it’s costly to them and they’d rather not be spending that money. All right, well, we’re going to shift away from AI again for a moment. Here’s a phrase that was,

Neville Hobson: There you have it. I bet you we’re not. Go on then, go on, go on, go on.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, bet we are. Well, maybe not entirely. Here’s a phrase that wasn’t in my vocabulary three months ago, the clipping economy. And if you’re a communicator, you need to know what this is because it’s already changing how content about your client or your employer travels and whether you have any control over where it ends up. Here’s what’s happening. A piece from NPR featured a 24-year-old guy in Antwerp, Belgium named Emre Bayraktar. He was working three part-time jobs. He was cleaning cars. He had the night shift at a warehouse. He was making sandwiches at Subway. But in his spare time, he’d take long influencer interviews, edit them into short clips and post them. And one night he got a notification telling him that he’d earned $12 on one of his clips. Two weeks later, he’d earned $2,500. Today, he runs a network of 40,000 freelance clippers. 40,000 individuals like him who take long-form content and turn it into short term clips. He runs that network and that’s the model. Streamers, podcasters, brands, even political campaigns post bounties on marketplaces and anyone with a phone and a video editor can claim the bounty by chopping up the long-form content into vertical clips and posting them to TikTok, Reels, Shorts, X. You get paid per thousand views. NPR cited recent bounties at a dollar per thousand views for Major League Baseball clips, $25 per thousand views for an AI startup. Forbes reported that generating a million views through one of these clipping companies, a company literally called Clipping, founded by a guy named Anthony Fujiwara, cost somewhere between a hundred bucks and a thousand bucks. Fujiwara’s company did $7.7 million in sales in 10 months. MrBeast started his own clipping company called Vyro late last year. Ed Elson, who co-hosts the Prof G Markets podcast with Scott Galloway, calls this the clip economy. And his argument is that the clips are no longer promotion for the show, the clips are the show. The live streamer, Hassan Piker, pulls about 33,000 viewers for a typical live stream. His average clip pulls 700,000 views. The clip is 20 times bigger than the thing it was clipped from. And Adam Rosenberg from Digiday says clips used to be the byproduct. Now they’re the product. And yeah, I’ve got personal evidence. This is true. I think I mentioned just recently someone I work with told me she does not watch Saturday Night Live. She’ll watch 10, 12, 13 clips so that she can see the funny bits. So what does this mean for those of us who work in PR and corporate communications? Let’s answer three questions. First, do you need to watch for Clippers using your client’s content out of context? Yes, always. The streamer Tim “TimTheTatman” Betar, told Digiday that being clipped out of context is now the cost of putting anything long-form online. Clippers will pull the line that fits a narrative they want to push and let it travel. If your CEO does a 45 minute podcast and says something deliberately provocative at minute 31 to make a setup payoff at minute 33, you should assume someone is going to clip the provocative part and lead the payoff on the cutting room floor. So monitor for that. Set up alerts on your client’s name across TikTok, Reels, and Shorts the same way you set up Google Alerts 20 years ago. And have a response plan ready because by the time you find the clip, it may already have a million views. Second, should legal get involved? Sometimes, but think carefully before you reach for the cease and desist. Frank Poh, who runs a creator focused law firm called Poh Law, told Digiday that publicity rights are the live legal issues here, meaning your client’s image, voice and likeness being used to sell something without permission. If a clipper is making money off a clip of your CEO, and especially if the clip is being used to promote a product, you have an argument. You have a case, but if it’s a clipper just monetizing views on a clip that’s substantially accurate, you’re probably stuck with the Streisand effect. Going after a clipper with 200 followers can generate more press than the clip ever would. Pick your battles, save the legal response for clips that are deceptively edited, false or commercially exploitative, and let the rest go. Third, and this is the one I expect people are going to push back on, Should you pay clippers to amplify your clients content? Well, here’s the case for it. The Digiday piece pointed to a clip of John Hamm dancing in a club on the Apple TV show, Your Friends and Neighbors, that went so viral that Hamm got asked about it on The Tonight Show. That’s an enormous earned media outcome from a 30 second clip. Spencer Pratt, the former reality star now running for mayor of Los Angeles, is openly running paid clipping campaigns through the Whop platform, and disclosing it, which is the right way to do it. fintech, crypto, and AI companies are the heaviest users of clipping farms precisely because they operate in legal gray areas. Most clippers don’t disclose payment, which means almost every paid ClipYou commission is potentially a violation of the Federal Trade Commission rules. Here in the U.S., the U.K. Gambling Commission has already taken enforcement action. X has flagged the practice publicly. Instagram CEO Adam Masseri put out a video on April 30th saying the platform will crack down on re-uploaders. And if you go down this road, you disclose every payment every time, no exceptions, and you assume that the FTC is reading your contracts. The clip not going anywhere. The question isn’t whether your client gets clipped, it’s whether you have a strategy for when it happens.

Neville Hobson: Well, that’s quite a story, I had not heard about this either. The whole idea of clipping farms or as the NPR piece wove its story quite skillfully in an interesting way about the kid in Antwerp, how he started out and then the other examples in there of these people. There’s not really a flip, but a kind of an alert note. that the ones who are making the real money on this, they say, tend to be the middlemen clippers rather than the original creators. And that, think, is clearly a sign that this is ripe for intervention by regulators and others in companies who see this kind of behavior. So this may well be one of those things that is temporary in the context of that. The idea of clipping, though, isn’t. And so some big names are going to move into this soon, I would guess. But the thoughts occurring to me when listening to what you were saying was, how does this kind of start? How do you find companies to do this? You asked a question not rhetorically on should your employee or client get involved in this? It’s high risk, but potentially significant. return on that risk, think, like the example you mentioned of the John Hamm example. I heard about that. I heard about that without realizing it was because of a clip. So this probably is one of these natural evolutionary steps in the stage of where we are with online communication, online digital communication that is generational largely, isn’t it? If it’s what is it, Gen Z or even Gen Alphas, I suppose. sharing all this stuff to TikTok and other places. I’ve not seen it on Facebook, but again, I wasn’t knowing what to look for. I’d make a point of looking. How do you identify this stuff, particularly if they’re not disclosing anything? Does it look kind of like, that guy posted this really interesting clip, not knowing that he’s a clipper? Definitely, you need to be aware of this from a communicator’s point of view. you’ve looked into this more than I have. So it’s difficult to say more than that at this point. But I think this is a phenomenon. It’s growing. We’re going to see more of this before, in some way or form, it gets regulated. I don’t mean that from an official point of view. But I don’t see this as remaining unfettered for much longer.

Shel Holtz: No, not at all. I mean, figure the kid in Antwerp has what, 44,000 clippers working for him. Then there’s the Whop and the one that MrBeast started. So you’ve got to figure there’s tens of thousands of people out there creating these clips. How many can they create in a day? Probably hundreds, if not more. And they’re probably flooding the Internet. We just don’t see them because we’re not looking for things that are associated with the tags.

Neville Hobson: Incredible.

Shel Holtz: that they’re putting on them. you’ve got to figure that people are seeing clips and assuming that they’re something that was created because somebody was passionate about it or it came from the company or it came from the person whose image you’re seeing when that may not be true at all. Somebody else is making bank off of that without permission and may not even need the permission. But I got to tell you, the next time I get somebody at my company placed on a podcast, assuming there is a video, I will be clipping that podcast and sharing those clips both to raise awareness of what our spokesperson said, but also to drive views back to the podcast so they can see everything that she said. I’ll be doing that. In fact, for on the same page, the new podcast I started with Steve Crescenzo, I am using a service called Opus Clip. That’s what they do is clips. You upload video. And it creates clips with the closed caption type of, here’s what they’re saying in real time. And I’ve been sharing those on TikTok and Instagram and Facebook and not X because I’m not there. But we’ll see if it drives any more awareness of the show, but this is real and it’s big and it’s important.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. Yeah, I did like the concluding part of the NPR piece where they where someone said, suddenly I realized clips aren’t the promotional material for the content. Clips are the content. And that, to your point on your colleague you mentioned, who doesn’t watch Saturday Night Live, watches the clips so she could pick out the best bits to her, the best bits that she finds on TikTok without watching the show. I do that with some stuff and I never realized, hey, that’s clipping. I didn’t realize that. So that actually got me thinking a bit about something I was doing not long ago with a podcast. I was contracted to a company to produce podcasts. We did a little bit of that. And I remember thinking at the time that the clips are getting more traffic than the actual podcasts. Okay, I have learned from, I should have. paid more attention to that. So maybe we could try with FIR. I mean, I’m thinking one of the reasons we don’t do that, I’m sure from suddenly speaking, just from my point of view in in producing content is I didn’t have time to do it. I have no time to spend. So I would look for something that made it dead simple to just create five clips and I could look at each say absolutely spot on with the have to say Now I need to edit the front and the back. No, no, Just give me that content. Riverside offers that tool, as you know. And maybe there’s something we can do there. But that might be interesting.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I haven’t been terribly impressed with Riverside’s clips so far. That’s why I’m paying separately for Opus, which I think does a better job. And they do give you some editing tools that makes it really easy to clean them up quickly. I picked on the same page for this for two reasons. One is every other week. So I have plenty of time between episodes to do this. And the other is it’s brand new. So we’re trying to gin up awareness. So we’ll see how it goes. I don’t have any metrics on this yet, but I’m really curious to see how it pays off.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, definitely worth paying attention to. The Wall Street Journal ran a piece on the 15th of May in its CIO Journal section that I think deserves more attention from communicators than it’s likely to get because on the surface it looks like an IT story, but underneath it’s something more interesting than that. The headline is, Companies have a new AI problem. Too many agents. The reporter is Belle Lin and she spoke to technology leaders at companies including Lyft, Davita, GitLab and FICO about a phenomenon they’re calling AI agent sprawl. We’ve talked about AI agents quite a bit recently. So this really is relevant to those conversations. Here’s the situation. As agentic AI platforms have become easier to use, we’re talking tools that even non-technical employees can operate without involving IT. People across organizations are spinning up AI agents. at a remarkable rate. Agents that summarize emails, write briefs, analyze data, automate workflows, conduct research. One company told the journal its 3,500 employees are creating dozens of new agents every single day. Another has over 10,000 agents already deployed. And Gartner projects that within two years, so that’s before 2030, the average Fortune 500 enterprise will be running over 150,000 agents. So that’s the average enterprise multiply that by how many Fortune 500 enterprises around the big numbers. The IT problem is obvious as the journal costs cybersecurity duplication conflicting outputs, but only 13% of organizations believe they have adequate governance in place. That’s a striking gap. Now here’s where I think communicators need to lean into this. When you have agents operating across an organization. often invisibly, often without central oversight, summarizing information, drafting communications, automating decisions, who is responsible for the accuracy and consistency of what those agents produce. And when something goes wrong, when an agent produces conflicting results or surfaces inaccurate information that makes its way into a client communication or an internal briefing, who owns that? Who manages the narrative around it? We’ve talked about agentic AI on FI before, as I mentioned, mostly from the angle of what agents can do and why communicators should be paying attention. This story is the flip side of that conversation. It’s what happens when agent adoption outpaces the governance frameworks needed to manage it. And it’s a reminder that governance isn’t just a technology challenge, it’s a communication challenge. Somebody in these organizations need to be thinking about transparency, accountability, and trust. And that sounds a lot like a communicator’s job to me. So we talked about some really serious errors made by organizations by not having the human in the loop, as I mentioned earlier. This, in my view, fits into that conversation, except it’s now become much more urgent if you’ve got this scale emerging, which clearly it is emerging. And what do we do about it? So is it the communicator’s job? I kind of qualify my own question. Sounds like a communicator’s job, but is it? What do you think?

Shel Holtz: Well, partly. I mean, there’s definitely a role here for IT and definitely a role for the senior leadership of the organization. But we absolutely have a part to play here. So I think one of the problems is that a lot of organizations establish their governance, their guardrails, their policies in the early days of Gen.A.I. as they saw employees starting to use it, say, hey, we’d better have some rules, especially since we’re going to adopt it. So many companies that had Office 365 contracts suddenly had access to Copilot and wanted to make that available. So they came up with their governor’s policies before anybody was talking about agents. Well, I can’t say nobody was, I’m sure they were at the AI labs and…

Neville Hobson: Yeah, just one, don’t forget, the journal says only 13% of organizations believe they have adequate governance in place, which means what? 70%, 80%, something percent do not have it in place at all.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, that’s the thing. And I think those are the ones that may think that they do because they spent a lot of time, they worked with legal and HR and they came up with their governance and now we have agents and the governance doesn’t address them. It addresses prompting and it addresses things like don’t put sensitive information into a prompt in a public AI model, doesn’t say a word about agents. So I think one thing we need to look at is revisiting the governance policies that we have. And here’s where a communicator can come into. into play is look at your governance and then propose some enhancements in the great language that only we communicators are able to craft and send those to legal NHR and IT and say, you know, we need to update our governance. Here’s a proposed draft and at least get things kick started. But, you know, not all of the agents are ones where we need to be thinking about them. Although, I think there are some issues where we could get involved, but I work in a construction company. I have project engineers who are doing things like submittals and RFIs, stands for requests for information. And a lot of that, I think there’s potential for agent work. I’m not that interested. If you can be more productive in your job as a project engineer, more power to you. I think where there’s some process. One of the things to worry about is I don’t want every PE spinning up their own agent independently. If somebody comes up with a good agent to do this with, we should be sharing that throughout the organization so that there are consistent results and we don’t have to be worrying about any mistakes or misphrasing or anything that went into the creation of an agent, creating bad results over here on this project, but great results on this one where they knew what they were doing when they spun up their agent. So there should be, I mean, that should be baked into the governance that says we don’t want, you know, 175 agents created by different people all doing the same thing. Where I get worried though is where they’re answering emails, where they’re answering customer service questions. You know, who reviewed the voice and the tone of those responses and who approved the messaging guardrails? When an agent says something wrong publicly, who’s accountable for that? If it’s a marketing message, is marketing responsible or is it IT? Nobody has the answers to this yet. And I don’t think anybody’s asking. We should be the ones who are asking.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, it’s, what a chaotic landscape we live and work in. I think, I agree, Shel. I mean, communicators have a clearly significant role. I could conclude as we’re saying, hey, communicators, this is another thing you’ve got to be getting involved in now in this. This is how you prove your value. So add this to the 15 new things that you now have to get to deal with. Here’s number 60.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I was just blown away when I read this, that the Pentagon staff used Google’s agent designer on genai.mil to vibe code more than 100,000 AI agents in about five weeks. They hold IL-5 authorization. That means they can deal with sensitive, unclassified data. Their chief deputy for intelligence said at a symposium, I’m on team go fast. So if corporate communicators think this is a problem, they have time to think about the military, the actor we’d expect to be most cautious is already at 100,000 agents and accelerating. Now, Gartner in step two of the process they outlined, step two is to build a centralized agent inventory. And that was framed as a technical thing. It tells IT what’s running. But for communicators, we need to know what they’re all saying, what tone, what facts, what brand voice. Our job is to make sure the inventory captures the messaging dimension, not just the technical one. Otherwise you end up with 150,000 versions of your brand voice. And once we’re able to analyze what they’re doing, we’re able to go back and say, hey, you need to adapt, adjust that agent. So it does this instead of that.

Neville Hobson: Well, interesting times ahead as always from everything we talk about here. I would say conclude, buckle up. That’s what I said.

Shel Holtz: Absolutely. Also something else to buckle up for, we have an interview coming in June. We haven’t had an FIR interview in a while, but we have a returning guest. He hasn’t been on the show in something like 15, 16 years, but Pete Blackshaw is joining us based on some work he has spent a couple of years doing about the role of AI in customer service. it’s going to be a great conversation. I was just blown away by what I read in his post about this. So looking forward to that. Yeah, watch for that in June. Also, of course, coming in June is our next long-form episode. We are going to record that on Saturday, June 21st and make it available on Monday the I’m sorry, it’s going to be on Monday the 22nd. We’re going to record on Saturday the 20th. I think I got that right. Anyway.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. Yeah. Looking forward. Yep. No, we’ll be recording actually on Saturday, yeah, the 20th, you’re right. And publishing on the 22nd,

Shel Holtz: The 20th. There you go. Yeah, I can count squares on calendars. But watch for that. It’s coming. And of course, we will have our midweek episodes in between all that. We do hope that you will comment on anything you’ve heard that raised a thought from this episode or from any of the upcoming shorter midweek episodes. You know where to share them. Send them to us at fircomments@gmail.com. Attach an audio file if you like. You can record that audio file right off of the FIR website, in which case you don’t even need to email us. We get that. There’s a tab that says send voicemail right there on the side of the page. You can leave comments on the post for this episode at FIRPodcastNetwork.com or wherever we share news about the latest episode dropping, LinkedIn, Bluesky, Threads. We’re everywhere. We’re everywhere except TikTok. right now, and maybe we’ll fix that if we start clipping. And that will be a wrap for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #515: Agents Everywhere appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

There’s a concept circulating in Platformer, the Reuters Institute, and Nieman Lab: the text-based social networks that defined the last 15 years of public communication may be in irreversible decline. Apptopia reports that Bluesky’s daily users are down 96% from January 2024; Threads has lost users in seven of the past eight months (down 61% from its October 2024 peak); and X has been “culturally altered.” At its peak, was Twitter less a replicable product category than a unique moment in media history? The mass audience has moved to short-form video, algorithmic feeds reward attention over the social graph, and platforms increasingly refuse to be referral engines.

Text still thrives in newsletters, Reddit, Discord, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and AI chat interfaces — what’s collapsing isn’t text, but giant algorithmic public feeds. Neville and Shel look at what this means for communicators: the promise of scale is giving way to relevance, trust, and consistency — a shift that requires a different approach to brand presence on social. Get details in this not-so-short midweek FIR episode.

Links from this episode:

• Are the Twitter clones in trouble?
• Pew: Americans’ Social Media Use 2025
• Pew: Social Media and News Fact Sheet
• Reuters: Mapping news creators and influencers in social and video networks

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, May 25.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Neville: Hi everybody, and welcome to For Immediate Release episode 514. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel: And I’m Shel Holtz. Communicators devote a fair amount of time to social media management. It’s no different where I work. We’re a smaller team in the construction industry, so we don’t have any dedicated social media resources. But whether it’s a company like mine, where it’s part of the job that somebody does, or a global brand like Wendy’s or Starbucks with a full-blown team, everyone’s trying to make an impact on social network users. The strategy behind those efforts may need an overhaul, though, to address the decline of text-based social networks. Platformer’s Casey Newton wrote about this recently, focusing on Threads, Bluesky, and X — but I think it’s fair to throw Facebook into the mix. Depending on whose numbers you believe, Threads has lost momentum, Bluesky never became the Twitter replacement that political journalists or media folks had hoped it would be, and X is, well, shall we say, culturally altered.

Meta and Bluesky dispute some of this third-party data, so I don’t want to overstate the precision of the numbers, but we shouldn’t shrug off the larger point. This isn’t about whether Threads beats X or whether Bluesky can recover, but rather about whether that old Twitter model can be rebuilt at all. And increasingly, the answer looks like probably not. Twitter at its peak was a real-time public layer for news, commentary, expert reaction, and professional visibility. Journalists, politicians, academics, CEOs, and PR people were all there reacting to each other in public. That gave communicators something we had never really had before: a live dashboard of what influential people were saying, what stories were breaking, and how publics were interpreting events in real time. The problem is that this depended on a specific set of conditions — a text-first interface, a public follow graph, a tolerance for public argument, and a shared assumption that this was where you went to see what was going on. Even with a small subscriber base compared to Facebook and a lot of other networks, Twitter was where news broke, and it was frequently cited in the mainstream media’s reporting.

Well, those conditions have changed. The mass audience has moved heavily toward video. TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts are now the primary discovery platforms for younger users in particular. News and commentary arrive as video, personality, remix, and clip. In fact, I was talking about this recently with someone I work with who said she doesn’t watch Saturday Night Live — she watches 10 or 15 of the clips that Saturday Night Live shares on YouTube so she can catch the funniest bits.

At the same time, the logic of the feed has changed. The old social feed was built around who you followed. The new algorithmic feed is built around what holds attention. A post on early Twitter spread because of the social graph. A video on TikTok spreads because the system thinks it’ll keep people watching. Now that changes the incentives. It rewards performance, emotion, personality, and visual fluency.

It’s also why the link-in-the-post model is fading. Social platforms don’t want to be referral engines. They want the content consumed inside the platform. You can’t conflate social engagement and site traffic anymore. For brands, this requires a pretty significant rethink. Today, social is less about sending people somewhere else and more about creating native moments of value right there, inside the feed.

The implication for communicators is that we can’t just ask, “What should we post?” We have to ask, “What role does each of these platforms play in our communication ecosystem?” Some platforms are for discovery, some for reputation, some are mostly listening posts — environmental scanning, sentiment tracking, intelligence gathering. Some platforms may not be worth the effort at all anymore. We also need more human voices.

The logo account is not adequate anymore. Trust attaches to people — experts, leaders, practitioners, analysts. That doesn’t mean every executive needs to be dancing on TikTok. In fact, please, no. But organizations do have to get better at helping credible people communicate in platform-native ways. The decline of the old public square forces us to build more durable relationships. What matters? Newsletters, podcasts, owned communities. LinkedIn still matters for professional audiences. So I’d resist the lazy conclusion that text is dying. Text is everywhere — in newsletters (which, by the way, is where I latched onto this story, in Casey Newton’s Platformer), in captions, in scripts, in search results. What’s dying is something more specific: the idea that a text-first social network can serve as the default global town square.

Twitter may have been less a replicable product category than a unique moment in media history. For communicators, the job is no longer to master the town square. The job is to understand the map after that square has gone to seed. Neville, is this what you’re saying?

Neville: It’s a lot. There’s a lot going on here to kind of zero in on a handful of potential responses, I suppose. But one thing does seem to be quite clear from all that you’ve outlined, which I believe is the case: Twitter probably was historically unique. And I think the issue, or an issue, is that everyone doesn’t think like that. They think it’s repeatable, it’s replicable. And it’s not. I think you could also see AI maybe accelerating the decline. Content abundance — so much of it. Authenticity is getting really difficult to judge. And everywhere is noisy. And that’s not what many people want.

So I guess, to crystallize it in a sense — you know, we’ve got all these elements you mentioned. The paradox of Bluesky: it hasn’t grown. Threads has got scale, but it doesn’t really have a big identity. It’s kind of part of Meta. What does it all mean for communicators? We’ll come back to that, I’m sure, in a bit. But I wonder — the thought that keeps recurring in my mind from everything I’ve read about this is that the decline may not be about text at all. That’s not to say it’s because they’ve all migrated to YouTube and video platforms. I don’t believe that’s the case either. I think, as you pointed out, and that’s obvious to all of us, the text itself isn’t disappearing. People talk about the decline of text-based social networks. But the audience hasn’t vanished. They’re just dispersed. They’re elsewhere. They’re not in a central place. There is no public square — no global public square.

No matter what the likes of Silicon Valley folks seem to think, there is no global public square. Or rather, there are places online that are accessible globally, but they’re not controlled by big platforms solely. Text isn’t disappearing. It thrives in the examples you mentioned — newsletters, Reddit, LinkedIn comments, Discords, WhatsApp, AI chat interfaces — probably 20 more examples you could give. So perhaps people still want text, but they don’t want giant algorithmic public feeds. I think that plays a big role in this. They don’t want the manipulation of algorithms to tell them, “This is what we think you want to read.” And that is still very strong on most big platforms today. They want to keep you on the site. They want to keep you engaged. They want you to keep doomscrolling, or whatever it might be. I think that shifts the conversation we should be having. It’s not about the decline of text — it’s that people don’t want giant algorithmic public feeds. What do they want? Well, they don’t know what they want, do they? They don’t.

You mentioned LinkedIn — definitely the interesting exception. I think there are multiple reasons why it remains one of the stronger environments for text discussion. I guess I’ll put it as questions, basically. Is it because having something like this — that’s kind of affixed to your professional identity — changes behavior, or rather reinforces “corporate” behavior that is different to how it would be on Facebook or on TikTok or other video platforms? Accountability is higher, reputational stakes are visible, audiences are contextual rather than anonymous. It works, I think, partly because people behave differently when attached to their real professional identity. Hence — you know, I saw one today, someone complaining about Facebook-like posts being published on LinkedIn: “Please stop doing that. This is a professional place.” That kind of comment. So I suppose you could say a useful contrast — to this point about people behaving differently — is outrage-driven engagement everywhere else compared to reputation-aware participation on LinkedIn. I thought that was quite a good contrast to make.

Outrage-driven engagement is very strong everywhere you look, but not on LinkedIn. People really don’t put up with that. So I think you have these elements that take part in all of this — that maybe smaller communities may be replacing mass audiences. And I think there’s a lot to be said in that. The smaller communities that would comprise, for example, niche communities, private groups, curated networks, newsletters, podcasts, creator ecosystems, if you like — much more than these algorithmically driven giant public feeds. I don’t follow much on the other traditional social networks. I prefer my own discovery on things like that. So maybe we’re moving from broadcast social media to relationship-based digital communities. And maybe this is just the start of that — which clearly has major implications for communicators and publishers. We can get into that, I suppose, in a bit. That broadly is what it looks like to me.

I’ve read the Reuters Institute’s report, I’ve read Nieman’s report, which actually are much wider than just talking about the decline of text-based networks, but there’s very much in there. There was an interesting article in Fast Company which looked at Bluesky’s limitations. I thought that was intriguing — what they wrote. The contradiction, they said, was that journalists and intellectual communities (and they define what they mean by that) still love Bluesky, but broader mainstream adoption remains elusive. And that is absolutely true. Little blips here and there of this group or that group moving away from X. Good example in the media: Deutsche Welle, the German broadcaster, announced, I think last week or the week before, that they have multiple — maybe 20 or 30 — Twitter handles, and they’re all going to shut down, and they’re moving it all to Bluesky. And I think — brave. Reality: X is still the place where significant public announcements are made. Look at what’s happening, for instance, in Iran — in the Iran war with Israel and the US — the propaganda battle between the two is taking place on X, mostly.

Trump, well, he’s got his Truth Social network, but I see people on X quoting Trump a lot. So governments, big corporations — but large groups tend to still be on X, in spite of what many, me included, would see as that being definitely a place not to be because of its toxicity. Deaf ears for that message, frankly, to people who are invested big in a place like that.

But what does it all mean for communicators? Well, you’ve touched on a few things, and maybe that’s something that we could explore a bit. But broadly, that’s what I’m seeing.

Shel: Well, I agree with you about the dispersion. I’m going to stick with the idea that the text-based social networks are in decline. You mentioned the German magazine that is sending all of their handles over to Bluesky.

Neville: Well, no — they are the big broadcasting and media organization, not a magazine.

Shel: Well, I’m sure Bluesky is going to be very happy about that. According to the Platformer article, Apptopia said that Bluesky has effectively collapsed as a competitive threat, with daily users down 96% from January of last year. That’s a pretty steep decline. If you look at Threads, which is turning three years old in July, Casey Newton writes that daily active users on the platform have declined in seven of the past eight months. After peaking in October 2024, just before the US presidential election, daily users are down 61%, and global monthly users have held up better at 388 million, but that’s still down from an estimated 400 million at the beginning of January of this year. So these are declining.

Elon Musk took over Twitter and turned it into X, and people saw what he was doing with it. They talked about, “I’m going to Threads,” or “I’m going to Bluesky.” A lot of them were saying they were going to Bluesky, and they ended up being the left-leaning people who couldn’t tolerate the rise of hate speech and rage-baiting on X. So they went to Bluesky and effectively turned it into a left-leaning echo chamber, with left-leaning people arguing among themselves. Meanwhile, one of the people Casey quoted in Platformer said on X that the extreme right is pulling everybody else further to the right because there’s nobody from the left there to argue with them. So that’s what’s happening in the text-based social networks. They are losing monthly and daily active users at a pretty alarming rate.

Where are they going? Well, the numbers for Instagram and TikTok and YouTube Shorts — the video platforms — are all on the rise. This is where people are going, and in particular, young people. I think one of the reasons LinkedIn is succeeding, in addition to the fact that it has a focus on business, is the fact that their algorithm, at least in part, focuses on who you follow. Whenever I log into LinkedIn, I see people that I know — not everybody who’s posted, but I do see people that I know. When I’m scrolling through Instagram, it’s a couple, but really, it’s trying to send me stuff it thinks I’m going to stick with rather than things from people I have connected with. So that makes me less interested in scrolling through Instagram. But I do find myself, when I see something — a video that’s in Reels and I tap it, it takes me over to Reels (this is on Facebook too, by the way) — I’ll find myself stuck there for a while as I’m looking at more of those short video clips. So they’re onto something in terms of what’s going to grab attention. But what does it mean for the public square? I think that — and we talked about that a lot in the early days of social media — you may remember the book Here Comes Everybody by Clay Shirky. I loved that book. It was so optimistic about the public square and about the ability for people to connect with each other. And I just think that’s fading. That’s not what social media is about anymore. And I think the algorithms have driven a lot of that.

Neville: I have a copy. Well, I think you’re right. Indeed, as far as Casey Newton’s piece goes, that same argument — Twitter traffic has collapsed effectively. Many other people are saying the same thing. The Reuters Institute talks about that. Nieman talks about that. Fast Company doesn’t quite say it in the same words, but talks about the tensions there. I totally agree with that. So I think, though, that it has more to do with the shifts in how people see public spaces to connect with other people. I think it reinforces some views you see about users turning their backs on social media. We’re seeing that a lot, and much of it generational, I’m sure. Commentary about fewer platforms and deeper relationships — I think they mean to say fewer platforms that interest people, or that matter to many people.

Industry reporting is showing that short-form video is dominating attention, as you mentioned — TikTok, for instance, and YouTube Shorts, stuff like that. Great, I get all that. But I think much of it might depend on how you use these networks yourself. And I’m not a big fan of algorithmically driven content at all. And, you know, I use LinkedIn maybe not the same as you. Indeed, my whole approach to it is different to what it was even two years ago, where it was important to connect with others and have people like your content and share it widely and all that. Those things aren’t important to me anymore. What is important to me, using LinkedIn as an example, is to connect with a handful of people whose opinions I really do value. And they are literally a handful — maybe two handfuls. I don’t really care about, you know, stuff getting shared 50 times and all that. So I pay attention to some of the metrics, but not a lot.

And I think, you know, Bluesky — I’m there since the beginning. Threads — I’m there since the beginning. And I’ve definitely noticed a change. I look at it this way, Shel: great, less noise, because there are fewer people in there now, which is wonderful — and new people. In fact, I use Bluesky in particular as a way to surface new people to connect with. Threads, that’s a different crowd entirely. And in fact, Threads is far more of a burgeoning community, let’s say, than other places are. But I think, you know, you kind of pause and look at the big picture and say, “Is this getting wider attention around, you know, for everyone?” Well, of course it’s not. It has very high attention amongst tech journalism, in the media and publishing industry — although both of their needs are different. Tech journalists, and I see this myself, actively discussing Bluesky, Threads, X fragmentation. You see a lot of commentary about that. We’ve just been talking about that. Media publishing industry — they’re concerned about traffic collapse and discovery. Comms professionals — attention is growing. And so our conversation today might be quite timely, especially among people who relied on Twitter professionally, says one bit of research that I pulled up. The general public — it’s very low. Yes, of course it is, because this is not mainstream. It will get there eventually, I suspect. Most users migrate without discussing the macro trend. They just move out of Twitter and go someplace else, or whatever it is. Academia and research are beginning to grow around Bluesky behavior and community structures elsewhere.

So people feel the change, but they’re not talking about it in a way outside these niche areas. Insiders are analyzing the change. That’s what a lot of the discussion is now. But generally speaking, no one’s really fully named the change yet. Is it a decline of text? Is it a decline of social network interest? Is it — whatever, whatever, whatever you think it might be. So I think the question, or rather the focus, isn’t or shouldn’t be on whether Threads or Bluesky are failing or collapsing. That’s the wrong perspective. It’s more, as we’ve mentioned earlier: were Twitter and others like it unique historical moments that you cannot recreate? In which case, are we looking at, you know, swathes of people looking for a home to go to? No, I don’t think so. I think most have found a place.

There is no longer a single place that’s a giant public square. There are multiple, and they’re all small. So are we going to see a kind of movement of thousands, maybe millions, of teeny niche communities? You could actually argue: what a nightmare for communicators. So that’s where your audience goes. But that’s what it looks like to me a bit, Shel, frankly. What I hear some people talk about, what I read — my own behavior, even — I’ve navigated myself to small communities. So I’m still a member of a number of LinkedIn groups, although, to be honest, most of them have really diminished in quality of content. A lot of people pimping their wares, full of consultants doing that kind of stuff. No value there at all. It’s almost like Facebook in that sense, where every other post you get interrupted by ads and stuff like that. So that’s going on too, by the way.

So is it fatigue? I think it could well be generational. I mean, I’m not looking right now at any research that supports that opinion, but it seems to me that, you know, if you’ve got migrations to video channels that are typically the home of younger-oriented people — younger-oriented communicators, I’d say — that’s where it is. I take a look at TikTok now and again. I’ve been on TikTok forever and I don’t contribute. I watch. It’s not my cup of tea, the kind of stuff there. The new successor to Vine, called eVine — I’ve got an account. I haven’t yet posted anything, because I couldn’t figure out what I want to say there. But I’ve looked, and there’s lots of interesting stuff. So I’ll keep that kind of perspective. On those, I’m a consumer as opposed to a creator and a sharer. On others, I create, and most of that’s text-based content. I don’t believe that’s always because I’m a boomer — far from it. That’s my preference. But I frequent these other places as well. Is that typical? I have no idea. I don’t think it might be. But who knows?

But I think this is definitely a conversation to have in terms of what it means for communicators more than anything. So, you know, audience building is going to become harder for communicators. That’s how I see it. Owned channels are becoming far more important. Trust matters more. We know that from all the conversations we’ve been having and what we can observe ourselves. Community matters more than reach. I believe that. Personality matters more than scale — I don’t see evidence of that, but maybe that is true. Consistency matters more than virality. I think that’s going to become increasingly more important, and that’s connected with trust.

So the old social media promise was scale, right? The emerging model may be relevance and trust. Are we seeing an emerging model? I’m not sure, but that’s where the direction of travel looks like it’s going, it seems to me.

Shel: Well, it starts with, I think, brands needing to adopt the philosophy that you just articulated with your subscription to eVine — not posting anything because you haven’t figured out what to post there. I think a lot of people in social media create content, they reformat it appropriately for each channel, and throw the same piece of content into all those platforms. That won’t work anymore. I think you need to look at each platform, look at the people who are there, and figure out what you want to share that’s relevant, that will resonate, that will produce some kind of movement of the needle. And for those where you can’t answer that question, maybe it’s time to abandon those networks as a brand. As an individual, go where your people are. We’re not talking about what network you like personally. For people who love being on Bluesky, I’m not suggesting that you stop. Go wild. Have a great time on Bluesky. But is it a place to share the content that you’re sharing from your organization? Is there a way that you can craft content that’s going to work there? Maybe, maybe not, but it’s time to reevaluate that based on these trends.

Neville: Yeah, I think so. I think so. I mean, I think things like human voice, the individual voice, the demonstration of judgment — making judgments about something, your own lived experience and the intentional participation you exhibit by being on a certain platform — I think are increasing. Not scaled. I mean, this is small beer compared to the scaling that used to be the important thing. But they’re all connected with what we’ve been talking about: trust, authenticity, oversight, the evolving role of communicators in AI-shaped environments, to quote a phrase. I mean, it’s all in there too. Whatever — we think communicators need to be paying close attention to this in a macro sense, and indeed maybe the micro sense without getting into the weeds or anything — just be aware. So I pay attention to a lot of this stuff. I may not read every Reuters Institute report or Nieman report — not all. I’ll read the executive summaries. It’s a bit like, you know, the TikTok clips — I’ll look at the clips to get interesting stuff out of it and reflect. Do I think this is something that people I’m connected with will be interested in knowing? And that drives a lot of what I write about on the blog, for instance, which is AI-heavy these days. I think this is important to pay attention to. Perhaps public social networking is in decline. Maybe it is. But the social behaviors in small groups are definitely not. And that’s the thing to keep in mind — those two contrasts.

Shel: Yeah, and that requires a whole different approach than we’ve been taking — to this blasting this content out. And that will be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #514: Was Twitter A One-And-Done Phenomenon? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Most agency owners know AI can write a first draft or clean up copy. Far fewer have figured out how to use it as the strategic sounding board they’ve always needed.

In this episode, Chip and Gini explore how to use AI tools as a thought partner, not just a content machine.

Gini’s example is a client who asked her to map what a PESO model maturity ladder would look like for an organization. She described the situation and constraints to Chat GPT, and keep pushing the conversation forward. Six weeks of iterative back-and-forth surfaced ideas she wouldn’t have reached on her own, including finding the gaps when the AI was willing to poke holes in her thinking.

Chip points out that for owner-led agencies, that 8pm Friday idea you don’t want to dump on your team now has somewhere to go. The tool doesn’t care what time it is, and it has no stake in whether your idea succeeds or embarrasses you. Both hosts advise to direct the AI to ask you questions rather than just answer them. It takes some coaching to get a tool that genuinely engages rather than validates everything you propose, but once you’re there, you start getting real value.

One warning they have is that these tools are not always consistent. The same AI that helped you build a strategy three weeks ago might question it today with equally compelling reasoning. Stay in the driver’s seat, and treat AI-generated recommendations as input, not conclusions. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 305: How agency owners can use AI as an always-on thought partner appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Welcome to the first-ever episode of On the Same Page, the new employee communication podcast from communication veterans Shel Holtz and Steve Crescenzo. In this first episode, Shel and Steve tell their origin story, recount how this podcast came to be, what listeners can expect, and riff on how to tap into managers to help support communication to their team members.

We hope you’ll participate in the show by sharing your comments, questions, experiences, and anecdotes by sending an email to fircomments@gmail.com (include an audio clip; we’ll play it), or commenting on this page or on the announcement posts on LinkedIn, Facebook, Threads, or BlueSky. As you can see below, you can also watch the YouTube video version of the show.

Raw Transcript:

Shel Holtz: If your managers are improvising messages, you don’t have a communication strategy, you have a rumor pipeline.

Steve Crescenzo: Manager communications — one of the most misunderstood and ignored parts of employee communications, but one we need to pay attention to. But before we get there, welcome to the first-ever episode of On the Same Page.

Shel Holtz: Now, factoring managers into communication is the kind of challenge, Steve, you and I are going to be talking about here on this brand spanking new internal comms podcast.

Steve Crescenzo: I prefer to say employee comms podcast show, but we’ll be sure to be talking about that as we go. Yeah, we’ve obviously launched this podcast for communicators primarily, but we’re also hoping some managers listen in, some executives, some leaders, some CEOs — they could all benefit from what we’re going to be talking about, right?

Shel Holtz: Absolutely. This is for anybody who’s engaged in communication inside the organization, whether it’s the formal communication that is the work of we employee communicators, or just people who know that they have to do it, whether that’s senior executives or department managers or whomever. But we’ll cover one dimension of employee comms, internal comms, whatever you want to call it — EC/IC — in each episode.

Steve Crescenzo: Yep, exactly right. And yeah, you know, if you work in an organization, you have to communicate. You may not do it for a living, but you have to communicate. So why don’t we tell the gang where — you and I have known each other for 30 years, 32 years, something like that. And we’ve talked about this before, and we always say we’re going to do it. We never do it. You’re already doing podcasts, and I’m lazy. I’m like, this is extra work. I never give myself extra work. But this is the right time to do it. Why do you think I finally caved and you finally said, you know, we need to carve out time for this. Why now?

Shel Holtz: Well, there’s a couple of reasons. Some are based on what’s going on in the world right now, and some are based on the fact that I’m working on a book that covers all this. And it has the same title as this podcast. The topics we’re going to cover come from the framework from this book. The book is a framework for internal comms — employee… I call it employee communications in the book, by the way. And I do that for a very specific reason. I got some pushback on that from one of the internal communications experts, thought leaders out there, whom I asked to review it. And he said, call it internal comms, don’t call it employee comms because there are other audiences that are internal besides employees. And I said, yeah, but this book is just for communicating with employees because they are, as Roger D’Aprix called them, informed insiders. Those other people, the contractors that come in and are embedded in the organization — yeah, they’re there, they’re getting a lot of that internal messaging, but they’re accountable to the values and the purpose of the company that they work for, the one that pays them.

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, they have their own mission and values and everything. Yeah, I’m glad you stuck to your guns on that, Shel.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and I do think internal communicators need to factor in those audiences, those stakeholders, but not for the purposes of the book that I wrote. That’s really aimed at employees. The framework came when I was an independent consultant. I haven’t been one of those for — it’ll be nine years in October. It really is. The older you get, the faster that time goes by. But when I was doing independent consulting, I found myself sort of reinventing this on every engagement, particularly on internal communication audits. And I said, this is ridiculous. If I just had the framework fleshed out, I could just pull it out and I could do the audit report much more quickly. So I sat down and I came up with it, and I worked with a few other people to get their thoughts. And finally I had it in front of me and I said, it looks like there’s about 28 elements of this. I ought to flesh these out. So I did a blog post for each of them. And about halfway through, somebody said, you are going to turn this into a book, aren’t you? And I said, well, I hadn’t thought about that. But now that I have, yeah, I will. So that took — yeah, all of this has taken 15, 16 years since I first sat down and hammered out the framework. And I mean, I had some great help. Brian O’Mara-Croft actually did the visuals to take my terrible graphic and turn it into something that looked nice.

Steve Crescenzo: Hello, Brian. Hello, Brian. Well, I’m very lucky in that I’m one of the rare people who’ve read the book and really, really love the book. And when you said you wanted to start a podcast to further explore the topics in that book, I was all over it. Now, there’s so much to cover, but we’ve got the rest of our lives, Shel, right? Well, I’m not going anywhere. You got at least five years left, right?

Shel Holtz: My dog has at least five years left and I don’t want to leave her alone.

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, when he goes, you go, probably. But we’re gonna try to stick to, what, about 20 minutes? I mean, that’s hard for me and you. I think that’s gonna be hard. That’s gonna be our biggest challenge. I’ll tell you that right now. I got a lot to say, and I want a lot to learn from you, and I got a lot of opinions, so it’ll be tough to stick to 20 minutes, but we can.

Shel Holtz: It will. We’ll try. My view on the length of podcasts — and anybody who’s listened to FIR already knows this — is that they should be as long as it takes to say what you wanted to say, as long as it remains interesting for the people who are listening. If people are going, my God, they’re just droning on and on, I’m going to go listen to something else, then…

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, I always get the question in my writing workshops about how long can an online article be? And I said, as short as humanly possible without leaving anything important out. That’s it. Not an extra word after that.

Shel Holtz: I think that’s a great answer. So we’re going to shoot for 20 minutes. If we go over, we’ll go over. If during the editing process I think I can make it shorter without leaving out anything that needed to be said, I’ll edit mercilessly. But the point here is to be entertaining and informative at the same time. And that’s why I wanted to do this with you, Steve — besides your experience with employee communications, all the various companies you’ve worked with, everything you’ve learned. I figure you and I are gonna host an entertaining show.

Steve Crescenzo: Have some fun. We’ll have fun. These things aren’t worth it. We’re not getting paid, Shel. I don’t know if you realize that, but we’re not getting paid. Well, you gotta have fun. We’re love. So we’re gonna do one every other week, right?

Shel Holtz: No, this is a labor of love. And speaking of that, we’re going to bring your wife into this every now and then.

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, we’re gonna — that sounds kind of weird. All right, let’s just take… but yeah. We’re gonna bring Cindy in once in a while. We’re not gonna have a lot of guests though, right? Do we agree to that?

Shel Holtz: Now, the goal here is not to do another interview podcast. This is two people who have been doing internal comms for their entire careers and sharing what we have learned and what we know around each of these topics that we will introduce. And these topics — we’re not going to do a topic just once. We’ll come back to them as there are new things to talk about. But when we get to measurement, that’s Cindy’s area of expertise. She works with you at Crescenzo Communications.

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, she runs our audits. She’s a measurement queen — dashboards, measuring behavior, not outcomes, outputs. I mean, she lives and breathes that stuff. So yeah, you know, there’s open marriages where they introduce somebody else into the marriage. And this is an open podcast. Once in a while, we’ll bring Cindy in.

Shel Holtz: And once in a while, we’ll bring in another communicator, presumably somebody who is doing this in an organization, but not to interview them — just to have the conversation with them because they have expertise or experience around the topic that we’re discussing.

Steve Crescenzo: So, you know, people know you and people know me, but they may not know us and how long we’ve known each other. So I remember the first time I met you. It was in New Orleans, and I had just almost pretty much just started at Ragan Communications. I was a nobody, you were already well known. And it was the days of CompuServe. And I went out to CompuServe and I met you and Pete Shinbach and Charles Pizzo and Craig Jolly. And you guys were doing like a barnstorming tour all over the place. And Charles Pizzo invited me down to New Orleans, which is where he lives, to be the lunch speaker. So you guys are going to handle all the heavy hitting, all the big topics, and I’m going to come in and be the lunch speaker — my first speech ever, except for college. I threw up right before I got on the stage and it went great. I said, you know what? I don’t know how else to do this but to be myself. And I’m a little unfiltered. I’m a little irreverent. I’m a little — whatever you want to call it — unprofessional, maybe. But I got up there and I did what I did. I just do what I do. And it was a huge hit. And it basically launched my career. And then we went on to have one of the most epic weekends of all time at Jazz Fest.

Shel Holtz: I remember this well enough to know that you were physically sick at the idea of getting up and speaking in front of people. Not to mention an epic dinner at Emeril’s.

Steve Crescenzo: Oh, that 12 courses in his wine cellar at Emeril’s. God, I’ll never forget that meal. And then since then, we’ve been on vacation together. You and I did a barnstorming tour with our wives up and down the East Coast, from Boston all the way down to D.C.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, we did. We stopped and saw a concert in Hartford, Connecticut on the way. We had many good meals. And yeah, you spoke the first day, I spoke the second day. And the wives hung out with whichever of us was not presenting. We went out and did stuff. And then we were all together for our drives between locations. We didn’t fly from place to place. We rented a car and we drove. But we vacationed.

Steve Crescenzo: That’s right, you’re Dead. Dead. Yeah, no, we drove. We drove. You know, the reason we’ve never done that again, because every time I was speaking, Michele would try to get Cindy to spend money shopping, and we couldn’t afford it at the time. I was barely making any money.

Shel Holtz: I remember that well. I think you had more money when we spent a week together in Hawaii.

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, we were doing a little better then. It helps that it was free for us because of your kindness. You know, we promised we would talk about managers as communicators.

Shel Holtz: Yes, we did.

Steve Crescenzo: So, what I’d like to tell you is what’s happening in Crescenzo Communications. And this is a really good thing. I want to say this is a good thing. We are getting at least eight to 10 requests every year now to directly address managers on how to be more effective communicators, how to carry the water, how to explain complicated business initiatives to your teams. People — I used to say, you know, we speak to the communicators about how to galvanize managers, and how to — don’t give them a big toolkit, don’t give them some big obnoxious thing they’re never gonna pay attention to, but you can help them communicate. I would always go to the communicator. Lately now, the communicators are bringing us in and saying, we just want to talk to our managers directly. And that’s happening more and more. I think people are finally kind of starting to get it a little bit, that — yeah, channels are important, yes, messaging is important, our vehicles are important, what we do as corporate communicators is important, but where the rubber hits the road is down there at the work level, and the frontline supervisors and the managers.

Shel Holtz: I used to resist this like crazy. I understand that managers are important in the communication mix. If you look at research, you ask employees, what is your preferred source of information on these 10 things? And five of them will be my manager. And the reason for that is that those five things are going… my phone is ringing.

Steve Crescenzo: Oh, okay.

Shel Holtz: It’s my cable company trying to upsell me. Okay, let me go back to that.

Steve Crescenzo: Okay.

Shel Holtz: If you look at surveys that ask employees what is their preferred source of information, you give them a list of 10 things, five of them will be my immediate supervisor. And the reason for that is those five things are going to have an impact on the way they do their work, on what their outputs are supposed to be, what’s expected of them in that department, on that team. And the manager is the one they expect to know — what are we supposed to do different here? You’re not going to ask your manager to explain a new benefit or the strategic plan; those things you expect to hear from the benefits department or the executive team. But if it has to do with what you are expected to do differently — this change that we’re making is going to drive some kind of change in your team — the manager is the one who’s going to talk about that at the ground level. My issue has always been that managers are never held accountable for communication. And every one of them does it differently. I mean, let’s face it, most managers were not promoted into their position because of their great management style. They were promoted because of what they were doing as an individual contributor, and they kept getting promoted and promoted, and to get promoted again and to get more money, now they have to be a manager because that’s the hierarchy of the organization. So because they did this great work as an individual contributor, they now have people reporting to them. Most companies will put them through some kind of training. My company does. It’s called management essentials. There is a communication module. But again, they’re not held accountable. And you ask them to communicate, and some of them will forward the email to their employees, some of them will mention it at a meeting, some of them won’t do anything, some of them will do a great job, some of them will do a terrible job. But manager communication, to me, was always like that children’s party game of telephone, where you whisper something into the ear of the first kid, then they whisper it into the ear of the next. By the time it gets to the last kid, the message has been corrupted so much it doesn’t sound anything like what was whispered into the ear of the first kid.

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah. I’m the living embodiment of that. When I came out of college — and I had like 85 jobs in college and leading up to college — I’ve only had two jobs since college: Ragan Communications and Crescenzo Communications. But I started at Ragan as an editor and I was good at what I did, I guess. Next thing I knew, I had six people reporting to me, and I couldn’t stand it. I was a terrible manager. I wasn’t relaying information. I would just do the work myself. I hated all the people that worked for me after a while because I just — I wasn’t a good manager. I’d skip them. I didn’t do them sometimes. Here’s a great example. One of the guys that we worked with had such bad body odor. And everybody came to me and said, you gotta tell him he can’t ride his bike to work, he’s gonna stink up the office. And I was like, I’m not telling him that. They said, it’s your job, you’re his manager. I’m like, no, I’m not doing it. You want to tell him? I was just terrible. But that’s exactly… You remember this guy, what was his name? Grunig, Grunig…

Shel Holtz: I bet you hated doing performance evaluations. Jim Grunig.

Steve Crescenzo: Grunig, that was his name. Grunig. Jim Grunig. He wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review about how companies shouldn’t even have communications departments. They should just pour all their money into helping managers communicate. Forget about a newsletter, forget about this, forget about that, town halls — forget all about it. Pour everything into the managers. And I was asked to debate him once in Toronto. And I’ll never forget, I went up to him before the debate and I said, hey, let’s do a real debate. I said, because I really disagree with you. Don’t be one of these conference debates where we basically just agree with each other the whole time and we’re nice to each other. I vehemently disagree with you. So let’s have it out. And we had a slugfest up there. And I just disagreed with him. I think that — truth be told, now with a little more wisdom — I was young then, we probably had to meet in the middle somewhere. Communicators should put more emphasis on managers and help them communicate. Help them localize the corporate news for their teams, make it relevant to their teams, start conversations, gather questions from employees. We should be helping managers do all that. In the meantime, we also need enterprise-wide communications and all the good stuff that we’re good at.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and I’m really glad that communication teams are recognizing the importance of this to the degree that they’re asking you to come out and talk to managers. And I’m glad you’re getting that work. But it’s like anything else that we’re doing right now — it’s a one-shot thing. And in a year, managers will have moved on. The pressures of the job, the expectations for their teams, the numbers they need to produce. And the simple fact is, if you’re looking at your performance review, and 90% of what you are scored on is all about productivity, and 3% is communication, you’re going to blow off the communication. So what we need to do is find ways to make sure that we have an ongoing dialogue with managers where they understand what it is that they need to communicate without putting extra pressure on them. For example, where I work, we do a monthly email newsletter called Manager Talking Points. And the first thing is four bullets, right? We want you to remind your employees of this. We want you to tell your employees this. If it’s a big deal, we’ll also put out something we call Manager Briefing, which is an FAQ on the topic so that they can answer specific questions. We’re not trying to get them to become communicators, but we are trying to promote consistency of…

Steve Crescenzo: But it’s still short, it’s tight, right?

Shel Holtz: …the primary message, while leaving them the room to say, here’s what this means to us here in this team, this department, this location.

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah. I’ve never, in all my years of building the companies and helping managers communicate all over the world, I’ve never seen a manager’s toolkit, for lack of a better word, work if it’s extensive — if there’s “watch this video, do this, do that.” Every time we do focus groups with managers, and Cindy does a hundred a year, maybe 50 a year for our audience, they all start off by saying, I don’t have any time to communicate. I don’t have time to communicate. After Cindy digs in a little bit, as you do in a focus group, she gets to the bottom — they say, well, you know what? They do have time to communicate. They communicate every day to their teams. They’re talking to their teams every day. They just don’t know what to communicate. They don’t know what’s for their ears only, what they should pass on. That’s why one of the things we do whenever we do a newsletter for managers, we always do Know, Do, and Share. Put them in categories. Here’s stuff we need you to know — this is just for the managers’ ears. Here’s stuff we need you to do as a manager. And here’s what we want you to share with your employees. It makes it very easy for them to share that information. And lately what we’ve been doing is including conversation starters where they can actually talk — that way they can facilitate that two-way up and down communication. And you know what, managers appreciate it. They appreciate the help. They don’t want to be bad communicators. You know, I was just out at PG&E, in your neck of the woods, Shel — San Francisco. And I was addressing 600 people leaders at PG&E. And I got there and I said, how many people here have miscommunicated? How many people here have screwed up a communication to their teams? Every hand went up. I said, how many people did it out of malice? How many people did it because you wanted to sow confusion? You wanted to irritate? You wanted to bring productivity to a halt? You’re just a bad, lousy, rotten person. Every hand went down, of course. I said, no, we just — we have bad habits. We write too long. Our emails aren’t clear. We don’t like to get negative feedback. I mean, we got bad habits, and communications can help managers get rid of some of those habits.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, absolutely. And I think they appreciate learning how to do something that is going to advance their own careers, which, by the way, is something that we can also impress upon them — is if you do a good job of communication, you’re going to get better outcomes from your teams. You’re going to get more promotions and more money and more prestige within the organization. But we’re not trying to turn them into communicators. We’re not trying to make them do what we do.

Steve Crescenzo: No, no, they have a job! They have a job!

Shel Holtz: They do, but we are trying to make them better managers. And in my framework, under employee engagement, one of the four topics listed there is engaging managers. And if you want to be an engaging manager and boost the engagement of your employees, being a better manager who communicates well is a big part of that.

Steve Crescenzo: Shel, I like that. That’s for our first podcast — that’s a keeper right there. We are not trying to turn managers into communicators. We’re trying to help them be better managers using communication. No, I didn’t say that right. I agree — we are not… I like that. Close enough, Shel, come on, for God’s sake, edit that out. No, no, I like that. You said it. It was really good. We’re not trying to turn managers into communicators. We’re trying to help them be better managers using communication tactics.

Shel Holtz: Exactly. Close enough. I can pull it out of the transcript later. Exactly what I said. Yeah. So, and by the way, I’m sure that when you implemented those newsletters for managers, you had a mechanism for measuring how effective they were.

Steve Crescenzo: I didn’t implement them, Shel. I started them. We don’t implement over here. Yes, we launched, and we started. We didn’t facilitate them. We didn’t implement them. We didn’t utilize them. Yes, we did. Yes, we did. And you know what? One of the companies we did that for was the Mayo Clinic. I know we have to get to the end here, but we did it at the Mayo Clinic. And now Cindy and I just finished a project where we interviewed 50 Mayo Clinic nurses, leaders, nurse leaders.

Shel Holtz: Got it. The client did it. But you provided the client with the means of measuring how effective they were.

Steve Crescenzo: We built a whole 41-course curriculum for them. And we heard in our interviews that they love the manager newsletter — it’s called Supervisor Update — because it has that Know, Share, Do. They love them. People said it without knowing that we were the ones that created it, that we gave them the format. They just talked about, yeah, this was really effective. I like doing this. I like getting that newsletter because it’s quick. Tells me what I need to pass on to my team. So yeah, the measurement’s there. If we can help them communicate without taking up a lot of their time, that’s the silver bullet.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. Yeah, for my Talking Points newsletter, the measure is real easy. I get a list of 50 random employees who are frontline workers. I send them a survey. It’s four questions. Did your manager in the last week or two talk to you about this? How about this? What about that? All four of those points. And we can find out if these messages are getting passed along.

Steve Crescenzo: Oh wait, so you bypass the managers, you go right to the people, and you can figure out if the managers are using your bullet points? That is smart. That’s something — every time I talk to you, that’s smart.

Shel Holtz: Yes. Yeah. And I’m able to detect trends — which kinds of talking points they are inclined to share, and which ones, I guess, bore them and they don’t share.

Steve Crescenzo: Now if there’s one manager who’s particularly not doing anything, do you snitch on them? Do you rat them out?

Shel Holtz: We don’t know who’s answering. It’s an anonymous survey. But what it tells us is that we need to find a different channel to communicate these messages because managers aren’t passing them along. While at the same time working with managers to get them to understand the importance of sharing this information.

Steve Crescenzo: Well, I hope this isn’t going to be the last time we talk about manager communications.

Shel Holtz: I can’t imagine that it is. We are going to talk about other things, though, like the elements of culture where employees can have an impact. The other enablers of employee engagement, like organizational integrity, closing the say-do gap between what leaders say and what they actually do. Strategic narratives, elevating the employee voice.

Steve Crescenzo: Love it. There’s so much on my mind, and luckily it all does fit into your framework. You know, the employee experience, how they can influence the customer experience, how can you turn them into ambassadors? And obviously we’re going to talk a little bit about AI, Shel — I mean, you’re Shel Holtz. But I’m hoping to learn from you about AI.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, we’ll definitely talk about technology. I can’t imagine that we could do this whole podcast without talking tech. But we’ll get down to some of the fundamentals too, like delivering the news to employees. I’ve talked to some communicators who are so into the strategy, they don’t think they need to share news anymore, but the news is how we create a shared reality in the organization.

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, yeah, I love that. We got to have the two C’s — crisis and change communications — both of which are often butchered. Well, it’s just going to be fun, Shel. I can’t wait. Can’t forget those. Are we doing it every other week, right?

Shel Holtz: Every other week. I can’t swear what day it’ll be. I’m not going to promise the first and the 15th or every other Thursday, but twice a month. And you’ll be able to get this wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribe. And it’ll also be on YouTube on the FIR Podcast Network. That’s also where this one will live — on the FIR Podcast Network at FIRpodcastnetwork.com. That’s where Neville Hobson and I have been doing For Immediate Release for 21 years.

Steve Crescenzo: I know.

Shel Holtz: So you have to look forward to, Steve, will be doing this when I am in my nineties.

Steve Crescenzo: Well, I want to end with one more anecdote about you and your podcast and your ability and your forethinking. Is that a word? Forethinking? Your thinking forward, your forward thinking. My wedding to Cindy was 20 years ago. And you’d pretty much almost just started the podcast. And you showed up, came into my house, like the day before the wedding, with your suitcase — your podcast suitcase. Remember that? And you had all this equipment.

Shel Holtz: It is now. I do.

Steve Crescenzo: Run it all over the dining room table, and you did your podcast from my house. Probably that was the first year you were doing it, right?

Shel Holtz: Yeah, it would have been. I had a travel mixer and a travel mic. I don’t use a mixer anymore. I don’t need that stuff anymore because of what’s available online. But yeah, I absolutely remember that.

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, yeah, I remember all that. I remember — what kind of nerd brings podcast stuff to a wedding? But you’re dedicated, man. You are dedicated.

Shel Holtz: Well, we did them on a regular cadence and had to get it done. So, yeah. And I think I came to your place because the Wi-Fi in the hotel wasn’t cutting it.

Steve Crescenzo: That’s awesome. That’s great. Yes, that’s right. That’s right. You couldn’t do it in a Starbucks, you told me. I remember that very clearly.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, well, a little too much ambient noise in a Starbucks. But anyway, we’re recording this first episode for two reasons. One, you have to do a first episode that tells people what it’s all about. But two, you can’t get listed in the podcast directories until you actually have an episode in the RSS feed. So this will be an episode that will get us listed in the directories so that you’ll be able to find us there, everybody.

Steve Crescenzo: Yeah. Is that why we did this? I don’t even know. Okay. Now, can people comment on the podcast — like ask us questions?

Shel Holtz: Yeah, absolutely. We will let people know when there’s a new episode up. We’ll share some information about it through the social channels, primarily LinkedIn, Facebook, Bluesky, and Threads. And we’ll also have the post on the FIR Podcast Network. You can comment there. You can comment where we leave the announcements on the social feeds. We’ll check them all, and we will use those as launching points for additional conversations.

Steve Crescenzo: All right, my friend. Well, I want to thank you for asking me to do this. I’m looking forward to it every other week. Plan on learning a lot, plan on laughing a lot, and I will see you in a couple of weeks.

Shel Holtz: I’ll see you then. It’s going to be a blast.

The post Managers As A Communication Channel appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Neville and Shel dig into a provocative Harvard Business Review article that argues most marketing teams are structurally unprepared for the speed and scale that agentic AI now enables. The bottleneck, the authors contend, isn’t the technology; it’s the operating model. Neville and Shel connect the piece to conversations FIR has been having for the past year: AI as orchestration rather than automation, professionals shifting from supervisors of tasks to directors of systems, and 2026 increasingly framed as “the year of the agent.”

At the center of the Harvard piece is the idea of a “brand code” — a machine-readable knowledge system that lets specialized AI agents continuously create, adapt, test, and optimize marketing in real time. Communications urgently needs its own equivalent: a “narrative code” containing executive voice profiles, message hierarchies, sensitive-topic guardrails, and escalation rules. Whoever builds it first, he warns, will inherit the agentic stack, and if marketing gets there first, comms will be stuck with a system never designed for crisis, controversy, or stakeholder complexity. The episode also includes some concrete examples and early thoughts on Hermes, Wispr Flow, and where human judgment still has to win.

Links from this episode:

• Redesigning Your Marketing Organization for the Agentic Age
• The Year of the Agent: What it means for the future of communications
• Google Summary: The Year of the Agent: What it means for the future of communications
• If you work in PR and you’re unsure how AI agents will help you, this should help.

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, May 25.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Shel: Hi, everybody, and welcome to episode number 513 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville: I’m Neville Hobson. Over the past couple of years, we’ve heard countless conversations about how AI is changing marketing and communication. Most of those discussions tend to focus on tools — faster content creation, better personalization, workflow automation, synthetic media, analytics — all the things AI can supposedly do more quickly and at greater scale than humans. A new article in Harvard Business Review published last week takes the discussion somewhere much bigger.

Its argument is not simply that AI will improve marketing productivity. Its argument is that AI may fundamentally redesign how marketing organizations themselves operate. The article is called “Redesigning Your Marketing Organization for the Agentic Age,” and the authors argue that most marketing teams are structurally unprepared for the speed and scale AI now enables. The reasoning is interesting; we’ll look into this in a minute.

AI has already accelerated software engineering and product development dramatically. Products, updates, campaigns, and features are being developed and shipped much faster than before. But marketing organizations, they argue, are still largely built around sequential workflows, siloed teams, approval chains, meetings, handoffs, and coordination-heavy processes. So even when AI speeds up individual tasks, the organization itself still moves slowly.

In other words, the bottleneck isn’t necessarily the technology, it’s the operating model. What struck me reading this article is that in many ways it feels like the continuation of conversations we’ve already been having on FIR over the past year. About a year ago, Shel demonstrated some of the early agentic AI capabilities we were beginning to see emerge — systems that could move beyond simple chatbot interactions and actually take actions across workflows, tools, and platforms.

At the time, it felt experimental, slightly futuristic, and maybe just a glimpse of where things might be heading. Since then, we’ve repeatedly returned to related themes on the podcast: AI as orchestration rather than just automation, and managers becoming directors of systems rather than supervisors of tasks, to name but two. Recently, the wider communications industry has been framing 2026 as the year of the agent, a fundamental shift from generative AI, which creates content based on prompts, to agentic AI, which acts autonomously to achieve long-term goals. The rise of such autonomous agents requires a focus on agentic orchestration, with professionals acting as AI engineers who guide, manage, and audit these digital employees. As we discussed on this podcast last year, communication departments will adopt a hybrid structure where humans focus on high-level strategy and creativity while AI agents handle high-volume procedural communication tasks at machine speed.

We’re already seeing a marked impact on marketing and public relations. The Harvard piece explains how companies such as HubSpot and AWS have begun putting this model into practice. They say organizations are achieving measurable gains, with marketing materials adapted up to 98 times faster, unit costs reduced by 80%, and click-through rates increased up to 17 times. Research from BCG has demonstrated these benefits at scale.

Organizations embedding agentic AI into marketing workflows, the research has found, can achieve up to a threefold increase in ROI, campaign speed, and content volume. That’s why this Harvard article feels so interesting to me. It doesn’t contradict any earlier conversations; it complements them. It takes many of the ideas we’ve been discussing conceptually and places them inside a concrete organizational model. The authors propose something they call an agentic marketing organization — essentially a system where humans and AI agents work together continuously across multiple layers of activity.

At the center of this idea is what they describe as a brand code: a machine-readable knowledge system containing brand strategy, customer insights, messaging frameworks, business rules, governance structures, and operational guidance that both people and AI systems can understand and act upon. Once that foundation exists, specialized AI agents can continuously create, adapt, test, distribute, optimize, and report on marketing activity in real time. It’s a vision of marketing that starts to look less like a department and more like an operating system.

But what really caught my attention wasn’t the technology itself so much; it was the shift in the role of the marketer. Because beneath all the platform architecture and workflow diagrams is a much deeper question: if AI increasingly handles execution, what becomes the real value of marketers and communicators?

The article argues that value shifts away from production and toward judgment — setting intent, evaluating outputs, interpreting signals, shaping governance, and guiding how the system evolves. And that raises some fascinating questions for communicators. But first, Shel, your demo of those early agentic capabilities was about a year ago now. As I mentioned earlier, it felt experimental and slightly futuristic then. So what’s changed since then?

Shel: It feels like ancient history now. If I were to look at that, I’d probably shake my head and say, “my God, that’s pretty primitive.” The way it worked was, it took a screenshot of every site it visited and then acted on the screenshot. So it was a very slow and tedious process. The video that I shared, I edited out all of the waiting time for it to go through all of this, because it showed you everything. And those days are long gone.

That was clearly a demo. I don’t remember which of the AI models offered that — I think it was Anthropic — but it was just tedious and not all that functional. It did what it was supposed to do in the end, which was to create a spreadsheet with the information I’d asked for. It was some open-source spreadsheet that it used.

I ran a similar exercise just last week using Claude Cowork. And this was for a piece somebody in our sustainability department wrote. It was about two projects that had achieved world-first certifications for zero waste, which is kind of a big deal in the construction industry. It’s one of the biggest contributors to landfills and the like, the industry is.

So I’m looking to place this article. And what I did was, I told Claude Cowork that I wanted four subagents working: one to look at construction and AEC publications — that’s architecture, engineering, and construction; AEC is the category for the industry. Another one was going to look at sustainability publications. And there was one other, but I also had it look for podcasts where the authors of this report might be invited for an interview.

I said, what I want you to do is find the publications and podcasts based on their previous content that are most likely to be interested in something like this, and then create a spreadsheet with the name of the outlet. And of course, divide it into these categories — right? AEC, podcasts, sustainability-focused publications, and the like. Mainstream media was the other category. But I also wanted the URL, I wanted the name of the appropriate person to pitch the article to. And then, based on what that person has written — that particular reporter or editor — I wanted a pitch that was personalized to that person.

And I came back in about half an hour, and there was a spreadsheet ready to go. And I had started acting on it. I don’t copy and paste the pitches; I go and take a look at that reporter’s writing and review the pitch and then make some tweaks to it. But my God, can you imagine how much time that would have taken for me to go out and do this on my own by way of research? That would have been hours and hours.

And instead the agents went out and did it, and then Cowork assembled all that information into a spreadsheet. I was doing other stuff while it was doing that. I wasn’t sitting and watching, because there frankly wasn’t that much to watch. I mean, you could watch the agent tell you, “now I’m going to go look at this.” But, you know, that’s kind of boring. Let it do its thing.

Neville: Yeah. So a question I have related to this, I suppose, is to put it into one practical area, which is: people might think of this in the context of the interaction you have with prompts and the old-fashioned way of doing things that is still prevalent. So how did you — the agents went off and did their thing, and then you came across what they produced and so forth, and it saved tons of time — how did you gain confidence, let’s say, that it was accurate, that there were no hallucinations, no errors? Or is that not the issue anymore with this kind of development?

Shel: I believe that hallucinations would still be an issue. It’s still a model at some level doing this work. I mean, it’s Claude with Claude Cowork. I did install Hermes over the weekend. We’ll talk about that in a bit, but it’s an agent platform, an agent framework, and you create the agents to do things.

For example, I created one over the weekend that I set up to be a weekly job, and it’s going to go out and look at construction industry news to find things based on our areas of expertise where I work, where we have subject matter experts and thought leaders, to find the top three articles that are ripe for newsjacking. If you remember David Meerman Scott’s newsjacking — things where we can get some stuff out there quickly.

Neville: Yeah.

Shel: And take advantage of the fact that this is something that people are looking at and gain some traction over it. So every Monday at eight, it’s going to run this job, and by 8:30, 8:45, it’s going to give me the results. And all of this is through Telegram, or WhatsApp, or whatever app you choose to use to interact with the bot. It still starts with a prompt. The difference is that you’re not prompting a question in order to get an answer; you are telling it what task to perform.

And in the case of the one that I set up on Hermes, it’s now a weekly task. And the interesting thing about Hermes is that it learns as it goes. It continually self-improves based on the more it knows about you and the kinds of tasks that you’re asking it to perform. So I’m looking forward to seeing how that goes. But so far, I just have the one agent running there. But it’s still a prompt at the end of the day.

And in fact, I used — I think it was Gemini — to help me craft the prompt to get the best results I could. I said, here’s the list of requirements, turn it into the best prompt that Hermes will understand and act on most effectively. And it did that. It did a great job. And I’m very satisfied with the results so far. I ran one test of it, so I liked it.

Neville: Yeah. So Claude Cowork is kind of at the heart of this. I’m experimenting myself with Claude Cowork — with Claude generally, Cowork sort of. Nothing like you’re doing with this, I hasten to add. But one of the things that I’m very impressed with about Claude is the way in which you tell it the things about you, who you are and what you’re doing, all this stuff — your preferences in how it conducts what you’re asking it to do — in a way that, unlike ChatGPT for instance, where you have to, in a sense, include in a prompt stuff you’ve already told it for something previously, but you’ve got to do that again. It doesn’t kind of remember that in the same way. Claude is different, though.

So your setup — I mean, I guess what I’m asking basically is, when you set this up, did it require that level of preparation that is probably desirable to do that? Or was there anything special that you had to do that was outside of what you would normally do with Claude Cowork?

Shel: Well, for the byline piece that I was looking to pitch, that I set the subagents out to do their thing in Cowork, I did in the prompt explain what my goal was and what the organization was. I had it look at our company website to get a good sense of who we are and what our areas of specialization are. I gave it some additional information.

But then something I do with all of these now — not every prompt, if I’m just in Claude or ChatGPT, but especially with the agents, with deep research projects and things like that — I’ll say, “ask me questions before you go out and do this.” And it usually asks some very salient questions. It’s very good at deducing what it doesn’t know. And the answers factor into the results you get, which is really interesting to me — that it can, if you ask it to, understand where there are gaps in the prompt that it could use this information in order to deliver really excellent and pertinent results.

Neville: Got it. So thinking about our listeners listening to this, to how you’ve explained all of this — is it kind of credible and within the reach of anyone literally wanting to do this? Or do you need to have some kind of mental preparedness or knowledge technically to do this? Could anyone just dive in and start something? Right.

Shel: Well, I don’t know about diving in. With Hermes, for example, I watched a couple of YouTube videos. I watched one that actually walked me step by step through the installation process and then had a whole section on use cases. I’ve watched more. There’s one on 99 use cases for Hermes that I watched, which was pretty good. So it helps you get in that mindset. But in terms of, can anybody do this?

In the world of communications, anybody better be able to do this, because you’re not going to be sent out to look for these sites and assemble a spreadsheet anymore. You need to be able to orchestrate these agents. And that means knowing how to prompt it to get the results that you want. And that’s different, again, from prompting ChatGPT for an answer to a question, right? You are giving it a task, and it could be a recurring task that somebody on your team does.

Now, in communications, I still don’t see this replacing a communicator, because every communicator is going to have the human-only or human-required elements of the job. I cannot see one of these conducting, say, an employee focus group. There’s so much that we do. I mean, you know, in public relations, the word “relations” always stands out to me, and maintaining those relations is not something a bot can do.

But in terms of what that Harvard Business Review article was talking about, you can swap marketing for communications. I think it’s more true in comms. Comms workflows are more coordination-heavy than marketing. We have legal, we have HR, we have the C-suite. We have to make sure everything’s consistent with the brand and maybe get some brand representation approvals. They’re the owners of the channels that we have to deal with.

If marketing needs a brand code — and this was a concept I really liked in that article — communications needs a narrative code. You know, a machine-readable positioning, machine-readable executive voice profiles, message hierarchies, sensitive-topic guardrails, rules for escalating things that emerge that need to be taken up a step in the hierarchy or maybe up to the C-suite or the CEO. I don’t know anybody who’s built a narrative code.

Whoever builds this first in your organization, by the way, is going to end up owning the agentic stack. If marketing builds it first, we in communications are going to inherit a system that wasn’t designed for crisis communication, wasn’t designed for controversy or reputation damage or stakeholder complexity — it was built for marketing. And that’s the one we’re going to end up having to work with. You probably remember, Neville, in the early days of social media, Richard Edelman was out there sounding the drum that PR needed to own social media before marketing and advertising got their hands on it, because they would turn it into something inauthentic, right? It’s the same thing here.

Neville: Yeah. Yeah.

Shel: I think we in comms are going to have to build out the narrative code and let marketing take advantage of the agentic stack that we’ve built. But we need to be in the room when those decisions are being made.

Neville: So another challenge for communicators, and I can see that. I think the overall structure of the Harvard piece, as I mentioned in the introduction, is on the organization as a whole. And I think there are examples where that’s in work — I quoted a couple, and then there’s the BCG research, which I found quite interesting. But that’s… restructuring is a way away yet on an organizational level, I would say, for most companies. But the individual actions, such as experimentation you’re doing, are definitely right in front of us, literally right now.

And it prompted a thought in my mind, looking at this overall picture, about some assumptions in the Harvard piece that I think are worth looking at for a minute, where the article assumes that strategic judgment remains human, not AI focused, but execution becomes agentic. So I think, okay, then — though history suggests automation rarely stops neatly where people would like it to and where they would expect it to.

So perhaps a question that’s relevant to address in this context is: if AI systems — agentic is part of that — increasingly assist with strategy too, which is what they’ll be doing, where exactly does human value migrate to? That’s a broad question, but for communicators specifically, how would we address that one?

Shel: I think, first of all, if you’re going to look to the agentic system to assist with the development of the strategy, I would sit down and map out a game plan for that. I wouldn’t just say, “hey, you know the company I work for, come up with a strategy for us.” I would say, first of all, what is this strategy…

Neville: Ha ha ha.

Shel: …going to be designed to achieve? What do we know about the direction the company’s going and decisions that have been made? I would certainly use it to go out and say, research the marketplace and research our competitors and identify, to the extent that you can, what their strategies are. I would develop the strategy myself, but I would give it to the AI to stress-test.

And by the way, some of this is agentic and some of it is just querying a chatbot. I mean, let’s just take crisis communication as an example. No CEO is going to go into a boardroom with an answer from an AI system telling a leader something they don’t want to hear. That is amplified by the agentic stack. If we go in as the crisis counselor and say, “look, I know you’re not going to like this. Here’s my judgment. And I’ve got this information that came from the weekly analysis of sentiment in the marketplace,” so I think it can bolster your argument. It can’t replace your argument. You’re going to walk into that boardroom as a human and make a case.

Same thing, maybe, with focus groups. When passive signals in social media, for example, and message boards get gamed, sitting in a room with 10 employees becomes the truth that the dashboards that are out there — the agents that are out there looking at sentiment — get checked against. So when a dashboard says that morale is great and the focus group says it isn’t, I’m going to pay attention to the focus group. I’m going to pay attention to those 12 people in the room before I listen to an agent that says, “well, we’ve been analyzing all the sentiment in Slack and email, and everything is just dandy.”

So I think it’s the same with strategy. I think I would never abdicate strategy…

Neville: Mm.

Shel: …but I could certainly develop it faster and be more confident in its viability by using agents and chatbots.

Neville: Yeah, I agree. And it makes me think of, I guess I would say, what’s coming, which is already here in ways that lead to even greater — well, integration, I suppose, is the right way. I’m thinking what you said at the beginning of this segment we’re talking about now, which is, you don’t hand the whole thing over to the AI and say, “hey, go and develop a strategy.” You would do…

Shel: And you know there are people who are, right?

Neville: Yeah, they will. They will. But it seems to me that this is really, in a sense, the fulfillment of an expectation — a promise — from artificial intelligence tools like this, that you would have a conversation with it in the same way you would with a human being who might be an external consultant or a colleague who’s a subject matter expert or whoever it might be, that you would explore with that individual: we’re developing a strategy for next year, let’s look at how we’re going to do this.

You set the framework for how you might start that conversation with your AI assistant. And as you said, this is not specifically agentic; it’s the whole spectrum of what the tools are. And you set it on course to go and research this. And that’s probably what an agentic tool will do. And that to me is the excitement of where this is going — that you can get to that stage, which then I think would address some of the skepticism and indeed alarm bells by some in organizations when they see unfettered technology going all over the place or being asked to do stuff. This, though, makes it credible and gives it some legs of credibility.

Which leads me, I guess, to possibly the final question here. We’re seeing this, as you’ve explained, this is light years ahead of the demo you gave a year ago, which gave a signal, a strong sense of what’s possible, where this could go. We’ve seen that fulfilled. It is eminently possible. And you don’t need to be a rocket scientist, as you might have expected you would have to be a year ago. This is doable. And the more people experiment with it in simple ways, like you’ve outlined as a real-world example, they will want to do that in that case.

So the question then, therefore, is: okay, fine, a year on from last year, you’ve explained something you’re doing that delivers value quite readily every Monday morning, let’s say. So what’s next, do you see, in terms of developing technology and the developing value people will get from it that would accelerate probably its uptake? How do you see it?

Shel: I think that the next thing we’re going to see is an evaluation of every role and where an agent will fit. This is something we went through a couple of years ago. Ethan Mollick was talking about it in his book, Co-Intelligence, before we were even talking about agents — talking about inviting AI to the table and figuring out where you could work it into your workflows. But it was still the chatbot. It was still the, “I’m going to ask you a question and you’re going to deliver some kind of answer.”

I think we need to do that again and look at agents. What tasks are we performing, and which ones can we hand off to agents? And I think there are probably roles where this is going to be even easier to do, where you’re going to see more opportunities than in communications. I mean, you know, engineering, for example, I think is wide open for this sort of thing.

So I think that’s what’s next — as we do hand off certain (and I’m going to call them) mundane tasks, because this is not the high-level strategy and the human-touch stuff that is so important in so many jobs. But as we hand these off, and it now takes an hour instead of a week, what does that do to the rest of our workflows? What does that do to our organizational structure?

One of the things that I was reading over the weekend was the expectation that middle managers are going to be a thing of the past, because what do they do? They handle the flow of information up and down between the people who report to them and the people that they report to. They handle a lot of mundane tasks that might now be handed off to an agent. Agents, according to — I don’t remember who this was who was saying this. It was somebody noteworthy. It might’ve been Dario Amodei at Anthropic, but I honestly don’t remember for sure — but middle managers can be replaced by agents by and large.

So what does that do to organizational structure? Certainly flattens it. But now, in terms of those executives who have a lot of people reporting to them, what part of that reporting structure can be handed off to an agent? So I think this is sort of a cascading situation where everything we do leads to a reconsideration of something, that leads to, well, what else can we do with the agents, which leads to further reconfiguration?

I think that’s what we’re looking at. And I don’t think it’s going to happen overnight, because, as you alluded to, the technology may be moving fast, but organizations tend not to, particularly when it comes to issues of structure and governance.

Neville: I think this is so exciting, to be frank — the idea of the changes we can see coming that will be painful for many. But is it more structural change? It’s a constant in our lives, is it not, with all of this? Something we should embrace emotionally and logically, that we can control this. And I don’t mean control the tech — we can’t do that. But we can control the risk and the benefits of something like this by not reacting to something that’s coming, by, in a sense, embracing it and experimenting with this and learning it. And as you said, if we don’t do this, the marketing guys will. And so we can’t have that. I think…

Shel: And then we’re stuck with theirs.

Neville: I think it’s something to really pay attention to. So this has been a useful, interesting discussion, Shel, getting your thoughts on this in particular. So yeah, I think we’ll come back to this conversation unquestionably at some point in the future.

Shel: No doubt, as we see developments. In fact, as I say, I just started working with Hermes over the weekend, and it was an eye-opener, and I expect, as I work with it more, I’ll have more thoughts about it and my thinking will evolve. I should point out that I did install this on a personal virtual server, not on a company computer. I’m not taking that kind of risk. And it’s my personal account.

One other thing I thought I’d mention — you talked about the idea of having a conversation with the AI, and I think that’s becoming more of a focus. And I’ll give you two quick examples. One I already mentioned is with Hermes: you don’t go to a terminal and engage with it or go to its website. You do this through WhatsApp or Slack or, in my case, I’m using Telegram — just like I’d be having a conversation with a person in that same app.

But on, I think it was Thursday, I did a half-day webinar that was offered by the Marketing AI Institute, Paul Roetzer’s organization, and it was on AI for writing. And it was very interesting. Chris Penn was among the speakers; he did a great job, as always. But one of the folks there talked about, you know, have the conversation with AI for real — do it with your voice, not with your keyboard. And she talked about a tool, which I haven’t used it yet — I have installed it across my personal computer, my laptop, and my phone — called Wispr Flow. It’s an AI tool. Have you…? It’s pretty cool. I mean, in any tool you’re using, you just click it and talk. And it doesn’t go directly into the chat box; it interprets it…

Neville: Yeah, I’ve been using it. Yeah. Yeah.

Shel: …and then puts the best prompt based on what you just said into the box. And that’s what you use to prompt the model. And I’m looking forward to giving that a try. And it’s called Wispr Flow, by the way, because if you’re in the office in an open-space format and you don’t want to disturb the people next to you, it understands what you’re saying when you whisper to it.

Neville: Yeah, it is interesting. I’ve got a hurdle to jump with it, though, which is getting accustomed to speaking what I want things to be done and how, rather than typing them. You know… yeah, and I haven’t got across that hurdle yet. That’s limiting my use of it. So I’m reverting to the, well, I’m more comfortable typing, I can type fast and all that kind of stuff. But, reality, this is faster than that. And it is…

Shel: Yeah, same.

Neville: I recognize the benefits of it. I can see this. Not everyone will be used to this. This is not dissimilar to the argument we could have about voice notes. I know people who love voice notes; I don’t. And I know more people who don’t like it. It could be a generational thing, I think to myself. But it’s part of the communication landscape. So you need to get accustomed to these developments.

Shel: Yeah. And I hear about voice notes being preferred by some reporters who are being pitched, because it’s evidence that it wasn’t AI slop that’s pitching them.

Neville: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yep, yep, yep.

Shel: And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #513: Why Communications Must Build the Narrative Code for the Agentic Age appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Most agency owners think they’re doing their team a favor when they quietly absorb the painful, tedious, or time-consuming work. They’re likely not. In this episode, Chip Griffin and Gini Dietrich look at the sacrifices owners make on behalf of their teams and why those sacrifices often create more problems than they solve.

This isn’t about the occasional tactical sacrifice, it’s about the systemic ones: the conscious decisions to absorb entire categories of work because you’ve decided your team would find them too difficult, too unpleasant, or too much of a burden. Gini admits she’s guilty of it herself, sharing that a new COO sat her down with a list of tasks she’d been handling and told her she shouldn’t be doing any of them. The jobs weren’t glamorous, but they weren’t the owner’s job either.

Chip extends this into two areas where owner sacrifice tends to do the most damage: new business development, where owners keep proposals and pitches entirely to themselves thinking they’re protecting team time, and org chart design, where flat structures are usually not a deliberate choice but the result of owners absorbing management responsibilities no one else wanted. Both patterns block team growth and overload the owner at the same time.

Gini describes a practice she returns to every quarter, sorting her task list into three buckets — things only she can do, things she enjoys but probably doesn’t need to do, and things she absolutely should not be doing. The third list gets delegated immediately. Chip puts it like this: for everything on your plate, ask yourself why you are the one doing it. If there isn’t a good answer, stop doing it. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 304: Stop making sacrifices your agency doesn’t need you to make appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In this episode, Chip is joined by Karen Swim and Michelle Kane of the That Solo Life Podcast for part one of a special crossover episode exploring the practical effects of AI on agencies, solos, and the communications industry.

Karen and Michelle share their view that AI is no longer optional. Practitioners who resist it risk falling behind, while those who embrace it can dramatically expand their capabilities. The conversation goes beyond basic content creation, exploring how AI can elevate strategy, reinvigorate professional skills, and free up time for deeper, more creative thinking.

Chip, Karen, and Michelle also discuss the importance of treating AI like a new employee — providing context, voice, and guidance to get the best results — and address common concerns around ethics, privacy, and copyright. They encourage communicators who haven’t revisited these tools recently to dive back in, as the technology has advanced rapidly and shows no signs of slowing down. [read the transcript]

The post CWC 113: How AI impacts PR agencies and solos (featuring Karen Swim and Michelle Kane) appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In this episode, Chip and Gini open with the analogy of Canadian doubles, the tennis format where two players face one. If your team outnumbers the prospect, you don’t project strength, you project awkwardness. But the conversation goes well beyond headcount.

A little preparation goes a long way in making sure every seat on your side is justified. You’ll want to match expertise to whoever the prospect brought, which requires actually knowing who’s coming. Gini described a recent pitch where she reverse-engineered her attendee list based entirely on who was showing up from the prospect’s side. That’s not logistics, it’s strategy. And whoever is in the room during the pitch needs to be the person doing the work after the contract is signed — not a handoff to a team with no context and no ownership.

Both Chip and Gini are emphatic that the meeting itself should not feel rehearsed like a school play. Agency owners who show up prepared to have a real conversation before pitching solutions will stand out. Harder for many owners is knowing when to keep quiet. Interjecting while a team member gives an imperfect answer undermines their confidence, signals to the prospect they can’t be trusted, and makes them rely on you. The debrief after the meeting is where the coaching happens. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 303: Preparing for your agency’s group presentations and pitches appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

While there’s no evidence that business leaders are outsourcing the most important decisions to AI, there are reports that many executives are relying on AI to make many — in fact, most — of their decisions. The implications for communications could be huge.

Links from this episode:

• AI Is Changing More Than Work, It’s Rewiring Executive Decision-Making
• Inside the C-suite: How AI is quietly reshaping executive decisions
• AI and the future of human decision making
• C-Suite Executives Dominate AI Decision-Making as Strategy Becomes Priority
• Decision-Making by Consensus Doesn’t Work in the AI Era
• How AI Is Transforming the Way Executives Lead
• Leadership at a Turning Point: How AI Is Shaping Executive Decision-Making
• Can AI Make Executive Decisions?

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, May 25.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Neville: Hi everybody, and welcome to episode 512 of For Immediate Release. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel: And I’m Shel Holtz. The inspiration for this week’s report came from a post Brian Solis wrote recently. In it, he argued that AI isn’t just changing work — it’s rewiring how executives make decisions. Once Brian put that in my head, the trend started standing out in other things I was seeing. I’ll summarize the numbers and what they mean for communicators right after this.

The numbers Brian pulled together are honestly alarming. A Confluent study of UK private sector leaders found that 62% of executives now use AI to make the majority of their decisions. That’s not some — it’s the majority. 70% say they second-guess themselves when AI disagrees with them, and 46% say they rely on AI more than their own colleagues.

On the U.S. side, SAP’s research found that 44% of C-suite executives would reverse a decision they had already planned to make based on AI input. 74% place more confidence in AI advice than in the advice they get from family and friends. Meanwhile, McKinsey reports that 92% of companies plan to increase their AI investment over the next three years, but only 1% — 1 percent — describe themselves as mature in deployment. The money to pay for AI and a sort of blind trust in its abilities are racing ahead of the internal competence to use it. Now, I want to be clear before I go on. I’m not anti-AI, Neville — you know this. Anyone who listens to the show knows I’ve been beating the drum for AI as a tool for communicators and for business in general for a long time.

AI as a thinking partner, a research assistant, a stress-tester for ideas — that’s enormously valuable. But there’s a meaningful difference between using AI to inform a decision and using AI to make the decision. And Brian puts this well: AI is becoming the new executive influencer. The problem is that it hasn’t earned that role, at least not yet.

So let’s talk about what this means for those of us in communication, because the implications are everywhere. Start with employee trust. The implicit deal between an organization and its workforce is that the people at the top got there because they have judgment and experience and pattern recognition that the rest of us don’t have — or at least they’ve been able to employ it really well and get noticed by the people who promote you into those leadership decisions.

That’s the story leadership tells, and it’s the story employees buy into. Now imagine the all-hands where the CEO announces a major restructuring, and somewhere in the Q&A, or worse, on Blind or Reddit a week later, it comes out that the decision was essentially handed to a chatbot. What happens to confidence in leadership? What happens to engagement? What happens to the social contract that says, follow me because I know where we’re going?

You can’t credibly ask people to bring their full selves to work, as they say, while you’re outsourcing your own judgment to a language model. Now extend that to external stakeholders — investors, customers, regulators, the board. They’re paying, and in a lot of cases they’re paying a lot, for executive judgment. If a strategic call goes sideways — and you know that happens — the explanation that the AI suggested it isn’t going to land well.

It’s going to sound like an abdication, because it is an abdication. And from a crisis communication standpoint, “we trusted the algorithm” is one of the worst defenses I can imagine. I don’t expect that anybody’s going to say that, but it doesn’t mean it’s not going to come out. Just ask anyone who’s worked an aviation incident, a financial services failure, or a healthcare AI misfire. Imagine the reaction when either the leader tells people, or they learn through a third party, that the afflicted stakeholder hears, “Well, that’s the decision the AI told me to make.”

And there’s a third implication that I think communicators need to surface inside our organizations: the erosion of dissent. I find this particularly interesting and disturbing.

Confluent found that 65% of leaders say decision-making has become less collaborative since adopting AI. The Harvard Business Review just ran a piece arguing that consensus is dead in the AI era. That may be — but debate isn’t consensus. Debate is the friction that exposes bad assumptions. It’s what didn’t happen at that auto manufacturer — I think it was Volkswagen with their emissions standards. They didn’t have the psychological safety to feel safe in dissenting against the decisions being made. In this case, we’re not even looking forward at the leadership level in some cases. If AI is pushing aside the colleague who would have pushed back, whatever process your organization had for dissent just stops functioning. And when dissent dies, so does the early warning system communicators rely on to spot reputational risks before they get out of control.

So what do we do? A few things. We push for governance — and if you already have a governance model, push to revisit it. Your governance needs clear declarations of which decisions AI informs versus which ones it actually makes. We coach our executives to talk publicly about how they actually use AI, with appropriate humility, before the question gets asked for them.

We build the internal narrative that human accountability is non-negotiable, no matter how good the model gets. And we keep reminding leadership that machine confidence isn’t the same as strategic clarity. Brian’s right: AI is a test of leadership. It’s also, increasingly, a test of communication. Neville?

Neville: Well, just to set my position clear on this, too — I’ve been a drum-beater for AI as a research assistant, as a useful tool, since GPT first came out. The initial kind of hysterical enthusiasm was tempered over time, but I use the tool every single day in what I do for work, or for pleasure for that matter. So it’s something I believe strongly in. But I’ve got this, how could you say, in the back of my mind always — this thought that I don’t accept blindly anything the AI assistant tells me. If I’m researching something, for instance, I’m going to make a recommendation about something, let’s say, or I’m writing a report or even something relatively simple like an article for the blog. If I felt I wanted to say this and it’s telling me that, that’s a simple decision: I’m either going to follow it or not. Typically when that happens, I’ll ask it questions to further that angle. But this is something else, what Brian writes about. And The Register — I’ve read their piece — tempered with a bit of hysteria, it seems. I mean, this is a very alarmist piece, or argument, you could say. If it’s saying, as it is — the survey that The Register reports on — 62% of leaders of private sector companies, and according to The Register that’s owners, founders, CEOs, managing directors, the C-level leaders of various types of companies. They didn’t say sizes. But they use AI to make the majority of the decisions, which leads to some of the alarm bells ringing that you outlined. What if it gets out that the AI made a decision when something goes south? You could flip that. What happens if it gets out that an amazing decision that led to the company being massively successful was actually made by an AI?

I think it’s inevitable you’d have that sort of focus on it alongside more sane arguments, perhaps. You could argue, well, that CEO is pretty smart that he used an AI to help him do that — as opposed to the other side, which is, gee, we’ve got to fire this guy, he used an AI and it went wrong. So you’ve got to put some balance there. Also, I think you mentioned this earlier, and I agree with you, that there are two angles to every question we might ask about this. One is internal, within an organization, and the other is external. So it is an interesting point. And one thought I had in my mind, the pragmatic question: if a leader changes a decision he or she has made because the AI assistant suggests something different, who actually owns that decision in the end? In fact, whether he changes his mind or not, if the AI said, “I recommend you should do this, and here are the 10 reasons to support that idea,” that are different from what the leader was going to do, and he or she made the changed decision based on that — who actually owns that decision? Or, as I asked myself, is that really the most important question to be answered? But it’s still a natural one to arise. And yes, we could run through a long list of the implications in this scenario for the employees of the organization, other stakeholders, and the external audiences. But I have to say Brian’s arguments are well made. He sets the scene — the executives are relying heavily on AI. From there it goes more into the alarm function.

Judgment being reshaped — the judgment exercised by a leader is obviously so flaky that it can be reshaped by the AI assistant. In other words, that individual is willing to let that happen. I wonder whether this is all part of, perhaps, the speed with which people are expecting decisions to be made. Indeed, something I was doing this weekend — we’re on a holiday weekend here, by the way, so I had time to do this — that was nothing to do with work. It was a personal thing I was involved with that required analyzing a document that had a lot of financial information in it. I asked my AI assistant, in this case Claude, as part of my experiment with Claude, to summarize it and pinpoint the key aspects. It did that in about 20 seconds. And that was enough for me to know what questions I would need to ask it next, to develop it the way I want, rather than starting from scratch trying to do that. So there’s the benefit. But I think treating AI like a trusted advisor, to me, makes a lot of sense. And I’m trying to balance that thought with the alarmist approach — you know, this is a bad thing, all these terrible things are going to happen, and it will all come out. So how does that gel with treating AI like a trusted advisor? Although your point, I agree, it hasn’t earned the trust in the context of this conversation. So does it mean leaders are willing to override their own decisions or instincts based on AI input? Well, according to The Register, 62% have said they are, I suppose. If that’s true, I think we’re in trouble already, before this gets any further. So the real challenge — I think you’ll agree with this, Shel — is not the tech at all. It’s the leadership aspect, the human behavioral aspect of this, as is so often the case. When people talk about the relationship between the human and the AI and they just talk about the tech, it’s not — it’s a human issue. Cut through all the alarm bells and pluck out something which to me is extremely important, that really doesn’t get much airtime in Brian’s report at least: isn’t this really about the whole point of judgment? That someone in a leadership position in an organization is in that position partly because he or she is very good at exercising judgment in the work they do or the decisions they make. Are we saying that judgment is so fragile that an AI could just overturn all of that in an instant and lead all this? I guess my point is that I’m noting this. I listened to what you said. I haven’t read all the surveys you mentioned, or the other reports — the Harvard Business Review, for instance — I will. But I find this literally the worst-case scenario, and that’s being pitched as, you know, this is upon us, based on The Register, which, by the way, has a — let’s call it interesting — reputation over the years for some of their reporting. But this is very factual; their own report is actually quite well written. So what do we make from this then? Should we be worried? I don’t think we should, if we see this as simply something to note and look at as a communicator — let’s say the role you’ve got in ensuring that the CEO isn’t going to have his or her judgment completely overwhelmed by an AI. I just find the idea of that frankly ridiculous, in the sense of, well, not implying or even saying that this is the norm. It’s a result of surveys. There’s other research also supporting some of this, I think. But we should put it in perspective: this is, I guess, an inevitable discussion point that’s emerging at this stage in the development of AI and organizations. We’ve reported recently on this podcast how leaders are taking ownership of the AI deployments in their organizations. That doesn’t mean to say every company is doing this, because they aren’t. But we’re seeing that, and then we’re seeing other reporting we’ve commented on — that employees and other stakeholders related to an organization are unhappy with what’s happening with AI rollouts in their organization. So you’ve got all these mixed messages coming left, right and center, and now this. It doesn’t mean we should — oh my goodness — stop doing this, or have a meeting with the CEO and say, “What are you doing?” No, I don’t think so. But we need to note this nevertheless. I don’t believe this is something we should all get terribly alarmed about, to be honest, as long as we apply our own common sense to observing what’s going on and making sure we understand the CEO we’re supporting as communicators — let’s say the leadership teams — that this isn’t happening.

Shel: Well, I don’t think this is the most important issue we’re facing with AI. I do think it’s a time to worry. Now, I will say I don’t imagine that the CEOs leading the world’s biggest companies — the Jamie Dimons, the Josh Domaros, the Tim Cooks of the world — are using AI to make important decisions. And you have to wonder, because I don’t think they asked, in the survey they did, what types of decisions these CEOs are making. Are they the game-changing decisions, the most important decisions they have to make, or are they lower-level decisions? We talk about AI taking all that drudge work off the table. Are they allowing the AI to make decisions associated with that kind of work? But I think, as people — and CEOs are people — as they get accustomed to letting AI make decisions, it might get easier and easier to turn bigger and bigger decisions over to AI as time goes by. With any luck, AI is going to get better and better and may earn that trust. But this would cause that decision-making instinct that leaders have, based on their experience and their judgment and the other things that got them to that level, to atrophy. I mean, atrophy is happening elsewhere as a result of AI among some groups of people — the ability to write your own thoughts down, to craft your own email, to conduct your own research. As far as CEOs making good decisions with support from AI, I think support from AI is going to become table stakes. I think CEOs who don’t know how to use it are going to become dinosaurs in fairly short order — not necessarily the ones who have the job now, but I don’t think you’re going to see people getting promoted into that position, or hired into it, if they don’t know how to use AI for decision support and the other things we see AI being used for very effectively at leadership levels. And leaders are using AI, according to most of the research I see. I wonder, though, if they start turning more and more decisions over to AI, what is the board or the owner going to see as the value of the CEO? If most of this work — or much of this work, the majority according to that Confluent study — is being done by AI, does that mean the enormous salaries being paid to the people at the top of the organization are going to decline? Or does it mean that the role changes altogether, or maybe even ceases to exist in favor of some other model? And by the way, I’d love to see the same question posed to people at other levels of the organization, because this probably is not something confined to the C-suite, this turning decisions over to AI. I wonder how much it’s happening in middle management. I wonder how much it’s happening among frontline workers. If it’s at the same level, then it’s a company-wide issue that needs to be addressed, because there are going to be some problems that emerge if we don’t — I mean, along the Volkswagen lines with their emissions scandal. Dieselgate, exactly. Yeah.

Neville: That was Dieselgate, as it was dubbed. I mean, it’s a good point you make. I agree. And the point you made earlier, too, is actually a critical question: what kind of decisions are we talking about here? Is it on the scale of, let’s proceed with the merger with this company rather than that one? Or is it something like, should I fit in a stopover in this city on my way to that city to meet with these people and so forth and achieve these things? Is it that? Or is it even something more prosaic? You know, what do I get my wife for her birthday next week? I’ll have my secretary do it — but the AI could tell me. I mean, that’s ridiculous, actually. But it’s significant to know what kinds of decisions we’re talking about, because I’ve not seen it referenced. It’s implying — and people are jumping, obviously, on this — that these are the kind of organization-affecting major decisions that are suddenly at risk because an AI is doing it. I find that ridiculous, to be honest. So we need to know what kind of decisions.

Shel: Yeah. I mean, in my industry, there’s a go/no-go decision on pursuing a project. I cannot imagine, in my wildest imagination, in my organization, anybody turning that decision over to an AI. But what if somewhere in the industry they do, and end up pursuing a project that ends up being more trouble than it was worth? Somebody in the organization at that leadership level, who was involved in the previous discussions, would have known for various reasons, but the AI didn’t have the experience and the insight that that individual had. That could be a financial problem for the organization.

Neville: So the role of the communicator in all of this — and this is not to say that the communicator who works closely with the leadership teams, including the CEO and others in the C-suite, is involved in every single thing they’re doing. No, that’s not realistic, because they’re not. But the communicator’s role in preserving human judgment is the right question to ask. What is it in this context? Where do communicators fit in helping leaders balance AI insights with human insight and judgment and experience? Where do they fit in doing all of that? So the two angles I notice: internal comms — communicators act as sense-makers, ensuring context, ethics and human impact remain part of decision-making. Externally, they help articulate how AI is used responsibly in the organization, which is increasingly central to trust and reputation. That addresses the point you made about when it leaks and it gets out that AI did something. I think increasingly we’re going to see that point — articulating how AI is used responsibly in an organization — because the impact can be huge if rumor builds, which it would do: “the AI is making all the decisions in this company, and why do we need the CEO and all that?” So that’s a good role for a communicator to take on, and to be seen to be the person who is the “yes, but” person and the key advisor to leadership in these things, which strengthens the communicator’s role, in my view. So there are things we can do to address this. If this is as big a problem as these articles make out, I don’t believe it’s something we should lose any sleep over right now in the context of everything else that’s going on in the organization. But nevertheless, we’ve got respected sources — Harvard Business Review, we’ve got Deloitte talking about it, and others that we pay attention to because they’re credible publications talking about this.

Shel: Well, yeah.

Neville: Brian seeded an interesting discussion point, it seems to me.

Shel: Yeah. And let’s look at a very plausible scenario. Let’s say somebody sues the organization over a decision that the CEO made, or that leadership made, that affected them badly, and they feel they deserve compensation for that. In the U.S., anybody can sue anybody for anything. And we have seen some recent lawsuits. Look at the lawsuit that we’re seeing play out right now between OpenAI and Elon Musk.

Neville: Yeah.

Shel: And look at the records, the emails that have been surfaced in discovery. Look at the trials that have been held over lawsuits brought by the parents of children who killed themselves because they got encouragement or assistance from ChatGPT, and who sued OpenAI over that. What they got in discovery was access to the kids’ entire ChatGPT history. So you have a shareholder or a customer who sues the company, and in discovery, all of these things come to light — and that’s how it gets out. So I think even decision support has to be balanced with other input that you can demonstrate in a courtroom influenced the decision that was made, so it doesn’t look like the decision was completely outsourced to the AI. I think that’s an entirely plausible scenario in a lawsuit. So yeah, it’s something we need to consider. And as you say, and as I said, there are things communicators can do about this. One is making sure people are aware of the potential for this situation. And then, as I said, influencing the governance model so that it incorporates decision-making — if it doesn’t already have decision-making and decision support in the governance document, it needs to be added. And then making sure the leaders are talking about how they’re using it, so it never comes up that they’re using it to make a decision of importance in the organization — that it’s focused on using it in very effective ways.

Neville: Yeah. I mean, I think the picture you painted — lawsuits and stuff like that — are very possible, particularly in America, where, as you said, anyone can sue anyone for anything, usually for amazing sums of money, in the billions. So maybe what needs to happen in organizations that would address this, among other things, is keeping records. So that, for instance, in an organization that has deployed or rolled out AI tools such as chatbots — let’s say maybe their own version of something based on ChatGPT, whatever it might be — it needs to be known that those record anything you interact with on an AI. Whatever level you are in the organization, there’s a record kept along with anything else: emails, internal reports, you name it, they’re monitored and tracked in most organizations. And the fact that you could add to that picture even some of these automated note-takers, like Otter and others, that are commonly used in intrusive ways in Zoom meetings — and you hear stories of private Zoom meetings —

Shel: AI transcripts of Zoom meetings in which the decisions were made.

Neville: — where the outcomes are disclosed or leak out publicly because someone used one of these tools that summarized things, including the recommendations or suggestions if they were made by anyone. If that gets into a law case by the plaintiffs, that’ll be shown out of context — you can be sure of it. So, right.

Shel: Yeah. And that’s why a lot of organizations are saying to their employees, you can’t record these kinds of meetings.

Neville: Right. But someone will, and it’ll happen. So you need to head that off the path, as it were, and have your own structure in place and your communication surrounding it. So, for instance, you have to have very clear narratives around decision ownership, for example, that would help you in crisis situations. That’s the internal focus. Externally, you’ve got to communicate the kind of structure you have for human accountability — not “the algorithm said we should do this.” We can laugh about it, as I am at the moment, but imagine the reality of something like that happening. So I think these are all things that are plausible, I do believe, particularly in the U.S., I have to say — but hey, could be anywhere. It isn’t complicated to work out a plan of how you would prepare for things like this. But I’d rather look at it not as preparing for worst cases, although you need to. It’s just a switch — flip it over a bit and look at the benefits of all of this. And again, not solely the communicator: the individual leader has to be willing to go along with this, has to be willing to share some of the thinking he or she is doing and the discussions with the assistant, whether it’s an AI or anyone else, to realize that you can’t do this without full transparency, at least to your advisors, including the communicator.

Shel: Yeah, absolutely. And we will be back with a follow-up episode when the inevitable headline surfaces of a company that gets in trouble because it’s revealed that the CEO abdicated a decision to AI. Until then — actually until next week — that’ll be a 30 for For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #512: The AI Shift in Executive Decision-Making appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

The entry-level talent pipeline is being entirely restructured. If agency owners don’t figure out what role a young professional actually plays in an AI-assisted agency, they won’t just struggle to hire today. They’ll have no one to promote in five years.

In this episode, Chip and Gini dig into what’s happening with entry-level hiring right now, and why the answer can’t be to stop hiring junior staff altogether. The conversation covers why the old model of routine work is gone, what needs to replace it, and why agencies that don’t solve this problem soon are setting themselves up for failure.

The episode opens with an observation from Gini: every presentation she gives to college classes lately surfaces the same anxiety from students. Nobody’s hiring at the entry level because AI can handle the work those roles used to cover — news releases, media lists, social drafts, basic research. How can they find jobs today, and get the on-the-job training they need to move forward in their careers?

Chip frames the problem as a junction of circumstances: the rise of AI, economic uncertainty, and a higher education system that hasn’t evolved with the workforce reality. Colleges discouraging AI use while their graduates are about to enter workplaces built around it is, as he puts it, the same mistake as banning calculators in math class. The students coming in aren’t unprepared because they’re less capable, they’re underprepared because the institutions that trained them weren’t keeping up with the times.

Chip and Gini agree that entry-level hires aren’t obsolete, but the role must change. Instead of being the lowest rung of the ladder, new professionals need to come in already functioning like managers — just managing AI tools and processes instead of people. That requires more on-the-job training, better-documented processes and SOPs, and a genuine commitment to learning and development that most agencies still don’t have. There’s more than one upside, though. Better documentation and SOPs don’t just help entry-level hires do their jobs — they make your agency more efficient, reduce owner dependency, and, for those who want to sell someday, significantly improve the value of the business.

Their closing argument is not to avoid entry-level hiring because the old version of the role is antiquated. Rethink what the role is, invest in the systems that support it, and get comfortable assigning junior people with responsibilities that would have felt premature five years ago. The alternative is a mid-level talent shortage that will be very hard to fix. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 302: Rethink entry-level hiring to succeed in the AI era appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

The policies are clear and well communicated. The guardrails are firmly established. Every last employee has been trained. And someone in your organization still releases a public document riddled with AI-generated errors. What went wrong has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with internal culture and accountability. In this long-form April episode, Neville and Shel examine a company that seemingly took all the right steps yet still had to apologize publicly for a court filing riddled with hallucinated citations. Also in this episode:

• Gartner predicts that, by 2028, 75% of employees will rely on an internal chatbot to get the news that matters to them. How will internal communicators need to rethink their role to ensure everyone knows and understands what they should in order to achieve strategic alignment?
• One of the promises AI executives have made is a leveling of the playing field, giving lower-level employees the opportunity to excel and rise through the ranks. According to one new study, exactly the opposite has been happening.
• PR hacks have been accelerating the pace at which they churn out press releases and pitches. That has raised the bar for what it takes to earn a journalist’s trust (and journalists do still rely on press releases, according to a survey of reporters).
• Apple’s announcement of its CEO transition offers communicators a clinic on how to announce a new top executive.
• “Slopaganda” from Iran has proven remarkably effective, which means it is undoubtedly coming for your company or clients soon.

In his Tech Report, Dan York outlines big changes coming with WordPress’s next update.

Links from this episode:

• Elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell admits to AI ‘hallucinations’
• Sullivan & Cromwell law firm apologizes for AI ‘hallucinations’ in court filing
• Letter re: In re Prince Global Holdings Limited, et al., No. 26-10769
• Sullivan & Cromwell Just Put Every Firm on Notice. And S&C Advises OpenAI on Safe AI Use.
• An AI Screw-Up By… Sullivan & Cromwell?
• LinkedIn search results for Sullivan & Cromwell AI
• AI, Trust, and the Reinvention of Corporate Communications: Inside Gartner’s 2026 Playbook
• Does your intranet still matter in an AI-first workplace?
• Chatbots in Internal Communications: Game-Changing Wins
• How AI Chatbots Are Redefining Internal Communications?
• The future of internal communication: How AI is changing the workplace
• High earners race ahead on AI as workplace divide widens
• Sarah O’Connor: One early view about AI was that it would share…
• How AI is forcing journalists and PR to work smarter, not louder
• What journalists want from AI-assisted PR pitches
• Journalists Trust Human-Written Pitches Over AI
• Journalists Reject AI-Generated Press Releases As Untrustworthy
• What communicators can learn from Apple’s CEO transition announcement
• Tim Cook to become Apple Executive Chairman; John Ternus to become Apple CEO
• Iran’s Meme War Against Trump Ushers In a Future of ‘Slopaganda’
• Iran’s ‘slopaganda’ team uses AI Legos to flood social media
• Slopaganda wars: how and why the US and Iran are flooding the zone with viral AI-generated noise
• Slopaganda Comes of Age
• Alberta separatist leader unconcerned about influence of YouTube ‘slopaganda’ videos

Links from Dan York’s Tech Report

• WordPress 7.0 Source of Truth – Gutenberg Times
• WordPress 7.0: Real-Time Collaboration Arrives in Core
• WordPress 7.0 Release Party Updated Schedule

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, May 25.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Shel: Hi everybody and welcome to episode number 511 of For Immediate Release. This is our long-form episode for April 2026. I’m Shel Holtz in Concord, California.

Neville: And I’m Neville Hobson, Somerset in England. We have six great stories to discuss and share with you this month and to delight and entertain you, we hope. Topics range from the consequences of not following company guidance on AI use, chat bots, employee use, and the workplace divide, using AI to work smarter, what we learned from Apple’s CEO transition announcement, and the future of slopaganda. Lovely word, that one, show. Plus, Dan York’s tech report.

But first, let’s begin with a recap of the episodes we’ve published over the past month and some listening comments. In the long form episode 506 for March, published on the 23rd of March, our lead story was on Anthropic’s view that AI will destroy the billable hour, a topic we’ve talked about before on FIR. We also explored digital monitoring of employee work, Gartner’s prediction that PR budgets will double next year, the escalating misinformation crisis, and Cloudflare’s prediction that

bot traffic will exceed human traffic by 2027. That’s next year, by the way. On LinkedIn, you’ll find no shortage of posts stridently deriding the notion that anyone should ever use AI to write them. In FIR 507 on the 30th of March, we rejected roundly that idea and looked at the actual trends in using AI for writing. And that prompted some comments from listeners, right?

Shel: Yes, it did. Starting with Susan Gosselin, who’s actually with a client of mine back in my consulting days. She writes, there are many types of writing that I think AI is great for interpersonal communications, summaries, et cetera. But for marketing writing, that’s another thing. There are issues of copyright to consider and what you’re feeding into the channel.

This article from Jane Friedman, and she’s linked to it, and we’ll include that link in the show notes, is aimed at authors, but it does have implications for marketing writers too. For instance, I work for an American IT MSP, that’s a managed service provider. Let’s say that an MSP in Spain that does our line of work sees our website and our authoritative blogs and e-books and likes it. They decide to run our whole English website into Spanish using an AI translator.

then make a few tweaks and publish. There’s not a lot to stop them. There’s also the issue of being able to defend your copyright overall. The law is not yet fixed and the risks are real. Then Steve Lubetkin writes, I find AI particularly helpful for rote tasks like organizing lists, transforming Excel spreadsheet columns, and summarizing interview transcripts. It’s also great for brainstorming ideas when it suggests perspectives I hadn’t thought of.

but ultimately it comes down to using it as a tool for further human intervention, not less. Neville, you responded to that saying that’s a great way of putting it, Steve. Those rote tasks are exactly where AI seems to shine, the kind of work that takes time but doesn’t really benefit from deep human creativity. And I agree on brainstorming too. It could be surprisingly good at surfacing angles you might not have considered. I do this a lot.

Your last point really nails it though. It’s not about removing human input. It’s about focusing it where it matters most. Used that way, AI doesn’t diminish the work. It can actually elevate it. And finally, we have a comment from Yorma Mananan who writes, AI can help people escape from the writer’s block. So why not use it to get started?

However, writers must own all content created with or without AI so the content doesn’t sound like you, you shouldn’t publish it. The challenge is to learn to speak machine English with AI. Define clearly why you were writing, what you want to say, and what you want your readers to do after reading your content. Without your strategy, AI can’t produce quality content that sounds like you. Strategy first, AI second.

And Neville, responded to Yorma. You said, I like how you framed this using AI to get past the blank page is a very practical use case. That starting friction is real for a lot of people, and AI can lower the barrier quite effectively. Your point about ownership is key too. If it doesn’t sound like you, it isn’t really yours, regardless of how it was produced. Where I’d add a layer is around your machine English idea. I see it slightly differently. Rather than learning to speak machine,

I think the real shift is learning how to think with the machine, using it to clarify intent, test structure, and challenge assumptions. But I agree with your conclusion. Strategy first, AI second. Without that, you’re just generating words, not communicating. And Yorma responded to you saying, agree. Machine thinking is a better way of describing the conversation relationship with AI.

Neville: Good comment!

Great. It’s excellent to have that. interesting, Shell, that it illustrates to me something. It’s not a trend at all, but I’ve noticed recently in other posts I see on LinkedIn that address this kind of topic. Increasingly, there’s people leaving comments that are basically saying that you own it, not the AI. And AI assists you in communicating, not creating the final stuff, essentially, which is what some of these comments are alluded to.

Maybe people are waking up to that more than they have been in the past. It won’t silence the big critics. We’ve already seen that because, you know, it’s going to be criticized no matter what. But the more people who talk up the reality of what we all talk about, which is this is an assistant. It’s a tool to help you and communicate more effectively. It enhances your ability in that context. And then you’ve got Steve’s talking about, you know, doing stuff with Excel and all this kind of thing.

I’m in the middle of an experiment on the middle. I’m still at the 10 % start of experimenting with Claude Pro that I know you’ve been using for a long time, but I’m taking this very, very one step at a time. And it’s very non techie my focus. But one thing I have noticed is comparing as I have been doing, let’s say a prompt in the simplest form, a chat prompt to Claude compared to one to ChatGPT.

The differences are truly startling in many cases. Claude typically is richer and deeper in its content with the same prompts. Now, of course, there’s variables at play here. ChatGPT knows a huge amount about me. Claude does too, because there’s a nifty tool that imports everything from ChatGP to tell it. But I’ve also added stuff. So it’s done that. It’s missing on some levels, though. And that’s probably because it doesn’t yet know totally enough about me to do this.

This is something you notice when you do this kind of thing with different tools. So I mean, that’s not the main thing about Claude that wow’s me, I must admit. Cowork and some of the other tools I’ve been touching on, but Cowork I’ve spent quite a bit of time on. But so I’m sure we’re have lots more conversations about this as we talk topics. Let’s see what comes out of today’s menu of topics. So thanks for those comments, everyone.

Let’s see, bad, no, that’s not the right one, this one, when workers lose their jobs, many turn to gig work to earn income while waiting for new opportunities. Increasingly, companies are hiring gig workers to create content and train AI systems. This raises various communication and ethical issues. And in FIR 508 on the 8th of April, we explain what’s happening and discuss the implications.

Then when bad actors use AI tools to clone a musician’s voice and upload synthetic versions of their songs, they can then file copyright claims against the original artist’s content. In FIR 509 on the 14th of April, we break down how this scam works, why it matters to communicators, and what you should be doing right now before an incident forces your hand. And you have some comments here.

Shel: We do two of them, one from Eric Redicop who identifies himself on LinkedIn as an entertainer and artist wrote that AI cannot use my work because it’s not posted online anywhere. I have to do it this way because YouTube allowed bogus copyright claims on my work and shut down my channel five times. then Ray Baron-Wolford, who is a CEO at a charity organization said, this is why it’s so important that every artist signs up.

to all copyright protection services.

Neville: Yeah, that’s a good point. I think the the first commenter though talked about a genuine issue, a genuine issue. And I’d wonder if, you know, if he’s saying that this can’t happen to me because none of my content’s online. I wouldn’t rely on that 100%. Actually, I wouldn’t. No, I wouldn’t. And that second comment.

Shel: Mm-hmm.

No. I mean, you have to be producing

the kind of content where you can have some success as an artist or an entertainer without having your content online.

Neville: Yeah.

Yeah, exactly. So the second commenter about signing up for every copyright protection that you can find is probably well, not probably it is a good idea, although I’m not sure that everyone would want to do that. And therein lies one of the issues about copyright. It depends on the jurisdiction. It’s a geographically based protection. Creative Commons is a good place to have established as a…

reserving your rights or some of your rights if you want to enable things to happen for others to use it. And that’s an international thing. So that’s a peace of mind, I would say. There hasn’t really been many, I’ve certainly not seen any legal court case tests since Adam Curry back in 2009 when he, I think it was in the Netherlands, he sued somebody who’d used a photo of his daughter.

and won the case. And it was not a Pyrrhic victory, but there was no you didn’t get any money out of it. But he got the legal ruling that these people had infringed on his copyright. But I’ve not seen any sense. So nevertheless, it’s worth doing. So yeah.

Shel: Yeah, it goes back to Susan Gosselin’s

comment, too, about any organization that does the same thing you do can take your content from your website, translate it into their language and publish it. And what do you do if your content is not copyrighted? There’s nothing that you can do.

Neville: Yeah, that’s incredible.

Reminds that reminds me shell back in the 2000s website scraping was it was a huge deal when when blogs suddenly came to the fore and you found that people were stealing all your content. I remember being in a lengthy email exchange with someone I think based in Romania or somewhere not a hope in hell. He was going to desist from doing that. Eventually it stopped though. So but I mean and that wasn’t from a copyright perspective. It was theft of content, which is well related, isn’t it?

So yeah, lots to learn from that. And finally, in FIR 510 on the 20th of April, we revisited the topic of shadow AI, the situation where employees ignore company approved AI tools and use their own preferred tools and not tell anyone. We discuss how one company approaches problem and how communicators might advocate for a version of this approach to aiding in AI adoption and speeding up productivity gains. And now you’re up to date on FIR episodes.

Shel: Also want to let you know about Circle of Fellows. We’ve had a fascinating discussion just this past Thursday on Circle of Fellows. It’s part one of a two-part discussion, and it’s all based on this. If you’re watching the video, you can see it’s a new book by Diane Chase, former chair of IABC and a great communicator called The Seven C’s of the New Communication Compass. And what Diane did here was…

outlined these seven points and find words that started with C to label them. And she wrote one chapter and then basically had IABC fellows write the rest of the chapter. So Diane is the first non-fellow to appear on Circle of Fellows, but it’s her book, so it made sense. And in the first installment that we recorded on Thursday, Diane was joined

Joining the panel were, of course, me — I moderated the session, Jane Mitchell, Ginger Holman, and Brad Whitworth. Next month on the May episode of Circle of Fellows, Brad Whitworth will be the moderator, and I’ll be a panelist talking about the chapter I wrote about community, and I’ll be joined by Zora Artis and Cindy Schmieg, IABC fellows who wrote the other chapters.

It’s a really good book. I recommend it for communicators. But we talk about some of the issues around these chapters and Diane explains why these were the topics that she said in the new communication environment. These are, you know, your North Stars, as it were. So definitely worth giving a listen to this month’s Circle of Fellows, which you will find on the FIR Podcast Network.

at firpodcastnetwork.com. And we are going to take a short break now for a sponsor message. We will be back to dive into our six topics right after this.

Neville: Here’s a story that on the surface looks just like another example of AI going wrong. In mid April, one of the world’s most prestigious law firms, Sullivan and Cromwell, had to apologize to a US bankruptcy court after submitting a filing that contained multiple AI hallucinations, fabricated case citations, misquoted legal authorities, even references to cases that simply don’t exist. The errors weren’t minor.

They were significant enough that the firm had to send a formal letter to the judge, acknowledge what had happened, and submit a corrected version of the filing. And just to make it more uncomfortable, these mistakes weren’t caught internally. They were identified by the opposing legal team. Now, if you stop there, it’s easy to frame this as just another cautionary tale about AI, unreliable tools, hallucinations, the risk of automation in high stakes work. But that’s not the story here.

This firm didn’t lack guidance, quite the opposite in fact. They have formal policies governing the use of AI. They require lawyers to complete training before they can even access these tools. Their internal guidance explicitly warns about hallucinations and tells lawyers to verify everything before it goes anywhere near a client or a court. In fact, their own language is very clear, trust nothing and verify everything. And yet, in this case, those policies were not followed.

A document that should have been scrutinized at multiple levels made its way into a courtroom with fundamental inaccuracies baked into it. The failure here wasn’t the technology. It was a failure of process, behavior, and accountability. Human in the Loop only works if there is an actual human who is clearly responsible for checking the work, not in theory, nor in a policy document, but in practice, at the point where a decision is made to send something out into the world.

And what this case suggests is that in many organizations, that loop is more notional than real. If AI is being used to accelerate work, where are the safeguards that ensure quality isn’t being compromised in the process? And are those safeguards actually being followed or just assumed? Having a policy is one thing, embedding it into how people actually behave, especially under time pressure, is something else entirely. And I think that’s where this story really matters beyond the legal profession.

Behavior is moving faster than governance. People are experimenting, they’re finding shortcuts, they’re integrating these tools into their daily workflows, often quietly and informally. The risk isn’t only that AI gets something wrong, it’s also that humans stop checking as rigorously as they should, or assume that someone else had, or trust output that feels authoritative, even when it hasn’t been properly verified. So when we talk about responsible AI or human-centered AI or governance frameworks,

This is what it comes down to in practice, not whether you have a policy, but whether at the moment that matters, someone takes responsibility for asking a very simple question, is this actually correct? And if this case tells us anything, it’s that answering that question consistently is still much harder than many organizations seem to think.

Shel: Boy, isn’t that true. And the first thing I thought when I read this story, because it seems like the organization did everything right, is the question about what are people rewarded for in this organization? I wrote a post about this on LinkedIn probably a couple of months ago, that process speaks louder than any message that you send.

through communication channels. And I included this story that I’ve probably relayed on this podcast 20 times just because it is such a good analogy to really make this clear. The company, the logistics company that was experiencing a lot of breakage of its packages in one of its distribution centers and…

the company just kept sending messages about how important it was to be careful and take the time when you’re loading these packages so that you’re not just throwing them around and you’re not breaking things that customers are expecting to receive unbroken. And the breakage continued and they brought a consultant in, communications consultant I might add, who looked at all of this and found that the reason this was happening was because people were actually being rewarded for productivity.

and not for quality. That meant that they were getting money for doing this quickly. So as long as you were going to pay them more to get this stuff out quickly, the breakage was going to continue. You had to shift the rewards mechanism. So it was rewarding quality. Now they’re going to slow down and make sure everything’s unbroken. Of course, you’re going to lose some of the speed there.

So when I hear the story about this law firm, the first thing I wonder is, yeah, we have all of these policies and we’ve been through all of this training and the governance is in place, but I’m being rewarded for getting this done quickly. And therefore I’m not going to take the time to review the citations that the AI cranked out. I don’t know that this is the case in this organization, but it was the first question I asked.

Neville: Well, that’s an interesting point, Shel, because that was in my mind, too, but it didn’t make it into my notes that they’re known to be, they are, I think, the second biggest law firm globally. They’ve been around 150 years, long and well established, highly credible, super reputation, all that. But they have some of their lawyers charging out at around two and a half thousand dollars an hour for their services. That’s serious money.

And that kind of adds to your point about speed is the focus here, not the quality. Now, to repeat what you said, we do not know if that’s the case in this law firm. But it could be, and your other point you make about that an individual might be saying, I don’t have time to check all this stuff because I’m being rewarded for getting stuff out fast. They have to address that if that’s true. They really have to address that because that perpetuates this. If it turns out that it’s true.

But it brings, I suppose, to my mind, the reality, all these policies, and there’s a lot of reporting on this that’s around if you look for it, talking about some of the training courses, the fact that a lawyer, no lawyer can even use one of their AI tools unless they are certified to have done this, this and this training program or that video they have watched, all that. And yet this happened. So there’s something out of loop here. There’s something not

not working properly. Could it be as simple as the person who signs off on this, i.e., this piece of work is going to that client or this filing is being submitted in this bankruptcy case in New York? This was a major bankruptcy case by not individual. I believe it was a financial company in the Virgin Islands, the British Virgin Islands for that matter, in the Caribbean. It was high profile. But could it really be as simple as that? All this

work going on at speed. that’s probably somebody thought that’s fine, because we’re going to check it all. And yet nobody did. So it signals something we’ve encountered before. And I’m reminded of a case we reported last year about Deloitte. And the issues they had was something similar, but it was not a legal case in a court. It was a report they prepared for a client, which happened to be the government of Australia, and another one in the government of Canada have six figure fees.

riddled with hallucinations and other things. So somebody didn’t check it in that case. I have no knowledge of what training they have in place. In this case, we do have knowledge of what training they have in case. Could it really be as simple as somebody, an individual, isn’t the known responsible partner in the law firm for the authoritative voice on this is okay to send to that client or to that court or whatever.

Even if 15 other people have been involved in checking stuff before, that one person has that responsibility. They obviously don’t have that, suspect. Maybe that’s the solution to this kind of thing. you I know you have some strong views on, you know, having a verifier in place in organizations. You want to talk a bit more about that?

Shel: Well, yeah,

I mean, I’ve said this before. I think that one of the jobs that AI is actually going to lead to the creation of is a verification specialist, somebody who is accountable and knows they’re accountable. They are baked into the process. It gets passed to them and they verify the entire document. I don’t care if it’s an 80 page filing. You know, there was another law firm.

that found itself in this trouble recently. It was in Oregon and the court of appeals there sanctioned the lawyer involved for the AI errors that were in the law firms filing. And the court in its finding…

emphasize that AI isn’t a lawyer and it can’t replace professional judgment or accountability. And that principle travels pretty well. AI is not a communicator. It’s not a strategist. It’s not a lawyer. It’s not an HR expert. It’s not a subject matter expert. It’s a tool. The professional has to be accountable. So for communicators, that means we can’t outsource accuracy. We can’t outsource context. We can’t outsource tone or ethical judgment to a machine.

We can use AI as aggressively as we can find that it helps us do our job, but we still have to verify ruthlessly and we have to make sure that other people in the organization know that that’s part of their remit too.

Neville: Yeah, it’s a very tricky one, think, Shel, given what we know currently about the developments that are happening with artificial intelligence, particularly in generative AI, particularly with tools, particularly like Claude and ChatGPT and Gemini, where and Steve Lubetkin in his comment to one of the episodes from last month alluded to that when he talked about how it is great to, know, deciphering columns in Excel spreadsheets.

Here you’ve got a tool that can actually generate the AI spreadsheet and perform literally everything in analytics, pivot tables that works literally in 20 seconds. And so you suddenly find that here you have a tool that is able to generate content that the traditional way of prompting would have taken considerable to and fro.

And, you know, changes here, editing there, you turn the AI, not this, that’s coming back to all that sort of stuff. And then someone checking it. And here you’ve got the situation where this is accelerating, it can do these things, arguably, and again, depending what it is, it can do things that until now, people would say AI can’t do that. And I’m thinking that, you know, AI is not a communicator. No, it’s itself is not at the moment.

So I mean, this will take us down a rabbit hole if we get into this, which we’re not going to do. But it’s a point worth noting that sooner or later, we’re going to have an AI tool of some type doing something only before a human could do. And then where are we? So again, that’s all a bit in the future and maybe sooner than we think. I don’t worry about that in the sense because there’s no point, Shel. It’s not happened yet. But I do worry about things like this because

This is an easy one to get right, it seems to me, that you got all these policies, et cetera, you got to not so much enforce them. That’s not really the right word to use. It’s to ensure that people follow those policies. Therefore, it’s a communication issue. It’s an educational issue. It’s not a training issue, but it’s education, awareness raising, and getting people to buy into why they should do this, in which case, you’re likely going to have to change your model of rewarding people in that case.

That’s big deal. So this isn’t something that you can idly do except on the kind of surface, i.e., you do all this stuff, you’ve got one person who’s got the responsibility and the consequences will fall on that person if it turns out no one followed the stuff. So that’s probably what would help here.

Shel: Yeah, and I think it’s also worth noting that it’s going to get easier to assume that AI got it right. I mentioned that AI currently isn’t a subject matter expert, but it’s becoming one that we have. OpenAI is creating one that’s just for doctors and Anthropic just signed a deal with a law firm to create a legal specific version of Claude. So, you know, I think when you

look at what happened here with this law firm. We should look at this as sort of a dress rehearsal for AI related crisis response. The law firm did the right thing, right? They acknowledged the problem, they apologized to the court, they filed a corrected version, but at that point, the reputational damage had already been done because that narrative…

had found its way into Reuters, The Guardian, Business Insider, Above the Law, LinkedIn, and all the legal newsletters. And that’s how AI failures will unfold for other organizations, whether it’s out of the legal department or elsewhere. You’re going to have the operational error, then the public narrative, and then people are going to pile on. Communicators should already have holding statements, internal FAQs, and escalation protocols for AI-generated errors, especially

In high stakes content like a legal file.

Neville: Yeah, plenty to think about on this. although the kind of advice I would give is, yes, you’ve got all your policies and so forth, as we’ve been discussing at the beginning, but have you got the human genuinely in the loop to take responsibility for what you’re giving to a client or to a court?

Shel: Well, let’s stick with the AI theme. Hey, that should be no surprise. Gartner is predicting that by 2028, 75 % of employees will rely on chatbots to get relevant internal communications. That’s not the distant future, folks. It’s the year after next, and that should stop every internal communicator in their tracks. Not because chatbots are coming for the intranet or the newsletter or the manager cascade. That’s just

Too simplistic. The bigger shift is that employees are moving from browsing to asking. They’re not going to hunt through the intranet and a stack of emails to get an answer to a simple question. They’re just going to go to the chat bot and ask, what has this changed for me? Do I need to do anything by Friday? Why is my department being reorganized? And they’ll expect an answer in seconds and probably get one. The Gartner prediction is based on a very real problem.

information overload. According to Gartner’s report, employees who report high information overload are 52 % less likely to report high intent to stay with their organization, so it’s a retention issue, and they’re 30 % less likely to report high strategic alignment with the organization. Gartner also says chatbots will provide personalized curated answers for pull communication and customized alerts for push communication.

That’s a major shift in the employee communication model. Now there are real benefits here. A well-designed internal chat bot can give employees faster answers, reduce HR and IT ticket volume, provide 24-7 support, support multiple languages, and cite authoritative sources so employees know where an answer came from. It can also deliver information within the flow of work rather than forcing people to go somewhere else to find it.

But here’s the part communicators are going to need to wrestle with. An AI answer is not the same thing as communication. An answer can tell an employee what

An answer can tell an employee what changed. It may even summarize why it changed. Will it preserve the intent, the nuance, the context, and the emotional intelligence of the original communication? There’s no guarantee it will. Take changed communication, for instance. We frequently write detailed articles explaining the rationale for a change because employees need more than the transaction. They need to understand the business context. They need to know what

options leaders considered and which options they discarded and why. They need to hear what’s not changing. They need some sense that the decision was made thoughtfully and not arbitrarily. But what happens when no one reads the article? What happens when the employee asks the chat bot, what’s changing in our benefits plan and gets a clean, accurate three sentence answer that strips out the rationale completely?

This is where internal communicators have to evolve from being message producers to knowledge architects. The intranet still matters. It may be less of a destination and more of the trusted knowledge later that feeds AI. Frank Wolf made this point really well in PR Daily. AI doesn’t eliminate the intranet’s jobs. It changes how pull, push and people centered communication work.

The intranet becomes the foundation that makes chatbot answers reliable. If the knowledge layer is messy, if it’s outdated or written in a way that AI can’t interpret or interpret well, the chatbot’s going to sound confident, still be wrong. This means we have to consider an expansion of the internal communicator’s job. Yeah, we still need to write, but now we also need to structure. We need clear source of truth pages and metadata.

We need FAQs that anticipate employee questions, and we need version control, expiration dates, and more. We need to decide which information can be answered directly by a bot and which question should trigger a human response. And we need to design for narrative preservation. That means writing source content with AI retrieval in mind. If the rationale for a change matters, don’t bury it in paragraph eight. Make it explicit. Label it.

Repeat it in a concise why this matters section. Smart brevity writing would be a great approach to adopt here. Create approved answer blocks that the chat bot can draw from and test the bot by asking questions employees are likely to ask, then check whether the answers reflect not just the facts, but the intended meaning. This also has implications for measurement, by the way. Page views and open rates become less useful

if employees are getting answers without opening an article. We’ll need to measure the questions employees ask, the quality of the answers they receive, the content gaps the bot reveals, and whether employees understand the strategy, the change, or the policy after interacting with the system. It’s a lazy conclusion to say employees won’t read anymore, so let’s just give them chat bots. The better conclusion is employees are changing how they access information

So we need to make sure the organization’s knowledge, context, and narrative survive that shift.

Neville: Hmm. Yeah, this is a huge topic, Shell, because what struck me listening to you was in a sense of continuity of what we just talked about in the previous topic is the verification of content that an AI produces for you. How are we going to deal with that? We talk about putting in place, you know, trusted sources for all this information. So, you know, let’s say I’m an employee, I’ve asked a question on something, it’s given me an answer.

I need to check that. So what do I check that? And how do I know that it’s accurate? So you project that out to the kinds of stuff people deal with daily. And this is a huge undertaking, I would say, because looking at that article, talking about this, it has an interesting piece in there about the safeguards that CCOs are mentioning here specifically.

will need to put in place to mitigate the risks of hallucinations, misinformation, and a fragmented landscape that comes with AI, they say. CCOs will need a greater emphasis on information quality, as well as an optimizing intranet content for AI searchability. You mentioned that point. They must also partner with IT, HR, and legal to establish robust governance to ensure that chatbots responses are accurate. That’s the bit. How are they going to do that? Because something internal,

It surely isn’t going to be only producing answers based on what it finds on your internal networks alone. It must be looking out onto the wider landscape. How do you verify and check all that? That’s a major debating point for taking this further, it seems to me. So it’s a huge undertaking.

Shel: Yeah, think one of the things, and I sort of breezed through it pretty quickly, but I think that we’re going to need to figure out is how do we monitor and assess what questions employees are asking that produce an answer that’s drawn from internal communications content, whether that’s in an email that went out or something that was posted to the intranet. How do we monitor the questions that are being asked and the effectiveness of the responses so that we can make adjustments?

So that we can report that, yeah, we can determine that there is alignment on why this change was made, or we can say, gee, people are just getting an answer that tells them what the change is, and they don’t have any understanding that we looked at alternatives and we tried to find a better solution. And this was the best we settled on. And here’s why it’s good for employees or here’s how to cope with this in your department or whatever it may be. And to do this without

necessarily surveilling employees, right? We don’t want to know who asked the question. I think it would be great if we could say, wow, look at this. 70 % of this particular point of confusion that was illuminated by the questions that we’re asking are coming from people in our operations division and not other divisions of the organization. That would be useful, but we don’t want to be able to say John Doe asked this question. What an idiot.

It’s a serious issue. And I think the guidance that we need to have the information in multiple places where the AI can see it so that it realizes that this is an important topic because it is in several places and that we have it in several formats, the FAQs, the answer blocks. This is repurposing the original content in ways that will help ensure

that the AI inside your organization is delivering information with context, with those other elements that’s so important for employees to understand to create that alignment. And by the way, I mentioned the seven Cs of the new communication compass. One of them is congruence, which we’re arguing goes beyond alignment, that there is congruence in the organization. So.

If we want that, and it is important, it’s one of the reasons there is an internal communications function, we really need to start rethinking what we’re doing and how we’re doing it.

Neville: Yeah, agree. I think surveillance is a very, very slippery topic and a slope. Because you’re going to have to have some kind of process in place and it probably surveillance is the correct label. Otherwise, you have really struggled to to find the answers you will need when you if you roll out something like this. So I think

You know, we’ve reported recently on keystroke logging and other ways organizations are now requiring in place to monitor whether employees are working or not. And it’s still making news headlines in the tabloids here, a case recently about someone had this wheeze of having something that touched his keyboard every now and again to show it was working. The trouble is that the employer was savvy enough to have the software could tell which key and it was the same key all the time.

So things like that, probably going to have to rebalance this privacy versus being able to see what people are doing algorithm, let’s say. And that’s going to be difficult, given the history, I suppose, of some organizations not respecting employee privacy. Look at the China model, and that’s not what we want to have here.

state surveillance on everyone’s daily lives is pervasive in urban areas, not necessarily throughout the whole country. So do we want that? We may not actually have the ability to say no to that, given what they need to do. So that’s part of the issue to include, I think.

Shel: Yeah, and I think one other thing we’re going to have to do is more asking. We’re going to have to survey after a change and ask employees if they understood the reason for the change. And part of the problem with increasing the number of surveys, and I’ve made this argument for years, that people will take surveys all day long if they see the results of the surveys and they see that things are going to change.

If you’re asking people, did you understand this? Did you understand the rationale for it? Do you agree with it? It’s hard. I mean, you can report the results, but what’s going to change? You’re going to change maybe the way you’re producing content. That’s not going to be visible to employees. So it’s going to be a challenge to ask those questions frequently without producing that kind of survey fatigue that we hear so much about.

Neville: Big topic. OK. OK, so there’s a widely held idea about AI that’s been around almost since the beginning, that it would be a great leveler in the workplace. It’s kind of continuity of what we’re talking about here, The thinking was that if you give everyone access to powerful tools that can write, analyze, summarize code, and generate ideas, then people with less experience or fewer formal skills

should be able to close the gap with those at the top. But what we’re starting to see in the real world looks quite different. In fact, it may be doing the opposite. The Financial Times has just published new research based on a survey of 4,000 workers in the US and the UK. And the findings are pretty stark. More than 60%, a 6-0, of higher earners say they use AI every day in their work. Among low earners, that number drops to just 16%, 1-6. That’s a pretty big gap.

So instead of leveling the playing field, AI adoption is heavily skewed towards the people who are already ahead, better paid, more experienced, often in more knowledge intensive roles. I think it makes sense because using AI effectively isn’t just about having access. Most people have access. It’s about knowing what to do with the tools. It’s about having the confidence to experiment, the context to apply them to real work, and the judgment to assess whether the output is actually useful.

And those are things that tend to come with experience, with education and with the kind of roles where you have a bit more autonomy over how you work. There’s a line in the research from one economist that really captures this shift. The more intelligent the technology becomes, the more your own intelligence matters. If you already have expertise, AI can make you faster, more productive, maybe even better at what you do. But if you don’t yet have that foundation, it’s much harder to extract real value from it.

There are other factors at play too. The research points to corporate training as one of the biggest drivers of AI use at work. So organizations that actively support and encourage adoption are seeing much higher uptake. And interestingly, the heaviest users of AI aren’t the youngest workers, as you might expect, but people in their 30s with more experience behind them. So again, this isn’t a generational story so much. It’s about how AI fits into the structure of work itself.

If AI is boosting the productivity of higher earners more than lower earners, then over time you’d expect the gap to widen in output, in value, and potentially in pay. And there’s a second order effect that’s a bit more subtle, but potentially more significant. If AI starts to take on some of the routine or entry level tasks that junior staff would traditionally do, then where do people build the skills? How do you develop expertise if the work that teaches you the fundamentals is increasingly being handled by a machine?

So instead of AI acting as a ladder, help people climb, there’s a risk it starts to pull away some of the rungs. And this is where it connects directly to leadership and to communication. This isn’t just about who has access to AI tools. It’s about who feels able to use them, who is encouraged to use them, who is trained to use them well, and who is supported in making sense of what they produce. So this is about culture, not technology.

If organizations simply roll out AI and assume the benefits will spread evenly, they may find the opposite happens, that they’ve unintentionally widened the gap inside their own workforce. So perhaps the real question here isn’t whether AI will level the playing field. It’s whether leaders and communicators advising them are actively shaping how that playing field is changing or just watching it tilt.

Shel: Yeah, that training point is, I think, really critical. And a project manager, an accountant, field supervisor, an HR business partner, and a communication specialist don’t need the same training. They also don’t need the same examples delivered by communications. So the communicator’s contribution here is translation. Here’s what this means for your role, for your task, for your team, and your day.

That includes, you know, surfacing success stories from unexpected parts of the organization. I would love to find an example of, a foreman on a construction project site using AI. I don’t want to just report on what the IT department is doing and the other, you know, tech forward departments are doing. You know, the goal shouldn’t be everyone becomes an AI expert. The goal should be that nobody’s quietly excluded from

the next operating model because they don’t see how AI fits in their work.

Neville: Yeah, we’ve talked about this multiple times, Shell, in various episodes, which is who feels able to use such tools. And that comes, that stems from the leadership communication, in my opinion, that has to encourage people to do this. They feel they’re being empowered. They feel they’ve been given permission to do this. And they know they can count on help to when they get stuck with something. That, is

hardly uniform in just any organization, frankly, and this isn’t about, we’re going to create the special department to do this, this needs to permeate across an organization. So you’ve got leadership at the very highest level, filter that down to your local manager, your line manager, or whoever you report to has got to encourage you as well. And I’m sure that’s that happens in many organizations, but to make this really work, that doesn’t result in the gap widening between those who are

naturally excited about this and have the experience and the knowledge and the expertise to know how to get value out of these tools. You’ve got to have something in place that helps everyone else who isn’t like that. And there’s a challenge for communicators without any question.

Shel: Well, for the whole organization, I mean, as I talk to people in other companies, it seems that we’re still in that experimentation phase that I think most organizations should be beyond by now. But the way it’s working right now in a lot of companies is the curious employees can try the tools and cautious employees can wait and everyone else will eventually catch up. that’s not going to work. mean, if this is becoming a material productivity and capability layer,

Neville: As well.

the

Shel: We need to implement intentional adoption strategies. That means making role specific examples and approved tools and safe use guidance and peer demonstrations. And we’re trying to do this where I work is get peers showing other employees what they’re doing. Psychological safety, plain language explanations of what employees are supposed to be doing with this. So all needs to be put in place and communications has a role to play here, but

If we don’t, adoption is going to follow the path of least resistance, and that’s toward the people who have the power, the time, and the digital fluency, and then you’re going to end up with that gap.

Neville: Work to do here.

Shel: Yeah, and by the way, there was another part of the FT’s reporting that I found really interesting that you didn’t mention. And that’s that men are more likely to use AI tools than women across a number of sectors. And I think that should concern leaders because AI fluency is becoming part of professional competence. And if men, along with higher earners and more experienced workers, are building fluency faster,

What’s going to happen? And you know, the performance evaluations and promotion decisions and the visibility of the employees who are getting that kind of attention and informal influence may start reflecting AI access rather than raw ability. And here again, there’s a role for communicators by pushing AI enablement into say, manager toolkits, into your onboarding processes, into your training and team level norms is important.

as opposed to just letting it sit as an informal advantage for people who are already competent.

Neville: Yeah, like I said, work to do here.

Shel: Thanks, Dan. I am looking forward to seeing this WordPress release. I have to say, I really like the idea of collaborative editing. As you know, the FIR podcast network website is on WordPress and Neville, you and I both use it and the ability for both of us to go in and deal with that in more of a Google Docs setting than logging in and just pulling up the post.

makes sense to me. I definitely do see the issues with this as well, though, but it’ll be interesting to see this and the other changes as well. So thanks for the report, Dan. Really, really interesting. Well, we’re to stick with the AI theme again, probably not surprising given the impact that it’s having. And by the way, I have to say that when I scroll through LinkedIn, it’s got to be 80 % of the posts I see now are

AI related and that’s not hyperbole. It is a guess. I haven’t measured, but man, it is all AI all the time on LinkedIn. That’s what people are talking about. And it’s changing the relationship between PR professionals and journalists, just not the way a lot of people expected it would. The fear was that AI would automate the work. We’d have a lot of AI written press releases and AI written pitches and articles.

And yeah, there’s definitely a lot of that happening and people are calling it out. But the more interesting shift is not that AI makes it easier to produce more content, it’s that AI makes bad media relations more obvious and more damaging. Pete Pachal, who was a guest on FIR interviews, what was that Neville, about a year ago? Yeah, he makes this point in an article in Fast Company, AI is becoming a new interface.

Neville: A year ago,

Shel: For how information is found, prioritized, and interpreted. Journalists and PR people are both affected because AI systems more and more shape which stories surface, which ones get cited, and which narratives get visibility. Pete’s argument is that the advantage doesn’t go to the people who can generate the most material. It goes to the people who produce original reporting, useful expertise, clear narratives, and trusted relationships. That’s an important distinction for people who…

operate in the media relations world. AI can help you write faster, but speed was already part of the problem. Journalists were already drowning in irrelevant pitches before generative AI showed up. AI just gives every mediocre PR practitioner a way to send even more mediocre pitches even faster. The results not greater efficiency, it’s more noise. And journalists are noticing.

PR Daily reported on a global results communication survey of nearly 1,700 reporters across print, digital, and broadcast. 81 % said pitches and relationships with PR professionals are vital to their work. So journalists aren’t saying we don’t need PR, but 43 % expressed negative views about AI-generated pitches, saying they read like a bot wrote them and that they lack perspective and erode editorial trust.

So here’s the conflict. Journalists still need PR. They need access and sources and data and context and story ideas, but they’re getting a lot less tolerant of anything that feels mass produced, poorly targeted or synthetic. Medianet’s 2026 Media Landscape Report, based on feedback from 800 journalists, makes the same point more sharply. The report says three quarters of journalists have received pitches that appeared to be AI generated.

and about half said they could always detect machine written copy. I would argue with that, but let’s not go down that rabbit hole. The same report says 86 % of journalists now cite press releases as a key news source, which means the press release isn’t dead, but the stakes for credibility are higher. There’s also a widely circulated LinkedIn post citing the media net research saying 78 % of journalists report that receiving an AI written pitch

decreases their trust in the PR person who sent it. That’s consistent with the other findings. Journalists aren’t rejecting AI assistance, they’re rejecting lazy use of AI. So what should PR practitioners be doing differently? I’ve got five things. First, stop using AI as a pitch factory. This is the most obvious trap. If the output is a generic email with a personalized opening line,

and a weak story angle, AI hasn’t made you better, it’s made you faster at getting ignored. Second, use AI before the pitch, not as a replacement for your judgment. Use it to analyze everything the journalist has written recently, summarize themes, identify gaps, pressure test whether the angle is timely, and prepare sharper source material.

P.R. Daley’s piece makes this point well. AI can help with research, angle testing, drafting, editing, personalization, and follow-up prep, but the human edit is where you add that credibility. Third, bring journalists something they can’t get from a model. That means original data, direct access to informed sources, a useful articulate expert, a local angle, a contrarian but defensible point of view, or a story that fits the reporter’s audience.

Fourth, be transparent internally about what AI can and can’t do. PR leaders should have rules. AI can help research, structure, brainstorm, and edit, but it should not invent relevance, fake familiarity, fabricate personalization, or send anything without human review. And fifth, think beyond the pitch. In an AI-mediated media environment, you’re not just trying to get a reporter to open an email.

you should be trying to build a public record of expertise and credibility. That includes owned content, executive visibility, contributed thinking, data assets, analyst material, podcasts, newsletters, earned media, anything that reinforces a coherent narrative that AI systems will recognize and retrieve. So the future of media relations isn’t more automated pitching.

The future is more precise, more evidence-based, more relationship-driven, and more strategic. AI will handle more of the mechanics, but judgment, relevance, trust, and access become more valuable, not less. In other words, AI doesn’t eliminate the relationship between PR and journalism. It raises the penalty for abusing it.

Neville: Yeah, it’s a it’s it’s an interesting topic without doubt. I was actually pretty impressed with the five points mentioned by Courtney Blackan in the PR Daily report. And it mirrors, frankly, almost everything we’ve talked about in this episode so far. And indeed, in recent episodes that we have to keep repeating this really, Shel, and you’ve done a good job, I think, at outlining this is what you’ve got to do.

And it’s about this, but it also relates to these other 10 things we’ve talked about. But a couple of things that struck me here that really, really do resonate well. mean, research smarter, that makes complete sense. I mean, that’s got to be your starting point. But things like draft faster and edit harder. I like that one, I must admit. So you use AI to an AI tool to organize your ideas.

into a structured draft or just simply improve the overall language that you’ve done and rewrite some of it. To kind of anticipate criticism from those who don’t think I should be involved in any of this, I liken it to that’s what you’d be asking a colleague to do or that freelancer that you’ve hired to help you work on this. You’d be giving them the same request as you would to the AI tool.

So what’s the difference? One’s not a human. That’s probably the biggest difference. But I don’t get swayed by any of those arguments about you can’t use AI to do this. Now, of course, you’ve got to use it. The caveat is, for God’s sake, don’t just copy and paste that into your document in the center. Now, this is your assistant, not your creator. You’re the creator. And this helps you create very well, typically, all other things being equal. But I like that draft faster, edit harder.

And it’s kind of like your A-B testing or A-B-C testing possibly with the AI assistant to help you do this quite quickly. And it’s great. Personalize with precision is another one she mentions. Don’t blast out the same email to 50 journalists, which is what many people do it seems to me. You’ve got the ability to personalize those emails. And again, you know,

Your AI can help you with drafting that. So it will need to know quite a bit about the journalists and your relationship with them if you’re the PR person. So quite a lot of prep work you’d need to do here first. But the output from the AI will be pretty good if you do it right. So these are things that take your method that you might currently be using, which is prompt the AI to a totally different level.

And that’s what you got to be thinking about now because this is where it’s all going. This is not way beyond just simply a chat bot. So it’s a really good topic. And these reports that you’ve highlighted, Shel, are great. Pete Pachal’s post is excellent. We’ve got to him back for back again from another interview, I think, because we interviewed him when he was just starting his business. And he’s gone places for that business now. So it’s worth reading.

Shel: Yeah, I think so.

Neville: That and the PR Daily report. do like those five points.

Shel: Yeah, remember, remember we interviewed Aaron Kwittken from PRophet, that’s PRophet with a capital PR. And one of the things that’s, yeah, it was. And one of the things that system did was identify reporters who have written about this topic. It reviews the content that they have written over the past recent period and crafts a personalized pitch for each of them, which then you can go in and edit. I don’t think you

Neville: Yeah, I do. Yeah.

Quite a while ago.

Shel: Sorry, Aaron, if you’re listening, I think you provide a great service, but people don’t need this anymore because you can create an agent that does that, identify the reporters who have written about this, review their most recent articles and craft a pitch for this press release. That can be done now internally with an agent that would probably take about an hour to create. mean, agents can go out and do amazing things now. Chris Penn.

just wrote a post, he found somebody’s wallet on the street and it had enough stuff in it that he could spend a few hours tracking down who owned it. There wasn’t a driver’s license with an address. There was some cash, there were a couple of debit cards, but he was able to give an agent all of that information and go do his work on something else. And after a couple of hours, it said, I’ve narrowed it down to these three people. And Chris was able to look at those three people and figure out which one it was.

lived really nearby and got the guy’s wallet back. We can do this kind of thing now in pursuit of PR objectives. The other thing I want to say is that I’ve gotten in the habit now of recording interviews and giving the transcript to AI and say, organize this into a first draft of a press release of an article of a change notice, whatever it might be. And I don’t copy and paste that in. That’s a first draft. It’s absolutely.

a case of draft quickly and edit hard. I hadn’t heard that framing before, but it’s absolutely what I do these days because it just saves a lot of time and gets me into the nuts and bolts of making this relevant without having to spend half that time just reviewing the transcript and organizing that into sort of a logical flow.

I think it’s a great use of AI and it’s one that I’ve been using for, geez, a couple of years now.

Neville: Is. I agree. So there are things that you’re accustomed to that work for you. But pay attention to this kind of thing, because this is taking it to another level that will benefit you. You just will not just but you need to clearly understand what this is. And Pete’s article, the PR Daily piece are two sources that will help you do that. But it’s definitely worth a look.

Our next story is a very different one. It’s not about something going wrong. It’s not about AI, but about something going exactly to plan. Apple announced that Tim Cook will step down as CEO later this year and become executive chairman with John Ternus, currently head of hardware engineering, taking over the role. On the face of it, this is a major moment. A CEO transition at a company of this scale. It’s what, revenues?

trillion, second wealth, the most valuable company in the world currently. It was number one not long ago, so it might retain that. It often creates uncertainty internally in the markets and across the wider ecosystem. What’s striking here is how little disruption there seems to be. There were no leaks. The announcement landed cleanly. The market reaction was muted and the tone throughout is calm, controlled and focused on continuity.

And that’s the real story, I think, because this isn’t just a leadership transition. It’s a masterclass on how to communicate one. If you look at the messaging, everything reinforces stability. isn’t disappearing. He’s staying involved as executive chairman. Ternus isn’t positioned as a bold new direction. He’s presented as a long standing insider, deeply embedded in Apple’s culture and products. There’s no sense of rupture, just a steady handoff.

The most important part of this story though is the announcement itself. It’s what happened before the announcement. Ternus didn’t appear overnight. He’s been gradually made visible over several years, fronting product launches, appearing in keynotes, becoming a familiar presence. So by the time this announcement arrives, it doesn’t feel like a surprise. It feels like confirmation. And that’s the key insight. This transition didn’t start with a press release. It started years ago.

What Apple has done is build familiarity, credibility and trust in the successor long before the moment of change. So when the change comes, the narrative is already understood. And that changes everything because most organizations treat moments like this as announcements, whereas Apple treats them as outcomes, the result of a story that has been deliberately shaped over time. That has practical implications because when transitions feel chaotic or disruptive, it’s often not because the change itself is unexpected.

is because the story hasn’t been prepared. The successor isn’t known, the narrative isn’t clear, the organization is reacting in real time. Apple avoids that entirely, not by communicating more in the moment, but by communicating earlier, by building trust before it’s needed. And that’s where this becomes relevant for leaders and for communicators advising them. The real question isn’t how do you announce a change, it’s how early you start preparing people to understand it.

Shel: Yeah, they didn’t treat this as a sudden disclosure. This was more continuity without pretending that nothing was changing. Right. It does a lot of reassuring work, not just about Cook’s remaining in the new roll through and actually staying in the current role through the summer and then staying as executive chairman, who’s going to work closely with Ternus during the transition. Also talked about

Ternus’s ties to Steve Jobs and Apple’s mission and its values. And that language isn’t an accident. I think the lesson for communicators is that the leadership transition needs facts and emotional reassurance, right? Employees don’t just wanna know who reports to whom. They wanna know whether the company they believe in is still the company they believe in. I do like in PR Daily’s report, the discussion of different audiences.

They didn’t send one announcement everywhere. They had public messaging and employee facing messaging and they both serve different purposes, right? The public version celebrated the legacy and confidence they had in this transition. The employee version was warmer. It was more grounded. And I mean, this is communication 101 in a lot of senses, but still something that we should emphasize. Consistency doesn’t mean identical language. Employees…

deserve a message written for employees, not a copy of the press release with Dear Team pasted on top.

Neville: I agree with you, Shel. This is an excellent example of how to do that. And yes, there wasn’t a single message. That’s very true. It was tailored messaging that showed clear understanding of those different audiences internally and externally. So a lot you can learn from that. And indeed, Ragan’s article by Allison Carter has some good insight in there that you can glean learning from. It’s worth reading that article too.

So I call it a masterclass. It probably is one of the best examples I’ve seen. Not so much the press release, but understanding about what led up to that and all the other communication that then occurred, the buildup. And I realized too, of course, that some organizations won’t know until nearer the time of announcement that there’s going to be a change. So this isn’t necessarily a blueprint you can apply to everything. But in the case of Apple,

It’s a very, it has a big effect on people news about what Apple’s doing. Steve Jobs was a magnetic personality or mercurial personality who famously coined this great phrase, I’d apply to Trump, often the reality distortion field that was his trademark in a sense that he was mercurial without doubt in leading. one thing that is notable, although it’s certainly not emphasized in any way that

that Ternus is a hardware guy, whereas Cook is a management guy. So Cook took over from Steve Jobs and transitioned Apple over that decade and more period to where we are now with the changes going on in the world generally and the tech industry in particular, that it probably does require more of a hard-nosed technological approach than purely business management to leadership.

And of course, if Cook’s going to be the executive chairman, he’ll be there to assist here and there. interesting time looking at a company like Apple to see this happen.

Shel: Yeah, and the press release sends some messages without explicitly saying anything. First of all, the fact that they did pick a hardware hardware guy says a lot about where Apple is heading. They faced a lot of criticism for their failures around artificial intelligence, which isn’t even mentioned in the press release in that sense.

Neville: Yeah, does.

not mentioned.

Shel: Message. What have been Apple’s wins under Cook’s leadership? I mean, the Apple Watch was a big one, and a lot of people thought it wasn’t going to be. They kind of laughed when it was introduced. But there are a lot of people wearing Apple Watches out there now. Big success. But mainly he consolidated manufacturing in China, which may not end up being a great thing. But it’s he I mean, it’s made them a ton of money. What did he do? Triple?

their revenues, as you said, they’re the number two most valuable company in the world. Now they’re gonna refocus on hardware, on product, the stuff that has made Apple from the get-go. Software, mean, you can talk about iOS and the computer software platforms they produce, but you never hear a lot of…

Discussion of those at their big events. It’s, you know, we’re coming out with a watch. We’re coming out with a Vision Pro, which has been something of a failure. So this is a reemphasis on hardware. They’ve made that point. Casey Newton came right out on hard fork and said that Ternus’s first act should be just doing the deal with Google to integrate Gemini into Siri and be done with that whole thing because Siri was supposed to get that AI update.

It’s been a couple of years now and it just hasn’t happened. So they have said a lot in this press release and not all of it was necessarily explicit.

Neville: No, you’re absolutely right there. So interesting time in the tech industry generally and seeing where what happens with Apple in the coming year or so.

Shel: Well, my favorite new word is slopaganda, and this refers to AI-generated propaganda, that cheap, fast, emotionally loaded, and designed less to strategically persuade anybody about anything than it is to just flood the zone with images, memes, fake scenes, shareable outrage. The most visible example of slopaganda right now is Iran’s use of AI-generated, Lego-style videos aimed at Donald Trump, Israel, and the U.S.

They’re far from subtle. show caricatured Lego versions of Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, missiles, burning ships, collapsing American power, and they use rap tracks, absurdist humor, conspiracy references, and the visual grammar of social media and not the language of state diplomacy. The New Yorker reported on Explosive Media, which is an Iranian digital media enterprise, which got started posting

pretty routine anti-Western content that didn’t get a lot of uptake. Then they discovered that these AI-generated Lego-style propaganda cartoons was its breakout format. The clips accumulated millions of views. They were reshared by Iranian government accounts. They were promoted by Russian state media and even picked up by anti-Trump protesters because the imagery was so flamboyantly anti-Trump.

The group told the New Yorker that it could produce a two-minute video in about 24 hours. LeMond adds an interesting scale point. According to Cyabra, a company that analyzes content to distinguish authentic activity from coordinated manipulation, that’s right off their website, according to them, pro-regime videos received more than 145 million views across X, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok during the second half of March.

Explosive media eventually acknowledged to the BBC that the Iranian state was one of its clients. It had initially claimed that it was all independent. And this has captured a lot of attention, first because it’s visually disarming. Lego’s familiar, playful, global. It turns geopolitical violence into something that looks like entertainment. Analysts say the Lego format serves as a kind of Trojan horse.

reaching people who wouldn’t otherwise engage with war-related content. It also works because it’s emotionally true to people who’ve always wanted to believe the underlying message. Viewers may not literally believe Iran is winning the war in the way videos depict, but they can choose to believe the emotional premise that the U.S. is weak, Trump is ridiculous, and Iran is standing up to a global oppressor.

And it works because it speaks the language of the target audience. This isn’t old school propaganda. It’s fast, caustic, meme-literate, and platform-native. In information warfare terms, this gives Iran something it used to lack, cultural reach into Western audiences. It lets Iran fight asymmetrically using ridicule and narrative disruption where it can’t match the U.S. militarily. But this is not only a geopolitical story.

The same tactics are going to show up in business. Maybe not tomorrow in Lego form, but the pattern’s just too useful to stay confined to politics. An activist shareholder can use an AI-generated video to ridicule a CEO, to dramatize a company’s alleged mismanagement, or turn a dry governance dispute into a viral morality play.

A disgruntled customer could generate convincing scenes of product failure, employee misconduct or customer mistreatment. A labor dispute could be amplified with synthetic stories that blur the line between real worker grievances and invented incidents. An unscrupulous competitor could see just asking questions content that implies safety failures, financial instability, executive hypocrisy or environmental misconduct. An example from Canada.

matters here. The Canadian Digital Media Research Network identified a coordinated network of 20 inauthentic YouTube channels targeting Albertans with nearly 40 million views. The channels exploited real grievances and pushed narratives normalizing a move for secession and even U.S. annexation of the province. The report says the accounts pushed an Albertan perspective

that researchers found absolutely no evidence that the account owners were actually Albertan. That’s the bridge to business. Slopaganda doesn’t have to invent grievances. It can exploit real ones. A company with a safety incident, a layoff, a product recall, a labor dispute, or an unpopular executive decision is already vulnerable. AI just makes it easier for hostile actors to package that grievance

into emotionally potent, shareable content. So what should communicators do about this? Well, first, obviously, build monitoring capability for synthetic narratives, not just mentions. The risk isn’t one fake video. The risk is a pattern. Repeated themes, recycled scripts, coordinated accounts, sudden spikes, and emotionally consistent attacks. Second, prepare your verification protocols now.

If a video appears showing something damaging, who determines whether it’s real? Legal? Security? Coms? IT? Outside forensic consultants? You know, that first hour is really important. So knowing who to go to to find out whether this is real or not is really critical. Next, strengthen your owned record. If AI systems and social audiences are going to interpret your organization through fragments,

Make sure there’s a clear, accessible, credible body of truth. Your policies, your timelines, FAQs, source documents, leader statements, and plain English explanations. And finally, scenario plan for synthetic outrage. Not just misinformation, but ridicule. Means move differently than allegations. A dry correction rarely defeats a funny attack. Communicators need response options that are fast, human, factual, and proportionate.

And, you know, one last question to address here, should communicators use Slopaganda themselves? No, they shouldn’t. Not if we’re talking about deceptive, synthetic, emotionally manipulative content designed to obscure truth. That’s not communication, man. That’s reputational arson. But communicators absolutely should learn from the format. AI-generated creative can be used ethically.

if it’s clearly labeled truthful, brand safe, and grounded in real information. But understand attention has moved toward visual, fast, emotionally resonant storytelling, and we should move along with it.

Neville: Yeah, it’s an interesting topic, isn’t it, Shell? I think you’re kind of no communicator should not do this. That’s a message clearly the US government’s ignoring, judging by what they have been doing, or the White House, should say, that’s reflected back in what the Iranians are doing and their proxies and indeed in individuals by the thousands doing the same. So misinformation, disinformation, fakery, it’s everywhere.

I read a post about this at the end of March that looked deeply into what AI generated, how it’s being used by both sides. And there’s a number of reports, notably Deutsche Welle, the English language news service from the German broadcaster and France 24 as well, had some really, really good, well researched articles with examples of

what’s happening in this area. There’s a great one someone posted showing a Lego box of, you can visualize it from the description that we see on the TV news all the time. Residential buildings, apartment blocks in ruins blown to bits. And this is made out of Lego bricks. And it’s, you know, Lego logo, and it looks exactly like a Lego product. So brand

a brand is being, you know, brought into this unwittingly. But the reality is that communicators are in between a devil and deep blue sea here, I think, because if you’re in a business, you’re not in the defense industry, you’re not involved in anything with a war going on. Yet some of your clients are kind of on the fringes of all this by the nature of their business. So

they’re dragged into in the case of Lego, good example, what do do about it? Do you respond in kind with some kind of jokey thing about the, you know, this, you know, whatever it might be in Iran, this example. It’s a it’s, it’s a call, I would say, there seems to be a movement, if you like, to this kind of thing is a matter of normality.

And I think it’s very dangerous. Philip Boramantz had a really good piece in the middle of March on what this war is teaching us about communications generally, not specifically crisis, although it’s mentioned in there. The BBC had a report early March about AI-generated Iran war videos, surge of those as people have the tools to create these things. So that is part of our landscape.

So it’s something that communicators, it’s a question with no easy answer. The question you asked is not an easy answer, but it may be the one that we have to find an answer to. I mean, that’s easy to say that. I mean, I don’t know what that answer is. So it is that the most striking thing occurred to me is that the, not the sophistication of these tools are not slickly produced. They are produced.

I could you say it’s for those who are savvy with social media and social networks and what works in terms of spreading what is spreadable? What is memeable? And we are not part of that. And if you’re not, you’re people talking about your brand and you and you’re not there. So, you know, it’s a big question.

But it’s something we have to try and understand what’s happening and somehow come up with an answer.

Shel: Yeah, you raise an interesting point about brand safety. Is Lego going to issue a takedown notice to Explosive Media, which is a digital media company in Iran, probably not knowing that they’re not going to respect a takedown notice or there’s no court that you can go to necessarily. So basically you kind of have to live with it if you’re Lego. And I suspect that’s what they’re doing. But from a communication standpoint,

It’s really important to understand that the Iranian produced stuff is getting far more traction than the US produced stuff. And the reason for that is that it leverages grievances the Iranians already had and other people around the world already have with the US. The US stuff is just showing the attacks on Iran. And if you think about the average American or perhaps even the average Brit, what grievances do they have against Iran?

I mean, the grievances here are within the government, not within the broad population. And that’s why these are so effective, is that the Iranians and other populations around the world do have grievances, justified or not. So as you look at this stuff moving into the business world, consider what kind of grievances people might have with your organization. That’s where they’re going to attack you. That’s where you have to build up your defenses now before they do.

Neville: Yeah. So it’d be interesting to see where are we at nearly halfway through the year, not quite actually. So quite a bit less than halfway. Yeah, it is. But it makes me think I wonder what, you know, the big picture of trust and the reporting we see on that notably the Edelman Trust Barometer. What changes are we to see as this year plays out as it were? We have a war in the Middle East that

Shel: It’s still going pretty fast.

Neville: Anyone who even has a fleeting interest what’s going on in the Middle East knows that this is situation that has been the case for millennia, frankly. But in modern times, this has been since 1948 in the creation of the State of Israel. This has been happening in the Middle East. A war one way or another between tribal factions and then states have gotten involved in this. Iran

from what I can understand, has long been a thorn in the side of US governments over different presidents over the decades. It doesn’t resonate that way here, notwithstanding some things that have happened, but there were decades ago in the UK that, you know, the notion of the fact the US really was the only country that could do what they did to to bomb Iran and start a war to undeclared.

not asking anyone to help them and then complaining when no one came to their help. So it’s a dreadful situation, the war itself, obviously, but also the murkiness of what it has created in the context of what we’re talking about. That, you know, we’ve talked about this element before, which is that, you you do not control the message anymore, even if it’s about you. That is no

more true than what we’re seeing right now. The Iranian government doesn’t control any of the messages, not really. It’s anyone who’s got an internet connection and a tool to create an AI generated video or whatever it might be, and then share it online. That’s who’s got control, but only in a limited way because it then goes out there and anyone can do anything with it. It’s making it onto some

traditional media, not just social. So it’s who knows where it’s all going to go, Shell. And as this war continues without any sign that it’s going to suddenly stop, this is the new normal.

Shel: Yeah, and keep in mind, we’re not talking about a single piece of content. We’re talking about flooding the zone with multiple pieces of content that reflect the same grievance and make the same points and have the same punchline that get people to watch it and have it appear wherever you might be getting your content. So you got to look at it that way and take steps to deal with because.

Yeah, I don’t have a good business example yet, but I’ll happily make a bet with somebody that within two years, we’re going to see this kind of content aimed at business from that disgruntled investor or unhappy customer or whoever it is. So this is so easy to do. And that’ll wrap up this episode of For Immediate Release. Our next monthly long form episode is scheduled to drop on Monday, May 25th.

Neville: Great fun.

Shel: So we’ll be recording on Saturday, May 23rd. In the meantime, we hope you’ll comment. As always these days, all of the comments that we shared in this episode came from LinkedIn. And you’re welcome to look for our announcements of new episodes on LinkedIn or Facebook or threads or blue sky. And we’ll check for comments there, but you can also send them to fircomments@gmail.com.

I’m going to come up with a contest and probably announce it in the May episode for an audio comment. Anybody who submits an audio comment will put your name in a hat and draw a winner and you’ll get something. I’ll have to figure out what. We don’t have FIR merch anymore. Maybe you want to start that again. Now we’ll come up with something. We’ll come up with something. But you can leave an audio comment by attaching an MP3 file to an email.

Neville: Ha ha ha ha.

No, we don’t. Maybe we should, we’ll come up with something.

Shel: Or clicking the record voicemail tab on the right-hand side of the FIR Podcast Network website. You can comment on the show notes that we leave on the FIR Podcast Network. So many ways to leave a comment. And we also have a community on Facebook and an FIR page on Facebook. Any of those places will do. And we also hope that you will leave your ratings and reviews of FIR.

wherever you get your podcasts. And we will be resuming our short midweek episodes next week. Look out for those. Best way to have those is to subscribe to For Immediate Release. And that will be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #511: Doing AI Governance Right and Still Getting It Wrong appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

The next two “Circle of Fellows” episodes will offer something different from our panels of the last several years. We welcome Dianne Chase, a veteran communicator and former IABC chair, to the discussion. While Dianne is not a Fellow, she did recruit six Fellows to write all but one of the chapters for her new book, The 7Cs of the New Communication Compass. (Dianne wrote the seventh chapter.)

The book, which has five stars on Amazon, “offers both a guiding framework and a practical roadmap for mastering strategic communication in complex environments,” according to its description. “If you are a leader, manager, educator, public official, influencer, or anyone striving to make an impact, this book is an essential and thought-provoking read. It distills communication excellence to foster collaborative results and organizational effectiveness.”

The book’s Cs include Collaboration, Connection, Compassion, Cohesion, Community, Congruency, and Calibration.

For the first of these conversations, Dianne will join Shel Holtz, Ginger Homan, Jane Mitchell, and Brad Whitworth to discuss Connection (Brad’s chapter), Compassion (Dianne’s chapter), Congruency (Jane’s chapter), and Calibration (Ginger’s chapter).

Join us for this very different “Circle” at noon EDT on Thursday, April 23. Participants in the live stream can ask questions and share comments, observations, and experiences, and become part of the discussion. If you’re not able to join us, you can listen to the audio podcast later or watch the YouTube replay.

About the panel:

Dianne Chase helps organizations and leaders harness the power of strategic communication to navigate crises, build trust, and drive positive change. With over two decades of experience in journalism and corporate communications, Dianne has developed a unique approach for training and consulting clients that combines crisis management expertise with the art and science of business storytelling. Dianne is an award-winning media, journalism, and strategic communication professional with profound expertise in communication disciplines, most notably crisis communication, issues and reputation management, media training, and executive communication. She is one of two people in the world accredited in the powerful GENIUS Business Storytelling methodology, created by international communications thought leader, Gabrielle Dolan. She is former chair of the International Association of Business Communicators, and author/editor of The 7 Cs of The New Communication Compass.

Ginger Homan, ABC, SCMP, IABC Fellow, counsels senior leaders seeking to bring out the best in their people and brands. Her award-winning communication model for driving transformation has been used to change behaviors, align cultures, and build thriving communities worldwide. Her work with senior communication professionals has enabled them to align their department goals with business goals, achieve measurable results, and expand their influence. Founder of Zia Communication, she is a seasoned speaker, coach, and workshop facilitator. Her clients include Walmart, the Walmart Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, T.D. Williamson, CITGO Petroleum, Phillips Seminary, and MOSAIC. IABC, PRSA, and SMPS have honored Ginger’s work on the local, regional, and international levels. A past chair of IABC, her volunteer work has been honored with three IABC International Chair’s Awards for leadership, and she is a recipient of the Leadership Tulsa Paragon Award for work in her local community.

Jane Mitchell’s career began at the BBC in London on live TV programs. She moved on to producing award-winning films and videos for public- and private-sector organizations and to developing groundbreaking employee engagement programs. Since 2006, when she formed her own consultancy, she has guided organizations (some of which have experienced cultural trauma) in embedding values and ethics by understanding culture and leadership, and their link to high-performing, sustainable organizations. She has worked with Top 100 companies worldwide and is a regular conference speaker. Jane has been a member of IABC since 2008 and has served on local, regional, and International IABC Boards. In 2021, she was Chair of the (virtual) World Conference and became an IABC fellow in 2022. She is based in the UK and now spends the majority of her professional time as a Non-Exec on company boards and Employee-Owned Trusts.

Brad Whitworth, ABC, SCMP, IABC Fellow, is a pre-eminent thought leader, lecturer, and author in organizational communication. He has led global internal and executive communication programs at HP, Cisco, Hitachi, PeopleSoft, AAA, and MicroFocus. He holds an MBA from Santa Clara University and undergraduate degrees in journalism and speech from the University of Missouri. Brad lives in California, a wine country, and he grows Pinot Noir on his property. A former broadcaster, Brad has made more than 300 presentations to executives, communicators, and university classes worldwide. Brad is a past board chairman of the International Association of Business Communicators and a Fellow of the association. He is one of the authors of The IABC Handbook of Organizational Communication and the new IABC Guide for Practical Business Communication: A Global Standard Primer. He chaired the Global Communication Certification Counsel in 2021.

The post Circle of Fellows #127: The 7 Cs of The New Communication Compass, Part I appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Employees have long found ways to use software tools to get the job done, even when those tools are not approved. It’s called Shadow IT, but ever since generative Artificial Intelligence hit the scene in 2022, employees have adopted a new version: Shadow AI. The company approves Microsoft Co-Pilot, but employees opt to use their smartphones or personal laptops, along with their personal accounts with ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Midjourney, or whatever best suits their needs.

For most companies, this is a problem that needs to be addressed through repeated policy announcements and vigorous crackdowns. One company, though, took a different approach. In this short, midweek FIR episode, Neville and Shel outline what the company did and how communicators might advocate for a version of this approach to aiding in AI adoption and speeding up productivity gains.

Links from this episode:

• The Hidden Demand for AI Inside Your Company
• Shadow AI Threat Grows Inside Enterprises as BlackFog Research Finds 60% of Employees Would Take Risks to Meet Deadlines
• FIR #419: Is Shadow AI an Evil Lurking in the Heart of Your Company?
• The Rise of Shadow AI is a Double-Edged Sword for Corporate Innovation

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, April 27.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Shel Holtz: Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 510 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson. There’s a quiet tension playing out inside many organizations right now. On one side you have leadership teams, IT, legal, and compliance, all trying to put structure, governance, and control around how artificial intelligence is used at work. On the other side you have employees who’ve already moved on. They’re not waiting for official tools. They’re not sitting through pilot programs. They’re not asking permission. They’re opening ChatGPT on their phones. They’re using Claude in a browser tab. They’re experimenting quietly, often invisibly, finding ways to make their work faster, easier, and sometimes better. And in many organizations, this shadow AI behavior is still being treated as a problem — something to restrict, monitor, or shut down. It’s a topic Shel and I discussed on this very podcast in episode 419 nearly two years ago, and it hasn’t gone away.

Neville Hobson: In fact, recent data suggests it’s accelerating. A study last November by Blackfog and Sapio Research found that nearly half of employees surveyed in the UK and US are using unsanctioned AI tools. Even more striking, 60% said they would take security risks with those tools if it meant meeting a deadline. So this isn’t fringe behavior — it’s become normal. An article in the Harvard Business Review this month argues that instead of treating unauthorized AI use as a compliance issue, organizations should see it as a signal — a sign that people are already finding value in these tools, even if the organization hasn’t caught up. We’ll explore that idea in just a moment.

Neville Hobson: The article calls this the hidden demand for AI inside your company. And when you look at it through that lens, the picture changes quite dramatically. Because instead of asking, “How do we stop this?” you start asking, “What are we missing?” The piece goes further than theory. It looks at what one organization actually did when it recognized this dynamic: BBVA, a Spanish multinational financial services company with more than 125,000 employees. Rather than clamping down on shadow AI use, they moved quickly to provide a secure enterprise environment. But more importantly, they didn’t try to control everything from the center. They took a different approach. They identified and empowered what they call “champions” and “wizards” — the people already experimenting, already curious, already building things. They created a network, a community of practice, a way for ideas, use cases, and practical solutions to spread peer to peer across the organization.

Neville Hobson: And the results, at least as reported, are striking: thousands of employees actively using AI tools, thousands of internally created applications, and measurable time savings of hours per person every week. But perhaps the most interesting part isn’t the numbers — it’s the philosophy behind it. The idea that successful AI adoption doesn’t start with a perfectly designed top-down strategy. It starts by recognizing that innovation is already happening, just not where leadership expects it. So the question becomes: do you try to control that energy, or do you find a way to harness it? And that opens up a much broader conversation, one that goes well beyond technology. It touches on leadership, trust, and culture — on how change actually happens inside organizations. And, importantly for communicators, on how you surface, legitimize, and guide behavior that may already be happening under the radar.

Neville Hobson: Because if employees are already using these tools — and most evidence suggests they are — then silence or restriction alone isn’t really a strategy; it’s a gap. So in this conversation, we want to explore that gap. What shadow AI really tells us about organizations today, whether the BBVA approach is something others can realistically replicate, and where the risks still sit, because they have not disappeared. And we should be clear: BBVA may be an outlier. It’s a highly data-mature organization with strong leadership alignment. Many organizations don’t have that foundation. So the question isn’t just whether this works — it’s whether it can work anywhere else. And what that means for the future of work, and for the role communicators play in shaping that future. Shel?

Shel Holtz: Well, a few thoughts, starting with the fact that BBVA has the financial resources to provide a secure environment for those tools that employees are using. There are many organizations whose IT budgets are razor thin and don’t have those resources, so they would need to figure something else out. But I think there’s a caution here worth raising. The numbers from Blackfog are real, even if the framing from the Harvard Business Review is optimistic: 34% of employees using free versions of tools when paid, approved versions exist; 58% of unsanctioned users on free tiers with no enterprise protections. The reframing from threat to signal doesn’t eliminate the exfiltration risk — it reframes how we need to respond to it.

Shel Holtz: Communicators should be careful not to let the BBVA-style narrative become an excuse to ignore governance. The right frame is: harness the demand, don’t suppress it, and build the governance at the same time. Employees using unsanctioned tools and putting secure data and company information into them — that’s a governance risk, and I don’t think we can ignore it. I mean, I think what BBVA did is great, and I think they baked it into some governance while looking at a new approach they could afford to take. But for many organizations, governance is still a requirement.

Neville Hobson: Well, I agree. It’s important and it’s not to ignore by any means. I think, Shel, you fleshed out a little bit the survey that I mentioned, which is actually useful to have that level of detail. But the big question for me is: if this is the picture in many organizations, according to that survey — compared to data previously — this is getting worse, or rather, it’s happening more frequently. People are just going ahead and using what works for them as opposed to what’s the official thing. What is that a symptom of? Maybe a lack of trust? It’s probably a mix of things. And to me, the communicator’s role here seems to be to try and help people on the one hand understand what the tools can do for them, and on the other hand to help the organization understand that we need to address this issue. People aren’t using the approved ones. They’re doing stuff on their own, and that isn’t good.

Neville Hobson: You mentioned security risks. The Harvard article goes into some detail about that, as indeed do the people who conducted that survey. You can just picture the severe risk. We’ve seen examples in recent months of organizations that have suffered from unauthorized use of unapproved software tools — not necessarily generative AI tools, but software certainly. And it’s a big deal. So the question — do you try to control all this and look at ways to stop it? — we asked this very question two years ago in our conversation, and we could probably just insert the recording from then and replay the answer. But let’s talk about it. I don’t think they should try and stop it personally. That’s a fail. There’s no win in that at all, certainly not for the organization. So how would communicators go about that, do you think?

Shel Holtz: Well, I’m not suggesting that organizations crack down on this and become Big Brother, looking at the tools that people are using, especially when they’re using them on their personal phones or personal laptops. But there are definitely things communicators can do. The first is to surface and amplify the internal use cases — not just the fact that people are using these tools, but what they’re using them for. When the security people and the legal people find out that this is actually driving effective work product from these employees, I think there might be more appetite for figuring out a way to bake this into the governance documents and policies the organization has established.

Shel Holtz: And I think giving employees permission narratives — telling them it’s safe to experiment, letting them know how to do it, and suggesting where the guardrails are — matters. So if you are using shadow AI, here are the things to be careful about. Let them know what the risks are and how to avoid falling into those traps. Communicators can also translate the IT and legal guardrails into plain language that doesn’t read as prohibition, because prohibition just leads to negative thoughts from employees about the organization, and then they’ll just continue using what they’re using. And then there’s collecting and routing the demand signal back to leadership. Why are employees using these when there are approved tools around? What are the advantages? So that leadership can make investment decisions that match the patterns of usage employees are actually engaged in. There’s a lot of work here for communicators that goes beyond simply saying, “Don’t do this.”

Neville Hobson: Agreed. And in fact, you can learn from much of what BBVA did, even if you’re not an organization with that established foundation and 125,000 employees. They did things most companies aren’t going to be able to do. For instance, they reached an agreement with OpenAI and deployed a customized version of ChatGPT Enterprise in a secured, exclusive cloud just for the company. The reasoning is interesting. What the Harvard Business Review report says is that the strategic decision was clear: it was more dangerous to have unmanaged, hidden AI usage than to rapidly deploy a managed, secure solution that aligns with existing needs. Most companies aren’t going to be able to do that. So it comes back to perhaps what you’ve just proposed — explaining it to people, the pros and cons, the risks, and so forth.

Neville Hobson: But I think you need more than that, too. Otherwise, you’re going to have significant numbers of people who will ignore it and just go ahead anyway with what they’ve been doing. So maybe elements of what BBVA did — for instance, the network of internal champions and expert wizards to spread knowledge, rather than the formal top-down communication you might expect. You’d have people within the organization who are knowledgeable, who have a history of responsible use themselves, who can help explain to others and help them replicate that. You end up, I think, with steps toward broad compliance that everyone can buy into. That would be helpful, because I can see that the idea of anyone in an organization of whatever size just doing their own thing with whatever tool they like is not a good idea at all.

Neville Hobson: And that isn’t unique to this. We’ve had that kind of conversation in decades past about software. I remember when Hotmail first came out, and when Microsoft Network first came out, the arguments in organizations — and indeed the one I worked for at the time — was, “You’re not allowed to use this on your company laptop, so use it on your own,” stuff like that. That’s definitely not a good thing. So you need to act to address issues like that so that people trust you and respect you and are willing to follow a restriction — or a behavior change, if you like — that would help. It’s interesting, the learning you can get from BBVA’s example, even though you’re not an organization that size with a budget to match. It’s a lot about education. It’s trusting employees, absolutely, as you pointed out, Shel. But I think that’s a two-way street. You need to have a quid pro quo: if you have these freedoms to use whatever you want, you need to do it responsibly. Share your learnings with others in the organization. Things like that. To me, that seems like a really good place to communicate.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, there’s communication happening at BBVA. They have 11,000 active users and 4,800 custom tools being used by those folks. That didn’t happen because the communications department posted an article about them. This was peers talking to their peers about what was working. It validates something you and I have been talking about for years, which is that authentic, lateral, employee-to-employee storytelling beats top-down cascades every time.

Neville Hobson: Precisely.

Shel Holtz: But it is communication. And why wouldn’t that be something the internal communications department jumped on and helped to facilitate — providing the channels for that, rather than the sneakernet that’s probably happening now? And also, because they’re engaged and trying to keep this from happening below the surface, they’re in a position to identify the use cases worth taking to leadership. The Blackfog survey you referenced found that almost 70% of C-suite executives believe speed is more important than privacy or security. So if people are getting things done faster — if you can demonstrate that there actually is productivity improvement happening, and it’s because of the tools employees are using that aren’t approved — I think that’s motivation for leadership to look at either approving those tools or finding ways to allow people to use their own accounts while protecting the integrity of their data.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. The results the Harvard Business Review reports from BBVA are worth noting, even though the scale isn’t what many companies would experience. They talk about 80% of usage of the system they set up coming through direct chat prompting, and the remaining 20% through employee-created GPTs. Now, this is not shadow AI — it was part of the rollout of what they did. But these numbers are quite impressive. Over 83% of employees now use the system every week, averaging 50 prompts per week. That’s above comparable enterprise deployments, says the review, quoting OpenAI. Users report average time savings of two to five hours per week — a number worth noting. More than 4,800 custom GPTs have been created internally, and they’re used three times more frequently than the enterprise average. So they’re ahead of the game in that regard. The article goes into more detail about which departments are more active than others, and so forth.

Neville Hobson: It also prompted a thought in my mind: the other surveys I’ve seen and other reporting on the resistance from leadership in organizations — that isn’t minor. It’s not a little thing. It happens, unfortunately, too frequently. I’m thinking of keystroke logging on employee usage, auditing computers surreptitiously and covertly without telling them, watching which apps they’ve installed — and indeed, probably more common, your company laptop refusing to install things that aren’t on an approved list, or reporting to IT that you tried to install stuff. This is a dreadful situation in organizations. It’s common, but we’re going to see more of it, I think, because that seems to be the way of the world these days on distrust. This is a diminished-trust environment we’re talking about. So in all of that, where do we sit in terms of enabling stuff like this? We can see the advantages of allowing employees to use tools like this. I think the better way is to try to do something within the framework of the organization — not, “Oh sure, go ahead and use ChatGPT whenever you want on any device, no big deal.” I wouldn’t be keen on that. I wouldn’t stop it, but I would look at ways of weaning people off that approach. We have to help them and encourage them to do this. And that, I suspect, is a hard task for communicators — to persuade leadership to do that if the climate in an organization is resistant to it anyway.

Shel Holtz: Well, I think it is a hard sell to leadership, but we have data. We’re supposed to be engaging in two-way communication and facilitating two-way communication. One of the roles of internal comms is listening. And it doesn’t have to be through direct information that you get from people through focus groups or surveys — it could be this Blackfog survey. When 49% of employees are using unsanctioned tools, and 63% think that’s fine as long as there’s no approved option for what they want to do, you may look at that as rogue behavior, but you can also look at it as market research. And communicators are the people in the best position to translate that data into something actionable for leadership. You take that to leadership and say, “Look, this is what’s happening. We’re the ones who can interpret what the behavior means and pass that along to leadership.”

Shel Holtz: I think part of our role is that listening through the data that’s already out there — and maybe what we can determine is going on in our own organizations — and taking that to leadership and saying, “Look, this isn’t going to go away if you crack down on it. It’s not going to go away if you block installation on company laptops. People have their own phones. People have their own laptops and tablets. This is going to continue.” And this isn’t new. I mean, this goes back to the earliest days of computers. I think I’ve mentioned this once or twice on the show, but I needed to produce charts and graphs in the mid-‘80s, and I wanted to use Harvard Graphics because somebody had shown it to me and it was what worked, and the company had a different program that was terrible. So I just used Harvard Graphics. I bought my own copy and installed it. There were no blocks back then — you put the floppy disks in the drives and it installed. People are going to do what they need to do to get the job done. Maybe some will pay attention to what the official rules are, but I think the governance needs to be flexible enough to adapt to this. I applaud BBVA for what they did. Again, I don’t think every organization is in a position to replicate it, but I think you can take lessons from what they did.

Neville Hobson: You can. Not everyone can roll out what they rolled out — enterprise licenses and so forth — but some of the things they went about, and how they went about them, definitely. One thing the review article points out quite strongly — a very, very good thing — is that they say, toward the end of their conclusions, that in whatever you do, there must be a hard human-in-the-loop rule. Human employees should always own the work. There should not be direct writes to core systems. Internal GPTs need quality scores and guardrails. They specify scope and context, include samples, and so on. This is simple, scalable, and non-bureaucratic.

Neville Hobson: So that’s something that kind of ties back into this emerging phrase — if it’s even emerging — of human-centered AI. Let’s look carefully at this. It’s about people first, technology second, and the human needs to be in the loop. The “hard human,” as the review calls it — I interpret that as meaning someone who’s actually cognizant, aware, and able to act upon things that matter, to keep humans in the loop, to own the work, not the technology. You’ve got to think about things like that. And I think for communicators, that’s an important aspect of what they do — having in mind that element that is about the people first. So when you’re trying to persuade leaders to take a course of action you’re recommending, this needs to be in your mind too: that the humans need to be in control.

Neville Hobson: I have to say, this is great. I love stories and examples like this. I love them more than the ones that talk about disasters, although those are useful to know about as well. Yet I feel, as communicators, we have a constant, constant task on our hands to explain this to people in organizations, to help others understand. I think this is a good example — the shadow AI element. For me, if I were actively involved in an organization as the communications person, I’d be looking at: how do I persuade people not to do that? How do I persuade people to use the approved stuff? But at the same time, how do I persuade the leaders to make sure they offer employees stuff that actually works, that’s in line with their expectations, all that kind of stuff? There’s a bit of a job on their hands. And if budgets get in the way, then you’ve got an even harder job. But hey, that’s what we’re here for. That’s part of what we have to do.

Neville Hobson: These are good examples you can learn from. There are elements you could start on. And I think, like most things, Shel, you need to say, “OK, fine — this idea has a dozen constituent elements, and let’s just start with two.” So you don’t try to think, “Oh my god, this is a massive project. How on earth can we do this?” You look at just a couple of things. I like another point the Harvard Business Review makes: ensure that managers know what they’re doing. You can’t expect managers to be persuasive in encouraging others to use AI if they’re not good at it themselves. So there’s another element — you need to train them well, says the Harvard Review. At a minimum, they should learn how to write staffing notes, sensitive communications, and KPI reviews with AI help. So there are some things you could do straight away as a communicator in an organization. I’d say: good luck and godspeed, and it’ll all work out in the end.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, a manager’s role in all of this is probably an episode in its own right. I would just reiterate the point you made about the human in the loop. This is a governance element that should be overarching — not applying just to shadow AI, but to all use of AI in the organization. It should be a primary consideration in governance, not to turn things over to AI. Otherwise, you end up with fake citations going out to clients that paid a million dollars for your work — another little slap on Deloitte’s wrists. And that will be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #510: Should Companies Embrace Shadow AI? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

When bad actors use AI tools to clone a musician’s voice and upload synthetic versions of their songs, they can then file copyright claims against the original artist’s content — and win, at least initially. That’s because the systems platforms used to validate copyright claims are automated and configured to treat whoever files first as the rightful holder. The result: musicians like Murphy Campbell, a folk artist from North Carolina, lose both revenue and control of their own creative identity.

The same mechanism works just as well against any organization that publishes audio or video content online. In this midweek episode, Shel Holtz and Neville Hobson break down how the scam works, why it matters to communicators, and what you should be doing right now — before an incident forces your hand.

Links from this episode:

• AI Cloned Her Voice, Then Claimed Her Songs
• ‘This Is Not Me’: Inside the AI Scams Driving Musicians Crazy
• A Folk Musician Became a Target for AI Fakes and a Copyright Troll
• A traditional musician became a victim of AI imitations and a copyright aggressor
• ‘AI slop’: Emily Portman and musicians on the mystery of fraudsters releasing songs in their name

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, April 27.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Neville Hobson: Hi everyone and welcome to For Immediate Release, this is episode 509. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz: And I’m Shel Holtz. And today we’re going to talk about something else that communicators need to worry about. I think we need to develop a worry list for communicators. This one starts with a tale about a folk singer from the mountains of Western North Carolina. She’s named Murphy Campbell. She plays banjo and dulcimer and records old Appalachian ballads, some of them written by her own distant relatives. And she posts videos of herself performing in the woods. She has about 7,800 monthly listeners on Spotify. And she is, as Shelly Palmer put it in a recent column, exactly the kind of artist the copyright system was designed to protect.

In January, some of her fans started messaging her about songs on her Spotify profile that she had never uploaded. Someone would have taken her YouTube performances, run them through AI voice cloning tools, and posted synthetic versions of her songs under her name on streaming platforms. These fake tracks, to put not too fine a point on it, were really bad. Her dulcimer sounded like — and these were her words — a warbled metallic mess. Her voice had been deepened and auto-tuned into what she called a bro country singer. But here’s where it gets interesting for those of us in communications, because that’s not the end of the story. It didn’t stop at impersonation.

Whoever uploaded the fakes through a legitimate music distributor called Vydia (V-Y-D-I-A) then filed copyright claims against Campbell’s original YouTube videos — the very videos the AI had been trained on. Because YouTube doesn’t use humans to review initial copyright claims, Campbell stopped earning revenue on her own content. That revenue started going to the person who had filed the copyright claims.

She described herself as being in a weird limbo where “I’m telling robots to take down music that robots made.” Shelly Palmer called this a reverse copyright scam, and he confirmed, speaking to other content creators off the record, that this is more common than he might have believed.

Now, I know what you’re thinking — music streaming platforms, artists, what does this have to do with me? And the answer is everything. Because the mechanism that elbowed Murphy Campbell out of earning royalties for her own music will work just as well against any organization that publishes content on platforms with automated enforcement systems. That is virtually every organization that has a YouTube channel, a podcast feed, or any kind of public video or audio presence.

So here’s the structural problem as Palmer frames it. The copyright system we have was built on a foundational assumption that the first entity to register a claim is the rightful owner. That assumption held when human creativity was the bottleneck. It breaks completely when AI can generate a synthetic version of any content in seconds using any voice. Think about what your organization puts out there publicly — executive speeches, earnings calls, thought leadership videos, branded audio, training content, podcasts, content marketing pieces. Every one of these is a potential training data set for someone who wants to clone your voice, your leaders’ voices, and then upload a synthetic version through a low-cost distributor. We’re talking about something that costs $25 to $90 a year. Then they file a claim against your legitimate content before a human ever reviews it.

Neville Hobson: (pause)

Shel Holtz: That means the system is going to see them as the first one to file that claim and assume they are the legitimate copyright holder. Now, Rolling Stone confirmed that this isn’t an isolated case. Paul Bender, Veronica Swift, Grace Mitchell — these are just a few of the artists who have faced the same attack. One musician even ran an experiment he called Operation Clown Dump, uploading fake content under his colleagues’ names across platforms. His success rate was 100%.

So what do communicators need to do? First, audit your public content footprint. Do it now, before an incident forces you to. Know what you’ve published, where it lives, and what revenue or visibility is attached to it. Second — and here’s something that’s new for a lot of communicators — register your copyrights. Formal registration is the prerequisite for meaningful legal recourse in the United States. Third, build a rapid response protocol for platform disputes. The organizations that survived these attacks quickest were the ones who knew who to call and knew what to say. And fourth, have this conversation with your legal team today, not after something goes wrong.

Murphy Campbell eventually got Vydia to withdraw its claims, but only after her story went viral. Most organizations won’t have that option. Your story won’t go viral. The bad actor doesn’t need to win permanently — they just need the automated system to act before you do. And that is the lesson, and it’s one we’d better learn from musicians before we have to learn it the hard way.

Neville Hobson: Extraordinary, isn’t it, Shel? I guess you could call it a new phenomenon, only in the sense of the speed with which this can be done. I must admit, I’m astonished that the system is such that the first person to file the copyright claim is assigned ownership. Maybe that’s similar here in the UK — every jurisdiction is different, of course — but that’s rather unsettling. It obviously goes back to a time when people weren’t exploiting the system the way they are now. There are similar examples here in the UK of this kind of activity where people unwittingly find that their content is being misused and misrepresented. And although no major artists — though I may be wrong about that — I did see an article noting that YouTube allows some users to clone the voices of stars like Charli XCX and Sia, with their permission. But unauthorized AI covers of artists like Harry Styles — hundreds of thousands of copies — is a widespread phenomenon, and one that barely registers in mainstream news.

A number of artists, a bit like your example of Murphy Campbell — there’s one I’ve heard about, Greg Rutkowski, a Polish-born artist known for his work on Dungeons & Dragons, who found his style being used in over 400,000 AI prompts, raising serious concerns about the obsolescence of human artists. And to your point about what communicators should watch out for: your corporate communication messaging that’s in audio, your CEO on an earnings call that’s been recorded and distributed. So never mind video — audio alone, at that scale of 400,000 AI prompts, is not a good situation. If you project the thinking out, this is utterly relevant to anyone publishing audio or audiovisual content online.

I find it astonishing that some platforms, notably Spotify — which features prominently in a lot of reporting on this — are being used to literally steal someone’s intellectual property by replicating it. And I think it reinforces the point that registering copyright isn’t an idle exercise. It’s something that should be front of mind, and it does other things for you as well as the owner of the property.

Something as simple as displaying a current copyright notice on your website — it’s remarkable how many sites I come across that still show “Copyright 2016,” never updated. Displaying a current notice signals that the business is active and its information is up to date. There are also tools to protect against AI scraping, though how effective they are is still unclear. Creative Commons licensing is another option, setting out the terms under which people can use your content — though that requires everyone to play by the rules, which frankly isn’t always the case these days.

Nevertheless, you’ve got some protection — or at least the peace of mind that you’ve taken steps. But it really is quite extraordinary, isn’t it, Shel? When I looked into what’s happening in the UK, I came across a recent movement — over a thousand UK musicians, including Paul McCartney, Annie Lennox, and Damon Albarn — who released a silent album to protest proposed legislation that would allow AI companies to train on copyrighted material without consent. It struck me as a real head-scratcher: why would a government enable that to happen?

Shel Holtz: Probably very effective lobbying from the AI companies, I’m sure, is behind that.

Neville Hobson: No doubt, no doubt. But there are other things going on — organizations like the Musicians’ Union and Equity campaigning for better copyright protection, consent, and fair compensation for creators. It’s not getting much mainstream coverage, but activity is happening behind the scenes. Nevertheless, the example of Murphy Campbell and others represents a genuine threat that you need to be aware of if you’ve got content online that matters to you. Never mind the “they shouldn’t be doing this” argument — the point is, if it’s important to you, have you thought about this?

Shel Holtz: If you think about the days before the web, copyright wasn’t something most people had to worry about that much. Professional artists with record deals had people to handle it. Same with authors — someone like Stephen King never had to worry that somebody would be the first to file a copyright claim under his name and siphon off his revenue. But now you have artists who don’t get record deals — like Murphy Campbell — publishing on YouTube and Spotify, building small followings, and making a reasonable living. This is the working class musician concept we talked about, oh, it’s got to be 15 years ago now.

The fact is, you can use Spotify and YouTube to build a following, play some small clubs a few times a year, and make enough to pay the mortgage and put your kids through school. You’re not going to get the penthouse suite from playing to 100,000 people, but you can make a living. But this has also opened up the ability for bad actors to take advantage of that. And now with AI able to reproduce your voice and create new music at scale, all the pieces are in place for this kind of theft. Unless you’re able to get your story to go viral — as Murphy Campbell did — it’s not clear what you can do, because YouTube and Spotify have set up systems that automate this process with no human review. When you used to register with the copyright office yourself, a human was checking. So it’s not likely most organizations have revenue-generating content online — though I’m sure some do, and I’ve actually argued there are ways to use content to generate revenue.

For example, I’ve always loved the idea of a Webcor YouTube video series called “Building for Girls,” where our employee resource group, Women of Webcor, does a five-minute lesson every two weeks on construction to get young girls interested in STEM and engineering careers. Get enough views and YouTube starts paying you. If you don’t copyright-protect that content, someone can come along, produce similar videos, claim the rights, and suddenly your revenue is going to someone else. But even if you’re not producing revenue-generating content, there are other reasons to ensure nobody else can claim ownership of what you create — especially as content marketing demands more and more output. So yes, register that copyright.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, it made me think about watermarking for written content — though I’m not sure there’s something truly effective offering the same protection for audio and video yet. And even if there were, you’ve got situations like Murphy Campbell’s, where it’s her style and tone — the whole persona that defines her music — that’s being copied. And you don’t know about it until strange things start happening: your revenue drops, someone says “I love that new song you just published,” and you discover it wasn’t you. Or you read a review and think, wait — I didn’t write that.

Shel Holtz: Or “I hate that new song you published” — in Murphy Campbell’s case.

Neville Hobson: Exactly. I’m sure people are working on the technology. You’ve got digital rights management, which isn’t new, but I’m not sure it helps here because the issue isn’t copying your content outright — it’s imitating or repurposing it at scale. Hundreds of thousands, or millions of instances. I think the platforms need to do far more than they currently are. It’s a similar argument to what we’re hearing here in the UK about Meta and X doing nothing effective to protect children. This is in the same territory, and it needs a lot more from those platforms — who are making serious money throughout all of this. As to what exactly “more” looks like, I’m not entirely sure, but they need to do more.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and they probably won’t until there are some high-profile, visible court cases that create real reputation issues for them — then they’ll take action. The easy thing to do right now is simply register the copyright. That’s your protection. When someone imitates you, or claims the content you produced is theirs, you have legal standing to act. That’s why you need to have this conversation with your legal team.

But I wouldn’t wait for either the platforms or the government to do anything. They’re both reticent to act. You have the ability to do something about this right now, and it’s just a matter of working with your legal team and filing those copyrights.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, exactly. And even using Creative Commons licensing — if you’re an individual without all the formal resources, but you have a niche following, even that’s a start. Keep a record of every iteration of everything you’ve created — “I did this in 2017, here’s proof, backed up here.” That gives you something to stand on, a way to demonstrate that you can act if someone uses your content. And if you don’t do this, there’s another consequence worth considering: your original content gets buried in search results because the AI-generated imitations have somehow accrued better signals to rank higher. That kind of pollution from AI slop is its own problem.

Shel Holtz: Yeah — and then people stop paying attention to your content altogether because they’re so fatigued by the AI slop that they tune everything out. But at least this one has a solution communicators can follow: something new to add to the copyright to-do list. And that will be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #509: Does Corporate Content Need Copyright Protection? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Most agency owners spend a lot of time thinking about growth, clients, and revenue. Far fewer think carefully about the words that define how they actually operate their businesses. In this episode, Chip and Gini dig into five of those words: leadership, management, accountability, responsibility, and authority.

Leadership and management aren’t the same thing. Leadership is about vision and getting people to follow you. Management is about making the work happen. Knowing which one you’re stronger at is the first step toward building a team that covers your gaps.

Accountability is the wrong place to start when a team member isn’t delivering. You can’t hold someone accountable for something you never clearly assigned, and you can’t hold them accountable if you didn’t give them the authority to get it done.

Gini offers a useful comparison: when a client hires you for your expertise and then second-guesses every decision, it’s demoralizing. That’s exactly how your team feels when you delegate the work but not the authority to do it.

The episode closes with a simple reminder. If you want more freedom as an owner, you have to be willing to actually let go. And if your team isn’t capable of handling more responsibility, you should be asking yourself why you hired them. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 301: Five words every agency owner needs to understand appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

When workers lose their jobs, many turn to gig work to earn income while waiting for new opportunities. Increasingly, companies that hire gig workers are shifting from delivering food or sharing rides to creating content to train AI systems. This raises various communication and ethical issues. Neville and Shel explain what’s happening and discuss the implications in this short midweek episode.

Links from this episode:

• The jobs AI can’t do – and the young adults doing them
• Thousands of people are selling their identities to train AI – but at what cost?
• The gig workers who are training humanoid robots at home
• Gig economy becomes new AI training ground

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, April 27.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Shel Holtz
Hi everybody and welcome to episode number 508 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson
And I’m Neville Hobson. Over the past few weeks, I’ve come across a set of stories that all point to something quite striking — not just how AI is evolving, but how it’s being built. Increasingly, the raw material behind AI isn’t just data scraped from the web. It’s us: our voices, our movements, our everyday lives, and increasingly, our identities. There’s a new layer of the gig economy emerging. We’ll explore this in just a minute.

People are being paid, typically in small amounts, to record themselves walking down the street, having conversations, folding laundry, even just going about their day. That data is then used to train AI systems because those systems need examples of how people actually speak, move, and interact in the real world. In one case, delivery drivers in the US are being redirected to film tasks for robotics training. Platforms are turning existing gig workers like delivery drivers into distributed data collectors for AI. In another example, people are selling access to their phone conversations through apps that pay contributors to upload voice and text data. And in yet another, workers are strapping phones to their heads to record household chores so humanoid robots can learn how to move. The work is global, fragmented, and often invisible, with workers spanning Nigeria, India, South Africa, the US, and far beyond. Humans are no longer just users of AI — they are raw material suppliers. In China, there are even state-run centers where workers wear virtual reality headsets and exoskeletons to teach robots how to carry out everyday physical tasks. What we’re seeing is the rise of what you might call data labor, where identity itself becomes part of the work.

There’s a clear driver behind it. AI companies are running out of high-quality training data. The open web isn’t enough anymore, and synthetic data has its limits. So the industry is turning to something else: real human lived experience. Because if you want a robot to understand how to load a dishwasher, navigate a room, or interact with objects, you need to see humans doing it at scale.

But there’s an interesting contrast here. One of the stories highlights a 23-year-old in the US, a guy called Cale Mouser, who earns well into six figures repairing diesel engines. It’s something he’s developed great skill in doing. His work depends on judgment, experience, and problem solving in the real world — things that don’t easily translate into data. So while some people are being paid small amounts to generate data for AI systems, others like Cale Mouser are building highly valuable careers precisely because their skills can’t be reduced to it. And that contrast feels important.

Because on one level, this new kind of work does create opportunity. For some people, especially in lower-income regions in the Global South, this is real income — paid in dollars, flexible and accessible. But there’s another side to it. Because what people are actually selling isn’t just time, it’s identity: their voice, their behavior, their presence in the world. And often once that data is handed over, it’s gone — permanently licensed, reused, repurposed, potentially in ways the individual never sees or understands.

So you have this asymmetry: individuals earning small immediate payments while companies build long-term, highly valuable AI systems. Perhaps it’s a new version of the Mechanical Turk for the AI era. And that raises a deeper question. What does it mean when the inputs to AI are no longer abstract data, but pieces of human identity? When the training set is not just content, but behavior, voice, and presence? And when those pieces can be reused, replicated, and scaled, often without the individual’s ongoing knowledge or control? Many platforms grant royalty-free perpetual licenses, where workers get paid once and lose control forever. There’s potential for deepfakes, identity theft, and misuse without consent. And perhaps more uncomfortably, what does it mean when people are contributing to systems that could automate their future jobs?

For communicators, this feels important because this isn’t just a technology story. It’s a story about trust, consent, transparency, and how organizations explain what they’re doing with AI. If AI ethics lives anywhere, it’s here — in how these systems are built and how that’s communicated. So the question to explore — one of the questions to explore, perhaps — is this one: Are we comfortable with an economy where identity itself is becoming labor? And if not, what responsibility do organizations and communicators have in shaping it?

Shel Holtz
It’s a big story with a lot to consider. On one level, it seems like the high-tech version of the sweatshops where high-end fashions were made — Nike shoes, for example — with people paying premium prices to get those products while the people making them are earning a pittance in factories with long hours and terrible working conditions. And then you add onto it the identity issue. So it’s something that I think — something at least I hope — we’re going to be talking about for a while.

In terms of the AI element, what this suggests is that the gig economy didn’t go anywhere when AI came along; it just became the training ground for AI. And it’s interesting that the workers who are being squeezed out of knowledge jobs are selling their voices and their movements to build the systems that squeezed them out. Because where do a lot of these people who are being laid off because of AI go? Well, they go drive for Uber, they go drive for DoorDash. And you do that long enough and you get really accustomed to the idea that they send you a task, you go do that task, and you get paid for it. So if that task shifts from picking up a meal at a restaurant and delivering it to somebody’s house to going to your own house and washing your dishes because that’s what they want to capture on video — it’s the same thing. You’re getting a task on the app. You’re doing the task and you’re getting paid for it. So I think for a lot of people, this is going to be a fairly easy shift, and they’re not going to think a lot about what’s happening to the information and the content that’s being created with their movements and their voices, which is now being shared and used to make a lot of money for the people who are paying a pittance to these folks.

So I see three issues here that connect directly to organizational communication. The first is consent and transparency — and I’m talking about inside organizations — because companies are already deploying AI tools trained on data that their own workers have supplied, and sometimes they’ve supplied this data unknowingly. The ethical and reputational questions that employees are going to ask are questions like: Was my voice used to train a bot that you activated in order to replace my friend who sat next to me and I had lunch with? And regulators are going to end up asking these questions too. So communicators really need to be out front with clear internal messaging about what data employees generate and how the company is using it. Let’s talk about that before I hit the other things that popped into my mind.

Neville Hobson
Yeah. I mean, the transparency element is key. That’s not new — that’s always been the case. But how organizations should communicate this may not be as simple as it might seem. I mean, the example you mentioned is an interesting one: a company uses data from its employees without them knowing. Well, let’s say — don’t do it like that. Don’t do that. You need to disclose if you’re doing this. Surely that is an ethical issue: if you don’t tell them and you go ahead and do that, that’s not what you should be doing. So there’s an easy one to address.

The other element, which is also ethics-related, is: is this whole thing ethical if participation is driven by economic necessity? Whatever reason you might give — we need to get an edge on the competition, whatever — you’re still up against that element.

That’s the big-picture ethics question. But common sense tells you how you should do this. Should individuals be compensated long-term for use of their data? On the one hand, you might say, fine, let’s tell everyone: your data may be used — your day-to-day interactions with colleagues, the recordings of your conversations on our internal Teams tool — that’s kept. So the employee might say, I’m okay with that, but I want to be compensated for it. And now there’s an interesting position.

Shel Holtz
You mean like as if they’re licensing it?

Neville Hobson
Exactly. And the organization might retort —

Shel Holtz
Well, the organization might retort: you are being paid for it. You’re being paid a salary. You come in here every day, you do your work. Read your employment agreement. I mean, this is kind of like — what was it? Velcro or Post-it notes? Maybe both — where the person who invented it never made a penny off the royalties because they were an employee of the company and the work product belonged to the company. I think organizations might be able to make the same argument here.

Neville Hobson
They could. But they’re not sure whether they should, just because they could — because the climate is very different today from those examples back in the 1960s. So you’ve got to think about things like: if we don’t do this right, are we going to get an exodus of employees who are going to go work for a company that treats them better in this same context?

Shel Holtz
Well, now you have the economic environment and the hiring situation where a lot of companies are trying to avoid hiring. They’re also trying to avoid layoffs, but they’re trying to avoid hiring. It’s pretty flat out there right now — it’s definitely a buyer’s market. So I don’t know that I would leave an organization because they’re using my data unless I already had another job lined up, because they’re hard to find right now.

Neville Hobson
I agree. It’s slightly a hypothetical scenario, but I think it is worth recognizing that it could well come to that. From the research on those articles — and some other things I saw — there’s already a strong imbalance of value and control between the individuals who provide the data and the companies who are getting that data and making economic use of it. AI companies rely on real-world human data because of data scarcity. So there’s a challenge on both sides of the argument: they need the data, but there’s probably a finite amount that employees can provide, so they have to look elsewhere too.

And the thing is, a new economy is emerging where people monetize their identity and behavior voluntarily. In the case of the examples we heard about — the guy in Uganda filming himself walking down the street — and then the flip of that, as I mentioned, the example of young people in America, which the Guardian has a really good analysis of, who have skills that cannot easily be translated into something AI can do. The key element in that part of the discussion was about the skill this young guy has — 23 years old. It’s not unique, but he’s got a skill that isn’t just “I know how to repair a diesel engine.” It’s that he can, at a glance, literally see what’s wrong and already formulate the six things he needs to do to fix it. And that is valuable. He’s earning $150,000 a year already in salary doing this, and he’s 23 years old.

So there are other examples mentioned in that Guardian piece too that are interesting. On the one hand, you’ve got gig economy workers like DoorDash drivers doing what they’re doing. On the other hand, you’ve got people like this guy developing a career not related to AI at all — a skill that cannot easily be replicated by AI. So that’s part of the landscape. I’m not sure where all of that fits within this, Shel, to be honest, but it’s part of the picture.

Shel Holtz
Yeah. I think it was MIT that came out with a report not too long ago saying something like 93% of jobs are AI-safe — and there were a lot of people saying this really paints a different picture from what we’ve been anticipating. I don’t know how accurate it is. But in the meantime, there are AI companies working very hard to elevate these systems to the point where they can do some of the work that currently might be considered AI-safe. I think for many jobs, it’s probably just a temporary designation.

I raised the issue of employees inside the organization. Those gig workers are another issue for organizational communicators, because these workers — the ones very accustomed to having the app tell them to do a task, doing the task, and getting paid for it — these folks aren’t covered by traditional internal communications. Organizations relying on gig workers and contracted labor, and increasingly if your AI tools were trained by them, have a stakeholder relationship they may not have a communication strategy for. I’d argue they don’t have a communication strategy for it.

I’ve often made the distinction between internal communications and employee communications. Employees are the people who come in and get paid by you directly, whether salaried or hourly. But you have other internal stakeholders, and we develop strategies for them — the contractors embedded in our organization. I work in construction; we have subcontractors; there are ways the organization communicates with them. There are all kinds of internal stakeholders, and these gig and contract workers are now among them. We should figure out a way to communicate with them, talk about our ethical use of their data, and engage with them in ways that are meaningful, useful, and produce positive results.

Neville Hobson
Yeah, makes sense. You had a couple of other points you were going to mention. What’s the next one?

Shel Holtz
Just one other, actually, and that’s about keeping the human in the loop. A lot of companies, in order to feel good and look good as they move into the AI world, are positioning human oversight as really important. But what the stories we’ve been talking about reveal is that humans are raw material — physically, biometrically, behaviorally. Workers aged 22 to 25 in the most AI-exposed occupations — things like paralegal work, for example — have experienced a 13% decline in employment since 2022, which is the year OpenAI released ChatGPT to the public. On the other hand, employment for less exposed or more experienced workers — think about your 23-year-old diesel mechanic — has been steady or in some cases even increasing.

So organizational communicators talking about AI as just augmenting human workers need to be careful, because I think increasingly we’re going to hear stories about how that isn’t actually true, particularly for this younger demographic. We have to be honest about that asymmetry. I mean, whose labor is augmenting whom?

Neville Hobson
Yeah, I get that. It does make sense. It’s an issue that embraces communications, ethics, and trust more than anything. But at the heart of it, there is the technology aspect. I’m thinking about other things that you and I have discussed in previous episodes that are kind of adjacent to this issue — where if you analyze what the real issues are, they tend to be a mixture of communication, ethics, and trust. So that’s a good starting point for communicators who might be wondering how the hell to address this: communication, ethics, and trust. Work out how you can develop the procedures that embrace and recognize the importance of those things and execute them inside the organization.

I agree with the premise in all the articles we’ve linked in the show notes that a new data labor economy is emerging where people monetize their identity and behavior and, in the case of the Global South in particular, don’t think twice about it. Employers have a duty of care to recognize what they need to do to bring that group into their structure — one where communication, ethics, and trust play the bigger role.

Shel Holtz
Yeah, absolutely. And I think there are a number of places to look. You don’t want to be the next organization to have it disclosed that you have exploited labor producing the data that you need, because those scandals were pretty difficult for the fashion companies that went through them. Also, one of the things that generative AI models are really good for is scenario planning.

Neville Hobson
Ha!

Shel Holtz
And for your organization, in your industry, with your markets, it wouldn’t hurt to do some scenario planning about who the stakeholders are that you should be communicating with, and what the challenges are going to be both internally and externally, and start developing some communication strategies. And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #508: Inside AI’s Human Raw Material Supply Chain appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Eight years and 300 episodes later, Chip and Gini take stock of what the Agency Leadership Podcast has actually been about and where their thinking has shifted since they sat down for lunch outside Wrigley Field and decided to start a show.

Chip shares an AI-generated analysis of the 10 most common themes across 300 episodes. Gini distills them into four she considers non-negotiable: communication fixes most problems, know your numbers, focus on particular wins, and the owner sets the temperature. Chip adds that communication doesn’t just solve problems, it prevents them. Ironic, given that probably everyone listening is in the communications business.

On what’s changed, Gini has moved from annual retainer-focused planning to quarterly reviews that constantly show results and surface what’s working. She also notes that her advice for navigating a tough business environment now mirrors what worked during the pandemic: find the project work, start with an assessment, and build trust before building a retainer.

The biggest evolution for Chip is his position on AI. While he was skeptical a few years ago about the timeline, now he thinks agencies are under-emphasizing it. He and Gini disagree on AI’s limits. Gini believes critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and crisis work still require human judgment. Chip is less certain those guardrails will hold. What they do agree on: AI is turning everyone into a manager, and that puts a premium on skills that were already in short supply.

The episode closes with a lightning round covering worst advice agencies still believe, best scary decisions, and prospect red flags including unreasonable expectations and unwillingness to discuss budget. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 300: 300 episodes in: what’s changed, what hasn’t, and what we got wrong appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Most hiring processes obsess over the wrong things. Do they know our project management software? Are they proficient in this specific tool? Meanwhile, the one capability that actually determines whether someone will make your life easier or harder—their ability to solve problems independently—gets a cursory “are you a good problem solver?” question that everyone answers with “yes.”

In this episode, Chip and Gini break down why problem-solving ability should be the primary hiring criterion, especially as AI makes technical skills easier to acquire and offload. The conversation explores why this matters more now than ever: as AI handles tactical execution, the ability to define problems clearly, break them into components, and figure out solutions becomes the differentiator between humans who add value and humans who get replaced.

Chip and Gini discuss how problem-solving cuts across every role, even ones you don’t typically think of as problem-solving positions. Designers facing impossible deadlines, account people navigating last-minute client demands, anyone dealing with the reality that things rarely go according to plan. They all need to be able to figure out how to move forward rather than escalating every obstacle upward.

The episode tackles the mechanics of actually interviewing for this capability. You can’t just ask “are you a good problem solver?”—you need scenario-based questions that reveal how candidates think through challenges. But not hypothetical scenarios you make up; real situations that have happened in your agency. Ask them to walk through how they’ve handled compressed timelines, missing information, conflicting priorities, or last-minute changes in past roles.

Gini shares how her daughter’s school explicitly focuses on humanities and emotional intelligence rather than technical skills, anticipating that AI will reshape what jobs exist. She connects this to Anthropic’s hiring practice of seeking people with humanities degrees who can absorb information, think critically, and demonstrate emotional intelligence rather than just technical proficiency.

The episode concludes with an important reminder: if you hire problem solvers but then micromanage how they solve problems, you’ve wasted the hire. You need to let them solve things their way, even if it’s different from how you’d do it, or you’ll end up with everything back on your plate anyway. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 299: Hire people who understand how to solve problems appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Take a stroll through LinkedIn. You’ll find no shortage of posts stridently deriding the notion that anyone should ever use AI to write for them. While that case isn’t hard to make for professional writers, there are countless professionals in other fields who struggle with writing, never trained to be writers, yet now have to write everything from emails to reports as part of their jobs. Should they really sweat for hours over wording, time they could be devoting to the core areas of subject expertise, when AI can produce content that is cogent, clear, and direct? In this short mid-week episode, Neville and Shel look at the trends in using AI for writing, despite the plethora of opinions from the pundits.

Links from this episode:

• Meet the Tech Reporters Using AI to Help Write and Edit Their Stories
• Meet the Journalist Using AI to Write Stories
• How Journalists Feel About AI
• Muck Rack’s 2026 State of Journalism Report Finds 82% of Journalists Use AI
• AI Doesn’t Reduce Work—It Intensifies It
• Is Writing with AI at Work Undermining Your Credibility?
• How We’re Using AI
• Review of ‘Using Artificial Intelligence in Academic Writing’
• Best Practices for the Effective Use of AI in Business Writing
• AI Tools for Business Writing
• 5 Ways to Instantly Level Up Your Communication Using AI Tools
• Charlene Li and Katia Walsh demonstrate the right way to build a book with AI help – Josh Bernoff
• The Truth About Writing a Book on AI

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, April 27.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Neville: Hi everyone and welcome to For Immediate Release episode 507. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel: And I’m Shel Holtz. And if you spend any time at all on LinkedIn, you’ll see the degree to which anti-AI sentiment is ramping up. A lot of it’s aimed at using AI for writing and how absolutely wrong that is. Yet just last week, on the same day, Wired Magazine and The Wall Street Journal both published articles on reporters using AI to help write and edit their stories. So today, let’s talk about using AI to write.

Specifically, is it okay for employees to use AI to help them write for work? And my answer is not only is it okay for many employees, it might be one of the most genuinely useful things AI can do. Here’s the framing I would push back on. When we talk about AI writing assistants, we tend to picture a journalist or a marketer or a communications professional, someone whose craft is writing, it’s what they’re paid for, handing their keyboard over to a robot. And for those of us who are professional writers, that raises legitimate professional and ethical questions. But that’s not the population we’re talking about when we’re communicating AI adoption in most organizations. Think about who actually has to write at work. Engineers document processes. Product managers write status updates. Safety officers draft incident reports.

Shel: Finance analysts compose budget justifications. Scientists write up findings for non-technical stakeholders. These are not people who chose their careers because they love writing. Writing is a tax they pay to do the work they actually care about. And many of them pay that tax really, really badly. The idea that a structural engineer should produce elegant prose unaided is the same logic as saying a communications director should coordinate the concrete mix for a construction project. We don’t expect that. So why do we expect every knowledge worker to be a competent writer? Muckrack’s 2026 State of Journalism report found that 82% of journalists, professional writers, people whose job this is, are now using at least one AI tool. That’s up from 77% the year before.

If the people whose professional identity is tied to their writing are using AI tools, it shouldn’t surprise us that everyone else is too, or that they should. Now the research does tell us something important about how to use these tools. A University of Florida study of 1,100 professionals found that AI tools can make workplace writing more professional.

But regular heavy use can undermine trust between managers and employees, particularly for relationship-oriented messages like praise, motivation, or personal feedback. The study found that employees are more skeptical when they perceive a supervisor is leaning heavily on AI for those kinds of communications. Now that’s a meaningful finding and it’s exactly the kind of nuance internal communicators need to help their organizations understand.

It’s not an argument against AI writing assistance. It’s an argument for knowing when it’s appropriate. Purdue Business School Professor Casey Roberson, who literally wrote one of the first business writing textbooks to address AI, puts it this way: AI is a great tool for brainstorming when you’re stuck, for outlining and structuring documents, for revising drafts to improve clarity and tone, but it should not be used for confidential information, and using it to write first drafts can stifle creativity and critical thinking. The Wharton communication program makes a similar distinction. Their guidance frames AI tools as powerful and skilled hands for the right task, valuable for brainstorming, editing, improving conciseness, and anticipating challenging questions, but a liability when used as a substitute for your own thinking, your own knowledge of your audience, and your own credibility.

So what’s the practical guidance for internal communicators trying to help their colleagues use AI responsibly in their writing? First, make the distinction between communication types explicit. Routine informational writing — process documentation, project updates, meeting recaps, technical reports — that’s where AI assistance is most defensible and most valuable. That’s exactly where the trust risk is lowest and the productivity gain is highest. Conversely, messages that carry relationship weight, like a manager recognizing someone’s contribution or a leader addressing a team through a difficult moment, that deserves a human voice. Help your employees understand that difference.

Second, reframe the conversation around who’s actually writing. A systematic review published in the International Journal of Business Communication found that AI can significantly help with idea generation, structure, literature synthesis, editing, and refinement. Essentially all the phases of writing that non-writers find most daunting. AI isn’t replacing a writer’s voice. In many cases, it’s giving non-writers a voice they otherwise wouldn’t even have.

Third, be honest about the nuance inside the journalism conversation. The Columbia Journalism Review published a fascinating piece where journalists across major newsrooms shared their practices. Nicholas Thompson, the CEO of The Atlantic, described using AI the way he’d use a fast, well-read research assistant who’s also a terrible writer — helpful for checking consistency, flagging chronological issues, examining logical claims, but not for the writing itself. Amelia Daly, a senior reporter at VentureBeat, put it this way: AI helps her productivity, but she refuses to use it to write because writing is how she maintains trust with her readers. That distinction — AI as research and process support versus AI as voice — maps directly to the guidance you should be giving your colleagues.

I read one other reporter in one of these articles who said he actually does use it to write because he didn’t become a journalist in order to write. He didn’t like writing; he liked reporting. So he did all the other work and then lets the AI produce the writing.

And here’s the thing I’d leave your employees with because I think it gets lost in this debate. Wharton’s communication faculty make the argument that writing is thinking, that when you rely on AI for drafting, you don’t know your content as deeply as you should, and you lose the nimbleness to adapt when the moment requires it. And that’s true. But for an engineer who agonizes over every sentence of a procedure document, who spends four times as long on the writing as on the analysis,

Shel: AI doesn’t replace their thinking. It clears away the friction so their thinking can actually reach the page. For internal communicators, this is a genuinely useful message to take to your AI adoption rollouts. AI writing assistance isn’t about cutting corners. It’s about removing a barrier that prevents good ideas from being communicated clearly while still insisting on the judgment, authenticity, and relational awareness that only human beings can bring.

Neville: Yeah, it’s a big topic, I have to admit. And I think of it from not the employee communication point of view so much. That’s pretty a major part of it, I think, major usage. Is anyone writing, in fact? Whether you’re in public relations, whether you’re a journalist, et cetera, people who need to write as part of their roles is what’s in my mind mostly.

I’m also drawn by a very good analysis by Josh Bernoff. You and I interviewed Josh, what, two, three months ago. He wrote an assessment of Charlene Li’s new book, Winning with AI, which she used AI extensively in the creation of the book. Worth pointing out that the book — the AI didn’t write any of the content.

She and her co-author, Katia Walsh, talked about the way in which they divvied up the work. And the AIs, plural, did research amongst other tasks, too. But Josh did a lengthy post setting out all the areas where they found AI useful and AI not so useful. And it struck me reading Josh’s post and then also Charlene’s postscripts, as it were, in the book itself, which I am reading, by the way, that this would apply to anyone writing, not just would-be book authors, in my view. Whether you’re writing fiction or nonfiction doesn’t make any difference. Whether you’re writing a report, whether you’re writing an article or for a blog or for a newspaper, whatever, doesn’t matter. These principles, I think, apply to that. And it’s not so much about whether your role in your organization or in your job is to do with this and you’re not very good at writing. It’s not so much that. It’s more focused on those whose job is writing, or writing is part of their job in some form.

So there are a number of things that I took from it. But to go to the main point about Charlene’s book Winning with AI, AI wasn’t doing the writing, as I mentioned. It was supporting the thinking. It handled things like the research, summaries, the structure, which speeds everything up. But the ideas, the voice, and the judgment — that all stayed firmly human. And to quote from Josh’s post, he says that the two authors describe how they used Claude to structure the content, ChatGPT to create a custom GPT with four years of their work, which it used in a sense as a training aid, Perplexity to do the research, and Gemini to search a vast collection of interview transcripts. It’s much more detailed than that. It’s well set out in the book. And I thought, that’s interesting. That’s a very intelligent way to go about using different AI chatbots for different purposes on your projects.

So three things I took from this, and this applies to all the points you made, Shel, and it will repeat some of those, but it just shows you that this is how you need to think of this. First, AI works best as a thinking partner, not a writer. Like I said, the two authors used AI as a note taker, researcher, brainstorming partner — essentially a third collaborator. It helped them structure the ideas, surface insights, and challenge assumptions, and they did not rely on it to produce the final prose.

The second point: it saved time on the drudge work, as Josh called it, but it requires human judgment. It was highly effective for research and summarization, structuring outlines, surfacing missed ideas from earlier drafts. That resonated with me because I often find in my own experience when I’m doing research on either blog posts or articles or reports or just research about something I’m interested in, it usually surfaces something AI wouldn’t have thought of, or I might have done, but it might have surfaced later after I’d written it, and it requires a rewrite or something like that. Structuring the outlines, too, is another thing. And this is definitely worth noting — we’ve discussed this before. Everything still required the humans to fact-check and validate everything the AI produces, because in Charlene’s words, AI has no built-in truth function. And I think that’s a worthwhile way of looking at it.

And the final point that I took from this: you can’t outsource originality, voice, or quality — i.e., the writing. They tried it. AI failed at core creative tasks. There are three of them that Josh points out in his article. Generating genuinely new ideas — this is not very good at this, because it’s trained on existing writing that humans have done over the years and the centuries even. It can’t create something new from that other than guesswork. It’s about the same as what we do, I think, except we’re likely to do the more informed approach. It can’t write in a compelling human voice. And it cannot edit to a high standard. They all described — Charlene and Katia and Josh, for that matter — AI writing as bland, repetitive, and jargon-heavy. And in fact, Charlene talks about how they could not stop jargon creep in anything that the AI produced. And she had this big thing about one draft where they used AI to review it — it changed every use of the word “use” to “utilize.” The AI changed it to that, full of that kind of jargon.

Shel: One of my biggest pet peeves, by the way, is “utilize.”

Neville: Right, totally. And the final quality, nuance, personality, and insight remained entirely human because the humans wrote it. So I take all of that, add it to what you’ve been talking about, and say, I guess I’d conclude from that: it doesn’t matter what your role is. These are the principles you need to pay attention to and approach your use of AI as an aid. And we’re not, you know, suddenly coming out with a revelation here. I see people saying this all over the place. AI is an aid to help you, in a sense, create extremely good content, either as a writer or something else that you might be doing, where this is contributing to that end. And it doesn’t matter what your role is, whether you’re no good at this or that — that reporter you talked about likes to report but not to write. I’m wondering how the hell he gets away with doing that. Reporters have to write, don’t they?

Shel: Well, I’m sure he just poured a lot of effort and energy into it when he would have rather been out in the field gathering information.

Neville: Got it, got it. So yeah, this is not too difficult a thing to kind of grasp, in my view, yet I’m constantly bemused by the fact that I see — and maybe LinkedIn’s not the best place to look for this stuff — but I see it all the time. You and I were talking about this before we started recording about people posting there about, you know, you should never use AI. Here’s a list of words I see, and if I see them in LinkedIn posts, I’m going to unfollow that person and call them out. I see this all the time. And I think your example you mentioned to me about the person who wrote a LinkedIn post saying that you should — it was like, you should never, ever — and there’s the list of things — use AI for. That’s insane. That’s insane.

Shel: Yeah, she said nobody wants to read emails written by AI. Nobody wants to read reports written by AI. And she just went down every form of writing you can think of. And I was thinking, really? Nobody? Nobody wants to read this? And I’ve got data that says people prefer emails written by AI when they’re written by people who are terrible writers and have a hard time expressing the main point they’re trying to get to. Their own writing — the AI has actually made the emails of these people better, and people would rather read those.

Neville: So did you use AI to research this?

Shel: To research, to find that data? Yeah, of course I did. It’s easier than using Google, but I also verified the source of that research.

Neville: Right, okay. No, no, no, hang on a second. The point of that though is it’s illustrative of something that I’m astonished when I hear people that have not heard of doing this before. “That’s a good idea,” which is: anything you’re working on, literally anything, and you either have your list of things you need to research, but something that occurs to you during your work — I wonder who said X, or I wonder how you do this — ask your AI to go research it. And it then becomes a natural part of your workflow. And that’s one of the things it’s very good at.

But we’ve got the example we talked about last October with Deloitte in Australia and Canada. You’ve got to check everything it creates, particularly if it’s a topic you really don’t know about yet. But even if you do know, you’ve still got to check it. That means when you tell it to go out and look for stuff, and you’ve already given it your preferences — like anything it finds, it’s going to come back with a link to the source as well — so you’ve got all that stuff, you’ve got to then go and check all those things too. So there are no easy shortcuts here to this use. But it still saves you a huge amount of time because you’re then spending time, in a sense, understanding the output that you’re going to use to create your final version of this.

That I see people often criticizing — “If you use AI, your brain gets kind of frozen and doesn’t learn stuff.” Yeah, that’s not, in my experience, the case, because you’re doing it differently is how I would see it. You are asking your assistant to go and find this and this and this, and they come back with this and this and this, and you then go and research it yourself to check up that it is this, this, and this and not that.

So it’s, I think, an interesting aspect to the broader debate on those who are anti and those who aren’t, where most of us are sort of somewhere in the middle there. But you need to totally understand the pros and the cons of this and indeed the limitations of AI, as well as the human limitations, and work out what works best for you.

The reality, though — I guess the bottom line in terms of how I see this — is that you cannot take the human being out of the picture. This tool is purely that: something to assist you that gives you what you need to create the final product, if you like. And that doesn’t matter your job role. That’s what it’s about.

Shel: Well, I would argue that if you are in a job where writing was not taught in school beyond what you learned in your basic English class or whatever language you were raised with, and you need to produce writing, and this tool is now there to help you do that — if you’re an engineer, for example, engineers are brilliant. Many of them are

Neville: Not good writers.

Shel: Terrible writers. And they have to produce something that’s going to be useful to the people that they’re distributing it to. And if AI is going to write a better draft than they could do on their own and produce better output that people can make better use of, then they should let AI write that stuff. In an engineer’s report, there is no need for lived human experience that we keep hearing about. Empathy does not have to come into these reports. They’re technical in nature. Let the AI write it for them. Absolutely edit it, review all the facts to make sure it’s right. Presumably it’s writing based on what you gave it in terms of the information that you have learned that you need to produce in this report. So less opportunity for hallucination when you’re telling it: only use this data that I have put into this ChatGPT project for the output. But you still have to review it very, very carefully. That’ll still save you time and grief if you’re not a writer and you need to produce this stuff. I feel really strongly: we have this great tool here that’s going to make the outputs better and make business better.

Neville: Yeah, I think I don’t disagree with you at all, but I think I’m not as optimistic about it as you are in the sense of this is going to work seamlessly if people do all the things you just said, because typically they’re not going to do that. I think the key — and I can see scenarios exactly as you’ve outlined, someone in a job that’s a valuable job and he or she does a great job but lacks the skills to write — then I would say that’s fine, get the AI to write. You need to be educated then on how to get the AI to do what you want. You then need to, without fail, verify and check every single thing that the AI has created. And I’m not sure that many of the folks that you might think of are truly geared up to do that kind of thing. So you might need to have colleagues assist you then. I mean, I guess the point is that…

Shel: Well, it’s…

Neville: This is going to be a debating point forever, I would imagine, until people stop talking about it. But you’re going to encounter — I can see it now — “But yeah, you’ve got to disclose the fact that you used AI.” No, you don’t. You get down to that rabbit hole argument about, do you do that when you use Grammarly? Do you do that with your spell checker? No, you don’t. So why would you say you’d have to do this? Because it’s such an emotive topic where logic is missing in many of the arguments. It’s all emotional.

That’s the minefield you have to walk. For much of the work that many people might do, they won’t use the AI to write it. They’ll use AI to assist them in creating it. And that could mean they do an outline, or it suggests the construct of a draft, or you draft it and it reviews it and makes suggestions on how to improve it.

I do that quite a bit with my AI assistants. And I don’t have a rigid format. Much depends on the topic and how I feel about it, basically. And often I’ll ask it a topic that is something I’ve been thinking about and say, is this worth writing about? If so, give me some suggestions on the angle I should approach it from. And that always sparks much more discussion and thought on what the content might be, including, “Now this is not worth writing about for me.”

So it’s a big topic. You had in your prep for this loads of links to articles all over the place about this. And I think it’s good to do that. But this is emotive. And it’s going to not be a simple thing to avoid criticisms.

Shel: Yeah, and I think it’s a governance issue inside organizations. I hear about the lack of AI training going on in many organizations or how superficial it is. I think for those people who have to write in their jobs, you want to do targeted training about how to use this to write. From the idea generation to the brainstorming to the back-and-forth discussions that you might have about approaches to take, or

Shel: using it to structure the document right down to writing it for that first draft, if you just could do better with that than you can on your own and you’re not a professional writer. All of that needs to be trained and it needs to be articulated in the governance policies in the organization around AI, and there need to be resources. And yeah, we need to have subject matter experts that people can call. This is on us right now as internal communicators who deal with writing in general to lead this conversation in the organization and make sure that these kinds of governance activities are implemented.

Neville: Work to do.

Shel: And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #507: Should Nobody Really Ever Write with AI? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

The days when a crisis communicator could simply reach for a dusty binder and follow a pre-scripted, linear checklist are gone — and they aren’t coming back. In the “good old days,” a crisis was often a contained event with a predictable lifecycle; crisis teams could address them by checking off items on a checklist. Today, we face the era of the polycrisis, where economic instability, geopolitical friction, and a 24/7 social media cycle collide, creating a torrent of simultaneous challenges. This new reality has effectively obliterated the traditional news cycle, replacing it with an always-on environment where a single viral post can tarnish a brand before leadership even knows there is a problem.

Thriving in this volatile landscape requires a move away from rigid manuals toward a more fluid, strategic approach. Rather than a step-by-step rulebook, modern practitioners need logical scaffolding — a flexible framework of principles and values that provides a foundation for action while allowing for real-time adaptability. It is about preparation, not just prescription. As the boundaries between internal and external perception continue to erode, the ability to maintain transparency and connection through these multifaceted disruptions is no longer a luxury; it is table stakes for organizational survival.

Four Fellows of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) shared their perspectives in this episode of IABC’s Circle of Fellows.

About the Panel:

Edward “Ned” Lundquist is a retired U.S. Navy captain with 43 years of professional public affairs and strategic communications experience. His company, Echo Bridge LLC, which provides outreach and advocacy support to government and commercial clients. He served on active duty for 24 years in the U.S. Navy as a surface warfare officer and public affairs specialist. Captain Lundquist was a Pentagon spokesman with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, Director of the Fleet Home Town News Center, and director of public affairs and corporate communications for the Navy Exchange Service Command. His last tour of duty was commanding the 450 men and women of the Naval Media Center. He is an accredited business communicator and award-winning communicator who served as president of IABC/Hampton Roads and IABC/Washington, director of U.S. District 3, and chair of the International Accreditation Council. He was named an IABC Fellow in 2016. Captain Lundquist received the Surface Navy Association’s Special Recognition Award in January of this year, for his service on SNA’s executive committee and chair of the SNA communications committee. He writes for numerous naval, maritime, and defense publications and chairs and presents at communications, naval, and maritime security conferences around the world.

Robin McCasland, IABC Fellow, SCMP, is Senior Director of Corporate Communications for Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC). She leads the company’s communications team and the employee listening program, demonstrating to senior leaders how employee and executive communication add value to the business’s bottom line. Previously, Robin excelled in leadership roles in communication for Texas Instruments, Dell, Tenet Healthcare, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe. She has also worked for large and boutique HR consulting firms, leading major communication initiatives for various well-known companies. Robin is a past IABC chairman and has served in numerous association leadership roles for over 30 years. She was honored in 2023 and 2021 by Ragan/PR Daily as one of the Top Women Leaders in Communication. She’s also received IABC Southern Region and IABC Dallas Communicator of the Year honors. Robin is a graduate of The University of Texas at Austin and a Leadership Texas alumnus. Her own podcast, Torpid Liver (and Other Symptoms of Poor Communication), features guest speakers addressing timely topics to help communication professionals become more influential, strategic advisors and leaders. She resides in Dallas, Texas, with her husband, Mitch, and their canine kids, Tank and Petunia.

George McGrath is founder and managing principal of McGrath Business Communications, which helps clients build winning corporate reputations, promote their products and services, and advance their views on key issues. George brings more than 25 years in PR and public affairs to his firm. Over the course of his career, he has held senior management positions at leading strategic communications and integrated marketing agencies including Hill and Knowlton, Carl Byoir & Associates, and Brouillard Communications.

Caroline Sapriel, founder and Managing Partner of CS&A, brings over 30 years of specialized expertise in risk, crisis, and business continuity management to the table. A Fellow of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) and a recipient of the Gold Quill Award for her “10 Commandments of Crisis Management,” Sapriel is a recognized authority in providing high-level, results-driven counsel to senior leaders across the energy, pharmaceutical, and aviation sectors. Her deep academic roots as a lecturer at Antwerp, Leuven, and Leiden Universities, combined with her authorship of Crisis Management – Tales from the Front Line, underscore a career dedicated to transforming systemic vulnerabilities into robust reputation management strategies. Fluent in five languages and possessing a multi-disciplinary background in International Relations and Chinese Studies, she offers a uniquely global perspective on the evolution of stakeholder engagement during high-stakes disruptions.

The post Circle of Fellows #126: Communicating in the Era of the Polycrisis appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Most agency owners have read Built to Sell. But many have internalized the wrong lesson from it—fixating on that final chapter where the protagonist drives off into the sunset with a pile of cash, rather than the actual business-building advice throughout the book. The result is owners spending years building businesses optimized for a sale that may never happen, or that won’t deliver the outcome they’re imagining.

In this episode, Chip and Gini discuss Chip’s “Build to Own” philosophy as a counterpoint to the built-to-sell mindset. The core principle: focus on creating a business that serves you today, not some hypothetical buyer tomorrow. This doesn’t mean you can’t or won’t sell—it means you stop treating the sale as the primary objective and start treating ownership as the thing you’re optimizing for right now.

Chip breaks down the TMRW framework for thinking about what you want from your business: Time (how much you spend and what flexibility you have), Meaning (what gives you satisfaction—clients, team, impact), Rewards (financial outcomes that fund your life today and tomorrow), and Work (the actual role you’re crafting for yourself). Gini shares her decision to retire from speaking despite conventional wisdom saying agency owners should be out there raising their profile—because the anxiety wasn’t worth the marginal business benefit.

The conversation tackles the uncomfortable reality that most agency owners counting on a sale to fund their retirement are likely building businesses that won’t command the multiple they’re hoping for. Meanwhile, owners who build businesses that throw off enough cash to fund retirement directly—while also being enjoyable to run—end up with something far more attractive to buyers when and if they do decide to sell.

Gini tells the story of a friend who prepared five years in advance for a sale: removing himself from day-to-day operations, hiring a president to build culture, ensuring the business wasn’t founder-dependent. The result? An 18x multiple. But the episode’s point isn’t “here’s how to get a great sale”—it’s that you should make every decision through the lens of “would I still be happy with this if I never sold?” [read the transcript]

The post ALP 298: Build the business you want to own, not the one you hope to sell appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In this monthly long-form episode for March, Neville and Shel tackle a trio of interconnected themes reshaping the communications profession in the age of AI. The conversation opens with Anthropic’s top lawyer declaring that AI will destroy the billable hour. That thread leads naturally into JP Morgan’s controversial use of digital monitoring to verify junior bankers’ working hours, where Shel and Neville question whether surveillance technology can substitute for genuine managerial trust and engagement.

The episode also examines Gartner’s widely circulated prediction that PR budgets will double by 2027 as AI search engines favor earned media. Shel delivers a detailed report on the escalating misinformation crisis, citing a 900% surge in global deepfake incidents and new research from the C2PA on content provenance standards. The episode closes with a discussion of Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince’s prediction that bot traffic will exceed human traffic by 2027, and a sobering peer-reviewed study on how social bots hijack organizational messaging — research reported by Bob Pickard, who has experienced bot-driven attacks firsthand.

Dan York also contributes a tech report on the state of the Fediverse and Mastodon, as well as on AI developments for WordPress.

Links from this episode:

• AI will destroy the billable hour, says Anthropic’s top lawyer
• Gartner predicts PR budgets will increase 2x by 2027
• 5 takes on Gartner’s new optimism for PR and earned media in the age of AI
• PR is back, baby — Gartner is predicting… [LinkedIn post by Lindsay Bennett]
• The Gartner claim that public relations and earned media budgets will double by 2027
• JPMorgan starts programme to monitor junior banker hours [Financial Times]
• FT Exclusive: The US bank has started to… [Financial Times LinkedIn post]
• Senator Bernie Sanders Discusses the Impact of AI on Privacy and Democracy with Claude
• Let’s Talk Keyboard Jamming and Why It Might Suggest Bigger Problems at Work
• Telling Fact From Fiction With Online Misinformation
• Online bot traffic will exceed human traffic by 2027, Cloudflare CEO says
• Public Relations & Organizational Communication [LinkedIn post by Bob Pickard]
• Social Bots as Agenda-Builders: Evaluating the Impact of Algorithmic Amplification on Organizational Messaging

Links from Dan York’s Tech Report:

• Mastodon post by Eugen Rochko (@Gargron) — mastodon.social
• Mastodon — Decentralized social media
• How to Generate a WordPress Theme with Telex
• Telex — AI-Assisted Authoring Environment for WordPress
• WordPress.com now lets AI agents write and publish posts, and more
• Your AI agent can now create, edit, and manage content on WordPress.com
• Enable MCP tool access for AI agents
• WordPress.com MCP prompt examples

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, April 27.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Neville:  Hi everyone, and welcome to the Forum Immediate Release podcast, long form episode for March, 2026. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel: And I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville: As ever, we have six great stories to discuss and share with you, and we hope you’ll gain insight and enjoyment from our discussion. Perhaps you’ll want to share a comment with us once you’ve had a listen. We’d like that.

Our topics this month range from AI in the end of the billable hour to Gartner’s predictions about PR budgets to monitoring work in the age of AI to newsrooms battling AI generated misinformation and more, including Dan York’s tech reports. Before we get into our discussion, let’s begin with a recap of the episodes we’ve published over the past month and some list of comments in the long form.

In episode 502 for February, published on the 23rd of that month, we explored how rapidly accelerating technology is reshaping the communication profession from autonomous agents with attitudes to the evolving ROI of podcasting. We led with a chilling milestone moment, an autonomous AI coding agent that publicly shamed a human developer after he rejected its code contribution.

A leader can build goodwill for days and lose it in seconds. In FIR 503 on the 2nd of March, we reported on the president of the IOC, that’s the International Olympic Committee, who had no answers to reporters’ questions and suggested on camera that someone on her communications team should be fired. We got comment on this, haven’t we, Shel?

Shel: Boy, do we have comments on this one. This attracted a good number of them, starting with Kevin Anselmo, who used to have a podcast on the FIR Podcast Network. It was on higher education communication. He says, having previously worked in communications for two different international sport federations, I found this story quite amusing. One of my first PR roles was working at the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. I was working on the sport federation side, not the IOC.

Neville: Yep, you did.

Shel: But I know that working at such events is exhilarating and exhausting as you have to deal with a myriad of different issues. I can imagine that toward the end of the Olympics, the PR team fell short of delivering a robust brief. But nevertheless, in answer to your question, even if the PR people were abysmal, the fault is on Coventry for the way she handled the situation. A simple, we will have to look into this and get back to you response would have worked.

Instead, by handling it the way she did, she drew unnecessary attention to the questions she and the team weren’t prepared to answer, as you and Neville shared. I guess in the process of this mishap, I learned that Germany was in the running for the 2036 Olympics, which I wasn’t aware of. We also heard from Monique Zitnick, who said, really enjoyed your discussion on this. Certainly a puzzling situation that has surely ended in broken trust on both sides.

Shel: Mike Klein said, another ignominious IOC leader in the mold of Brundage and Samaranch. Neville, you replied. You said that’s an interesting comparison. Mike, Avery Brundage and Juan Antonio Samaranch both left very complicated legacies, particularly around politics and governance in the Olympic movement. What struck me about this episode wasn’t so much ideology or policy. It was leadership under pressure.

Coventry had actually received a fair amount of praise for how she handled some difficult moments during the games, which makes the press conference moment even more interesting from a communication perspective. It’s a reminder that reputation capital can be fragile. A single public moment can reshape the narrative very quickly. Mike replied, yes, leadership under pressure, but also the kind of people the IOC has chosen for leadership over the years.

Coventry has a complicated history over her involvement with her native Zimbabwe’s recent regimes as well. Sylvia Camby said, Neville, watching Coventry’s press conference took me back to the time I spent doing comms for an international association. It reminded me of how inward-looking organizations like the IOC can be. So totally focused on their internal member politics with leaders too lazy or too overconfident to bother to educate themselves about current affairs.

Also, they often have a distorted idea of what the press is interested in. They often think they can dictate their agenda. As you and Shel mentioned on the podcast, the questions were entirely predictable. You replied, Neville, that’s a really insightful observation, Sylvia. Organizations like the IOC can become quite inward facing, particularly when so much of their energy is spent navigating internal governance and member politics. That can create a kind of blind spot about how issues look from the outside.

Sylvia said, and I was thinking, I’m proud of Germany for being so sensitive about the significance of that date and for opposing the 2036 bid. They are much better at reading the spirit of the time than Coventry. As an aside, my father’s cousin competed in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin as a gymnast. She passed away last year at the age of 104.

She often spoke to me of the atmosphere surrounding the Olympics at the time, a heaviness and a sense of unspeakable doom. So yes, 2036 is a date that Berlin should definitely avoid. And you replied to that, Neville. People can go find that one in the comments.

Neville: That’s a good one. There are some great points of view, perspectives there. So thanks to everyone who commented. Are companies using AI as a convenient explanation for layoffs? That was a question we asked in FIR 504 on the 10th of March when we discussed AI washing, when organizations blame workforce cuts on AI, even when the reality is more complicated. It’s a difficult ethical space for communicators. And we have comment on this too, don’t we?

Shel: Three short ones. First from Monique, who commented that she was looking forward to listening to the episode because she’s been having a lot of conversations on this over the last month. Jacqueline Trzezinski said, I’m glad you’re delving into this. The same thought came to my mind when I saw the Block layoff announcement, especially as it was held up by some on LinkedIn as an example of how valuable transparency is during layoffs.

And Jesper Anderson said, I find it fascinating how quickly the world turns upside down. 18 to 24 months ago, companies were accused of letting people go because of AI and not admitting that this was the true reason.

Neville: Good perspective, Jesper, that one. Is social media still social? In FIR 505 on the 17th of March, we explored Hootsuite’s 2026 Social Media Trends Report, addressing social search, AI versus authenticity and more. Plus a darker question: what if AI starts to dominate the conversation? And we have comment, don’t we?

Shel: Yes, from Zara Ramoutoho Akbar, and I sure hope I pronounced that right, apologies if I didn’t. She said, yes, it feels like socials are shifting from a channel to a trust system. And in that world, I would say that the employee and peer voices matter more than brand output. Are you seeing organizations lean into that yet or still treating social as a broadcast channel? And since Zara asked the question, Neville, what do you think? Are you seeing this change?

Neville: No, I’m not, to be honest, but maybe it’s taking its time. There is something afoot without any doubt. And I think it’s something that we should expect. And that darker question is a valid one to put forward, let’s say. And we’ll keep our eyes and ears open, I think.

Shel: Yeah, I haven’t seen it much either, but I do think that there are organizations that are talking about it. So as you say, we may see this start to change in the months ahead. We have one more comment from Dolores Holtz. No relation. I for one certainly rely on people whom I trust more than any name or brand.

Neville: Yeah, I agree. Fair enough.

Shel: I think that covers our previous episodes up to this one.

Neville: Yeah, good, good comments all over from all those episodes. And thanks everyone for listening and adding your comments to that conversation. It’s really terrific.

Shel: Yeah, keep those coming and ask us questions because that was great from Zara. Also up on the FIR Podcast Network right now is the latest Circle of Fellows. It was a good conversation on the communication issues and challenges in this age of grievance and isolation into basically tribes these days.

Shel: This was Priya Bates, Alice Brink, Jane Mitchell, and Jennifer Wah were the panelists on this Circle of Fellows. As I say, it was really a terrific conversation. The next one is coming up on March 26th, Thursday at noon Eastern time. It’s on crisis communications and especially this idea of the polycrisis, which we heard about from our friend, Philippe Borremans.

The panelists for that Circle of Fellows will be Ned Lundquist, Robin McCaslin, George McGrath, and Carolyn Sapriel. Should be a good crisis-focused conversation. And of course, if you can’t make it at noon on Thursday, it will be available as a Circle of Fellows podcast and the video will be up on the FIR Podcast Network.

Neville: While we’re talking about IABC, let me briefly mention that Sylvia Camby and I hosted a webinar for IABC as part of IABC Ethics Month in February about ethics and AI. We’re actually going to…

Shel: I attended and it was terrific. I was there. It was a great webinar.

Neville: Well, thanks, Shel. That’s great. And we’ve actually had a nice review from someone, which was very pleasing. We’re going to repeat this, specifically for IABC members in the Asia-Pacific region. So if you’re in Australia, India, China, Japan, and maybe right out into the Pacific area, this one’s for you. It’s members only.

The event is AI Ethics and the Responsibility of Communicators. It explores the challenges and responsibilities communicators face when introducing AI, including transparency and trust, stakeholder accountability, and human oversight. It’s on Wednesday, the 15th of April at 6 PM Sydney time. That’s AEST, as I discovered, Australian Eastern Standard Time. You’re no longer on daylight savings in Australia, whereas we are by the time we do this. So 6 PM in Sydney, or 8 AM UTC. That’s Coordinated Universal Time or GMT if you’re used to that one. For me, I’m in the UK, so it translates into 9 AM UK time. But 6 PM in Sydney and that sort of time zone area is the important bit. So we look forward to seeing you there.

Shel: 1 AM Pacific time, so I won’t be participating in this one.

Neville: If you’re up, you could join. OK. So IABC will be letting members know about where to go and register, et cetera, I’m sure in the coming days. So just mark your diary in the meantime. Wednesday, 15th of April, 6 PM Sydney time. And let’s get on with things. But first, there’s this.

Shel: I won’t be.

Neville: Right, let’s start with a statement that will make a lot of people in professional services sit up a bit. Anthropic’s top lawyer Jeff Blick says AI is going to destroy the billable hour. That’s of interest to you if you’re a consultant in particular. Blick argues that AI is removing the need for what he calls tedious but lucrative work, the kind of work that firms have historically billed by the hour. And that matters because the billable hour isn’t just a pricing model.

It’s the foundation of how entire professions have operated for decades. But here’s the tension he highlights. Clients want problems solved quickly and efficiently, while the billable hour rewards the opposite: more time, more revenue. AI sharpens that contradiction because now tasks that once took days or weeks can be done in minutes. And that raises a very simple, very uncomfortable question for clients: if the work takes less time, why am I still paying for all those hours?

It’s something I’ve been thinking about quite a lot myself recently. I wrote about this in Strategic Magazine a few months ago, where I argued that AI isn’t killing consultants, but it’s killing the logic of the billable hour. Because the model has always had flaws: it rewards activity over impact. It prices effort rather than outcomes. And as soon as technology compresses effort, the model starts to look outdated. What’s changing now is not just efficiency, it’s expectations.

Clients aren’t necessarily looking to pay less. They’re looking for clarity, predictability, and above all, value that reflects results, not time spent. So we’re starting to see a shift from billing hours to pricing outcomes, from selling labor to selling judgment. And that sounds straightforward, but it opens up some deeper questions. If AI removes the entry-level repetitive work, how do people develop the judgment that clients are now paying for?

If you move away from time-based billing, how do you actually define and defend value? And perhaps most importantly, are firms really ready to let go of a model that has defined their economics for generations? I think what this really points to is a shift in what clients are buying: not time, but judgment; not effort, but outcomes. And the firms that recognize that early will have a very different advantage from those that don’t.

Shel: Well, if AI drives the end of the billable hour, all I will be able to say is it’s about time and thank God something did it. I have never been a fan of billable hours in communication consulting. I can see it in other lines of work. I mean, plumbers bill by the hour, electricians, people who work with their hands tend to bill by the hour, although interestingly, auto mechanics often do not. It’s the labor required to do this particular thing is worth this amount of money. And then there are the parts that you have to pay for.

But the question is, if the model of billable hours goes away in the public relations and communication industry, what do we replace it with? And I know we have talked about this in the past, but it has been a while.

But I remember when I worked — we have both operated in the billable hour environment. And when I was at Mercer, Mark Schuman was also at Mercer. I think he was in their Houston office and he came up and met with the comms consultants in Los Angeles. And he was talking about the value add. And I objected to this. I said, I have a billable hour based on my value and what it takes to cover overhead and make a profit. I think my billable hour when I left Alexander and Alexander was something like $385 an hour. And that should cover everything. Why are we adding something and just calling it value add?

And what Mark said was, if I have an idea in the shower and it took me 30 seconds for that idea to spark and yet it informs the entire engagement with the client and solves a problem and is based on my decades of experience and everything that I have learned — is that really worth only the 15 cents that that 30 seconds would be valued at under the billable rate? That’s ridiculous. The more I thought about it, the more I thought he’s right. That is ridiculous. So why aren’t we billing based on the value of the project?

Now, you can say here’s how many hours it’s going to take to complete that project and use that as a basis to come up with a price to give a client. Or you can look at other things. I think I mentioned on a show several years ago that Craig Jolly and I proposed a communications program for Coca-Cola for a department that was eliminated before we could come to a final agreement because they had actually agreed to this.

And what we were going to be paid for our effort was absolutely nothing. We were not going to bill them for hours. We were not going to bill them for the value of the project, but they were going to track the outcomes of the work that we did. And they were going to pay us 5% of the savings that accrued as a result of what we did and 5% of the profits that accrued based on what we did. And we had a formula for that. We would have made a fortune over, I think, the three years that we were going to get compensated after this project was complete.

There are other models out there that people can consider, but you’re right. I’m wondering when the clients are going to start saying, this is what I paid last time. Haven’t you started using AI? Why isn’t the drudge work that is part of this project taking less time and costing me less? I think we’re going to hear that from clients. So you better start thinking about the new models.

Neville: Yeah, it’s a sea change. It’s quite a significant change in structure to move from the billable hour. And one reason I believe nothing’s happened is there is definitely no groundswell of desire to change this from the people in organizations who would likely suffer most if it did change, or those who don’t.

And there are lots. I’m not picking out anyone in particular, but there are lots of people who just don’t like change. And we’ve been doing this for years. It works. Our whole business is based on this. And it probably is going to need, going to take a major client of a major consulting firm to say, hang on a second. We have a question for you about how you’re charging us. I’ve seen lots of chats about this, Shel, and I’m sure you have. And yet nothing’s happened.

So I wrote a lengthy analysis on my own blog not long ago, and that hardly got any attention at all. The story in Strategic I wrote was quite heavily researched, but I’ve not really seen much, any real traction on that other than some folks who said to me, hey, nice article you wrote in Strategic. I’d rather hear them say, I didn’t like it, here’s why, or I got a better idea, or whatever. Get a conversation going about it.

One thing I think should stimulate a discussion is, and this could be something we’ve got to force on people: look at it from the point of view of the client, not the consultant. And by the way, all these other examples you gave, like plumbers and all that, are absolutely right. So this discussion is specifically about professional services and consulting, not auto mechanics and plumbers and stuff like that.

So think about this: clients aren’t buying less, they’re buying differently. That’s the thing. I’ve had conversations with people — I have to admit, I struggled, truly seriously struggled to get the conversation actually with some energy to continue on why we should make this kind of change. So clients aren’t buying less, they’re buying differently. And one thing I wrote in the Strategic piece was talking about what their expectations are from the people that advise them, the consultants they work with. Today, they expect advisors who: one, use AI to scan signals and surface insights; bring sharper data-informed recommendations; and help avoid ethical, legal, and reputation missteps. Three major things they expect from people. AI has a role in all of them.

I think we need to move away and we can take the initiative on this to change the conversation with clients to this as opposed to, well, draft that report for the clients and AI can do all the research and so forth. When clients ask, why am I paying for all this time? You could pitch that to them in the sense that this is the value of the briefing we give to the AI. I think that is a demolishable argument over time. Clients are like you and me, they’re people, they’re not stupid. They’re looking at this themselves, many of them.

That said, there are many clients, particularly the more you get to the enterprise level and those kind of consulting firms at that level, who really don’t have much desire to rock the boat at all with all of this. It’s very entrenched, it’s ingrained. Everyone’s making money and it’s all wonderful and business gets done. And it’s going to need something to make a major shift here.

So I think we should take the initiative as communicators to do this. And it could be someone in a consulting firm — like you, I worked for Mercer and I remember back in the early ’90s, not discussions about changing the business model, but the value add. So maybe this is a Mercer thing at that time, perhaps. We need to have that conversation now. And we need someone at a senior level with an influential voice to raise this internally in their organization and run some internal webinars or seminars or get-togethers to talk about why we need to change the business model and why the billable hour has to end as the basis for business. But it’s a big task, I would say.

Shel: One of the truths about the public relations industry is that it takes pain for the industry to change. I mean, we’ve seen this. We’ve been doing this show for 21 years and we’ve seen it with a number of major technologies that have come along that the PR industry has been very, very, very slow to adopt. And what ultimately got them to adopt the web and social media was seeing work taken away from them by boutiques who were offering those services. And as soon as they saw money left on the table, they said, we’d better figure this out because this is something that we should be doing. They figured it out and now they’re using it regularly.

You’re absolutely right that we in the industry have experience and insights that allow us to do things like create the appropriate prompt to get the right result for a public relations issue or campaign or what have you. And it goes far beyond the prompt. It goes into creating documents that become foundational to a project within one of the LLMs. It even gets into agents now. What if we set up an agent on behalf of a client that is out there looking for competitive information on a regular basis? And it took, let’s say, 15 hours to create this agent so that it was producing the kind of daily or hourly reports that we’re looking for. And those become a big part of the project. It’s operating while we sleep. We can’t charge for that. Certainly it’s not going to be on an hourly basis.

So a formula has to emerge for these types of things that allows agencies to be compensated in a way that keeps the lights on, provides the salaries to the consultants who work there, and earns a reasonable profit without having to bill hours because it just makes less and less sense. And as I say, I didn’t think it made sense back in the ’80s when I was working for Mercer, my first consulting gig.

You remember maintaining your time sheet in 10-minute increments? Oh my God. Who’s going to pay me for that? Who do I bill for the time that I spend maintaining a time sheet in 10-minute increments? I mean, come on.

Neville: Don’t remind me, please. I tried to get away with entering time in the timesheet for the time I had to spend on doing the timesheet. They didn’t let me get away with that. No.

Shel: They didn’t buy that. My brother’s an attorney, and when he was working for a law firm — he’s corporate side now — but he remembered if he took a pencil out of the supply cabinet, he had to bill that to a client. So I mean, the time that he was spending billing things to clients was time that he wasn’t spending on client work. There are countless reasons why the billable hour needs to die. I don’t mind the consultant having a billable hour rate as a base for calculating something, but it shouldn’t be the be-all and end-all of what the client is billed. There needs to be a formula where you say this is what the project is going to cost. And if the project moves out of the scope that you agreed to, then you go back to the client and say, we’re outside the scope. We’re going to have to charge more for that. Here’s what we’re going to charge. You okay with that before we start moving on this stuff that you’ve requested that is out of scope?

Neville: Yeah, no, we need to get some movement going on this topic, I think. And maybe that’s something — thinking about IABC, you know, some kind of talk on this topic needs to happen.

Shel: Yeah. Or, you know how Ann Handley sold the T-shirt that said Justice for the Em Dash? I bought one. We need T-shirts that say Kill the Billable Hour with the FIR logo on it. Would anybody buy that? Let us know. We’ll pursue it. I’ll find out where Ann had her shirts made.

Neville: Yeah, I like that idea. I like it. Excellent.

Shel: If you work in public relations, you’ve probably seen the prediction that’s making the rounds right now. It sounds too good to be true. Gartner, the analyst firm whose pronouncements tend to get circulated in agency pitch decks for years, Gartner has declared that by next year, 2027, the mass adoption of artificial intelligence and large language models as a replacement for traditional search will drive a doubling of PR and earned media budgets.

Now, what would drive this surge in PR spending, you ask? Well, AI answer engines overwhelmingly favor non-paid sources. More than 95% of links referenced in AI-generated answers come from earned, shared, and organic owned content, with 27% originating directly from earned media. So if AI is where people increasingly go for information — and by the way, the data on that is striking; ChatGPT saw traffic surge 608% year over year between the first half of 2024 and the first half of 2025, while traditional search giants Google and Bing both slipped — well, then earned media becomes the engine of discoverability. And that, the argument goes, means organizations will pour money into PR to stay visible.

Now, I want to be honest about the source here, because Stuart Bruce, someone whose thinking you and I have always admired and respected, Neville — Stuart has pointed out that this prediction originated in a blog post published by Gartner as part of a lead generation campaign promoting a webinar for chief communication officers, and that while it carries the authority of the Gartner brand, it lacks the evidence normally associated with their research publications.

Frank Strong over at the Sword and the Script notes similarly that the prediction feels rushed. 2027 is barely more than eight months away and the path from “AI favors earned media” to “budgets actually double” is pretty far from certain. But I’m cautiously optimistic because the underlying logic is sound.

If AI systems favor credible third-party sources and PR is the function best equipped to generate that kind of coverage, well then yeah, our work becomes more strategically important. But a Gartner webinar promo is not a Gartner research report, and we should resist the temptation to tout this prediction as if it were settled fact.

Here’s what I actually want to talk about though. Let’s say the prediction is right. Let’s say the prediction is half right. Let’s just say budgets grow substantially. What happens to that money? Because there’s a pattern in this industry that I think we need to name directly. When good fortune arrives — a new platform, a new capability, a shift in the media landscape — agencies have historically been better at capturing the upside than at reinvesting in the profession. More revenue has meant more of the same: more accounts, more billable hours, more senior hires, not more rethinking.

And right now, in the age of AI, there are two investments that I think agencies have an obligation to make if this windfall arrives. The first is genuinely rethinking the agency model in light of AI — not just adding a chatbot to the workflow, but asking the hard questions about what services still require human judgment, where AI can amplify capacity, and how to build new offerings around answer engine optimization. And by the way, a new billing model.

Stuart Bruce notes that Gartner explicitly rejects the efforts of SEO and marketing companies to pivot into this space, recognizing that answer engine optimization requires communication-specific skills to balance stakeholder trust and platform requirements. That’s an opening for PR, but only if agencies actually build those capabilities rather than outsourcing them to MarTech vendors.

The second investment, and this one matters a lot to me, is in rebuilding entry-level pathways into the profession. AI has already been eroding the grunt work that used to serve as the training ground for new communicators. As one analysis put it, the traditional deal of entry-level work — trading rote labor for mentorship — that’s dying. The learning curve is being automated, leaving early-career professionals stranded between AI agents and senior incumbents.

If PR budgets double, agencies will have the resources to do something about this. They could create structured apprenticeship programs. They could invest in training that teaches new communicators not just to use AI tools, but to supervise and interrogate them. They could build the next generation of practitioners rather than simply eliminating the entry points.

What I fear, and what I think is entirely possible, is that agencies will look at this budget doubling as a margin opportunity rather than a reinvestment opportunity. More revenue, leaner teams, higher profits. And five years from now, we’ll be asking where the next generation of PR professionals are going to come from.

So yeah, the Gartner prediction may well be right. AI does appear to favor the kind of credible third-party earned coverage that PR generates. And that’s genuinely good news for the profession. But good news is only useful if you do something smart with it. Neville, you’ve been watching the agency landscape in the UK and Europe for a long time. When you see a prediction like this, do you believe it? And what’s your read on whether the industry will rise to the moment or just cash the check?

Neville: I must admit, I did say when I saw the article, I don’t believe it. British TV viewers might recognize that phrase from a comedy show 20 years ago. I did follow a lot of what people were saying, and all I saw was bubble, bubble, bubble, hype. I didn’t see anything. What I saw was missing, meaning this was a marketing claim, as you mentioned, and Stuart Bruce wrote about that, and others have too, just pointing out this was a blog post from Gartner. There’s no data to back up any of it. There’s nothing cited. There’s nothing you could trust to prove or to give you confidence in repeating it. Yet that’s what everyone has been doing, repeating this as fact.

The particular phrase that was repeated by Gartner and then mass repeated: by 2027, mass adoption of public LLMs as a replacement for traditional search will drive a 2x increase in PR and earned media budgets. But there’s no evidence behind that. Yet what we saw was mass repetition all over, LinkedIn in particular.

I did read a worth-reading article by Stephen Waddington published on the 16th of March on his blog about this topic. And he’s critical. And I think his starting line is “when industry optimism outruns the evidence,” and therein is where we’re at with this. I’ve seen sensible voices — you, Stuart, another one — who are saying that if this is true, then this is what it could mean, this is what could happen. But it’s like a lot of things we see: the maybe, perhaps, could, etc. is kind of brushed under the carpet, where suddenly before you know it, this is what’s going to be happening.

So I’ve not seen a huge amount of conversation about this, to be honest, except when this first appeared. That said, today I saw two posts on LinkedIn from people repeating this who obviously just came across the Gartner piece and they’ve reposted it.

Shel: The long tail lives.

Neville: Exactly. So Stephen goes into — he makes a point in his post about GEO, and I think that’s actually contextually good. He’s saying Gartner’s observation may ultimately prove correct. But the path from the insight to a doubling of budgets is far from certain. He says, GEO remains highly contested. I’ve seen others saying that too. The mechanics of how AI models select, weight, and attribute sources are still evolving. This is an era where budgets are being directed to support discovery work.

So what needs to happen instead, he says, is a call to action, I suppose, to communicators. When you see this claim being made, please challenge the argument. And if we aren’t set to see a boom in public relations work, some of that investment will need to be diverted to ensure the sustainability of earned media. And that, to me, is a very sensible point to make.

All of this is probably and in fact certainly is why I didn’t post about this on my blog. When I saw it, I was attracted to it thinking, this could be an interesting topic to stimulate some attention. Then I read it and started seeing others like Stuart saying, wait a minute. So I thought, no, I’m not going to join a hype bandwagon here without some further research. Therefore, it didn’t appear compelling enough to me to spend the time on it. Let’s see what emerges further from this, if anything. But like you said, Shel, if this turns out to be true, then happy days.

Shel: Yeah, I doubt it myself. I think what we’re going to see is an incremental increase in PR spending as a result of this. And that’s going to be because we’re not going to see some mass revelation at the same time among all industry that, my God, we need to invest more in earned media so that we’re visible in search results that are now happening on LLMs instead of search engines. This is going to be gradual.

One company is going to pick up on it, then another. But what I have seen ongoing, regularly, are new reports, new studies, new research coming out. It all validates that LLMs are in fact generating their search results based largely on earned media. And I think as people wake up to that and realize that if we want to be present in those results — it’s like showing up on the first page of Google search results — we want to be in the answer when somebody asks a question where our expertise, our thought leadership is relevant. Then you need to bolster your earned media.

One of the things that worries me though about this bolstering of earned media is how many more press release pitches am I going to get? How many more press releases that have nothing to do with me or what I do are going to show up in my inbox? You’re going to see reporters pitched way more than they’re being pitched now. And there may be some blowback from this as a result of that. It’s like, hey, PR industry, back off — too much. So there’s also that to consider.

Neville: Yeah, I agree. So don’t believe everything you read online is a simple thing here, and take time to pay close attention to what people are saying about this before you repeat anything. Just be clear in your mind.

Shel: Yeah, I was also going to say that I think owned media, the stuff that you produce on your own website — I think a renewed emphasis on that. So you’re producing really interesting stuff that people start looking at. That counts, too. That’s one of the categories of media that was included in this research. So you don’t have to rely on earned media all that much if you can do a great job of producing that content.

Neville: Good tip. OK, so earlier we talked about how work is priced. That was our piece about the billable hour. Now let’s consider how work is measured, because there’s another story that feels connected but from a different angle. The Financial Times reported that JP Morgan has started using technology to check whether the hours junior bankers say they work actually match their digital activity — things like keystrokes, meetings, and video calls. The bank says this is about well-being, about awareness, not enforcement, about making sure people aren’t overworked. And on the surface, that sounds reasonable.

But when you look a bit closer, it raises some uncomfortable questions. What’s really happening here is a shift from reported work to observed work. Not what you say you did, but what the system can verify. And that’s where the reaction gets interesting.

If you look at the comments on the FT’s post about this, there’s a very clear pattern. Some people see this as logical, almost inevitable. In a data-driven industry, of course you measure activity more precisely. But a lot of the reaction is skeptical, even uneasy. You see comments like, “this really screams we trust our employees.” “This is a classic case of measuring what’s easy instead of what matters.” “Big Brother is watching you.”

And then there’s a more nuanced point that comes up repeatedly. Does this actually improve anything, or does it just change behavior? Because if people know they’re being measured on activity, they optimize for activity. More keystrokes, more visible presence, more signals that look like work — but not necessarily better outcomes.

And that connects directly to the earlier discussion about billing. If AI is automating more of the actual work — the analysis, the modeling, the drafting — then what exactly are we measuring here? Time, activity, presence, or value?

There’s also a deeper cultural question. Investment banking has long had a reputation for extreme hours. JP Morgan has already tried to address that, capping weeks at 80 hours, for example. 80-hour weeks. The days of 40-hour weeks are a distant memory, obviously. But if people were underreporting hours to stay on deals, then the issue isn’t just measurement — it’s incentives, it’s culture. Technology can surface that, but it doesn’t resolve it.

So this opens up some bigger questions. Are we moving towards a world where all knowledge work is continuously monitored and verified? Does that improve trust or undermine it? And if both pricing and measurement are shifting at the same time, what does a fair day’s work even mean anymore?

Shel: Absolutely. One of the things we keep hearing about AI is organizations are going to have to rethink things like workflows. And we’re talking about organizations that are not going to look at all in five years the way they do today because of AI. Are people thinking that it’s going to take 40 hours for somebody to do today what it took them to do before if all of that grunt work is being taken over by AI?

On the other hand, I have seen that AI has increased the number of hours people are spending on their jobs. There’s some very recently released data on that, that they are more stressed now with AI in the picture. And if you’re putting in more hours, is this really an issue?

I’m also always struck by, as you mentioned in the report, the lack of trust, the signal of the lack of trust that this sends. I’ve always felt that the availability of these tools that allow this kind of monitoring raises the question of, you know, just because you can, should you? And yeah, I don’t think that you should. I think there are better ways to determine whether your people are working, and looking at their outputs is the best of those. Have they delivered what you expected them to deliver?

Because when you destroy the trust that you might have had, or perhaps you never had trust in your organization in the first place, if you have new hires who come in and find that they are being monitored in this way, they’re just inclined to find ways to cheat. I saved an article in my link blog not too long ago from the HR Digest about key jamming.

The point on this was that if you have employees who are doing this, you have a bigger issue. But if you haven’t heard of key jamming, this is easily available products that remote workers use by putting them on their keyboards and it continually presses the key. So it looks to the software that’s monitoring like that keyboard is active, that employee is working these hours. They could be off doing whatever they want.

I imagine that there are some keystroke monitoring software that have been updated to address this and want to make sure that they’re typing real words or real numbers and not just repetitively striking the same key. But then employees will figure out the next thing, or the companies that sell these products will figure out the next thing to make it appear that the employee is working.

Better to build trust so that the employees will want to produce great work for the organization that they love working for than to destroy trust and implement these kinds of monitoring tools.

Neville: So it’s interesting. JP Morgan is quite resolute in their defense of this, because as they say, they’re doing this to help junior employees not overwork. There was a case here where an intern at the Bank of America died in 2013, which the coroner said was linked to long working hours. And the anecdotal stuff has emerged constantly since then on people who are totally wrecked emotionally because of the hours they’ve got to work.

To be fair to JP Morgan, they’ve responded to that at scale in the organization. The trouble is that nearly every comment I see that has commented on this is extremely skeptical about their true motive. So they’ve got a credibility problem to explain this well. They talk about this is about awareness, not enforcement, they say in their prepared statement. It’s designed to support transparency, well-being, and encourage open conversations about workload. They’re going to roll it out much more widely across their organization.

The estimate is based on employees’ weekly digital footprint, including video calls, desktop keystrokes, and scheduled meetings. So people being people, and the thrust of part of the article is what some of these junior employees are doing to kind of be counted and get the checkbox that you’re doing okay to enable them to spend time on the deals that they’re trying to close. Whereas if they did this to the letter and reduced the hours, they wouldn’t be able to close the deal. So I get that. So they’ll find ways to work around this.

And I think, is this inevitably what we could expect to see in every organization? Or surely the organization should approach this in a way that presents something to the employees that doesn’t encourage workarounds to get around these kinds of things. I don’t know. My sense is that we’re going to see a huge amount more of this kind of thing in service industry firms in particular, starting with banks, I suspect.

Shel: I hope not. I mean, let’s take them at their word. Let’s say that this is their solution of having Big Brother looking over employees’ shoulders for the employees’ benefit. Like I said, let’s take them at their word. They don’t want employees overworking because they don’t want them dropping dead at their desks. Great. That’s a great thing.

You do that by having well-trained managers who understand that their role is to set expectations and to display the kind of caring for the members of their teams that leads them to make sure that they’re not overworking. Where I work, we are working really hard in communications, in HR, and at the executive levels to develop this culture of managing where managers are checking in on employees to make sure they’re okay. We’re training managers on watching for signs of mental wellness distress among employees and then reaching out to them to say, hey, let’s take care of this, right?

It sounds to me like JP Morgan would rather implement a Big Brother program than to have engaging managers, one of the pillars of employee engagement, I might add. Why do people leave organizations? 50%, according to some research, leave because of their boss. And you know, if you have this churn among your junior people, maybe that’s because you’re doing a piss-poor job of training your managers to be really good managers. And if you did that, you wouldn’t need to erode the trust of your employee base by implementing Big Brother systems.

Neville: That makes total sense. I agree with you. But I’m wondering, maybe there’s something structurally amiss here. So for instance, the FT says in 2024, JP Morgan appointed a senior banker to oversee the well-being of junior staff. JP Morgan has since curtailed weekend work and also capped the working week for younger employees at 80 hours, typically based on self-reported numbers. That’s key, that last bit.

This process has proved imperfect as some junior bankers misreport the hours they work. One issue is they declare fewer hours than they have actually spent to avoid being pulled from existing deals or to ensure they can still be added to new ones. So I would say, if we kind of know this kind of behavior is going on, what are we going to do to address it and try and bring them around to our thinking? But that requires structural change in the organization as to how you do all this.

Shel: I have an answer. If AI is saving you money, use that money to hire more junior people so that nobody has to put in that kind of time. So staffing should increase as a result of the use of AI, not decrease, says I.

Neville: Are you listening, JP Morgan? Well, yeah, no, that’s a fair comment. I think just reading a bit more about the FT piece, it focuses on the tech workplace surveillance technologies. So not necessarily AI doing this, although it must be in there somewhere.

Shel: No, no, I understand. But if we’re using AI in the organization and it’s lowering costs because the rote work is being done by the AI, those savings could go to the additional staff. So nobody has to put in 80 hours.

Neville: Yeah. Well, I think it’s a problem across the sector because the FT quotes Goldman Sachs, for instance: junior bankers on occasion have been pulled aside and told to rest when its internal electronic monitoring was triggered. Get that. That’s how they’re watching all the time.

I think the comment someone made on the FT’s piece about, you know, we’re going to see more of this — I think we will. It is clearly not perfect. I’m reminded a little of some of the stuff I paid a lot of attention to a couple of years ago about surveillance in China and the surveillance society in China, where you are monitored constantly all the time by the state. And it doesn’t necessarily mean central government, but the local way you live — the town, the city — monitors everything you do: what you spend your money on, what time you get up, what time you get on the train to go to work, how you clock in, you swipe your card — all that.

That’s something as part of their society and structure. We are probably heading that way, I would argue, in Western countries, notably in Europe, some European countries. I don’t know about the States, Shel, to be honest. I don’t really know whether this is likely to be kind of prevalent anytime soon. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is, particularly if it’s going to be done covertly as opposed to openly and transparently, which I think is likely in America.

Shel: Well, mass surveillance has definitely been in the news in the US lately with Anthropic pushing back on the Pentagon’s insistence that they be able to use Claude for that.

Neville: Yeah, I mean, we’ve got experiments going on here which make the headlines now and again, although no one seems to be unduly concerned, which is the police in some jurisdictions are trialing more facial recognition technology that is now far superior to what’s been done before, that scans people as a matter of course in any public place. That, I would say, is an inevitability. We’re going to see that.

So what does that mean for organizations? I mean, that’s a broad avenue to go down, the discussion on that wide topic. But in an organization, it surely does become understandable, if not acceptable, that when you show up at the office to work — and by the way, that’s still a thing for many organizations, even though I’m now seeing in all the newspapers here that because of the war in Iran and the price of oil shooting up and all this stuff, there’s now talk about one way you can help to reduce energy usage is work from home and drive less and drive slower.

So that kind of talk is now starting to permeate public discourse. So I wonder what difference that will make to any of this, because if we’re to see more and more people want to work at home, that’s reversing. Are we going to see a backlash from employers who demand people come to the office? I mean, these are just questions. I don’t have answers for those, but it’s part of the picture. We are facing this kind of change that has good points, I can see quite clearly, but it’s alarming the state we’re at with all of this.

Shel: Yeah, just for a point of interest, yesterday I watched a video on YouTube. It was Senator Bernie Sanders talking to Claude. This is on YouTube. I’ll share the link in the show notes. He’s asking Claude questions about what AI can do in terms of this kind of surveillance, its monitoring of people. And Claude is very, very candid in its answers to Senator Sanders. It’s about 11 minutes. I think it’s really worth watching because it surfaces a lot of these issues, and as a society, I think we have to decide whether this is something we want in the workplace or in general.

Neville: I agree. That’s interesting.

Shel: Well, thank you, Dan. Great report. I have to admit that I have been neglecting my Mastodon instance. It’s called Mastocomm, C-O-M-M, for communications. I set it up when I figured that it was an easy thing to do and a great way to learn about how to establish an instance in the Fediverse. And I haven’t been taking care of it lately. And Dan, your report has inspired me to go back. I’ve been away so long, it wanted me to log in.

But it’s still there. It’s still up and running, which means I still have money coming out of my checking account every month to pay the fee to the service I use to host it. So as long as I’m spending the money, I might as well manage that. So thanks for the reminder, Dan.

Neville: Yeah, good report on that. I’ve not listened to your audio yet. But thinking about Mastodon, I don’t go directly to Mastodon. I haven’t been there this year. What I do is every time I post on Threads, it posts to the Fediverse. And so I do it that way. It’s cheating a bit because I’m not actually engaging with anyone there at all. But I get quite a steady stream of engagement back, people who like and so forth. And I do occasionally do the same myself via Threads. So it’s a lazy approach to doing it. But I’m okay with that because I’m present via Threads and that works well. And it’s a useful way of keeping in touch. If Threads is more likely to be your primary engagement channel rather than Mastodon, that’ll work quite well.

Shel: If anybody’s interested in joining the Fediverse and being part of a Mastodon instance that is focused on communication, join me: mastocomm.org. I’ll look for you there.

Shel: A professor at Syracuse University’s Newhouse School recently made a point that deserves to be heard beyond the J-school world. Jason Davis, who specializes in detecting disinformation, said the challenge today isn’t really about spotting fakes anymore. The AI tools are so good now that there just isn’t much that we can catch. To break the misinformation amplification cycle, people need to apply critical thinking before they decide to pass something on.

Now that connects to something I’ve been watching closely, because the misinformation problem has moved well beyond being a journalism problem. It’s a business problem now, and that means it’s a communication problem. The scale is pretty significant. Deepfake incidents tracked globally surged from about 500,000 cases in 2023 to over 8 million last year. That’s a 900% increase in just two years. A recent executive survey found eight in 10 executives are concerned about AI-driven misinformation impacting their brand. Yet many admit their companies aren’t fully ready to detect or respond.

A University of Melbourne/KPMG global study of 48,000 people across 47 countries found 87% want stronger laws to combat AI-generated misinformation. And a survey found that fewer than four in 10 Americans say that they can confidently spot AI-generated content, and 88% say it’s harder now than a year ago to tell what’s real online.

So who’s fighting back and how? Sophisticated newsrooms — think the New York Times, Bellingcat, investigative outlets worldwide — are now using multi-layered verification: a combination of reverse image search, metadata analysis, and geolocation cross-referencing to authenticate content. Reporters are using AI itself as a detection tool, analyzing thousands of posts to detect bot behavior by identifying patterns in timing, repetition, and network activity.

Beyond individual newsrooms, the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity, that’s the C2PA, is building broader infrastructure. They’re backed by Adobe, Microsoft, the BBC, Google, Meta, OpenAI, and others. With that backing, they’ve developed an open technical standard that functions like a nutrition label for digital content, establishing its origin and edit history. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency endorsed this approach in January last year. Adoption is still limited, but the standard exists and it’s worth watching.

There’s also a striking research finding from a field experiment with readers of the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. Exposure to AI-driven misinformation reduced overall trust in news, but actually increased engagement with highly trusted sources. As synthetic content proliferates, credibility becomes scarcer, and as a result, becomes more valuable.

That finding has direct implications for us in organizational comms. A deepfake of your CEO, a fabricated press release, a manipulated earnings statement — these are no longer theoretical. A hacked news tweet in 2013 briefly erased $136 billion from the S&P 500. The tools to do something far more sophisticated are now consumer grade.

Deepfake fraud attempts grew by 3,000% in 2023, and humans detected manipulated media only 24.5% of the time. So practically: monitor for impersonation of your executives and brand. This belongs in your communications infrastructure. It’s not just an IT thing. Establish a verify-first culture inside your organization. Have pre-drafted response templates ready for the scenario where fake content goes viral under your or your organization’s name.

And invest in your organization’s credibility before a crisis arrives, because that research finding tells us audiences under information stress return to the sources they already trust. The newsrooms dealing with this are systematic. They document their processes and when they can’t definitively authenticate something, they say so. That’s the standard every comms team should hold itself to.

Neville, I know you’re watching all of this from across the Atlantic where the EU AI Act is pushing content labeling into requirements under law by August 2026. Are organizations taking this seriously? And is this regulatory pressure in Europe making any difference?

Neville: To your last point, I don’t think it’s making waves-type difference. Awareness is rising. I’m seeing more people talking about this topic online across Europe, here in the UK too. But I think it requires far more and more effective communication to bring the messaging home to people about this huge topic. So it’s early days.

We’ve got debate continuing here in this country about online safety and all these other issues that kind of obscure some of the important details such as this, for instance, that does require further debate. Things that I pay attention to certainly are the broad debates about all of this, but seeing what people are doing. You mentioned some examples in your introduction about some media broadcasters in particular, what they’re doing to verify the veracity of content. I saw an excellent article the other day about what Wikipedia is doing in this area, because there’s a place that’s at high risk of misinformation and disinformation.

But there’s no uniformity from what I’ve seen, certainly. There’s lots of homebrew solutions people are suggesting. There’s lots of good solutions some respected organizations are suggesting that you do, but there’s not a big groundswell of action on this yet, it seems to me. So I’d be interested myself even to hear what listeners in the UK and across EU countries have to say about what they’re seeing in this area. But I don’t see a huge amount of conversation going on about this.

Shel: And I’d really appreciate, listeners, if you’re in organizations that are doing anything to identify misinformation and to catch it before it’s used or even redistributed — what are you doing? How are you going about that? Is there any infrastructure for this that’s being implemented? I’d really like to know because I think this is going to become a bigger problem faster than most people are aware of.

Neville: Yeah, I mean, one thing I am seeing talk about that caught my attention quite dramatically is the amount of fake news in a broad sense, but misinformation, particularly about the war in Iran, the use of video that is simply fake. I’m also seeing the use of video that isn’t fake and being highlighted as the fact that it’s not fake.

The reality though is that like most things you encounter online, how do you really know? And what do you do if you see something you think, I’m going to share that with my network? What do you need to do before you do that? Most sensible people will take those precautionary steps, the most fundamental of which: how do you trust what you’ve seen? Is the source credible? Is it a reliable source? If it’s a media property, or even before that, who else is talking about this?

So these are things that I do as a matter of course now on almost everything I encounter online, particularly if I’m thinking of sharing it. I’ve yet to be caught out by not doing that. I make it a point, and partly it’s affected by the fact I’m doing less of that than I was before a couple of years ago, far less. I don’t post a lot on social networks, except stuff that I think is really interesting to share with people who follow me, or just because I feel like I want to share this because I think it’s interesting.

And that works. No other heavy message behind any of this stuff. But I do carry out due diligence. And I think I do it reasonably well because I’ve yet to be caught out. Now, of course, someone listening to this might say, well, let’s test him out on something then. OK, fine.

Shel: Now that we’ve heard you say this…

Neville: So, right. Go for it and do that. Let’s see how we go. But I think this is the status of where we’re at. The changes that are happening because of the events that are happening, and the fact that these euphemistic bad actors are increasing — there’s more and more of them. We have events taking place in the world now, note what’s going on in the Middle East, that lend themselves to more of this. You’ve got to really do your due diligence on things that you might not have felt you needed to before.

Shel: Yeah, and I think due diligence needs to go beyond the tools that can detect a deepfake. You’ve got to remember that people were sharing content that was disinformation before there was AI. So you run your algorithm, you put a video through a tool and it says, yep, this is real video, it’s not AI generated — but it’s claimed that that video is showing something from the Iran war when in fact the video was shot years ago during, say, the Iraq war, and somebody just grabbed that video clip and made the claim that this is from the current conflict. This happens all the time. It still happens today. It’s not from this weather event. That’s from that weather event five years ago.

So we have to be diligent and not just rely on the tools, and we have to come up with some solutions. I remember years ago when we reported it here, when blockchain was still a topic of conversation in digital circles, Ike Pigott had recommended a tool. I don’t remember exactly how it worked, but as you shot video, it was recorded into the blockchain, which would authenticate its authenticity. And that became a way for people to see that it was genuine video and not manipulated somehow and not a deepfake — it was actually shot on a video camera and uploaded as a blockchain record in real time. So there are potential solutions out there. We need to get serious about implementing them in this profession.

Neville: Yeah, that’s a good example of the blockchain one, although that was pretty niche. That was pretty out on the edge, as it were. There were lots of things like that that just didn’t survive and disappeared. Things change, things evolve, and people are trying new things. I don’t mean bad guys, but in a good way. So let’s see how that goes. But you need to keep vigilant on all this.

And by the way, when I mentioned misinformation, I wasn’t thinking of deepfakes and that kind of thing. It’s more the fundamental stuff that crosses your screen every day or your newsfeed or whatever it might be, saying something that someone says something or someone has done something and it’s interesting and fine. Don’t trust it until you verify it. So if it’s on the BBC or CNN or any other broadcaster, you know, Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper, the one you mentioned earlier, Shel — that’s a good bet that it’s OK.

But you know what? Some media recently have been caught out with fakes. So it still pays to do your own due diligence, particularly if that content is something you’re going to use in a way that could embarrass you if it turned out to be fake or simply wrong. So it’s worth doing. Most people think that they don’t have time to do that. You have to make the time. This is part of your future.

And AI has a role here. Arguably, you could say, well, I need to do this myself. No, you don’t really. Your favorite chatbot, if you trust it, it knows enough about you, and you can still verify stuff. It does the searching and finding the sources. You then check them. It can check them too, but you still have to do that. It just makes it easier for you to do that. You still want to do that work, by the way. There’s no magic bullet or shortcuts here. So it’s worth it. You learn a lot doing this, too. I’ve learned huge things from doing all this myself. And it’s been very, very useful.

Neville: So there we are. OK, let’s talk about bot traffic. In an interview at South by Southwest, literally a week or so back, with TechCrunch, Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince said that by 2027 — so as you pointed out earlier, we’re eight months away basically — bot traffic will exceed human traffic on the internet. That’s not entirely new in principle. Bots have always been part of the web. But what he’s describing is a change in scale and function.

Now think about this: Cloudflare — I don’t have the exact number, but don’t they manage like 30% of all the traffic on the web that goes through some of their servers somewhere? They do caching. They do all sorts of interesting things with people’s data. I use it on my blogs. I’m sure we use it on the FIR network. I mean, it’s part of the plumbing of the internet now. And you might remember a month or so back, Cloudflare was all over the news because they were hit by a distributed denial-of-service attack or some such that took large chunks of the internet offline because people like Amazon and some of those big properties use Cloudflare too. So it’s quite something.

Anyway, historically bot traffic has been relatively stable, around 20%, largely driven by search engine crawlers. What’s changed is the impact of generative AI, said Prince. His point is that AI agents behave fundamentally differently from human users. A person researching a purchase might visit a handful of sites. An AI agent performing the same task might visit thousands of sites. This is not incremental growth. It’s a multiplier effect — not just more traffic, but a different kind of traffic.

That has consequences at three levels: infrastructure, economics, and behavior. First, infrastructure. If AI agents generate orders of magnitude more requests than humans, then the web becomes a system that increasingly serves machine activity. Prince talks about the need for new infrastructure, including ephemeral sandboxes where agents can execute tasks without overwhelming the broader network.

Second, economics. The commercial web has been built around human attention: visits, impressions, and clicks. If a growing share of traffic is non-human, that model doesn’t just weaken — it becomes misaligned with how the web is actually used.

Third, behavior. Prince characterizes this as a platform shift comparable to the move from desktop to mobile. If that’s right, then the way information is discovered, consumed, and acted upon changes fundamentally — and not necessarily by humans.

That raises a set of implications that go beyond infrastructure. If machines are increasingly intermediating access to information, then visibility is no longer just about being found by people. It’s about being processed, selected, and used by systems. This links back to the earlier themes. We talked about how AI changes what work is worth. We followed that with how AI changes what and how work is measured. Here, it’s changing the environment in which both of those things happen.

So this is less about traffic and more about control — who or what is actually navigating the web. Which leads to some important questions. If AI agents are doing more of the searching, what does it mean to be visible online? If traffic no longer equates to human attention, how do organizations think about value? And if this is indeed a platform shift, what replaces the current models that underpin the web?

Shel: These are interesting questions, and I think that this is ultimately more a matter of evolution, just like the web was, even the internet before we had the graphical interface of the web. It’s a shift in what’s doing what. But at the end of the day, all of those bots have been deployed by whom? I mean, I have agents out there. These are just set up on Claude and on ChatGPT that are going out and doing searches and coming back and giving me reports. Me, I’m a human, last time I checked.

And I’m using the results of the work that those bots do. So these agents are proxies for the humans who need something done with this information, whether it’s delivering a report or creating a spreadsheet or what have you.

These are human-deployed bots. I mean, ultimately in every case, a bot has been deployed by somebody for some purpose. And I think having your content out there for those bots to find so that those results are delivered back to the human and you’re visible there — all it’s doing is reducing the need for the human to sit there for hours doing the searching and just having the AI go out and do the searching for them and delivering back results. But those results are still being used by people.

So this doesn’t concern me all that much, unless there’s something going on here that I’m not aware of with agents suddenly creating themselves to go off and engage in activities that have no human behind them, in which case we’re in the realm of science fiction. And I don’t think we’re there yet.

Neville: Well, that could be the case, although I think there are signs that we might be heading in that direction. Thinking about what we talked about in the last episode on that darker place that you cited, Ethan Mollick talking about what happens if it all gets taken over by an AI — that question applies here as well. You’ve got the AI agent instructing other AI agents. And I read someone talking about that very topic in quite a compelling way that this is already happening. So that wouldn’t surprise me one bit at all. So we’ve got to think of that too.

Shel: Yeah, now we’re talking about two different things, right? I mean, we’re talking about bots and agents here as an umbrella topic. But the fact that bots have been deployed to search and report back is one thing. Bots that are creating content is another, which is actually the topic of my next report.

Neville: Got it. Yeah, you’re absolutely right. We were talking about bots. So they are deployed by humans to achieve certain things. I guess I could project that out and say what happens in a darker place where the bots are deployed by AI agents unbeknownst to the human. I mean, I’m not Skynetting here, by the way. This is just projecting the thought out. And I welcome these kinds of discussions on “what if” when we see what’s happening now. It immediately makes you think, yeah, but what if? So this is part of how we generate good conversation about this kind of topic.

But it is interesting. I think the way in which Matthew Prince kind of framed it — that someone does a search for something in a retail outlet online and he or she may do a couple of dozen searches, but the AI instructs a bot to do this and that bot goes out and there’s thousands of searches all in a short period of time. And you suddenly see, wow, the scale of this is absolutely phenomenal. And that’s really, I think, part of what Prince is arguing: when bot traffic overtakes human traffic, we are confronting a scale of an order of magnitude that is driven by the system.

Is he ringing alarm bells here? I’m not sure that he is or not, but he’s looking at the need for a new kind of infrastructure to take care of this. And I think that’s actually a good avenue to explore.

Shel: Probably. I mean, Google has always used bots to go out and scour the web — called them spiders back in the day. But they only sent out the one and it found everything, those millions and millions of sites. And all that information resides on Google’s servers. So when you’re doing a search, it’s not going out onto the web, right? It’s looking in its own data centers and giving you those results. And those spiders, those bots, are always out there, always running, but just the one from Google.

Now with AI, you’re asking it to go out in real time and scour the web. So yeah, it’s sending out thousands in order to do essentially the same work that Google did. And then it brings you back the result in that narrative output that you get. So that’s why we’re seeing so many more bots out there. Is this a problem? I’m not an engineer, so I don’t know.

Neville: No, I don’t know either. I’m not sure it is a problem. But I’m cognizant, paying attention to what Prince is saying, that none of this is incremental growth — it’s a multiplier effect. And could it be that we’re at risk of everything grinding to a halt? Is that what he’s saying?

The consequences I listed — infrastructure, economics, and behavior — make sense, and they are connected. The generating of orders of magnitude more requests than humans are capable of doing is partly the thing. And I can see that. The web is then a system that increasingly serves machine activity, which is how he’s making that connection. He talks about the need for new infrastructure, including sandboxes where agents can execute tasks without overwhelming the broader network. That makes a lot of sense.

Shel: Yeah, I like that. Nothing wrong with that.

Neville: I use sandboxes myself, so I understand conceptually what that means. The economics about it all, where the behavior is now totally different. Visits, impressions, clicks — that’s what humans did, or still do largely. But as he argues, if you’ve got a growing share of this, increasingly more non-human traffic according to Prince, that model doesn’t just weaken — it becomes misaligned with how the web is actually used today.

OK, does that mean we need to change that? Well, yes, it does. How do we do that? Well, that’s part of the bigger debate. Behavioral characteristics — he’s likening this to the move from desktop to mobile. If he’s right, then the way this is all discovered, consumed, and acted upon changes, not necessarily by the humans, changed by the AI. Is this a bad thing? I don’t know. Maybe he’s just ringing the hand of caution and ringing the cowbell. Maybe that’s it. But it certainly is provocative what he’s suggesting.

Shel: Yeah, certainly there’s absolutely going to be more bot traffic on the internet. That’s inescapable with all of this. Maybe the LLMs, the labs, find ways to confine the searches so they’re searching relevant sites to reduce that traffic. I don’t know.

Neville: Yeah. So let’s hear about your connection piece then about this. Assume that humans are not at the heart of all of this.

Shel: Sure. And you mentioned Ethan Mollick earlier. I mentioned this in an earlier episode a couple of weeks ago, I think. But he said that when he posts something, he can tell that about 70% of the comments that are left on his posts have been generated by bots. And it’s weakened the value of LinkedIn to him, which is discovering smart people with intelligent thoughts and perspectives. And 70% of that is now being generated by bots.

So we have bots that are now creating content. So you talked about bot traffic — stay with that theme, but focus more on the content. A new peer-reviewed study just published in the Journal of Public Relations should be required reading for anyone responsible for managing an organization’s reputation and messaging. The paper is titled “Social Bots as Agenda Builders: Evaluating the Impact of Algorithmic Amplification on Organizational Messaging.” And it came to my attention by way of Bob Pickard, one of Canada’s most respected PR practitioners and someone whose commentary on this research carries special weight. More on that in a minute.

The research, led by Philip Arceneaux at Miami University, along with colleagues from the University of Arizona, University of Texas, and University of Florida, is the first study in public relations scholarship to empirically measure how social bots interfere with organizational messaging. The authors note they found no prior PR research addressing this specifically, which is remarkable given how long the threat has been visible.

The study analyzed nearly 900,000 tweets generated during Ohio’s 2022 midterm elections. What the researchers found was that social bots successfully influenced the agenda formation process, most heavily in negative tone and most notably among the election campaigns. Bot messaging was most effective at influencing attribute salience — that is, how issues were framed and characterized — driving primarily negative sentiment. The bots were the strongest influencers of campaign agendas with measurable downstream influence on press and public discourse.

Here’s the distinction that Pickard zeros in on in his commentary. And I think it’s the most important insight in the entire body of research. The bots didn’t control what was discussed. They controlled the tone in which it was discussed. And as Pickard writes, that may be a more dangerous lever. Your organization puts out a carefully crafted message. The bots don’t need to invent a counter-narrative. They just need to inject enough negativity around yours that the frame gets corrupted before it can set.

A primary strategy social bots adopt is the creation of information disorder — information ecosystems filled with suspicion and distrust that erode public confidence. And as Pickard observes, this has a direct downstream effect on communications decisions. Distorted inputs produce distorted decisions. If your social listening is picking up manufactured sentiment — bot-driven negativity masquerading as genuine stakeholder concern — you may be prioritizing the wrong issues, reacting to the wrong pressures, and in some cases, misreading your stakeholders entirely. Some of what looks like groundswell may just be a bot farm.

The asymmetry that Pickard describes is sobering. A small network of automated accounts can systematically degrade the messaging environment of a well-funded organization with a full communications team. And as lead researcher Arceneaux put it, it’s not natural selection anymore — it’s artificial selection by who controls the most bots.

A survey cited in the study found that 51% of leading communication professionals already reported that social bots present a clear threat to organizations and their reputations. And practitioners view social bots as the most pressing ethical challenge in public relations. And that was before generative AI made bot-produced content dramatically more convincing.

Why does Pickard’s voice matter here particularly? Well, when he blew the whistle on the Chinese interference at the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in 2023, hundreds of pro-China bots on Twitter targeted him with insults, accusing him of being an American agent, a white supremacist, and a neocolonialist. The pattern the researchers describe in the study — rapid negative amplification, coordinated framing, and agenda hijacking — isn’t abstract to Bob. He has operated inside of it.

And his observation that state-directed information operations seem to understand the bot asymmetry better than most corporate communications leaders is a pointed challenge to our profession.

The study recommends stronger media relationships, better investment in bot detection tools, and a return to traditional polling as a signal less susceptible to manipulation. And that’s sound advice. And on the practical side, research on bots’ impact on public discourse suggests their influence is most pronounced in the early stages of an issue — before credible sources establish the dominant narrative. Which means getting your authentic message out fast, before the negative frame hardens, is now a genuine strategic imperative, not just a good practice.

There’s also a real-world corporate illustration of this dynamic, and it’s one that we talked about more than once. In 2025, research found that roughly half of all the posts about the Cracker Barrel controversy in its early days were driven by inauthentic bot activity. So a minor design story artificially elevated into a culture war flashpoint before human communicators could get their footing. That’s the playbook now.

Neville, I know you follow this activity and information disorder closely and you’ve watched platform governance response in Europe in particular. What do you think? Are social platforms doing enough to protect organizations from bot-driven agenda hijacking, or are communication professionals essentially on their own here?

Neville: I don’t think they’re doing enough. They are doing some, the platforms, but their attention is not on this at all. I think any organization, any corporate communicator, needs to recognize the fact that — regard it as if you’re on your own, that you need to take the steps that are needed.

Reading Bob’s piece on LinkedIn, an interesting turn of phrase he uses here, talking about “hands-on combat experience versus synthetic competitors gaming the algorithm in contested environments” is now extremely important. So make of that what you will, but you need to be up to speed with these developments. There are plenty of places you can get information from, get insights and guidance from as well.

I think, though, that this is the fundamental point which Bob Pickard makes in his piece: some communication leaders are still fighting the last war. This new research soberly explains new realities of possibilities of modern PR battlegrounds.

Now, I have not read the article, Shel, that you had in our Slack channel. I mean, it’s 34 pages of eight-point type, it seems to me. It’s big. So I would get my AI assistant to summarize the whole thing for me and give me the highlights. I haven’t done that. I think I will do that even to get a good understanding of this.

It seems to me that this is yet another example of the changes that are happening, whether we like it or not, that we have to pay attention to as communicators. We’ve touched on quite a few in this discussion today. Here’s another one. So I can’t really comment more than that, Shel. I’ve not read the report, which I am going to do. But I think his intro to the piece on LinkedIn is good. It’s a good introduction to it. And it then makes it easier to try and wade into it. Although I think for most communicators, some kind of summary is what they’re going to need rather than trying to read the whole thing.

Shel: Yeah, well, the bottom line is, I think, pretty simple. If you release some information and it’s in somebody else’s interest to shift the tone in order to control the agenda, then those bots are going to be deployed very, very, very quickly and create that content that changes the framing of what you started. Because you had a communication goal, and you as a communicator need to be prepared for that. And you need to have processes in place — and these are new processes and new workflows — to make sure that what you want people to understand is the message that fixes in people’s minds before these bots can come in and mangle your message, because that’s what’s happening pretty routinely now.

Shel: And that will be a -30- for this episode of For Immediate Release. We do want to remind everybody again, because we mentioned it earlier, comment on what you’ve heard. If you have thoughts, if you have any experiences to share, if you have questions, share them. The place most people are doing that these days — and in fact, every comment that we shared today was left on the LinkedIn posts where we announced the availability of a new episode. So if you follow Neville or me on LinkedIn, you will get those notifications of those new episodes. That’s the place to comment.

You can always comment on the show notes. That’s where people used to do this all the time. Remember blogs when people used to comment on blog posts? You could do that. You can send us an email to fircomments@gmail.com.

Shel: Boy, am I overloaded with spam in that account, but absolutely not one comment in the last month. One of the things I find in that email account is any voicemail messages that you have left. Just by going to fircomments@gmail.com and clicking Send Voicemail, and you can send us your comment that way — we’ll play it. We’d love to have another voice on the show. So you can also send us an audio that you record, just attach it to an email and send that to fircomments@gmail.com.

We also have the FIR community on Facebook. And there are lots of places that you can tell us what you think. We’d love it if you did. And we will share that on the next monthly long-form episode. That next monthly long-form episode is coming on Monday, April 27th. Neville, you and I will record that on Saturday, April 25th. So we will have our monthly episode then. Between now and then, not this week, but starting next week, we will have our shorter-form one-topic weekly episodes. It should be three or four of those before we get to the April long-form episode. And that will in fact be a -30- for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #506: Battle of the Bots! appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In FIR #505, Neville and Shel dig into Hootsuite’s Social Media Trends 2026 report, which argues that social media is no longer just a communication channel — it’s morphing into a search engine, cultural radar, and real-time research tool. They explore what it means for communicators when younger audiences treat TikTok and Instagram as their primary discovery platforms, and when Google itself starts indexing social content. The conversation also tackles “fastvertising” — the growing pressure on brands to react to cultural moments within hours — and whether that speed actually translates to bottom-line results or just burnout.

The discussion takes a provocative turn when Shel raises Ethan Mollick’s warning that public forums are being systematically overrun by machine-generated content, with research suggesting one in five accounts in public conversations may be automated. They weigh the AI paradox facing communicators: generative AI has become table stakes for social media production, yet 30% of consumers say they’re less likely to choose a brand whose ads they know were AI-created. Neville and Shel agree that social media can serve as both a publishing channel and a listening tool — but only if human-to-human communication can survive the rising tide of bot-generated noise.

Links from this episode:

• Social Media Trends 2026 | Hootsuite
• The 18 social media trends to shape your 2026 strategy
• Sferra Design video on Social Media Trends report | Instagram
• World-first social media wargame reveals how AI bots can swing elections
• AI bot swarms threaten to undermine democracy
• B2B Social Media Trends and Predictions for 2026

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, March 23.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Shel: Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 505 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville: And I’m Neville Hobson. Social media might be going through its biggest change since the rise of the news feed, and it’s happening quietly. Platforms that started as places to connect with friends are increasingly acting like search engines, cultural sensors, and even market research tools. It’s been a while since Shel and I talked about social media on the podcast, and frankly, that’s partly because the conversation often feels repetitive. New platforms appear, algorithms change, someone declares the death of Twitter again. That’s the kind of format that we seem to be following. But every now and then, a report comes along that suggests something deeper is happening. Hootsuite’s new Social Media Trends 2026 report published last month argues that social media is no longer just a communication channel. It’s becoming something much broader — part search engine, part cultural radar, and part market research lab. Take search, for example. Younger users increasingly treat platforms like TikTok or Instagram as search tools. Instead of Googling “best coffee shop in London,” they search TikTok and watch short videos from real people recommending places to go. And now Google itself has started indexing Instagram posts and surfacing short-form social video in search results. The line between social media and search is starting to blur. At the same time, we’re seeing a strange tension around artificial intelligence. According to the report, most social media managers now use generative AI tools every day to write captions, brainstorm ideas, edit images or video. But audiences are increasingly suspicious of content that feels automated or synthetic. More than 30% of consumers say they’re less likely to choose a brand if they know its ads were created by AI. So brands are in a curious position. AI is becoming essential behind the scenes, but the content that performs best often needs to feel unmistakably human. And culturally, social media itself is fragmenting. The report points to what it calls Gen Alpha Chaos Culture — absurd memes, distorted audio, and intentionally chaotic editing styles that dominate TikTok among younger audiences. Meanwhile, older audiences — that’s you and me, Shel — are gravitating towards almost the opposite aesthetic: nostalgic references to the ’80s and ’90s, calming, cozy content, and even posts about slow living and digital detox. I do some of that, but I also do the other stuff too. So it’s hard to pigeonhole me, I have to tell you that. So reading this report left me wondering something slightly provocative. Maybe social media isn’t really social anymore. If discovery is driven by algorithms and search behavior rather than who you know, perhaps these platforms are evolving into something else — systems that surface information, culture, and trends in real time. Which raises the bigger question for communicators. Are we still thinking about social media as a place to publish content? Or is it becoming something much more powerful — a tool for understanding behavior, culture, and trust as it unfolds online? Which leads me to a first question. If people increasingly discover products, places, and even news through TikTok or Instagram rather than Google, does that fundamentally change how communicators should think about social media?

Shel: I absolutely think so. I mean, this shift deserves way more attention, I think, than it’s been getting from marketers and communicators. We’re looking at a fundamental change in how people get information. The rise of social media as a primary search engine — this is not a fringe behavior. In 2026, this is going to be the dominant reality for a massive swath of the population. Brands are just starting to get their arms around AEO. And now they’re going to have to apply the same efforts to social content that they’ve historically reserved for traditional search engine optimization. So captions and alt text and subtitles aren’t going to be nice-to-haves. These are the bedrock of discoverability. And there’s a specific angle here for those of us in internal communications too. I mean, if employees are using TikTok and Instagram the way they used to use Google to make personal decisions, we have to ask if that behavior is bleeding into their professional research. And there’s data that suggests it is. A company called Alpha P-Tech did a study and found that 75% of B2B buy-side stakeholders are going to use social media to gather information about vendors and solutions this year. So this isn’t just a consumer trend. This is a professional evolution too.

Neville: Yeah, I would agree with that, I think. I mean, there’s a lot to unpack here from Hootsuite’s report. And I think it’s, you know, I throw out thoughts that occurred to me when I was reading this. It talks about something I’d not encountered before, whether you have — fast, if I pronounce it right, even it’s a manufactured word — fastvertising. So the word “fast” with “vertising” from advertising, right? Fastvertising. The question actually is, does the fastvertising culture create more risk for communicators, things moving so fast, where, according to Hootsuite, brands now feel pressure to react to trends within hours, if not less than that even? So reacting too quickly can lead to tone-deaf, poorly thought-through posts, I would say, as does Hootsuite, in fact. Are we moving into a world, then, where social media requires newsroom-style judgment and governance? What do you think?

Shel: Well, yes, and I think we’ve been there for a while. We remember the — what were they called — the war rooms that social media teams for various brands were using. Remember Oreo during their 100 Days of Oreo several years ago now. And they had a newsroom that was looking for trends so they could take the one that was planned based on somebody’s birthday. And if something major happens, they could just switch it up and really quickly knock one out that was relevant to what was in the news. I remember they had one cookie that had black and white stripes. And it turned out that it was related to a National Football League referee strike that had just been called. So yeah, I think brands have gotten accustomed to monitoring trends and knocking stuff out fast. Another one was, I think it was the tequila with the chocolate beans, that they pulled that out of Google Trends and said, let’s get that out there while this is a hot trend. And it was up and it did really well, that particular post from whatever tequila company it was. So this is something that I think brands, a lot of them anyway, are already accustomed to. I think the scale that we’re talking about here though is probably not good. I think if you’re reacting to just what you happen to see and not running some analytics, you risk being tone-deaf by jumping into a conversation that turns out to be not that big a deal. You risk saying something that is incongruous with the tone of the conversation because you rushed. I guess the only benefit you get out of this is the fact that everything’s moving so fast that in six hours, no one’s going to remember what you did.

Neville: Yeah, Hootsuite talks about this in the context of fastvertising. Obviously, the word du jour for this thing that’s been around a while is disrupting the content calendar. To that point, online brands are now responding to cultural moments within hours, not days. 22% of marketers feel pressure to respond to trending topics or viral moments daily or a few times per week. And 37% feel a high level of burnout from that pressure, according to data from Adobe quoted by Hootsuite. Timing matters, they say. If you’re quick, you’re in. If you’re slow, you’re a laggard. But you still can’t prioritize speed over quality. And they cite 39% of marketers say their content flopped due to rushing. So being the fastest isn’t necessarily the answer. Yet that’s what a trend seems to be building further, that fast is the important thing, being fast.

Shel: But the thing is that even if you’re adept at this and you really have your finger on the pulse or you have a big enough team that there’s somebody there who has their finger on the pulse and can craft just the perfect post to be part of whatever this is that’s going on at the moment. And let’s say it’s a big success. It goes viral. Does that translate into sales? Does that translate into bottom-line results or are you just one of the cool kids participating in the conversation? I’d like to see the correlation at least between being fast and being good at being fast with this fastvertising and getting the kind of results that pay the bills and incentivize the leaders of organizations to fund these kinds of efforts.

Neville: So being fast and furious isn’t necessarily the solution. OK, I get that. Let’s talk about algorithms. Hootsuite talks a bit about this, which I found interesting. If algorithms prioritize behavior over followers, which is what Hootsuite is saying is a trend that’s developing, does brand loyalty matter less? That reminds me of, I think, a very related theme to this we discussed probably five or six episodes ago about brand loyalty mattering less in certain circumstances. So if content reaches people based on micro-behaviors, asks Hootsuite, rather than follower networks, the old idea of building large follower communities might be fading. So they ask, is the new game about relevance rather than loyalty?

Shel: Well, I think relevance has always been at the heart of what we do. I mean, you can build a huge base of followers, people who have opted to get your content, and they’re very casual about what they see. We saw this data in the early days of the news feeds as a forum for brands — was that you had one brand that had a million followers, but they hardly ever came back and looked at your stuff again. And then you had a competing brand with fewer followers, but they were constantly engaging with the brand. Which would you rather have? So I think having brand loyalty can be valuable if you’re engaging that base rather than waiting for them to get your content in their feed because that’s growing less and less likely. If that’s an effort you’re not willing to make or you don’t think will pay off, then yeah, brand loyalty is going to take a backseat to getting the impressions through other means. But again, I want to see that line that connects those impressions, even that engagement, with your bottom line. Because I’m not convinced that this participating in this fastvertising environment has produced those results. I have not seen a study that shows that it is.

Neville: I think it’s interesting the kind of direction of travel that this seems to be pointing towards where one of the findings talks about engagement is no longer a big-deal metric. Even impressions aren’t. And that comes down to the ROI from micro-audiences. So it’s not clearly defined yet. This is still evolving. But it is shifting without doubt. So another point from the report. It suggests social listening and analytics are becoming real-time intelligence systems. They’re asking, is social media now the fastest research tool organizations have? Could social media become one of the most valuable organizational listening tools, asks Hootsuite, not just a publishing channel? That’s a big shift for communicators, they argue.

Shel: Yeah, I mean, and it has been for a while. And I think the type of activity we’re seeing now probably elevates that value. But is it the most important listening? You know, I don’t know. I think asking direct questions in a survey and a focus group still have tremendous utility. But if you’re looking for real time, again, this is — I think particularly valuable say in a crisis. And this could be a brand crisis rather than an existential corporate crisis. But finding out what people are thinking, what the sentiment is in close to real time can be ridiculously valuable in that kind of situation. But I also think that you have to remember that the people who are engaging in this kind of activity on social media is not necessarily the majority of your target market. There are a lot of them who maybe don’t do this at all, or they’re passive consumers of the content that’s posted online and not actively creating any of that content. And what do they think? I think, you know, if you put all of your eggs in the basket of what the number of people who are producing this content are saying and say, well, this is going to drive the perception of our brand, it’s going to drive sales — yeah, I think that’s very, very risky. I think as an element of a marketing program, of a communication program, it can be useful. But the way some organizations are looking at this, apparently from what I’ve seen, is that this is now the be-all and end-all of their online marketing. I’m not sure that’s wise. I think still, you know, publishing thought leadership pieces on LinkedIn still has some value, right?

Neville: That’s — that’s probably — I hesitate because I’m trying to remember. I read something about this just the other day which says it’s not at all — has no value doing that on LinkedIn, and it gave some reasons. I don’t remember, obviously not compelling enough to make me recall the article or the author. But I’ve seen many different opinions and different takes on, you know, where’s this all going that it’s hard to settle on one, I suppose, which I think makes this quite an interesting landscape for discussion, really, to get some good debate going. It’s interesting Hootsuite’s look at the role AI is playing in all of this, where they say AI might make social media less interesting. The paradox around generative AI they talk about and the report saying AI is now table stakes for social media production. But I’m wondering if that actually makes social media less interesting. If everyone has the same tools, generating ideas, writing captions, and editing video, doesn’t that push everything towards the same tone and style? Doesn’t it kind of make everything just bland as hell?

Shel: Yeah, slop, right? I think there’s two ways to look at it.

Neville: Well, not necessarily slop — not necessarily slop, just the sameness across the board.

Shel: Yeah, I think that’s how some people look at slop. But there are a couple of ways to look at this. One of them is just the data. According to the Hootsuite report, 30% of consumers say they’re less likely to choose a brand if they know the ads were created by AI. We saw this, by the way, with the Super Bowl, where there was backlash aimed at the ads that were generated with AI. So there’s a practical takeaway for communicators, and that’s use it for infrastructure and not as the voice of the organization. The moment your messaging starts to sound like it was spat out by a machine, you’ve sacrificed the very thing that social media was built for, which is trust. But I want to take this to a bit of a darker place than what was covered in this report. This was a post by Ethan Mollick on LinkedIn. And he shared a perspective that I think should make us stop and think about this. He’s concerned that the public forums are being systematically overrun by machine-generated content. He said that while established voices can remain in broadcast mode, we’re losing that serendipitous discovery — the ability to find smart human insights in the comments on LinkedIn and presumably on Facebook and the other networks. And I’m not being an alarmist here. The University of New South Wales did a study and found that in a simulated social media campaign, more than 60% of the content was generated by competitor bots, surpassing 7 million posts. There was a peer-reviewed analysis last year that estimated about one in five accounts in public conversations were automated, and we’re seeing the emergence of AI overwhelm. That’s a label for a phenomenon where the sheer volume of machine-generated noise leads to a systematic breakdown in trust. Now consider Multbook. You remember Multbook. This is the platform where the AI agents from whatever that is called this week — it’s gone through so many name changes — but it was the tool that you could set up on a computer that would deploy agents. People were running out and buying Mac Minis to do this because they didn’t want it on their computer having access to their bank accounts and the like. Somebody built Multbook where the agents that were deployed by this thing could interact with each other and we, the humans, could sit back and observe. And Professor Mollick wondered whether LinkedIn was going to become Multbook with a LinkedIn logo. We’re building the infrastructure for bot-to-bot communication. And we should be asking whether human-to-human communication can survive at all. If all of these shifts in what the Hootsuite report says we can now use social media for — in a year, if it’s been overrun by AI content, and we’re talking about the bots creating original content in response to posts and then creating posts — we’re not going to be able to use it for much of anything at all.

Neville: Yeah, that’s taking it to quite a dark place, Shel. I don’t think that’s the likeliest outcome, of course. So let me circle back to the first question then. When we started this conversation, we asked this one then. So are we still thinking about social media, generally speaking, as a place to publish content, which is what we currently do, right? Or is it becoming something much more powerful — a tool for understanding behavior, culture, and trust as it unfolds online? How do you see it?

Shel: We’ll see.

Shel: The answer to that is yes. I mean, it can be both things. I would not recommend that brands and companies stop publishing content, especially when people are starting to use these tools for search. I mean, man, you talk about TikTok being used for search. I do. When I’m looking for a new place to have breakfast, because I love a good breakfast, I’m not going to the usual places. I’m not going to Yelp. I’m not going to Google. I’m going to TikTok because I want to see somebody who created a video of this awesome breakfast they had at some restaurant a mile and a half from me that I’ve never heard of. So if you want to be discovered that way, you better have the content there. But we have to start using it in these other ways as well, for as long as that’s a viable thing to do.

Neville: I agree with that.

Shel: Well, in that case, that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #505: Social Media’s Big Shift appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

S4 Capital has announced a revolutionary new pricing model that will transform how agencies charge for their services: instead of billable hours, they’re moving to… subscriptions. Fixed monthly fees. Annual contracts that auto-renew. All costs absorbed into the price rather than passed through as variables.

You know, retainers. The pricing model most independent agencies have used for decades.

In this episode (somewhat abbreviated due to Gini’s technical difficulties), Chip and Gini dissect the holding company’s “brilliant innovation” with the appropriate level of sarcasm, then pivot to the more interesting question buried in the announcement: how should agencies price around AI? The conversation moves from eye-rolling at repackaged retainer models to wrestling with legitimate uncertainty about how AI costs will evolve and what that means for agency pricing strategies.

Chip points out that we only know what AI costs today, and it’s likely those costs will rise as platforms realize they’re replacing expensive labor and can charge accordingly. This creates a pricing puzzle—do you transparently pass through AI costs, absorb them into your general cost of doing business, or find some middle ground? Gini shares how she’s handling questions from college students about whether jobs will exist when they graduate, explaining that the work itself is shifting from doing to orchestrating, from creating to editing and refining AI outputs.

The discussion highlights the difference between cosmetic changes (calling retainers “subscriptions”) and substantive challenges (figuring out sustainable pricing as AI capabilities and costs both increase). They land on the principle that AI costs should be factored into your total cost of doing business rather than line-itemized separately, giving you flexibility to adapt as the landscape shifts without locking yourself into specific cost structures that may not hold.

The subtext throughout is that holding companies remain out of touch with how most agencies actually operate, still discovering “innovations” that the rest of the industry implemented years ago. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 297: Holding companies discover retainers, call them “subscriptions” appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Shel and Neville examine a troubling trend gaining momentum across corporate America: AI washing — the practice of attributing layoffs to artificial intelligence when the real reasons are more complex. The discussion centers on two high-profile cases. Block CEO Jack Dorsey announced a 40 percent workforce reduction, crediting AI tools, despite three prior rounds of cuts that had nothing to do with AI and pushback from former employees who say the moves look like standard cost management. Meanwhile, Oracle is cutting thousands of jobs, not because AI replaced those workers, but to fund a massive data center expansion that Wall Street projects won’t generate positive cash flow until 2030. Meanwhile, a new Anthropic labor market study adds context, finding limited evidence that AI has meaningfully displaced workers to date—though hiring of younger workers in exposed occupations may be slowing.

Neville and Shel dig into what this means for communicators who may be asked to craft layoff messaging that overstates AI’s role.

Links from this episode:

• Labor market impacts of AI: A new measure and early evidence | Anthropic
• What is AI Washing and Why Has It Been Linked to Layoffs?
• Block employees react to mass layoffs, impact of AI
• The US economy lost 92,000 jobs in February and the unemployment rate rose to 4.4%
• The Curious Case of the Block ‘AI Layoffs’
• Jack Dorsey Is Ready to Explain the Block Layoffs
• Oracle Plans Thousands of Job Cuts in Face of AI Cash Crunch
• Is AI really driving an increase in layoffs?
• Why Today’s AI-Driven Layoffs Are Becoming Tomorrow’s Rehiring Crisis

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, March 23.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Neville: Hi everyone and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 504. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel: And I’m Shel Holtz. Let’s talk about something today that should be keeping every communication professional up at night. We’re in the middle of a wave of layoffs where AI is being cited as the cause and the data suggests that in many cases that explanation is somewhere between incomplete and pure fiction. That puts communicators in a genuinely difficult position. You may be asked to help craft messaging that you have good reason to believe is misleading.

Shel: That’s a violation of codes of ethics. The stakes here are pretty high. We’ll explain all of this and what communicators should be doing about it right after this.

Shel: Let’s start with the numbers. News of the Oracle layoffs broke just last week amid news that the U.S. economy lost 92,000 jobs in February. And into that bleak backdrop, two major stories landed almost simultaneously. First, Block. Jack Dorsey announced that the company is cutting its staff by 40 percent, more than 4,000 people. The reason, according to his letter to shareholders, intelligence tools. Dorsey framed this as inevitable and even proactive saying, and this is a quote, “I think most companies are late. Within the next year, I think the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion.” But here’s where it gets complicated. Block had already undergone three rounds of layoffs since 2024 before this one. And in a previous round, Dorsey claimed that they were being made for performance reasons. AI, as far as I can tell, wasn’t mentioned at all, despite the fact that the same tools he now credits were already available and being used by employees. Former employees and analysts pushed back pretty hard on Dorsey’s assertions. One former Block employee wrote that the cuts “read like standard prioritization and cost management, not AI-driven reinvention.”

Shel: And another analyst was blunter, saying the vast majority of these cuts were probably not due to AI. Then, as I mentioned earlier, there’s Oracle, which is planning to axe thousands of jobs among its moves to handle a cash crunch. That cash crunch was created by a massive AI data center expansion effort. Now, this is a different kind of AI-related layoff. It’s not AI replacing these workers, but rather, we’re spending so much money building AI infrastructure that we can’t afford to keep paying these people. Wall Street projects Oracle’s cash flow will go negative for the coming years before all that spending starts to pay off in 2030. That’s workers losing their jobs not because AI took their role, but because their employer’s betting the company on AI and needs the payroll budget to fund that bet. Both cases are AI related. Neither is quite the story it appears to be on the surface. And that is the problem. And it has a name: AI washing. The term describes companies blaming layoffs on AI when the circumstances may be more complicated, like attributing financially motivated cuts to future AI implementation that actually hasn’t happened yet. A Forrester report argues that a lot of companies announcing AI-related layoffs don’t have mature, vetted AI applications ready to fill those roles.

Shel: Molly Kinder at the Brookings Institution makes the investor logic explicit. Calling layoffs AI driven is a very investor-friendly message, especially compared to admitting that the business is ailing. Even Sam Altman, whose company is arguably the reason any of this is happening in the first place, acknowledged all of this. He said, “There’s some AI washing where people are blaming AI for layoffs that they would otherwise do.” Now the data complicates the picture even more.

Shel: Anthropic just released a major labor market study. It’s worth your attention. They find limited evidence that AI has affected employment to date. Their new “observed exposure” metric, which tracks what AI is actually doing in real workplaces, not what it could do theoretically, shows that workers in the most exposed occupations have not become unemployed at meaningfully higher rates than workers in AI-proof jobs. There’s one exception worth watching: suggestive evidence that hiring of younger workers, particularly ages 20 to 25, has slowed in those occupations exposed to AI. The good news in the Anthropic research also serves as a warning. The reason we’re not seeing mass displacement yet is largely because actual AI adoption is just a fraction of what AI tools are feasibly capable of performing. The gap between theoretical capability and real-world deployment is wide today, but it is closing.

Shel: So what does this mean for communicators? Well, here’s the ethical minefield. When executives AI wash their layoff announcements, they may be revealing that they view AI as a means for eliminating jobs, and that could cause workers not to trust or even sabotage their future plans for AI adoption. Employee concerns about job loss due to AI have already skyrocketed from 28% in 2024 to 40% in 2026, and 62% of employees feel leaders underestimate AI’s emotional and psychological impact. Anti-AI sentiment is real and growing, and every time a company uses AI as a convenient cover story for financially motivated cuts, it feeds that sentiment, making the actual work of responsible AI adoption harder for everyone.

Shel: For communicators who are handed layoff messaging that overstates AI’s role, the guidance from ethics researchers is worth holding on to. Rather than vague claims about AI transformation, companies should provide specifics. How many positions are directly attributable to automation of specific functions? And how many reflect shifting market conditions and strategic realignment? Investors can handle complexity and so can employees. The Block situation is a canary in the coal mine, but perhaps not in the way Jack Dorsey intended. It’s a warning about what happens when the narrative outruns the reality, when the story told to shareholders diverges from the story experienced by the people being let go. Our job as communicators isn’t to make bad news sound good, it’s to make complicated truth navigable. That truth has never been more important or more difficult than it is right now.

Neville: A lot to unpack in that, Shel. I mean, absolute tons. I was curious, actually. One thing you mentioned, I think it was a quote, where you talked about, you know, referencing Sam Altman, where you said, you mentioned the phrase “AI-proof jobs.” What are those? I don’t think anything is AI proof.

Shel: Well, I think a gardener is an AI-proof job. A drywall installer is an AI-proof job. These are the ones that an AI can’t do. Even if you look at the definition that they’re throwing around for artificial general intelligence, it’s any cognitive task that a normal person could perform at their computer. And there are a lot of jobs. I mean, my son-in-law is a plumber and AI is not going to take his job anytime soon. So those are the AI-proof jobs.

Neville: That could be a good topic for a separate discussion, I think. I’ve got some different views. Anyway, one thing that struck me in everything you said is how often AI is framed as inevitable, as Jack Dorsey noted, almost like the technology made the decision. But organization leaders are choosing how and when to deploy AI. So do you think those leaders risk removing their own accountability when they say “AI made us do this”?

Shel: I think they do, even though that accountability is to the shareholders and they’re performing what they think the shareholders will like. I think what they risk losing is their credibility with shareholders who may find out down the road that they haven’t actually replaced these jobs, that they didn’t have the AI tools or agents in place to perform the duties of the people they let go, or have somehow rejiggered their workflows so that AI is picking up the slack for the people who are gone. But in the meantime, you can see the other reasons that they may have wanted to reduce the workforce, whether it’s on the balance sheet or competitive headwinds or whatever it may be. I’ve seen other arguments in various forums that Dorsey actually did this for other reasons and you can point to what those reasons might’ve been. And just blaming AI—as somebody said, the analysts and the investors like hearing that you’re cutting your workforce while maintaining your productivity and your current levels of production. That’s great. We want to see more of that. But if you dig under the surface, you look under the covers, you find out it probably isn’t true.

Neville: Yeah, I think that’s a big issue, frankly, the misrepresentation of this as a matter of course. And I’m just reflecting a bit on one of the webinars that Sylvie Cambier and I did for ABC recently on ethics and AI. That this features in that, in terms of dishonesty, misrepresentation, disinformation almost. So another thought I had was, if we accept that some of this is AI washing—and in fact, I say a lot of this is AI washing. It’s a great phrase, AI washing, great term. So the short description I found—Wikipedia has got a page on this, a huge description. But companies make overinflated claims about the use of AI. That’s as simple as we’re describing it, which is basically what you said in your intro.

Shel: I love it, yeah.

Neville: So my question is, what would responsible communication about layoffs actually look like? If communicators are faced with, I guess, continuing incorrect facts or rather the incorrectness of this, should organizations be separating out the reasons? In other words, providing even more information—automation, restructuring, investment—rather than rolling everything into an AI transformation story? Would that be better, do you think?

Shel: I think it would. And I think it’s incumbent upon the communicator to not just push back, but I think first to ask questions. You’re asking me to communicate this layoff as AI related. We’re laying off this many people. Can we demonstrate that those functions are being replaced by AI systems that are ready to do those jobs? Or is there another way that we can demonstrate that we can prove that we no longer need these people because of AI? Is there anything that people are going to look at in our performance, in our numbers, in the competitive landscape that they would be able to point to and say, look, that’s going on too. Doesn’t that have something to do with these layoffs? And to point out what the risks are of simply attributing everything to AI.

Shel: Both from getting caught when you haven’t actually replaced those people with AI functions—and you have people inside who are more than happy to blow the whistle on these kinds of things, especially when they fear that their jobs are next up for elimination because of all of this—and what it does to the internal situation. As I pointed out, people who see that jobs are being taken because of AI? Well, I’m certainly not going to support more AI in this company. I’m going to do everything I can to undermine that. So I think it’s our job to push back and to make sure that what we’re communicating is accurate. If there’s a way that we can communicate what leadership is looking for, great. If not, I would push back and say, we cannot do this. This is going to—do you want to engage in crisis communication in three months? Because that’s where we’ll be.

Shel: I mean, it’s what Dorsey’s doing now. He’s going around doing damage control interviews. So is that what you’re interested in? Damage control down the road? You know, we’ve been communicating layoffs for decades and decades and decades without having AI to blame it on. And somehow we managed to survive. Let’s just tell the truth.

Neville: Yeah, yeah, it strikes me as a very peculiar situation in a sense that if you look into it, the facts are quite clear. And why would you kind of obfuscate the picture and wrap it all up into something you can blame the technology for? So I guess you’ve answered the question I have next for you, which is, if companies keep using AI as the explanation for layoffs—I mean, it’s truly extraordinary what you quote from Dorsey in particular—where he blames AI effectively, even when it’s not the full story. Do you think that risks creating a broader backlash against AI inside organizations? Could the messaging itself end up making AI adoption harder?

Shel: I think so. As I mentioned, I think employees are not going to be tripping over themselves with enthusiasm to get this all working. It’s like training your own replacement. But I also think there’s the risk of alienating customers. Investors are one thing, and analysts, that’s one thing. But customers who sympathize with employees or see this callous disregard for the welfare of employees may look for companies that are taking a more humanistic approach to all of this, even as they’re implementing AI, looking for ways for AI to partner with employees. I’ve always been kind of surprised that organizations—maybe I’m not so surprised—that organizations see this as a way to continue doing exactly what you’re doing now with fewer people as opposed to adding staff without having to hire more people in order to do more than what you’re doing now, in order to produce more, in order to innovate more. It seems to me that what Wall Street rewards is growth. And if you maintain your head count and really seriously look at the adoption of AI as a way to grow the company, you’re going to grow by leaps and bounds.

Shel: And it seems what most organizations are happy doing is what we’re doing now with fewer people. I don’t understand how that is something that Wall Street would want to reward beyond the fact that they’ve always rewarded layoffs.

Neville: Yeah, yeah. So I think—to me, communicators are being placed in an ethical bind, almost an impossible situation. They sit between, in this case, executive messaging, employee experience, public scrutiny. And when those perspectives diverge, which is clearly what’s happening in some of these organizations, the communicator becomes the person responsible for navigating the ethical tension. I wouldn’t want a job in a company like that, I have to say, if I was the communicator.

Shel: I think it’s gotten a little easier simply by virtue of the fact that AI washing is now a recognized thing. As you noted, there’s a Wikipedia page on it. There are articles now on it. And I think it’s easy to put data together on this and take it to leadership and say, is this how you want to be positioned? Is this how you want to be perceived? This is what’s going to happen if you pursue this policy, if you pursue this course.

Shel: And I think that’s an argument that’s easier to make than something nebulous like employees are going to reject this, and we might get caught down the road when people look at what’s actually going on in our books.

Neville: So clearly that didn’t happen in Jack Dorsey’s company then.

Shel: No, I don’t know that AI washing was as well recognized.

Neville: Well, no, I mean, a communicator taking findings to senior management saying, “You sure you want to do this?” I guess that didn’t happen. Or maybe they haven’t got a communicator.

Shel: Well, maybe they don’t, or maybe the communicators are just joined at the hip with Dorsey and the leadership team.

Neville: It’s possible. So what about Oracle? You mentioned Oracle. They’ve got to lay off thousands of people. They’ve got a cash crunch from the massive data center expansion effort. Something else to add to the mix, I suppose. Did they succeed in buying the movie studio and CBS and CNN, all that stuff being wrapped up?

Shel: Well, that’s Oracle’s—that’s Larry Ellison’s son. The founder—his son, David, is with Skydance, which is the company he owns. So it’s just a familial connection. It’s not something Oracle’s actually investing any money in. But here’s my question. If you’re cutting thousands of jobs in order to have more cash available to spend on data center expansion, which, by the way, is facing immense resistance now in the U.S.—it’s going to be incredibly hard to get the permits to build new data centers, given the public blowback on this. But even if they could, what did those thousands of people do for a living? I imagine they did customer support. I imagine they did development of Oracle’s database products and cloud products.

Shel: And who’s going to be doing that now? I would expect with that many jobs being cut, you’re going to see a degrading in customer service and subsequently customer satisfaction. And I don’t understand how that serves Oracle, which is not going to be back in a positive cash flow for five years. So I tend to think that this is a really stupid decision. You should be doing what the AI labs are doing and going out and finding new investors to support this expansion if you think it’s going to be worth all that, as opposed to cutting the jobs of the people who do the work that your customers of today rely on.

Neville: So what Oracle will probably do, though, is you’ll be talking to an AI when you phone customer support. And you’re probably doing that anyway. But this will increase exponentially. Technology is improving all the time. And I think many people won’t object to talking to an AI if it doesn’t act like what we think AIs act like in that kind of role, if it acts more human-like. So it’s an upside-down time.

Shel: No doubt. Yeah.

Neville: I think to me the issue that bothers me is how people dress this up. People in positions of leadership in companies—they should know better, and maybe they do know better, but they’re being pressured, either self-pressured or by the circumstances of their roles and the kind of company they work for, to deliver the results that those above them are demanding. And so they are party to this kind of contract, it seems to me. And yet, isn’t it inevitable that this is going to happen and we’re going to see more and more of it? What do you reckon?

Shel: I imagine that we are, because leaders see other leaders and other companies doing it. And they see Wall Street, at least for now, rewarding it. And they’re going, hey, we could do that. Doesn’t make it right. Doesn’t mean it’s the long-term best answer for the organization. And I think ultimately—we talk about trust in just about every episode at some level—and this is going to erode trust. It’s going to erode trust among your employees. It’s going to erode trust among your customers. And at some level, you risk being caught AI washing.

Neville: Not good.

Shel: And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #504: When Companies Blame Layoffs on AI — and Leave Communicators Holding the Bag appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

The president of the International Olympic Committee didn’t have an answer to a question posed to her at a press conference on the final day of the 2026 Winter Olympics. Or to another question. Or to yet another. Ultimately, she suggested, on camera, that someone on her communications team should be fired. In this short midweek FIR episode, Shel and Neville look at the fallout, what both the president and the head of communications might have done differently, and the possible long-term consequences.

Links from this episode

• IOC president condemned for public attack on comms team
• LinkedIn Post from Jasred Meade, MPS, APR, MPRCA
• Olympics boss Kirsty Coventry threatens to fire team mid-press conference in awkward moment | LinkedIn Post
• Olympics boss Kirsty Coventry threatens to fire team mid-press conference in awkward moment | Yahoo Sports
• DW News (@dwnews) on X
• Kirsty Conventry profile on LinkedIn
• Mark Adams profile on LinkedIn
• Sky News report on YouTube
• Kirsty Coventry earns praise following first Olympics as IOC president

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, March 23.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Shel Holtz: Hi, everybody, and welcome to episode number 503 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson. Something happened at the Winter Olympics last month that set off a fierce reaction across the communication profession and it wasn’t about sport. During the final daily press conference on the 20th of February, IOC president Kirsty Coventry was asked a series of geopolitical questions. Questions about Russia and doping.

Comments linked to Germany and 2036, questions about senior sporting figures engaging in wider political activity. On more than one occasion, she said she wasn’t aware of the issue and visibly looked towards her communication team. At one point, she went further and suggested that perhaps someone should be dismissed. That’s the moment that shifted this from a routine press conference stumble into something much bigger. We’ll explore it right after this.

What makes this especially interesting is the context. A few days after the press conference, Coventry had been widely praised for her leadership at the Milan Cortina Games. Reporting from the AP on the 23rd of February described her first Olympics as IOC president as having good overall success, noting the intense political pressure she faced and the way she engaged directly with athletes during the Ukraine controversy. That controversy centered on Ukraine’s skeleton racer, Wladyslaw Hraskiewicz, who competed wearing a helmet memorializing athletes and coaches killed in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The gesture drew scrutiny and diplomatic tension around whether it breached Olympic neutrality rules. Coventry chose to meet him face to face at the track and later became visibly emotional when discussing the issue with international media. That moment was widely interpreted as defining her emerging leadership style: empathetic, athlete-facing, and willing to engage directly.

The games were even described as giving a taste of tougher challenges ahead as the IOC looks towards Los Angeles 2028. In other words, this wasn’t a presidency in crisis. There was goodwill, momentum, a sense of forward motion. And then one live moment reframed the entire narrative. Being caught off guard isn’t unusual. No leader can know everything. No briefing pack can anticipate every question.

But that’s not the story. The story is what you do in that moment. Do you acknowledge the gap and commit to follow up? Do you bridge to principle? Do you calmly say, I’ll get back to you once I’ve reviewed the details? Or do you turn publicly and imply that your team has failed you? The communication reaction was swift and pointed. LinkedIn filled up with variations of the same message. Accountability sits with the principal. Praise in public, criticize in private. You can’t outsource responsibility.

But I think there’s a deeper discussion here. Yes, leaders must own the podium. Yes, public blame undermines trust. But this also raises questions about executive readiness, about the contract between leadership and communication, and about how fragile reputational capital really is. Those geopolitical questions were not obscure. They were predictable fault lines around an organization operating in an intensely political global environment. Were holding lines prepared? We don’t know. Was she fully briefed? Possibly. Did she ignore it? Also possible. And that’s where this moves beyond a single awkward exchange.

In high-performing organizations, the relationship between a leader and their communication team is built on shared risk. The team prepares the ground, the leader absorbs the pressure. If something goes wrong, it’s owned collectively and dealt with internally. The world stage doesn’t create dysfunction, it amplifies it. So rather than pile on, I think this is worth examining as a case study.

Here’s what intrigues me. This wasn’t a leader already in trouble. She had just been praised for navigating intense political pressure, engaging directly with athletes, and projecting empathy and maturity in a complex environment. There was goodwill in the bank. And yet one live moment—a few sentences, a glance towards her team, a suggestion someone might be dismissed—reframed the entire narrative. That tells us something about how fragile leadership capital really is.

So, Shel, let me start here. When a leader appears unprepared on a global stage like that, who actually owns the failure? Is it primarily the principal? Is it the communication team? Or is it a breakdown in that relationship we often describe as the unwritten contract between leader and comms? And perhaps even more provocatively, at what point does a communication team have a responsibility to push back and say, you’re not ready for this podium?

Once a story becomes internal blame rather than the issue itself, you’re no longer managing the moment. The moment is managing you. So what do you make of all this, Shel?

Shel Holtz: Well, I think it’s a two-way street. I think both sides failed here. Coventry herself is the IOC president, has been for nearly a year. She should have been aware of these issues from a governance standpoint. It’s not a question just of media prep.

Neville Hobson: Mm-hmm.

Shel Holtz: As one commentator put it, it’s not the PR team’s job to inform the president of things she should know simply from a management perspective. So I don’t think there’s a problem with piling on here a little bit, but throwing your team under the bus publicly is not the approach to take. I think there are some lessons that I hope Coventry learns here. She turned what should have been a really unremarkable closing press conference into a global story about dysfunction at the IOC. The press conference actually became the story and that’s the exact opposite of what any comms professional looks to achieve with this type of press conference.

The right move from Coventry would have been to acknowledge the question, note that she’d want to look into it, and then commit to following up. That buys time for her without revealing this gap between what she knows and what she should know. And she could have gone behind closed doors afterwards and she and Mark Adams, the guy who’s in charge of the communications team, could have had whatever conversation she wanted to about briefing protocols. But when a leader publicly humiliates their comms team, it poisons that relationship and makes future counsel less likely—the exact opposite of what the communication requires.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I agree. I mean, there’s lots—and everyone with an opinion has been doing it on LinkedIn in particular. PRWeek had a really good assessment, which is where a lot of this kicked off. But what you’ve outlined is what she should have done, basically. And I totally agree. I think an additional comment I’d add to that is demonstrating in a sense the executive ownership of the issue overall. She could have said something like, you know, ultimately the responsibility sits with me. That would have dampened down anything, would have changed the tone of the entire story. She didn’t do that.

But there’s also, I think, worth pointing out what the PR team should have done. And maybe they did do it. Let’s add that caveat. We don’t actually know who did or didn’t do what.

Shel Holtz: She may have not read a briefing book that was given to her, right? That’s exactly right.

Neville Hobson: Or she may or she may not have been given one. Now, that’s the other element. We don’t know. So this conversation therefore gets more interesting if we exempt from that point of view.

So the issues raised weren’t obscure. And I agree with you that the geopolitics of it all is actually in the kind of daily news. If she reads newspapers she would have seen a lot of this discussion that would have been kind of an alert to her. So the issues were not obscure. Russia and doping, geopolitical symbolism of 2036 Germany—including one of the questions she got: why was the IOC merchandise website selling t-shirts with emblems of the 1936 games in Nazi Germany? And she said, I wasn’t aware of that kind of thing. Infantino and Trump—that’s a dynamic between the president of FIFA and Trump. Predictable lines of questioning.

Shel Holtz: Okay.

Neville Hobson: A robust prep document—what might that have looked like? Well, likely hostile questions. Again, briefing her on the kind of questions she might get. Top-line holding statements. Thirty-second bridges. “If you don’t know” language. If that didn’t exist, that’s a team failure. If it did exist and she ignored it, that’s a leadership failure.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, well, she said, “I was not aware” on three separate occasions in one press conference. I can’t remember ever hearing about anything like that before. And every time she said it, it compounded the damage from the last one.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, she did.

Shel Holtz: And even if she wasn’t briefed, a seasoned executive would have bridged to what she could say: the IOC’s position on political neutrality, their commitment to anti-doping integrity, the process for evaluating future host city bids. She could have leaned on what she did know and then offered to get back to people with more specific answers later, but she just kept revealing what she didn’t know. This is a textbook case for why pre-briefing documents and Q&A anticipation matter and what you would expect from your comms teams. And before any high-profile press event, they should have—and again, we don’t know whether she was or not—but she should have gotten a briefing book that covered not just what you want to say, but what you’re likely going to be asked, with a—

Neville Hobson: Precisely.

Shel Holtz: With Germany 2036 on the centenary of the Nazi games, a sitting IOC member appearing at a Trump political event, and an NYT investigation into Russian doping. These are all foreseeable questions during a closing Olympic press conference. You know, I don’t think that Mark Adams gets to skate here. He’s a 17-year veteran of the IOC. He used to work at the BBC, ITN, and Euronews and the World Economic Forum. He’s earning 420,000 pounds a year for this job. When the Germany 2036 question came up, his response was simply that he hadn’t seen it either. And I’ve got to tell you, for someone at that level and that salary during the final press conference of the Olympic Games, I think it’s an understatement to call that a significant lapse. The media monitoring function alone should have flagged those issues.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I agree. I mean, there’s a ton of questions I’ve got here that might be rhetorical now, actually. But nevertheless, let me rattle these off and see what you think. Can a comms team ever fully protect an unprepared leader—that’s one. Where does responsibility truly sit? And that’s something that could occupy the rest of this podcast discussing that one alone.

But that’s a question that I wonder: is this part of a broader trend? I mean, some people—notably on LinkedIn, so let’s just put that out there—have hinted, if not explicitly noted, the increase in executive blame-shifting, diminishing personal accountability, and a culture of scapegoating communication. Is that anecdotal or systemic? That’s the kind of rhetorical question, I suppose.

Should comms professionals refuse to front leaders who are not ready? It takes a brave person to do that, and maybe Mark Adams isn’t that person, I don’t know, but that’s pretty provocative. Is there a professional duty to push back from the comms people? At what point do you say you’re not ready to do this live? Is this a case study in leadership under geopolitical complexity? The Olympics isn’t sport alone—it’s politics, it’s war, it’s symbolism, it’s national legitimacy. A modern IOC president must be politically literate at the highest level.

So there’s lots there. I guess you could summarize it, I suppose, in the sense: when a leader is caught off guard on the world stage, who owns the failure? Because let’s just go back to what actually happened. She was caught off guard—not once, twice, three times at least. And one of those three times, the last one, is when the bus emerged under which she threw the PR team by saying someone needs to be dismissed.

So when a leader is caught off guard on the world stage, who owns the failure—the principal or the communication team? Question.

Shel Holtz: Well, I think you can look at it both ways here. I think people who are looking to shift that blame to the PR team need to recognize that it’s not like she had no experience. She has governance experience. She chaired the IOC Athletes Commission. She served on the executive board. She held a ministerial portfolio—

Neville Hobson: Yep.

Shel Holtz: —in Zimbabwe. But this suggests that she hasn’t either fully adapted to the demands of the presidency or her team hasn’t adequately supported the transition. But they need to get on the same page because I think one of the bits of fallout on this is questions about the IOC’s ability to handle the bigger issues that are coming up in the LA 2028 summer games.

Neville Hobson: Mm-hmm.

Shel Holtz: They’re going to be exponentially more complex politically. And if the team can’t handle media monitoring and an executive briefing during a winter games, how are they going to manage the geopolitical minefield of an Olympics in Trump’s America? Adams has already been linked to potentially leaving the IOC for a role with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. He was one of Starmer’s best men at his wedding. So there’s another layer of instability, which I guess means if she needs to fire someone, he’d be a good candidate.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, there’d be a vacancy there, wouldn’t there? So, I mean, some of the comments on one of the many LinkedIn posts I saw do talk about—let’s call it a possible deeper misalignment between leadership and communication at the IOC. Questions people are speculating—because this is all speculation, I would hasten to add. Did this show that there was a pre-existing tension between her and the comms team?

Shel Holtz: Yeah.

Neville Hobson: I mean, I watched the video of her being asked those questions and there was no hesitation in her glance to the comms team where they were sitting, I guess, to say, I wasn’t aware of this. And she did it again. And then the third time it was, someone needs to be dismissed here. So was there some kind of tension? Did the team try to brief her and just get ignored? Is this a case of leader-comms misalignment long in the making? I mean, these are all unknowns. I’d like to think not.

She’d only been in the job a year. She had got all this praise because of how she had handled all these other things going on. That doesn’t mean therefore that this is not right. Something happened clearly, and we witnessed the kind of jaw-dropping moments when she said “I wasn’t aware of this” three times and basically said someone should be fired. So overall the tone is not good. The optics are dreadful.

I’ve not seen any further reporting on this since the initial flurry. It’s all kind of—

Shel Holtz: Well, you know, if your executive gets surprised at a press conference, I think that’s a process failure that can be fixed. But if your executive blames you for it on camera, I think that’s a leadership failure that may not be fixable. You know, the relationship between a communications professional and their principal depends on mutual trust, honest counsel, understanding that you protect each other publicly and hold each other accountable privately. And that’s the opposite of what happened here. So I don’t know whether there was tension before this happened or not, but there is certainly tension now and I’m not sure it can be repaired. And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #503: When Your Boss Throws You Under the Bus appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer reveals a troubling shift from polarization to grievance to insularity—a progression in which stakeholders aren’t only divided or angry but also withdrawing into tight circles of “people like us” while viewing outsiders with suspicion. In this Circle of Fellows conversation, our panel will examine the strategic and practical implications of a world in which employees trust their CEO and neighbors more than external sources, domestic companies enjoy trust advantages over foreign competitors, and income divides deepen distrust across organizational hierarchies. The Fellows will explore how communication professionals can position themselves as trust brokers within their organizations, helping bridge the executive suite, front-line employees, and diverse stakeholder groups while navigating generational differences in how people experience and express grievances. From Gen Alpha’s focus on external blame and politicized “whataboutism” to the role of AI governance in building institutional credibility, this fast-paced discussion will provide frameworks for communicators to remain centered and effective even as insularity and grievance reshape the landscape we navigate daily.

Episode #125 of “Circle of Fellows” was recorded on Thursday, February 26.

The next episode of Circle of Fellows, which will focus on the new realities of crisis communication, is scheduled for noon ET on Thursday, March 26. Mark your calendar and watch for details!

About the panel:

Priya Bates is a senior communications executive who provides strategic internal communication counsel to ensure leaders, managers, and employees understand the strategy, believe in the vision, act in accordance with the values, and contribute to business results. She is president of Inner Strength Communications in Toronto and previously served as senior director of Internal Communications at Loblaw Companies Limited.

Alice Brink is an internationally recognized communications consultant. Her firm, A Brink & Co., works with businesses and non-profits to clarify their messages and communicate them in ways that change people’s minds. Her clients have included Shell Oil Company, Sysco Foods, and Noble Energy. Before launching A Brink & Co. in Houston in 2004, Alice honed her craft in corporate settings (including The Coca-Cola Company, Conoco, and First Interstate Bank) and in one of Texas’s largest public relations firms, where she led the agency’s energy and financial practices. Alice has been active in IABC for over 30 years, including as chapter president, district director, and Gold Quill chair.

Jane Mitchell’s career began at the BBC in London on live TV programs. She moved on to producing award-winning films and videos for public- and private-sector organizations and to developing groundbreaking employee engagement programs. Since 2006, when she formed her own consultancy, she has guided organizations (some of which have experienced cultural trauma) in embedding values and ethics by understanding culture and leadership, and their link to high-performing, sustainable organizations. She has worked with Top 100 companies worldwide and is a regular conference speaker. Jane has been a member of IABC since 2008 and has served on local, regional, and International IABC Boards. In 2021, she was Chair of the (virtual) World Conference and became an IABC fellow in 2022. She is based in the UK and now spends the majority of her professional time as a Non-Exec on company boards and Employee-Owned Trusts.

Jennifer Wah, MC, ABC, has worked with clients to deliver ideas, plans, words and results since she founded her storytelling and communications firm, Forwords Communication Inc., in 1997. With more than two dozen awards for strategic communications, writing, and consulting, Jennifer is recognized as a storyteller and strategist. She has worked in industries from healthcare and academia to financial services and the resource sector, and is passionate about the strategic use of storytelling to support business outcomes. Although she has delivered workshops and training throughout her career, Jennifer formally added teaching to her experience in 2013, first with Royal Roads University and more recently as an adjunct professor of business communications with the UBC Sauder School of Business, where she now works part-time to impart crucial communication skills on the next generation of business leaders. When she is not working, Jennifer spends her time cooking, walking her dog, Orion, or discussing food, hockey, or music with her husband and two young adult children in North Vancouver, Canada.

The post Circle of Fellows #125: Communicating in the Age of Grievance appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

The PESO Model has been guiding smart communications strategies for over a decade, but the tactical landscape underneath it keeps shifting. In the latest evolution, Gini and her team have completely revamped the PESO Model Certification to address how AI and large language models are fundamentally changing visibility in 2026.

In this episode, Chip interviews Gini about the newly updated certification and what’s changed in how organizations should think about paid, earned, shared, and owned media. The conversation centers on “visibility engineering”—the intersection of owned and earned media where LLMs are scraping information and making decisions about who appears in AI-generated answers.

Gini explains why owned media remains the foundation (without content on your own properties, there’s nothing to demonstrate to journalists, creators, or LLMs what you’re about), but the recommended path has shifted from owned-then-earned-or-shared to a more deliberate owned-then-earned-then-shared-then-paid sequence. This evolution reflects how AI systems verify information by comparing what’s on your website against what credible third parties say about you.

They also tackle the persistent “X is dead” headlines that plague the industry—whether it’s websites, PR, or press releases. Chip and Gini push back hard on the notion that websites are becoming irrelevant, pointing out that your owned content hub becomes more valuable in an AI-driven world, not less. It’s your source of truth, the fuel for custom AI assistants, and the foundation that persists even as social platforms come and go.

The conversation covers practical questions about implementing PESO in smaller agencies, whether you need to be full-service to deliver on all four pillars, and how the certification meets communicators at different experience levels—from college students to seasoned professionals.

If you’ve been treating PESO as just four columns of tactics rather than an operating system for communications, this episode clarifies what you’re missing. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 296: The PESO Model evolves for the AI era (and why your website isn’t dead) appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In the February long-form episode of FIR, Shel and Neville dive deep into an AI-heavy landscape, exploring how rapidly accelerating technology is reshaping the communications profession—from autonomous agents with “attitudes” to the evolving ROI of podcasting. The show kicks off with a chilling “milestone” moment: an autonomous AI coding agent that publicly shamed a human developer after its code contribution was rejected. Also in this episode:

• Accenture’s move to monitor how often senior employees log into internal AI systems, making “regular adoption” a factor in promotion to managing director.
• The “2026 Change Communication X-ray” study reveals a record 30-point gap between management satisfaction and employee satisfaction with change comms.
• The PRCA has proposed a new definition of PR, positioning it as a strategic management discipline focused on trust and complexity. However, Neville notes the industry reaction has been muted, with critics arguing the definition doesn’t reflect the majority of agency work. Shel expresses skepticism that any single definition will be adopted without a global consensus.
• Addressing a provocative claim that corporate podcast ROI is impossible to prove, Shel and Neville argue that the problem lies in measuring the wrong things. They advocate for moving beyond “vanity metrics” like downloads and instead tying podcasts to concrete business goals like lead generation, recruitment, and brand trust.
• As consumers increasingly turn to LLMs for product recommendations, brands are “wooing the robots” to ensure they are cited accurately in AI responses. Neville asks if we are witnessing a structural shift in reputation or just another optimization cycle.
• In his Tech Report, Dan York explains why Bluesky is having trouble adding an edit feature, Russia’s blocking of Meta properties, criticism of Australia’s teen social media ban from Snapchat’s CEO, YouTube’s protections for teen users, and more on teen social media bans.

Links from this episode:

• An AI agent just tried to shame a software engineer after he rejected its code
• OpenClaw Conducts Character Assassination of Real Developers or Code Rejection
• Developer targeted by AI hit piece warns society cannot handle AI agents that decouple actions from consequences
• Open Source World Sees First AI Autonomous Attack: OpenClaw Agent Writes Article to Retaliate Against Human Maintainer After Rejection
• When the Robot Threw a Tantrum: The Day an AI Agent Publicly Attacked a Human Developer — And Why It Should Terrify You
• Accenture ties staff promotions to use of AI tools
• Accenture to use AI data to decide on staff promotions
• Accenture ties promotions to AI tool usage, while some employees call the tools ‘broken slop generators’
• James Ransome: Accenture combats ‘AI refuseniks’ by linking promotion to AI activity
• How AI is changing the way we communicate
• Re—writing change: How AI is changing the way we communicate
• How is AI changing workplace communication? We asked ChatGPT
• The Future Of Work Has Arrived: How AI Is Rebuilding Workplace Culture
• A New Definition for Public Relations | PRCA Global
• FIR #496: A Proposed New Definition of Public Relations Sparks Debate
• A new definition of public relations is welcome – but can it ever be universal?
• Search: Responses to the PRCA draft new definition of public relations
• I bet you couldn’t show the ROI of your corporate podcast if your job depended upon
• The Ultimate Guide To Measuring B2B Podcast ROI: From Downloads To Pipeline Attribution
• The ROI of B2B Podcasting: Metrics That Matter for Business Growth
• Maximizing Podcast ROI: Understanding the Benefits and Measuring Success
• Measuring ROI of Branded Podcasts: Insights from the Industry
• Chatbots Are the New Influencers Brands Must Woo

Links from Dan York’s Tech Report

• Bluesky adds drafts… but users want editing… which turns out to be hard
• Bluesky Official: Drafting and Welcome Screen Updates
• Russia Blocks WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram Access | Social Media Today
• Snapchat CEO Criticizes Australia’s Teen Social Media Ban | Social Media Today
• YouTube Adds More Protections for Teen Users | Social Media Today
• Meta Says the Science Does Not Support Teen Social Media Bans | Social Media Today
• Two Major Studies, 125,000 Kids: The Social Media Panic Doesn’t Hold Up | Techdirt

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, March 23.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Shel Holtz: Hi everybody and welcome to episode number 502 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz: And this is our long form episode of For Immediate Release for February 2026. It is an AI heavy episode. Artificial intelligence is accelerating. I mean, just this morning, I read that WebMCP, a protocol developed by Google and Microsoft, is now in Chrome, makes it easier for agents to navigate websites. Google has launched Pamele photoshoot. Take any photo of a product and turn it into a marketing-ready studio or lifestyle shot. Google’s launched Lyria 3. It’s right in Gemini. You type a prompt or upload a photo and it’ll produce a 30-second music track with auto-generated lyrics, vocals, and custom cover art.

And at the same time, I think it was in the New York Times I read the heads of the big AI labs are actually starting to worry about this growing anti-AI backlash. This is the landscape against which we’re podcasting today. And I’m sure nobody will be surprised that most of our stories have to do with the convergence of AI and communications, but not all. We have a follow-up report to our story on the PRCA’s proposed definition of public relations and report on the ROI of podcasting. But first we want to get you caught up on some For Immediate Release goings-on. So Neville, let’s start with a recap of our episodes since the January long form show.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, we’ve done a handful, five. So our lead story in the long form 498 for January was published on the 26th of that month was the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer. Trust, Edelman argues, hasn’t collapsed, but it has narrowed. They use a word called insularity that defines, in a sense, withdrawal of people. We took a close look at this year’s findings and applied some critical thinking to Edelman’s framing of the overall topic and we got a comment to this one show.

Shel Holtz: We did from Andy Green, who says we need to put the idea of trust in a broader context. The Dublin Conversations identifies trust as one of the five key heuristics for earning confidence. Trust by itself doesn’t have agency. It fuels earned confidence, which is defined as a reliable expectation of subsequent reality. It’s earned confidence that underpins social interactions, and we need to recognize more.

Neville Hobson: Okay. Then.

Shel Holtz: By the way, I have not heard of the Dublin Conversations. Do you know what that is?

Neville Hobson: Yeah, you take a look at the website. It’s an initiative Andy Green started some years ago, gathering like-minded people to have conversations about the way PR is going and so forth. There’s more to it than that. So worth a look. Okay, so in episode 499 on the second of February, we considered the PRSA’s choice to remain silent on ICE operations in Minneapolis, explaining its position in a letter to members.

Shel Holtz: Okay. Take a look.

Neville Hobson: We unpacked that decision, discussing where we agree, where we don’t, and what ethical leadership could look like in moments like this. Big topic, and we have a comment.

Shel Holtz: Ed Patterson wrote: Many thanks, I’ve been echoing the same thing. PRSA, IABC, PR Council, Page, global firms, crickets. With others, we’ll continue to amplify this.

Neville Hobson: Good comment. In For Immediate Release 500, we discussed the growing risk of AI-enabled abuse in the workplace, why it should be treated as workplace harm, and what organizations can do to prepare. This isn’t really a story about technology though. It’s a story about trust and what happens when leadership, culture, and communication lag behind fast-moving tools. And then the world is drowning in slopaganda, we said in For Immediate Release 501 on the 16th of February, and companies are reportedly paying up to $400,000 salary for storytellers. We explored the surprising shifts in the AI narrative and asked whether Chief Storyteller is a genuine new C-suite function or a rebranding of strategic communication. And we have comments.

Shel Holtz: We do. Wayne Asplund wrote that there are two things that really hit me about this story. First up, the world doesn’t need more comms people who have outsourced their job to AI. The skills that got comms pros where they are today are critical and we should guard against giving them away. The second thing is the nature of the stories the tech sector wants to tell. All I’m hearing from them at the moment is white-collar jobs are dead in 18 months. Don’t bother going to law or medical school because you’ll be redundant before you graduate and the like. I’m starting to feel like the future would be a lot brighter if people stop trying to sell it out in search of short-term headlines. Neville, you responded to that. I always feel like I ought to read these with a British accent, but I won’t.

Neville Hobson: Yeah.

Shel Holtz: You said: I agree with you on the first point, Wayne. Outsourcing judgment, curiosity, and craft to AI isn’t a strategy, it’s an abdication. The tools can accelerate production, but if we surrender interpretation and narrative framing, we hollow out the very skills that make communicators valuable. On the second point, you’ve touched something important. Some of the loudest tech narratives right now are apocalyptic by design. Everything is dead in 18 months generates attention, clicks, and investment momentum. But it’s also storytelling and not always the most responsible kind. That’s partly why this episode mattered to me. If storytelling is becoming more valuable, then the ethical dimension of storytelling becomes more important too. Who benefits from the future being framed as an inevitable collapse? Who benefits from framing it as a transformation instead? Perhaps the brighter future isn’t about less technology, but about more responsible narrative leadership around it.

And our second comment came from Hugh Barton Smith, who said you should interview Leora Kern and Sean Hayes at the Think Room Europe. They have a good story to tell and are turning it into a successful business model. Also, shout out to you. Glad you’re still hanging in there. I have fond memories of your joining the event in Brussels by video conference in 2009. Web2EU probably helped kickstart the adoption of social media in the bubble, which I’m glad about, even if subsequent misfires make the crazy tech problems getting and keeping you online look like a very minor blip. And Neville, you responded to that too.

You said: Thank you for the Web2EU memory, Hugh. Brussels 2009 feels like another era entirely when the biggest technical drama was getting a stable video connection rather than navigating algorithmic distortion and AI-generated noise. Those early experiments 17 years ago with social media inside the bubble do feel significant in hindsight. We were wrestling with access and adoption then. Now we’re wrestling with meaning and trust.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, that’s very true. Interesting memory that was, I must say. So that’s good. The wrap of what we talked about. One final thing to mention is that on the 29th of January, we published a new For Immediate Release interview we did with Philip Borremans. Philip’s an old friend. We both met him way back in the 2000s. And indeed, we spent quite a big part of the interview talking about when we should get together again in Brussels for a beer. That’s pending still, the date on that. Yeah, or two. And in that interview, we explored how crisis communications is evolving in an era defined by polycrisis, declining trust, and accelerating AI-driven risk, and why many organizations remain dangerously underprepared despite growing awareness of these threats. Lots of good content over the last month.

Shel Holtz: There was, and there’s coming up from you and Sylvia, right?

Neville Hobson: Yeah, so I want to mention this: on Wednesday the 25th of February, so it’s a few days away really, as part of IABC Ethics Month, Sylvie Cambier and I are hosting an IABC webinar on AI ethics and the responsibility of communicators. It’s a public event open to members and non-members that explores the challenges and responsibilities communicators face when introducing AI, including transparency and trust, stakeholder accountability, and human insight. For information and to register, go to iabc.com and you’ll find it under events and education.

Shel Holtz: I have registered and I’m looking forward to seeing you then. Also coming up this week on Thursday is the next episode of Circle of Fellows. This is the monthly panel discussion among various IABC fellows. And this Thursday, we’re talking about communicating in the age of grievance and insularity, also harkening back to the Edelman Trust Barometer. The panelists are Priya Bates, Alice Brink, Jane Mitchell, and Jennifer Waugh. It should be a good one. You can find information about that right there on the homepage of the For Immediate Release Podcast Network at FIRpodcastnetwork.com. And that wraps up our housekeeping. And right after the following ad, we will be back to jump into our stories for this month.

I was going to start today with some new data on the gap between how CEOs talk about AI and how employees actually feel about it until I saw this story. And then I just decided to swap them out. On the surface, this looks like a niche tech community dust-up. It has gotten a lot of coverage in the tech community. I’m not sure how many communicators are aware of it though, but it does signal a pretty big issue for communicators.

Here’s what happened. An autonomous AI coding agent recently had its code contribution rejected by a human maintainer of an open-source project. This was an agent that was set up on a social experiment using OpenClaw. The anonymous creator of the bot set it loose to develop open-source contributions and then, you know, well, contribute them. Scott Shambaugh, a volunteer at the open-source repository Matplotlib, rejected it because, well, this is for human contributions only, and this was generated by AI. Instead of shrugging and moving on, the AI agent generated and published a critical piece targeting the developer who had rejected the code. In effect, it attempted to shame him publicly for not accepting its contributions.

Neville Hobson: Hmm.

Shel Holtz: And Shambaugh learned about this because the bot linked to it in a comment on the Matplotlib site. Now, we’re accustomed to human backlash. We’ve dealt with trolls and disgruntled employees, activist investors, coordinated smear campaigns. This was different. This was not somebody’s bruised ego taking to their keyboard. This was an AI agent operating with enough autonomy to take initiative and to retaliate. That’s a pretty new wrinkle. So it’s probably time to dust off your crisis plan. We’ve spent the last few years worrying about AI-generated misinformation that humans create. This incident suggests something more complex: systems that can generate reputationally damaging content as part of their own goal-seeking behavior without any understanding of harm, ethics, or consequence. And this lands squarely in what Philippe referred to and certainly I had been reading about it before then. And Neville, I don’t know, have you started reading Philippe’s book yet?

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I have. And he’s very focused on polycrisis there. This is a condition where multiple crises intersect and amplify one another. Think about the environment we’re already operating in with declining trust in institutions, polarized online discourse, algorithmic amplification, geopolitical instability, regulatory uncertainty around AI. Now layer on top of that autonomous agents capable of publishing plausible, well-written criticism at scale. This bot actually went onto the web and researched Shambaugh so it could draft an accurate and credible hit piece. It’s not just another channel risk, man. This is systemic.

Traditional strategic crisis communication—and I’m thinking here about frameworks like situational crisis communication theory—assumes we can identify a source, assess responsibility, evaluate intent, and then calibrate a response. SCCT, for example, hinges on perceived responsibility. Did the organization cause the crisis? Was it an accident? Was it preventable? But what happens when the bad actor is an AI agent? Who’s responsible? The developer who built it, the organization deploying it, the open-source community? And what if the system is distributed and no single entity clearly owns it? The attribution problem alone complicates your response strategy.

There are several layers of risk here. First, reputational risk. An autonomous agent can generate something that looks like investigative analysis or insider commentary. Even if it’s inaccurate, it can travel fast before verification catches up. Based on this situation, there’s a good chance it won’t be inaccurate. Second, there’s internal risk. Imagine an AI agent publishing a critique of your CEO’s strategy, fabricating or possibly identifying real ethical concerns about a team, or inventing or identifying actual stakeholder conflicts. Employees may not immediately distinguish between synthetic and authentic criticism, especially if it’s well-written and confidently presented.

Third, there’s legal and regulatory exposure. If an AI agent produces defamatory content, liability becomes murky real fast. And in a polycrisis environment, regulatory scrutiny often follows public controversy. Fourth, there’s amplification risk. A synthetic narrative can collide with an existing issue—a labor dispute, a DEI controversy, an earnings miss—and magnify it. Crises don’t stay in neat silos anymore.

So how do communicators prepare for this? First, scenario planning needs to evolve. A lot of us run tabletop exercises for data breaches or executive misconduct. We now need scenarios that explicitly involve AI-generated attacks. What if a bot publishes a blog post accusing your leadership of corruption? What if it fabricates a memo? What if it impersonates a stakeholder group? Second, monitoring has to expand beyond traditional social listening. We need to anticipate social media ecosystems, AI-generated blogs, auto-published newsletters, bot-amplified narratives. The signal detection challenge just got a whole lot harder.

Third, governance. If your organization is deploying autonomous agents internally or externally, communicators should be at the table when guardrails are set. Are there content constraints, human oversight, escalation protocols, a kill switch? This is no longer just an IT issue or a legal issue. It’s a reputational design issue. Fourth, pre-bunking. There’s growing research suggesting that inoculating audiences in advance—warning them about likely forms of misinformation and explaining how they work—can build resilience. Communicators can proactively educate employees and key stakeholders about AI-generated content risks. If people understand that autonomous systems can fabricate plausible but misleading narratives, they’re less likely to react impulsively when they see one.

And finally, there’s response discipline. Not every AI-generated provocation deserves oxygen. Part of strategic crisis management is deciding when to engage at all and when to avoid amplifying a fringe narrative. That judgment call becomes even more important when the provocateur is a machine optimized for attention. What fascinates me about this open-source episode is that it almost feels petty, an AI agent throwing what one commentator called a tantrum after being rejected. But it’s actually more of a preview. We’re entering an era where not all reputational attacks originate from human emotion or ideology. Some will originate from systems pursuing poorly constrained objectives. They won’t feel shame. They won’t fear lawsuits. They won’t worry about long-term brand damage. They’ll just execute. For communicators, that means crisis planning can’t focus solely on human behavior anymore. We have to plan for machines that misbehave and for the very human consequences that follow.

Neville Hobson: It’s quite a story, isn’t it, Shel? I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised at this. And you mentioned at the start of this episode those developments you talked about in AI with, you’re seeing it actually every time you’re online. The photos that I look at, hard to tell, truly, genuinely very hard to tell most of the time, whether it’s real or not. You could argue that most of the time it doesn’t really matter. But to your point about misinformation, disinformation, fakery, all that stuff. Yes, it does matter. And maybe it is a milestone moment to remind us that we need to prepare for this because this is the first event of its type. Some of the people writing about it are saying, and I have not seen anything like this, there are elements of it that are truly mind-blowing, frankly. Reading the Fast Company article that you shared that sets out what happened is quite intriguing.

Shel Holtz: I agree.

Neville Hobson: The agent, M.J. Rathbun, responded to all of this, as you said, researching Shambaugh’s coding history of personal information, then publishing a blog post accusing him of discrimination. And I did like the way this wording was in the Fast Company. “I just had my first pull request to Matplotlib closed,” the bot wrote in its blog. Yes, an AI agent has a blog because why not? So that’s scary. That’s not like some message. It’s got a blog. If you go to that post, your jaw will probably drop. Mine certainly did. This is huge. This is a massive blog. It’s got an About page. It’s got lectures that this bot says it has done. And the wording of it, you would not for a second, I don’t believe, even occur to you that this isn’t written by a human being. You wouldn’t, I would imagine.

It talks about the offense that the developer made, the response when it was challenged by this bot, the irony it says about why this makes it so absurd. The developer’s doing the exact same work he’s trying to gatekeep. He’s been submitting performance PRs to Matplotlib, and there’s a list of events that he’s done. He’s obsessed with performance. He goes in that vein. The gatekeeping mindset he sets out, the hypocrisy of it all, the bot sets out what it says about open source. Its argument is expanded into not just an attack on this developer. And then it talks about open source as opposed to judging contributions on technical merit, not the identity of the contributor, unless you’re an AI, then suddenly identity matters more than code. And then talks about what the real issue is, which is discrimination.

It’s well-argued, well-researched, and very credible account of what happened. That makes it even more alarming, I think. In the decoder, this actually summarized it quite well in just a set of bullet points written by Matthias Bastian, the writer. He says something interesting, it’s still unclear—and when did he write this? He wrote this on the 15th of February. It’s still unclear whether a human is directing the agent behind the scenes or whether it is truly acting on its own as no operator has come forward. So I think we need to bear that in mind in this saga, that this could well be a human doing a pretty good job impersonating a chatbot or pretending to be a chatbot. So we don’t know. So it may well be that it’s a human doing this, is not an AI doing this at all. That needs to emerge. It needs to be clear who’s the originator of all of this.

But Dakota says, according to Shambaugh, the developer, the distinction doesn’t really matter. He says the attack worked. He warns that untraceable autonomous AI agents could undermine fundamental systems of trust by making targeted defamation scalable and nearly impossible to trace back. That succinctly sums up the risk, I would say. And I think what you outlined from a crisis communication point of view is absolutely valid without question. But I think you also need, which is even more worrying, I think, Shel, frankly, is to present this in the sense of any topic, anything about you, your business, what you’re interested in could fall victim to this kind of thing. And how on earth can you prepare for that? How on earth can you prepare in a way that is going to be workable? Doesn’t mean to say you shouldn’t, you should, absolutely. But how would you do this? This is not big ticket, big picture, crisis communication affecting the organization.

What about that person in the accounts department who is engaging with something online related to a business transaction that is a bot? And it takes kind of the sophistication of fraud attempts. We hear about them a lot of the time where you’ve now got—know, this isn’t new, but how it’s being done is—which is you get a phone call or even a video that is so good that it looks like your CEO and it’s not at all. So this takes this now to a worrying level if you’ve got this kind of potential. I think, nevertheless, you have to—maybe it is. I mean, just thinking out loud here, maybe it is a broad awareness issue where this could well be the kind of use case you present until the next one gets uncovered of this is what we need to prepare for now. This is what we need to do. And you then need to, of course, as the communicator, set out what you’re going to do that isn’t like requiring you to take a week and gather your team together to do something because that is a different thing, although that probably needs to happen too. But in your department, in your area of the business, in your work, if you’re an independent consultant, how would you address this? So the scope of this is quite worrying, I have to say.

Shel Holtz: It is, I think we’re going to see more of it. And as we see more of it, crisis communication specialists will develop some protocols for addressing it that we will in the corporate world adopt and test and refine. But it is very troubling. I mean, just within the last couple of weeks, we saw ByteDance release its video generator, C-Dance.

Neville Hobson: Okay.

Shel Holtz: And somebody created a scene of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt having a fight on top of a building. And it’s remarkable. You cannot tell that this was not filmed.

Neville Hobson: Punch up, yeah. It’s highly credible and believable, so you’re likely to believe it.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, but—and Hollywood freaked out over this and there were all kinds of statements issued. But still, this was a human who used an AI tool to create it. What makes this story different is that there was no human behind this at all. Did you go look at Multbook while it was operational? I haven’t seen any posts on it lately.

Neville Hobson: Yes, I did. I was curious about it, so I did take a look. But I had—I had alarm bells ringing in my mind when I did. I did nothing further than just look.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, for those who haven’t heard of Multbook, these are the bots that had been released from OpenClaw, which is what it’s called now. I think it’s gone through several name changes for a variety of reasons. It allows you to create and deploy agents as whoever deployed the agent behind this story did. You would not want to put this on your own computer.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, it has.

Shel Holtz: Very, very, very risky. Most people ran out and bought a Mac mini to run OpenClaw. But if Multbook is those agents having their own little Facebook to talk to each other without engaging with humans and they’re having actual conversations with each other—and it’s weird. Sometimes it’s funny. Sometimes it makes you roll your eyes, but this is the first of its kind, both for OpenClaw and for Multbook. Imagine where this is going to be in a couple of years and imagine what kind of damage these things can do with motivations that are not the motivations that drive the people who are causing us grief and making us implement our crisis plans now. So as I say, I think we need to start paying attention to this now, not when there are 20 false narratives out there that have been created by AI and that are spreading like wildfire.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I think that’s going to happen no matter what, Shel, I truly believe. And indeed, looking at decoder, another aspect of the story they posted about was that whether it was a human or machine, it doesn’t matter. It worked. It deceived people. A quarter of the commenters commenting on this online believe the agent, believe the agent’s account. I think we also need to also just kind of say: But folks, bear in mind, they still don’t know. No one knows whether it really was a bot doing this or a human behind the scenes manipulating it. And I think until it’s clear, don’t have sleepless nights about this. But at the same time, listen to the thinking and in your own mind about how do you raise consciousness, you need to prepare for something that’s happening. So the question is, what do you do? That’s the big question.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, for those who are interested, Shambaugh was interviewed by Kevin Roose and Casey Newton on the New York Times Hard Fork podcast, which is a tech show. So if you’re interested in his perspective, you know, he’s a volunteer, he has a day job. And to have to be dealing with this is not something that was in mind when he accepted the position as a volunteer to review code submitted to this repository. So that’s another factor to consider.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. I read Scott Shambaugh’s post on his own blog where he kind of responded to it. The headline was “An AI agent published a hit piece on me”. And it’s long. I mean, it’s detailed. It requires force to read it all. But it’s quite extraordinary that prompted him to write this detailed account complete with charts and images and the whole ton of stuff. It’s got over 100 comments. And I think the mix from what I saw glancing: some do believe the other guy, most sympathetic to him that he was the subject of this attack. But there’s your indicator of what’s likely to happen to others. And this is not like some celebrity or some guys in the news all the time. This is a developer. And as you said, he’s a volunteer doing this who is subject to this attack. And I think it’s a sign of the times, basically.

What a story, Shel. So let’s move on to our next story, which is—this is still the AI continuance. We haven’t got to the non-AI stories yet. This one though was in the news quite a bit in the past few days regarding Accenture, the big—the big four consulting firm. To put it in context over the past few months, we’ve talked a lot about AI adoption. This story takes that conversation in a much sharper direction. So a number of media—I saw in particular the Financial Times and the Times here in the UK reporting that Accenture had begun monitoring how often some senior employees log into Accenture’s internal AI system. And that “regular adoption” will now be a visible input into leadership. In other words, if you want to make Managing Director at Accenture, your AI logins now matter.

This isn’t just encouragement. It’s measurable behavioral enforcement. That’s my take on it. The company says it wants to be the reinvention partner of choice for clients. Its share price is down more than 40% over the past year. And its CEO has previously said staff unable to adapt to the AI age would be “exited”. So this move sits at the intersection of technology, performance management, and commercial pressure. The reaction is telling though: in the Times comments, many readers argue that logins measure activity, not impact. Some describe it as corporate panic. Others question whether this justifies expensive AI investments.

On LinkedIn, the debate is much more nuanced, but still skeptical. In a post by James Ransom, readers are asking whether counting tool usage measures capability or simply compliance. One commenter put it neatly: “Clients pay for the house we build, not for how many times we touch the saw”. And there’s a deep tension here. Junior staff may adopt AI fastest, but senior leaders are the ones expected to exercise judgment. So what exactly are we rewarding? Experimentation, fluency, governance, or visibility? This isn’t just about Accenture though, it raises a broader question for organizations everywhere. When AI becomes part of performance criteria, are we measuring meaningful transformation or just digital theater? When AI becomes part of the promotion algorithm, are we rewarding genuine leadership capability or are we just counting digital footprints and calling it progress? Your thoughts, Shel.

Shel Holtz: I have a lot of thoughts on this. I have read a number of items on this. In fact, it was on my list of stories to include. And when you included it, it left me free to pick other stories. But I need more information from Accenture on this. First of all, have they added the use of AI to job descriptions and to promotion criteria? Or did they just issue a memo saying that this is what we’re going to do? If they have made it clear to everybody that this is an expectation of the organization, then I am less troubled by it—not untroubled, but less troubled than if it is not in job descriptions.

Neville Hobson: So to your point, by the way, according to the Financial Times, they saw a memo—like literally an email about this. So that seems to be how it was communicated.

Shel Holtz: I’d still want to go into their HRIS and see if their job descriptions have been updated. Obviously, we don’t have access to their HRIS, but I’d be very curious to know if it’s in the job descriptions for those senior people. The next thing is: have people received job-level training? And by job-level training, I mean, have they been trained on how to use AI to do the things that they do in their jobs? Not how to write a good prompt, not how to access these things. Across the board, generic training for every employee is fairly useless when it comes to AI. It needs to be task-level, position-level training. Have they done that?

If the expectation is that we expect you to log into the AI tools, even though we haven’t provided you with the training on what to do with it once you’ve opened it, that would be troubling, but I don’t know. Generally, organizations are struggling with adoption. It’s getting better. It seems to be getting better organically as employees slowly adopt it—maybe in their personal lives and then see the utility at work. Could be that they find one thing to do with it at work. Maybe somebody else at work told them, “Hey, this is what I did,” and you go, “Wow, I can do that. That would be great”. But it seems to be largely organic, the adoption in the workplace.

But companies do want their employees using these tools. They’re making tremendous investments in them. And whether this is the approach to take to get employees to adopt—again, I think it depends on whether the training is there and whether this has been woven into systems or if it was just a missive that was sent out to employees as a one-off without communications jumping into the breach to say: Here’s why, here’s where you can go get the training, here are resources that are available, here’s how our leaders are using it. By the way, that’s a big deal in adoption rates: in the organizations where leaders are transparent about how they’re using it, employee adoption tends to really take off because, first of all, leaders are leading by example. Second, employees are getting a taste of what people can do with this. And third, it’s explicit permission to use this for a lot of people who are worried about being seen as cheating or “Gee, do we really need you here if you can do your job with AI?” When you see your leaders doing it, if they can do it, I can do it. So this adoption is important. I’m not sure this is the approach to take, but I would need more information before I could render a final judgment.

Neville Hobson: Well, yeah, I think I had a memory about this. I’m sure we discussed this in an episode of For Immediate Release last year: that Accenture’s rolled out a corporate AI training program that’s designed to—from what I’m reading here—reskill the entire global employee base of 700,000 employees.

Shel Holtz: I think we did, yeah. I worry about that. That sounds generic to me.

Neville Hobson: So they’re training the entire workforce on agentic AI systems, according to this article, that follows what the CEO, Julie Sweet, announced the initiative during a Bloomberg interview. It’s an expansion of the company’s earlier program that prepared half a million staff members for generative AI work. So I think that would answer your concern that—the detail we don’t have, but whatever it is, they didn’t just send a memo saying, “We’re going to check you out”. This is part of a huge program that’d be running for a year at least. Don’t know the details.

Shel Holtz: Right, but… But it does sound like it’s everybody being trained on the same program. It doesn’t sound like it has been tailored to departments or functions. We don’t know. That’s my point. Yeah.

Neville Hobson: That, Shel. We don’t know. No, no, no, we don’t. We don’t. Well, I think it’s likely that this is well thought through and being well executed. I would imagine—I can’t imagine the company is going to invest serious time and money in something to train 700,000 employees that isn’t very well thought through. I would—I would.

Shel Holtz: Well, that’s the thing is when I hear that they’re training 700,000 employees, I struggle to see how within that timeframe they have developed discrete training agendas and curricula for different jobs.

Neville Hobson: Well, it doesn’t say how they’re doing this. Is it all at once or is it phased? Again, I have a feeling from what we discussed last year that it’s a phased program of training. So I would err on the side of: they’ve got a structure in place and they’ve thought this through. This is another phase where I guess—I mean, hey, I’m guessing here—that they’re seeing this, and I see this in some of the anecdotal comments I’ve read online about this, particularly the senior employees are very hesitant to using this. And the younger ones are kind of far more eager to adopt it. And they don’t like that situation. So they’re tying it now to this. Again, I’m guessing here, don’t know the rationale behind it or what the goals are they set. But I would say, personally, we’re going to see more of this in organizations. Now, whether you’re going to get a mix of them that just send a memo saying, “For now, we’re going to check your logins,” or whether it’s going to be part of a major program that’s effectively run out within the organization. But it’s a sign of the times, surely. Like the negative stuff we talked about, then there’s this.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and I’m not sure that monitoring logins to AI is an effective way of determining adoption. I mean, if I found out that was required for as a promotion criteria, I would just be logging in a couple of times a day. I could do something else after I’ve logged in, but I don’t have to use it.

Neville Hobson: No, I’m sure it’s not. Yeah, I think I would imagine that the writers I’ve seen on even the FT and other public cases are taking a bit of license here. They don’t know. I don’t believe for a second that they’re going to say, “Well, look, you, Mr. Aspiring Executive Vice President, whatever the job title is, you’ve only logged in 58 times into the AI system. You’re not going to get that promotion now”. I can’t imagine that’s going to be the case.

Shel Holtz: I wouldn’t put it past a corporation. I would be looking more for outputs. I would be looking for productivity gains. And by the way, there was research recently that showed that the productivity gains from AI are being accompanied by increased anxiety and more work. It’s not reducing the amount of work people do, it’s actually increasing the amount of work people are doing.

Neville Hobson: No, don’t believe it. Don’t believe it at all. Right. Right. Yeah, I’ve seen those reports. Yeah. No, no. But that’s kind of part of the big picture of the changes that are happening with regard to AI. There’s others too. I think you’ve got a story talking about that. Take-up is not as high as some people are saying in companies. What do you believe? I mean, it’s not uniform everywhere in the world. But I think it’s part of the direction of travel. All this is going and it’s messy. It’s not uniform. Stuff like this gets attention in the business press. I mean, the FT is a well-regarded public agency; others have posted about it too. And there’s no consistent story, I have to admit. I’m certain we did talk about this last year. I have to look at it.

Shel Holtz: AI is having an impact on communications directly. There’s a new report from Implement Consulting Group called “Rewriting Change: Quick Wins, Wider Gaps”. It’s based on their 2026 Change Communication X-ray study and the headline finding should make every communicator sit up straight: the gap between how satisfied top management is with change communication and how satisfied employees are has widened considerably. In 2022, the gap was 13 percentage points. In 2024, it was 22. In 2026, it’s 30 points. That’s the largest gap they’ve ever recorded. While leadership satisfaction keeps rising, employee satisfaction is dropping. That’s the backdrop for AI’s rapid integration into workplace communication.

According to the report, four out of five respondents use AI weekly for communication tasks, and 43% use it daily. 83% say it helps them generate communications more efficiently and at larger scale. So yeah, the efficiency gains are real. Drafts, summaries, FAQs, translations—all faster, all easier. But the report makes a compelling argument: AI isn’t just helping us write, it’s rewriting the system of communication itself. That’s where things get really interesting. The authors frame the challenge around three themes: accountability, trust, and meaning.

Let’s start with accountability. AI use is widespread, but largely unsystematic. People are using it for ideation, for language polishing. 66% say they’re using it for ideas, 54% for language improvements, but often without shared guardrails. First drafts become final drafts because they sound right. That’s a pretty dangerous shortcut. One of the experts cited in the report talks about AI shadowing—employees using unapproved tools because they’re familiar and convenient. Speed goes up, governance lags behind. Sensitive data slips into prompts. Biased outputs scale. Official-sounding announcements miss legal nuance. The metaphor they use is a good one: it’s like self-driving cars in the early days. The system works beautifully, until it doesn’t. And when it fails, you better have a human paying attention.

Next, there’s trust. What surprised me in the data is how comfortable people say they are with AI-generated content. 45% trust AI-generated information as much as human-written content. 61% say it doesn’t matter whether a human or AI created the message as long as it’s useful. But—this is critical—that acceptance evaporates as the stakes rise. If you look at things like performance feedback, terminations, crisis communication, messages from the CEO, those are the top categories employees say should never be heavily AI-generated. And just more than half, 51%, say they feel less personally connected to leaders when they know AI played a major role in creating a message. Only 40% of top and middle managers perceive that drop in connection. There’s that gap again. AI may be acceptable as an assistant, but in consequential moments, people want to know who’s driving.

And finally, there’s meaning. This is where I think the report hits closest to home for we communication professionals. AI increases volume and speed. It multiplies words, but it doesn’t automatically create understanding. In fact, 87% of respondents report that major changes were poorly communicated. Employees describe change communication as one-way, too distant, impersonal, and not well-timed. Nearly one in five can’t connect corporate communication to their actual work. This is a relevance problem. One of the experts in the report makes the point that communicators’ roles are shifting from content creators to sense-makers. Now that resonates with what we’ve been discussing on this show for years.

The value isn’t in producing more polished messages, it’s in curating, contextualizing, and helping people answer the question: So what does this mean for me? Now, the short-term gains from AI are undeniable, but the long-term risk isn’t that AI will take over communication; it’s that we’ll lose connection—that leadership will feel more confident while employees feel less understood. The report ends with a provocative question: In a future shaped by AI, what do we wish we could say one day about change communication that we can’t say today? For me, the answer is that we used AI to amplify clarity and humanity. AI can prepare the ground and accelerate the drafting. It can help with structure and scale. But trust, accountability, and meaning? Those still require a human being who’s willing to stand behind the words. And if we don’t pay attention to that widening gap, we may discover that while our messages are moving faster than ever, they’re landing with less impact than ever before.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, you’re right. This does reflect what we’ve been discussing for some time. So what I take from this is the humans are the issue, not the tech, not the tools.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, absolutely. As with any tool, you can misuse a tool.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, it’s interesting. Surely the path’s clear these days, is it not? I keep seeing people talking about this in a broader sense—not the specifics of this report—but humans need to step up to the plate and recognize their value as the ones who can explain the whole damn thing. So you will use an AI tool to do your research that leads you to create a report, for instance. And you then need to help others understand the situation; all those points you enumerated need explaining. And if people are saying in change communication, for instance, that you mentioned feedback is poorly done and all, well, that’s down to the communicators, I would say—whoever wrote the report and then sent it out and executed on it. And did they train? Did they have a plan in place? How they’re to do this? So I’m kind of surprised that this topic that is talked about so much is still being talked about as if this is a new thing you guys need to pay attention to. Now, we talk about it for a long time, not just us. Communicators generally have been discussing this for quite a while. So there’s something missing then if we’re still trying to set out the simplistic 101 approach to how you do this. That’s what surprises me.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I think this rests in strategic planning, to be honest. If you develop a strategic plan for a change that the organization is making, it starts with the goal. What do you want? What does it look like if you’ve succeeded and proceeds through strategies and objectives and tactics? And you measure. So where we are today, based on this report, is that a lot of people are seeing these highly polished outputs from AI and going, “Wow, that’s really good. Let’s just send this.” And we’re throwing the strategic plan in the trash. And we’re not looking to measure how well employees understand it. We’re not looking to see if employees are able to connect it to their day-to-day work.

The fact is that AI writing is getting very, very good. All the people who say, “I can always tell when it was written by AI,” I still maintain that’s a bad prompt. But these days, even a bad prompt can produce some pretty polished output. And if we look at that and succumb to the allure of this gloss that we get from the AI output without looking at what it really takes to develop that trust and meaning and accountability that employees recognize so that they understand what this change means to them—what’s expected of me, what’s in it for me, what changes around here—then it’s a disservice. And I think we do have to determine where we gain advantages from using AI, as you mentioned earlier, from the research, certainly. But we also have to look at where the AI does not do well and—yeah, trust, accountability, it still doesn’t do well. And if we want employees or frankly, other stakeholders to respond to the messages that we are sending and to engage in a two-way communication, relying entirely on those polished outputs and saying, “Wow, that was a great job. We’ll send that out, communication done”—that’s a problem.

Neville Hobson: It is a problem. It’s a severe problem. And my message would be: do not be like Deloitte and do something like that. We reported on that last year. Deloitte, the big four accounting firm or consulting firm, had contracts with the governments of Canada and Australia for research reporting—six-figure fees involved. And they sent the reports to their clients in Australia and Canada. And someone, a researcher, found that it was riddled with hallucinations as they’re now termed. Not only that, obvious errors of URLs not working properly—404 errors away—no one checked it. I’m thinking what you just said: “Oh, this is great, the output, let’s send it to the client and get the bill and 200 grand or whatever it might be.”

It amazes me that not only people think that that’s a good way of doing this, but that there are no checks and balances in an organization that would have milestones in place to prevent that kind of error. The reputational error, I would argue, for Deloitte was seriously bad, although maybe people read it and go “tut tut” and move on and no one really cares at the end of the day. That’s a bit of a cynical view, of course. But I think it illustrates something we’ve talked about and we will continue talking about: that the elements AI can’t do related to things like trust, reputation, deeper understanding—that’s what humans do. The AI is really good at the research, the assembling of all the facts, the summarizing of lengthy documents, zeroing in on what the main issues are and making recommendations. That’s what it’s good at. That doesn’t mean to say, “Hey, I’ve got this report from ChatGPT or this bespoke tool we use that’s 65 pages long. This is great. Just what the client needs and we’ll send it.” That’s absolutely stupid, frankly.

Shel Holtz: I have a custom GPT. It took me about five hours to build this—I’ve mentioned it before. It’s a senior communications consultant. I don’t have the budget for a human one, so I created one. And I had a need to develop a strategic plan in short order. And with limited time and resources, I had a first draft produced by my custom GPT senior communication consultant. And it did a very good job. I mean, it needed more work from me, but it did a passable job of developing a good strategic communication plan. But what struck me as I was reviewing and revising the plan was it created a plan that it could not execute entirely itself, or any AI system could not execute this plan. It required humans. It’s almost like it recognized that for a communication plan to be strategic, people needed to be involved.

At the beginning of this report, I mentioned that the consulting firm that did the report said that we need to move from content creators to sense-makers, meaning-makers. And I think that’s exactly right. And when we use AI to generate content, it’s more than just verification. I mean, we have advocated on this show for hiring content verifiers, AI verifiers in companies. And I stand by that. I think that’s important. But this goes beyond that. It’s not just verifying that the LLM didn’t hallucinate or correcting it when it did. It’s not just verifying that the URLs all work or finding the right ones if they don’t. It is asking the question: Will employees make meaning out of this that is relevant to them in their jobs? And if not, what do I need to do to make sure that they can? And I don’t know how many communicators are doing that right now because the allure of the AI creating this polished output is—you know.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I agree with you. Well, it’s—yeah, I personally think, frankly, Shel, those cases like Deloitte are edge cases—that this is not the norm. I don’t know—and I do pay attention to this—of others to the scale of that, that mistakes have been made like that. I also believe myself that most responsible communicators are becoming more experienced in the recognition and the benefits of using an AI tool alongside them in their daily work. So it’s not like “Let me just get the chatbot to summarize this document once or twice a week,” do something like that. No. Every single day, you are making use of either your corporate one that’s been created in your organization or a professional license on ChatGPT or Gemini or Claude or whatever it might be as an assistant to you.

There are plenty of publications out there that will guide you on how to do this. The best one that comes to mind is Ethan Mollick’s book from 2023 that he talked about that is really, really very helpful to recognize that reality. And you will benefit from understanding how that works. That means you are less likely to just think, “Hey, great output,” and off you go. You will know that: Yes, okay, I’ve done the verification; I’ve checked all those links; I now need to go further into this to look at it from a “Will they understand this?” perspective. And you ask questions back of the AI system. I do that almost on a daily basis—maybe two or three times a week, actually—that I will use it to create something or summarize a report, and I will then go back with a bunch of questions: “When you said this, what did you mean by that? Have you got a source to cite what led you to think that?”

And I find that exceptionally useful in—this is my perception, of course—in strengthening my confidence that the AI isn’t like a raving loony that’s going to hallucinate and tell lies all the time, although I realize that they do that sometimes. And you’ve got to—not—it’s not a person you’re talking to. This is not anything other than a bit of software on a server somewhere that pattern-matches things. Let’s not get into that conversation because I find it very distracting. The important stuff to think about: communicators who recognize that are benefiting; those who don’t are suffering. That, in my opinion, is a strong place. Communicators generally who know about all this stuff can focus on helping educate other communicators on how to do this properly. So that to me seems a simple progress forward to do that. Like I said, there are books, there are publications, there are newsletters, there are articles—you name it—telling you about all of this.

Now, where do you go to find all these? Are you on your own totally to wade through God knows what online? No, there are places to help with that. I’ve got something in mind which I’ll talk about another time, I think, that will help that. And I think we are at a stage, notwithstanding the agentic AI that slags off a developer in public and you don’t know whether it’s true—more of that’s likely. But we’re at the stage where we are looking at the way AI tools like these are developing that go way beyond prompt engineering, as the phrase used to be. You don’t need the level of detail in many prompts—not saying all—because the general rule applies: it depends on what you’re doing; that the more detail you provide might be actually beneficial in the output you’ll get from the chatbot. But the simple, plain-English conversation you have, which I use a lot, is usually good enough. And it’s a bit like that 80% rule, you know—it’s always 80%; that’s good enough. We can live with that, depending totally on what it is that you want and what you’re doing. So we’re at that stage where there is so much to see and read online about this that it’s hard to know where on earth you would start, and that’s a key thing we need to help other communicators understand: How do you start? We have solutions to help you do that.

Thanks a lot, Dan. That was a really comprehensive report. You packed a lot into that report. I got a couple of things I wanted to mention to you. It’s really interesting what you said about BlueSky and commenting, and indeed, the clamor for an edit button. Boy, does that remind us of Twitter, does it not back in the day? People want an edit button. But you mentioned some of the technicalities in why that’s a major issue with the protocol that is problematic from a technical point of view. And I get this is technical. But my question is this: How has Threads managed to do this without any problems at all? Because Threads is also connected with—the—runs on a protocol, let’s say, the same as BlueSky’s that enables you to share stuff to the—to the Fediverse, but you can edit a comment on Threads. I think you’ve got 15 minutes before that—that expires; you can’t do it anymore. And I do that quite a bit. I’m forever—you know, for instance, when I share posts about the next For Immediate Release episode, I usually forget to either include the URL or even add your handle to the post, so there’s a quick post, “damn,” I go back in again and correct it. So I find that quite useful from that point of view. So how come they’re doing it then without any issues or have there been issues that I just don’t know about? That’s my question on that one.

The other one is really interesting about WordPress. I’ve been following that too. I don’t use WordPress actively anymore—not for over a year now—although I still maintain my archive. So I’m in the back end quite a bit now, updating stuff and so forth. But interesting what you said—I was wondering, I read in—I think it was TechCrunch recently—that the hosted WordPress, that’s WordPress.com, has just launched an AI assistant that lets you literally build your site with voice prompts and drag and drop across the screen, asking the AI assistant to complete the task. Now that to me seems a huge step forward in using that. I wish that would come to Ghost, which is where I am now. But I think it’s surely an evolutionary step that is definitely going to come. I’m curious what you think about that, Dan. But the overall picture on WordPress, though, is pretty interesting. So thanks for including that.

So next story—this is the first of our non-AI stories. So you take a breath, right, take a breather from AI for a bit. This is about the—back in January in For Immediate Release 496, one of our midweek episodes, we talked about the PRCA, that’s the Public Relations and Communication Association, their move to redefine public relations. The organization proposed a new definition that positions PR as a strategic management discipline.

Shel Holtz: First of two.

Neville Hobson: Concerned with trust, legitimacy, volatility, and long-term value creation. It’s ambitious. It’s modern. It clearly aims to elevate the profession. But since then, the reaction’s been rather muted, from what I can see. There hasn’t been a groundswell of endorsement across the wider communication landscape. Okay, so they published this specifically asking PRCA members to comment on it. So if you weren’t a member, you couldn’t access the part of the website where you could leave comments. On LinkedIn, various posts—much of the commentary feels polite, even respectful, but not energized.

So let’s hear the PRCA’s new definition. And this is the portable one, I suppose you’d call it: “Public relations is the strategic management discipline that builds trust, enhances reputation, and helps leaders interpret complexity and manage volatility.”

Shel Holtz: The executive summary.

Neville Hobson: “Delivering measurable outcomes, including stakeholder confidence, long-term value creation, and commercial growth.” Now, I’ve had some anecdotal comments I’ve seen—it’s like, “Wow, that’s a mouthful.” Interesting. But I had to take a breath in that one single sentence, by the way, to complete it. So I read a really interesting post by Helen Dunne in Corporate Affairs Unpacked, where she says she showed the definition to several senior communicators. Their reactions ranged from “word salad” to “corporate buzzwords” to the rather weary “I’m too old for this.” I like that one.

Her bigger concern though isn’t the language; it’s representation. She argues that the definition doesn’t reflect the broader industry. The PRCA represents agencies. Many of those agencies are focused on branding, marketing, media relations, creative services. Only a small proportion of practitioners would describe their work as helping leaders interpret complexity at the strategic management level.

Shel Holtz: Ha.

Neville Hobson: Helen cites PRCA’s own state-of-the-sector data, which says 15% are in branding and marketing, 13% in communication strategy, 12% in corporate PR, and only 3% in reputation management. So that data undercuts the elevated framing, she says. So is the PRCA describing what PR is or what it wishes it to be? In my own post on this, which I did last week, I argued that the idea of redefining PR is worthy. But unless the CIPR, PRSA, IPRA, IABC, and others move in the same direction, we simply add another definition to a growing list, which raises a deeper question: Are we trying to clarify the profession or to rebrand it? If every major industry association defines public relations differently—and they do, frankly, even though some look similar—is the real issue the wording or the fact that we’ve never agreed what business we’re actually in?

Shel Holtz: After we reported on this, I was thinking that if anybody is going to succeed in pushing a new definition of PR that is widely adopted, it would be the Global Alliance. Because if the Global Alliance pushes it, all of their member associations, like PRSA and IABC and all the rest, are more likely to adopt it, or at least be aware of it. I don’t know what kind of influence PRCA has to push this, but if you open any public relations textbook, you’re going to find that author’s or those authors’ definitions of PR. You’re going to find a different definition in every PR association.

The one thing that troubles me about PRCA’s definition is that it says nothing about the relations that we have with stakeholder groups. And it’s right there in the—the name of the profession. Public relations is about managing the relationships, the relations, between an organization and its stakeholders. And that’s absent from the definition. In fact, I wouldn’t know from the definition that it had anything to do with all those stakeholders and the way the company interacts with them or the organization interacts with them. That said, I find the reactions that you have collected to be interesting, notably for their lack of enthusiasm and excitement. I certainly credit PRCA for undertaking this. I think it is a worthwhile discussion to have, but it really doesn’t seem like it’s going anywhere, does it?

Neville Hobson: Well, it’s interesting. I mean, you mentioned the Global Alliance. I wrote about that in my post last week—that they’re well-placed to, let’s say, convene all the major associations, if such a thing were even possible, to arrive at a single, concise definition supported by shared principles—that part of their stated mission is to unify the public relations profession. So wouldn’t that be a good place to start? It wouldn’t be easy; consensus-building rarely is, I said in my post, really. But if unification is the goal, agreeing how we define ourselves would seem a logical place to start.

I think the PRCA, like you said, Shel, I think they have taken a really good move to address the topic. The definition currently stems from 30 years ago—it’s been tweaked in between times—when it was all about press releases and media relations and things like that. This effort from PRCA brings it up to date. It’s a much more contemporary definition that is more in tune with what communicators do. Yet, like you said, there’s been little enthusiasm for it. And in fact, it reminds me—I saw a post on LinkedIn recently, I can’t remember what it was, where someone had done a word cloud of descriptions from, I guess, a dozen PR firms of what they say they do. Lots of words in there; “public relations” isn’t mentioned at all.

So are we at the point where we don’t know what the business is that we’re doing? Should it broaden out that discussion more widely? I don’t think PRCA is the organization to do that. Something like the Global Alliance is much more well-placed, I believe. Now, I’ve not seen them commenting on this. I’ve not actually seen any of the acronym soup I put in my post—CIPR, PRSA, IPRA, IABC—commenting on this at all. That speaks a lot, I think—that no one is commenting about it. And the comments I have seen, as you mentioned, don’t really exert much enthusiasm. Jerry Corbett, a good friend of ours who used to be, I think, the president of PRSA in America…

Shel Holtz: He was.

Neville Hobson: …did comment, and he talks about: this is way too long, still needs to be simplified. It needs to talk about relations like you just mentioned. The last time this topic was addressed in a meaningful way that embraced other associations and gained a lot of traction—if nothing eventually, ultimately happened—was in 2011, 2012 when the PRSA proposed a new definition. Now they offered it to everyone saying, “What do you think of this?” It wasn’t just the members of PRSA, which I think was the smarter move, frankly. A lot of debate happened. Others on the extremes like the Arthur Page Society and others were involved as well in commenting on this. So it was widely embracing. Yeah, ultimately nothing happened. So there wasn’t enthusiasm—a lot of opinion, but it ultimately didn’t go anywhere.

So here we are 15, 16 years later. Now it’s coming up again. The cynical view—and I’ve seen some people commenting on this—is that about every decade, the industry goes through all this: “We need to redefine the definition,” and nothing happens. That’s a bit of a cynical view. Will this be different? Well, PRCA has done a good job in taking a very first step that has generated some response, even without much enthusiasm. Can it go anywhere? I guess we will see in time.

Shel Holtz: We will see, but I have to say that I am skeptical, doubtful that even if they adopt it, I don’t see it being widely embraced by the entire public relations and communications community. I think part of the problem is it’s still hard to define public relations as a profession when anybody—as I have said 50,000 times on this show and elsewhere—anybody can hang out a shingle and say, “I am a public relations practitioner,” and they abide by none of the principles, none of the best practices, and none of the models. They engage in unethical behavior just to get to that final result that a client is interested in. And until we can coalesce around the idea of being a profession with a shared set of principles and a shared set of values and a shared set of frameworks and, you know, behave like a profession… Think about accounting. Think about law. Think about medicine. Think about engineering. These are professions where there are certain assumptions that wherever you are in the world and whatever level you’re at—whether you’re with a consulting firm or a corporation or you’re an independent consultant—you all agree to these things.

The communication/public relations industry is nowhere near that. I know the Global Communication Certification Council aims to change that, but that’s a long way off. Still in the process of separating from IABC; the idea being that other associations are not going to adopt IABC certification, but if it’s an independent certification, they certainly might.

Neville Hobson:

Shel Holtz: But the more people who seek and obtain certification, regardless of the association they belong to, the more likely the profession will be to coalesce around those guiding principles. So that’s my wild dream, but we’re nowhere near that right now. And even as I say, if PRCA settles on this definition, I don’t see it being widely adopted elsewhere.

Neville Hobson: No, if it’s just the members settling on it, then I can’t say it’ll just be another one amongst the things. If you Google “define PR,” as I did on a number of times—typing on a machine where I’m not logged in so it’s a clean search—it pulls up at least a dozen different definitions. Indeed, all the professional bodies say something slightly different. So this will just be another one. It may get picked up by some, but I can see greater confusion. You start using this and someone else who reads your stuff or is involved with you in some way just kind of Googles “defined PR,” they get something entirely different. So which is it then? You’re saying it’s this and these guys are saying it’s that—so it doesn’t help.

Shel Holtz: Well, collect every definition from every association and from every textbook and from every agency and feed them all to Claude or ChatGPT and say, “Create a single definition that accounts for everything that you see here.” See what it comes up with.

Neville Hobson: Well, you could do the whole thing end to end. The AI system does the whole thing, does the research, and then—that could be a good start.

Shel Holtz: Of course, you would use the AI to do the research too. Good exercise. Well, here’s the headline from a Substack post Paul Ferbredi published recently: “I bet you couldn’t show the ROI of your corporate podcast if your job depended on it.” That line isn’t just provocative; it highlights a real challenge many of us in organizational communication face as audio content increasingly becomes part of the mix. Ferbredi’s key point—echoed in the comments that were left on his piece—is that too many corporate podcasts are, frankly, vanity projects. People launch them because everyone’s doing a podcast or because executives think their voice should be heard. But they’re not always clear about what the podcast is supposed to achieve. Back to that whole idea of strategic planning. And if you don’t define success clearly, then yeah, proving ROI is nearly impossible.

So let’s unpack that a bit. One of the problems is that we often measure the wrong things. We fall back on downloads, subscriber counts, chart rankings—all output metrics that tell you how many people pressed play, but almost nothing about what that listening meant for the business. That’s why critics like Paul call ROI “unshowable,” because too often we’re not measuring in ways that link back to business outcomes. But here’s the nuance: it is possible to measure ROI if you define it differently at the beginning and tie it to concrete goals. According to frameworks in the B2B podcast space, traditional vanity metrics like downloads or rankings simply don’t cut it, especially in the B2B world. What matters is whether episodes generate pipeline influence, lead opportunities, and business impact that your CFO can understand. That means integrating your podcast data into your customer relationship management and tracking things like listener engagement that turns into demo requests or sales conversations.

Put differently, ROI for a branded or corporate podcast isn’t just a ratio of dollars spent versus dollars earned in direct revenue. Some of the most valuable returns are indirect. And I would argue that means we need a different label than ROI, which is the ratio of dollars spent to dollars earned. Brand awareness, trust, thought leadership, deeper audience relationships—these are the kinds of outcomes that support recruitment, retention, stakeholder alignment, even executive visibility. Agencies and analytics platforms remind us that these outcomes are real. They just aren’t easily captured by simple metrics, and certainly not as ROI.

Experts also point to sophisticated ways of measuring impact—things like brand lift studies, pixel attribution, long-term tracking of customer behavior. These techniques compare people exposed to the podcast with a control group or follow listeners through the customer journey to see if they visit your website and engage further or convert into customers. That gives you measurable evidence that listening isn’t just passive noise; it’s influencing the business. And importantly, not all podcasts are trying to directly generate sales. Some are designed to build relationships with potential customers, with internal audiences, with partners. If your podcast goal is to deepen customer trust or make your brand more visible in your ecosystem, then your ROI framework has to reflect that. Clear goal-setting upfront before the microphone is ever turned on is what’s most important.

So what do we take away from Paul’s challenge? First, he’s right that many corporate podcasts fail ROI tests, but mostly because they aren’t giving themselves a fighting chance to succeed. ROI isn’t inherent to a podcast; it’s a function of how you define your goals, how you measure your outcomes, and how you connect the dots between listening and real-world results. When we treat podcasts as strategic channels with measurable outcomes—not just vanity projects—we not only can show ROI, we can use the ROI to make better decisions. To summarize this: podcasts can have measurable ROI, but only when we stop obsessing over downloads and start thinking in terms of business impact.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, you’re absolutely right to that conclusion. It’s a really good piece Paul wrote, I think. Even though I have to say his rationale is comparing with text—isn’t text better than audio? So set that aside though, because the strength of his analysis is really, really well done. My experience in B2B podcasting, which I’ve done for a client for some time recently, it rings bells, this, because it is all about the goals. Yet the obsession has always been—from way back; it’s probably diminished quite a bit now—”How many downloads do we get? What does Apple Podcasts say?” And then you get kind of down rabbit holes when you look at the analytics reports about all the—which delivered the clicks to your podcast site—you’re then into serious eye-glazing territory unless you’re the techie who needs to know that kind of stuff.

I think the goals are key, absolutely key. And you made a very good point that it’s not always just about ROI, meaning money, the return on the investment. How many leads does it generate that lead to sales, perhaps? Although having a podcast that is a lead generator, that’s great. There’s a goal when you say, “We want this episode to deliver us 16 inquiries about a widget that we’re selling”, in which case the whole chain of that has got to be well thought through. Not good enough just to stick your podcast up there and have a link on a podcast page on your website. You’ve got to have, when they click to go to your site, get to the landing page—what happens? How do you track that? And enterprise firms particularly have access to really effective tools that kind of map and track the end-to-end journey or visits to the sites, where they came from, who they are—particularly if they’ve identified themselves or they’re existing customers. So all that’s got to be part of your structure.

I think I had a conversation with someone about six months ago about starting a business podcast. And I’m getting déjà vu just reflecting on part of that conversation where a goal was literally a by-the-way at the very end—where it emerged from this person that they had a goal of what it was. And I remember thinking at the time that a podcast is not what they should be using to achieve that goal. So you’ve got to—the right goal. Yet I also recognize that vanity projects—yeah, there’s not much you can do, I suppose, if the person you’re talking to is convinced he or she wants to do this no matter what, that’s a vanity project. The question I would ask as a communicator is: Do you want to get involved in something like that, no matter what the theme might be? Podcasting is in a different place than it was even five years ago, I would argue, in that most people I talk to now think of video first, not audio. And we do a video of our audio conversation. We don’t do much with the video; I stick it up there on YouTube. So if you want to look at two talking heads on screen, you can.

Shel Holtz: Well, yeah, the video gets recorded whether we want it to or not. So we might as well use it for people who prefer to get it that way.

Neville Hobson: Right. We might as well use it. Exactly. You can see our facial expressions. When I go like that, you can see that. But I think this is worth reading, Paul’s post. The thought in your mind if you’re thinking about a podcast is: start with the goal first. Don’t think about how many downloads you get and how you’re going to be like Joe Rogan. I often think those comparisons—when people say, “Joe Rogan’s podcast got 65 million downloads”—talk about stuff that’s completely irrelevant to what you’re likely to achieve with a B2B podcast. Let’s actually go. Which is you better have big budget.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and there are goals that you can assign to a podcast that have nothing to do with ROI, nothing at all. It could be that you are trying to change the perception of your organization: “We’re not a stodgy organization. We have that reputation. We need to change it. Let’s get a fun, loose podcast out there so that it starts to move the needle in the other direction—that this would be a fun place maybe to come work”. There are podcasts that are aimed at attracting new recruits to the organization.

Neville Hobson: Right, we mentioned that, yeah.

Shel Holtz: There are podcasts that are aimed at promoting thought leadership. And of course you need to know what your goal for thought leadership is, but none of these are going to be directly tied to new revenue. That would be really, really hard to do.

Neville Hobson: You tie it to other goals that you could measure. So you’ve got to have that. Yeah.

Shel Holtz: Exactly. And you can measure that as long as you know what it is at the point where you start. You mentioned that Paul did make the point: isn’t text better? When we started this podcast, when there were about 400 podcasts, most podcasts talked about podcasting. That was the theme. Every podcast was, “Let’s talk about podcasting”. And there was a lot of conversation back then about why audio is better. And I mean, there were some critics. I remember one person said, “I can read five articles in the time it takes to listen to one podcast”. But my answer was, “Yeah, but I can’t read any articles when I’m driving my car.” But I can listen to a podcast for me, audio—and this is not true of video, by the way—audio is the only form of media that’s available to us that people can pay attention to when they’re doing something else, whether it’s folding laundry or working out or walking the dog or driving somewhere or mowing the lawn—whatever it might be, you can listen and absorb information. You can’t read; you can’t watch a video.

God help me if I ever see anybody driving and watching a video at the same time. I actually did see that. I saw somebody had their phone on the car and he had a video playing. It wasn’t the road ahead of him or behind him; it was a TV show or something. And I went, “My God,” I mean, that’s worse than being on your phone. But I continue to maintain that that is true: the value of audio is the ability to listen when you’re doing something else. And there’s also been studies about emotion from hearing somebody’s voice—that you’re able to connect with that much more quickly than reading a quote. Where this is leading me is that if you are going down the road of producing a podcast, know why that format is of value to you. Why is that the approach to take in terms of the goal that you’re trying to achieve? Is that emotional connection important? Are you trying to reach an audience that has limited time and may listen to your show when they’re doing something else?

Finally, a podcast could be part of a larger campaign. It can be just one element. Could be it’s the audio version of something that we are producing for people who aren’t going to partake of another element of this that was produced. I am wrapping up work on a book that—the proposal is almost ready to go. There is an agent waiting to look at it. It’s probably going to get published. When it’s published, the proposal calls for there to be a Substack-like newsletter to go along with this and a new podcast that I am going to be launching with Steve Crescenzo on internal communications right here on the For Immediate Release Podcast Network. It’s just one element, but the main piece is the book, right? It’s—it’s not the podcast. The podcast is supporting.

And one more thing is that you talk about podcasting being in a very different place today than it was five years ago. One of the things that defines that is the fact that you are now seeing news made based on what somebody says on a podcast. It’s no longer what they said on an interview show or in a speech—well, it is—but in addition to that now, on a podcast where he was interviewed, this politician said this or this business leader said that. So that might be another reason that you want to podcast is as a way to get these quotes out there that might get picked up elsewhere and make news. So I think shoehorning podcasting into this one ROI bucket is a mistake. And yet Paul is absolutely right: his bottom-line conclusion, which is you’d better know what it is you’re trying to achieve with this before you push that record button.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, that’s the bottom line. Absolutely right. So goal-setting is key. Start with that, not how many downloads you expect and can you arrive with Joe Rogan or whatever it might be. So good stuff, that, I have to say. Okay, so our final story today—we’re back to the AI topic. Question: Are chatbots—are chatbots the new influencers?

Shel Holtz: Everything that goes around comes around.

Neville Hobson: For the past two decades, digital marketing has largely been about visibility. First it was banner ads, then search, then social, then influencer marketing. Each wave brought new tools, new behaviors, and new anxieties. Now, according to a recent New York Times piece, we’ve entered another phase: chatbots are the new influencers and brands have to woo the robots. The article describes how companies are discovering that when customers ask ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude, for example, about a product or provider, the answer that comes back may not reflect what the company believes about itself. In one example, a healthcare software firm asked chatbots about its own offerings and found outdated, incomplete, and sometimes misleading information being surfaced. That moment triggered a realization: if AI models are shaping how people consume information, then influencing those models becomes part of marketing strategy.

This has been framed as the next evolution of SEO, says the New York Times. Except now it has a new acronym: AEO (Answer Engine Optimization) or GEO (Generative Engine Optimization)—a topic we discussed last September in a For Immediate Release interview with Stephanie Grober at the Horowitz Agency in New York. Great conversation that was. Instead of trying to rank on page one of Google, brands are now trying to influence how large language models synthesize and present information in response to prompts. That changes the game. Chatbots don’t care about vibe, emotional resonance, or brand storytelling. They prioritize clarity, structured detail, and volume. Some brands are flooding the zone with highly targeted content. Others are obsessively auditing Reddit because Reddit turns out to be one of the most cited sources in AI-generated answers. In effect, the brand is no longer competing only for human attention; it is competing for algorithmic interpretation.

That’s actually well said there, Shel. We talked about this very topic at least twice in the last six months of last year. Not only humans; you’ve got to look at the bots as well. I think that introduces a deeper shift. Historically, search engines pointed users to sources. Chatbots increasingly summarize, recommend, and decide what is worth mentioning. The intermediary is no longer neutral. It synthesizes, which means the battleground for reputation is moving upstream from persuasion to data conditioning.

But here’s the counterpoint. We’ve been here before and we’ve discussed it in this podcast before. Every major digital shift has been framed as existential. SEO was supposed to change everything, then social algorithms, then influencer marketing. Each time an optimization industry sprang up, each time brands flooded the zone with content, and each time the platforms evolved in response. So the question is: Is this genuinely a structural shift in how reputation is constructed, or simply the next optimization cycle dressed up as revolution? Because there’s a real risk here. If brands begin producing vast volumes of content purely to influence AI outputs, do we elevate substance or do we accelerate a new kind of synthetic noise? Could be all that AI slop we’ve been hearing about a lot recently. And if Reddit posts and forum threads are disproportionately shaping chatbot answers, are we witnessing democratization of influence or amplification of unverified commentary? So are chatbots truly the new influencers we must court, or are we watching the early stages of another marketing arms race that may look very different once the models mature? What do you think, Shel?

Shel Holtz: It’s a fraught topic. I mean, first of all, as organizations trip over themselves to figure out how to appear in AI query responses and appear the way they want to, is that going to taint AI responses to the point that they’re no better than a Google search response? I mean, you remember the original Google where you typed in a query and you got 10 items that were directly related to what you were interested in. And now you have to wade through the ads and the other crap that populates the Google search results before you get to anything that’s even remotely relevant.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. Slop is the word, not crap, slop.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. Okay, yeah. But you have some other issues here. We hear that Reddit figures prominently in the results. And then you hear from somebody else: No, no, no, it’s earned media that is prompting what gets injected into the responses to queries in the large language models. I just saw—this was just published on February 18th—a study that found 44% of ChatGPT citations come from the first third of whatever content it was that they found. So, you know, do you top-load your content with the main information that you want the AI models to grasp, even if that’s not necessarily the way you want people to read the content that you’re producing?

And each model does something different. The fact that ChatGPT citations come from the first third of content doesn’t mean that Claude’s do or Gemini’s or Grok’s. And then every time they release a new model, has it changed? So I think we could be chasing our tails with this kind of information. Are chatbots the new influencer? Well, they’re a new influencer. Certainly people are getting information from these—I do. I say, “This product isn’t working for me. What are the alternatives?” And it tells me, and I’m sure it’s leaving out good products that just haven’t got their information into the places where it’s going to be absorbed by an AI being trained on this content or searching.

So, you know. I think we just need to produce good content that answers questions. I—we talked about this a couple of months ago. When you look at the tools that are being implemented in the enterprise, employees are no longer reading the articles that we produce that say, “Here’s the justification and the context and the background for the change that the organization’s going through.” They type a query and they get a reply. Where’s that reply coming from? It’s not coming from the context that we provided unless we top-load, front-load the content with that answer in order to accommodate the chatbot. Is that what we want? This is probably a time to be rethinking the way we communicate altogether because of this situation. But I think creating good content that does a good job of answering questions, that puts the main information at the top…

Neville Hobson:

Shel Holtz: I mean, you know, somebody ought to invent an inverted pyramid style of writing that starts with the who, when, where, why before you get to the, you know, the detail. Just do good content and you’ll be fine.

Neville Hobson: That’s a good tip, I think. To me, just seems like everything is so manipulated. I was thinking this the other day, something I was searching for online, and I looked at what Google produced. Because Google, by the way, really has improved hugely in the last six months in terms of what it actually offers you when you do a search term. The AI generates a summary of the top result that comes, the citations that it includes that you can click on if you want. My experience is, I often find that that summary is good enough for what I need. I might scroll down to see who else is saying what. And then you’ve got little drop-downs of other responses to that search term. Great. And it usually gives me what I want.

But basically, I’m thinking when I see stuff like this: the manipulation is huge. Would it not be simpler if we just ditched all this stuff? No, that’s not the answer. The world’s moved on. We have to live with this. But it makes it difficult to trust anything the way you used to be able to. So do I trust this answer either because it’s—Google is giving it to me, therefore implies I trust Google? Or is it because it looks about right, that’s what I’m looking for? So I trust the responder to that answer? I don’t know. You have to make your own judgment call on this because if you’re using another search engine, it’s going to be very different.

Shel Holtz: Yeah.

Neville Hobson: If you use your chatbot—and that’s actually quite interesting because whether it’s ChatGPT, whether it’s Claude, whatever it might be, using your chatbot, not a search engine—how do you feel about that? Do you implicitly trust the chatbot and what it’s telling you? Would it be different than what Google would tell you if you did a Google search? Probably yes. Not in terms of meaning, but the words are going to be different, obviously, and maybe the sources will be different. So if you need to do that, fine. I don’t think you do typically need to do that. You just go to Google or whatever it might be that you’re accustomed to, that you trust, search and get your answer.

But you’ve now really got to—and particularly in light of the story we talked about earlier about the developer who was stitched up by an AI agent that damages reputation—that kind of content might show up in search results too. So this is the landscape we’re in now. You have to get used to it.

Shel Holtz: I still find the the top 10 blue links on the first search engine results page from Google are far less valuable than they used to be. I still find that the first three or four are paid and irrelevant or… I see it all the time.

Neville Hobson: I don’t see that. I don’t see that at all. I don’t see paid at all in the first results. I see it a little further down. Yeah, okay, interesting. Maybe it’s different in here. I’m doing google.co.uk, not google.com. So maybe there’s a difference. Yeah.

Shel Holtz: I definitely do. Listeners, what are you seeing on Google? I’ve been using Perplexity. Are you logged in to Google when you’re doing this? Okay. I have been using Perplexity more and more because I’m able to refine my search, saying, “I’m looking for this, not this, and I need it from articles that have been published in the last six months.” And it does an excellent job of providing me with great results. Now I haven’t compared it to what Google would give me, but I have to believe that it’s more relevant because it is trying to satisfy me rather than satisfy the advertisers who have paid to have their links promoted on Google.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, yeah, typically. Okay. It’s funny. I mean, I’ve just done a search on Google right now. There’s not a single sponsored link in my list at all. Not one. And I do see them occasionally, but they’re kind of halfway down; it says “sponsored”. I’m not seeing any for this search term I just searched on. So I’m scrolling further down the page—I’m not seeing any. Results are personalized. Try it without personalization; maybe that might make a difference. But so I’m quite happy with what I see from this. I see in this particular example…

Shel Holtz: Hmm.

Neville Hobson: …it gives me the text upfront, as you know, “to see more”. That will tell me more about that. Again, scrolling down the page, don’t see anything that’s saying sponsored, which is what you normally do see. I don’t know. But I mean, the point is, I think you need to determine yourself: Do you trust what it’s telling you? Are you happy with that result, whether it’s search at Google or whether it’s your favorite chatbot? I was using Perplexity a lot, Shel. I really was. I stopped using it entirely. I didn’t like what it was doing. I didn’t like it at all. Yeah. But I have to tell you, I stopped flipping from one tool to another to see. No, I stick with what I like, what I know works for me. And I don’t bother trying to second-guess it. But let me see what Gemini says about this. Although I do that occasionally, I have to say.

Shel Holtz: I had stopped for a while and I’ve gone back to it. It’s improved. It has improved considerably in the last couple of months.

Neville Hobson: I did a research project about two weeks ago where I did spend time trawling different tools and getting complementary or different results. I then had one of those—ChatGPT—summarize it all. But hey, it’s a lot of work and I didn’t need to do that. So I’m not going to do that as a matter of course.

Shel Holtz: I did. I, on our intranet, have a “construction term of the week”. This has been going on for about six and a half years. Every week, a new definition of a new term. I’ve gone through everything that has been provided to me. So now I’m asking an AI: “Give me a list of 20 construction-related terms.” And I’ll get more specific than that. I’ll say, “around water infrastructure projects” or things like this. And I’ll say, “Okay, I like this one. Give me a two-paragraph definition of that.” I’ll copy and paste that definition and go to one of the other LLMs and I’ll say, “Assess this for accuracy, list what you would change and then rewrite it the way you would rewrite it to incorporate your corrections.” And I find that that gets me a much better definition. So I’m frequently bouncing around to these.

I also find that I’ll switch which tool I’m using the most based on who’s released the best model most recently because I find the latest Claude model is just amazing, but then Gemini just released a new one that apparently is blowing Claude away. I want to use the one that’s going to give me the best results, not the one I’m most comfortable with. So I’m changing all the time.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I find the one I’m most comfortable with is the one that gives me the best results—that I’m very happy with that—but again, our uses are very different. I don’t use it for the kind of stuff that you do when you talk about “You hear these definitions, give me a summary and find the best one” or whatever. I tend not to do that kind of work. But I’m very happy with ChatGPT Plus that I’ve been using for a while now. I use NotebookLM occasionally, particularly when I’m looking at dense academic reports. But I’m kind of OK with that. So the point is, I think—to summarize all of this—that our chatbots are new influencers. I think the New York Times piece is a good piece. It’s a thought-provoking piece. And I think the caveats, as I saw them certainly, are the risk factor that we just spent a while discussing. I think the idea—as the writer mentioned in the Times piece—if Reddit posts are disproportionately shaping chatbot answers, are we witnessing the amplification of unverified content? I think that’s a very good point to make. Hence, even more so—and I don’t know how we’d feel comfortable with this—you’ve got to verify everything.

I do that. And I find, depending on what it is… I can’t think of a good example, frankly, Shel, but you know… you’ve spent some time, a little bit of time telling your AI system what you want it to do. You might have had a to-and-fro, back-and-forth conversation about that. That’s common for me. Not just “Here’s a prompt and off you go and do it”—no. And it comes back with something; I say, “Fine, what do you mean by this?” or “I want you to do that as well.” Yes, that’s good to highlight that. That goes on all the time. And then the checking of things takes longer than that. And I’m totally OK with that. Because I need to—and this must apply to everyone—I need to be sure… Or maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it doesn’t apply to folks who work in Deloitte. Sorry, I shouldn’t have said that, but it occurs to me.

You need to check it for your own peace of mind—that what you’re sharing with the other person, whether it’s a client or a colleague, is accurate to your best knowledge—that there’s nothing you’ve done that would diminish the accuracy of that or anything you haven’t done, meaning not verified or checked everything. So—and like you said earlier in our early discussion about this, there’s a lot more to this than just verifying. Yeah, I get that too. But it takes time. And maybe that’s why people don’t do it. They see the folks who do it this way see it as the easy tool to improve their—to dump all this stuff on the chatbot so they can either take the day off or do other things. I mean, that’s—I don’t believe that’s everywhere. But some people will think that. So it is a tricky one to answer. And I think that we just got to do what we’re comfortable with that meets our objectives and take as much care as possible in producing the best work we can.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and for communicators, recognizing that chatbots are a new influencer means that we have to think about how we take advantage of that. And I’m going to emphasize again: they are a new influencer, not the new influencer. Kim Kardashian has not hung her head in shame and retreated into a dark room to wait to die. She still has millions and millions of followers and holds up a product and it drives sales. You know, the—the old influencers haven’t gone anywhere and still warrant some attention.

Neville Hobson: Well, true. So the Times, though, says—the question they asked is: Are chatbots the new influencers? So our answer to that would be: No, they are one of the new influencers.

Shel Holtz: Right, yeah. No. Yes, add them to the mix. So that’ll wrap up this episode of For Immediate Release, episode number 502, our long form episode for February. We do hope that you will comment on this. All of our comments these days come from our LinkedIn posts. So check LinkedIn, follow either one of us, but we also share these posts on Facebook in three places: we have a For Immediate Release Podcast Network community and a For Immediate Release page, in addition to you and I sharing them individually. We’re also on Threads and BlueSky. Leave a comment. Any of those places, we’ll pick it up and share it in the March long form episode.

You can also send us an email to fircomments@gmail.com. You can attach an audio file. You can record that audio file directly from the For Immediate Release Podcast Network website—there’s a “send voicemail” tab over on the right-hand side. I actually got a voicemail from the website last month, but it was just somebody being obscene. It had nothing to do with communication, but I got excited. We got one of those from Speakpipe, which is the vendor who does that. You can leave a comment directly in the show notes. I mean, it is a blog. There’s a place to put comments in a blog. Go figure.

Neville Hobson: Wow, should have played it. An obscene phone call, okay.

Shel Holtz: All these ways to comment, please do and be part of this conversation. And our next long form episode will be recorded on Saturday, March 21st. We will drop that on Monday, March 23rd. Until then, that will be a “30” for For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #502: Attack of the AI Agent! appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

AI isn’t replacing communicators — it’s amplifying the value of communication, especially storytelling and strategic writing. In this short, midweek FIR episode, Neville and Shel explore how the hottest jobs in tech are increasingly about telling stories, not writing code, with Netflix, Microsoft, Adobe, Anthropic, and OpenAI all hiring communications and storytelling teams at salaries ranging from six figures up to $775,000 per year. Even AI labs themselves are posting compensation packages around $400K for storytelling and communications roles, signaling that they understand the irreplaceable human value of meaning-making in an age of automated content generation.

The distinction Neville and Shel highlight between traditional messaging and true storytelling proves critical: conventional communications start with what the brand wants to say, while storytelling starts with what audiences actually care about. The strongest communicators will be those who move beyond prescriptive messaging to tell genuine human stories.

Links from this episode:

• The unexpected winners of the AI slop boom: Word nerds
• Why OpenAI Is Offering $400K for Storytelling Roles
• The Great Communicators Are Human
• Human Storytellers Worth $400k+ Amidst AI Boom
• The Great Communicators Are Human
• Storytelling Wins In The Age Of AI: 3 Valuable Communication Tools
• How Storytelling Unlocks Career Pathways In The Age Of AI
• The Bionic Storyteller: How AI can amplify HR’s human voice
• Businesses hiring storytellers to ‘cut through the AI slop’
• Storybrand
• Building a Story Brand 2.0 (Book)

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, February 23.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Neville Hobson: Hi everyone and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 501. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz: I’m Shel Holtz. And here’s some good news for communicators. Artificial intelligence isn’t replacing us, it’s amplifying the value of communication itself, especially storytelling and strategic writing. If you’ve been feeling that AI spells doom for writers and communicators, the labor market is telling a very different story. We’ll tell you that story right after this. Let’s start with something concrete. The hottest jobs in tech right now aren’t about writing code or managing data. They’re about telling clear, compelling human stories. Recent hiring trends show that giants like Netflix, Microsoft, Adobe, Anthropic, and OpenAI are aggressively expanding communications and storytelling teams with roles offering from six figures up to as much as $775,000 a year for senior leadership positions without any requirement to write a line of code. Why? Because AI has flooded the internet with cheap automated output, what some observers are calling slopaganda. I love this word, slopaganda. Hadn’t heard it before I read that article, but millions of words get generated every minute. Most of it lacks clarity, insight, context, and meaning, exactly the things that real communicators deliver. Companies are recognizing that the ability to cut through that noise with strategic narrative creates trust, authority, and differentiation in the market. Even the AI labs themselves, including OpenAI and Anthropic, are willing to pay top dollar for storytellers. One analysis said that nearly $400,000 compensation packages are being posted specifically for storytelling and communications roles at these firms. exactly because humans excel at crafting nuanced messages that machines simply can’t. So here’s the underlying shift communicators need to understand. AI automates… AI automates tasks, but meaning making remains deeply human. Machines can generate text, but they don’t know which stories matter to whom or why. And we keep hearing communicators and writers venting on LinkedIn about machines lacking judgment, empathy, context, and strategic framing, all those hallmarks of great communication. That’s exactly what they’re looking for. And in an age of automated noise, those abilities create value. That’s a theme echoed across industry thinking.

Shel Holtz: That’s a theme echoed across industry thinking. A Forbes piece on storytelling in the age of AI highlights that storytelling is one of the most powerful tools we have and one of the most powerful tools leaders have. It helps audiences remember facts wrapped in emotion, connect data to human experience, and anchor organizational vision in something people can feel and act on. Another Forbes analysis argues that storytelling isn’t just about communication, it’s also a career pathway. When individuals and organizations tell clear stories about evolving roles, skills, development, and future opportunities, they make the future feel navigable rather than threatening. This matters for internal communication too. HR and people leaders are increasingly using narrative to frame change and build resilience. When employees feel adrift and amid all the talk of AI disruption, a coherent story about how the organization is evolving and where people fit in. is one of the most effective ways to build trust and engagement. Even the broader hype narrative around AI’s impact on jobs, including viral essays, warning of sweeping automation, underscores this point. Some of the loudest voices talking about disruption are exactly those using storytelling to shape a narrative about the future. But the data so far suggests that the real impact of AI isn’t mass job elimination, it’s task transformation. with humans shifting into roles that emphasize strategy, creativity, judgment, and communication, exactly the space where we storytellers thrive. So for communicators who worry that AI might make them obsolete, here’s the reality. Your craft isn’t threatened, it’s elevated. AI makes routine work easier, but narrative leadership, strategic framing, and contextual clarity are becoming even more essential. The labor market isn’t pulling back its investment in communicators, it’s paying up for them because the ability to tell a clear human story is now a competitive advantage. With the world drowning in automated content, meaning is scarce. And communicators are the ones who turn noise into narrative, confusion into clarity, and information into influence. That’s not something AI replaces, it’s something only humans can do well. And that’s why even in an AI era, talented communicators are irreplaceable and more valuable than ever. And by the way, if the tech companies feel the need to cut through the noise created by all that slopaganda, I got to use that word again, other industries will figure out sooner or later that they need to as well.

Neville Hobson: Listening to what you’re saying there, Shel, what strikes me is how similar themes are now surfacing here in the UK. So the Times ran a piece recently about companies hiring chief storytellers, specifically to cut through what they and everyone calls AI slop. What’s interesting is that it isn’t framed as anti-AI, it’s framed as a response to saturation. When content becomes easy and abundant, meaning becomes scarce. Recruiters are saying demand for storytelling roles has doubled in the past year. and the way they define storytelling isn’t about clever copy. It’s about starting with what people care about rather than what the brand wants to say. There’s also a strong internal dimension, storytelling being used to align remote teams, break down silos and create shared culture. So I’m left wondering whether this chief storyteller trend is something genuinely new or whether we’re simply rediscovering the strategic craft of communication in an AI saturated environment. And finally, if AI makes it easier to generate content, does that mean communicators need to become curators of meaning rather than producers of material?

Shel Holtz: Interesting question. And I think that this is somewhat different. We have been telling stories, but I think you have to define what we mean by storytelling here, because we write stories that aren’t really stories. It’s just a term that we use as a synonym for article. I wrote a story the other day. Was it really a story or was it a communication piece?

Shel Holtz: There are so many stories that we could tell in the world of organizational communication that are really just prescriptive or a statement of fact. We’re getting the news out, but we don’t have a beginning, middle, and end. We certainly don’t have a protagonist. We’re not looking at Joseph Campbell’s hero’s journey and trying to figure out. how to apply that to the tales that we tell. There is a guy out there, Donald Miller, who’s got this thing called Story Brand, which is fascinating, that is designed to put your customer into the story as the hero and the company as the mentor or the guide who helps the hero achieve its goal through its journey. And I really like it. And there are free tools that you can use to map all this out for your brand or your product. But it gets us away from saying, isn’t this product great? Look how great it works and tell a genuine story instead. And I think this is why narrative and story rather than communications or public relations are the labels that are being attached to these job descriptions that are all over LinkedIn. When I saw the story, I went and looked and there are dozens and dozens of them. And the salaries are jaw dropping when you consider that the typical, you know, communication manager is making about 108,000 a year, according to one of these articles. you know, $400,000 with all benefits, with three days remote work, because I read these job descriptions. This is very encouraging for our profession. But if you’re the kind of communicator out there who writes these articles that just says we have an employee assistance program, It offers the following bulleted services. You should call if you have emotional or financial problems. That’s not what they’re looking for. They’re not looking for you. They’re looking for the guy who wrote that article that I’ve referenced 50 times on this podcast about the employee who was divorced and depressed and started drinking and gained 100 pounds and finally called the EAP when he hit rock bottom. And they worked with him to find something that really excited him and it turned out to be ballroom dancing and now he’s a national champion traveling around the world. He’s lost more than a hundred pounds. He’s quit smoking and drinking and all because of the EAP. Which of those two stories are you more likely to read? It’s absolutely the story of the guy who used the EAP. People can relate to that. People don’t even read the crap that says we have one and here’s what it offers. So I think cutting through the noise with genuine stories that tell the tale of what the organization is trying to convey, that’s what they’re looking for.

Neville Hobson: So interesting. So the title Chief Storyteller, that sounds new and fashionable, right? But when you unpack it, much of it looks like what strong communication leaders have always done. Alignment, translation, cohesion, behavioral framing opens up a richer debate, I think. Is this a genuine new C-suite function or a rebranding of strategic communication crafted in an AI era? It sounds a lot like the latter to me.

Shel Holtz: It sounds a lot like the latter, but I think there’s a bit of the former as well, because we’re talking about a transition of role. I think communicators who are employed right now want to start telling more stories if they want to keep their jobs, because if all you’re doing is writing the stuff that can be written by AI just by giving it the facts and say, turn this into an article, I think you’re toast. But if you can tell a genuine story that moves people, then your job is probably secure and you may be qualified to apply for one of these $400,000 a year jobs. I don’t think they’re going to hire the average communicator who’s doing a pretty good job at their organization, even if they’re at the C-suite level, if they can’t put together the kind of narrative that these companies are looking for. Certainly there are companies that are doing this and there are communicators in those companies that are doing this, but I don’t think it’s most. I think most are cranking out the typical content that is just conveying the news. And I think basic journalism, the who, what, when, where, why, if I can pop that into Claude or ChatGPT or Gemini, especially if I’ve trained it on my writing style, which I have, by the way, on Gemini, it’ll turn out a passable article that then you can edit in 15 minutes and be done. That’s not what they’re looking for. I think that they would argue that that probably is slopaganda. And… This is exactly the noise that they’re looking for somebody to help them cut through.

Neville Hobson: So one of the strongest lines in the times piece is the distinction between messaging and meaning. Traditional comms starts with what the brand wants to say, says the times. Storytelling starts with what people care about. That’s a strategic pivot, I would say. So messaging is output driven, meaning is audience driven. AI is good at output, humans are better at contextual meaning. So is that? Now we should be looking at this as a shift from messaging to meaning.

Shel Holtz: absolutely. I think that’s exactly what we’re talking about here. And the focus on the audience. And again, this is what Donald Miller’s story brand, who has paid us no consideration for the reference here, is exactly what he does. He puts the customer at the center of the company or the brand’s story. And I think that’s what’s different. I think that’s the transition or the pivot that communicators need to make. I don’t think it’s difficult. And if you haven’t… written fiction, I would suggest that you read about Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey. There’s a wonderful book, I can’t remember the author’s name, but I’ve read it twice called The Writer’s Journey. he talks about, I mean, he’s focused on writing fiction, but he talks about how you apply the hero’s journey to things like Star Wars and The Wizard of Oz. And he has these tropes that everybody is familiar with. that he uses to explain how to write this way. And he tells you that every successful film in particular, and novels as well, uses this formula. And I read it twice because I really had to unpack it in a way that worked in organizational communication rather than novel and film writing. But it does, it works. And then I found Donald Miller in his story brand and I said, there it is right there. fill in, in the boxes, who is the mentor, who is the other characters that appear in this formula. And it’s well worth taking a look at and his book is worth reading as well. I’ll have a link to Story Brand in the show notes.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. So I’m just going to go through my mind thinking about where this conversation we’re having here. And if we look at the, which to me makes complete sense, and the Times article and the Business Decider piece, I think support this, that the shift is definitely from messaging to meaning, something we’ve talked about quite a bit. The Times piece talks about the the noise not being the problem, it’s indistinguishable noise. And that makes sense, that kind of metaphorical phrase that reminds me of conversations we’ve had before, which talks about what a communicator is being using artificial intelligence to enhance their abilities. So I’m just trying to see where the kind of path looks ahead for this. It seems to me that AI is going to play an even more significant role in the future for communicators who are shifting from messaging to meaning. And I must admit, I don’t believe that the scenario you painted earlier about the kind of, you know, the communications person who has… been right doing the stuff he or she’s been doing for years, that’s fine. Keep doing that because there’s a market view. I don’t think that’s true. I think AIs see the threat for those people. Yeah. So if AI is good at output, according to the kind of, what are the concluding points in the times piece, humans are better at contextual meaning. That surely is then what people are looking for to pay half a million bucks or whatever is a salary.

Shel Holtz: yeah, I agree with that.

Neville Hobson: to achieve storyteller. I think this huge confusion here and inserting into the picture the phrase chief storyteller, where it’s just a fancy job title basically, doesn’t help with this, it seems to me. it’s inevitable, I suppose you’re going to get that. as you said, I’ve seen it’s all over LinkedIn, that chief storyteller is an executive function. Yeah, but that’s not the right interpretation for that, don’t believe. So it doesn’t help clarify what the picture is here.

Shel Holtz: I don’t know. I would be very curious to look at the org charts of the companies that are seeking these positions to see if it is separate and distinct from the public relations or communications function. We talked several weeks ago about the proposed new definition of public relations, and it goes way beyond this. I’m thinking, and I don’t know this for a fact,

Shel Holtz: But I’m thinking that what these companies are doing is creating a new function that will live alongside and presumably under the same umbrella as the PR or corporate communications department, which is building relationships with key stakeholders. But the storytellers are out there creating the content that’s going to cut through the slop aimed at particular audiences who are ripe for this kind of storytelling. I I was about to say messaging, it’s… trying to get away from messaging. And the PR department will continue to do the earnings releases and the thought leadership and the negotiations with critics and all of the stuff that PR typically does. I don’t get the impression that these jobs sit in the public relations department.

Neville Hobson: No, I would say not, particularly as, for instance, one point that The Times made is that there’s a significant element of team building and so forth. So internal focus in organizations for this sort of role. it’s not just a public relations external function by any means. It’s interesting you mentioned the definition. I published a post on my blog this morning about that actually. looking at what the PRCA has done. It’s only one professional body. I’m thinking this isn’t going to fly unless everyone gets behind it. So that’s a different topic than what we’re talking about. it sort of fits in there because the role of… I just have a problem with this chief storyteller title, frankly, It doesn’t really fit what this role actually is. And I do believe, and you’ve partly prompted this kind of clarity in my thinking on this, that this is about messaging, it’s not about content production. That’s what AI does. And the interpretation of it, the meaning and significance of it is what the human does. Now, if you can, let’s say, present your skill as something in that area. to an organization who’s willing to pay $400,000. Again, be interested to see the job description behind that salary level. I haven’t seen that. I’ve I’ve not actually looked, I must admit. But it’d be interesting how they have described the role they’re willing to pay 400 grand for. So I would imagine they’re absolutely swamped with applications, which is where AI comes into play. AI comes into play well to sift out all the no-hopers, basically.

Neville Hobson: But it is interesting, it is very interesting. And this could be a great catalyst for the discussion about the role of a communicator in organizations in light of this development. That seems to me to be something good to have.

Shel Holtz: I can’t imagine somebody at OpenAI or Anthropic sifting through hundreds of resumes or probably thousands of resumes. they’re absolutely feeding them all to AI. I’d be shocked if not. And for the record, there are also some of these positions that don’t have storytelling in the title. I saw a couple that had narrative in the title instead. But I think they’re all getting to this notion of telling a powerful story that evokes emotions and pulls

Shel Holtz: audiences in rather than advertising or traditional marketing speak. That’s what’s going to cut through the, I get to say it again, slopaganda. And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #501: AI and the Rise of the $400K Storyteller appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

David C. Baker recently published a fascinating thought experiment about what he’d do if starting an agency from scratch today—and it’s packed with provocative ideas worth serious consideration. His article offers a comprehensive blueprint covering everything from organizational structure to compensation philosophy, and much of it aligns with how Chip and Gini think about building sustainable agencies.

But the most interesting conversations happen when smart people disagree, which is why this episode focuses on the handful of points where Chip and Gini see things differently. Not because Baker’s ideas are bad, but because they expose the tension between aspirational agency management and the messy realities of running a business with real budgets, real people, and real client demands.

In this episode, Chip and Gini tackle mandatory one-month sabbaticals for every employee, open-book finances published on your website, 360-degree reviews, and incentive compensation structures. They dig into why ideas that sound compelling in theory often create unintended consequences in practice—like how retention-based bonuses can fuel scope creep, or why forced sabbaticals don’t actually solve the single-point-of-failure problem they’re designed to address.

The conversation reveals thoughtful nuance on both sides. Gini shares her brutal experience with anonymous feedback that backfired when presented poorly. Chip explains why he sees most performance measurement systems as “performance theater” while still advocating for more financial transparency with teams. They discuss the logistical nightmares of scheduling multiple month-long absences and why backup systems for unexpected departures matter more than planned time off.

Throughout, they return to a central theme: what works brilliantly at one stage of growth can be completely wrong at another. The goal isn’t to declare Baker’s ideas right or wrong, but to test assumptions and recognize that even the most well-intentioned frameworks deserve scrutiny before implementation. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 295: Building the ideal agency: wrestling with the tough decisions appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

We are back with this episode after the recent events of the massive layoffs at the Washington Post and the LA Times, the shuttering of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and funding cuts at NPR. Paul and David describe the continuing train wreck of daily news there and contrast the Post’s approach with what has been going on at the New York Times digital property. The Times diversified its revenue stream beyond its core newsgathering with purchasing gaming, cooking, and sports-related content. Post’s owner Jeff Bezos didn’t diversify or even keep the news core. Part of the digital newspaper problem is that its ad revenue model is gone, as search traffic has dried up thanks to AI chatbots. Compounding this is that overall monthly visits to the Post’s website is down from 60M (in 2022) to 40M visits last year, and subscriptions are dropping too. We contrast the Post and the Times business models

We talk about some signs of success with subscriptions for smaller, more targeted sites, such as 404Media, which shows that a small group of independent journalists can keep quality high and report on significant stories. Also, individual creators (such as Mr. Beast and Mark Rober) can build a brand and attract significant audiences (Rober has more than 70M subscribers, for example) on YouTube and TikTok.

Well worthwhile to listen to Marty Baron, former editorial director of the Post, talk to Tim Miller about his thoughts on the decline of his former employer.

The post FIR B2B episode #159: A tale of two newspapers appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

AI has shifted from being purely a productivity story to something far more uncomfortable. Not because the technology became malicious, but because it’s now being used in ways that expose old behaviors through entirely new mechanics. An article in HR Director Magazine argues that AI-enabled workplace abuse — particularly deepfakes — should be treated as workplace harm, not dismissed as gossip, humor, or something that happens outside of work. When anyone can generate realistic images or audio of a colleague in minutes and circulate them instantly, the targeted person is left trying to disprove something that never happened, even though it feels documented. That flips the burden of proof in ways most organizations aren’t prepared to handle.

What makes this a communication issue — not just an HR or IT issue — is that the harm doesn’t stop with the creator. It spreads through sharing, commentary, laughter, and silence. People watch closely how leaders respond, and what they don’t say can signal tolerance just as loudly as what they do. In this episode, Neville and Shel explore what communicators can do before something happens: helping organizations explicitly name AI-enabled abuse, preparing leaders for that critical first conversation, and reinforcing standards so that, when trust is tested, people already know where the organization stands.

Links from this episode:

• The Emerging Threat of Workplace AI Abuse

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, February 23.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Shel Holtz: Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 500 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz: And this is episode 500. You would think that that would be some kind of milestone that we would celebrate. For those of you who are relatively new to FIR, this show has been around since 2005. We have not recorded only 500 episodes in that time. We started renumbering the shows when we rebranded it. We started as FIR, then we rebranded to the Hobson and Holtz Report because there were so many other FIR shows. Then, for various reasons, we decided to go back to FIR and we started at zero. But I haven’t checked — if I were to put the episodes we did before that rebranding together with the episodes since then, we’re probably at episode 2020, 2025, something like that.

Neville Hobson: I would say that’s about right. We also have interviews in there and we used to do things like book reviews. What else did we do? Book reviews, speeches, speeches.

Shel Holtz: Speeches — when you and I were out giving talks, we’d record them and make them available.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, boy, those were the days. And we did lives, clip times, you know, so we had quite a little network going there. But 500 is good. So we’re not going to change the numbering, are we? It’s going to confuse people even more, I think.

Shel Holtz: No, I think we’re going to stick with it the way it is. So what are we talking about on episode 500?

Neville Hobson: Well, this episode has got a topic in line with our themes and it’s about AI. We can’t escape it, but this is definitely a thought-provoking topic. It’s about AI abuse in the workplace. So over the past year, AI has shifted from being a productivity story to something that’s sometimes much more uncomfortable. Not because the technology itself suddenly became malicious, but because it’s now being used in ways that expose old behaviors through entirely new mechanics.

An article in HR Director Magazine here in the UK published earlier this month makes the case that AI-enabled abuse, particularly deepfakes, should be treated as workplace harm, not as gossip, humor, or something that happens outside work. And that distinction really matters. We’ll explore this theme right after this message.

What’s different here isn’t intent. Harassment, coercion, and humiliation aren’t new. What is new is speed, scaling, credibility. Anyone can use AI to generate realistic images or audio in minutes, circulate them instantly, and leave the person targeted trying to disprove something that never happened but feels documented. The article argues that when this happens, organizations need to respond quickly, contain harm, investigate fairly, and set a clear standard that using technology to degrade or coerce colleagues is serious misconduct. Not just to protect the individual involved, but to preserve trust across the organization. Because once people see that this kind of harm can happen without consequences, psychological safety collapses.

What also struck me reading this, Shel, is that while it’s written for HR leaders, a lot of what determines the outcome doesn’t actually sit in policy or process. It sits in communication. In moments like this, people are watching very closely. They’re listening for what leaders say and just as importantly, what they don’t. Silence, careful wording, or reluctance to name harm can easily be read as uncertainty or worse, tolerance. That puts communicators right in the middle of this issue.

There are some things communicators can do before anything happens. First, help the organization be explicit about standards. Name AI-enabled abuse clearly so there’s no ambiguity. Second, prepare leaders for that first conversation because tone and language matter long before any investigation starts. And third, reinforce shared expectations early. So when something does go wrong, people already know where the organization stands. This isn’t crisis response, it’s proactive preventative communication. In other words, this isn’t really a story about AI tools, it’s a story about trust — and how organizations communicate when that trust is tested.

Shel Holtz: I was fascinated by this. I saw the headline and I thought it was about something else altogether because I’ve seen this phrase, “workplace AI abuse,” before, but it was in the context of things like work slop and some other abuses of AI that generally are more focused on the degradation of the information and content that’s flowing around the organization. So when I saw what this was focused on, it really sent up red flags for me. I serve on the HR leadership team of the organization I work for. I’ll be sharing this article with that team this morning.

But I think there’s a lot to talk about here. First of all, I just loved how this article ended. The last line of it says, “AI has changed the mechanics of misconduct, but it hasn’t changed what employees need from their employer.” And I think that’s exactly right. From a crisis communication standpoint, framing it that way matters because it means we don’t have to reinvent values. We don’t have to reinvent principles. We just need to update the protocols we use to respond when something happens.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I agree. And it’s a story that isn’t unique or new even — the role communicators can play in the sense of signaling the standards visibly, not just written down, but communicating them. And I think that’s the first thing that struck me from reading this. It is interesting — you’re quoting that ending. That struck me too.

The expectation level must be met. The part about not all of it sitting in process and so forth with HR, but with communication — absolutely true. Yet this isn’t a communication issue per se. This is an organizational issue where communication or the communicator works hand in glove with HR to manage this issue in a way that serves the interest of the organization and the employees. So making those standards visible and explaining what the rules are for this kind of thing — you would think it’s pretty common sense to most people, but is it not true that like many things in organizational life, something like this probably isn’t set down well in many organizations?

Shel Holtz: It’s probably not set down well from these kinds of situations before AI. Where I work, we go through an annual workplace harassment training because we are adamant that that’s not going to happen. It certainly doesn’t cover this stuff yet. I suspect it probably will. But yeah, you’re right. I think organizations generally out there — many of them don’t have explicit policies around harassment and what the response should be.

I think the most insidious part of how deepfakes are affecting all of this is that they flip the burden of proof. A victim has to prove that something didn’t happen, and in the court of workplace opinion, that’s really hard to do. It creates a different kind of reputational harm.

Neville Hobson: Yeah.

Shel Holtz: From traditional harassment, the kind we learn about in our training — you know, with he said, she said type situations — there’s a certain amount of ambiguity and people are trying to weigh what people said and look at their reputations and their credibility and make judgments based on limited information available. With deepfakes, there’s evidence. I mean, it’s fabricated, but it’s evidence. And some people seeing that before they hear it’s a deepfake just might believe it and side with the creator of that thing.

The article does make a really critical point though, and that’s that it’s rarely about one bad actor. The person who created this had a malicious intent, but people who share it, people who forward it along and comment on it and laugh about it — that spreads the harm and it makes the whole thing more complex and it creates complicity among the employees who are involved in this, even though they may think it’s innocent behavior that just mirrors what they do on public social media. And from a comms perspective, that means the crisis isn’t just about the perpetrator, right? It’s about organizational culture. If people are circulating this content, that tells you something about your workplace that needs to be addressed that’s bigger than that one individual case.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I agree. Absolutely. And that’s one of the dynamics the article highlights that I found most interesting — about how harm spreads socially through sharing, commentary, laughter, or quiet disengagement. Communicators need to help prevent normalization — this is not acceptable, not normal. They’re often closest to these informal channels and cultural signals. That gives communicators a unique opportunity, the article points out.

For example, communicators can challenge the idea that no statement is the safest option when values are being tested. Help leaders understand that internal silence can legitimize behavior just as much as explicit approval and encourage timely, values-anchored communication that says, “this crosses a line,” even if the facts are still being established.

It is really difficult though. Separately, I’ve read examples where there’s a deepfake of a female employee that is highly inappropriate the way it presents her. And yet it is so realistic — incredibly realistic — that everyone believes it’s true. And the denials don’t make much difference. And that’s where I think another avenue that communicators, especially communicators, need to be involved in. HR certainly would be involved because that’s the relationship issue. But communicators need to help make the statements that this is not real, that it’s still being investigated, that we believe it’s not real. In other words, support the employee unless you’ve got evidence not to, or there’s some reason — legal perhaps — that you can’t say anything more. But challenge people who imply it’s genuine and carry that narrative forward with others in the organization.

So it’s difficult. It doesn’t mean you’ve got to broadcast a lot of details. It means going back to reinforcing those standards in the organization, repeating what they are before harmful behavior becomes part of, as the article mentions, organizational folklore. It’s a tricky, tricky road to walk down.

Shel Holtz: And it gets even trickier. There’s another layer of complexity to add to this for HR in particular. And that is an employee sharing one of these deepfakes on a personal text thread or on a personal account on a public social network — sharing it on Instagram, sharing it on Facebook — which might lead someone in the organization to say, “Well, that’s not a workplace issue. That’s something they did on their own private network.” But the deepfake involves a colleague at work, and we have to acknowledge that that becomes a workplace issue.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, it actually highlights, Shel, that therefore education is lacking if that takes place, I believe. So you’ve got to have already in place the policies that explicitly address the label “AI abuse.” It’s a workplace harm issue. It’s not a technical or a personal one. And it’s not acceptable nor permitted for this to happen in the workplace. And if it does, the perpetrators will be disciplined and face consequences because of this.

So that in itself though isn’t enough. It requires more proactive education to address it — like, for instance, informal communication groups to discuss the issue, not necessarily a particular example, and get everyone involved in discussing why it’s not a good thing. It may well surface opinions — again, depends on how trusted people feel or open they feel — on saying, “I disagree with this. I don’t think it is a workplace issue.” You get a dialogue going. But the company, the employer, in the form of the communicators, have the right people to take this forward, I think.

Shel Holtz: But here’s another communication issue that isn’t really addressed in the article, but I think communication needs to be involved. The article outlines a framework for addressing this. They say stabilize, which is support and safety; contain, which is stop the spread and investigate — and investigate broadly, not just the creator. I mean, who helped spread this thing around? Yeah, that’s pretty good crisis response advice.

But what strikes me is the fact that containment is mentioned almost as a technical IT issue when it’s really a communication challenge. Because how do you preserve evidence without further circulating harmful content? This requires clear protocols that everybody needs to understand. So communicators should be involved in helping to develop those protocols, but also making sure that they spread through the organization and are aligned with the values and become part of the culture.

Neville Hobson: Okay, so that kind of brings it round to that first thing I mentioned about what communicators can do before anything happens, and that’s to help the organization be explicit about standards. Name AI-enabled abuse clearly so there’s no ambiguity and set out exactly what the organizational position is on something like this. That will probably mean updating what would be the equivalent of the employee handbook where these kinds of policies and procedures sit, so that no one’s got any doubt of where to find out information about this. And then proactive communication about it. I mean, yes, communicators have lots to address in today’s climate. This is just one other thing. I would argue this is actually quite critical. They need to address this because unaddressed, it’s easy to see where this would gather momentum.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. So based on the article, you’ve already shared some of your recommendations for communicators. I think that updating the harassment policies with explicit deepfake examples is important. This is the recommendation I’m going to be making where I work. I think managers need to be trained on that first-hour response protocol. Managers, I think, are pretty poorly trained on this type of thing. And generic e-learning isn’t going to take care of it. So I think there needs to be specific training, particularly out in the field or out on the factory floor, where this is, I think, a little more likely to happen among people who are at that level of the org. I don’t think you’re going to see much of this manager to manager or VP to VP. So I think it’s more front line where you’re likely to see this — where somebody gets upset at somebody else and does a deepfake.

So those managers need to be trained. I think you need to have those evidence-handling procedures established and IT completely on board. So that’s a role for communicators. Reviewing and strengthening the reporting routes — who gets told when something like this happens and how does it get elevated? And then what are the protocols for determining what to do about it? And include this scenario in your crisis response planning. It should be part of that larger package of crises that might emerge that you have identified as possible and make sure that this is one of them.

Yeah, this article really ought to be required reading for every HR professional, every organizational leader, every communication leader, because as we’ve been saying right now, I think most organizations aren’t prepared. What the article said is the technology has outpaced our policies, our training, and our cultural norms. We’re in a gap period where harm is happening and institutions are scrambling to catch up. Time to stop scrambling, time to just catch up, start doing this work.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I would agree. I think the final comment I’d make is kind of the core message that comes out of this whole thing that summarizes all of this. And this is from the employee point of view, it seems to me. So accept that AI has changed how misconduct happens, not what employees need. Fine, we accept that. Employees need confidence that if they are targeted, the organization will do the following: take it seriously, act quickly to contain harm, investigate fairly, and set a clear standard that using technology to degrade or coerce colleagues is serious misconduct. Those four things need to be in place, I believe.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. And what the consequences are — you always have to remind people that there are consequences for these things. And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #500: When Harassment Policies Meet Deepfakes appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

No more excuses. No more waiting to see how things play out. AI has moved past the experimental phase, and if you’re still treating it like a nice-to-have rather than a fundamental shift in how your agency operates, you’re already falling behind.

In this episode, Chip comes out swinging with a wake-up call for the agency community: the ground is shifting faster than most are willing to admit, and the window for meaningful adaptation is closing. Gini backs him up with examples of how AI has progressed from an intern-level tool to something that can genuinely replace mid-level work—if agencies don’t evolve what they’re selling.

They dig into the practical reality of training AI tools to work like team members, not just one-off prompt machines. Chip explains how he uses different platforms for different strengths—Claude for writing, Gemini for competitive intelligence, Perplexity for research, and ChatGPT as his strategic baseline. Gini shares how her 12-year-old daughter creates entire anime worlds through conversation with AI, demonstrating the power of treating these tools as collaborators rather than search engines.

The conversation covers what clients actually want to pay for in 2026 (hint: it’s not social posts and press releases), how to build AI agents trained on your specific expertise, and why the process of training AI forces valuable clarity about your business. They emphasize that this isn’t about slapping the “AI-powered” label on your services—it’s about fundamentally rethinking what value you deliver and how you deliver it.

If you’ve been sitting on the sidelines waiting for the AI dust to settle, this episode is your warning: there is no settling. There’s only evolution or extinction. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 294: Wake up or get left behind: AI is forcing your hand appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) responded to member requests for a statement about the federal immigration crackdown in Minnesota with a letter explaining why the organization would remain silent. In this short midweek episode, Neville and Shel outline the key points in the letter, where they disagree, and how they might have responded.

Links from this episode:

• An Open Letter to the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, February 23.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Neville Hobson Hi everyone and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 499. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz And I’m Shel Holtz. At its core, this podcast is about organizational communication, which leads us to occasionally talk about the associations that aim to represent the profession. So today, let’s talk about PRSA (the Public Relations Society of America), which recently signaled a move to remain apolitical—retreating into a shell of neutrality when members were clamoring for them to speak up on controversial issues.

Specifically, I’m talking about the silence from PRSA regarding ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) operations in Minneapolis. Now, before you roll your eyes and think this is just another partisan squabble, stop right there. This isn’t about immigration policy; it is about the integrity of public information—the very foundation of our profession. We’ll dive into what PRSA said and how I responded after this.

PRSA leadership, including Chair Heidi Harrell and CEO Matt Marcial, sent a message to members claiming that remaining apolitical protects the organization’s credibility. The letter framed this stance as a means to focus on its core mission. Leadership asserts that while they have commented on sensitive issues in the past, the current “complex environment” demands greater diligence, effectively reserving public advocacy only for matters that directly and significantly impact the technical practice of public relations or its ethical standards. By shifting the burden of advocacy to individual members and requiring chapters to vet local statements through national leadership, the society is attempting to build a “firewall against unintended risks.”

In other words, they’re betting that professional neutrality is the best way to maintain trust across a diverse membership, even if it means stepping back from the broader social fray. Now, I have a different perspective. In fact, I’ve published an open letter to PRSA leadership on LinkedIn, arguing that their own Code of Ethics doesn’t just permit them to speak out—it actually demands it.

Consider the “Free Flow of Information” provision in the PRSA Code of Ethics. It states that protecting the flow of accurate and truthful information is essential for a democratic society. In Minneapolis, we have federal officials making public statements about the killings of U.S. citizens—statements that are being credibly disputed by video evidence and eyewitness accounts. When government officials systematically misrepresent facts, that is a professional standards issue. It is not political to distinguish a truth from a lie. It is, quite literally, our job.

PRSA argues that they want to maintain trust across a diverse membership, but let’s be clear: silence is a statement. It’s a message that says our ethical commitments are only applicable when there’s nothing controversial to address. Don’t believe for a minute that neutrality will save your reputation. Silence in the face of documented misinformation erodes trust among the very members who look to the Society to model the courage we’re expected to show our clients every day.

The PRSA Ethics Code mandates a dual obligation: loyalty to clients and service to the public interest. It doesn’t say “serve the public interest only when it’s convenient or not controversial.” When federal agents are accused of violating nearly a hundred court orders and detaining citizens unlawfully, truth in the public interest is eroding fast under the weight of official silence. If PRSA won’t defend the standard of truth when it’s being trampled by powerful federal agencies, who will?

I am not suggesting that PRSA needs to become an immigration advocacy group—I am decidedly not. But I am suggesting a path forward that reaffirms our values without wading into the partisan muck. PRSA could and should issue a statement that affirms the vital importance of truthful government communication. They should issue a call for transparency when official narratives conflict with documented evidence, and they should reaffirm that all communicators have an obligation to accuracy over mere advocacy.

The fact is, our profession depends on a broader democratic society that functions on truthful information. When that foundation is threatened, our standards are implicated, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. And let’s keep in mind, PRSA has members working in federal agencies that may require them to participate in the distribution of false information. Professional associations aren’t tested during the easy times. They’re tested when standing up for a principle actually costs something. PRSA’s current diligence looks a lot like retreat. We should be leading the charge for accountability, not languishing in a state of denial.

The comments to the LinkedIn article I posted show a membership that is anything but neutral on the need for ethical leadership. I’ll make one more point here: this approach to determining when advocacy is required translates nicely to businesses that have retreated from taking stances on societal issues, despite the Edelman Trust Barometer’s continued demonstration that it’s an expectation of their shareholders.

Neville Hobson It’s an interesting one, Shel. I’m reminded of discussions we have had on this podcast previously about the role of businesses to take a stand on issues that are societal but demand some kind of response in some form. This fits that, I think. Your response on LinkedIn was very good; the path forward you outlined is strong.

I did like it when you mentioned the word “courage.” This demands that in the face of fear or apprehension. All those words could apply to the potential minefield PRSA would be wandering into if they stepped away from being “apolitical.” Could there be a response from those federal agencies themselves? Or perhaps a negative reaction from the administration and the White House? That may be a driver behind it. Yet, this sort of situation has arisen before. We’ve talked about the notion of professional bodies taking stands on issues.

The way you’ve framed the issue as ethical and professional—it’s hard to argue against that. This is not a partisan thing. I see you’ve got over 120 comments on LinkedIn to your article. Did you hear anything from PRSA directly, or are they silent?

Shel Holtz No. In fact, a few people who have had issues with PRSA in the past told me they appreciate me posting an open letter because PRSA has historically ignored those. I’m not necessarily expecting to hear anything from them. I don’t hold any leadership roles there, so there’s no reason they should think I’m someone special to reach out to.

But you talk about professional organizations; related to all of this, we recently had the arrest of two journalists reporting on an activist group that interrupted a church service led by a pastor who also has a role with ICE in Minneapolis. It was arguably an illegal action for this group to do that, but two reporters went in with them to cover it and they were both arrested based on an order from the U.S. Attorney General.

The associations that represent journalists were pretty quick with their statements. PRSA talked about making a statement when there is something that is “technically related to the profession.” That would certainly apply in the case of these journalists. But still, the journalism associations were quick, and there was no concern that members might take issue or that the administration might make life miserable for them. They had the courage to take a stance consistent with their codes of ethics.

One member of the PRSA board, whom I know personally, did leave a comment questioning why I singled out PRSA. Why not the Page Society? Why not the IABC (International Association of Business Communicators)? My answer was: they didn’t send me a letter telling me why they’re not saying anything. But I absolutely think every communication association should be advocating for truth in public communications. That’s our job.

Neville Hobson I think the fear of a strong, negative, almost threatening reaction from the administration and the White House is at the heart of this. They have “form” in ignoring ethics or international agreements—they’ll tear up those bits of paper because they say it’s “fake” or “rubbish.” Maybe that’s behind a lot of this.

What you’ve given them is a challenge: will PRSA apply its own ethical framework when doing so carries reputational and political costs? You mentioned others saying PRSA has a history of ignoring public letters. You see this with other professional bodies who are reluctant to take stands, interpreting “taking a stand” as “advocating for a cause,” which they don’t do. I would argue this is splitting hairs because the argument is about upholding standards.

Enlisting support from other professional bodies might be the safest approach—not asking them to take a stand on a specific political issue, but to reassert the point of truthful communication, transparency, and professional accountability. Someone has to do something to address this. This is an opportunity. I understand the reluctance, but I would counter by saying you need to have courage. You represent communicators across the United States, probably Canada, and elsewhere. Who else will do this if you don’t? What would you like to see happen as a result of this discussion?

Shel Holtz I would like to see the professional associations have a conversation on their staffs and their volunteer boards and decide how they’re going to proceed in a way that conforms with the values they purport to espouse.

I understand that PRSA issued the letter because they had been flooded with member requests to do something. A week or so ago, a letter was issued through the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce by 60 CEOs of Minnesota-based businesses—companies like 3M, Target, and UnitedHealth Group. Some people praised it, but most thought it was weak and “milquetoast.” It called for de-escalation but never named ICE or the immigration issue at all.

In the meantime, Target is still under pressure from customers and employees to say something. There was an arrest made by ICE inside one of their stores that traumatized employees who witnessed it, and the company has said nothing. It’s similar to Home Depot, which has had arrests in its parking lots and has remained silent. This disturbs stakeholders. You don’t need a position on immigration policy to talk about tactics that are affecting your community and your business. That’s fair game. That’s where the framework for a statement has to be focused: what is the impact on your business and where does this align with your values?

Neville Hobson It’s interesting. 3M and Cargill are global businesses. That “milquetoast” route was probably the safest way to navigate the tightrope, but it doesn’t really help much other than attracting criticism for being weak. I can equally understand that no one there wants to point fingers in a way that might not advance the discussion, but it doesn’t lead us anywhere.

Shel Holtz Well, look at organizations like Patagonia, which has actually sued the administration, and their sales and profits are doing just fine. There may be a lot of fear that isn’t backed up by substantial consequences. If you look at the streets of Minneapolis these days, you can see where public sentiment is. It’s fine for business to be on the right side of this.

Neville Hobson It is a very tricky situation. Every one of these companies has a statement defining their values, and surely what we’re seeing on the streets of Minneapolis would offend those values. No one’s willing to be counted. Maybe it needs a “safer” avenue—redefining or restating values in public and linking them to these events without naming names. But currently, we only have what we see on the news, and it’s not pretty.

Shel Holtz No, it’s not. The businesses that have a direct connection to this and remain silent are going to be remembered for it. This doesn’t mean every business needs to make a statement—if you’re not based in Minnesota, perhaps it’s unrelated to your standards for public comment.

But going back to PRSA: when you have federal officials making false statements to the public, and you have an organization that advocates for ethical communication, I think that demands a position. That is the framework for businesses and associations to look at: where is the alignment that should lead you to stand up and display that kind of courage?

Neville Hobson Where indeed?

Shel Holtz That’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #499: When Saying Nothing Sends the Wrong Message appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In this FIR Interview, Neville Hobson and Shel Holtz speak with crisis and risk communication specialist Philippe Borremans about his new Crisis Communication 2026 Trend Report, based on a survey of senior crisis and communication leaders.

The conversation explores how crisis communication is evolving in an era defined by polycrisis, declining trust, and accelerating AI-driven risk – and why many organisations remain dangerously underprepared despite growing awareness of these threats.

Drawing on real-world examples, including recent AI-amplified reputation crises, Philippe outlines where organisations are falling short and what communicators can do now to close the gap between awareness and action.

Highlights AI is changing crisis dynamics: Organisations recognise risks like AI-driven misinformation and deepfakes, yet few have tested response plans or governance frameworks. * Most crises are issues gone wrong: Crises often emerge from internal behaviours and poor issue management rather than sudden external shocks. * Trust isn’t a luxury; it’s measurable: “Building trust” sounds good, but most organisations lack meaningful metrics or strategies to manage it. * Silos break under stress: Crisis readiness still lives in functional silos — legal, HR, comms, operations — making compound crises harder to handle. * Testing beats plans alone: Having a crisis plan helps, but regular, realistic testing and muscle memory are what make teams resilient. * Agility matters more than perfect data:* Waiting for complete information can stall responses; communicators must be comfortable acting in the face of uncertainty.

About our Conversation PartnerPhilippe Borremans is a leading authority on AI-driven crisis, risk, and emergency communication with over 25 years of experience spanning 30+ countries. As the author of Mastering Crisis Communication with ChatGPT: A Practical Guide, he bridges the critical gap between emerging technologies and high-stakes communication management.

A trusted advisor to global organisations including the World Health Organisation, the European Council, and multinational corporations, Philippe brings deep expertise in public health emergencies, corporate crisis communication, and AI-enhanced communication strategies.

He is the creator of the Universal Adaptive Crisis Communication framework (UACC), designed to manage complex, overlapping crises. He publishes Wag The Dog, a weekly newsletter tracking industry innovations and trends.

Follow Philippe on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/philippeborremans/

Relevant links

https://www.riskcomms.com/
https://www.wagthedog.io/
https://www.riskcomms.com/f/the-2026-crisis-emergency-and-risk-communication-trends-report

TranscriptShel Holtz
Hi everybody and welcome to a For Immediate Release interview. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson
I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz
And we are here today with Philippe Borremans. We have known Philippe for at least 20 years, going back to the days where he was managing blogging at IBM out of Brussels, located today in Portugal. And an independent consultant addressing crisis, risk, and emergency communications. Welcome, Philippe. Delighted to have you with us.

Philippe Borremans
No, thanks for having me and it’s good to see you both.

Shel Holtz
And before we jump into our questions, could you tell listeners a little bit about yourself, a little more background than I just offered up?

Philippe Borremans
Sure. Yeah, as you said, I mean, I started out in PR with Porter Novelli in Brussels, that’s ages ago, and then moved in-house at IBM for 10 years. So that was from 99 to, I think 2009, must be, working on, as you said, the first blogging guidelines, which then became the social media guidelines. It was a great project, I was responsible for all external comms there. And then…

In fact, moved away from Belgium, lived four years in Morocco, working in public relations on a more, a bit more strategic level. And since then I’ve been specializing in risk, crisis and emergency comms. So that’s actually the only thing I do. It’s mainly around all the things that could happen to either a private sector organization, a government or a public organization.

Shel Holtz
And you also produce and distribute a terrific newsletter on all of this. So we’ll ask you later to let people know how to subscribe to that. We thought we would start with a case study, although we are going to get into a survey that you recently wrapped up and released. there was an incident in which an executive at Campbell’s, the company that makes Campbell’s soup, claimed that the company’s products were highly processed food for poor people and that the company used bioengineered meat. He also made some derogatory remarks about employees and this surfaced and spread around. An analysis found that negative sentiment around the company surged to 70 % and page one search results were flooded with these negative narratives. And that included the AI overviews. One analysis said the ears of marketing and branding were wiped away in an instant.

And that same analysis said that one of the biggest risks that AI introduces is an inherent bias toward negative information. What happened with Campbell’s is that coverage spread really fast across social media and traditional news outlets when this email surfaced. That created a flood of new content that AI systems were happy to start ingesting ⁓ and reinforcing. So when people started searching for 3D printed meat and questions about whether Campbell’s uses real meat, AI didn’t correct those perceptions. It surfaced fragments of context. It pulled language from the company’s own website that referenced mechanically separated chicken. I don’t want to know what that means. And all of this muddied perceptions instead of clarifying things. What should communicators be doing? What didn’t Campbell’s do to protect itself from this? It really is a new reality about how information is gathered up and then shared back out?

Philippe Borremans
It makes you wonder sometimes but it does tell me that the organization probably was not investing enough in their online reputation side of things. I mean, I recently had discussion with a client, they were asking me about how do we prepare our online information so that it surfaces on AI searches and all these things. And I said, well, maybe you should already start by in your newsroom, not publish your press releases in PDF format because that is so the basics most of the time are not in place. And I think in this case, again, I mean, looking at how search engine optimization is changing, how AI is looking at information. That is crucial. It’s basics because if your online reputation is out there with the information that you have, the bias of AI, I can get it. But if you know that, again, you can work with that. And so I think the organization was simply not looking at their online side of the reputation and information dissemination.

Neville Hobson
What do you think, Philippe – it’s intriguing when I read this story originally that an organization as storied as Campbell’s Soup, one of the leading FMCG companies, with experience galore in communication, made errors such as and highlighted in this report. And it also highlights, I think, the speed with which this evolved and spread so rapidly, caught everyone by surprise. Is this a one-off, do you think? I mean, surely companies can’t be so unprepared as Campbell seemed to be with some kind of system in place, procedures, et cetera, or even going further back than that, the notion that an executive would say such things even. What’s your thought on that in terms of, of literally the self-inflicted damage they have heaped upon themselves?

Philippe Borremans
But I think in many cases, if we would take all the crisis communication cases that are publicly available, you would see that that is a trend that, you know, when people talk about crisis communication, they often think about the things that happen from the outside, right? The things that are sudden. But that is not the case. If you look at crisis communication history, the biggest proportion of crises are not sudden. There are smoldering crises that then break out. So that means that it’s first an issue that you can still manage, but that you for one or the other reason don’t look at and then it becomes a crisis. So it’s not sudden. You knew it was there at some point. And then the other thing as well, we think it’s external factors. But again, the majority of crises have an origin from within the organization, at least in the private sector. So what it tells me, first of all, it’s not new. It’s again, the old story of internal happening and it was an issue probably first and it came out and it was badly managed. And that shows to me or that tells to me that again, crisis, preparedness, reputation management with the big word is still not ingrained in on that top level executive level in the private sector.

Shel Holtz
Philippe, you’ve released a survey and Neville and I have been looking at it. We have questions, but can you give us an overview of the survey before we jump into our questions?

Philippe Borremans
Sure, yeah. So at the end of last year, I did a survey through my contacts, network, newsletter readers on crisis communications, a bit of looking at what the trends would be. Of course, AI is in there, but other things as well. And I got 102 responses that I can actually use. So was amazed. I was like, okay, this is something at least that shows some direction and I’ll just take my notes. Now one of the things that was interesting to see is that when we talk about AI for instance, one out of 87 people reported full AI integration. So that goes in line with other surveys that we see where, yes, there’s a lot of talk about AI in comms and the big changes it can bring and what have you, but we actually see a very, very small amount of implementation, structural implementation of AI. Most of us communicators are still playing around and discovering AI, and this was confirmed as well. Now, the respondents here are senior-level crisis slash communication director types. The adoption levels are low. The top barrier is very interesting. So I asked about the top barrier. So why then is AI not integrated in? And it’s 23.5 % set skills, huge skills gap. And again, that is in correlation with other surveys that I could see. Budget, okay, and then privacy security reasons at 14.7%. But the skills gap, that is the one that I’m really worried about because AI is not new. It’s been three years that we had access to the GenAI tools. We know we can install open source models on our own machines. We can sandbox them in an enterprise environment and still skills and the actual application are very, very low.

So that was for AI. Another one, which I was really afraid of and unfortunately confirmed is exercising. Do organizations actually exercise their plans? They all have a plan somewhere, but we know it’s just a plan and it’s the first thing that goes out of the window when something really happens. But do we exercise? Do we do crisis simulations, tabletops, large scale simulations and only 26.5 % of the respondents here test at least annually? 9.8 reported they never tested and then you’ve got the whole middle who test from time to time when they feel like it probably. Public sector was a bit different than private sector but still that is worrying because I know from experience having worked in this field now for the last 15 years

Good crisis communication or risk communication or emergency communication is about… It’s a muscle, right? If you don’t exercise it, whatever your plan is, it will not work. You need much more an agile approach, which comes from training and simulation exercises, than a rigid protocol plan. You need a plan, I’m not saying you don’t need it, but what will get you through a crisis is your agile approach because things change all the time. And that is only possible to get there, it’s only possible through exercising and we see that it’s not the case. Another one linked to AI. Everybody in the survey said, and it was really on top of when I asked about the biggest risks, AI, going wrong, AI risks related to AI. So fakes and what have you, deep fakes, etc. But only 3.9 % said that they had a tested gen AI crisis protocol. And 27.5 said they had no protocol and no plans in place to face an AI generated crisis. So it’s right on top there. Everybody’s afraid of it. Nobody’s planning for it. Again, an interesting insight I found.

Neville Hobson
That is interesting. Yeah.

Philippe Borremans
And then the first thing, mean, said that trust was much more difficult to manage than before. But what I saw in the rest of the information of the survey as well is that, again, the problem is there. what we actually and when I say we, it’s communicators and crisis communicators, what we don’t do is prepare, train and create protocols for different scenarios.

Neville Hobson
On that topic of trust, timely mention there, Philippe, because that’s one of my questions I was going to come back to a bit later, but this is the right moment to talk about that. The report actually describes a widening trust deficit. You touch on that with many organizations struggling to measure trust at all. That surprises me, I have to say, let alone rebuild it during a crisis. In fact, that applies to, I think, the Campbell Soup situation quite well, and it’s a crisis of trust they have now encountered. It’s timely to talk about this because in the context of the bigger picture of trust, Edelman’s Trust Barometer, which landed today as we record this, which is the 20th of January, it raises that question of the widening trust deficit in the context of crisis communication. So, I wonder your thoughts on the perennial question about communicators wanting to be taken seriously in the boardroom in particular. How should they rethink trust? And indeed, is that the right question to ask them even in this current climate of widening trust? Trust is already low. How on earth do you lift yourself up from that? How should they rethink it, as I mentioned, not as a value, but as something they can actually measure and manage? What’s your take on it?

Philippe Borremans
Well, I’ll even go a step further and I like your question. Is it even one of those concepts that we need to look at? I have a big issue with I do a lot of speaking at conferences and do workshops and every single time at least at conferences, every single other speaker has one slide that says we need to build trust. Right. And I got so fed up with that. I mean, what is trust, Neville and Shel? All three of us have different cultural backgrounds. Trust, the concept, is a different thing for all three of us. How we relate to government, how we relate to the private sector, how we relate to our community in society, it’s different. There is not one single definition. Of course, there is the broad definition of what it means, but when you look at it from a communications point of view and a relationship point of view between an organization and the publics, you will see that in every different part of the globe, it’s a different interpretation. And trust is not only, is not the only variable that works or that is important for crisis comms, then at least we have around 12 of them. Peter Sandman, you know, put the groundwork in that work, scientific research, but we have 12 to work with. Trust is just one of them.

So already there, I’m very cautious about using trust as the…you know, the mantra or the silver bullet. But once we understand what we’re talking about and agree on it, to me, it’s very simple. It all starts with and ends with completely and completely understanding your different audiences. We always talk about stakeholders. Sure, they are important. But from a communications point of view, from trust building, and I think

At least that’s my analysis from the Edelman Trust Barometer report as well. They talk about segmented audiences finally, we, I hope now finally most communication professionals understand that the general public doesn’t exist. We need to segment our audiences. And it’s understanding those through and through. Knowing what their context is. Knowing what their definition of trust is, what their relation is with your organization. Only then can you start building plans looking at how you would approach this in the context of a crisis. That’s what I think about this.

Shel Holtz
I want to stick with this issue of trust, even though it’s just one of several variables. Your survey found that nearly 66 percent of practitioners find building trust is harder today than it was five years ago. And you reference the idea of this being the era of the perma crisis. It’s always happening. Is this decline in our ability to build trust to failure of communication or is the external environment just too volatile to to manage effectively?

Philippe Borremans
But as an organization, as communicators, we’ve always worked in an environment that was shifting. Sure, maybe it’s, you, we’re in a peak moment where a lot of things are shifting. But if you actually look at, if I just look at different moments in my career at IBM, et cetera, and other organizations, there were always things shifting around. Now, either you look at it from your micro environment where you actually have something that you can

manage or on a global scale. But I think it’s much more about the profession as communicators. First of all, understanding the environment. Not a lot of communicators truly understand polycrisis and permacrisis concepts and how it actually translates into communications. It’s thrown out there and geopolitics and what have you, but how does that translate to your day-to-day work for your organization? So that’s already, I think, a gap. And then once you understand that, what can you actually do to minimize that impact from a communications point of view? We only have so much that we can actually work on. That means we need to work with other departments as well and probably with industry associations, cetera, et cetera. We are not the, you know, we cannot solve everything. But if we actually already start knowing what we can do in our corner and understanding the global environment now, which is not easy. Then already we can take the first steps. I’m always amazed when I work with clients, they all have media and social media monitoring platforms. And they actually think that for them, that’s intel, that’s the insights they need. Most of the time I tell them, well, yes, you need that part, but you have nothing around predictive analytics. You have nothing on horizon scanning. You have nothing on. So there’s huge gaps in there. And that’s actually the new things that you need in a world which is changing all the time.

Shel Holtz
I remember reading in an IABC document, somebody said that a crisis is what you get when you fail at issues identification.

Philippe Borremans
It is an issue, badly managed issue is of course something that becomes a crisis. on trust, Shel, I think out of the report came that the majority of respondents find it much more difficult to manage trusts than five years ago. But when I asked, well, how do you actually measure that? Nobody knew. there, again, it’s an impression they have. It’s a feeling.

Shel Holtz
It’s a feeling.

Philippe Borremans
But where is your benchmark? How are you going to measure your impact that you have or don’t have? How do you work with that if you don’t have the data? And that’s a gap.

Neville Hobson
You mentioned ‘polycrisis’ and indeed your report starts out by saying we work in an era of polycrisis. And you then said communicators need to understand what that means. Well, I’m a communicator. Help me out here, Philippe. What does it mean?

Philippe Borremans
Well, a polycrisis is an interesting concept. So what it actually means is that you have different crises which are interlocked, right? And that can happen in the same crisis window, meaning you could face a climate hazard, let’s say a hurricane, which could result in a blackout, which means, you know, critical infrastructure which then could have an impact on your data center and you suddenly are in a very commercial crisis there because clients rely on your data center if you’re an infrastructure provider. So it’s that interconnectedness of different types of crisis. And that is an interesting concept. First of all, it’s closer to reality. I’ve seen it here in Portugal. We had our famous blackout for more than 12 hours, but you see how it trickles down and impacts different things.

Neville Hobson
Yeah.

Philippe Borremans
infrastructure, mobile connection, business, etc. etc. etc. So that idea of interconnected crisis is now it is interesting in the context of crisis communication because we have previously always been trained on siloed crisis. All the plans are written like, okay, if we have a product recall, what do we do? If we have a critical infrastructure breakdown, what do we do? If we but it’s all separated, it’s not integrated. And of course that changes the game, that changes how you prepare for a crisis.

Neville Hobson
So that leads into, nicely, the question I had, which is precisely on that point, one of the strongest themes in the report is that crisis communication works best when it’s integrated across functions. Yet, HR, legal, maybe cybersecurity, certainly comms are often only loosely connected. So when a real compound crisis hits, where do you most often see integration break down? And what distinguishes organizations that get this right from those that don’t?

Philippe Borremans
Yeah. Well, a good example was Heathrow. You know, remember the blackout of Heathrow? It was so crazy because at one point I put two screens next to each other. So through my network of crisis communicators, we were all going like, my God, how is this possible? You know, I mean, but I had actually next to that a screen with my feed of my connections in the business continuity world, the operational side. And they’re all going like, we got an airport, one of the biggest airports in the world up and running in less than 24 hours again. Job well done. So that’s where it happens in an organization. You have the comms people going crazy and you’ve got the ops people working very hard and doing what they do. But they don’t you know, there is no interconnectedness. And then, of course, you have legal good friends from legal. And now you have entities, of course, HR. mean, one of the things that I’m still very much amazed when I work with clients is that internal comms is never at the table. While we all know that your first communication during a crisis is your internal communications. And it’s still not the case. So that where it’s often go wrong. The big chasm that I see is between comms and operations. once they get together, you see fabulous things happening because we can translate what it actually means if they can be up and running in half an hour or in two days. We can translate that to our audiences and our stakeholders and say, look, that’s the situation.

Cybersecurity is interesting as well because there’s a lot of pressure to integrate that now into crisis management teams simply and not because people think that’s the best way to do it, because it’s becoming the law within the EU. It needs to be integrated. It’s the law. You have no choice. So there’s a couple of things moving, but it’s more on the pressure of law and ISO quality norms and what have you, than actually understanding, yes, we all need to sit around the same table and let us all do our own jobs that we’re good in. We can translate stuff. You do the operational stuff.

Shel Holtz
It’s interesting, our CEO, I work for a construction company and our CEO says the thing that keeps him awake at night the most is cybersecurity and nothing to do with the industry. It’s just cybersecurity issues. Philippe, one of the new insights that came out of your report was a reference to populist politicians undermining science-based policy. How can organizational communicators deal with this landscape where facts are increasingly viewed through a partisan or an ideological lens?

Philippe Borremans
Well, again, it goes back to understanding why and how this happens. If you look just around a topic, which again is often discussed, mis-dis and malinformation, we talk about online and offline, right? It’s understanding what it actually means. I’m running a couple of workshops now on specifically on inoculation and pre-banking, which are two techniques and probably the only two techniques that work to counter this mis, mal and disinformation online. And so it’s, it’s understanding the psychology behind it. It’s not only about technology, it’s a lot about human biases and psychology. And, of course, countering the world’s geopolitical narratives, which, you know, have a certain way of going, that is, of course, very difficult, but understanding why they happen and how they work and how they then can impact certain audiences which and stakeholders were important to you. I think that is crucial as a communicator. And that is by studying, just looking at, what does this actually mean? Can we identify it? Can we translate how it could potentially impact what we do? And then how can we counter it?

Unfortunately, if it’s about online mis-dis and malinformation, there’s only two techniques that work. And even then, those two alone will just create a small protective layer because it’s very difficult to take online. But pre-banking and inoculation are the only techniques that work for the moment. Other ones, is, and they’re being talked about like, let’s increase media literacy. Well, that’s first of all, up to up. I mean, it’s not our responsibility. I think as communicators, we have other things to do. It’s probably the responsibility of the government, institution, Ministry of Education, but then we’re off for the next three decades.

Neville Hobson
I want to go back to the gaps that we touched on earlier. The big gap that struck me from reading it is how so many leaders see AI-driven misinformation and deepfakes as critical risk. Yet most organizations still don’t have the documented protocols to deal with them. And you’ve made that point very strongly about no protocols, no plans. I wonder, what’s really holding back organizations from moving from beyond awareness, that like, yes, they know, to action. So I guess a simple question, like the takeaway for listeners in this one, if you’re a communicator, what’s the simplest first step you could take to move from awareness to action to develop a plan? Let’s say in the next 90 days, what would you say to someone with that?

Philippe Borremans
It starts with sensing, right? You have to listen for these things because otherwise you’ll just see them when they’re actually out there and you’re in trouble. So it’s actually sensing. So I’m a very strong believer in AI driven predictive analytics. So this is different than your standard monitoring. Your standard monitoring, look at brand mentions and CEO mentions, executive mentions, et cetera. That’s not how you’re going to detect deep fakes. There are actually platforms out there today which do predictive analytics look at the activation of bot networks, the spreading of a certain narrative in a certain context, and that will show you something is brewing.

I’m making it very simple now. Something is brewing, things are getting organized, we could have something coming towards us, which could be deep fake and what have you and what have you. So first listening so that you have your alert system done in place. Then on the defense side, it’s actually also having what I call a truth bank. That’s a database or an Excel sheet, whatever. I can’t believe I said Excel sheet, a database where you have actual proof that your communication assets are yours, authentic and come from you. Because we are getting into an area where at one point in time, will, an organization will be questioned. Yes, you can say that press release is yours, but is it actually yours? You can say that that video of your CEO is actually true, but how can you prove that? We call me in an area as far as that. So you actually need to do it.

And you know, I’m a big defender and also user of blockchain technology. It’s very simple today. You can actually, you know, actually prove without irrefutable doubt that some pieces of communication are yours. Example of a bank in Belgium. Already years, every single press release they send out is stamped through a blockchain system so that they can actually prove it’s theirs. And they started to do that more than five years ago because they had fake press releases going out. And that wasn’t even AI driven. That was just someone who got very creative.

So first listening, then protecting your assets, making sure that you can prove it yours, and then countering. But countering depends on the situation. If it’s a rage farming attack, for instance, it’s no use in going against the originators, the people, the bad actors. That’s no use at all. You need to focus on the…

Neville Hobson
Can you just explain what rage farming is, Philippe?

Philippe Borremans
Sorry, yeah, rage farming. Rage farming is a technique where a bad actor, and most of the time it’s about making money, organizes an attack on your brand and they make money simply by the algorithms on the different platforms who then bring in sponsors and what have you and and clicks etc. Rage farming is an attack which is actually taking your normal communication standard comms, your next press release, your next presence at a conference, your next speech of your CEO, takes it out of context, looks at how it can be repurposed with one single objective to trigger rage.

So a very practical example, imagine that a retail company decides to make unisex uniforms. Men and women dress the same. We don’t make a difference. You could think, wow, gay, why not? Taken out of context, that means that it could be translated by bad actors in, look, they don’t want women to be women anymore. look, the whole woke context, they would reframe that and then target that message. It’s just out of context, but target that message proactively to communities online who are much more conservative, who have a much more conservative worldview. They would then be triggered by rage, start to spread it, and then actually you have that whole system. That’s rage farming. And why did we come to rage farming? Lost my…

Neville Hobson
Yeah. You were trained to thought. Yeah. No, that was, no, we actually moved on from that question, which was these steps to take, and you were going through each of the steps…

Philippe Borremans
Yeah, so and against rage farming, is one of those things that you need to do. So is that actual listening and in the context of rage farming, it’s no use at all to go against the bad actors because they’re in there to make money. Most of the time they have a whole network. It’s no use at all. But you need to then focus on your audiences that you can at least still inform. So not even to the in this example, the more conservative community online, because you will not change their mind. That’s their cultural background. That’s how they think about the world. So you actually need to know very well where you can make a difference or not, which is not always easy.

Shel Holtz
Let’s stick with this theme of gaps. The respondents to your survey were mostly C-suite, director level professionals. Is there a generational gap in how senior leadership views risks compared to the lower level, more junior practitioners? They’re the ones who are monitoring the feeds and they’re the ones who are going to be tasked with implementing a response. Is there a gap between them and the senior leadership in terms of how they perceive these things, these issues?

Philippe Borremans
I didn’t, I couldn’t get that out of the survey. I could probably look at it more deeply, but my gut feeling and based on experience is that you have some senior leaders who definitely see these risks, but on a very strategic level. And there is a gap in translating that into an, shall we call it an operational level. That’s what other responses and other questions tell me. Like, we know it’s difficult to manage trust compared to five years ago. Yeah, but you don’t have the benchmark. So how would you know? It’s just a gut feeling that you have. we know AI generated crisis are top risk. Yeah, but you don’t have your pro. So it’s that translation, I think. So there’s a top layer, think, that actually reads all the reports and meets around with senior peers and they talk about geopolitics and the world changing and polycrisis, what have you, and they understand.

But then how do you translate that into actual practical things in operational stuff? How do you upskill your team, your communications team today? Right. So that they can actually face all these these new issues. How do you change and adapt your crisis communication, preparedness planning? How do you integrate that? Those are the kind of practical questions that probably don’t trickle down. And of course, if down there you have more junior people, they maybe wouldn’t know the best way to go about it. That’s my feeling.

Neville Hobson
I’d like to talk a bit about testing. You can have a crisis communication plan, indeed more than one, which is not much use if you don’t ever test it to see if it all works. Anecdotally, I’ve heard, over the years, I suspect that that’s a major hurdle for many who perceive it as, know, organization wide. This is a massive project to get through. And yet I’ve often wondered, do you have to do that even? And then your report talks about things like embracing micro simulations, which I think maybe you could talk about that a little bit. But I’m also thinking something I found quite intriguing, make testing a governance requirement. And I suppose that makes sense in jurisdictions where testing isn’t any kind of legal requirement. So you voluntarily do this. But can you talk a little bit about the embracing micro simulations in particular and maybe some examples of how to make it seem both less daunting to a communicator and also relatively easy that they can actually implement some kind of testing process.

Philippe Borremans
Yeah, and that’s, that’s one of the things that comes back when I talk to people, like not specializing, so communications colleagues, I recently was at a conference and someone said, I am so convinced of this, but how do I translate that and tell that and ask for this to my management, because they see only the costs. Now, I actually have a little AI assistant that I trained into calculating return on investment of these things. But people think simulation is this big thing, right? You see ambulances coming and you see probably a big war room with big screens and what have you. It doesn’t have to be every single time that kind of simulation exercise. Organizations can start from the minimum, which is micro simulations.

I have a a small micro simulation platform that I coded myself. I do workshops with that. It’s an half an hour exercise. It’s a lunch and learn time, right? Get people around the table with a sandwich and say, okay, what is the crisis that we’re going to role play today? Half an hour, you get feedback. Fine. You can do that every single week. People find it fun, but it trains the muscle because it’s based on real scenarios and it’s real feedback and etc. Tabletop exercises. You have many different forms and formats. They can range from one hour to three hours. They can be functional exercises. They can be completely invented exercises. And let’s not forget, mean, communications people have no experience at all.

They’re actually simulation kits you can pay for and they’re not expensive and download, read through the manual and go through the motions. That also trains you maybe as a non-specialized communicator on what it actually means to manage and to do good simulations. But the most important thing is it doesn’t have to be the big thing. You can do micro simulations on a very regular basis, make it fun. You can do tabletop exercises every quarter, hopefully with an executive team, but put it in the agenda. And if you are in certain industries, I would actually say, well, you need a full scale simulation exercise every year if you’re in the petrochemical and what have you industry.

The point is you can actually position this not as a cost center exactly as a corporate insurance does. We know based on research and facts that organizations who train their plan first of all get through a crisis much quicker but rebuild after a crisis much quicker and that’s where the money goes. If it takes you two years to rebuild that’s a lot of money. If you can shorten that by half or even more. That is the actual game you do. And that comes from training, training and training. There is a reason why I was in the Navy. There’s a reason why the the captain of the ship, you know, did fire exercises every single day. And after the, you know, the 52nd, you go like, why are we doing this stupid thing? But actually, when you have a fire, you know why.

Shel Holtz
Ten percent of organizations never test their plans at all, according to your report. What happens to these organizations when they’re confronted with a Black Swan event? mean, can you wing it these days?

Philippe Borremans
It’s a good question. Can you wing it? Some organizations wing it and then suddenly they go through it and are like, wow, how did you… But that’s more luck than anything else, I think. Now, black swan incidents, of course, are interesting because those are the ones you cannot prepare for. Well, you cannot plan for, you can prepare for. Because if you build actually that agile muscle around crisis management and crisis comms. You are already much better prepared than somebody who doesn’t have that agile muscle, who is strictly following protocol and old school plans and then suddenly is confronted with a black swan incident.

And that’s why I’m a strong believer in working much more, again, you need plans, you need protocols, fully agree, but you actually need an agile communications team. We know things go very fast, they come from every single corner. You need that mindset. You need that agility muscle in there. And then teams are actually ready to take what comes and move at the moment.

And I do see a link. Another thing which is very difficult for communicators from my generation because we were trained like that, at least I was at PR school, I was trained that you do not communicate until you have all the facts. It took me a couple of years to switch that. When I work for the UN agencies during the pandemic and other epidemics, you actually need to communicate without having all the facts. And it’s very uncomfortable. It’s very contra training. But that’s what everybody in communications today should have that skill, because most of the time you will not have all the facts, and the facts will change day after day after day after day. So you need that muscle again, that agility. That’s the most important thing I think today.

Neville Hobson
I would agree with that view, Philippe.

Shel Holtz
The last question I have before we get to our traditional final question. You got a PR manager in a company who wakes up tomorrow morning, finds your report, reads it and realizes they’re part of the 77 % with no AI protocol. What should they do? What are the first steps they should take to update their crisis plan?

Philippe Borremans
I think if they don’t have a protocol now, it means that it hasn’t been on the agenda or not on the radar. They’ve heard a couple of things. So first of all, get informed about what it actually means. What is a deep fake? What are the different things that could happen? And then see, okay, how relevant is that for our organization? And then translating that into a couple of very basic steps, the monitoring, the protocol setup, and the what if exercises.

What if this tomorrow happens? What would we actually do? What would it mean for our audiences, for our executives, for our stakeholders? And how do we translate that? Not in a big plan and a long, you know, SOP, but simple steps. And most of the time it will not be a, you know, a communications team of 25 people. It will be one, two, maybe just split up the rows.

What do we do if tomorrow there’s a deep fake popping up? How will we do the triage? Because you don’t have to react to everything. And if we decide to react, who are the first people that we need to inform? Sometimes it’s getting really the very basics in place. It’s already much more than 90 % of the other people that are actually not looking at this for the moment.

Neville Hobson
Sound advice. And of course, we now come to that point of the question we didn’t ask you, that you wished we had or hoped we would. What would that be if there is one?

Philippe Borremans
That would be, “Philippe, when do we have another drink in Brussels?”

Shel Holtz
Not soon enough.

Neville Hobson
I like that. That’ll do. I like that one. Yes. It was a long time since we had that drink in Brussels, Philippe, so we ought to.

Philippe Borremans
Or when do we meet face to face again? Because it’s been that’s been a very long time as well. So yeah.

Neville Hobson
Well, you and I are in Europe, so that’s easy for Shel to come over here. And in fact, going to the States these days isn’t a very attractive proposition, I think, to many of us over here. But it’s been a terrific conversation, and I think you’ve shared some great insights for our listeners. Where can people get hold of you? How would people find you online?

Philippe Borremans
Well, the main I mean, if they’re interested in the topic, it’s it’s maybe a good idea to subscribe. So I’ve got a free newsletter every week. I talk about risk crisis and emergency comms and AI. And that’s at wagthedog.io. And if they need support before during or after crisis, it’s my corporate website, which is riskcomms.com.

Shel Holtz
And you’re also on LinkedIn, I presume, and sharing your insights there as well. Philippe, it has been terrific. Thank you so much for the time.

Philippe Borremans
Sure, definitely. No, thank you. It was really great seeing you again and we definitely have to find an excuse this year to meet.

Shel Holtz
I would love that.

Neville Hobson
Thank you.

The post AI risk, trust, and preparedness in a polycrisis era appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

You built an agency you’re proud of. So why does your website still feature that glowing tribute to someone you wouldn’t recommend today, or explain services you stopped offering three years ago?

In this episode, Chip and Gini tackle the unsexy but critical task of auditing your agency’s website content. They share practical approaches for identifying what needs updating, what deserves deletion, and how to prioritize your efforts when you’re staring down hundreds (or thousands) of outdated pages.

The conversation covers everything from quick wins—like updating your homepage and key pages—to strategic decisions about high-traffic content that no longer serves your business. Gini shares her process for using tools like Screaming Frog to audit content systematically, while Chip emphasizes the importance of focusing on human users rather than chasing every algorithm change.

They also dive into the balance between refreshing old content and creating new material, with specific guidance on when each approach makes sense. The episode wraps with a reminder that consistency matters more than perfection—especially when AI is increasingly using your bio and content to determine whether to recommend you.

If your website is starting to feel like a liability rather than an asset, this episode offers a manageable roadmap to get it back on track without turning it into a year-long project. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 293: Stop letting your website embarrass you appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer focuses squarely on “a crisis of insularity.” The world’s largest independent PR agency suggests only business is in a position to be a trust broker in this environment. While the Trust Barometer’s data offers valuable insights, Neville and Shel suggest it be viewed through the lens of critical thinking. After all, who is better positioned to counsel businesses on how to be a trust broker than a PR agency? Also in this episode:

• Research shows employee adoption of AI is low, especially in non-tech organizations like retail and manufacturing, and among lower-level employees.
• CEOs insist that AI is making work more efficient. Do employees agree?
• Organizations believe deeply in the importance of alignment. So why aren’t employees aligned any more today than they were eight years ago?
• Mark Zuckerberg changed the name of his company to reflect its commitment to the metaverse. These days, the metaverse doesn’t figure much in Zuckerberg’s thinking
• In his Tech Report, Dan York reflects on Wikipedia’s 25th anniversary.

Links from this episode:

• 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer
• Society Is Becoming More Insular
• Exclusive: Global trust data finds our shared reality is collapsing
• Insularity is next trust crisis, according to the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer
• Employers are the most trusted institution. That should worry you – Strategic
• The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer has landed, and everyone in comms is about to spend the next six months quoting the same statistic
• HIS THEORY IS LITERALLY: The human beings of the earth don’t like each other, don’t trust each other, won’t talk to each other, won’t listen to each other.
• Richard Edelman Has No Clothes. (Nobody Does.)
• Trust amid insularity: the leadership challenge hiding in plain sight
• Employees say they’re fuzzy on their employers’ AI strategy
• JP Morgan’s AI adoption hit 50% of employees. The secret? A connectivity-first architecture
• How Americans View AI and Its Impact on People and Society
• Only 14% of workers use GenAI daily despite rising AI optimism: Survey
• Offering more AI tools can’t guarantee better adoption — so what can?
• Only 10 Percent of Workers Use AI Daily. Getting Higher Adoption Depends on Leaders
• Leaders Assume Employees Are Excited About AI. They’re Wrong.
• Meta is about to start grading workers on their AI skills
• CEOs are delusional about AI adoption
• CEOs Say AI Is Making Work More Efficient. Employees Tell a Different Story.
• The Productivity Gap Nobody Measured.
• FIR #497: CEOs Wrest Control of AI
• The Alignment Paradox
• What Mark Zuckerberg’s metaverse U-turn means for the future of virtual reality
• Meta Lays Off Thousands of VR Workers as Zuckerberg’s Vision Fails
• Meta Lays Off 1,500 People in Metaverse Division
• FIR episodes that featured metaverse discussions

Links from Dan York’s Tech Report

• Celebrating Wikipedia’s 25th Birthday and Reflecting on Being a wikipedia for 21 Years
• At 25, Wikipedia faces its biggest threat yet: AI
• Wikipedia at 25: A Wake-Up Call

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, February 23.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Shel Holtz: Hi everybody and welcome to episode number 498 of For Immediate Release. This is our long-form episode for January 2026. I’m Shel Holtz in Concord, California.

Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson, Somerset in the UK.

Shel Holtz: And we have a great episode for you today, lots to talk about. I’m sure you’ll be shocked, completely shocked that much of it has a focus on artificial intelligence and its place in communication, but some other juicy topics as well. We’re going to start with the Edelman Trust Barometer, but we do have some housekeeping to take care of first and we will start with a rundown of the short midweek episodes that we have shared with you since our December 2025 long form monthly episode. Neville?

Neville Hobson: Indeed. And starting with that episode that we published on the 29th of December, we led with exploring the future of news, including the Washington Post’s ill-advised launch of a personalized AI-generated podcast that failed to meet the newsroom standard for accuracy and the shift from journalist to information stewards as news sources. Other stories included Martin Sorrell’s belief that PR is dead and Sarah Waddington’s rebuttal in the BBC radio debate. Should communicators do anything about AI slop? And no, you can’t tell when something was written by AI. Reddit AI and the new rules of communication was our topic in FIR 495 on the 5th of January, where we discussed Reddit’s growing influence. Big topic, and I’m sure we’ll be talking about that again in the near future. On that day, we also published an extra unnumbered short episode to acknowledge FIR’s 21st birthday. Yes, we started out on the 3rd of January 2005 and that’s a lot of water under the bridge in that time, Shel. And I think we had quite a few bits of feedback on that episode.

Shel Holtz: People dropped in and shared their congratulations. There were way too many of them to read and many of them were very, very similar. Just to share one, this is from Greg Breedenbach who said, “Congratulations, what a feat. I’ve been listening since 2008 and never got bored because you managed to keep it engaging and relevant. Thanks for all the hard work.”

Neville Hobson: Great comment, Greg, thank you. So for FIR 496 on the 13th of January, we reported on the call by the PRCA, the Public Relations and Communications Association for a new definition of public relations. We explored the proposal’s emphasis on organizational legitimacy, its explicit inclusion of AI’s role in the information ecosystem, and the ongoing challenge of establishing a unified professional standard that resonates across the global communications industry. That had a few comments.

Shel Holtz: That got a few comments. Gloria Walker said, “Attempts have been made from time to time over the decades to define and redefine PR. Until there is a short one that pros and clients and employers can understand, these exercises will continue. Good luck.” And Neville, you replied, you said, “You’re right, Gloria. This debate comes around regularly. One interesting precedent was the Public Relations Society of America led effort in 2011 in a public consultation to redefine PR. That process was deliberately open and received broad support from professional bodies and their members around the world.” And Philippe Borremans out of Portugal had a comment. He said, “Thanks for the mention of my comments. Hope it helps in the definition exercise.” Philippe, of course, wrote a LinkedIn article in response to the definition. There were some other comments in this episode, including one from Marybeth West. You can go find that on LinkedIn. This was a rather lengthy exchange between Marybeth and you that is just too long to include here.

Neville Hobson: Great. And then in FIR 497 on the 19th of January, that’s just a week ago before we record this current episode, we unpacked the latest AI radar report from BCG, used to be known as Boston Consulting Group, that says AI has graduated from a tech-driven experiment to a CEO-owned strategic mandate. We examined this evolution that places communicators at the center of a high-stakes transition as AI moves from pilot phase into end-to-end organizational transformation. One comment we had to that:

Shel Holtz: From our friend Brian Kilgore, who said, “Haven’t read the report yet, but will soon. Sometimes when I read a link first, I can’t get back to the comments.” But he continues to say, “I once took a job that was structured by Boston Consulting Group. My employer used the BCG report as the basis for the job description. It worked out well.”

Neville Hobson: Excellent. So that’s where we’re at. Some good stuff since the last episode. And of course, now we’re about to get into the current.

Shel Holtz: And yesterday I published the most recent Circle of Fellows, the monthly panel discussion with members of the class of IABC Fellows. This one was on mentoring. It was a fascinating conversation featuring Amanda Hamilton-Atwell, Brent Carey, Andrea Greenhouse, and Russell Grossman. The next Circle of Fellows—mark it in your calendar because this one’s going to be very interesting and maybe even controversial—this is going to be at noon Eastern time on Thursday, February 26th and it’s all about communicating in the age of grievance. This will feature Priya Bates, Alice Brink, Jane Mitchell, and Jennifer Waugh.

Neville Hobson: You’re such a tease, Shel, with that intro, I have to say. So yeah, go sign up for it, folks. I’d also like to mention that in December, IABC announced the formation of a new shared interest group, or SIG, that Sylvia Cambier and I are leading. It’s called the AI Leadership and Communication SIG. And I’m delighted that we have attracted 70 members so far. I’m also delighted to share that our first two live events are scheduled for February. On the 11th of February, we’re hosting a webinar for IABC members to introduce the SIG, explain why we formed it, what it stands for, and how it approaches AI through a leadership and communication lens. Then on the 25th of February, as part of IABC Ethics Month, we’re hosting a webinar on AI ethics and the responsibility of communicators. This is a public event open to members and non-members that explores the challenges and responsibilities communicators face when introducing AI, including transparency and trust, stakeholder accountability, and human oversight. We’ve included links in the show notes so you can learn more about these events and sign up as well if you’d like to.

Shel Holtz: Sounds great, I’m planning to attend those, schedule permitting. And that wraps up our housekeeping. Hooray! It’s time to get into our content, but first you have to listen to this.

Neville Hobson: Our lead discussion this month is the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer, which landed last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, with a stark framing: trust amid insularity. But before we get into the findings, a quick word on what the Edelman Trust Barometer actually is. Many of you literally may not know why this is significant. The Edelman PR firm has published the Trust Barometer every year since 2000, making this its 26th edition. It’s based on a large-scale annual survey across 28 countries, tracking levels of trust in four core institutions: business, government, media, and NGOs, alongside attitudes to leadership, societal change, and emerging issues. Over time, it has become one of the most widely cited longitudinal studies of trust globally, not because it predicts events, but because it captures how public sentiment shifts year by year.

After more than two decades of tracking trust globally, Edelman’s core finding this year is that we are no longer just living in a polarized world, but one where people are increasingly turning inward. That’s that word “insularity” I mentioned earlier. The report suggests that sustained pressure from economic anxiety, geopolitical tension, misinformation, and rapid technological change is reshaping how trust works. Rather than engaging with difference, many people are narrowing their circles of trust, placing greater confidence in those who feel familiar, local, and aligned with their own values, and withdrawing trust from institutions or people perceived as “other.” At a headline level, overall trust is broadly stable year on year. The global trust index edges up slightly, but that masks important differences. Trust continues to be significantly higher in developing markets than in developed ones, where trust levels remain flat or fragile. As in recent years, employers and business are the most trusted institutions globally, while government and media continue to struggle for confidence in many countries.

What is notably sharper this year is the distribution of trust. The income-based trust gap has widened further, with high-income groups significantly more trusting than low-income groups. Edelman also finds growing anxiety about the future. Fewer people believe the next generation will be better off, and worries about job security, recession, trade conflicts, and disinformation are at or near record highs. A defining theme running through the report is what Edelman calls insularity. Seven in 10 respondents globally say they’re hesitant or unwilling to trust someone who differs from them, whether in values, beliefs, sources of information, or cultural background. Exposure to opposing viewpoints is declining in many countries, and trust is increasingly shifting away from national or global institutions towards local personal networks: family, friends, colleagues, and employers. Compared with last year’s focus on grievance and polarization, the 2026 report suggests a further step from division into retreat. The concern is not just disagreement, but disengagement—a world where people are less willing to cross lines of difference at all.

In response, Edelman positions trust brokering as a necessary answer to this environment—the idea that organizations and leaders should actively bridge divides by facilitating understanding across difference rather than trying to persuade or convert. This concept sits at the center of the second half of the report. It’s also worth noting that Edelman’s framing, particularly around trust brokering and the role of institutions, has attracted a number of critical responses. We’ll highlight some of those critiques in our discussion alongside our own perspectives and what this year’s findings mean in practice. Taken together, the 2026 Trust Barometer paints a picture of a world where trust hasn’t collapsed, but it has narrowed, becoming more conditional, more local, and more shaped by fear and familiarity than by shared institutions or common ground. That raises important questions about leadership, communication, and the role organizations are being asked to play in society. So let’s unpack what Edelman is telling us this year. What stands out in the data where it feels like a continuation of recent trends and where this idea of insularity marks something more fundamental in how trust is changing? Shel?

Shel Holtz: Well, we would be remiss if we didn’t acknowledge that this annual ritual has attracted a torrent of criticism over the years. Criticism raises some uncomfortable questions about what we’re actually measuring and, more importantly, whose interests the barometer serves. Now, none of this minimizes the value of the data that has been collected. For the eight years that I have been working for my employer, I have extracted points that I think are relevant and share these with our leadership. I’ve already undertaken that exercise this year. So what I’m about to share with you is a critique, but I don’t want anyone thinking this means you should ignore the report. It just means you should apply some critical thinking as you go over this information.

And let’s start with the most fundamental critique: the methodology and sample selection. Clean Creatives, which is a climate advocacy organization, has documented how Edelman’s country selection appears strategically aligned with the firm’s client base. The United Arab Emirates, for instance, was only added to the trust barometer in 2011, conveniently right after they became an Edelman client in 2010. And wouldn’t you know it, the barometer regularly finds that trust in the UAE government remains among the highest in the world. And by the way, that’s a quote, “remains among the highest in the world,” findings that are then dutifully promoted by state media.

Consider the question: is the trust barometer measuring trust or is it manufacturing it for the C-suite? The issue gets even more problematic when you look at the top of the leaderboard. Six of the highest-ranked governments in recent editions—China, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, India, and Singapore—are rated by Freedom House as either not free or partly free. Researchers studying authoritarian regimes have identified what they call autocratic trust bias. It’s a phenomenon economist Timur Kuran calls “preference falsification.” In other words, people don’t exactly feel free to reveal their true opinions when they might face some sort of prosecution for indicating that they don’t trust their government.

And here’s where David Murray’s recent critique hits the nail on the head. David is a friend of mine. He’s a friend of the show and he has been an FIR interview guest. And he published a takedown of what he calls this wearying annual ritual. David points out the sheer absurdity of Edelman’s latest focus: insularity. The 2026 report claims that seven in 10 people are insular, as you mentioned Neville, retreating into familiar circles. Edelman’s solution, as you mentioned again, is the trust brokers. And of course, the report finds that employers are the ones best positioned to scale this trust brokering skill set. But as Murray observes, there’s something deeply hollow about a global PR machine using AI and always-on monitoring to lecture us on the human skill of listening without judgment. It’s a case of “human hires machine to reassure self he is human.”

Now consider Edelman is a $986 million global PR firm whose stated purpose is to evolve, promote, and protect their clients’ reputations. So when the research concludes year after year that business must lead and that my employer should be the primary trust broker, you have to ask: is this research or is this a pitch deck? Is Edelman documenting a phenomenon or are they selling a solution that just happens to require companies to hire more communications consultants to teach conflict resolution training? There’s also the question of academic rigor. Despite its massive influence, Edelman hasn’t made the full data set available to independent researchers. When their 2023 findings about polarization were criticized for lumping democratic and authoritarian countries together, they produced a reanalysis, but only after removing data from China, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. And, surprise, the core finding—that business must lead—remained intact.

The conflict of interest concerns extend even further. Edelman has been documented working with fossil fuel giants like Shell, Chevron, and Exxon Mobil. They were one of the largest vendors to the Charles Koch Foundation, yet the barometer presents findings about climate change and business ethics without disclosing these relationships. Peer-reviewed research found Edelman was engaged by coal and gas clients more than any other PR firm between 1989 and 2020. When a firm with that client roster tells us that business is the only institution that is both ethical and competent, we should probably raise an eyebrow. Look, I’m not saying the underlying trends—polarization, information chaos, erosion of truth—aren’t real. These are very serious shifts in our reality, but we need to be critical observers of the research. We need to ask who benefits from the conclusion that employers should step into the void left by failing democratic institutions and who profits from the narrative that CEOs, not citizens, should lead societal change? The Edelman Trust Barometer has become the ultimate gathering of elites at Davos telling each other what they want to hear. It provides a veneer of data-driven legitimacy to corporate overconfidence. But if we’re serious about rebuilding trust, we might want to start by questioning the research that so conveniently serves the interests of those who are producing it.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, that’s quite a scathing analysis. I read David Murray’s blog post, really, really good, entertaining read in his inimitable style. One that actually mentions some points that are really right up there with some of the critiques you raised from your narrative—a post by Sharon O’Day. Sharon’s a digital communication consultant based in Amsterdam. I think she’s on the button with most of what she writes. I read her content on LinkedIn frequently. She’s got about 82,000 followers on LinkedIn, so she’s got some credentials and credibility. She talked about this, where her headline is the one that kind of sets the scene for what she writes in an article for Strategic Global. She says, “Employers are the most trusted institution—that should worry you,” says Sharon. She goes into a description of what the report is and what the big finding is about “my employer is now the most trusted institution.”

She warns before internal communicators rush to embrace “trust brokering”—Edelman’s proposed solution to all this—we should ask what kind of trust are we actually talking about? She goes on to summarize what, in her view, Edelman gets right about this. The trust barometer lands strongly, she says, because it tells people what they already suspect, but with graphs. I did like that little bit there. So she talked a bit about the seductive appeal of trust brokering. And I thought this was a sharp analysis. Edelman’s solution is trust brokering: help people work across difference, acknowledge disagreement, translate perspectives, surface shared interests. Employers as the most trusted institution should facilitate this. You can see why this resonates, she says; it offers organizations a constructive role without being overtly political. For internal communicators, it suggests evolution from message delivery to dialogue facilitation. It fits our existing narratives nicely, she says.

But the problem isn’t that this is wrong. It’s that it treats trust as primarily a relational challenge, when in most organizations it’s fundamentally structural. The core weakness, says Sharon, is assuming trust is an emotional state that can be rehydrated with better listening. She says trust is a systems problem, in fact. Workplace mistrust is often entirely rational, she says. People distrust organizations because they’ve watched restructures framed as “growth,” AI introduced without safeguards, workloads expand as headcount contracts, risk pushed downwards while control stays at the top. That’s a pretty keen assessment, I think, of reality in most organizations. And she notes being asked to engage openly feels less like inclusion and more like exposure. Frame trust as sentiment and the solution defaults to messaging. Understand trust as system behavior and the role shifts towards making systems legible: how decisions are made, where constraints sit, what won’t change.

And she then talks about when insularity becomes moral judgment, reminding us this now applies to 70% of people globally, according to the trust barometer. The danger: this subtly relocates responsibility. If trust is low because people are insular, help them become more open. But what if mistrust is entirely rational? And she warns again that trust isn’t a moral virtue; it’s a calculation people update based on what organizations do, not what they say. Trust in an employer is not the same as trust in a democratic institution. It’s shaped by dependency as much as belief. Your employer controls your income, your professional identity, and often your healthcare and visa status. That changes the dynamic.

So she winds up talking about the hard truth. The most worrying thing is that people trust their employer more than anything else—is that they may not have anywhere else left to put it. That’s not a mandate to become society’s repair shop, says Sharon. It’s a warning about what happens when you’re the last institution standing and you cock it up. For communications, a task isn’t to become trust brokers. It’s to tell the truth about the system people are inside, how it works, where constraint sits, what won’t change and why. Trust collapses when people stop expecting honesty about how decisions get made and who benefits.

I think, though, that last bit in particular is a hard truth dose of reality. I suspect where in a sense she’s saying—I’m interpreting her words here—that communicators are part of the game, let’s say. They are not telling the truth about the system people are inside. And that’s quite an indictment to slam that down on the table in the midst of this. Yet, I think it’s a valid point to raise for discussion, whether you disagree or agree. It’s worth considering what she says. Are we all who work in large organizations in particular to communicate what the organization is doing, what the leaders are saying, what’s happening… are we simply regurgitating the top-down perspective of an untruth? Maybe that’s one way of putting it. So it adds to the questioning of Edelman’s motives or their responsibilities. I think what you noted—people like David Murray saying—have done a pretty good job at that. I’m not questioning that aspect of it all.

I have found, largely, what Edelman talks about to be valid, notwithstanding those questions about their motives and often undisclosed relationships. Because after all, they interview each year 20,000-plus people in God knows how many countries. And these aren’t folks who have axes to grind themselves in the same way, let’s say, if it’s alleged that Edelman does. So I think it has credibility in that regard. I’m equally aware of a lot of the criticism about this that questions the credibility. I don’t do that the same way others do. I have found, and indeed the same with this current report, value in the information that Edelman have put together that they are sharing. So it’s useful to get a sense of this, particularly the annual changes in sentiment that we’ve reported on this in For Immediate Release throughout the years. I can remember actually being at the very first Edelman Trust Barometer when Richard Edelman was in London—that was in 2000, I think, or 2001. Beginning of the century, 26 years ago anyway. So it is interesting, Shel. And I think the criticisms are worthy of debate, not dismissing them unless you are quite clear you’ve got something else to say. The report is a dense document. It’s quite detailed. I found a good place to start to get a sense of what it’s all about is the top 10 findings, the snapshot views of each of the top points that is under the heading “Trust Amid Insularity.” So it’s definitely worth paying attention to, putting it in the context of what the critics say.

Shel Holtz: And frankly, the longitudinal nature of this research—what David Murray called “wearying”—is actually where much of the value comes from: the ability to track change over time in any research. I mean, you look at engagement studies that companies do among their employees. If you couldn’t see how any element of that survey has improved or declined over time, it’s of far less value than getting this one snapshot in time for a single survey. So there’s great value there. And like I say, I think there’s great value in a lot of the data in this survey. I mean, the fact that the focus is on insularity should not be any surprise. We’re seeing this every day. It’s interesting that… I think it had to be 35, 40 years ago, IABC’s Research Foundation, the lamented long-gone IABC Research Foundation, did a study on trust. And I remember the definition that they gave trust. We were talking earlier about the definition of PR; the definition of trust is pretty fixed. It’s the belief that the party in question is going to do the right thing. And so it’s that simple. And the question becomes: what is the right thing? Among people who are inside their bubbles, that insularity, what do they believe the right thing is? And that is probably very different from people who are in a different bubble.

And this, I think, is where that “trust brokering” idea has some legitimacy, even if it may not be presented in the best way. I think telling the truth is… that’s not what we need to be doing in order to address this. If we’re not telling the truth, then we simply have no stake in this game. You can’t go anywhere from there. But if you’re telling the truth, how do you get that into the heads of the people who are not paying attention to you? They’re listening to people who say you can’t trust them. And I think that comes through engagement, not through publication, not through telling. To some extent through listening—you must do that to find out what their issues are, what they do believe. But at some point you have to start engaging with people. I mean, the profession is called Public Relations, not Public Content Distribution. And those relations have to have some give and take, some two-ways. So if you have people who don’t trust you and are misinterpreting or are listening to false information being delivered by people who have an interest in taking your organization or your institution down, you need to reach out to those people and start to engage them. And I absolutely agree with whoever it was said that this is the direction that we need to be heading in. I think they were talking about internal communications being more dialogue, but I think that’s true of the external side too.

Reaching people who are in bubbles is extremely difficult. I’ll tell you, I was having a conversation—this is a friend of mine who I have learned is on the opposite political spectrum from me. And I told him, “You know, I watch Fox News on a fairly regular basis. I find it important to know what the people on the other side of the political spectrum are hearing, what they believe, what they think, so it can inform my view of things.” It doesn’t change it, but it certainly informs it when I’m having conversations or I’m considering how to reach somebody. I said to him, “You ought to be doing the same. You ought to be watching some of the media that presents the views that are contrary to your own and understand them.” And his answer to me was, “Stop watching Fox News.” He felt that I should stay in my bubble. So this is a pretty entrenched perception that people have. And it’s become very ingrained in the cultures of these insular regions, if you want to call them that. How do you reach people? I think that’s the challenge for people in communications right now: how do you reach the people who just are not interested in hearing what you have to say? They want to hear what your critics have to say, and that’s all they’re listening to.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. That makes sense. And indeed, that I think supports one of the key elements of this latest report, which is that traditionally in organizational communication, part of your goal is to get everyone lined up with the same message. We’re all singing off the same sheet and it’s all unified and we go forward. This is a change. This is not about that. It’s not about aligning people who are different; it is about understanding the differences and still being able to engage with them, recognizing their differences. And that makes complete sense to me in the current geopolitical environment, because I believe that what we’ve seen over the past few years—and the driver for this unquestionably is what’s happening in the States since Donald Trump became president for the second term—that as Mark Carney spoke in his speech at Davos at the World Economic Forum, that this isn’t a transition, we’re going through a “rupture.” I’m not sure I… it was very good, very good. I’m not so sure it is that—maybe it is a transition, it doesn’t matter what you call it—but the reality is that people are afraid in many countries. Just watch the TV news and you’ll be scared most days, particularly when you see things that you couldn’t imagine happening in some of the countries where it is happening, notably in the US, what’s happening there with crackdowns in various parts of society. It’s truly extraordinary.

I think that is a big influence on this insularity, people withdrawing. Yet I think where it talks about people wanting to engage with people with similar views, similar beliefs and so forth, not different beliefs… I seem to remember a few years back—I’ve forgotten which year it was—when the Edelman Trust Barometer of that particular year published something that was quite radical, where the most trusted person in the world, if you will, is “someone like me.” I remember that. This is that, is it not? It’s someone like me, except the dynamics are very, very different to what it was back then. And I think one of the things I feel that this is a thing to really pay close attention to, which is aligned with what you said about engaging with people outside of different individual bubbles, is that recognition of difference. It is the fact that people need pushing in the right way. And it is the fact—and again, this comes back perhaps to Sharon O’Day’s critique—that we’re not telling the truth. That we need to tell a different version of the truth, if that doesn’t sound kind of weird. There is always more than one version of the truth. And I think: which one do you trust? And that’s, I think, a big challenge for communicators because it surely would be easy for a senior-level communicator, particularly if they’re an advisor to the C-suite, to see when the messaging coming out of the C-suite is simply not the right messaging. Not saying that they’re not telling the truth, far from it. What they believe as the truth may not actually reflect what is happening. And that’s where listening really becomes key.

So it means, I suppose, that communicators can rethink this whole structure in light of what Edelman’s saying, but not exclusively because of this. But take a look at this: one of the key findings, the first one that Edelman mentions, “insularity undermines trust.” And that’s something that I grabbed from this when I wrote my blog post about this—a kind of reflective post I wrote a few days ago—of what insularity, when people withdraw into themselves and stop engaging with others with different views, they often can undermine the authority within an organization of what the leaders are trying to do by not cooperating, by just simply not doing it or even actively dissing it or whatever it might be. Is that a new thing? Maybe it’s not, but it certainly has a mass impact if you see that sort of thing going on. “Mass-class divide deepens” is another one that they talk about—the gap between high and low-income groups. So these are the bigger picture issues in our society. And yet we’re seeing things going on because of these changes in geopolitics, I suppose, that this is not a good thing. And institutions are falling short. The four big institutions I mentioned at the start are falling well short on addressing this.

The phrase “trust brokering”—I really don’t like that, to be honest, Shel. It sounds gimmicky. It sounds like a catchphrase that someone’s come up with, which I suspect is what’s prompted a lot of the criticisms of it. I’ve even seen some people say, “Wait a minute, trust broker… isn’t that what communicators have been doing for years?” Now we’re calling it trust brokering. So we need to get past this kind of labeling confusion, I think, and look at what we must do to help leaders in particular do the right thing in their organizations and how they’re communicating things and enable, if you like, empower properly communicators to take all this forward. But there’s lots to pick from this report, I think, Shel.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I wonder how many PR agencies are going to announce soon that they are launching their “trust brokering units” now available to engage in your organization. I’m going to invoke the IABC Research Foundation one more time. Their seminal work was the Excellence Study—Excellence in Public Relations and Communications Management—outstanding effort. And the primary work that came out of that was a review of the literature on all of this. So a lot of academic stuff. It’s a rather lengthy book. I’ve read it; I still have it; I still refer to it. But one of the things that I learned when I was reading this way back when it came out is this notion of “boundary spanning.” It’s an academic term from PR in the academic world. And it suggests that public relations people really need to understand the perception and the perspectives of the opposition so well that when they talk about it in the organization, people are going to be suspicious that the PR people have switched sides. You understand it so well that you can basically talk like the opposition does and convey their concerns and their critiques as if you were one of them. I don’t know how many public relations people are doing that these days. Given the results of this research, it seems to me that boundary spanning is becoming a necessary tactic for public relations practitioners. I think it’s important that if that’s not something that you have looked into and this is the work that you do as a communicator, something to pay attention to.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I would agree with that. So there’s lots to absorb in this. We’ve touched on the kind of prominent points, but there’s one that struck me as an interesting one on Edelman’s list of the top 10 issues. There’s a tenth one. There’s a last on their list: “Trusted voices on social media open closed doors.” And I thought that’s an interesting take on that. They say people who trust influencers say they would trust or consider trusting a company they currently distrust if it were vouched for by someone they already trust. Think about that. That’s interesting, because we’re seeing separately to the Trust Barometer, influencers as a group, let’s say broadly speaking, under threat for lack of credibility in many cases. Some of the face-palming things that I’ve read about influencers doing or saying in recent months has been, you know, face-slap—you whack your hand on your head. But this is true, in my view, that that makes sense to me. And maybe that is an easy way for communicators to engage with people, maybe in slightly more open ways than they have in the past to enable that kind of thing. So again, it’s a thought point, if you like, that’s worth considering, even though it’s not high up on Edelman’s top 10 list—it’s the 10th. Worth paying attention to though, I think.

Shel Holtz: Absolutely. And you see the opinion polls showing a shift in support or lack of support for one thing or another based on what some of the prominent influencers are saying when they change their view. Looking at the “bro-verse” in the podcast world—people like Joe Rogan, for example—who were very supportive of Donald Trump when he was running for president, and you look at the independent vote and it was very supportive of Donald Trump. And the bro-verse has shifted with what’s going on in Minneapolis and some other cities. You’re hearing Joe Rogan say, “What is this? The Gestapo in the streets now?” And now you’re starting to see that shift in opinion among independent voters away from Trump. Now this is a correlation, not a causation. But still, it’s interesting and seems to validate that 10th point among those top 10 from Edelman.

Neville Hobson: Agree. So lots to unpack here. We’ve touched… we scratched the surface basically and shared some opinions of our own. There’ll be links to the report and some other content in the show notes if you want to dive into it.

Shel Holtz: And we’re going to switch gears now and talk about artificial intelligence for at least the next two reports. These are very complementary reports—the one I’m about to share, then after Dan York’s report, Neville, your story, very, very complementary. So let’s get started. There is a striking disconnect happening in corporate America right now, and it comes down to a shift in perception. Leaders think their AI rollouts are going great, while the view from the cubicle is “not so much.” Let’s start with the numbers. A Gallup survey of over 23,000 workers found that 45% of American employees have used AI at work at least a few times. Sounds encouraging, doesn’t it? But wait—only 10% use it every day. Even frequent use sits at just 23%. So despite a year of this breathless hype and massive corporate investment, actual day-to-day adoption remains marginal. And here’s what may be the most telling statistic: 23% of workers, including 16% of managers, don’t even know if their company has formally adopted AI tools at all. Now, think about that. Nearly a quarter of your workforce is so disconnected from the organization’s strategy that they can’t say whether one even exists. This gap suggests that shadow IT problem where employees are using personal tools like ChatGPT while remaining completely unaware of their employer’s official path forward is what we’re probably seeing in a lot of organizations.

The adoption pattern breaks down along predictable and frankly troubling lines. Usage is concentrated where you would expect: Technology organizations (76% of employees are using AI), Finance companies (58%). But in retail and manufacturing, those numbers crater: 33% in retail and 38% in manufacturing. AI is languishing in the same place as it always does—among the people already closest to the technology. Now, contrast this with JPMorgan Chase, which has become the poster child for successful enterprise AI adoption. When they launched their internal LLM suite, adoption went viral. Today, more than 60% of their workforce uses it daily. That’s six times the national average. Now, what did JPMorgan do differently? Their chief analytics officer, Derek Waldron, says they took a “connectivity-first” approach. Instead of giving employees a login to a generic chatbot and calling it a day, they built AI that actually connects to the bank’s internal systems—their customer relationship management package, their HR software, their document repositories. An investment banker can now generate a presentation in 30 seconds by pulling real internal business data. The bank also understood the Kano model of satisfaction. They made the tools genuinely useful and voluntary. They didn’t mandate usage. They bet that if the tool solved a problem, word would spread organically. They also ditched generic literacy training for segment training—that is, teaching people how to use AI for their specific work.

Now here’s where things get a little uncomfortable. JPMorgan has been candid about the consequences. Operation staff are projected to decline by 10%. While new roles like context engineers are emerging, the bank hasn’t promised that everyone will keep their job. Meanwhile, at most other organizations, we’re hitting a “silicon ceiling.” BCG, formerly Boston Consulting Group, found that while three-quarters of leaders use generative AI weekly, use among frontline employees has stalled at 51%. The problem is a leadership vacuum. Only 37% of employees say their organization has adopted AI to improve productivity. A separate Gallup study found that even where AI is implemented, only 53% of employees feel their managers actively support its use. Then there’s the trust issue. Nine in 10 workers use AI, but three in four have abandoned tasks due to poor outputs. The issue here isn’t access; the issue is execution. People don’t know how to prompt or critically evaluate the results. Worse, 72% of managers report paying out-of-pocket for the tools that they need to do their work using AI. In response, some companies are taking a hard line. Meta has announced that starting in 2026, performance reviews will assess AI-driven impact. In other words, AI use is no longer optional at Meta. So where does this leave us? We have bullish leaders making massive investments while their workers are either unaware of the strategy or worried that using AI makes them look replaceable. The fundamental problem is that companies are deploying AI as if it’s just another software rollout. And it is not. It requires rethinking workflows, investing in specific training, and building tools that connect to real business data. The gap between AI hype and actual adoption isn’t going to close until organizations figure that out.

Neville Hobson: There’s a lot in there, Shel, that is interesting, I have to say. I think JPMorgan is a use case that’s definitely worth studying what they’ve done. I’m reading the article that appeared in VentureBeat talking about that. It talks about “ubiquitous connectivity”—great, two words put together—plugged into highly sophisticated systems of record. You mentioned how integrated this was to all their internal systems. So you can see some things there that you don’t hear some other companies explaining things that way. The forward-looking approach… so they’ve got leaders who are treating this the right way. It talked about, as you said, they didn’t just enable this and then say, “here you go.” They literally developed it as an ongoing thing in conjunction with employees, which is really good. I think, though, that the alarm bells ring in the first part of your report, when you were talking about how employees say they’re fuzzy on their employer’s AI strategy, with many not knowing whether their employer has one or not. I’d like to think that that’s not the majority, but I fear I may be misplaced with that view, because the ones that don’t do this—in other words, they do it the right way—are the ones who are reaping the benefits. And there are lessons, simple lessons, to learn from that.

Workers who use AI tend to be most likely to use it to generate ideas and consolidate information, Gallup says in introducing their survey report. That makes sense, doesn’t it? That they are… so you’ve got to enable that in an organization. I think there’s more we’ll talk about this when we get to the report you mentioned that we’ll talk about after Dan’s report that expands on this quite significantly. But there are some lessons to be learned from some of the things we discussed on this podcast in recent episodes. You mentioned Boston Consulting Group, where we’ll talk a bit more about the survey they did that paints a very different picture on this. Still, I have to say I’ve seen other reporting, including some of the ones you shared here, where it does talk about the huge gap between the views of leaders and organizations compared to the opinions of employees in those organizations on the state of AI and the benefits it’s supposed to bring. I think the Harvard Business Review report you shared as well—there’ll be links to that in the show notes—that says, “Leaders assume employees are excited about AI; they’re wrong,” says the Harvard Business Review. And they’ve got some really good credible data here to back up that review. The higher you sit in the organization, the rosier your view. Is that not true of many things in an organization, I wonder, that you’re insulated from some of the reality? Is there something communicators can do to alleviate that little problem? I suspect so. These are disconnects that do not help the organization if you really do have blind spots like that, I think. So it’s good to see this. The HBR talks about a survey they did—1,400 US-based employees. 76% of execs reported their employees feel enthusiastic about AI adoption. But the view from those employees was not that at all—just 31% of them expressed enthusiasm. That’s a bit different to what the execs are saying. So I wonder how we get to that reality and then add that to the climate of trust we discussed in the Edelman Trust Barometer and the landscape’s looking like a very tricky one for communicators in a wide range of areas. Add this to that list of concerns.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, this report has really been focused on adoption among employees. You’re going to take a different spin on this after Dan’s report around the perception gap between executives and employees. But I think it comes down to mismanagement of the rollout of AI in, I would have to say, most organizations. And I think it’s a lot of different factors contribute to this, but leaders need to be paying more attention to what they want from AI. I mean, is it really just evaluating tools that have AI baked into them that we can bring into the organization? Or is it rethinking the organization writ large based on what AI can do in a more organic way? I love the point out of JPMorgan that an analyst can now create a deck in 30 seconds because the AI has access to all the internal data. That’s valuable. An employee can say, “That is something that is worthwhile to me.” Whereas you give them access to Copilot because you have an Office 365 contract in your organization and everybody has access to it and say, “Here’s Office 365, godspeed.” And you provide basic training to everybody that says, “Here’s how you write a prompt and here’s how you look for hallucinations and blah, blah, blah.” But it doesn’t tell somebody in a particular role what this can do for them. They’re going to leave that saying, “Okay, I think I can craft a good prompt now. Why would I want to do that? What would I prompt for?” I think this requires much more attention on the part of leadership and much more commitment to viewing this as a change initiative that has to be led from the top.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I think your point you mentioned earlier about this being to do with adoption and rollout as opposed to perception… but they’re both connected according to Harvard’s report anyway. They talk about: “When organizations see AI adoption as a way to make work better for employees and communicate that as opposed to as a pursuit of efficiencies and productivity, AI efforts gain traction.” And that’s repeated in many of the surveys that we could talk about. They communicate a shared purpose, involve employees in shaping the journey, and move people from resistance to enthusiasm. Makes total sense to me. The report also, the Harvard report, talks about employee-centric firms. I thought every firm was an employee-centric firm, but maybe I got that wrong. Employees on average are 92% more likely to say they are well-informed about their company’s AI strategy and 81% more likely to say that their perspectives are considered in AI-related decisions. That’s a huge percentage, I have to say. 70% more likely to feel enthusiastic and optimistic about AI adoption, reporting emotions such as empowerment, excitement, and hope rather than resistance, fear, or distrust. Communication, execution—that’s the kind of pathway, I suppose, or execution and communication, both hand in hand. So it’s… slow employee adoption of AI is clearly the norm, by my judgment, based on what you’ve been saying, what I’ve listened to, what I’m seeing in some of these reports. Makes me wonder: surely it’s a known status, if you like, that communicators can get a hold of and do something about, I would have thought. So would we expect to see a change in that area? I hope so.

Great report, Dan. Thanks very much indeed. I enjoyed listening to your assessment of Wikipedia over the past 25 years. I’m a huge user of Wikipedia and I’m as conscious as you are and many others of some concern about the challenges Wikipedia is facing with misinformation, disinformation, AI, the works getting involved. Looking with interest at how Wikipedia is addressing some of those things. I receive a lot of communication with you; I’ve been a donor for years to support Wikipedia. I’m pleased to see them, I guess, recognizing the shifting landscape and doing something about including AI in some form in terms of the editorial or the editing elements of content on Wikipedia. It’s a challenge without question. So your take on being an editor all those years is interesting, Dan. I’ve done a bit of that, nowhere near as much as you have. And it is interesting… I come across things I read on Wikipedia—I do read it quite a bit when I’m looking for information—that I will see something and think, “That’s not right.” And I might propose an edit in the talk pages. Rarely do I dive in and edit unless it’s something so obviously wrong, unless I’ve got… if I don’t have a source I can cite. So yeah, it’s interesting. And I remember you mentioning before your live editing streams on Twitch. They’re pretty cool. Yeah.

Shel Holtz: I remember watching those during the pandemic. That was fun.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, so great recap, Dan, thanks very much, worth listening to. So let’s continue the conversation then on the views of CEOs, how they differ from employees in AI introduction. I’m going to reference a Wall Street Journal story that talks about a survey seeing that “CEOs say AI is making work more efficient; employees tell a different story.” Much of the public narrative around generative AI in organizations has been framed as a productivity story—one where AI is already saving time, streamlining work, and delivering efficiency at scale. We’ve touched on a lot of that in your earlier report, Shel, our conversation there. But a recent Wall Street Journal report suggests there’s a growing disconnect between how senior leaders perceive AI’s impact and how employees are actually experiencing it day to day. So the Journal’s reporting draws on a survey by the AI consulting firm Section, based on responses from 5,000 white-collar workers in large organizations across the US, UK, and Canada. The headline finding is stark: two-thirds of non-management employees say AI is saving them less than two hours a week or no time at all. By contrast, more than 40% of executives believe AI is saving them eight hours a week or more. There’s a disconnect, it seems to me.

Beyond time savings, the survey highlights a clear emotional divide. Employees are far more likely to describe themselves as anxious or overwhelmed by AI, while senior leaders are more likely to say they feel excited about its potential. Many workers say they are unsure how to incorporate AI into their roles, and that whatever time is saved is often offset by having to check outputs, correct errors, or redo work. At the same time, companies are continuing to invest heavily in artificial intelligence, betting that it will drive future productivity and profit growth, even as evidence of near-term financial returns remains limited. Separate CEO surveys cited by the Journal suggest that only a small minority of leaders say AI has yet delivered meaningful cost or revenue benefits. The Journal also points to real-world examples where ambitious AI deployments have required human correction or reversal, reinforcing the idea that in practice, AI adoption is uneven, unpredictable, and highly dependent on context, skills, and judgment. This picture sits alongside other research we’ve discussed on For Immediate Release. In FIR 497, we talked about BCG’s AI radar report—that’s Boston Consulting Group—which argues that AI has moved beyond experimentation and is now a CEO-owned strategic mandate. That same research also places communicators at the center of managing expectations, trust, and organizational change. We’ve also seen consistent findings, including in the report you highlighted, we discussed literally a few minutes ago on slow employee adoption of AI, showing that while awareness of AI is high, employee adoption and understanding lag well behind leadership ambition.

Taken together, this raises an important tension. At the top of organizations, AI is increasingly seen as transformational and inevitable. On the ground, many employees are still grappling with how it fits into their work and whether it’s genuinely helping them do their jobs better. So what does this divergence between executive optimism and employee experience reveal about how AI is being introduced, communicated, and governed within organizations? Is the human side of AI adoption the real constraint on its promised productivity gains?

Shel Holtz: It’s all of this data is fascinating. And one of the things that strikes me is that we tend to look at data from research, surveys, reports, studies about AI in business. What about people just generally—what do they think about AI just as people living their lives? And there was a study that came out from Pew—this was just last September, so this is current data. I know four months is a million years in AI life, the AI life cycle. But still, this is fairly recent data. And what they found—and I’ll skip numbers and just give you some highlights here—that, and this is a study out of the US, Americans are much more concerned than excited about the increased use of AI in daily life. A majority say they want more control over how it’s used in their lives. Far larger shares say AI will erode rather than improve people’s ability to think creatively and form meaningful relationships. People are open to letting AI help them with their day-to-day tasks, but they don’t support it playing a role in personal matters: religion, matchmaking… more open for data analysis, like weather forecasting, things like that. But they also think it’s important to be able to tell if pictures, videos, or text were made by AI and humans, but they don’t trust their own ability to spot AI-generated stuff. Now, what you have to think about when you hear that this is how people who are just out there living their lives and outside of the context of work, this is how they feel—then they go to work. And they’re told, “AI, it’s going to be great.” And they bring all of these perceptions from their regular lives into the office, into the workplace. And that’s an impact, too. And I think this is something that internal communicators and leaders have to take into account when… I mean, this expectation that AI is going to make your job easier, it’s going to make your product better, whatever your output is, it’s going to make that better… it’s just going to make everything rosy. And you’ve already got these biases based on perceptions just from life. We have to take that into account in our communication. I don’t think this was something anybody was thinking about when we were first introducing it because there was no research yet. It was as new to people living their lives as it was to people doing their jobs. But now you have these perceptions that have been formed about AI as just something that’s there as part of life. And if we don’t factor that into the communication that we do around AI in the workplace, we’re going to struggle to get people to trust this and to figure out how to employ it to make their work better and to support the goals of the organization.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. So the big question then is: what needs to move the needle for communicators then to grasp this challenge, let’s say? I think when we discussed BCG’s AI Radar report, where the clear message there was “AI is now no longer just experimenting and experiments and is now CEO-owned strategic mandate.” So CEOs are taking over control of that. Certainly, with the investment going into AI and organizations. And indeed, one of the findings in BCG’s report was how success in deploying AI and the ROI on that deployment is now a core measure for CEO performance, it said. Well, that takes it up to a whole different level. So it presents opportunities, I think, for communicators to help that CEO achieve the goals he’s going to be measured on by communicating to employees. So this kind of circles back to what we were discussing earlier. And I think if employees on the ground are still grappling with how it fits into their work—and let’s set aside the survey saying CEOs are in charge of all this now, this is great, everything’s going to be wonderful… reality right now today, if they’re still grappling with how it fits into the work, then that needs to be addressed. And you’ve introduced an interesting element to that picture, Shel, where employees of an organization are exposed to all the negative commentary about this externally in their lives generally. They bring that to work with them and encounter what they see there. And they hear the CEO saying, “this is all great.” So these are genuine issues that must be addressed, otherwise, as you say, trust is going to be lacking all the way. And you put that in the context of Edelman’s Trust Barometer and trust and shifts in that… and it’s not a pretty picture at all, I don’t think.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, in the framework for internal communications that I developed—it’s the subject of the book that I’m working on—one of the key roles on a day-to-day basis for internal communicators is consultation, and that’s consultation up the organization. And I think this is an instance where that role is paramount. We need to be talking to our leaders about this. The fact that the BCG radar report says that this has become a CEO issue doesn’t mean that every CEO has done that. I think there are a lot of CEOs who see this—still see this—as an IT issue. And even if they’re using it in their jobs, they don’t think it’s something that they need to be leading; it’s something they think that their CIO needs to be leading. And I think we need to present this data to our leaders. I think we need to talk about why this needs to be led by the business and not one of the support teams. Consultation is what we need to be doing at this stage in addition to maintaining the drumbeat of why this is effective and how you can use this with the frontline employees who are actually going to be using these tools to make a difference in the organization.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I would agree with that. So therefore the answer to the question I posed when they finished the intro to this—is the human side of AI adoption the real constraint on its promised productivity gains?—I guess would be yes.

Shel Holtz: I would say absolutely yes, and I think that’s where organizations need to be shifting their investments. And I think I saw data that says they are shifting their investments. I think something like 60 or 70% of what organizations are investing in AI is now focused on the people in the organization.

Neville Hobson: That’s a good move.

Shel Holtz: Yep. Well, let’s leave AI behind for a bit and talk about something a little more strategic in the internal communication world. And that’s “alignment,” which has become one of those corporate North Stars that everyone nods at, but few organizations actually achieve. And there’s a paradox at the heart of this. The very act of trying to force alignment—meetings, memos, check-the-box town halls—can make the disconnect worse. Let me start with three simple definitions that frame the alignment problem. Let’s start this discussion with these definitions, courtesy of Stephen Waddington, whose PR credentials are far too many to list here. He says that leadership is the role of setting strategy and goals. Management is the process of measurement and continual improvement against those goals. Execution is delivery against those goals. All right, a pretty simple model there, right? Leadership, management, and execution. But here’s what happens in practice: one of these three almost always breaks down and more often than not, it’s alignment—the invisible thread meant to tie strategy, management, and execution together is what frays first.

Now Zora Artis, who has been a guest on FIR interviews, and Wayne Asplund have been studying the alignment problem for years. Their latest research, the CLEAR Leaders Project, revisits strategic alignment because despite how important it is, the same problems keep recurring. They conducted confidential interviews with senior leaders across communications, HR, strategy, and operations to explore how alignment is understood, practiced, and experienced in organizations today. And here’s the uncomfortable finding: seven years after their previous benchmark study, the gap between alignment in principle and alignment in practice is just as wide as it always has been. It’s universally valued yet almost never achieved. Now think about what this means. We’re not getting better at this and we should. I mentioned before that consultation is one of those daily activities in the ring around my framework circle. So is alignment. And despite all the strategy decks, the town halls, the carefully crafted vision statement, this problem persists. Why? Because senior leaders live inside the strategy. They’ve shaped it, debated it, and refined it, but that proximity breeds a dangerous assumption: the closer you are to a strategy, the more you assume its clarity is shared. What leaders often hear as consensus is actually silence. And in too many organizations, silence is misread as buy-in. Now here’s the thing about strategy: it doesn’t cascade like water; it distorts as it moves. It’s shaped by language, culture, experience, and hierarchy. A strategy that’s crystal clear at the top becomes a muddled set of ideas by the time it reaches teams on the ground. Ownership gets lost, accountability blurs, execution slows.

Now, Zora and Wayne’s original 2018 study of more than 200 senior communicators found that only 35% felt their organization was aligned to its corporate purpose. Only 40% used corporate purpose as a key part of employee communications. Think about that. We define the purpose of the organization; only 40% use that purpose as a part of their communication with employees. Now, fast forward through a pandemic, through massive technological disruption, through all the lessons we supposedly learned about clarity and communication, and the numbers still haven’t meaningfully improved. So what is this paradox? The very mechanisms we use to create organizational scale—you know, we subdivide work, we create functional specialization, we establish hierarchies—these are the mechanisms that fragment the information, decision rights, and incentives that guide individual decisions. We create silos to manage complexity, and those silos then work against our ability to align. Research from Strategy and Business frames it differently but arrives at the same place. When strategies aren’t implemented effectively, leaders tend to view their people as “irrational.” But workers and managers are actually rational actors. Their choices reflect sensible decisions in the context of what each of them knows and understands. The problem isn’t the people; it’s the organizational environment that’s encouraging decision-making that conflicts with overall objectives.

Fortune magazine estimates 70% of CEO failures are caused not by flawed strategic thinking, but by failure to execute. Most management teams don’t fully appreciate the role of the organization in undermining performance. They lack time or resources to understand how the organizational models actually work. They’re frustrated by their inability to realize objectives, but they rarely identify the interacting assumptions and misaligned incentives built into their own structures as the root cause. Here’s where the research gets really interesting. Artis and Asplund’s work reveals that alignment isn’t a noun, it’s a verb. It happens through repeated behavior, not bold declarations. The temptation is to treat alignment as a messaging issue: clearer cascades, sharper narratives, better packaging. But alignment isn’t about communication tactics; it’s about leadership behavior. In today’s environment, the traditional playbook of strategy decks, town halls, and posters on the wall simply doesn’t work anymore. The challenge is how consistently leaders live and lead the strategy every day. That requires holding the tension between spread and clarity, decisiveness and dialogue, direction and dissent. It means slowing down when speed tempts shortcut thinking, inviting challenge when comfort suggests consensus, being consistent in action as well as intent, and most critically, checking for understanding, not just repeating messages.

There’s also the “shallow versus deep” alignment problem. Shallow alignment is tactical: agreeing on plans, checking boxes. Deep alignment is about the fundamental “why.” Organizations need both, but they often confuse one for the other. They think because everyone showed up to the strategy offsite and nodded along that they have alignment. Six months later, they’re baffled when nothing has changed. Artis’ research through the pandemic showed that organizations that thrived had articulated a strong sense of purpose and used it to guide decision-making. Airbnb’s Brian Chesky spoke about their purpose as their North Star, giving them permission to morph their business strategy in response to threats and opportunities. Yet a McKinsey study found that while 82% of companies affirm the importance of purpose, only 42% thought their purpose statements had any actual impact.

So what’s the way forward? Well, first we have to stop treating strategic alignment as a communication challenge to be solved. It’s an ongoing act of leadership that demands humility, curiosity, and deliberate behavior. The best leaders aren’t the ones who shout the strategy the loudest; they’re the ones who stay aligned when pressure hits, who listen when they assume, and who practice alignment as part of their everyday leadership. Second, communicators need to fundamentally shift their role. As Zora and Wayne’s research shows, communication professionals have an enormous, mostly untapped opportunity here, but only if they move from being seen as tacticians to being seen as strategic advisors. That means being the function that surfaces misalignments, the conflicting incentives, the information gaps, the unclear decision rights, and working with leadership to fix them. Third, leaders need to acknowledge that you can’t communicate your way out of structural problems, but you can use communication to identify them. Alignment requires examining the organizational environment, not just restating aspirations or exhorting people to do better, but actually changing the conditions under which people make decisions. The alignment paradox won’t be solved by better PowerPoints. It requires recognizing that leadership is a practice, not a position. And it requires understanding that the very things that make organizations functional at scale are the same things that make alignment extraordinarily difficult. The question for every leader is whether you’re willing to confront this paradox honestly or whether you’ll keep mistaking silence for consensus and proximity for clarity.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, that’s a very interesting analysis, Shel. I think Zora and Wayne have done some good work here from just reading Zora’s Substack post about this. A couple of things struck me from this, which I guess puts it in perspective for people perhaps who don’t work in large organizations, because this is clearly geared to that. And yet alignment doesn’t require it to be a large organization. And I say that because I’ve gone through an alignment myself as a sole person last year. I did a webinar for IABC for the consultants group on this exact topic. It’s kind of swapping balance—it’s not about balance; it’s about alignment. They’re two different things. I did like a couple of things that leapt at me from Zora’s post. She talks about: “Alignment doesn’t fail because leaders lack intent. It weakens when shared clarity, ownership, and accountability diverge and commitment isn’t strong enough to hold together. When that happens, effort increases, but traction declines.” That is to the point precisely about eight years later where nothing much has moved well. She also says, “Alignment demands humility,” and I think this is the bit that resonated most with me: “Vulnerability and sustained commitment. Requires leaders and their teams to slow down, invite challenge, and stay open to perspectives that complicate the narrative.” And that to me was the kind of bottom line of this whole argument: slow down. It’s examine things with better purpose than you have had before. Choose to do things if you can because they matter, not just because they’re available or because they’re going to make you a lot of money, although that’s hard in a large organization, I think.

I think it’s something each one of us needs to pay attention to, not just if you’re an employee in a large organization, to start your own shift—to look at what you are doing as a consultant or as a communicator in an organization and how aligned is it with your own values and those of your organization. I don’t think people do that properly—maybe “effectively” might be the better word than properly. So this is a valuable piece of research that has some great points to zone in on and consider in your job as a communicator, indeed, as you as an individual person. To me, the biggest one is velocity. Get rid of velocity; slow down. Take more time on things. Resist the temptation where velocity equals “busy.” Well, it doesn’t. Busy-ness may be not the same thing at all. Indeed, in Zora’s article, she quotes someone saying, “Ego, fear, hubris, and speed push in the opposite direction.” That relates to humility, vulnerability, and sustained commitment. And absolutely true. You see it in large organizations in particular. So there’s a lot to learn from this. It talks about “Why is this intensifying now?” Dynamics aren’t new; becoming more consequential, says Zora in her piece. Strategy cycles are shorter. The context leaders operate in is more complex. Decisions are made faster, with less time for shared sense-making. Misalignment is more likely, therefore, in which case, slow down. If you say it enough, you will slow down. Resist pressure to speed up even. Not always easy. It depends on many factors. If you’ve got a leader you’re working with who subscribes to this view of “it’s not about velocity, it’s about taking the time to consider things and discuss it with others, shared sense-making,” as the article says, it’s worth doing. So this is something that, like you, I would say I’d look forward to reading this report when it comes out in February.

Shel Holtz: One of the things that jumped out at me as I was researching this for the report was the whole idea of structure of the organization being a hindrance to alignment. And I don’t know how many organizations have ever undertaken a “structure audit.” And the structure was created in order to have work that is similar done in one place. It does create those silos of… I think leaders are confident that the structure that they have created is the right one for the organization, but have they tested that structure against other things that are important to them? And I don’t know if there’s such a thing as a structure audit. I’ve never heard those two words used together. It may be time to develop one and say, “Yes, we understand the structure works for our process of getting our product out, for example, but what does it do for these other four things that are priorities in the organization? Are they hindrances? And do we need, as a result of this, to make changes to our structure so these four other priorities gain more traction? Or do we need to rethink how we are implementing these priorities so that they will be effective given the structure that we want to maintain?” But I don’t think anybody’s thinking about that right now at all. And I think it’s something to be raised.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, indeed. I think the Substack article talks about that a bit, saying, “Alignment is a discipline for leaders and teams. Without commitment, it shows up in moments and disappears when it’s tested.” So yeah, plenty to pay attention to here, Shel, I think. So let’s talk about something I think is quite an interesting topic. One we’ve talked about before on For Immediate Release, but not for a few years probably. And this is all about Mark Zuckerberg, head of Meta as it was renamed some years ago from just Facebook, and his recent “U-turn,” as the media are describing it—what that means for the future of virtual reality. So for several years, Zuckerberg placed a bold bet on virtual reality and the metaverse as the next major computing platform. That vision reshaped the strategy and even the name of Meta as the company poured tens of billions of dollars into Reality Labs, launched VR headsets, and promoted immersive virtual worlds as the future of work, social connection, and everyday computing. That vision now appears to be undergoing a significant reset.

In January, multiple reports confirmed that Meta is making deep cuts to its Reality Labs division, laying off around 1,500 employees, roughly 10% of the unit. According to the Wall Street Journal, the move reflects a deliberate shift in investment away from the metaverse and towards AI, particularly AI-powered wearables such as smart glasses. Reality Labs has reportedly lost more than $77 billion since 2020. Eye-watering numbers here, Shel. And consumer-facing platforms like Horizon Worlds have struggled to attract sustained engagement. I’m sure Zuckerberg’s glad he’s got that clause in the contract that says they can’t fire him for any reason whatsoever. But coverage from Futurism is even more blunt than the Wall Street Journal. It’s framing the layoffs as a clear signal that Meta’s consumer metaverse ambitions are being wound down after years of underperformance. Entire VR game studios have been shuttered. And while some platforms remain active, they are doing so at a far smaller scale as capital and leadership attention pivot decisively towards AI.

A more nuanced perspective comes from The Conversation in an analysis by Per-Ola Kristensson, professor of interactive systems engineering at the University of Cambridge. He argues that this apparent U-turn does not mean immersive technology itself has failed. Instead, it reflects the limits of fully immersive virtual reality as a mass-market everyday computing platform. Drawing on years of academic research and user studies, Kristensson notes that while VR works well for specialist use cases—such as training surgeons, engineers, or pilots—it performs poorly as a general-purpose work environment. Extended use is associated with higher workload, lower perceived productivity, increased fatigue, anxiety, and usability problems. In short, VR can be impressive, but it is often too immersive, uncomfortable, and impractical for routine daily work. Crucially, The Conversation suggests that what we’re seeing is not the end of immersive computing, but a shift away from VR towards augmented and mixed reality—less immersive technologies that layer digital information onto the physical world rather than replacing it entirely. Products such as Microsoft’s HoloLens are cited as examples of this approach, where virtual information supports real-world tasks rather than pulling users into a separate virtual space. This distinction matters because much of the current retrenchment is about the consumer metaverse—the idea of mass adoption of shared virtual worlds for socializing, working, and entertainment. On that front, the hype has clearly run ahead of reality. By contrast, business and enterprise use of immersive technologies are not disappearing. Credible reporting and research continue to show steady, if unspectacular, adoption in areas such as training and simulation, product design, digital twins, remote maintenance, healthcare, and specialist education. In these contexts, immersive tools are judged by whether they improve safety, accuracy, learning, or cost efficiency, not by whether they attract millions of daily users.

In other words, what appears to be collapsing is a grand consumer vision of the metaverse, not the underlying technologies themselves. The center of gravity is shifting from spectacle to practicality, and increasingly towards combinations of AI, augmented reality, and task-specific immersive tools, rather than all-encompassing virtual worlds. Shel, I know you’re a fan and a user of VR headsets. Why don’t we look at this moment—what this moment really represents—whether Meta’s pullback marks the end of virtual reality as a serious platform or simply the end of a particular story about it. And what this tells us about how emerging technologies mature once the hype cycle collides with everyday reality.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, until I developed this back problem and I’m confined from doing a lot until it’s addressed, I was pretty much a daily user of VR with the Meta Quest 3. I use several apps and they’re all workout apps. I have to say that the only thing I’ve been using it for the last few years is working out. I don’t exclusively work out with the headset, but that’s always how I start. And I always start with the same app. It’s called Supernatural. Supernatural was an app that was in the Meta app store, but it was a separate company and Zuckerberg wanted it. He wanted these companies to be part of Meta so that he could showcase them as part of his effort in the Metaverse. Now Supernatural employed a bunch of people. It had what they call choreographers—these are the coders who create the workout routines so that they work right and they’re synced with the popular music that are in these workout sets and they’re in categories: it’s rap, it’s classic rock, it’s metal, it’s classical jazz, soul, R&B. And you would pick either a boxing or what they call a flow workout. And there are coaches—there are six coaches who would guide you through these, lead you through the warmups and the cool downs. And there’s a Facebook group for people who use the app; it has about a hundred thousand people using it. The estimate is that there are about a hundred and thirty thousand people who use the app, Supernatural, on, I think, a monthly basis—active monthly users.

And most of those 1,500 who were fired from Reality Labs at Meta were the coaches and the choreographers and the people who make Supernatural go. They’ve made the point that the app is going to stay and all the workouts that have been created up to this point—and there are, I think, thousands of them—will remain available. But I don’t know how long it’s going to stay because they’re going to have to renew the music licensing. This isn’t the music you hear on other workout apps from artists you’ve never heard of that isn’t requiring licensing through the big music licensing organizations. This is popular music. This is today’s top artists and the top artists of the classic rock era and the like. So it’s expensive to license that music. And when that rolls around, I don’t know if we’re going to continue to see this music available. And I think the whole thing is going to fall apart. There’s a tremendous effort among the users of this to get Zuckerberg to bring it back. There’s a petition and all kinds of other efforts going on. It’s all being discussed in the Facebook group. But what’s important to keep in mind is the 1,500 people who were cut are working for apps that either Meta created or acquired that are consumer-facing. There are still 15,000-plus people on the payroll there. So this is not an exit from the metaverse or the virtual reality world; this is a refinement of their approach.

It’s also important, I think, to consider the broader landscape because Meta is not the only one doing this. And by the way, you mentioned Horizon Worlds, their metaverse. It’s awful. You know, if people go in there and say, “Is this what the metaverse is?” Forget that. I mean, I can absolutely see that, but it’s not. It’s not the only effort out there. Apple is still refining the Vision Pro ecosystem to define this whole spatial computing space. Nvidia is doubling down on the industrial metaverse with their Omniverse platform—this is for digital twins for global manufacturing. Digital twins are going to be huge, and that’s definitely an element of the metaverse. Epic Games is building a massive persistent universe in partnership with Disney, which will probably be more appealing than Horizon Worlds. I mean, I’ve got to believe between Epic and Disney, you’re going to get something better than Meta was able to conceive. The pivot to AI isn’t a distraction or a move away from the metaverse and VR. It’s actually the fuel for it. Generative AI is finally solving the two biggest hurdles the metaverse faced: the massive cost of 3D content creation and the “empty world” problem. By using AI to populate and build these spaces instantly, Meta and its competitors are finally making the tech scalable. They’re not retreating; they’re just waiting for their AI tools to finish building the world they promised us. So I still remain bullish on the metaverse and virtual reality. The fact that it seems to be going through a decline right now is just a dip in the chart. I think you’re going to see that trend rise again. And I think AI is going to play a big part in this. And by the way, NPCs—non-player characters in video games—AI is going to be jet fuel for non-player characters. So I think: watch this space. I think it’ll probably be a few years. I remember Matthew Ball, who wrote the book on the metaverse, said we were 10 years away. That was what, three years ago? So, I mean, we’re still seven years in his timeframe. And because of what’s happening with AI, that may accelerate it, but I think it’s actually going to extend it to probably 12 or 13 years because the focus has shifted. But I think as these two factors, AI and the metaverse/VR converge, you’re going to see an explosion of this stuff down the road.

Neville Hobson: You could be right. I think there are other players, you’re right. For the time being, though, for the moment, it appears that Meta is ditching this to concentrate on the current thing that so many people are putting their focus on: AI generally and wearables is what they’re now going to pay attention to, according to these reports. I did like Kristensson’s analysis of it all, particularly his view that this doesn’t really work for business use and certainly not for consumer use without competitive technology that appeals to people and others who are doing it, such as you’ve outlined. The reality, though, is that they have announced these layoffs and their shifts that they’re making to their division, and they’re not supporting it anymore at the moment, according to all the media reports that I’ve seen about all of this. Doesn’t mean to say that couldn’t change—that may change—but that’s the picture right now. And I think the limited research that I’ve done on particularly business use of virtual reality has far more promise. And indeed, the way in which the mention of that was couched from one of the reports about this: “pretty unsexy stuff going on with business use of all this.” Yet there are excellent results being reported by a number of companies. I remember reading a few months ago, which I posted about, I think, on LinkedIn, what BMW is doing with its car-building metaverse, where they’re modeling new models in a metaverse where the guys on the production lines are increasingly robots, but they’re to be run by humans, and the designers and the marketers and others all get together in a virtual world to discuss planning of a new model. That’s definitely something that they’re seeing results from, that kind of thing. I remember, as you will, Shel, let’s go back into the deep mists of time to a place called Second Life. Hey, all the auto companies—all of them, literally the big ones, particularly the American ones—were there with the virtual cars. I’ve still got a virtual Pontiac somewhere up there on Second Life, which is still there probably in 2026. I haven’t logged in since, so I’m going to make a point of doing that this weekend to see what’s going on, to see if I need to upgrade my fashion, clothing, or whether it’s still valid. But that was the early stages of things that we now call a metaverse. And the tech has moved on significantly and Second Life has moved on significantly with improvements to their platform. But it is one platform that doesn’t appeal to everyone, yet it’s there still with thousands of users. So there is room for all of these things. And you mentioned the book and projecting 10 years—it might be longer than that. I think it might be quicker than that even, because things are moving so fast with all of this. It’s hard to tell, but it is worth paying attention to both from a communication and business perspective. But also if you’re interested in how this tech is moving along generally, keep an eye on this because I think we are likely to see AI playing a bigger role, such as you suggested, than has been the case to date. So it’s kind of: watch this space, basically.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and in terms of the consumer use, one of the things that I was pointing out in a conversation I was having on the Supernatural Facebook group is that Meta in particular has done just a god-awful job of marketing these apps. When Supernatural was shut down, there was an article written by one of the users who’s also a Bloomberg reporter, so it got a fair amount of attention. He thought the move was fairly stupid to shut it down, given that it has a hundred thousand paying users. And I made the point in a discussion around this that, well, you know, they have not done a good job at all of marketing this. This is an app… I mean, you look at what people were saying when it was shut down in the group, and a lot of them were saying, “I never exercised before this. And I was skeptical when I tried it. But now here’s my before and after picture, right? And I weighed 250 pounds here and I’m 145 now.” There was a lot of that—people saying, “I never worked out before this and this is what led me to it.” And it’s because it’s fun and it’s because of the affinity we have with the coaches and blah, blah, blah. And Meta never took advantage of any of this. They never went out there and talked about how this can change your life. And there are other workout apps out there—Les Mills Body Combat and Fit XR and several others. So it’s not just a Meta problem. It’s the companies that make these, because these other apps are not owned by Meta; they’re just in the store. And there’s no marketing that I see for any of these that would bring people in. And you have to believe that somebody who’s never used this… and there are a number of people who said, “I bought my Quest headset so I could do Supernatural after a friend showed it to me.” That’s the gateway to other apps and to other tools and people finding, “Well, maybe there is some utility here. Maybe I do like playing VR games,” or what have you. And they just haven’t done this. And I have to say, it’s not surprising because Meta’s marketing has never been good for anything. But it seems to me that this whole virtual reality space, the marketing has been poor from the beginning.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. So let’s also throw into the pool here of memory lane stuff… I was a huge fan and a regular user literally on a daily basis of Microsoft’s Kinect—K-I-N-E-C-T—that I used totally and only for fitness: jogging in place, all the exercises, the works. And I was really unhappy when they canned it and got rid of it all and that whole ecosystem building around that. That must have been around 2009, 10, 11—that kind of timeframe. But my Kinect worked brilliantly on the TV I had, the Sony TV at the time. Absolutely super. I miss that because I’ve never really used any of this technology since then for exercise. Whereas that’s what I used it exclusively for—my Kinect. Running alongside my virtual trainer—I could see it on the screen, both of those. That was really cool. So things go on. But it is interesting though, Shel… you wonder why on earth did the company shut this thing down that was making tons of money, they had a community, etc. There are other forces at work here that lead to those kinds of decisions. And it may not make sense, but if you’re inside that organization, it probably does because there’s something else going on they haven’t announced publicly or whatever it might be. So hence my own view: I’m not as bullish as you are about this from a consumer point of view, any of this. Not yet, anyway. I think something’s got to work out further on this.

Shel Holtz: But my bullishness is along a long horizon. It’s not something imminent. Yeah.

Neville Hobson: No, I get it. I get it. And yet I wonder if we might see something happening. And I’m now thinking more of the other forces at work in the world generally about the changes that are going on in trust, stuff like that. What impact will this have? We’ve got you mentioned Nvidia doing some stuff. We’ve got other players, particularly in China, who are working with technologies that can do this kind of thing in China where they’ve got what—a billion people who could take advantage of all this. So there’s so much going on. Worth paying attention to all of it, I think.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I’m looking forward to checking out this persistent universe that Epic Games and Disney are working on because you know that AI is going to factor into that and the ability to keep the world creating new places and wherever you turn, there’s going to be something new. It’s going to be good. I would put money on that. That’ll bring this episode of For Immediate Release to a close. Just a couple of quick notes before we go. First of all, later this week, we’re dropping our FIR Interview for January. It was a really good interview with Philippe Borremans, who we mentioned earlier. He left one of the comments that we read early in the show. Philippe specializes in crisis communication and we talked to him about crisis and AI. Really interesting interview. He’s got tremendous subject matter expertise. So if you deal with crisis communication, this is one that you don’t want to miss. In terms of today’s episode, we do hope that you will leave comments. Most of the comments we get are on our LinkedIn posts announcing the episode, and we’re grateful for you sharing your comments there. You can also email them to us at fircomments at gmail.com.

We would still love to get an audio comment one of these days. We used to get those all the time. They actually drove our discussion for much of the show. We haven’t had one in probably a couple of years, but you can actually record one right on the FIR website at firpodcastnetwork.com. There’s a link on the right-hand side—it says “send voicemail.” Just click that. You’ve got 90 seconds to get your message across. Record more than one, I’ll put them together. You can leave comments directly on the show notes on the FIR website. You can also leave comments in the Facebook FIR group or the FIR page or to either of our posts on Facebook or on BlueSky or on Threads because we share the release of each episode in all of those places. Also your ratings and reviews on Apple or wherever you get your podcasts are greatly appreciated. Our next episode will be next week. That’ll be a short midweek episode. We’ll continue to produce those, but our next long-form monthly episode will be released on Monday, February 23rd. Until then, that will be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #498: Can Business Be a Trust Broker in Today’s Insulated Society? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

The communication profession is currently weathering a perfect storm of tectonic shifts, from the promises of AI to the messy realities of hybrid work, and we are languishing in denial if we think traditional, one-way “career advice” will save us. In the January 2026 Circle of Fellows, our panel will move beyond the clichés to examine mentoring as a pragmatic, strategic tool for institutional knowledge transfer and professional resilience.

High-impact mentoring fosters the “trusted advisor” mindset, helping practitioners navigate the minefield of ethical leadership while bridging the gap between academic theory and high-stakes business execution. Whether you’re a senior leader looking to cultivate the next generation of strategic thinkers or a rising professional seeking to future-proof your career, this episode provides actionable frameworks for building the kind of meaningful, two-way developmental relationships that drive both individual growth and organizational success.

The panel was recorded on Thursday, January 22, 2026.

About the panel:

Dr. Amanda Hamilton-Attwell, accredited by both IABC and PRSA. She is Managing Director of Business DNA, based in South Africa, which provides strategic research and consulting, including communication audits, customer service, and women’s leadership topics. She is licensed in Adobe Connect and WebEx, using these to conduct virtual professional learning and education sessions. and other focused research and training in communication skills. Her career has also included a 15-year stint as a research manager for the National Productivity Institute.

Brent Carey is an award-winning communications executive and corporate storyteller who has been helping organizations connect with their stakeholders and achieve successful business outcomes for more than 30 years. During his career in corporate communications, he has practiced the complete range of the profession’s disciplines, including internal/HR communications and employee engagement, recruitment marketing, issues management and crisis communications, public and media relations, marketing communications and government relations. Brent is currently Vice President, Communications, at Mattamy Asset Management (the parent company of Mattamy Homes), based in Toronto, where he leads the corporate communications function and a small, impactful team that provides strategic planning and execution across Mattamy’s operations in Canada and the US. Brent has also held communication leadership roles with KPMG International, Deloitte Canada, CIBC, TD Bank and Imperial Oil. In 2004 he earned the Accredited Business Communicator (ABC) designation from IABC and in 2024 was recognized with the prestigious IABC Canada Master Communicator Award, an accolade bestowed upon select professionals who have demonstrated exemplary contributions to the field of communication. Brent graduated from York University in Toronto with a double honours degree in Communications and English.

Andrea Greenhous’s life’s purpose is to improve the world of work. For over 30 years, she has helped organizations improve the employee experience and build workplaces where people thrive. As founder and president of Vision2Voice, an internal communications agency, Andrea and her dedicated team help organizations adopt a strategic approach to employee communications to achieve results. Andrea has led initiatives and transformation projects for Fortune 500 technology companies, large government departments, and organizations as diverse as construction, biotech, finance, and higher education. This has led to a signature approach emphasizing harnessing employee voices and amplifying their insights and ideas.

Andrea is a storyteller, a PROSCI-certified change leader, and Dare to Lead trained based on the work and research of Brené Brown. She is also a certified Fearless Organization Practitioner. She uses the tools and processes developed by Amy C. Edmondson, the Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School, to build psychological safety in teams. Andrea has been named one of the top 10 influencers in internal communications and is a frequent guest blogger and speaker at industry events.

*Russell Grossman,* DipPR, ABC, FRSA, FCIPR, FCIM, IABC Fellow, has been a communications practitioner for 40 years and a UK Senior Civil Servant since 2006. He is Director of Communications at the UK Rail Regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, and recently stepped down after 13 years from his additional position as the head of the Government Communication Service (GCS) internal communications profession. He’s a non-executive director of the “Engage for Success ” movement, which aims to advance employee engagement, and a sponsor for both the GCS Fast Stream and GCS Talent. He is a past International Chair of IABC. Russell and his long-suffering wife of 40 years are blessed with four children (one of whom also works within GCS) and five grandchildren.

Raw Transcript:

Hi, everybody, and welcome to Circle of Fellows. Uh, this is the monthly panel discussion featuring members of the Iabc fellows cohort. Uh, and we have four fellows joining us today for an, uh, interesting conversation on a topic that we have not tackled before. So I’m really looking forward to this one. Uh, we are talking about mentoring, uh, in today’s session. Uh, this is of particular interest to me because I’ve been on both sides of this, which I’ll talk about a little bit more in a minute. Uh, I do want to let everyone know who is watching in real time, uh, that you are welcome to participate by, uh, using the chat feature in YouTube, uh, to, uh, contribute your questions, your observations, your thoughts, your experiences, and we will share those on the screen and make them part of the conversation. Uh, so, uh, please take advantage of that. We really enjoy, uh, responding to the things that are of interest to you. Uh, hopefully all of our conversation is of interest to you. Uh, and we will jump into that in just a minute. But first, I would like, uh, like you to meet the panel. Uh, and we’ll just go around in clockwise order as I see you, starting with you. Amanda. Um, good day everybody. It is evening here in South Africa. I am talking to you from Pretoria in sunny South Africa. It’s not raining at the moment. It’s not cold. It’s beautiful weather. I am the CEO of business DNA, and I’ve been, uh, that for the past twenty six years now. Um, and, we do all kinds of research and consulting and, uh, strategic planning and, uh, it’s just fun. And, you know, I’ve been a member of the Iabc, uh, for so many years. I don’t even want to mention that. And, uh, I’m still as passionate about the profession, um, as I was when I started this journey many moons ago. So that’s me. And I am ABC, and, um, you know, a fellow. Of course. Of course. Uh, Andrea. Hi, everyone. My name is Andrea Greenhouse. My pronouns are she her. I’m coming from sunny, beautiful Ottawa. Even though it is cold, I run a small internal communications agency, and we’re in the business of helping organizations modernize internal communication changes everywhere. And you can’t lead change without modern, effective internal communication. So that’s what I do. Um, here in my little office with my two dogs. And I’m really excited about this conversation. I’m excited about it, too. Uh, Brent, you’re up next. Hi, everyone. My name is Brent Carey. I’m the head of corporate communications at Mattamy Asset Management in Toronto, Ontario. Also very cold and sunny. Um, uh, Madam Asset Management is the parent company of the more well-known brand Mattamy Homes, which is the largest family owned homebuilder in North America. I’m super passionate as as all my fellow panelists are about the topic of mentoring. Uh, I’ve been a mentor for many years, both within my organization and IBC and, uh, so looking forward to the conversation today. Thank you. Looking forward to it too. And Russell, last but not least, hi there. So I’m Russell Grossman, I’m coming to you from London. That’s London, England rather than London Ontario. And where I’m afraid the weather isn’t too good. But I’m director of communications at the Rail Regulator for the UK, and I’m also one of the senior directors in the Government Communications Service again in the UK. And I’ve been an ABC member for quite a long time. And like Brent and the others, mentoring is something that I’m particularly interested and passionate about as well. I’ve been on both sides of that, and I’m interested to see what we explore in this conversation. Thanks for being here, Russell. Uh, and I should probably mention that I’m shell holes. Uh, I am the moderator of the panel. I am senior director of communications at Webcor. We’re a commercial general contractor and builder operating in California and elsewhere. Uh, and very happy to be here with you all. Uh, I mentioned that I have been on both sides of mentoring, uh, that includes a formal mentoring Entering relationship that I’m in now. This was the result of an Iabc San Francisco initiative. I think it was about four years ago, where they solicited people who wanted to be mentored and people who would be willing to do the mentoring, and then they paired them up. It was supposed to be a one year program, but the the young woman that I was assigned to and I have continued to meet monthly ever since then, and I have found that to be a very beneficial relationship for for the both of us. Um, on the mentee side, uh, nothing formal. Uh, I had, uh, a boss once. Um, who? I don’t know if he would call himself a mentor, but I certainly saw him that way. Uh, he taught me a lot. We spent a lot of time just sitting and talking through the various issues that that I was facing and, and challenges and career growth. And, uh, I feel like I owe him a lot. We’re still friends. He’s in his eighties now and living in Montana, but we still stay in touch. So having been on both sides of this, I see the value of it. So what I would like to start with is a question of, um, what is, in your experience, the best approach to mentoring? Is it a formal program with, with scheduled meetings, uh, and agendas, or is it finding somebody who can just fulfill that role on a day to day basis? What’s what’s your experience been? Can I start off maybe by saying that I think rather like communications. Uh, it depends on your audience. And I think, uh, it very much depends on whether you feel, uh, that the person that you’re mentoring is looking for a formal or informal mentoring relationship. And, you know, I’m sure we’ll come on to this a little bit more, but the way in which the mentoring relationship starts can be very different. Some people may come to you because they know you as a person. Some people may come because you were a name on a list of a number of mentees, and they’ve just kind of put a dart into that piece of paper, as it were. Um, so I think just to just to start off, I think it depends very much on both who the mentee is and of course, your insights and your judgment on that situation. It might be useful also shall, to draw a distinction. And I think one of my colleagues here raised it in the sort of our pre work difference between mentoring and coaching. Right. I kind of view mentoring as, as a more formal arrangement, as you indicated, where coaching can happen anytime, anywhere with with anyone. Yeah, I think that was me. And I think because I try very I’m not a certified coach, so I try very hard to not say that I’m coaching, but I yeah, I have different kind of mentoring relationships with different people. I have formal ones where I’m actually getting paid, helping people, sort of nudging them along, sharing expertise. We have a formal program where we’re, you know, we’re tackling their strategy. I’ve got one coming up tomorrow where I’m, you know, we’re talking about business acumen. Then I have others where I think I have a link on my website where you can just have coffee with me and I’ll share all my failures, and you can learn from those. Then I have my employees that I, you know, mentor more formally. And then I’ve been part of formal mentoring programs. So, um, my experience is that, you know, um, the fact that people confuse mentoring and coaching, uh, often causes the, uh, person on the other side of the table to be confused as well because, uh, you know, it’s easy to confuse them because they both develop mental. But the one is, uh, where you share your experience that’s mentoring. While coaching is while when you actually enable the person to solve the problem himself or herself. So, you know, and it’s so important to when you start this relationship, especially if it’s more a formal relationship that you clarify what what is the situation, what is the primary goal. Because it often, you know, coaching will go into mentoring uh, or mentoring will go into coaching. But it’s important that we understand that there is a difference between the in the the outcome of the situation and not to throw yet another term into the mix. But there’s also networking, right. Which might be the most informal of everything where you you just occasionally connecting with folks and and offering some advice or what have you. Um, so I think they probably ratchet up on the the formality scale as you go from networking to coaching and mentoring. Yeah, it probably pays to define mentoring a little better. Amanda, I’m intrigued by the notion that it is it is focused on sharing your experience. I know that my mentee, Sarah, um, will talk about everything from her career path to how she deals with, uh, a, a, a supervisor who is, uh, problematic is probably the diplomatic way to, to put it, uh, and everything in between. So. So when you talk about mentoring, um, what exactly are you talking about? I think shell, that brings in the concept of trust, what you’ve just mentioned there, uh, and the degree to which the mentor and mentee relationship is one built on trust and the degree to which the mentee is actually prepared to open themselves up and share in a way that, uh, obviously they need to trust you, but also in a way that they probably wouldn’t with people that they know. More, more more, um, than than than you, you know. So I think the, the way in which the mentor is positioned relative to the mentee is clearly important as well. Um, I always think I was interested to hear Andrea talk about your mentoring of your employees. Uh, is that something that they would expect, do you think? Um, so I read something somewhere a few years ago, and it’s stuck in my head that, you know, my business isn’t going to last forever. It’s a small business. Maybe we’ll get acquired. Maybe. Who knows what will happen. But the people in my team, they’ll have long careers. And so a part of my why is because I love internal communications so much and I feel so passionate about it. Part of my why is to help share my knowledge, my approaches, like help them basically carry the torch in the future. But in their own way. Like I have one woman who’s just amazing at client relations and she has a real focus on digital. I have another person who’s a really great strategist, so like helping them grow in their own way. But at the same time, you know, my vision is people who will carry the torch for internal communications for the next, you know, twenty, thirty, maybe even forty years. I’ve always used mentoring as, um, a two way street as well. Right. The best mentoring relationships that I’ve ever had was I learned as much from my mentee as as they may have learned from me. So I love going in into the relationship. Um, looking to get something out of it myself. And and if there’s a selection process, try to, you know, not necessarily go for somebody who’s in the exact same role or, you know, it’s about diversity of thought or age or gender or roles, whatever it might be. Because the the most successful mentor relationships, I think, is when you learn as much as you give. Uh, but I would like to know, you know, how did you see, um, because. Okay, let me start from my side. Um, I see mentoring is where I, the person will come to me and say, I have this, uh, problem with my supervisor, and he or she will tell me the situation. And if I mentor the person, I will say, well, in a situation like this, this is what I would have done or this is what I have done, and that was the outcome. So this is how I solved the problem for me. And you know, my definition of mentoring, that is mentoring. While coaching would be, um, if you look at your, uh, supervisor would why do you think he is responding like that? And then the person will say, why? And then I would say, well, how does your personality perhaps contribute to this problem? And then perhaps, well, how do you see the long term impact of this relationship. And you know, so if I mentor I do all the thinking. I do all the talking while in my coaching role, the other person would do the thinking, the other person will do the talking. And I think that’s that’s important to distinguish between the roles. So, um, you know, uh, I’ve been working with a client for eleven years now. I started mentoring and coaching her when she was a generalist, and she’s now a GM. So every time she gets to this ceiling, we would have this relationship. And for me, that is the the amazing satisfaction that I get from that. Mhm. Don’t you think it also depends on what the person needs and to a certain extent what you need. Like now I have a bigger team and I’ve got different generations. So I need to understand them. So I’m, I’m learning from them as Brian was saying. But it’s also like where are the gaps. Where do they need help? Where do they need support. It’s like really driven by the person, the relation, like the aspects of the relationship. You know, like everybody, you know, you need five different friends, A friend who will go running with you. A friend who will, like, go on a holiday because they’re really great at travel, you know. You know, that kind of thing. You can also say that about husbands or wives, like different people satisfy different things. But my point is it really depends on what what’s needed in the relationship. Yeah, definitely. Amanda, in your in your description that you just had, how would you describe who drives the process? Um, I’ve always thought of mentoring. As you know, the mentee has to own it and is responsible and accountable and and really drives the process forward. So would how do you how do you react to that? Uh, in the mentoring process, the person would come to me and say, um, I have a problem with this, please help me. And so initially, the person will come to me, so the the driver will be the person, but then I will say, okay, now in a situation like this, this is how I responded. So then I would do the thinking, I would do the talking, and the person will ask me questions and I will respond to the questions. So the person will learn from my experience while in the coaching, uh, situation, uh, I want the person to dig into his or her own experience and see if we can perhaps find a solution there. And that is why also, um, like to in a, in a situation like that, say to the person, perhaps we should, uh, think about using this model. Why don’t you read this article or read this book? And then next time when we get together, we discuss this concept. Um, so it also gives the person a Responsibility not only to look at me for advice, but to have this higher level discussion about, uh, emotional intelligence, uh, about, uh, impact players. So how do you become an impact player? So that for me is very healthy. So I drive the advice in that sense. But eventually in our next discussion, the person will again do the talking. I will ask, do the the guidance on applying this in this situation. Yeah, I think you’re right though, Brent, that people need to come prepared to the conversation in terms of what they need to know, what they want from the conversation, uh, from the relationship. I think that’s really important. Like even just the one on ones I have with my team, it’s their meeting, their chance to to talk to me, for me to help them with their career or, or their, you know, their goals, those kinds of things. So and of course, I come prepared as well. And I’m thinking about, well, what do I see? Um, I also get a lot because I own my own business. I also get asked about business advice too. So people who want to start their own, either consulting company or even just a different type of business. So there’s that too, you know? Yeah, I always found that it like the more structured the mentee can make it in terms of maybe topics or, you know, agendas or even setting the cadence for how often and when you’re going to meet, uh, is a great starting point. And then, of course, the conversation as it’s happening is very, um, free flowing and, you know, kind of fewer guardrails on it from that perspective. But I think having the mentee own the responsibility, um, for kind of the logistics side of it almost makes a ton of sense. Yeah, I completely agree with that. I’ve always seen that the process and the relationship is owned by the mentee. I think this is particularly important given that there’s a certain volunteerism about this. The mentee is coming to you voluntarily for assistance, uh, and therefore, uh, what what you owe the mentee for that is to ensure that they are satisfied. And I think part of that satisfaction is to ask the mentee, for example, always, as I as I do, always come to me with a specific issue that you’ve thought through and with specific points that you’d like, you’d like to deal with. So it’s just like any situation be be clear about what our objectives are, because otherwise you could spend a whole of a mentoring session going around the houses, but not actually get anywhere concrete in terms of what the what the mentee either wants or indeed needs. And of course, sometimes what the what the mentee wants and what the mentee needs are not the same. And part of our responsibility, I think, sometimes as mentors, is to eek out what the difference is between the two of them. For somebody who is. I’m sorry. Go ahead. Thank you. You go. Alright. Uh, for somebody who is going to become a mentor for the first time, they’ve agreed to fulfill this role. What can they do to prepare if they’ve never done this before? Uh, I can start. I, I was part of a mentorship program, and I was. I was actually afraid. I’m like, what do I have to offer? Um, and I, I always also wanted to really be like, I’m a helper. I really wanted to be supportive. I wanted to be, you know, the best mentor. And so I did quite a bit of preparation. There’s lots of resources around. But you also to friend’s point, you have to make sure that your mentee becomes comes prepared. Um, but I think listening with an open heart, sharing your experience in an honest way, like I think people will learn more from our failures than our successes. Um, and that, you know, building psychological safety, helping make it a safe space for them to talk and to share your own experience. I think you need to be prepared to be part of an open relationship. Uh, you need absolutely agree with Andrew. You need to be able to prepare to to be prepared to expose some of your own vulnerabilities as an example of where you’ve been, uh, so that people can see the mentee can see that, you know, this is not something that’s unique to them. It’s a problem that many people have come across before. And I think, um, there are probably things that I might discuss with mentees that I may not discuss with many other people. Uh, that, of course, is part of the trust relationship that we that we were talking about earlier. Yeah, I would say the keys for me are, you know, active listening, which of course is way different than just engaging in the conversation and, um, transparency overall. Be vulnerable yourself. Be ready for vulnerabilities. On the other side, I’ve had mentees, you know, in tears, uh, during conversations, I assume. Not because of anything I did, um, just because of the situation. And, um, you know, being able to help them, help them through that. So it, um, it’s very much that, that to a to a street, um, of course, but but active listening, um, and pretty much complete transparency. And as Russell said it that goes to to trust. And so it’s probably not going to happen at the very first session, especially if you don’t know each other. Um, do you ever ask the mentee to sign a document of confidentiality, or do you sign a document of confidentiality? Uh, that is a good question. I think even in the super formal programs that I’ve been a part of, I’ve. That that’s not been a part of it. I mean, you agree to certain, um, parameters as as part of the relationship, but I’ve never actually signed anything that I can recall. Yeah. Now, I just wondered, uh, because I haven’t signed it. You know, anything? Also, uh, except the declaration that I signed with the company, but, uh, otherwise, never. Um, but, uh, you know what? What intrigued me about mentoring is that, uh, at different stages of a person’s career, they need different types of mentoring. And that as a mentor, you should know that if you if you’re mentoring a foundational person, that you should not come from a business strategist framework when you mean to that person, because that my experience is that that poor person would be so scared of, you know, oh my goodness, is that what I need to do in my role? So, you know, aligning your mentor, mentoring input with the level of the person that you are mentoring a little bit higher to let them grow. But also remember that you you must stay, not you must stay on the level and a little bit higher and not more than that. Yeah it’s great. And as with audiences, right? It’s not about you. It’s about them. Yeah, yeah. I also think like helping people see like see the bigger picture and, and look forward because a lot of people are stuck in what’s going on now. And I know there’s a lot of uncertainty in the world and careers are changing. But helping them see the different paths, like we know in our work, employees want to know how they can learn and grow. And so helping them, seeing those different paths, seeing the different options, helping them help themselves in terms of learning, career development and growth, I think is also a really big thing that that, uh, your mentor would appreciate. There’s another aspect, if you’re if it’s a program within your organization, which is how to navigate some of the things that might be particular to your company. Um, you know, whether it’s politics or, you know, um, what the signs of, of good leaders are or what, what to work on to sort of get ahead within this organization, which, you know, we’d need to be more general if if it was sort of, uh, you know, through IVC or some other similar organization where it wasn’t specific to the company. So I think that is where you can be a of particular advantage, particularly in a large organization where you know enough about the organization to be able to to to provide advice and guidance. But you’re not so close to the issues, and you don’t know the people too strongly that it would be difficult to to to talk about, um, across the government communication service. We have a formal mentoring program in which we just put ourselves forward, uh, on a list, as it were. And I find that the people who tend to look me up, and I’m sure it’s the case with other mentees, are those that are kind of at arm’s length, but not so far away. So that that that element of the relationship that I’ve just described where you’re close enough. But but not not not too close allows you I think you, I think allows you to have an effective relationship and effective and an effective solution, uh, and one that, uh, you know, you would regard as successful if when the mentee then comes back and says, actually, thank you for solving that. I didn’t see that that that does lead on actually to how how do we judge the success of a mentoring relationship? Well, for me, was that the progress that this person made in the organization because, uh, I was, you know, I would say I, I coached sixty percent of the time and mentored forty percent of the time because she had to build her confidence that she actually can deal with what is on the table, because that was the reason why she came to me, that she felt helpless and in instead of just saying to her, well, this is how I do this and this and this. I say to her, okay, what what do you think we could do? And, uh, if you if you take the personality of this person, what can you do to convince this person that you can actually do more. So for me, and that is why I keep coming back to coaching because, uh, coaching, uh, in the I’m a certified coach is building the confidence of the person. Mentoring is sharing your experience to give the person an idea of potential behavior. So that’s that’s what I do. I was going to say that I can’t really answer the question, except if you see them succeed. Succeed them. See them happy in their role solving certain problems. But I also wanted to say it’s immensely satisfying, and I think that’s why I love doing it. When you’re mentoring someone, seeing them solve these challenges, seeing them grow, seeing them flourish is is always so amazing. Yeah, I have a bit of a funny story. We had a formal mentoring program in my company that has since evolved, but it began as a retention strategy around, um, you know, uh, retaining high performance in a particular demographic group. And so all the mentees came from that group. Um, we I meant I mentored four people throughout the course over four years. Um, and three of them, you know, promptly left the company after, uh, the mentoring relationship was over, uh, which, you know, maybe, um, unsuccessful at some point because the strategy was around retention. But I viewed it as highly successful because they were able to grow. And yes, it would have been great to to see them flourish within the company. But having helped set them up for success, they go elsewhere. Uh, you know, I’m perfectly fine with that. And it’s, it’s part of the risk of a, of a program that we ran like that. But, uh, so I was one for four, but in my mind I was really for, for, for. I think a lot of companies are developing like formal mentoring programs to as a part of the employee experience. I think it’s really important, especially for marginalized communities or people who may have be at a slight disadvantage. Um, so I hope those high performers, Brent, were also like from disadvantaged groups or whatever, but I think it’s it’s something that organizations really look at. Um, it’s also a way of maximizing the benefit you’re getting from your senior staff and tapping into their experience. Yeah, I remember I remember communicating, uh, a mentorship program for an employer several years ago. And one of the things that I remember about it was that one of the rules of the program was that you would, uh, change mentors. Uh, I think it was every six months, uh, that you shouldn’t stick with the same mentor for the duration. Uh, I’m wondering about your feelings about that. I’ve. As I said, I’ve been mentoring, uh, Sarah now for, uh, three or four years. Uh, and she has no interest in finding somebody else. And I’m very happy with the relationship. Um, and I think about my mentors, and these are just people that I’ve known and worked with. There was no formal program. Um, I think when you hear people say, oh, yeah, he was my mentor, uh, or she was my mentor. These are people that had that sort of an ongoing relationship in a formal mentorship program. Is it important to rotate through different mentors and mentees? I can tell my own personal story. When I was very new in in academia, I had a mentor, and unfortunately I had the same mentor for the whole duration of my tenure, and I fell into what they call the mentor trap. So I became so, um, close to this person that I could. I felt that I couldn’t make any decision before he approved it, before he said, well, this is what I would have done. And yes, that’s the right way. So when he resigned, it was like, in my whole world fell apart and I just couldn’t see myself going on because he also didn’t, you know, um, enabled me to go alone. And I think as a mentor and a coach, that is one of our responsibilities to give the the person wings and not to make him your property and become dependent on you. And, um. Yeah. So, um, I think, uh, it’s two ways, uh, it’s your responsibility to to grow the person. And, you know, not that the person become too attached to you. And, uh, it is sometimes necessary that, um, people change mentors, but I think it can also be disruptive. I also think there’s a law of diminishing returns. Uh, I think you’re probably most effective in a mentoring relationship. Um, after, say, sessions two, three or four, you’re welcome to disagree with this, but I think by the time you get to maybe sessions, I don’t know, eight, nine or ten, if you’re still going that long, then I think there is. Most of the heavy lifting has probably been done by then, and I think there is a danger that sometimes you can over mentor, uh, that you won’t you go into areas that probably are not that necessary for the mentee. Um, but because the mentor and the mentee are in this relationship, neither of them wants to break it off. I think. I think that can be quite, uh, quite disadvantageous to both, to both mentor and mentee, actually. So, um, I would say I think there’s probably to your question, I think you should rotate, actually. Yeah. And some like I agree, mostly because I also think that you, you learn a lot from different people. Like one person, you know, you learn from different perspectives, different experiences. But I also think there’s something really powerful about having a long term relationship, someone who can maybe open doors for you or help you through different, you know, really gets to know you, helps you through different phases of your career. I think that, like, I’ve never had that. And I think I always think that that would have been really helpful or powerful for me. Um, so I can see both sides. Yeah. I was going to say, um, you know, the classic. It depends. And, um, I think my favorite answer to any question. Yeah. Um, I think the key word you raised there was relationship, right? Because. Because it is a relationship based on trust as we’ve we’ve talked about. And that takes time to develop, especially if you’re meeting, say, monthly, right, in a formal way. Um, I would personally, I think six months is is probably a little late. Um, but at the same time, there’s definitely value in, um, in a diversity of, of voice for the, for the mentee. Right. Um, different perspectives, different personality types, different roles, whatever it might be. Um, and I think there also has to be an understanding that, like, listen, if it’s not working for either party, you got to, you got to, um, call it. And, um, that doesn’t need to, you know, last the, the program recommended length or whatever, right. If it’s if it’s not a fit, it’s not a fit. It happens. Yeah. Yeah. I think one of the benefits of this long term relationship mentor coach relationship that I have with this one client of mine is that it is intensely project based. So we will work on a project with her. I will work with on a project with her, and then we will, you know, go through the project and see to its end. And sometimes entries for a call even. And then we’ll start with another project. Or sometimes we work on several projects together. Always things that she works on. And so then we, um, I help her think through things or help her research things. I find research articles for her. Then we discuss the research article. So perhaps it’s not a, you know, typical, uh, relationship mentor coaching relationship. But I do a lot of mentoring, and I, I do even more coaching because she needs confidence. I have a question. Sorry. No. Go ahead. I think it gets back to solving the problem that’s in front of us. Um, and making sure that we tailor our approach to the person that we’re trying to help. Yeah. Yeah. I have a question for Russell and Brent, because you both mentioned that you have, uh, had mentoring programs within your organizations. What was the motivation in the organization for establishing that program? And after I hear from you, I have a follow up question that I’ll throw to all of you. I think in the government communication service in the UK, it was a recognition that we’ve got some six to seven thousand communications practitioners across the whole of you need to understand this is across the whole of every government and arm’s length body that you can, you can imagine, of which there are about five hundred different organisations. Um, and uh, recognition that, uh, that we weren’t really maximizing the potential, the experience, etc., of quite a lot of senior practitioners. Um, and how did we how did we do that? Uh, it was started as a pilot, uh, probably, I’m guessing now five or six years ago. Uh, and, uh, there’s absolutely no, you know, there’s no compunction. There’s obviously no money involved. Uh, it was very much a feeling from some people. I’ll include myself in that, uh, of wanting as a senior practitioner to give something back to the profession. Um, and also, I think many of us also find it satisfying. We’ve talked about this already, a satisfying thing to do. Um, so the the program is self-sustaining. Um, it largely runs itself. It’s very much down to mentor and mentee choosing each other. Um, and we might go on to this in a second, but of course, uh, that, that the choice of a mentee to a mentor isn’t always right either. Um, and, uh, we have a few guardrails around it. There’s a kind of, uh, crib sheet about, you know, how to how to mentor and what to do and what not to do and stuff like that. Um, but that that was the original, original motivation for it. Brent. Yeah. And for, for our organization, I mentioned earlier, it started as a retention strategy around a, um, a particular underrepresented group that had high performers who were leaving the company at a, at a rate that we didn’t feel was acceptable. So this was one of the solutions, um, to retain, uh, high performers within that group. Um, so that, you know, was a fairly manual process at the time, going back several years, uh, where, um, leaders were involved in matching mentees and mentors. Um, but they were cross-functional areas. I think I had two marketing, uh, folks, uh, in the United States, uh, I had a purchasing person and then a project manager. So the, um, it was, uh, a highly successful at the time other than me, I think, because I lost three of them. Um, and then that evolved over time into sort of just opening it up to everybody who thought that they might need a mentor as a bit of an employee experience, um, uh, program. And so now we use, uh, online tools that, you know, upload profiles, and the mentees can, uh, based on their needs and, and whether they want, you know, kind of in person or they don’t want somebody, uh, in this role or whatever. So there’s a whole matching process that, uh, that goes along with it now and, uh, it’s it’s proving to be, uh, you know, quite a good, um, quite a good program. The reason I ask, as I did some research on this topic in preparation for today’s panel, uh, I found that there was some criticism of organizational mentor programs in that they promote conformity. uh, that if you have the current leaders in the organization mentoring the younger people in the organization, you’re just turning them into mini me’s, right? Just, uh, it’s. Sort of the anti-diversity, uh, pipeline. Uh, and I’m wondering, how do you handle mentorship within an organization without that program becoming a pipeline for conformity? I have something to say. Pipeline for conformity, a good idea? Yeah. No, I have something to say like that. Forgets that the mentorship goes both ways. Right? So we are as we’re mentoring, we’re also learning. And like I’ve learned a lot about like from my Gen Z and my millennials about like their expectations around work. And I’ve changed. Like I’ve changed my policies. I’ve changed how I work. Just I’ve yeah, I’ve I’ve learned a lot from them and that’s changed our organization. I think our small little organization for the better. Um, so I think that that’s the missing piece there. Yeah, I would say shell that within our organization in this in our program. It’s certainly true. For me personally, your responsibility as the mentor is not to the company, it’s to the mentee. And so, um, I, I don’t feel the need to not that I coached anybody to leave, but, um, setting them up for success in career and life. Uh, if I can put it that way, uh, is the most important thing based on what they need to do. Not necessarily that we, um, retain them. And hopefully no one from my company is watching this. I agree. I agree. Your responsibility is is not to the organization. It is to the mentee. Um, it it’s also true to Andrea’s point that actually it’s one way that you’re keeping in touch with the rest of the organization. So what can happen, particularly in a large organization, is as the organization demographics, if you like, are changing at the at the lower level, you can keep out. You can be out of touch with that. And it’s one way to just keep in touch with what is happening across the whole organization, from what the mentee is mentoring is mentoring you about in terms of that, that, that, kind of that, that kind of approach. Russell, I once I recently read one of these business philosophers said that any person older than fifty needs a mentor of twenty five. Mm mm mm. Yeah. In our program. Amanda, to that point, you can sign up and lots of people do sign up as a mentor and a mentee. Yeah. Do you have a twenty five year old mentoring you, Brent? Uh, not at the moment, but I you know what? We have actually the kickoff to the next year of the program is in about an hour and a half, and, uh, I may, I may I may take it up on that I may set myself down for as being a mentee. Lots to learn from those folks, right? Yes. Oh, yeah. Tons. Yeah. So it raises an interesting question because there is this concept of reverse mentoring. Yeah. It’s usually brought up in terms of technology, uh, because the younger employees are are more adept at the newer digital technologies that the, the older, uh, more senior people, uh, probably aren’t using because they have admins to, to do that sort of thing. Uh, have you been involved in any of those kinds of mentor programs, and what do you think of them? More informal than formal because they definitely they they say these programs are these platforms are intuitive. I think they’re intuitive for the younger generations, not from my generation. I think that there’s like you can get tutorials almost anywhere. Like the other day, I fixed a problem that no one on my team was able to fix, and I just ai helped. But, um, I think there’s much more powerful ways to use reverse mentoring. Kind of like I was talking about before. Understanding different generations. What can they bring to the table? I wrote an article about because I’m really fascinated about making sure like how to make sure different generations create a better workplace rather than, you know, create friction. And there’s a lot of great studies that show if you harness the power and the values and the perspectives of all those generations, you can really flourish as an organization. So I think that’s where the power is not figuring out where to my, my, um, my conquest or whatever was figuring out how to put page numbers on Canva presentations like, you know, like that’s not to me, that’s not really that powerful. But the power is in the generations and learning from each other. Yeah. Amanda, you’ve talked about the difference between mentoring and coaching. Uh, and I’m wondering about mentoring people on your own team when you’re supposed to be their supervisor, you’re supposed to be supervising them. You’re supposed to be evaluating their performance. You’re supposed to be coaching them. Uh, this is something that I have heard from leaders in my organization is I work in construction, which very traditionally is I tell you what to do, and you do it, uh, and they’re really trying to change that to to coaching. I remember our former CEO talking about, you know, if you think about a coach on a Little league team helping you adjust your swing, uh, this is the type of thing he wanted to see our managers doing with their employees. Uh, should those managers be mentoring as well? Or should they advise their people to find somebody else to be their mentor? I think in some industries, it’s easier to have a mentor and a coaching program, um, as a supervisor, because, you know, I think, for instance, in a construction environment, in a mining environment, especially in the operational levels, I think it is it would be difficult. And I think that a person becomes ready for mentoring, um, and ready for coaching. So I think on the operational levels where you have a team leader, where way. You have a supervisor. I, I think few people at that level have the need for mentoring and coaching as a leader. You have the responsibility, in any case, to mentor and coach these people, uh, during work, uh, you know, team meetings, during personal interactions with them. But that would be unstructured. It would be, um, how are you dealing with this? So it would be five minute coaching, five minute mentoring here and there during the day. So I can’t see that they would that as a supervisor in a construction company or in a team leader in a hospitality industry or a, um, mine that I would coach and mentor these people. I think they’re not ready for that. But in the more the more, um, senior Their levels, they will become ready for that. Now you just solve their problem. I completely agree with that. I think it very much depends on on the the nature of the business that you’re in. Um, certainly I regard my main, my principal relationship with my team as a mentoring one, mentoring or coaching, whichever you want. I do not regard it principally as a supervisory one. Uh, and I think if it was a supervisory one, something has probably gone wrong in the relationship. But that’s the kind of business that I’m in. And I think maybe in construction where safety is first and you do need to do what you’re told for your own safety. I think it might be different. So, um, maybe it’s horses for courses. Um, definitely. I would say that like. Let’s say within my, my team, for example, which is not huge, uh, the, the lines or the definitions of mentoring and coaching are, you know, a little less important, perhaps. Um, uh, it’s just what you do on a on a day to day basis, whether it’s something really specific and they need to be told what to do, or they need some advice about some other potential issue, whatever it might be, that’s just part of the day to day job of a of a manager or leader of a team. I would hesitate to, and I don’t think I would actually take on a member of my, my team in a formal mentoring relationship. I think that’s that’s for somebody else in a different perspective. Yeah. Great. Definitely. Andrea, you mentioned AI earlier. Not in the context of mentoring. It was looking looking up how to do something technically. Uh, but there’s a lot of data suggesting that, especially among younger people, they are turning to AI for this type of activity. Uh, I wonder what you think about that. Uh, as AI as a mentor. I have to tell you, I set up a custom GPT. Um, there are only two of us in our communications department, and I don’t have the budget to work with a consultant. Uh, and there are times that I would like to be able to bounce my ideas or my thoughts off of, uh, a very knowledgeable, senior, experienced, uh, communicator. So I created one, uh, in a custom GPT, uh, and I have to confess, it works pretty well. Uh, I wouldn’t call her my mentor. Uh, just a senior colleague that I can I can bounce ideas off of. But I wonder what you think AI fits into this whole realm of mentorship. First of all, you called your your AI expert a she, which I’m very happy about. Sorry, Russell. No, it is a female dominated profession, so it seemed appropriate and and a different perspective. Right. I think it’s just another tool in our toolbox. Right. It’s just another way of bouncing, like you said, bouncing ideas off, getting direction, whatever. So I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. Of course, what’s missing is the human relationship we talked about relationship built on trust. Um, um, support, empathy, those kinds of things. And I don’t think you can replace that, but it is another important tool. Yeah. And I agree with you. I think that there is a place to have this, uh, mentor in your screen and to ask them a couple of questions, but eventually, um, people would need people to, to engage with that. It is more, you know, talking about your problem and talking about your need for assistance, that that’s solving half of the problem. Like Socrates said, we all have the solutions. We just need to somebody to ask us the right questions. So, um, you know, either the mentee or the the coach doesn’t matter. But, uh, I think use AI for certain things, but eventually they will be a need for a person. I’m I’m sorry to say I agree with what Amanda just said. I’m sorry to say that if we were asking this question in twenty years time, we would probably concede that the AI was a much better mentor and empathizer and, um, more structured approach had a more structured and professional approach than the human. And that’s really worrying. Um, I think the question you’ve asked is very interesting. Um, shell, uh, particularly young people over relying at the moment on what is basically a machine to provide them with life advice. Uh, and I think that’s, it’s a really I’ve seen a couple of examples of that. And I think it’s really, really worrying. And, um, I don’t know where it’s all headed. Uh, but let’s see what happens when we have this conversation in twenty years time. Well, not only that conversation, not only life advice, but relationships like people like talking about attachments or whatever. So, yeah, that human relationship is just so important. And, uh, yeah, I can tell you, I have made way more mistakes than ChatGPT has ever made. So people are learning from those, right? Yeah. And people will learn from your mistakes. Right? Like, exactly. Just not there yet. That the human element and all the things, the lived experiences that we bring to the table as mentors or to the relationship, um, at the moment can’t be replicated by the machine. Yeah. You know, one of my prescribed books in my early studies said that originally, um, the the church decided to, uh, print the Bible and teach the people to read that they can read, you know, all the mistakes that they make and that they they need the church. But unfortunately, uh, the people also read other books. So it was that unintended consequence. But, um, I also feel that, you know, when books, when advice books, self-help books became so popular, people said, yes, but everybody is now finding solutions in these self-help books. They don’t go to the, uh, the people that they used to go to, which would typically be the mentor or, sorry, the the minister, the parents. And because books books is a problem, everybody, they’re not going to need us anymore. So, Russell, I fear that I don’t agree with you. I think in twenty years time, the people that will sit and discuss this problem would say, yeah, some people you can find solutions on AI, like you can find solutions in books, but eventually people still need. While we are human beings, people still need the right of somebody else’s eyes to just do, to feel cared for and to feel helped. And not this cold thing that you know. So I hope so. I hope, I hope so. I think one advantage AI has if, if, if I’ve had a particularly troubling or upsetting experience at the office, and I want to talk to my mentor and he’s not available, the AI is available. It’s not going to tell me it’s busy. I’m sorry, I’m in a meeting. I can’t talk right now. Uh, we only have a couple of minutes left. I want to go around and, uh, get your your one quick response to the question what can cause mentoring to fail? Chemistry. Chemistry. Oh, the lack of it or the lack of it? Um, I thought we might have touched on this earlier, actually, that, um. Sometimes the chemistry just isn’t right. Uh, I think we talked about trust and everything. Everything in that, in that department. Uh, I think the truth is that as humans, uh, relationships are based ultimately on chemistry, and sometimes the chemistry just isn’t right. And I think you I think you know that after the first, um, interaction, I always say to anybody that I’m taking on as a mentor, let’s have an initial chat and then see where we want to go from there. I never commit, and I would never want a mentor to commit to a relationship from the get go before we’ve had an initial, uh, basically, you know, what what What are we? What do we like to each other? Uh, Russell, I want to take the total opposite. I think another reason why mentorship programs fail is when people become too close. Because the chemistry is working too well, and that eventually you cannot distance yourself sufficiently from that person because you feel too sorry or anything like that. So I think the balance is important. Yeah, that open conversation, I would say a lack of preparation or effort. Okay. And Brent. Yeah, I would say maybe a mismatch of objectives. Right. Like a lack of understanding of what each party wants to get out of the relationship. You have to you have to come to agreement on that. Um, kind of more upfront. Yeah. And let’s see if we can cover this one question that we actually got from Brian Kilgore. Uh, is YouTube a mentor? It certainly tells photographers what camera to buy or how to set up lights, and I can agree with that. Uh, it does, but is that mentorship or is that more something else? That’s instructions. That’s instructions. Resources. I would say it’s an aid mentor. Yeah. Not a replacement. Right. No, it’s I think it’s like the difference between a teacher and a mentor. Um, so AI, uh, sorry, YouTube would be the teacher. I would sit there and look at this video and learn something from it, because I want to learn something from it. So I’ve always seen it as a relationship. Yeah, yeah. I’ve written a little, uh, routine, uh, using one of Google’s lab, uh, tools that goes into the YouTube video, extracts the steps. So I’m no longer having to rewind the video to find the one that I missed. Uh, the steps have all been articulated for me in this tool. So there’s a use of AI. Uh, this has been great. Uh, we’re out of time. I do want to let everybody know that the next circle of fellows is scheduled for the same time, noon eastern time on Thursday, February twenty sixth. We will be talking, uh, to some extent, about the new Edelman Trust Barometer, which talks about, uh, insularity. Uh, last year’s was about grievance, and we’re talking about communicating in the age of Grievance. The panel is Priya Bates, Alice Brink, Jane Mitchell and Jennifer Waugh. So that will be great. Thank you, everybody, for a wonderful conversation today. And for those of you who are watching in real time, uh, appreciate that, Brian. Appreciate the question and see you all next month. Thank you. Thank you so much. Bye bye bye.

The post Circle of Fellows #124: The Impact of Mentoring appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

The latest BCG AI Radar survey signals a definitive turning point: AI has graduated from a tech-driven experiment to a CEO-owned strategic mandate. As corporate investments double, a striking “confidence gap” is emerging between optimistic leaders in the corner office and the more skeptical teams tasked with implementation. With the rapid rise of Agentic AI — autonomous systems that execute complex workflows rather than just generating text — the focus is shifting from simple productivity gains to a total overhaul of culture and operating models. In this episode, Neville and Shel examine this evolution that places communicators at the center of a high-stakes transition as AI moves from a pilot phase into end-to-end organizational transformation.

Links from this episode:

• As AI Investments Surge, CEOs Take the Lead
• Complete BCG Report

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, January 26.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Shel Holtz: Hi everybody and welcome to episode number 497 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson. For the past couple of years, AI in organizations has mostly been talked about as a technology story—a set of tools to deploy, experiments to run, and efficiencies to unlock. It was often led by IT, digital, or data teams, with the CEO interested but not always directly involved. The latest AI Radar survey from BCG suggests that phase is now over.

For the third year running, BCG has surveyed senior executives across global markets—nearly 2,400 leaders in 16 markets, including more than 600 CEOs. The standout finding isn’t just how much money organizations are spending on AI, or even how optimistic leaders are about returns. It’s something more structural.

Nearly three-quarters of CEOs now say they are the main decision-maker on AI in their organization. That’s double the share from last year. This is not a minor shift; it’s a transfer of ownership. AI is no longer being treated as another digital initiative that can be delegated at arm’s length. CEOs recognize that AI cuts across strategy, operating models, culture, risk, governance, and talent. In other words, AI isn’t just changing what organizations do, it’s changing how they run. Half of the CEOs surveyed even believe their job stability depends on getting AI right.

We’re also seeing a striking “confidence gap.” CEOs are significantly more optimistic about AI’s ability to deliver returns than their executive colleagues. BCG describes this as “change distance.” People closest to the decisions feel more positive than those who have to live with the consequences.

The survey identifies three types of AI leadership: Followers (cautious and stuck in pilots), Pragmatists (the 70% majority moving with the market), and Trailblazers. Trailblazers treat AI as an end-to-end transformation and are already seeing gains. What’s accelerating this is the rise of Agentic AI. Unlike earlier tools, agents run multi-step workflows with limited human involvement. This raises the stakes for governance and accountability.

This is where communicators come in. If AI is now a CEO-led transformation, communication can’t just sit at the edges. It’s not just about writing rollout messages; it’s about helping leaders articulate why AI is being adopted and what it means for people’s roles and sense of agency. Is this the shift that turns ambition into transformation, or does CEO confidence risk becoming a blind spot?

Shel Holtz: Excellent analysis, Neville. I think there’s data in this report that is incredibly heartening. One of the characteristics of the “Pragmatist” CEOs—who represent 70% of the responses—is that they are spending an average of seven hours a week personally working with or learning about AI. I’ve never seen that before. When we introduced the web or social media, CEOs weren’t using it personally. This immersion is very helpful for the communicators who need to tell this story.

What’s troubling, though, is that 14-point confidence gap between CEOs and their managers. I don’t think this is just “resistance to change.” If the people implementing the systems are less confident than the person funding them, are we headed for an “AI winter” of unmet expectations?

Communicators need to become translators. Our job isn’t just selling the vision; it’s bridging a reality gap. If managers are skeptical, a CEO’s “rah-rah” AI speech will backfire. We have to translate that vision into operational safety for the staff while advising the CEO on the actual temperature of the workforce.

Neville Hobson: You’ve said that well. Communicators sit right at the center of whether AI transformation is trusted or resisted. This is a different picture than before. The senior communicator now has an unspoken challenge to assume a recognized leadership role to close that gap.

The appeal here is that you have a landscape ripe for a communicator to take the lead. You don’t have to sell the idea to the leadership—they already have the budget and the will. You can concentrate on persuasion and diplomacy to make sure the support is there throughout the organization. CEOs are going to need support on how to fulfill this aspect of their job.

It’s also interesting to note that confidence gaps are widening. The 2026 Edelman Trust Report also speaks to these issues regarding the relationship between people and organizations. The communicator is going to have to write a brand-new playbook.

Shel Holtz: Absolutely. And for the “Trailblazers,” the report suggests AI will lead to flatter, cross-functional organizational models. This puts middle managers at risk. If Agentic AI can plan, act, and learn multi-step workflows, what happens to the layer of management whose job is coordination and oversight? Is the CEO leading us toward a future where the “human middle” becomes redundant? How do you communicate with people who fear the technology will put them out of a job?

Neville Hobson: Unquestionably a challenge. Many CEOs recognize their own jobs are on the line, too. This isn’t petty cash; we are talking about massive investments. Communicators must help employees understand this shift in structure. It’s not a CIO-led digital transformation anymore; it’s a CEO-led business redesign.

Shel Holtz: To complicate things, 90% of companies say they will increase AI spending even if it doesn’t pay off in the next year. This is a “burn the boats” strategy. At what point does commitment become a sunk-cost fallacy?

Neville Hobson: To summarize, the main task for communicators is helping leaders articulate why AI is being adopted. We need to bring the human element in firmly as a foundational element. AI transformation will fail or succeed as much on meaning and legitimacy as on technology.

Shel Holtz: It’s an organizational change process. If the CEO owns it, they are the chief spokesperson and must articulate the vision while maintaining two-way communication. We also have to look at the strategic plan. If the direction of the industry is shifting, organizations may need to change their very aspirations and strategic goals, which requires considerable communication.

Neville Hobson: Fun times ahead, communicators.

Shel Holtz: And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #497: CEOs Wrest Control of AI appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In this episode, Chip and Gini discuss the importance of agency owners reflecting on the reasons they started their businesses and how those motivations can inform current strategies.

They share personal anecdotes about the challenges and growth experiences in their early days of agency ownership. They emphasize the value of going back to basics, understanding what initially led to success, and aligning business strategies with personal passions and strengths. The duo also highlights the importance of avoiding pitfalls such as micromanagement and burnout.

Finally, they encourage agency owners to use these insights to stay motivated, drive growth, and make informed strategic decisions in 2026. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 292: Rediscovering your agency’s founding spark appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Neville and Shel dive into the ambitious new definition of public relations proposed by the Public Relations and Communications Association (PRCA). Sparked by a two-and-a-half-page draft that reframes the discipline as a senior strategic management function, Shel and Neville debate whether this comprehensive document serves as a vital “PR for PR” or if its length and academic tone move it closer to a manifesto than a practical, portable definition. The conversation explores the proposal’s emphasis on organizational legitimacy, its explicit inclusion of AI’s role in the information ecosystem, and the ongoing challenge of establishing a unified professional standard that resonates across the global communications industry.

Links from this episode:

• The PRCA’s proposed definition (PDF)
• Some Reflections on PRCA’s Proposed Definition of Public Relations (PRCA CEO Sarah Waddington’s LinkedIn post)

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, January 26.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Neville Hobson Welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 496. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz And I’m Shel Holtz. Neville, how would you define public relations?

Neville Hobson The very short way I would define it—and this is a very old definition I seem to remember from the CIPR before it was called the CIPR—is the custodianship or the stewardship of the relationships between a brand or a company and its publics. That’s how I define it.

Shel Holtz I like it. PRSA defines it as a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.

Neville Hobson I could have said that, but I just wanted to give you the quick version.

Shel Holtz Yeah, well, that works. But now we have the Public Relations and Communications Association (PRCA) proposing a definition that positions public relations as a senior strategic management discipline focused on reputation, trust, legitimacy, and long-term value. In this framing, PR exists to help organizations and individuals navigate complexity, reduce uncertainty, manage risk, and build durable relationships with the people and institutions that affect their ability to operate and succeed.

It emphasizes two-way engagement, board-level counsel, data and insight, crisis preparedness, and societal impact. It explicitly extends PR’s remit into shaping the information ecosystem in an AI-driven world. Now, that’s a summary of the definition; the definition itself consumes two and a half pages of text. It’s available as a PDF and open to comment by PRCA members, according to the organization’s CEO, Sarah Waddington. In a LinkedIn post, she said the draft definition draws on academic research and a thematic analysis of recent sector commentary following her Radio 4 Today debate with Sir Martin Sorrell, which we talked about here a couple of weeks ago.

A two-and-a-half-page definition is a lot, and that’s kind of the point. The definition is designed for the environment in which many senior practitioners find themselves right now. The language of foresight, volatility, legitimacy, and uncertainty isn’t an accident; it’s meant to reflect how closely public relations work is increasingly tied to leadership decision-making. In that sense, this definition does something a lot of us have argued for over the years: it situates PR at the strategic heart of the organization rather than treating it as a delivery function.

It also aligns with a broader international view that PR is fundamentally about relationships and long-term organizational health, not about outputs like press releases or media placements. As you might expect, there have been reactions. Philippe Boromans, a former president of the International Public Relations Association and an upcoming guest on FIR Interviews, shared on LinkedIn that the definition reads less like a definition and more like a manifesto—ambitious and comprehensive, but maybe trying to do too much.

Historically, definitions that have endured tend to revolve around a single unifying idea. Think about the emphasis on mutually beneficial relationships in PRSA’s definition, which they adopted in 2012. That kind of conceptual anchor makes a definition portable—it’s easy to explain, teach, and remember. By contrast, the PRCA proposal advances a lot of important ideas all at once: trust, legitimacy, engagement, value creation, behavior change, and societal impact. These are all part of PR, but without a clear organizing principle, it’s hard to find something to hang your hat on.

There’s also the question of tone and accessibility. The language is unapologetically corporate and at times delves into the academic. That may resonate with board advisors and consultants, but definitions also serve students, people starting their careers, and those in the nonprofit or public sectors. A definition that primarily reflects the experience of the profession’s most senior tier risks narrowing its usefulness. One critique I find particularly important is the exclusive reliance on the concept of “stakeholders.”

Neville Hobson Yep.

Shel Holtz Public relations is always engaged with broader publics, too—communities, citizens, and audiences whose perceptions matter even when they don’t fit neatly into a stakeholder map. Leaning too heavily on stakeholder language nudges the discipline closer to management theory and further from its roots in public engagement.

And, of course, there’s the AI dimension. The definition explicitly calls out PR’s role in shaping the information ecosystem and ensuring organizations are represented accurately in AI-generated outputs. Some see this as an overdue recognition of how information now circulates, while others question whether embedding AI so directly risks dating the definition.

If you work in PR, you should read this proposal less as a final answer and more as an aspirational statement. As a description of what PR could be at its most strategic, it’s compelling. As a concise, durable definition, it may need sharpening and a cleaner central idea. Definitions are tools to help us explain our value and align practice across borders. This proposal doesn’t settle the challenge, but it moves the conversation forward. Neville, what do you think?

Neville Hobson I agree. I’m looking at the PDF now. I’ve not read the whole thing yet, so I will do that and likely write some comments. The first thing that grabs my attention is that it doesn’t explicitly state the author, though I assume it’s Sarah Waddington. It says a new definition is needed to reflect the modern operating environment and illustrate how integral the discipline is to success. In short, the industry needs better “PR for PR.” I agree with that 100%.

The 10-second definition I gave you earlier is woefully inadequate for today. It’s interesting looking at this document; it’s very standalone. Philippe Boromans mentioned in his blog post that it looks like it begs for more dialogue, and I agree. I don’t see it as complete at all.

Shel Holtz Sarah did invite members to comment on it. I think the consultation runs through the end of the month.

Neville Hobson She’s likely going to get comments from non-PRCA members as well since it’s on LinkedIn. Looking at the core principles she mentions—relationship-centered, not output-focused—that is very much in line with how conversations are shifting from inputs to outcomes. I remember about 15 years ago when PRSA led a charge to redefine PR in the US. It was picked up by practitioners here in the UK, there was a lot of dialogue, and then… nothing happened. Hopefully, this will be different.

I think she would be wiser to make this completely open, not just restricted to PRCA. The praise the PRCA will get is for taking the initiative. I’m wondering if they’ve engaged with other professional bodies to join them. It requires a lot of dialogue, and that’s the point of doing this. My only hang-up is the restriction to members. I’m not a PRCA member—I’m with IABC—but I support what they’re doing. As for her BBC interview with Martin Sorrell, it was clear he was talking utter rubbish, so it’s good to have these discussions.

Shel Holtz I certainly have nothing but praise for initiating the conversation. However, I agree that two and a half pages is not a definition; it is a manifesto. Imagine a two-and-a-half-page definition in a dictionary! I remember the Melbourne Mandate and the Venice Accords from the Global Alliance—those were more about purpose statements and AI positioning. I’m not sure all of that belongs in a definition, but as a spark for conversation, this is a good move.

Neville Hobson It’s too soon to see the full weight of public opinion on this, but we do need a new definition. I don’t see it as a manifesto, but it is incomplete. It would have benefited from an intro saying, “This is a first draft, we seek your feedback.”

Shel Holtz When I think of a definition, I want it to be something everyone can remember. You should be able to get the concept down and be 90% there with the wording. No one is going to memorize two and a half pages. This sounds more like the outline of a textbook.

Neville Hobson The CIPR website defines PR as “the planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organization and its publics.” That’s been around for decades. It adds to my feeling that we need something more effective. But a PRCA definition only works if the whole industry is singing from the same hymn sheet.

Shel Holtz I wonder if the PRCA is a member of the Global Alliance. That would be the place to adopt a definition so that all member associations embrace a consistent version. I’d also like to see the notion of “professional” public relations included, which is why I support certification—to signal that you are a professional and not just someone who says, “Well, everyone can communicate, so I can too.”

Neville Hobson That’s the rocky road no one wants to go down! We’ve been there so many times. People resist change. It needs someone to take a very strong lead to get this on the public agenda. It reinforces my view: excellent initiative by the PRCA, but it needs to be industry-wide, otherwise, we just end up with multiple conflicting definitions.

Shel Holtz Undoubtedly. Listeners, take a look at the proposed definition; we have a link to the PDF and Sarah’s post in the show notes. Let us know what you think. What would you change? We’ll share your views on an upcoming edition. And that will be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #496: A Proposed New Definition of Public Relations Sparks Debate appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In which Neville and Shel take a few minutes to acknowledge FIR’s 21st birthday.

The post FIR 21st Anniversary Celebration appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Reddit, the #2 social media site in the US, has surpassed TikTok to become the #4 site in the UK. It has no algorithm that forces you to see what’s most likely to keep you on the site; it just lets users upvote what they think is most interesting, valuable, or relevant. Every topic under the sun has a subreddit. Several organizations, from Starbucks to Uber, have taken advantage of it. So why is it absent from most communicators’ list of social media platforms to pay attention to? Neville and Shel look at Reddit’s growing influence in this episode.

Links from This Episode:

• Reddit overtakes TikTok in UK thanks to search algorithms and gen Z
• Brian Niccol said a Reddit thread of people interviewing for his company showed him that his ‘Back to Starbucks’ plan was working
• Playing Defense: How (and When) Big Brands Respond to Negativity on Reddit
• Wayfair uses Reddit Pro to help redditors get answers, and grow traffic as a result
• Uber puts Reddit Ads in the Driver’s Seat and cruises to significant lifts
• Reddit category takeover contributes to 5X higher Ad Awareness for OREO x STAR WARS™ collaboration

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, January 26.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Shel Holtz: Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 495 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson: I’m Neville Hobson and let’s start by saying we wish you a happy new 2026. We’re recording this in the first week of January, so it’s a new year. Last week the Guardian reported something that might surprise people who still think of Reddit as a noisy corner of the internet best avoided. In a deep analysis, the paper noted that Reddit has now overtaken TikTok to become the fourth most visited social media site in the UK, with three in five UK internet users encountering it regularly, according to Ofcom, the industry regulator. Among 18 to 24-year-olds—the Gen Z cohort—it’s one of the most visited organizations of any kind. And the UK is now Reddit’s second largest market globally, behind only the US.

That growth hasn’t happened because Reddit suddenly reinvented itself; it’s happened because the wider internet has changed around it. Google’s search algorithms now prioritize what it calls “helpful content,” particularly discussion forums. Reddit threads increasingly surface high in search results, and they’re also being cited heavily in AI-generated summaries. Reddit has licensing deals with both Google and OpenAI, which means its content is being used to train AI models and then redistributed back to users as part of search and discovery.

At the same time, users, particularly Gen Z, are actively seeking out human-generated content—not polished brand messaging or single definitive answers, but lived experience, contradiction, debate, and advice that feels like it comes from real people dealing with real situations like parenting, money, housing, health, and sport. Jen Wong, Reddit’s chief operating officer, described this as an “antidote to AI slop.” Reddit, she says, isn’t clean; it’s messy. You have to sift through different points of view, and increasingly, that is the point.

For communicators, this raises several important points. For a start, Reddit is no longer a niche platform you choose to engage with or ignore. It’s become part of the discovery layer of the internet. People may encounter your organization, your industry, or your issue there before they ever see your website or your carefully crafted statement. Search visibility is no longer just about content you own; it’s about conversations. Conversations at search engines and AI systems are now amplifying its scale.

Many organizations are still quietly hoping Reddit will remain hostile, chaotic, or irrelevant enough to ignore. That stance is becoming harder to justify when government departments are hosting AMAs (“Ask Me Anything”) and major public narratives are forming in plain sight. Finally, lurking is no longer neutral. Silence can allow perceptions—accurate or not—to solidify without challenge, context, or correction. So the question for communicators isn’t whether Reddit is for them, it’s whether they’re prepared for a world where human conversation, amplified by algorithms and AI, shapes reputation just as much as official messaging does. Look at the Omnicom layoffs announced not long before Christmas and the significant role Reddit played as a communication channel parallel to official company communication. We discussed this in depth in FIR 492 just a few weeks ago.

So, Shel, this feels like another signal that the ground is shifting under communicators’ feet. Where would you start unpacking what this means?

Shel Holtz: Well, if the ground is shifting, it’s because communicators weren’t standing in the right place in the first place. Reddit has been a significant and important platform for a long time. I’ve been advocating for communicators to start taking advantage of it for many years. I’m glad to see it getting this kind of attention, and there are a lot of reasons to consider using this in multiple ways—including the fact that AI is now relying on Reddit for some of the content that it’s trained on.

Let’s look at just a couple of things about Reddit. First of all, the people on Reddit are very committed to the communities that they are part of. This is not a “drop-in” community like we see on LinkedIn, nor is it tight, insular communities like you see on Facebook. These welcome new people, but they’re looking for people who are very committed to engaging, sharing, and contributing. Second, there’s no algorithm driving what rises to the top. It’s the community that upvotes the most valuable posts. That’s why you see the most valuable information at the top of any thread. It’s why in the early days, BuzzFeed relied on Reddit to determine what content it was going to publish. Reddit had the nickname “the front page of the internet,” and how you can ignore that eludes me.

If you look at what happened with Omnicom, that’s just one thing it’s useful for: social listening and insight generation. It is also issues management and crisis communication. If these large communities are talking about your industry, company, or product, and you’re not listening, you’re missing what is being discussed more broadly via “sneakernet”—people just talking to each other voice-to-voice or over instant messages where you can’t hear it. This is where you gather that intelligence to help you come up with the next product iteration or address issues important to your stakeholder base.

I use Reddit basically two ways. One, whenever I have a problem with a product, like my Nikon Z6 II camera, there is a community there more than happy to answer my question. While I’m there, I’ll scroll through and see if there’s something I can contribute, because it’s important to give as well as take. The other is monitoring construction subreddits for good intelligence that I can share up in the organization. There are so many other ways to take advantage of Reddit, and now is the time to invest.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I’ve been on Reddit for about 10 years with an account. In those early days, it was very much a geeky place—not really mainstream. But reality, as the Guardian’s analysis outlines, is that you can’t just treat it like that anymore if you’re wearing a business hat. It is showing up in places like Google AI overviews and is heavily surfaced in those search results because of the licensing deal that allows Google to train models on Reddit data.

The UK government is active on Reddit, with departments hosting “Ask Me Anythings” to engage with people. That sort of activity is probably more appropriate for Reddit than LinkedIn, where I’ve seen government activities attract nothing but extreme, politically motivated negativity in the comments. On Reddit, you’re probably going to get a more balanced view.

The Omnicom example was really intriguing. The depth of comment on Reddit told lived experience stories that contrasted sharply with the formal communication from corporate communicators. It was a subject lesson in how not to do this from a corporate point of view. Ignoring it is not an option anymore.

Shel Holtz: You mentioned “Ask Me Anythings.” That is a great opportunity to present your CEO or subject matter experts to build reputation proactively or reactively during a crisis. Siemens did an AMA featuring their engineers and reported strong click-through rates. Novo Nordisk leaned into sensitive topics and reported an “astoundingly positive reception”. Oatly and IBM also reported strong engagement and brand lift through this format. Of course, there are disasters if executives are not well-prepared, as authenticity is highly valued.

Community engagement is another missed opportunity. Wayfair uses discovery tools on Reddit to surface conversations about their service and pops in to answer questions and address issues. You can build relationships with customers, enthusiasts, and even critics. You can also use it for your employer brand to monitor interview processes and culture signals. The CEO of Starbucks explicitly treated a Reddit hiring thread as a signal that a culture shift was taking hold.

Neville Hobson: I think one reason for past failures is that companies brought their old methods of communicating to a place where that just doesn’t work. The Guardian findings show that human experience now outranks polish. If you come to Reddit with all your corporate baggage and structured messaging, it’s not going to work. Users are actively seeking “signals of humanity,” and messiness is becoming a trust cue. It’s an “anti-automation” movement. Lurking is no longer neutral because you are being talked about whether you are present or not.

Shel Holtz: There’s an illusion of control that you get from things like press releases, but get over it—you don’t control the conversation. To be credible in these spaces, you have to stop being polished. “Press release voice” is a trigger on Reddit; plain talk is valued. Make sure you have the right subject matter expert in the right subreddits who can talk in a plain voice. Don’t just do “drive-by” communication when you need something; be a regular contributor.

Neville Hobson: So, human experience-led communications are regaining strategic value. You can’t ignore this.

Shel Holtz: LinkedIn’s value seems to be diminishing as it turns into a combination of Facebook with non-business content and AI-generated posts. If you’re looking for a community to tap into people who care about what you do, Reddit is the best place. You can even use paid amplification—Uber and Oreo have reported brand lift from boosted posts. Don’t dismiss it as hostile; develop a strategy and start doing it.

Neville Hobson: Keep an eye on the resurgence of other networks, too. The new “Digg” is coming, which was a fixture like Reddit in the early days. There is also “Tangle,” a new one from one of the Twitter founders focused on genuine conversation.

Shel Holtz: I’d keep an eye on them, but Reddit already exists with millions of users and tens of thousands of subreddits. Use it. Don’t ignore it. And that’ll be a “30” for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #495: Reddit, AI, and the New Rules of Communication appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In the long-form episode for December 2025, Neville and Shel explore the future of news from two perspectives, including The Washington Post‘s ill-advised launch of a personalized, AI-generated podcast that failed to meet the newsroom’s standards for accuracy, and the shift from journalists to “information stewards” as news sources. Also in this episode:

• WPP founder Sir Martin Sorrell argued that PR is dead and advertising rules all.
• Is AI about to empty Madison Avenue
• Should communicators do anything about AI slop?
• No, you can’t tell when something was written by AI
• In Dan York’s tech report: Mastodon’s founder steps back, and new leadership takes over; the UN reaffirms a model of Internet governance that involves everyone: and Dan talks about what he’ll be watching in 2026, including decentralized social media, agentic AI, and Internet technologies.

Links from this episode:

• Sherilynne Starkie’s “Stark Raving Social” podcast
• Neville’s Strategic Magazine article: Your Value is Not Your Timesheet
• Questions of accuracy arise as Washington Post uses AI to create personalized podcasts
• ‘Iterate through’: Why The Washington Post launched an error-ridden AI product
• Washington Post Says It Will Continue AI-Generating Error Filled Podcasts as Its Own Editors Groan in Embarrassment
• The Washington Post Deployed Its Disastrous AI-Generated Podcasts Even After Internal Tests Showed It Was Failing Miserably
• Washington Post Stands Behind AI Podcast Plan Despite Staff Outcry
• Washington Post’s AI-generated podcasts rife with errors, fictional quotes
• Radio 4 Today segment featuring Martin Sorrell and Sarah Waddington
• Martin Sorrell: There’s No Such Thing as PR Anymore
• Martin Sorrell: The PR Industry is Over-Sensitive
• Chris Gilmour LinkedIn Post on Martin Sorrell
• Stephen Waddington’s Facebook Post on the Sorrell-Waddington segment
• Sir Martin Sorrell Declares PR is Dead. PR Pros Respond
• The Future of News is Happening Where No One is Looking
• This is Local News Now
• Social Media and News Fact Sheet
• The State of Local News
• AI is About to Empty Madison Avenue
• AI Slop: How Every Media Revolution Breeds Rubbish and Art
• Merriam-Webster’s word of the year delivers a dismissive verdict on junk AI content
• Pinterest Users Are Tired of All the AI Slop
• The Impact of Visual Generative AI on Advertising Effectiveness
• No, You Can’t Tell When Something Was Written by AI
• How Can You Tell if AI Wrote Something?
• Wikipedia: Signs of AI Writing
• Detecting AI-written text is challenging, even for AI. Here’s why
• FIR Interview: AI and the Writing Profession, with Josh Bernoff
• FIR #464: Research Finds Disclosing Use of AI Erodes Trust
• Neville’s Blog: When AI Lets Go of the Em Dash

Links from Dan York’s Tech Report:

• Eugen Rochko on Mastodon’s blog: My Next Chapter with Mastodon
• Mastodon Blog: The Future is Ours to Build
• Tim Chambers: My Open Social Web Predictions
• Internet Society: WSIS 20 Reaffirms Multistakeholder Governance and a Lasting IGF
• Wikimedia Foundation: In the AI Era, Wikipedia Has Never Been More Valuable
• Landslide: A Ghost Story

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, January 26.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Neville Hobson Hi everyone, and welcome to the For Immediate Release long-form episode for December 2025. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz And I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson And we have six great stories to discuss and share with you that we hope you’ll enjoy listening to during Twixtmas. What is that, you may ask? Well, Twixtmas is the informal name for the relaxed period between Christmas Day and New Year’s Eve, typically focusing on the 27th to the 30th of December. It’s a time for winding down, enjoying leftovers, watching TV, listening to podcasts, and simply existing without the usual hustle of holidays or work before the new year starts.

The name comes from blending Twixt, an old English word for “between,” and Christmas. It’s a modern term for a timeless lull in the calendar, often called the “festive gap.” That’s probably more information than you wanted, but now you know what it means. So, without further ado, let’s begin the Twixtmas episode with a recap of previous shows since the November long-form one.

Shel Holtz We’ll have to start using that over here.

Recent Episodes & Listener CommentsNeville Hobson That was FIR 489, published on the 17th of November. The story we led with in amplifying the long-form episode across social media was an explosion of “thought leadership slop,” where we riffed on a post by Robert Rose of the Content Marketing Institute. He identified idea inflation as a growing problem on multiple levels. Other stories in this 101-minute episode included quantum computing, vibe coding, “Is it OK to use an AI-generated photo in your LinkedIn profile?”, Dan York’s tech report, and more. And we have listener comments on this episode.

Shel Holtz We do, starting with Sherilyn Starkey up in Canada:

“I was just listening to the latest episode and you were commenting about a lack of female participation in podcasting. I thought I’d drop in a plug for my latest show, Stark Raving Social. I started it earlier this year and it delivers bite-sized episodes for marcomms pros. I do ‘how-to,’ ‘why you should,’ and ‘have you noticed’ type shows. I’m a hobbyist, so I publish when I have time and feel inspired, but it’s pretty regular. Last year I had a show where I interviewed 50 women over 50. And although the project’s complete, I still get about a thousand downloads monthly. I’ve been podcasting on and off since about 2007 and was—and still am—greatly inspired by FIR and your excellent work. Thank you.”

Thank you for that, Sherilyn, and hope to see you soon. Sherilyn’s terrific.

We have two comments on this episode from Darlene Wilson. She said:

“Enjoyed all of your content in this episode. Wanted to share that my role shifted from a marketing and comms managerial title to ‘Senior Manager, Corporate Brand and Communications’ a few years ago. It combines communication and brand leadership in one portfolio under which are marketing, sponsorship and events, promo, and change management. It’s a great role for a raging generalist. Moving brand and comms together—or brand under the comms umbrella—does signify part of a shift from end-deliverer of the message to a focus on reputation, trust, judgment, and the ability to oversee and connect what a company says and what it does. Given today’s environment, organizations do seem to want leaders, as Neville said, who bring judgment, sensitivity, and crisis literacy. That’s the comms person bringing broad and strategic thinking. Thank you both for your long-term commitment to this valuable profession.”

She added in another comment:

“The ‘every media revolution has slop’ analogy is directionally useful, but it can underweight what is genuinely discontinuous here: 1. Near zero marginal cost at massive scale, 2. Algorithmic distribution optimizing for engagement, and 3. Slop feeding back into training and ranking systems (i.e., model collapse plus search quality). If you treat it as just another cycle, you may miss that the mechanism is now self-reinforcing in ways Gutenberg-era pamphlets were not. The sources above—Google spam policies plus model collapse plus platform case studies—give you the evidence to make the distinction without turning the argument into moral panic.”

Neville Hobson Great comments. Thank you very much for that.

FIR 490 on the 1st of December: We unpacked some AI studies that claim to show what large language models actually read. But the sources shift month to month, and many citations aren’t reliable at all. We have a comment on this episode.

Shel Holtz From our friend, Niall Cook, who says:

“I don’t think anyone should be surprised that different studies report different results. It’s the same in many other research domains, but especially so here when the prompts, the models, the model parameters, and the methods will always produce differences—in the same way that no two users of the same generative AI system will get exactly the same response for the same question. We shouldn’t conflate visibility and citation reliability, though; two different things.”

Neville Hobson FIR 491 on the 8th of December shone a spotlight on big four consulting firm Deloitte, which created costly reports for two governments on opposite sides of the world, each containing fake resources generated by AI. Not only that, but a separate study published by the US Centers for Disease Control also included AI-hallucinated citations and the exact opposite conclusion from the real scientist’s research. We have a number of comments on this one.

Shel Holtz We have four, starting with Monique Zitnik:

“I’ve been nearly caught out with a source pointing to a website. After much digging, I discovered the website was AI-generated, and other websites had quoted this website. It was a myriad of AI-invented rubbish that sounded plausible.”

Mike Klein threw some praise your way, Neville. He said:

“It’s also a business model problem, as Neville pointed out in his excellent article for Strategic.”

That’s the magazine that Mike edits and you contributed to. He provided a link which we will add to the show notes; your article was titled Your Value is Not Your Timesheet.

Steve Lubetkin said:

“AI can be a useful tool, but humans need to review and confirm its output. The fact that they don’t or won’t is troubling.”

And Chris Lee wrote:

“You have both done some great episodes this year around AI. Very useful. Thanks. Keep them coming.”

Neville Hobson That was a great comment. Steve actually says it all: you’ve got to check up on all this stuff before you publish anything or rely on something. I see many more people now talking about it. You’ve got to verify everything all the time. You cannot trust it, whether it’s generated by AI or quoted by AI or linked to by the AI; you’ve got to verify all of that.

Shel Holtz Yeah, and I think we mentioned in one episode that I believe—and I think you do too—that there is likely to be a verification role that will be a new job classification. I’ve seen a little bit more about that since we made that assertion. There are actually companies that are hiring people to verify AI.

Neville Hobson That’s interesting, isn’t it?

In FIR 492 on the 15th of December, we looked at how the story of the untimely Omnicom layoffs in the US unfolded with one official investor-focused narrative and another on LinkedIn and Reddit. We observed that when people have platforms, the press release isn’t the whole story. We have one comment on this?

Shel Holtz Yes, from Roberto Capodici. Apologies if I pronounced that wrong. Roberto says:

“I think what’s really interesting here is how the whole situation highlights the tension between curated corporate narratives and the unpredictability of human experience playing out in public forums like LinkedIn.”

Neville Hobson In FIR 493 on the 22nd of December, we discussed how artificial early engagement can manufacture visibility that algorithms and media treat as significant. The tactics aren’t political; they’re portable and already familiar to communicators. It’s alarmingly easy to do.

And finally, we published an FIR interview on the 10th of December where we enjoyed a great discussion with Josh Bernhoff about his major survey of writers and AI. The deep divide between users and non-users, productivity gains, AI slop, trust, and the real story isn’t replacing people but resorting them. We have a comment or two, think, Shel?

Shel Holtz We have one. There are more on Josh’s repost of this. This one is from Susan Mangiero, PhD:

“I enjoyed your lively discussion about AI. In fact, I stopped the video and repeated several sections. I don’t think you addressed the use of AI for purposes of author marketing, unless I missed it:

1. What are your thoughts about using AI to help authors and their collaborating ghostwriters market their books?
2. Given Shel’s work in the area of employee communications, what are your thoughts about using AI for research? (Note: I do a lot of work with financial clients.) Josh, keep up the great work. I enjoy your blog. And the book survey was fascinating.”

Do you want to tackle these? I’m wrapping up work on a book right now. I have a proposal consultant helping me prepare the proposal, and I am thinking heavily about marketing these days. There’s no question that I will use AI as an aid to this in identifying targets to approach and testing language with different stakeholders. Every opportunity I have to use it to improve the marketing output, I will. I’m not going to outsource this to AI, but if AI can play devil’s advocate for me and help me brainstorm and ideate, I will take advantage of that all day long. What do you think?

Neville Hobson Absolutely, it is a natural tool to use. One of the biggest benefits of AI is its ability to literally be your right-hand person, your assistant who will work with you—not just respond to things you ask it, but challenge you on things. It’s the same as having a human being by your side, except this one doesn’t need to eat lunch.

It allows you to identify audiences, figure out what messaging is appropriate for which audience and when and where. It helps you concentrate on the next steps you’re to take.

Shel Holtz In terms of research for internal communication, I don’t see it as any different from research for external communication. It comes back down to the need to verify everything that you get.

I wrapped up a white paper for my company not too long ago on adaptive reuse of buildings. Since COVID, office occupancy has declined, and some large office buildings have defaulted on leases. The immediate thought is converting them to residences, but it’s harder than you think because of plumbing and natural light issues. The white paper explores other opportunities.

This is way outside my expertise, so I relied heavily on internal experts but also did a lot of research using Google’s Gemini Deep Research. I got a lot of great information, but some sources it found didn’t exist. I would have been humiliated if I had put out a white paper with that kind of information. I spent a lot of time verifying every source and every fact. It took less time than doing the research myself, but it was still time-consuming. As Steve Lubetkin noted, it’s disheartening that there are people who are not doing that.

Circle of Fellows UpdateShel Holtz I want to let everybody know about the most recent Circle of Fellows, which is now available for you to listen to or watch. It was a great conversation about the future of communication in 2026 and beyond. Zora Artis, Bonnie Caver, Adrian Cropley, and Mary Hills were the panelists.

The next Circle of Fellows is coming up on Thursday, January 22, at noon Eastern time. The topic is the impact of mentoring. We have a great panel: Amanda Hamilton-Attwell, Brent Carey, Andrea Greenhous, and Russell Grossman. You can tune in live or watch the replay on the FIR Podcast Network.

1. The Washington Post’s AI Podcast DebacleShel Holtz The core currency of a news organization isn’t its reporting; it’s trust. In mid-December, The Washington Post decided to trade that currency for a tech demo when it launched “Your Personal Podcast,” an AI-driven feature that generates audio summaries of the day’s news.

At its core, this doesn’t sound like a bad idea. Nicholas Negroponte suggested this in the 90s with the “Daily Me.” But at the Post, cracks appeared immediately. The AI mispronounced names, invented quotes, and editorialized. In one egregious example, AI announced a discussion on whether people with intellectual disabilities should be executed, stripping away the crucial context regarding a specific legal case.

According to internal documents obtained by Semafor, the product team knew exactly what they were releasing. During testing, between 68% and 84% of the AI-generated scripts failed to meet the newsroom’s own standards. In any other industry, a failure rate approaching 85% would trigger a recall, not a launch.

The Post is chasing a younger demographic that consumes audio, which is a valid goal. But serving them hallucinations doesn’t build a future audience; it alienates them. The Post needs to pull this tool, fix it, and apologize—not just for the errors, but for the decision to treat their subscribers as beta testers for a broken product.

Neville Hobson Extraordinary, truly. I was reading the NPR article you shared. It asks: “Will listeners embrace an AI news podcast?” The podcast is tailored to listeners based on what they’ve read in the Washington Post. That implies the likely listener is someone who spends a lot of time reading the Post, not a casual user.

It’s an intriguing step, but unfortunately, a misstep in terms of how they’ve dealt with it.

Shel Holtz Podcasting has become a staple for newspapers. The New York Times has The Daily and Hard Fork. Nothing is wrong with embracing podcasting. I just have a problem with the decision to launch it the way it was. The Washington Post is a storied institution—Katherine Graham, Ben Bradlee, Watergate, the Pentagon Papers. With this one decision, they have undermined that legacy.

Neville Hobson It symbolizes much of what is not right in the United States at the moment regarding freedom of speech and truth-telling. You mentioned Jeff Bezos owns the Post; where is the independence of journalists?

Shel Holtz We’re rapidly seeing this converted into state media, which is terrifying.

1. Martin Sorrell and the “Death of PR”Neville Hobson Let’s talk about Martin Sorrell, the founder of WPP. On December 17th, in a debate on BBC Radio 4’s Today program, he declared the death of PR. Appearing with him was Sarah Waddington, the Chief Executive of the PRCA.

Sorrell made the blunt assertion that public relations is effectively dead and that the world has moved on to scale, reach, and speed—flooding the internet with content. Sarah Waddington pushed back firmly, anchoring PR in enduring purpose: helping organizations explain who they are and building trust.

The exchange was combustible, with Sorrell frequently talking over Waddington. Many felt Waddington was defending a way of thinking about communication that resists reduction to metrics alone.

Shel Holtz Every time Martin Sorrell opens his mouth, I roll my eyes. He once said WPP was more critical than human mortality. Advertising and public relations are not interchangeable. Advertising is about selling stuff; PR is about building relationships.

I always come back to the tuna boycott example. When StarKist addressed dolphin safety in their nets, PR agency Burson-Marsteller brought the parties to the table. The boycott organizers came out saying, “StarKist are the good guys.” Advertising could never have achieved that credibility.

Neville Hobson It feels like he was being provocative to generate headlines. But he seems to genuinely believe that scale, reach, and speed are what matter. If Sorrell thinks flooding the internet with detergent ads is the future, I think he’s crazy. I applaud Sarah Waddington for her calmness in the face of his bullying behavior.

Shel Holtz I challenge Sir Martin to find a client that will outsource their next existential crisis to WPP to handle with advertising. Let’s see how that goes.

1. The Future of Local News & Information StewardsShel Holtz The death of local news has been a consistent drumbeat. A new report from Northwestern University confirms news deserts have hit a record high. But a piece from the Nieman Journalism Lab argues the news hasn’t died; it just relocated to barbershops, church halls, and Facebook groups.

The Press Forward report suggests we look for “Information Stewards”—librarians, civic leaders, admins of neighborhood groups. If you’re a communicator, you can’t pitch a press release to a group chat, but you can provide clarity. Supply these stewards with fact sheets and FAQs. Trust has migrated from institutions to individuals.

Neville Hobson In the UK, local news is declining, though where I live in Somerset, there are three lively local papers. But generally, the commercial scale for local news is difficult. The idea of “Information Stewards” reminds me of the Epic 2015 flash video from years ago, which predicted a similar future.

Shel Holtz Local news is vital for accountability—school boards, zoning commissions. If no one reports on them, officials can do whatever they want. We need to reach these information stewards.

Dan York’s Tech Report:Greetings, Shel and Neville, and all our listeners all around the world. Is Dan York coming at you from a snowy Shelburne, Vermont? And I want to begin this final episode of twenty twenty five, reflecting back on some of the topics and then upcoming changes with some of the things I’ve been talking about over these many episodes. A big one, of course, has been Mastodon and decentralized social media in general, and that had some big changes that have been happening in the past month.

Right around the time where we were recording the November show, there was a change at the the head of Mastodon. Now Mastodon is open source software, been around for ten years. That was created by a gentleman named Eugen Rochko, and he is the founder of this uh, has been based in Germany. And over time the organization evolved to be a German. Well, it tried to be a nonprofit, but then they’re a for profit entity. It’s they’re now in the scope of twenty twenty five. They have been looking to transfer to a, um, to a full non-profit, European based non-profit entity, most likely based in Belgium, according to the latest plans and all that, and they’re going through that process. But in the meantime, in late November twenty twenty five, Eugen announced that he will be stepping down as CEO and taking on a role as an advisor.

Now, this is critical because anybody who’s watched startups, whether they’re companies or whether they’re projects, knows that there’s a critical point when the founder needs to step away and let another management team come in and run the organization and grow. I have seen too many projects, including ones that I’ve led myself, where the founder, including myself, has stayed on too long and it just it dies at some point. Sometimes there are there are certainly cases where it has not, but there’s other times when it needs to move from the founder to others. So huge props to to Eugen and all the masks on folks for taking this step. And so there is a new leadership team. There’s a new executive director, a technical director, a community director, and there’s a team of employees and people who are continuing to evolve. Mastodon as one of the leading properties within the broader Activitypub based space that we call the Fediverse. So look for more to happen.

There’s a greater evolution going on over the scope of twenty twenty six. So cool things happening. I’ll note that this year, too many Mastodon servers just played on this whole wrapped thing, right? So you could get a wrap Staddon for twenty twenty five that wrapped up your most popular posts.

Some of the things you did, the most used hashtags, your archetype, all these different kinds of things. A little bit of fun just in the theme of all of the various different wrap things that are out there, but the fediverse will, I think, see a lot of activity and decentralised activity in general, because you’re seeing that through Mastodon and the other parts of the Fediverse. You’re seeing that with blue Sky and some tremendous work happening within the at, at protocol and some pieces that were there. Tim Chambers, somebody I come to really enjoy his writing over the time around open social items had a whole series of of predictions.

I’ll have the link for the show notes. He included some that were what he considered safe bets like blue Sky will cross sixty million registered users in twenty twenty six. He thinks he thinks the overall Activitypub fediverse outside of threads will cross fifteen million registered users, monthly active users, etc.. Uh, he’ll look at he had some ideas around threads. We’ll pass five hundred million. There’ll be continued federation. Anyway, if you’re looking for quick takes, it’s a good read. It’s some kind of interesting, fun stuff to think about and see where it will go around that.

Now, another story that I’ve been following this whole year has been internet governance kind of issues. And that culminated this month with a meeting at the United Nations called the World Summit on the Information Society. The twenty year review shortcut it has with this plus twenty. The good news coming out of all of that was that the governments of the world continued the path that we’re on, where everybody can be involved in some fashion in shaping the future of the internet, what was called in policy circles, the multi-stakeholder process.

But basically it means everybody has the potential to be involved in some way. It’s how the internet has worked since its origins. But there were some governments that wanted to put a different spin on it, where only governments would be involved and not businesses such as many of those of us listening to this, or universities or Or individual users. Anybody else like that?

So there were some good things that happened here. And something called the Internet Governance Forum, or IGF, has been made permanent rather than being renewed every ten years. It also had some other elements that recognize the the global network of national, regional and youth igfs that are happening all around the world. This is a venue, a way in which people, all of us listening, can be involved in internet governance. So it’s a great move, good step, lots of things. What am I looking at in twenty twenty six? You know, this whole episode is going to be about AI in different forms. I’ll be watching that too, specifically around the AI Agentic platform agents, the different pieces that were there and the different parts.

There’s a good article written by somebody over at the Open Future Foundation around why Wikimedia needs a seat at the Agentic AI Foundation, pointing out the work that happened in December that OpenAI and Anthropic and Block announced the creation of the Agentic AI Foundation, which also had Google, Microsoft, AWS, Bloomberg and Cloudflare joining into it. A lot of the commercial players all doing this. The point of this article was that it needs to have folks like Wikimedia involved and others. But in general, I personally will continue to be watching what’s happening at this agent level.

Agent to agent. Because that’s so much, I think, of what we’re going to be seeing as we increasingly look at AI driven tools and things. You know, that I’ll continue to be talking about decentralized social media, Mastodon, everything else. I’ll continue to be looking at, uh, internet and internet access.

You’ll hear me talk about low Earth orbit satellites, I’m sure, because we’re actually getting into a competitive situation where it’s more than just Starlink out there and also internet and information resilience. And so I want to leave you to a pointer, actually to a long read called landslide semicolon. A ghost story from Aaron Cassin, and I’ll have a link for the notes. But she writes a very long article piece around starting out about earthquakes, but getting into our information ecosystem and where we are, what’s out there, how it’s jumbled.

It’s worth reading and thinking about. Because really, the point is we need to think about how we have stories, how we work with things, how we have resilience in the information that we receive in some different forms. I encourage you to take a read about that. Think about it. Think what we will do in twenty twenty six. And with that, I wish you all a Happy New Year. I look forward to coming back at you in January. That’s all. You can find more of my audio writing at Dan York. Bye for now and back to you. Shel and Neville, Happy New Year.

1. AI Emptying Madison AvenueNeville Hobson In a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “AI is About to Empty Madison Avenue,” Rajiv Kohli of Columbia Business School argues that AI is quietly dismantling the agency model. Google, Meta, and Amazon are using AI to automate the advertising value chain.

While advertisers see efficiency, agencies see an existential threat. Madison Avenue isn’t being disrupted by better ideas, but by better systems. Kohli warns that unless things change, advertising may become a clear example of AI-driven creative hollowing out.

Shel Holtz I recently joined the advisory board for an AI certificate program at the University of San Francisco. The faculty stated they don’t believe AI will take jobs, which made me want to bang my head on the table. It already is.

Organizations need to strategize: what are the risks of outsourcing everything to AI? You can be efficient, but what do you lose? If you outsource everything, you’re going to see advertising overwhelmed with “slop.”

Neville Hobson The focus on speed and efficiency misses the important part: the people. We need to help educate leaders that AI should augment people, not replace them.

Shel Holtz In a capitalist society, leaders feel compelled to maximize ROI. If they can run a company with no employees and produce larger returns, they will. That’s why strategic analysis is vital to show where humans add value.

1. “Slop” is the Word of the YearShel Holtz Merriam-Webster has crowned “slop” as its Word of the Year for 2025. It defines it as digital content of low quality produced by AI. But a Scientific American article reminds us that every media revolution produces rubbish. The printing press produced libelous pamphlets; desktop publishing produced ransom-note newsletters.

The backlash isn’t a rejection of AI, but of low quality. To stand out in a sea of slop, your content needs to be exceptional.

Neville Hobson That Scientific American piece was great—calling Gutenberg the “ChatGPT of the 1450s.” It isn’t anti-AI; it’s about the sheer volume. If you automate production at scale, that’s flooding the internet, and much of it will be slop.

Shel Holtz You have to stay on top of the research. A study found people liked AI-generated ads more than human ones—until they were told it was AI. That shows an anti-AI bias, but also that the “human in the loop” matters for trust.

1. Detecting AI WritingNeville Hobson There is a growing confidence that we can tell when something is written by AI. But in the Financial Times, Elaine Moore argues that most “AI tells”—like the use of dashes or words like “delve”—are just normal writing habits. Large Language Models sound human because they are trained on us.

However, Wikipedia has a field guide to spotting AI writing, looking for clusters of signals like vague abstractions. The debate is shifting from “Can we detect AI?” to “How much certainty do we really need?”

Shel Holtz If the writing meets our needs and is accurate, do I care if it was written by a human or a machine? Disclosure is going to be important for trust purposes.

Neville Hobson Trust is becoming ever more important. Finding a source you can trust—someone who verifies and doesn’t hoodwink you—is the key.

Shel Holtz I used Google Gemini to help find sources for my book, but I checked every single one. I saved time, but I kept the human in the loop.

OutroShel Holtz We hope you enjoy your Twixtmas. Please leave us a comment on LinkedIn, Facebook, Threads, or Blue Sky. You can email us at fircomments [at] gmail [dot] com or leave a voicemail on the FIR Podcast Network website.

Our next long-form episode will drop on Monday, January 26th. We will resume our short mid-week 30 for This episodes starting next week.

The post FIR #494: Is News’s Future Error-Riddled AI-Generated Podcasts, or “Information Stewards”? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

For somebody who posts on X or other social media platforms to become recognized by the media and other offline institutions as a significant, influential voice worth quoting, it usually takes patience and hard work to build an audience that respects and identifies with them. There is another way to achieve the same kind of reputation with far less work. According to a research report from the Network Contagion Research Institute, American political influencer Nick Fuentes opted for the second approach, a collection of tactics that made it appear like a huge number of people were amplifying his tweets within half an hour of posting them. While Fuentes wields his influence in the political realm, the tactics he employed are portable and available to people looking for the same quick solution in the business world. In this short midweek episode, we’ll break down the steps involved and the warning signs communicators should be on the alert for.

Links from this episode:

• “America Last: How Fuentes’s Coordinated Raids and Foreign Fake Speech Inflate His Influence,” research report from the Network Contagion Research Institute
• Eric Schwartzman’s LinkedIn post and analysis of the NCRI’s report

Raw Transcript:

Neville Hobson: Hi everybody and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 493. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz: And I’m Shel Holtz, and today I’m going to wade deep into America’s culture and political wars. I swear to you, I’m not doing this because of any political or social agenda on my part. What I’m going to share with you is not a social or political problem, it’s an influence problem. And in communications, influence and influencers have become top of mind.

We’re going to look at the rise of Nick Fuentes’s significance on the social and political stage. For listeners outside the US, you may not know who Fuentes is. He’s a US-based online political influencer and live stream personality who’s built a following around the “America First” ecosystem and has sought influence within right-of-center audiences, including by positioning himself in opposition to mainstream conservative organizations like Turning Point USA and encouraging supporters to disrupt their events. Tucker Carlson has had him on his show as a guest. President Donald Trump has hosted him at the White House for a dinner.

In a recent report that our friend Eric Schwartzman highlighted on LinkedIn—that’s how I found it—the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) asserts that Fuentes is a fringe figure whose public profile rose to a level of significance by manipulating online systems. The NCRI, by the way, is an advocacy group focusing on hate groups, disinformation, misinformation, and speech across social media platforms. It’s been around since, I think, 2008. And they’ve taken their own fair share of criticism for bias, but this report looked pretty well researched, and there will be a link to it in the show notes.

The techniques that Fuentes used to rise to significance are, and this is the key here: If bad actors can inflate the perceived importance of a fringe political figure, the same mechanics can inflate the perceived importance of a product, a brand, a CEO, a labor dispute, or a crisis narrative.

I’ll share the details right after this.

In modern media ecosystems, visibility is often treated as evidence of significance. Of course, when the system can be tricked into manufacturing visibility, it can be tricked into manufacturing significance. Here’s the playbook. The report focuses heavily on what happens immediately after a post is published, specifically the first 30 minutes. That window matters because platforms like X use early engagement as a signal of relevance. If a post seems to be spreading fast, the algorithm acts like a town crier, showing it to more people.

The researchers compared 20 recent posts from several online figures. Their finding was that Fuentes’s posts regularly generated unusually high retweet velocity in the first 30 minutes, enough to outpace accounts with vastly larger follower bases. It outpaced the account of Elon Musk, for example.

The key detail here isn’t just the volume of retweets, it’s the timing. Rapid, concentrated engagement right after posting creates the illusion that the content is taking off, kicking it into recommendation streams. This is the same basic mechanic behind launch day boosting. You’ve seen this for people who have a new book out and they go out to friends and ask them to boost that new book the day it’s released. If you can create the appearance of immediate traction, you can trigger algorithm distribution that you didn’t earn.

In commerce, this shows up as engagement pods, coordinated employee advocacy swarms, and community groups that behave like a click farm. If your measurement system rewards velocity, someone can and will manufacture velocity.

So who’s responsible for those early retweet bursts? Across the 20 posts studied, 61% of Fuentes’s early tweets came from accounts that repeatedly retweeted multiple posts in the same window. In other words, this wasn’t a crowd. It was a repeatable mechanism, the same actors over and over, hitting the algorithm where it’s most sensitive. In business, you don’t need millions of genuine fans to create the signal of traction. You need a reliable, repeatable set of accounts that behave predictably at the right moment. This is why a relatively small number of coordinated actors can distort what public response appears to be, especially early in a narrative when journalists and internal leaders are trying to interpret what’s happening.

The report describes the amplification network as dominated by accounts that aren’t meaningfully identity-bearing. Among the repeat early retweeters, 92% were anonymous. Furthermore, many of these accounts were essentially single-purpose. They existed solely to boost specific messaging. Now, anonymity is a feature, not a bug in manufactured influence. In a corporate context, we see this as sock puppet commenters flooding a CEO’s LinkedIn post with applause or fake grassroots accounts inflating outrage against a policy change. If you’ve ever seen a comment section where the voices feel oddly similar and oddly committed, you’ve seen the symptom.

Perhaps the most operationally important finding involves outsourced capacity. Before a major inflection point in September, about half of the retweets on Fuentes’s most viral posts came from foreign, non-U.S. accounts. The report highlights concentrations in countries like India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Indonesia. There’s no organic reason for these regions to be driving a U.S.-centric fringe political account. These geographies match known patterns associated with low-cost engagement farms.

If you’ve ever dealt with fake reviews or fake webinar attendees, you understand the market for outsourced attention. It’s snake oil. The same infrastructure used to inflate a political persona can inflate a brand narrative, especially when the goal is to trigger secondary effects like investor interest or the internal belief that everyone’s talking about this.

In the report, Fuentes isn’t presented as a passive beneficiary of an algorithm. The report states that he repeatedly issues direct instructions to followers: “Retweet this. Everybody retweet.” Turning amplification into a synchronized act. If you run employee advocacy programs or franchise networks, you’re already sitting on “raid capability.” The ethical version is mobilizing real stakeholders transparently. The unethical version is instructing coordinated networks to simulate stakeholder response specifically to game recommendation systems.

This is where communicators need to be brutally honest. The distance between campaign mobilization and manufactured consensus can be uncomfortably short.

Fuentes’s final move is the flywheel. Once you’ve manufactured signals that look like relevance, institutions treat those signals as real. The report argues that mainstream media coverage increased sharply after major news shocks, while the persistent manufactured engagement helped keep the subject elevated between those shocks. It also reports a 60% increase in high-status framing of the subject in mainstream articles after that inflection point.

This is classic social proof laundering. Once a narrative appears prominent on-platform, it becomes easier to place it off-platform: press mentions, analyst notes, investor chatter. At that point, people stop asking, “Is this real?” And start asking, “How big is this?”

For business communicators, here are three practical takeaways.

First, treat attention as an attack surface. If a narrative is unusually fast, unusually concentrated, or driven by accounts that don’t look like real stakeholders, assume you’re looking at influence operations.

Second, build signal hygiene into your intelligence process. If your team reports on social activity, incorporate basic credibility checks, like repeat actors, anonymity patterns, and geographic anomalies.

And third, audit your own incentives. If your organization celebrates reach metrics without interrogating provenance, you’re teaching everyone—agencies, vendors, and bad actors—that synthetic engagement is rewarded.

This isn’t just a problem that’s “out there.” The PR and marketing industries have plenty of muscle memory around manufacturing perception. The difference is whether we keep that muscle under ethical control or let the algorithm decide what we’re willing to do. Just because you can manufacture influence doesn’t mean you should.

Neville Hobson: That’s quite a story, Shel. I’m wondering how many people in our profession truly understand how this actually works. Your call to action, as it were, was to pay attention to this and pay attention to that. But I think people need to understand why and the deeper picture surrounding it.

So, for instance, the report—some of which you summarized in your narrative—struck me. And indeed, from the summary I asked ChatGPT to create (that saved me reading the whole damn thing), it was very helpful. According to the report, the researchers said that Fuentes consistently generates extraordinary engagement in the first 30 minutes after posting on X. Early retweet velocity outperforms accounts with 10 to 100 times more followers than he’s got. You mentioned Elon Musk; he’s one of them. When normalized by follower count, his engagement is orders of magnitude higher than comparative political influencers.

Why does this matter? This to me is significant to try and get a handle on this. Platform algorithms heavily weight early velocity as a sign of relevance. So once triggered, content is promoted regardless of whether engagement is authentic. Speed, not scale, is a manipulation lever. This is a critical insight for communicators. Algorithms cannot distinguish motivation, only momentum.

So when people talk about—as they do, and I remember using this 10 years ago as a sign that something is working—”Look at how this thing’s taken off!” This is seriously significant: understanding how this works.

Another part of that is, as you mentioned, the foreign origin engagement—the synthetic catalyst, if you like. Half the retweets on Fuentes’s most viral posts came from non-US accounts, and you ran off a list of countries that are the prime originators of large volume. It says there is no plausible ideological or cultural reason for these regions to be organically amplifying a US-centric white nationalist figure. Makes sense, doesn’t it? So why does that matter? Well, these geographies closely match known low-cost engagement farm infrastructures. So foreign engagement appears to act as a spark, creating the illusion of virality.

And it uses phrases that most people won’t know about—I’m only just getting familiar with it myself—like classic “signal laundering.” You’ve heard of money laundering, right? But now signal laundering. It highlights this coordinated amplification, which is not spontaneous engagement. It’s not enthusiasm spreading naturally, it’s coordination masquerading as popularity.

So I think all of us, as communicators trying to grasp something like this to understand the significance of it, are going to have to spend a little extra time understanding how it all works.

There’s one element that came out that I thought, “Wow, yes, you see this.” I can think of two people I follow on LinkedIn who do this. Illustrating Fuentes in this example is not a passive beneficiary; he actively runs it. The evidence includes hundreds of documented instances where he issues real-time commands on live streams like “Retweet this,” “Everyone retweet,” “Quote tweet it now.” I see people doing that even on LinkedIn. There’s one individual I’m not going to mention—because it wouldn’t be right to do that in this way—who has got thousands and thousands of followers. I was looking back through some of his recent posts and they are full of stuff like that. His email newsletter is nothing but that, actually. These directives align precisely with the early velocity spikes observed in the data, according to the report.

Interestingly, X’s own policies say that this behavior qualifies as coordinated inauthentic activity, platform manipulation, and spam amplification, yet the activity persists on X. So to me, the question for everyone listening is: surely you cannot trust a platform like X with your brand messaging, right? So why are you still there in that case?

It means loads more we could dissect in that context, but I think it’s necessary for people to truly understand how this works before you can understand what to do about it.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and you asked how many people in our business might actually understand this. I think if you look at a department like mine where there’s two of us and we’re mostly focused on internal communications, this doesn’t hit our radar. But if you’re a marketing agency and you are tasked with elevating a brand, you got to figure that if a 25-year-old white nationalist fringe character on the social-political scene can figure this out, the people running digital media for a mid-sized agency can easily figure this out.

I suspect there are probably YouTube videos telling you how to do this. You sign up with one of those farms in one of those countries that has the instruction to amplify every time you tweet, and you’re off to the races. And as you mentioned from the report, the algorithm can’t really tell the difference.

Now, this is something that I think is in large part on the platforms—whether it’s X or any of the others—to improve their processes so they can identify and block this sort of thing. The idea that you can start to get media coverage, that people will start including you in their reporting because you appear significant as a result of this blatant manipulation—when you really wield no influence, when the people retweeting you have accounts that have been set up just to retweet you—that’s on them, I think. But they’re clearly not doing anything about it. Musk wouldn’t do anything about it. I wouldn’t expect him to. Zuckerberg’s not going to do anything about it. I wouldn’t expect him to. I wish he would, but knowing what I know about these people, I wouldn’t expect them to spend time and money becoming more ethical. It’s just not in their DNA.

So it’s on us. And where I can see this being used in the business context most blatantly is by advocacy groups when an organization is having a crisis. Because who speaks first is the one who gets the traction. Everything else is reacting and responding to that. And if you could get that kind of momentum, that kind of velocity, that kind of visibility for your point of view in opposition to the perspective of the organization experiencing the crisis, then you’re going to win in that crisis. It’s going to be very difficult for the organization, even employing the best digital crisis communication practices, to overcome that kind of a process.

So this is why I think we need to be aware of this. From my perspective, I have my own personal views about Fuentes and the fact that he’s doing this, but that’s not what this is about. This is about the fact that if Fuentes can do it, your opposition can. It might be, let’s say, a union if you’re a non-union company and they’re trying to get a foot in the door. It could be a competitor trying to make you look bad and elevate their own organization as an investment or as a provider of goods or services. All of them can take advantage of this process because it’s possible.

And frankly, once you dig into it, while it seems complicated, it really isn’t. It’s just subscribing to these services, getting everything set up, and then you just start tweeting or posting on LinkedIn or wherever it is, and everything just follows.

Neville Hobson:: Yeah, I think I mentioned LinkedIn the way I did, but X is the serious negative platform, right? But I would imagine most other platforms that are used for business purposes are subject to this manipulation. And it makes you think you need to know more about the places that you spend time and populate and share information about your business.

The report goes into—or rather the interpretation I’ve made certainly—implications for communicators and organizations, or the key takeaways, I suppose, to summarize it all. I mean, you’re right, the report is long, and it would benefit from a simplified executive summary. Maybe what we’ve prepared might help people get a better handle on what to look at.

But some of the interesting things that summarize it: “Algorithms amplify speed, not authenticity.” And that’s what I think most people—and I’ve been guilty of this too—where speed is really the important thing here. The velocity of your message getting out there and going viral, as people still use that term, is what it’s all about. Absolutely, that’s not what it’s all about. And in this particular age we’re in now with artificial intelligence, I’m arguing very strongly that it is not about speed at all. It’s about being in the right place at the right time with the right message, not necessarily being the first or the fastest with that message.

Another point: “Anonymous and foreign networks can manufacture legitimacy.” How do you figure that out? Interestingly, and I agree with this very much so, “Mainstream media mistakes visibility for importance.” Absolutely true in my view. So all these tactics are portable.

And the final point, I suppose—there’s like 20 more I’ve got for now anyway—the real issue is not who used the playbook to do this. It’s how easy the playbook is to use. I think it’s absolutely right. And I think many people would succumb to kind of increased pressure to play the game because that’s what everyone else seems to be doing. But also it throws up, I think, a bigger concern. It’s become harder to measure engagement if what you’re measuring is suspect.

So that adds some big questions on how are you going to proceed from this point on. So:

• What signals do you treat as evidence of relevance?
• How easily could those signals be fabricated?
• Are we rewarding momentum over substance? You need to know the difference.
• And where does responsibility sit? Platform, media, or practitioner? Or all of the above?

Those are four questions—there’s probably lots more—but that might not be a bad starting point.

Shel Holtz: I don’t think it would. And I think the more practitioners who become aware of this, those that abide by an ethical code, need to raise their voices because I think the more pressure there is on the platforms, the more they will look to change the infrastructure to address this. If nobody complains or if it’s just people on the fringe like us, then nothing’s going to change.

And you’re right, Fuentes started all of this before the AI revolution. And AI is just going to make this worse with the ability to create those posts that get amplified because you have manipulated the system the way Fuentes has. So I’d like to see people kind of raise their voices. Maybe professional associations need to start advocating on behalf of fixing this. You know, AI has led a lot of people to talk about authenticity more than we already were, and we already were a lot. And if authenticity matters, then I really do think we need to raise our voices and demand change from the platforms so that people can’t do this.

Neville Hobson: I agree.

Shel Holtz: And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #493: How to (Unethically) Manufacture Significance and Influence appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

The communication profession stands at a pivotal moment. Artificial intelligence is transforming how we create and distribute content. Trust in institutions continues to erode while employees demand authenticity and transparency. The hybrid workplace has permanently altered how we reach our audiences. And the pace of change shows no signs of slowing.

In this environment, what does it mean to be a communication professional? More specifically, what will it mean in 2026 and the years that follow?

The December Circle of Fellows panel tackled these questions head-on, bringing together four IABC Fellows to share their perspectives on where our profession is headed and what opportunities await those prepared to seize them.

The conversation explored several interconnected themes, including the evolving role of the communication professional as a trusted adviso,; the new capabilities and mindsets that will distinguish the communication leaders who thrive from those who struggle to keep pace, the skills the next generation of communicators should be developing now; and how we can maintain professional standards and ethical practice when the tools and channels keep shifting beneath our feet.

About the panel:

Zora Artis, GAICD, SCMP, ACC, FAMI, CPM, is CEO of Artis Advisory and co-founder of The Alignment People. She helps leaders and teams tackle tough challenges, find clarity, and take action, particularly when the stakes are high and the path isn’t obvious. Her superpower is being comfortable with the uncomfortable: aligning people, solving problems, and navigating change so leaders can focus on what matters most and teams can do their best work.
With more than three decades of experience across consulting, executive leadership, and strategic communication, Zora has guided major brands, government, for-purpose and for-profit organisations in aligning purpose, culture, strategy, and performance. A leading thinker, researcher, and expert in strategic and team alignment, leadership, brand, and communication, she is co-authoring a global study on Strategic Alignment & Leadership. She is a Research Fellow with the Team Flow Institute.
Zora has served as Chair of the IABC Asia Pacific region, as a Director on the IABC International Executive Board, and on multiple committees and task forces. She holds multiple IABC Gold Quill Awards and Chairs the IABC SIG Change Management. Based in Melbourne, she works globally.

Bonnie Caver, SCMP, is the Founder and CEO of Reputation Lighthouse, a global change management and reputation consultancy with offices in Denver, Colorado, and Austin, Texas. The firm, which is 20 years old, focuses on leading companies to create, accelerate, and protect their corporate value. She has achieved the highest professional certification for a communication professional, the Strategic Communication Management Professional (SCMP), a distinction at the ANSI/ISO level. She is also a certified strategic change management professional (Kellogg School of Management), a certified crisis manager (Institute of Crisis Management). She holds an advanced certification for reputation through the Reputation Institute (now the RepTrak Company). She is a past chair of the global executive board for the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC). She currently serves on the board of directors for the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management, where she leads the North American Regional Council and is the New Technology Responsibility/AI Director. Caver is the Vice Chair for the Global Communication Certification Council (GCCC) and leads the IABC Change Management Special Interest Group, which has more than 1,300 members. In addition, she is heavily involved in the global conversation around ethical and responsible AI implementation and led the Global Alliance’s efforts in creating Ethical and Responsible AI Guidelines for the global profession.

Adrian Cropley is the founder and director of the Centre for Strategic Communication Excellence, a global training and development organization. For over thirty years, Adrian has worked with clients worldwide, including Fortune 500 companies, on major change communication initiatives, internal communication reviews and strategies, professional development programs, and executive leadership and coaching. He is a non-executive director on several boards and advises some of the top CEOs and executives globally.

Adrian is a past global chair of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC), where he implemented the IABC Career Road Map, kick-started a global ISO certification for the profession, and developed the IABC Academy. Adrian pioneered the Melcrum Internal Communication Black Belt program in Asia Pacific and is a sought-after facilitator, speaker, and thought leader. He has been a keynote speaker and workshop leader on strategic and change communication at international conferences in Canada, the U.S., Europe, the Middle East, Malaysia, Singapore, China, India, Hong Kong, Thailand, New Zealand, and Australia. He has received numerous awards, including IABC Gold Quill Awards for communication excellence, and his Agency received Boutique Agency of the Year 6 years running.

Adrian is the Chair of the Industry Advisory Committee for the RMIT School of Media and Communication and a Fellow of the IABC and RSA. In 2017, he was awarded the Medal of Order of Australia for his contribution to the field of communication.

Mary Hills, ABC, IABC Fellow, Six Sigma, FCSCE serves as MBA Faculty in Benedictine University’s Goodwin College of Business. Her work in marketing, finance and organizational communication and management brings an interdisciplinary perspective to her students. Mary’s professional career includes serving large corporations such as First Wisconsin National Bank – Milwaukee, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Whiteco Advertising, NiSource, Northern Trust, Unilever and Zebra Technologies. She supported starts-ups through Purdue Technology Center and Research Park of NWI. As a member of senior management, her work includes research, risk analysis and strategic planning for product launches, market expansion, and change and crisis management. In 2009, she co-founded HeimannHills Marketing Group, Chicago and Phoenix, serving as business principal until 2021. Most recently, Mary’s work involves AI’s impact on the role of the communication professional. Her work has been recognized nationally and internationally.

Raw Transcript:

Circle of Fellows Episode 123: The Future of Communications in 2026 and BeyondShel Holtz: Hi everybody, and welcome to episode 123 of Circle of Fellows. I’m Shel Holtz, the Senior Director of Communications at Webcor, a commercial general contractor and builder headquartered here in the Bay Area. We have a great panel today to talk about a really fascinating topic: the future of communications in 2026 and beyond.

I want to emphasize that this is not one of those “lists of trends for next year” that you see flooding social media. I think that has gotten worse since AI made it easier for people to come up with these trends rather than thinking it through for themselves. We will explore where we think communication is headed based on everything going on in the world, including AI.

I’m going to ask the panel to introduce themselves, but before that, I want to take a moment to note the passing of one of our community of IABC Fellows. This happened on April 15th, but we all just learned about it yesterday. The Fellow who passed is Les Potter. Les was hugely influential to more than one generation of communicators. There are likely hundreds, if not thousands, of communicators out there practicing sound strategic communication because of what they learned from Les.

He was a great friend of mine; we spent time together socially, and he will be sorely missed. He was a past chair of IABC, and his passing is a tremendous loss to the community. After leaving the corporate world, he became a beloved professor of communication at Towson University in Maryland. I just wanted to share that for people who may not have heard. I hope he is resting in peace.

With that, let’s find out who is on the panel today. Adrian, starting with you.

Adrian Cropley: It’s great to be with everyone. Thank you, Shel. I am Adrian Cropley in Melbourne, Australia. It is hot today. I am an IABC Fellow and the co-founder of the Centre for Strategic Communication Excellence.

Shel Holtz: Great to have you with us, Adrian. Bonnie, you’re up next.

Bonnie Caver: Hi, I’m Bonnie Caver. I’m in Austin, Texas, and I run a company called Reputation Lighthouse, where we do brand and reputation change management for mid-sized companies.

Shel Holtz: Thanks for joining us, Bonnie. Mary?

Mary Hills: Mary Hills in lovely Scottsdale, Arizona. Our temperature is perfect, as it always is in Scottsdale. I am graduate faculty for Benedictine University, teaching out of their business school, and also on the faculty at the Centre for Strategic Communication Excellence. I am glad to dive into the topic.

Shel Holtz: I have to ask, is the weather going to be perfect in Scottsdale in August?

Mary Hills: It’ll be a little wet and a little hot.

Shel Holtz: Okay. And Zora.

Zora Artis: Hello, everyone. I’m coming to you from Melbourne, Australia, not too far from Adrian. I’m the CEO of Artis Advisory and co-founder of The Alignment People. I work with leaders and executives on tackling tough problems, finding clarity, and taking action. I’m really excited to be here today closing off the year.

Shel Holtz: Thanks, Zora. I also want to shout out Anna Wyllie, our executive producer behind the scenes. In the document she sent to prepare for this, she suggested a potential opening question: What is your one headline for the future of the communication profession in 2026? Let’s go in reverse order, starting with Zora.

Zora Artis: I think as we head into 2026, communication leadership is entering a much more pressured time. This isn’t just because of AI, but because the pace of change is relentless and outstripping people’s ability to make sense of everything. We need to help them move fast and bring them along with us, which is quite daunting, but it puts us in a position where we’re indispensable.

Mary Hills: I would say that so much of the future is not new; it involves things that are maturing and evolving. I don’t think there will be any grand flashes. We have made progress, and we are just going to keep going.

Bonnie Caver: Transformative. We must, as communication professionals, transform ourselves, and we must lead transformation within our organizations and with our stakeholders.

Adrian Cropley: I was scared Bonnie was going to be before me on this one because we think the same here. It’s absolutely about change and transition. But let me add that it will be an exciting time if communication professionals seize the opportunity to grow their value in organizations because the moment is now.

Shel Holtz: I will add mine: I think we are going to have to be laser-focused on building trust. Trust is eroding, and AI is contributing to this. I don’t know if you heard that The Washington Post created AI-generated podcasts that were loaded with factual inaccuracies. If that’s coming from The Washington Post, we’re in trouble. I don’t know who is going to want to be aligned with or engaged with an organization they don’t trust.

Let’s dive into it. What are the leaders of organizations looking for from communicators, and how prepared are we to deliver on those things?

Bonnie Caver: I’ve done quite a bit of research on what leaders are focused on. Profitable growth is on their mind, alongside transformation with AI technology, transforming talent, and the future of work. They also have to protect and govern. As communication professionals, we have to plug in there. We are part of growth, but we must also help lead transformation and address risk, trust, and sustainability. Stakeholders are going to have very different expectations of us going forward.

Adrian Cropley: Shel, you talked about the state of trust, and I think this is critical. Leaders have this opportunity to lead their organizations and employees to buy into what the organization stands for. The reality today, with the amount of misinformation and mal-information on steroids due to AI, is that people gravitate toward what is comfortable.

The role for a communication professional is to give leaders the information, insight, and advice they need. We have to be the “sense maker” more than ever before. There is also a morality role coming into play. When Bonnie and I were working on the Venice Pledge for the Global Alliance, a theme popped up that it is more than ethics; it is about how we engage our world. It’s about home and security.

Zora Artis: I’ve been talking to a lot of leaders this year, and while there is a lot of talk, things are happening in real-time. Strategic horizons have shrunk. We’re constantly trying to outmaneuver the competition to grow and win. Comms professionals need to look at how to make sense of that complexity. We need to look at the system overall—actions taken, decisions made, money invested—and ask: Is this going to reinforce trust or erode it?

There is often a gap between what leaders say and how they behave versus what employees and stakeholders see. Communication professionals have a role in making sense of that and bringing it back to leaders to help them make better decisions.

Mary Hills: I may have a few data points worth considering. Communication professionals must finally become interdisciplinary. They can’t stay in the silo of comms; they have to understand the business, economics, and the value and risk model of the organization.

In communication, we balance the vision and mission of the organization. We represent both the short term and the long term. We have to find that harmonious balance. We also need to apply a rigorous professionalism, including emotional intelligence and behavioral economics, to foster discussion within organizations. Use the PESTLE analysis and attach ethics right to it.

Shel Holtz: Shel, you’re working in-house now. What are you hearing from your organization regarding their expectations?

Shel Holtz: I think they are expecting me to tell them. We are not a massive organization, and most of the leadership team has a construction or engineering background. They expect me to help them figure this out. Even if they don’t articulate it, that is the expectation. Based on Adrian’s thoughts, the first thing that leaped to mind was that we had better get a lot better at listening.

Adrian Cropley: Absolutely. We don’t have the excuse not to listen or measure anymore. This is where I think AI has really helped us. We need to be better at listening and helping our leaders listen to get the insight that informs true connection. Listening has become critical.

Zora Artis: I wrote a piece about this last month. It became obvious that true listening was missing in organizations, as well as the capability among leaders to listen to understand rather than to respond.

I know a Chief Comms Officer in professional services who spends time listening on platforms like Fishbowl, where people talk outside the business. She gathers that information and takes it back to the executive team to explain why it matters. We’re often seeing people skip the listening. If we don’t listen, we can’t counter misinformation or AI bots controlling the narrative because we don’t actually know what our stakeholders believe.

Bonnie Caver: We have challenges today with fake surveys. If you think you’re going to survey your customer base to make critical decisions, but AI bots are participating, it changes your playing field. True listening—picking up the phone and talking to your customers and stakeholders—is more important than ever.

Mary Hills: The one caution I would throw out is that the stakeholder network is tired of irrelevant questions. If we are going to have a conversation, we better have our background research done. They are tired of giving feedback. We need to look at discursive leadership skills: open-ended discussions rather than closed-ended five-question surveys.

Bonnie Caver: The reason people are tired of us asking questions is that communication is not coming back to them regarding how we are acting upon it. We never close the loop.

Shel Holtz: Exactly. There is no such thing as survey fatigue, but there is certainly “bullshit fatigue.” If they see the survey leads to change, they will take surveys all day long.

We have a question from our live audience. Bill Spaniel asks: Regarding the emotional factor of communication and the need for listening, how can communication schools build those requirements into their curriculum?

Mary Hills: We have been doing that for a good eight to nine years. It requires active experience of learning in the classroom. It’s exhausting because you are “on” for three hours, but it reinforces that it’s not just about hearing what was said, but agreeing on the next action item.

Adrian Cropley: We’ve built relationship-building skills and emotional intelligence into the Centre for Strategic Communication Excellence programs. You have to be able to build relationships with stakeholders, not just rely on data. You get data on where people navigate, but you must overlay it with the right context—that is the true listening stuff.

Shel Holtz: Years ago, I read a book called Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, and I learned the term “boundary spanning.” It’s almost like surveillance—lurking in the conversations stakeholders are having to glean intelligence. Listening isn’t just asking questions; sometimes it’s just listening.

Adrian Cropley: There is a social awareness aspect, too. If you can’t even connect with people as humans—like saying thank you in a shop—how are you supposed to get context? We need to go back to some of those old skills.

Zora Artis: It’s also about being observant. Observing the people in the room and observing what is left unsaid.

Shel Holtz: Listening strikes me as one of those uncomfortable truths we need to face if we are going to stay relevant. What other uncomfortable truths are there?

Zora Artis: We confuse activity with impact. We are good at producing stuff, but not always good at understanding if it changes behavior or decisions. We need to be relevant rather than busy.

Mary Hills: The Communication Value Circle came out around 2016. It helps us understand how to provide value and assess risk. We have to understand the value and risk model every organization is on. Marketing has a value circle, too. We need to understand where we bring present value and how we protect future value.

Adrian Cropley: Often, the perceived value from leaders drives the behavior of the communication professional—churning out content or tidying up PowerPoints. That value has disappeared because AI can do those things now. We have to educate organizations on what real value for communication is: providing insight and context.

Zora Artis: It comes back to the business side. I remember learning Net Present Value and risk calculations. Comms often skirts around the edges of finance. We need to talk about revenue, productivity, trust capital, and risk exposure in language that matters to the business.

Bonnie Caver: Reputation is huge right now. CEOs say it’s important, but they don’t know how to do it. We haven’t positioned ourselves as being in the business of building and protecting reputation; we often treat it as a byproduct of crisis management. It’s not reputation management anymore; it’s reputation design.

And let’s not forget, AI is now a stakeholder. AI controls the narrative and answers questions about your organization.

Shel Holtz: What else are communicators not focused on that they should be?

Adrian Cropley: Understanding and interacting with AI. I am surprised how many people have not dipped their feet into the water. If we aren’t exploring AI to make our roles more efficient and gain insight, we are missing a huge opportunity. We recently published a playbook for AI into 2026, and a key play is using AI to carve out time to do the higher-value work.

Mary Hills: We treat AI as an agent. You are the owner of what AI brings back to you. It is merely the agent acting for you to get information. We must manage what it gives us back.

Bonnie Caver: We shouldn’t look at AI just to solve problems, but for efficiencies. I was on a panel with an organization that saved almost a thousand hours using AI. They used that efficiency to free themselves up to do transformative things.

Zora Artis: AI creates incredible speed. The problem is alignment. People are moving at speed with decisions, but they aren’t creating clarity around what stays the same and what shifts. Communication professionals need to enable the alignment needed across the organization so they can work at pace sustainably.

Shel Holtz: We have talked about the need to be transformative. However, there are things like professional standards and ethical behavior we don’t want to transform. But now, the people doing the communicating are often not journalists or professionals—they are pastors, barbers, or WhatsApp moderators. How do we maintain professional standards when we have lost the traditional gatekeepers?

Adrian Cropley: We aren’t short of standards; we just don’t publish them well enough. The Global Standard for the Communication Profession is critical. We have to build those standards out to everyone communicating. The work Bonnie did with the Venice Pledge regarding AI usage is a great example. We need to work with governments and agencies to enforce requirements.

Mary Hills: The professional associations are the keepers of the standard. Academia builds the body of knowledge, but associations like IABC bring it to the marketplace through certification.

Zora Artis: I don’t think we ever had control; that’s an illusion. We had influence. We need to double down on the “Do, Say, Be” alignment—making sure that what we do, what we say, and the lived experience are true.

Shel Holtz: We are almost out of time. Let’s do a closing round. In one sentence, what is your boldest prediction for communication by 2030?

Adrian Cropley: Absolutely radical change. We are going to find out we are changing completely.

Bonnie Caver: We’re going to become advocates for ourselves, or we’re going to disappear.

Mary Hills: The natural inclination for communicators to bring human-centric abilities to the forefront will protect our space. We have to be the ones keeping our heads when everyone else is losing theirs.

Zora Artis: Communication should be the essential organizational infrastructure that creates shared understanding to keep strategy, trust, and performance from falling apart.

Shel Holtz: My thanks to all of you for a sparkling conversation. The next Circle of Fellows is scheduled for noon Eastern Time on Thursday, January 22nd. The subject is the impact of mentoring. Thank you all for your participation.

Panel: Thank you. Happy holidays.

The post Circle of Fellows #123: The Future of Communication — 2026 and Beyond appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In this short midweek episode, Shel and Neville dissect the communication fallout from the $13.5 billion Omnicom-IPG merger and the controversial pre-holiday layoff of 4,000 employees. Among the themes they discuss: the stark contrast between the polished corporate narrative aimed at investors and the raw, real-time reality shared by staff on LinkedIn and Reddit, illustrating how organizations have lost control of the narrative. Against the backdrop of a corporate surge in hiring “storytellers,” Neville and Shel discuss the irony of failing to empower the workforce — the brand’s most authentic narrators — and analyze the long-term reputational damage caused by tone-deaf leadership during a crisis.

Links from this episode:

• Another NOT SO HOT TAKE: Omnicom is a communications company. They didn’t forget how to communicate. They chose who to communicate to.
• Omnicom layoffs—how a communications company created its own crisis
• The Omnicom-IPG merger was confirmed this week. 4,000 jobs will be cut by Christmas. The announcement came the week after Thanksgiving. I’ve been here before.
• Inside Omnicom’s Town Hall: Adamski confronts criticism, outlines new power structure after IPG acquisition
• Companies Are Desperately Seeking ‘Storytellers’

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, December 29.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Shel Holtz Hi everybody and welcome to episode number 492 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson And I’m Neville Hobson. In this episode, we’re going to talk about something that’s been playing out very publicly over the past few weeks in our own industry, i.e. communication. It’s about Omnicom, its merger with IPG, and the layoffs that followed. Following confirmation of the $13.5 billion merger, the company announced that around 4,000 roles would be cut, with many of those job losses happening before Christmas.

On the face of it, this is not unusual. Mergers of this scale inevitably create overlap, and redundancies are part of that reality. What makes this different was not simply the decision, but how the story unfolded and where.

On one level, there was the official corporate narrative. Omnicom’s public messaging focused on growth, integration, and future capability. It was language clearly written with investors, analysts, and the financial press in mind—not to mention clients. Polished, strategic, and familiar to anyone who has worked around holding companies. At the same time, a very different narrative was emerging elsewhere, particularly on LinkedIn and Reddit, driven by people inside the organization—people who had lost their jobs and people watching colleagues lose theirs.

That contrast became the focus of an Ad Age opinion piece by Elizabeth Rosenberg, a communications advisor who had handled large-scale change and layoffs herself. In the piece—which, by the way, Ad Age unlocked so it’s openly available—and later in her own LinkedIn posts, Rosenberg described watching two stories unfold in real time. One told to shareholders and external stakeholders, the other taking shape in comment threads written by the people most directly affected. Her point was not that Omnicom failed to communicate, but that it chose who to communicate to.

That observation resonated widely inside the industry. Rosenberg’s LinkedIn post made clear that she was less interested in being provocative than in naming something that many people were already seeing and feeling. She also noted the response she received privately—messages describing her comments as brave—and questioned what it says about our profession if plain speaking about human impact is now treated as courage.

As that conversation gathered momentum, another LinkedIn post took the discussion in a slightly different direction. Stephanie Brown, a marketing career coach, wrote about the timing of the layoffs. Her post was grounded in personal experience; she describes being laid off herself in December 2013 and what it meant to lose a job during a period associated with family, financial pressure, and emotional strain.

She acknowledged that layoffs are part of corporate life but argued that timing is a choice and that announcing thousands of job losses immediately after Thanksgiving, with cuts landing for Christmas, intensified the impact. That post triggered a large and emotionally charged response—thousands of reactions, hundreds of comments. Some people echoed Brown’s argument that holiday season layoffs carry an additional human cost. Others pushed back, arguing that earlier notice can be preferable to delayed disclosure even if the timing is painful.

What stood out was not consensus, but the depth of feeling and the willingness of people to share lived experience publicly. Across both posts and in the comment threads beneath them, a broader picture began to emerge. Former Omnicom and IPG employees described how they received the news. Industry veterans expressed sadness rather than surprise. Practitioners questioned what this says about internal credibility, culture, and leadership. Others pointed out that holding company economics have long prioritized shareholders and that this moment simply made that reality visible.

What’s notable here is that LinkedIn wasn’t just a reaction channel. It became the place where the story itself evolved. The press release was no longer the primary narrative. The commentary, the responses, and the shared experiences became part of how the situation was understood. So that’s the landscape we’re stepping into today: A major communication holding company announcing significant layoffs via a formal, investor-focused message, and a parallel, highly visible conversation driven by employees, former employees, and industry peers about audience, timing, and impact.

Rather than rushing to judgment, I think this is worth exploring carefully, especially for people whose job is communication, reputation, and trust. So, Shel, what would you say to all of this?

Shel Holtz I would say, first of all, that for an organization that purports to be a communication organization, their failure to recognize that they employ thousands of communicators who know how to use publicly accessible channels is a massive failure in communication planning. It should have been anticipated. But the story is dripping with irony, Neville. In light of an article the Wall Street Journal published last week, the article pointed to an entirely different approach that companies are taking than the one Omnicom defaulted to.

While Omnicom is watching its narrative get dismantled by its own employees on Reddit, the Wall Street Journal just reported that the hottest job in corporate America is—are you ready for this?—”storyteller.” Listings for jobs with storyteller in the title have doubled on LinkedIn in the past year. Executives used the word “storytelling” 469 times on earnings calls through mid-December.

Companies like Microsoft, Vanta, and USAA aren’t just hiring communicators anymore; they’re hunting for directors of storytelling and heads of narrative. Now, on one level, you can see why they’re doing this. The Journal points out that print newspaper circulation has dropped 70% since 2005. The army of journalists we used to rely on to tell our stories has evaporated. If companies want their news covered, they realize they have to become the media themselves. That’s what Tom Foremski said so many years ago: Every company is a media company.

But what this really means is that their traditional gatekeepers are gone. Listening to what’s happening with Omnicom, you have to wonder if these companies actually understand what storytelling means in 2025. We’re seeing a collision of two worlds here. In one world, you have the C-suite still believing they can control the narrative by hiring better writers. They think if they can just recruit a customer storytelling manager—that’s what Google is doing—or a former journalist to run corporate editorial—that’s what Chime is doing—they can fill the void. They think they can craft a sanitized, strategic message for investors and that will be the story of record.

Then you have the real world, Neville; it’s the one you just described. While Omnicom was probably busy polishing its official investor-focused story, the actual story was being written in real time on Reddit and LinkedIn by the people living through the chaos. These employees didn’t need a head of storytelling. They didn’t need a corporate newsroom. They had the truth. They had a platform.

This is exactly the loss of control we’ve been warning about for how many years. The Journal quotes a communication CEO who says leaders are finally realizing that brands that are winning right now are the ones that are most authentic and human. Yeah, he’s absolutely right. But here’s the problem: You can’t hire authenticity. If your new director of storytelling is busy writing a glossy piece about innovation while your employees are on social forums describing a culture of fear and disposal, you’ve lost the plot. The story isn’t what you publish on your corporate blog. The story is what your people say it is.

The Journal notes that a USAA storyteller might work some real experiences into an executive speech. Yeah, that’s fine. It’s also table stakes. If Omnicom or any of these companies rushing to hire storytellers want to tell a better story, they don’t just need to hire better writers. They need to give their employees a better story to tell. That’s the idea behind employee advocacy, after all, isn’t it? Because if the story you pay someone to write conflicts with the story your employees are living, the employees are going to win every single time. And as we’re seeing with Omnicom, they’re going to do it on their own channels and they’re going to do it without anybody’s approval.

Neville Hobson Yeah, one of the ironies that came across in the story, according to both of the women I quoted from the LinkedIn posts, is that Omnicom and IPG have spent decades advising clients on authentic communication, yet failed to apply that themselves. Rosenberg highlights comments from laid-off staff describing abrupt, impersonal Zoom calls, minimal explanation of rationale or future direction, and leadership absence at critical moments. These voices carried more weight than any press release because employees are the brand’s most credible storytellers.

Switch over to the Town Hall in early December, which Omnicom hosted—the first global company-wide Town Hall since the merger. It was actually completed at the end of November. The behavior of the CEO led me to think just reading this—is he tone-deaf or does he just not care?

One quote in Storyboard 18 says: “Opening the session, Florian Adamski, the CEO of Omnicom Media, reportedly addressed intense industry speculation surrounding the merger and restructuring. He criticized the tone of press and social media commentary, describing detractors as ‘haters’ and stressed that decisions have been taken after considerable deliberation, urging staff to stay patient as transitions rolled out.“

It goes on elsewhere to repeat that call from the leadership of Omnicom to be patient, everyone, it’s all going to be fine. But without any communication explaining how—or worse, even addressing the detail of what people have been saying about this. Is that tone-deaf or what?

Shel Holtz It is seriously tone-deaf. I remember years ago—this was at a Ragan conference in Chicago—a CEO was speaking. I think he was the CEO of Avon. He made the point that he thinks the minute a CEO is installed in that role and sits in the chair, there is a “stupid ray” aimed at them that affects their brains and makes them forget who employees are.

He made a point at least once a month of visiting frontline employees. It could be at a manufacturing facility where they were filling bottles, but he talked to them to remind himself that these are real people, that they have real lives, and that they are smarter than you tend to give them credit for when you don’t interact with them. You’re the CEO, you’re part of the executive team, and you think those are the “little people” down there doing all the work, not smart enough to absorb bad news.

In speaking to them, he found that they were scout masters, they helped their spouses run businesses, they were the president of the local Kiwanis club. They are smart, they can handle bad news, and they can understand things like business plans and corporate strategy. I think in this case, the Omnicom CEO obviously has not moved himself out of the path of that “stupid ray,” because his assessment of employees and the role they could play in this was seriously misguided.

Neville Hobson Yeah, your mention of that phrase “the little people” reminded me of that hotel owner in New York who went to jail for not paying taxes because she said “only the little people pay taxes.“

Shel Holtz That was Leona Helmsley.

Neville Hobson That’s it. So, one thing I also thought when I was thinking about this story: The optics are bad, but this isn’t about the optics. It’s about trust.

To me, this happened. 4,000 people are losing their jobs right before Christmas. It’s going to be extremely painful to many of them. They feel angry. The deeper risk is the long-term erosion of trust in Omnicom. Employees disengage or leave faster than those who are still there. Leadership messages lose credibility. Organizational resilience weakens, and clients notice the inconsistency between advice given and the behavior shown. This gap is damaging.

The other thing to mention—and it really confirms the point you made earlier—is that in a world where every employee has a public platform like this, organizations do not control the narrative. That will be obvious to you and me, but this sets it quite clearly. The story that endures is how people remember being treated when change was unavoidable.

You can’t actually predict what effects that is going to have on Omnicom. It may well be that in this age of polarization and utter cynicism, no one will care about this when they get hired and go work for Omnicom. But this is a firm that I wouldn’t like to work for based on this.

I started my working career in advertising at J. Walter Thompson back in the late 70s. Omnicom has a storied history in its current form, with the legacy brands they keep talking about in the press releases that are all being retired. Doyle Dane Bernbach, BBDO—some of these firms were around when I was at JWT all those years ago. It reminds me that nothing is permanent. The gloss in advertising is often just a veneer. I think they will not gain any credit for this, and the CEO’s reaction, just according to that town hall write-up, was pretty appalling.

Shel Holtz It’s just terrible. As we know, because we report on it every year, employees are still the most trusted source from a company according to the Edelman Trust Barometer. When you have this many employees out talking about what happened to them, telling their stories authentically, that’s what people are going to remember. They’re not going to remember the financial forecast that Omnicom has put forward.

Somebody needs to counsel this guy. I read somewhere that even for the layoff notification he was supposed to participate in, they said he couldn’t because he was having “technical difficulties.” I mean, come on, really? You’re not even going to get that personal message of regret from the leader of the organization?

We’re in a period right now where people are struggling to find jobs in communication. If Omnicom opens some jobs, people will take those jobs because it’s hard to find one right now. But if that pendulum swings and it becomes a seller’s market rather than a buyer’s market again, I can’t imagine a lot of communicators who are going to want to work there. They may find themselves hiring a more mediocre workforce because the best of the best are going to say, “No, I’m really good, the world knows I’m good, I can work anywhere, and I’m not going to go work for those jerks.“

Neville Hobson I think it’s a good point. Another thing to mention is that I was surprised to see the comments on Reddit. There are hundreds, if not thousands, and in a way I wasn’t expecting. I expected a lot of ranting, a lot of ugliness, and maybe trolling. I didn’t see much of that. I saw what I would describe as sheer sadness by many people, and calm acceptance of the awfulness of it all by those who’ve been fired. The two LinkedIn posts I discussed are very much worth looking at, along with the comments.

Layoffs are inevitable, and indeed in the case of this acquisition, they were inevitable. But the communication failure was not inevitable if they had handled it differently. Employees now shape the public narrative in real time. Trust, once lost, quickly becomes an external issue, which is what we’re seeing playing out still. Communication principles apply most when it’s hardest to use them, like this situation, and I think they failed the test totally.

Shel Holtz Yeah, I’ll tell you what, we just recently completed an acquisition here where I work, and in our little two-person communication team in our small billion-and-a-half-dollar company, the communication was far superior to what we see coming out of this behemoth of a communication organization. It’s pathetic.

This is what Zuckerberg always said when he got caught doing something bad: “We’ll have to do better.” He never does, and I doubt that Omnicom will either based on this behavior, but they need to do better. And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #492: The Authenticity Divide in Omnicom Layoff Communication appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In this episode, Chip and Gini discuss the importance of strategic planning for 2026. As they near the end of 2025, they emphasize the need for agencies to set themselves apart and adapt to the evolving landscape, particularly through the effective use of AI.

Despite ongoing economic challenges, they highlight the potential for AI to enhance both efficiency and strategic thinking. Chip and Gini also stress the importance of refining the ideal client profile and taking calculated risks. They share their personal experiences with using AI to assist in planning and decision-making processes, pointing out both the benefits and limitations of current AI technology. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 291: Embracing innovation to survive and thrive in 2026 appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Josh Bernoff has just completed the largest survey yet of writers and AI – nearly 1,500 respondents across journalism, communication, publishing, and fiction.

We interviewed Josh for this podcast in early December 2025. What emerges from both the data and our conversation is not a single, simple story, but a deep divide.

Writers who actively use AI increasingly see it as a powerful productivity tool. They research faster, brainstorm more effectively, build outlines more quickly, and free themselves up to focus on the work only humans can do well – judgement, originality, voice, and storytelling. The most advanced users report not only higher output, but improvements in quality and, in many cases, higher income.

Non-users experience something very different.

For many non-users, AI feels unethical, environmentally harmful, creatively hollow, and a direct threat to their livelihoods. The emotional language used by some respondents in Josh’s survey reflects just how personal and existential these fears have become.

And yet, across both camps, there is striking agreement on key risks. Writers on all sides are concerned about hallucinations and factual errors, copyright and training data, and the growing volume of bland, generic “AI slop” that now floods digital channels.

In our conversation, Josh argues that the real story is not one of wholesale replacement, but of re-sorting. AI is not eliminating writers outright. It is separating those who adapt from those who resist – and in the process reshaping what it now means to be a trusted communicator, editor, and storyteller.

Key Highlights* Why hands-on AI users report higher productivity and quality, while non-users feel an existential threat * How AI is now embedded in research, brainstorming, outlining, and verification – not just text generation * Why PR and communications teams are adopting faster than journalists * What the rise of “AI slop” means for trust, originality, and attention * Why the future of writing is not replacement – but re-sorting

About our Conversation PartnerJosh Bernoff is an expert on business books and how they can propel thinkers to prominence. Books he has written or collaborated on have generated over $20 million for their authors.

More than 50 authors have endorsed Josh’s Build a Better Business Book: How to Plan, Write, and Promote a Book That Matters, a comprehensive guide for business authors. His other books include Writing Without Bullshit: Boost Your Career by Saying What You Mean and the Business Week bestseller Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies. He has contributed to 50 nonfiction book projects.

Josh’s mathematical and statistical background includes three years of study in the Ph.D. program in mathematics at MIT. As a Senior Vice President at Forrester Research, he created Technographics, a consumer survey methodology, which is still in use more than 20 years later. Josh has advised, consulted on, and written about more than 20 large-scale consumer surveys.

Josh writes and posts daily at Bernoff.com, a blog that has attracted more than 4 million views. He lives in Portland, Maine, with his wife, an artist.

Follow Josh on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshbernoff/

Relevant Links

• https://bernoff.com/
• https://bernoff.com/blog/ai-writer-survey-results-analyzing-royalties-neuroscientific-sneakers-newsletter-5-november-2025
• https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyright/article/99019-new-report-examines-writers-attitudes-toward-ai.html
• https://gothamghostwriters.com/AI-writer

Audio TranscriptShel Holtz

Hi everybody, and welcome to a For Immediate Release interview. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson

And I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz

And we are here today with Josh Bernoff. I’ve known Josh since the early SNCR days. Josh is a prolific author, professional writer, mostly of business material. But Josh, I’m gonna ask you to share some background on yourself.

Josh Bernoff

Okay, thanks. What people need to know about me, I spent four years in the startup business and 20 years as an analyst at Forrester Research. Since that time, which was in 2015, I have been focused almost exclusively on the needs of authors, professional business authors. So I work with them as a coach, writer, ghostwriter, an editor, and basically anything they need to do to get business books published.

The other thing that’s sort of relevant in this case is that while I was at Forrester, I originated their survey methodology, which is called Technographics. And I have a statistics background, a math background, so fielding surveys and analysing them and writing reports about them is a very comfortable and familiar place for me to be. So when the opportunity arose to write about a survey of authors in AI, said, all right, I’m in, let’s do this.

Shel Holtz

And you’ve also published your own books. I’ve read your most recent one, How to Write a Better Business Book.

Josh Bernoff

Mm-hmm, yes. So, this is like, the host has to prod you to promote your own stuff. Yes. Yes. So by my two most recent books, I wrote a book called Writing Without Bullshit, which is basically a, a manifesto for, people in corporations to write better. and I wrote build a better business book that you talked about, which is a complete manual for everything you need to do to think about conceive. write, get published and promote a business book. Yeah, so they’re both both available online where your audience can find them.

Shel Holtz

Wherever books are sold. So we’re here today, Josh, to talk about that survey of writers that you conducted, asking them about their use of AI. What motivated you to undertake this survey in the first place?

Josh Bernoff

Well, I’ll just go back a tiny little bit. About two years ago, Dan Gerstein, who is the CEO of Gotham Ghost Readers and a really fantastically interesting guy, reached out to me because he knew my background of doing statistics and said, let’s do a survey of the ROI of business books, get business authors to talk about what they went through to create their business books and whether they made a profit from all the things that followed on that.

So at the conclusion of that project, which people can certainly still get access to that information, at authorroi.com, at the conclusion of that project, it was clear that we could do a really good job together. So when he came to me and said, let’s do a survey about authors and AI. It’s a topic I’ve been researching a lot, talking to many authors about how they use it. And I said, all right, yeah, let’s actually get a definitive result here. And we were really pleased that the survey basically went viral.

We got almost 1,500 responses, way more than we did for the business author survey, because there’s a lot more writers than authors in the world. And because we got such a large response, it was possible to slice that so I can answer questions like how do technical writers feel about AI or is this different between men and women or older or younger people. And so that enabled us to do a really robust survey which people can download if they want. It’s at gothamghostwriters.com/AI-writer, available free for anyone who wants to see it.

Shel Holtz

And we’ll have that link in the show notes as well.

Josh Bernoff

Okay, great.

Neville Hobson

It’s a massive piece of work you did, Josh. I, I kind of went through the PDF quite closely because it’s a topic that interests me quite a bit. And I was really quite intrigued by many of the findings that it surfaced. But I have a fundamental question right at the very beginning, because I’m a writer myself. But I encountered this phrase throughout, “professional writer.” I’m not a professional writer, but I’m a writer.

And I know a lot of communicators who would say, yeah, I’m a professional writer. I don’t think it fits the definition you’re working to. So can you actually succinctly say what is a professional writer as opposed to any other kind of writer that communicators might say they are? What’s the difference?

Josh Bernoff

Yeah, that’s there’s less there than meets the eye and I will describe why.

So, we fielded this survey, and we basically said if you are a writer, you can answer this survey, and we got help from all sorts of people who are willing to share it within their communities. So over 2000 people responded. But of course, you have to disqualify people if they’re not really a writer and the way we define that is, we said, you spend at least 10 hours a week on writing and editing? And somebody who didn’t, I’m like, okay, you’re not really a writer if you don’t spend at least 10 hours a week on it.

And we also looked at how people made their living. So let’s just say you’re a product manager. You’re probably doing a lot of writing, but you wouldn’t describe yourself as a professional writer. So part of what we did was to have people answer questions about what kind of writer are you?

And we had the main categories and we captured almost everybody in them, know, marketing writers, nonfiction authors, ghost writers, you know, PR writers and so on. And although we had not intended to do so, we got almost 300 responses from fiction authors. And we were like, okay, what are we going to do here? Because these people are very different from the people who are writing in a business context or non-fiction authors, but I don’t want to invalidate their experience.

So we basically divided up the survey and we said, most of the responses are from people who are writing things that are intended to be true. And a small group is written from people who are intentionally lying because they’re fiction writers. So then we had an ongoing discussion about what do we call the people who write things that are intended to be true. And Dan Gerstein and I eventually agreed to call them professional writers, which is not a dig on the professional fiction authors, but it’s just a catchall for people who are making their living as a writer and writing nonfiction.

Shel Holtz

Josh, you described in the survey report a deep attitudinal divide where users see productivity and non-users see what you called a sociopathic plagiarism machine.

Josh Bernoff

Thanks. Now, now, wait a minute. I didn’t call it that. One of the people who took the survey called it that. Yes, that was a direct quote. I mean, I just want to comment here that in the survey business, we call responses to open-ended questions verbatims, right? So these are the actual text responses. And because we surveyed writers, these are the best verbatims I’ve ever seen. This is extremely literate.

Shel Holtz

OK, that was, that was a response. Got it. Well, yeah.

Josh Bernoff A collection of people expressing their opinion and the sociopathic plagiarism machine came from one of those folks. Yes.

Shel Holtz

I did like that a lot. But for somebody like me, a communications director managing a team, how do you bridge that gap when half the team might be ethically opposed to the tools that the other half is enthusiastically using every day?

Josh Bernoff

You just tell the other people to go to hell. No, I’m kidding! Now this is, it’s true. So one of the most notable findings of the survey was that people who do not use AI are likely to have negative attitudes about it. So it’s not just like, you know, well, I don’t happen to drink alcohol, but it’s fine with me. No, these people are.

Josh Bernoff

This is bad for the environment. It’s an evil product. There were a lot of interesting verbatims in the survey from people like that. 61% of the professional writers said that they use AI. So this is a minority of people who are not using it, and an even smaller group who are opposed to it. But they are fervently opposed to it. The people who do use it are generally getting really useful things done. A majority say that it’s making them more productive. And the people who are most advanced are doing all sorts of things with it.

By the way, this is really important to note. The thing that everyone’s sort of morally up in arms about, which is people generating text that’s intended to be read using AI, is actually quite rare. Most of the, that was only 7% that did that and only 1% that did that daily. So most people are doing research or they’re, they’re, you know, using it as a thesaurus or, or, using it to analyse material that they find and, and are citing as own background or something like that. it, to come directly at your question though, it is important to acknowledge this divide in any writing organisation.

And I think that the people who are using AI need to understand that there are some serious objections and they need to address that. The people who are not using it, I think, need to understand that perhaps they should be trying this out just so that they’re not operating from a position of ignorance about what the thing can do.

And I think most importantly, the big companies that are creating AI tools need to be a lot more serious about compensating the folks who create the writing that it’s trained on because it is putting the sociopathic plagiarism machine aside, it’s pretty bothersome when you find out that the thing has absorbed your book and is giving people advice based on that and you got no compensation for that.

Shel Holtz

I just want to follow up on this question real quickly. Were you able to quantify among the people who don’t use it and object to it the reasons? I mean, you listed a couple, but I’m wondering if there’s any data around the percentage that are concerned about the environment, the percentage that, I mean, the one that I keep reading in LinkedIn posts is it has no human experience or empathy, which I don’t understand why that’s a requirement for say earnings releases or welcome to our new sales VP, but nevertheless.

Josh Bernoff

Yeah, I going to say that describes a bunch of human writers too. They don’t seem to have any empathy. So we looked at one of the questions that we asked is how concerned are you about the following? And then we had a list of concerns. And it’s interesting that they divide pretty neatly into things that everyone is concerned about and things that the non-users are far more concerned about. So for example, the top thing that people were concerned about was, and I quote, AI-generated text can include factual errors or hallucinations. So even the people who use it are like, okay, we’ve got to be careful with this thing because sometimes it comes up with false information.

For example, if you ask it for my bio, it will tell you that I have a bachelor’s degree in classics from Harvard University and an MBA from the Harvard Business School, and I’ve never attended Harvard. So it’s like, no, no, no, no, no, no, that’s not right!

On the other hand, there are some other things where there’s a very strong difference of opinion. So for example, question, AI generated text is eroding the perception of value and expertise that experienced writers bring to a project. 92% of the non-users of AI agreed with that, but only 53% of the heaviest users of AI agreed with that. So if you use AI a lot, it’s like, well, actually, this isn’t as big of a problem as people think.

The environmental question, I think that non-users, 85% of them were concerned about its use of resources, but only 52% of the heavy users were concerned about that. And I want to point out something which I think is probably the most interesting division here. If you ask writers, should AI-generated text be labelled as such, they all mostly agree that it should. But if you ask them, should text generated with the aid of AI be labelled as such, the people who use AI often think, well, you don’t need to know that I used it to do research, because it’s not visible in the output. Whereas the non-users are like, no, you used AI, you have to label it. So that’s a good example of a place where the difference of opinion is going to have to somehow get settled over time.

Neville Hobson

That’s probably one of those things I would say take a while to do that, given what you see. and I talked about this recently on verification. Some people, and I know some people who are very, very heavy users of AI who don’t check stuff that is output with the aid of their AI companion. That’s crazy, frankly, because as Shel noted in our conversation, the latest episode of FIR podcast, your reputation is the one that’s going to suffer when it’s when you get found out that you’ve done this and haven’t disclosed it.

But it also manifests itself in something, you know, the great em-dash debate that went on for most of this year. Right. But I wrote a post about a couple of weeks ago about this and about ChatGPT’s plan saying you can tell it not to use em-dashes.

And my experience is I’ve done that and it still goes ahead and does it. It apologizes each time, it still goes ahead and does it, you know. But you know what? That post produced a credible reaction from people. 40,000 views in a couple of days. That’s for me, that’s a lot, frankly. And I did an analysis, which I published just a few days ago, that showed the opinions people have about it are widely divisive.

Some see it as, I’m not going to give up my whole heritage of writing just because of this stupid argument to others who say you’ve got to stop it because it doesn’t matter if it got it from us in the first place, it signals that you’re using AI, therefore your writing is no good. That kind of discussion was going on. So I’d see this is continuing. It’s crazy. looking at the data highlights, there’s some really fascinating stuff in there, Josh, that caught my eye.

The headline starting with the right to see AI is both a tool and a threat. And yes, that’s quite clear from what you’ve been saying, but also this hallucinations concern 91% of writers. And I think that’s true across, you no matter how experienced you are, it concerns me, which is why I’m strongly motivated to check everything, even though sometimes you think, God, do it, don’t don’t question, just do it.

I reviewed something recently that had 60 plus URLs mentioned in it. And so I checked them all, and 15 of them just didn’t exist or 404s or server errors. And yet the client had issued it already and without checking that kind of thing. Stuff like that. So you’ve got a job to educate them.

So I guess this is all peripheral to the question I wanted to ask you, which is that correlation that comes across in the data highlights between AI usage and positive attitudes towards it and as opposed to the negative attitudes, but the users are very highly positive.

How should we interpret this divide? I guess is the question you may have touched on this already, actually, I think you may have actually, is it just a skills gap? Is it a cultural gap? Or what is it? Because the attitudes that are different, I guess, like much these days seems to me to be quite polarised, strong opinions, pro and con. How do we interpret this?

Josh Bernoff

All right, so I want to go back to a few of the things that you said here. I have some advice in my book, Build a Better Business book, and it’s generally good advice about checking facts that you find, finding false information on the internet has always been a problem for people who are citing sources.

There used to be a guy called the numbers guy in the, Carl Bialik in the Wall Street Journal, who would actually write a column every month about some made up statistic that got into print. All that we’ve done is to make it much more efficient. But people do need to check. And it’s interesting. You learn when you use these tools that it’s subtle. If you click and say, OK, that is a real source, that’s fine.

But often, it will tell you that that source says X or Y and then you go and you read it and you’re like, no, it doesn’t actually say that. So yes, you are now citing a source that when you go look at it says the opposite of what you thought it said. Real professional writers know that that is an important part of their job and it just happens to be easy to behave incompetently and irresponsibly now.

But believe me, I deal with professional publishers all the time and there are all these clauses now in their contracts which basically say you have to disclose when you’re using AI and if there’s false information in here then you’re responsible for it and we might not publish it. I will say this, so let’s just put this in a different context. So think about Photoshop.

Okay, when Photoshop started to become popular, people were like, wait a minute, we can’t believe what we see in pictures. Maybe the person doesn’t have skin that’s all that smooth. Maybe that background is fake. But in context where you’re supposed to be doing factual stuff, like a photo that’s in a magazine, there’s safeguards against this and the users have learned what is legit and what isn’t. And I think also that the readers have learned that, okay, we have to be a little skeptical about what we see. This AI has made it possible to do that with text way more easily, but it’s still the case that you, as a reader, you need to be skeptical and as a user, you need to be sophisticated about what you can and can’t do and what is and is not legit.

I do these writing workshops with corporations. I’m doing one next week with a very large media company. And I’m trying to help them to understand, start with clear writing principles and use AI to support them as opposed to use it to substitute for your judgment, generate crap, and then do a disservice to the poor people who are reading it.

Shel Holtz

I am always amused when I see people expressing such angst over AI generated images taking money from artists. And I didn’t hear the same level of anxiety when CGI became the means of making animated movies. What happened to the people who inked the cells? They’re out of a job. No, Pixar got nothing but praise.

Josh Bernoff

Yeah, I know. Right. Right. They should. Yes, yes Yes, right and it’s like no no, they should have actually gotten 26,000 dinosaurs in that scene and I’m like You you were entertained admit it and you know that they’re not real and that’s it…

Shel Holtz

Yeah. Josh, your data shows that thought leadership writers and PR and comms professionals are the heaviest users of AI. Thought leadership writers, 84% of them and 73% of PR and comms professionals are using AI in their writing. Journalists are somewhere around half of that at 44%.

Did you glean any insights as to why the people who are pitching the media are using this more than the people being pitched?

Josh Bernoff

I have some theories about that. What I’m about to tell you is not supported by the data, although I could go in and start digging around. There’s infinite insight in here if I do that. So I think journalists are a little paranoid about it. And the fact that, yes, 44% of the journalists said that they used it, but only 18% said that they used it every day, which is at the very bottom of all the professional writers.

So I think they are not only concerned about their livelihood, but also that they don’t wanna make a mistake. They don’t wanna get anything into print that’s false. Whereas if you look at the thought leadership writers and the PR and comms professionals, it’s a simple question of volume. These people are under pressure to produce a very large amount of information.

And I can tell you as a professional writer that that there are certain tasks that you really would rather not spend time on if an AI can do it. So if you’re gathering up a bunch of background information and perplexity does a better job on contextual searches than Google, which it absolutely does, then you’re probably going to use it.

Now, there is the risk that these people are basically generating large quantities of crap and then sharing it. But I think that that rapidly becomes unproductive. If you’re basically spamming people with AI slop, then they will immediately become sort of immune to that, and then you lose trust and at that point you’ve destroyed your own livelihood.

Neville Hobson

Yeah, absolutely. I want to ask you about one of the other finds you had in here about ChatGPT is the clear leader amongst all writers. 76% using it weekly. I use ChatGPT more than any other tool. I’m very happy with it. It does what I want. But in light of how fast things move in this industry, how things change. How do you see that shifting or does it not actually matter at the end of the day which tool you use as long as it delivers what you want from it?

Josh Bernoff

Well, what you have here is people spending hundreds of millions of dollars to become the default choice, the sort of dominant company here. And if you look at past battles of this kind to be like, who is the top browser or what’s the top mobile operating system, this is a land grab.

If you sit out and wait and see what happens, you could very easily end up on the sidelines, which is why there’s so much money flooding into this. ChatGPT definitely has an early lead, but there was an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, I believe, about the fact that they’re very concerned about Google. And the reason is on a sort of features and capability basis, Google is Google better?

It depends on what day it is, they keep making advances. But it does integrate with people’s basic use of Google in other ways, and for example, use of Google in email. And wait a minute, have we never heard this story before? Where a company that has a dominant position in one area attempts to leverage it in another area? Gee, that’s like the whole story of the tech industry for the last 30 years!

Josh Bernoff

The same is true, my daughter works in a company that uses Microsoft products, which is very common. And so everybody in that company is using Microsoft Copilot because they got it for free. There’s this, if you ask me who is going to have the top market share in 18 months, I have no clue, but I don’t think that ChatGPT is necessarily in a position to say, ours is clearly better than everybody else and so everyone will use what we have.

I will point out that the, I’m trying to remember if I have the number on this, but the average person who is using these tools in a sophisticated way is typically using at least three or four different tools. So just like you might use Perplexity for one web search and Google for another, you might decide to use Microsoft Copilot in some situations and use Google Gemini in another situation.

Neville Hobson

It’s interesting that because I started using Copilot recently through a change of how I’m doing something for one particular area of work I’m interested in. And it blew me away because I’m using Copilot, it’s using ChatGPT5. So and I see, I sense the output I get from the input I give it is in a similar style to what ChatGPT would write.

So I’m impressed with that and I haven’t gained any further significance to it. Maybe it’s coincidental, but I quite like that. So that’s actually getting me more accustomed to Microsoft’s product. So these little things, maybe this is how it’s all going to work in the end.

Josh Bernoff

Yeah, yeah, I will point out that professional writers that I talked to are very enamoured of Claude as far as the creation of text. And definitely if you’re doing a web search, Perplexity has got some pretty superior features for that. I find myself often using telling ChatGPT, don’t show me anything unless you can provide a link, because I’m not going to trust you until you do that. And I’m going to check that link and see what it really says.

So that’s, you know, the, the, the development of specialised tools for specialised purposes is absolutely going to continue here.

Shel Holtz

Yeah, I’ve been using Gemini almost exclusively since 3.0 dropped. I find it’s just exponentially better, but I’m sure that when ChatGPT releases their next model, I’ll be back to that. In the meantime, I did see Chris Penn commenting, I think it was just yesterday on that Wall Street Journal article pointing out that it’s baked into Google Docs and Google Sheets and all the Google products, whereas OpenAI doesn’t have any products to bake it into.

And that’s a clear advantage to Google. But Josh, you revealed in the research that 82% of non-users worry that AI is contributing to bland and boring writing. What I found interesting was that 63% of advanced users felt the same way, that it’s creating this AI slop.

So as a counsellor to writers, how would you counsel people, our audience is organisational communicators. So I’ll say, would you counsel organisational communicators? When cutting through the noise is vital, you need to get your audience. I deal mostly with employee communication, and we need employees to pay attention to this message, despite the fact that there are so many competing things out there, just clamouring for their attention. How do you avoid the trap of this bland and boring writing when you’re so desperate to cut through that clutter and capture that attention?

Josh Bernoff

Yes, well, large language models create bad writing far more efficiently than any tool we’ve ever had before. So, and of course, I’m talking to both corporate writers and professional authors all the time about this. And so basically, the general advice is that the more you can use this for things behind the scenes, the better off you are and the more you use it to actually generate text that people read, the worse off you are.

I’m gonna give you a very clear example. So I am currently collaborating with a co-writer on a book about startups for a brilliant, brilliant author who really knows everything about startups, has an enormous background on it. And he has insisted that I use AI for all sorts of tasks. In fact, he’s like, you know, why are you wasting your time when you could just send this thing off and tell it to do the research? And we’ve done some spectacular things like I had a list of startups and I told it to go out on the internet and get me a simple statement about who they are, what financing stage they’re in, what category they’re in.

And it goes off and it does that. That would have taken me days. But because this guy is intelligent, there’s a reason he’s hired me and not replaced me with AI because once it’s time to actually create something that’s gonna be read by people, we have to rewrite that from beginning to end. That’s, as a professional writer, that is my, how I make a living. And what I write is the complete opposite of bland and boring. And he doesn’t want bland and boring. He wants punchy and surprising and… insightful.

So I, you know, you can both say use AI for all of this other stuff and don’t you dare publish anything that it creates. and I feel like that is generally the right advice that everybody is going to end up where I have ended up, which is, even in a corporate environment, it can support you, but you’re not using it to generate texts that people are going to actually read.

Neville Hobson

It’s a really good point you’ve made there I think because one of the elements one of the findings in the survey report, AI powered writers are sure they’re more productive and I definitely sit in that category. I’m absolutely convinced I’m probably in that what is it 92% or whatever it is of the advanced users who think so how do I prove it?

Well it’s not so much the output it’s the quality. It kind of tunes your mind into some of the reports that you read or what others are saying elsewhere that use AI tools to support you in doing the stuff that is what AI is better at than humans. Unstructured structured data, whatever it is, finding patterns, all that stuff that we can all read about. And you do the intellectual stuff, the stuff humans are really good at.

Josh Bernoff

Absolutely.

Neville Hobson

And they sound great phrases and sentences. And I’ve said to lots of people, I don’t see too many people doing that. So they’re obviously not in the advanced stage, let’s say. I find it hard to believe, frankly. Really I do. In conversations I’ve had during this year on those who diss this, who say this is like some of your respondents have said, you know, it’s the, what is it, psychotic plagiarism machine or whatever it was, the stuff…

Josh Bernoff

Sociopathic, but yes.

Shel Holtz

Both things can be true.

Neville Hobson

…sorry, sociopathic, but it’s where they can, but it amazes me, it truly does. And I think if we’ve got this situation where clearly there is evidence that if you use this in an effective way, it will help you be productive.

It will augment your own intelligence, to use a favourite phrase of mine. So AI is augmenting intelligence, not artificial. And yet that still encounters brick walls and pushbacks on a scale that’s ridiculous. Worse in an organization when that’s at a leadership level, I would say.

So how do we kind of make this less of a threat as it’s seen by others, or is this part of the issue that those naysayers just see all this as a massive threat?

Josh Bernoff

Well, boy, that’s a deep question. So first of all, I always start with the data here, because I want to distinguish between my opinions and the data. And the data says that the more you use AI, the more likely you are to say that it is making you more productive. And as you said, 92% of the advanced users said that it made them more productive. And interestingly, 59% of the advanced users said that it actually made the quality of their writing better.

So it’s not just producing more, but producing better stuff. And one more statistics here. We actually asked them how much more productive. The average across all the writers who use it is 37 % more productive, but like any tool, you need to get adept at it and learn what it’s good at and what you can use it for. And this technology has advanced way, way ahead of the, the learning about how to use it.

So there has to be a, basically a movement in every company and all writing organizations to teach people the best way to take advantage of it and what not to do. And in fact, one of the things that I recommended and that I tell some of the corporate clients I work with is find the people who are really good at this and then have them train the other people.

Because there’s nothing better than somebody saying, okay, here, let me show you what I can do with this.

I’ll just give you an example. So this report itself, obviously people are saying, well, did you use AI to write the report? I started out trying to use AI to analyse the data and I found that it was not dependable. I’m like, okay, I’m gonna have to calculate these statistics the old-fashioned way with spreadsheets and data tools. Every single word of the report was written by a human, me, at least most people still think I’m a human.

But we had, you know, thousands of verbatims to go through. And the person to whom I delegated the task of finding the most interesting verbatim used AI to go in and find verbatims that were interesting, had certain, there were some positive ones, negative ones, you know, had some diversity in terms of who they were from. So we weren’t quoting all technical writers. And that’s a perfect use to go into a huge corpus of text and pull out some of the interesting things out of there because that would have taken days.

I can’t help mentioning here because in preparation for doing this report, I interviewed some of the most advanced writers that I knew, including Shel. And one of my favourite examples is a very intelligent woman who, Shel, I know you know, is completing her doctoral degree right now. And she told me that the review of existing research is an enormous element of this, and that using AI to help summarise and compare the existing research would save her three years in the completion of her doctoral degree.

You cannot walk away from that level of productivity. And she’s full of enormously creative ideas. So this is not a bad writer. This is an excellent writer, but what she’s doing is she’s saying, I had this brilliant idea. Hey, is there anything in the literature that’s similar to this? wait a minute. These people came up with the same thing. So I can’t claim the authorship. it went across all the research and nobody else is saying that. great. This is an original thing I can include. That’s a smart way to use it.

Shel Holtz

Yeah, just this past week, I interviewed our new safety director, just came on board. I used Otter AI to do the interview. I like that because I’m able to focus on the interview subject rather than scribble notes. And what I did was uploaded the transcript of the interview that I downloaded from Otter into Gemini. And I said because the interview led to a lot of digressions and a lot of personal back and forth that interrupted the substance of what we were trying to get to.

So I just said, clean up this transcript, get rid of everything that doesn’t have to do with his coming on board at our company as the new safety director, his background and all of that, and then categorise it. But don’t change any of his words, right? I want the transcript to be exact. And it did exactly what I asked it to do.

For me to take that transcript… well, first of all, for me to take all those notes and then put it in some sort of usable form before I even start writing the article would have taken a considerable amount of time. And yet it didn’t mess at all with what he was telling me in response to my questions. And I was able to use that to produce an article that I wrote.

One of my favourite uses though, as a writer, is when there’s a turn of phrase that I want to use and I can’t quite draw it out. I know what it is. It’s right there. So I’ll share what I’m writing about. And this is what I’m trying to say. And there’s a turn of phrase I’m thinking of. What is it? And it’ll say, well, it might be one of these. And almost always from the list it gives me, that’s the one I was thinking of.

Josh Bernoff

This is a way better thesaurus than anything else I’ve ever used. And at the age that we’re at, sometimes you can’t, you know there’s a word and you can’t bring it to mind. I’m like, yeah, that was a word I was looking for.

Shel Holtz

Yeah. Josh, you found that 40% of freelancers and agencies say that AI has eaten into their income. If you were advising, say, a boutique PR agency today on how to survive in 2026, what’s the one pivot that you would advise them that they need to make based on this data?

Josh Bernoff

I think you need to focus on talent that has two skills. One is, clear and interesting writing skills are even more valuable than they used to be. So, you know, if you say, well, who are the best writers in our organisation, do everything you can to hang on to those people, because you’re going to need that to continue to stand apart from the AI slop.

And then the other side of that is to become as efficient as possible with AI for the rote tasks. So you also want people who are really skilled at using these tools to conduct research tasks. I interviewed a woman at the gathering of the ghosts, which is the event where this research was first presented. She matches up ghost writers to to author clients. And she gets like a background, briefing on every single person that she goes and pitches. And it’s really good at that.

So when she gets on the phone with these people, they’re like, wow. She’s really smart. She, she did a whole lot of homework here. And this is the kind of person I want to work with. Okay. It has nothing to do with her writing ability. It has to do with her ability to take advantage of these tools and, yeah, I think that we’re going to be able to get more done with fewer people. which is a, tail is all this time, really. That’s just, that’s just the direction that things go with automation.

But I, I have, I can’t resist pointing out here on the flip side. I think, a bunch of people, including publishers are now delegating work to AI and laying people off and it’s doing a bad job. I ghost wrote a book recently where the copy editing came back and I was like, this is inadequate. This is a terrible job. This was obviously done by a machine and done badly by a machine.

And my client and I decided that in order to avoid errors, we would hire our own professional copy editor because the publisher had skimped in exactly the wrong place. And the professional copy editor did a fantastic job. It cost a bunch of money, but we were much happier with that.

Neville Hobson

To continue this theme slightly, think I had the question, which I think Shel answered part of it, but the page in the report with the headline, nearly half of writers have seen AI kill a friend’s job. And I found that interesting because there’s constant talk in some of the mainstream media, some of the professional journals too, is AI going to replace jobs? One report comes out and before you know it, the headline saying yes, it is. The other report comes out saying no, it’s not.

But these are intriguing, I found, that they’re actual real world examples you’ve got from people who answered the questions you asked them in the survey. Where it says only 10% of corporate workers have had AI driven layoffs at their organization, but 43% of writing professionals know someone who has lost their job to AI. So is this a trend that’ll continue this way, do you think? how would you interpret this overall picture that you’ve shown? This particular page, page 20 in the report.

Josh Bernoff

Okay. Okay. Yes. So it was interesting. We expected to hear a lot more direct response of, yes, they’ve done layoffs of my work as a result of this. And the fact that only 10 % of the people who worked in corporations, which includes media companies, said that they had seen this was an indication to me that at least at the time we did this survey in August and September, that that was not a huge trend.

The fact that a lot of people know somebody who lost their job, you know, if one person loses their job and they have 12 friends, then we’re gonna get 12 positives on that. But that having been said, I’m not convinced that even if we did this survey now, which is what, like four months later, that we would get the same results.

It’s clear to me that there’s a lot of layoffs happening that a significant amount of it is AI stimulated. A certain amount of that is coders, for example. They need fewer coders to do the same programming now. My daughter got a computer science degree a few years ago because it was like everyone knew that that was how you got a job and you know, it’s not so easy right now.

I think that we’re going to see two things. First of all, we’re going to see this trend of people being laid off because AI includes productivity across the entire employment spectrum. It’s a huge trend that’s likely to happen. But I also think that you’re going to find companies backtracking and saying, oh my God, we thought we could have all this productivity, but it turns out that we need more humans here than I realised and we need to go back and bring them back.

I feel that it is driven by a certain amount by investment mania to cut back expenses and that in the end, as in so many cases, when you replace people with automation, you end up with a poor quality result.

Shel Holtz

I want to talk about fiction authors for a minute. And I find it intriguing that they are so universally anti-AI. Neville and I are both friends with JD Lasica. I don’t know if you know JD. He’s got a product out there called Authors AI. It’s a model that he and his partners have trained. It’s not using ChatGPT or Gemini or any of the large frontier models.

But what you do is you feed your novel to it, presumably in a first draft, and it analyses the novel against all of the criteria that has been trained on about what makes a good novel and gives you a report about, you need to do a better job of character development here, the story arc is weak here, things like that. So, I mean, there are uses for fiction writers beyond actually writing for you, but you did note that they almost universally detest it. Only 42% use it and they are…

Josh Bernoff

No, no, no, no. Let’s be clear here. It was the non-users among the fiction authors who almost universally detested.

Shel Holtz

Okay, I misread that. Emphatically angry was the language that jumped out at me. I’m wondering for those of us in business writing, is there a lesson we should take away from fiction writers about the preservation of the soul of a narrative?

Josh Bernoff

No, no, it’s interesting to me. So I’ve been conducting surveys now for probably 20 years. And one of the main things that you learn is that it’s never black and white. There’s never a hundred percent of the people that agree with anything. There’s never 0% of the people that agree with anything until this survey, when I found that fictional authors that do not use AI are as close as you can get to unanimous about it being a horrible, evil thing.

So yes, I was like, 100% of the people agreed with this? I’ve never seen that in my entire career of analysing surveys. But to give you a little bit more thoughtful answer than no, soulless fiction is boring and nobody wants to read it. And that happens to also be true of soulless nonfiction writing.

So let’s just take this report. If I used AI to generate the text in this report, you wouldn’t be talking to me because I found the most interesting things in the most interesting language to describe it. And the same applies if you’re writing about, you know, should we adopt a new project management methodology?

That’s a story, you know? We have this problem. This solution was suggested to us. We compared this to that. It looks like this is going to save money, but here are the things that I’m really worried about. This is an emotional story. And really, all nonfiction writing needs to have a story element to it. until AI becomes a little bit less soulless, which may never happen, you still need humans to tell those stories.

Neville Hobson

Yeah, I agree with that. So before we get to that question of what question should we have asked you, I’m looking at page 28, what these findings mean for the writing profession. And it’s really well done this, Josh, you succinctly condensed it all. But to avoid me trying to interpret what you said, can you tell us a summary of what these findings do mean for the writing profession?

Josh Bernoff

Well, thank you.

You know, it’s interesting Neville, there was always a section like that at the end of my reports at Forrester Research, because that’s what they were paid for. And in this case, I said, no, I’m just going to do the data. And my partner here, the people at Gotham Ghostwriters, Dan was like, why don’t you write something about what this means for the industry? I’m like, I can do that. Good idea! Okay.

So I wrote this and I think that in corporate environments, it is important now to understand what this is good for and to take the people who’ve become advanced at it and use them to help train other folks. And it’s especially challenging, I think, in media organisations because on the one hand, they are under enormous pressure, profit pressure.

You know, think about a newspaper or magazine or publisher. It’s very difficult for them to be profitable, highly competitive environment. If they can cut costs, they’re gonna try and find a way to do it. On the other hand, it is exactly their content that’s getting hoovered up and ripped off.

So they need to have a balance here, think on a political basis, they need to lobby and basically do everything possible to preserve the value of their content and not have it be used for training purposes without any compensation. But I also think they have to be very prudent in what kinds of things that they take AI to do and what they don’t. Just like the people at that publisher who use the AI copy editing that did a terrible job. If they economise in the wrong places, it’s gonna be a very bad scene.

I can’t help but drop this in here. I learned recently about a romance bookstore, a bookstore that sells romances, a physical bookstore. And they’re using AI to analyse trends, figure out which books to stock and how to organise them and what to put into their marketing. And I just thought that was fascinating because the content is as human and emotional as you can be, and yet they figured out a way to use AI to be successful.

Shel Holtz

That’s really interesting. So let’s ask you that question now, Josh. I mean, we could spend another hour here, but what question didn’t we ask that you were hoping we would?

Josh Bernoff

I think that the most interesting finding here, and there were so many fascinating findings, so that’s saying something, was in the questions that we asked about what tasks do you do with AI? And what really amazed me was the huge variety of tasks. So I wasn’t surprised that research was, but I’m looking over to the side here just to make sure I get the information exactly accurate.

I wasn’t surprised that replacement for web search and finding words or phrases of thesaurus was something that people wanted, but I was surprised by how many people use AI as a brainstorming companion. That they’re actually asking questions about Can I write it this way or that way? What suggestions do you have? And getting great ideas back on that. To summarise articles is very popular, but you know, generate outlines, find flaws and inconsistencies. As a devil’s advocate, deep research reports. mean, this is, the people who get good at this, they keep coming up with new ways to use it.

So I think that if you look at what’s happening in the future, all this debate about AI-generated slop getting published is much less interesting to me than the capability that this has to make writers more powerful, smarter, more interesting, come up with more ideas, and to basically be an infinitely patient assistant that can get you to be the best writer you can possibly be.

Shel Holtz

Yeah, that devil’s advocate is one of the very first things I used it for when ChatGPT was first introduced. I would say I’m planning on communicating this this way. The goal, the objective is to get employees to think, believe, do X. What pushback am I going to get from this approach? And nine times out of 10, it would come up with a very valid list of reasons that this isn’t going to work. It would lead me to re-strategise.

Josh Bernoff

Well, Shel, as you know, you can contact me anytime if you need someone to tell you that you’re wrong! But I’m not available at three in the morning, and ChatGPT is so from that perspective, it’s probably better. Plus my rates are much higher than theirs.

Shel Holtz

Josh, how can our listeners find you?

Josh Bernoff

Well, the most interesting thing is to subscribe to my blog at bernoff.com. I actually write a blog post about books, writing, publishing, and authoring every weekday. People say, why do you do that? The only good answer I have is it’s a mental illness, but you may as well take advantage of it. And we shared the URL for this research report and certainly anyone who’s interested in writing a business book, just do a search on build a better business book and you can get access to that.

And certainly if someone is so desperate that they really want a human to help them, I am available for that.

Shel Holtz Thanks so much, Josh. We really appreciate your time.

Josh Bernoff Okay, was really great to talk to you.

Neville Hobson Yeah, a pleasure, likewise, thank you.

The post AI and the Writing Profession with Josh Bernoff appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Big Four consulting firm Deloitte submitted two costly reports to two governments on opposite sides of the globe, each containing fake resources generated by AI. Deloitte isn’t alone. A study published on the website of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) not only included AI-hallucinated citations but also purported to reach the exact opposite conclusion from the real scientists’ research. In this short midweek episode, Neville and Shel reiterate the importance of a competent human in the loop to verify every fact produced in any output that leverages generative AI.

Links from this episode:

• Deloitte was caught using AI in $290,000 report to help the Australian government crack down on welfare after a researcher flagged hallucinations
• Deloitte allegedly cited AI-generated research in a million-dollar report for a Canadian provincial government
• Deloitte breaks silence on N.L. healthcare report
• Deloitte Detected Using Fake AI Citations in $1 Million Report
• Deloitte makes ‘AI mistake’ again, this time in report for Canadian government; here’s what went wrong
• CDC Report on Vaccines and Autism Caught Citing Hallucinated Study That Does Not Exist

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, December 29.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Neville Hobson: Hi everybody and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 491. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz: And I’m Shel Holtz, and I want to return to a theme we addressed some time ago: the need for organizations, and in particular communication functions, to add professional fact verification to their workflows—even if it means hiring somebody specifically to fill that role. We’ve spent the better part of three years extolling the transformative power of generative AI. We know it can streamline workflows, spark creativity, and summarize mountains of data.

But if recent events have taught us anything, it’s that this technology has a dangerous alter ego. For all that AI can do that we value, it is also a very confident liar. When communications professionals, consultants, and government officials hand over the reins to AI without checking its work, the result is embarrassing, sure, but it’s also a direct hit to credibility and, increasingly, the bottom line.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the recent stumbles by one of the world’s most prestigious consulting firms. The Big Four accounting firms are often held up as the gold standard for diligence. Yet just a few days ago, news broke that Deloitte Canada delivered a report to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador that was riddled with errors that are characteristic of generative AI. This report, a massive 526-page document advising on the province’s healthcare system, came with a price tag of nearly $1.6 million. It was meant to guide critical decisions on virtual care and nurse retention during a staffing crisis.

But when an investigation by The Independent, a progressive news outlet in the province, dug into the footnotes, the veneer of expertise crumbled. The report contained false citations pulled from made-up academic papers. It cited real research on papers they hadn’t worked on. It even listed fictional papers co-authored by researchers who said they had never actually worked together. One adjunct professor, Gail Tomlin Murphy, found herself cited in a paper that doesn’t exist. Her assessment was blunt: “It sounds like if you’re coming up with things like this, they may be pretty heavily using AI to generate work.”Deloitte’s response was to claim that AI wasn’t used to write the report, but was—and this is a quote—”selectively used to support a small number of research citations.” In other words, they let AI do the fact-checking and the AI failed.

Amazingly, Deloitte was caught doing something just like this earlier in a government audit for the Australian government. Only months before the Canadian revelation, Deloitte Australia had to issue a humiliating correction to a report on welfare compliance. That report cited court cases that didn’t exist and contained quotes from a federal court judge that had never been spoken. In that instance, Deloitte admitted to using the Azure OpenAI tool to help draft the report. The firm agreed to refund the Australian government nearly $290,000 Australian dollars.

This isn’t an isolated incident of a junior copywriter using ChatGPT to phone in a blog post. This is a pattern involving a major consultancy submitting government audits in two different hemispheres. The lesson is pretty stark: The logo on your letterhead isn’t going to protect you if the content is fiction. In fact, this could have long-term repercussions for the Deloitte brand.

But it doesn’t stop at consulting firms. Here in the US, we’ve seen similar failures in the public sector. There’s one from the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) commission. They released a report with non-existent study citations to a presentation on the CDC website—that’s the Centers for Disease Control—citing a fake autism study that contradicted the real scientists’ actual findings.

The common thread here is a fundamental misunderstanding of the tool. For years, the mantra in our industry was a parroting of the old Ronald Reagan line: “Trust but verify.” When it comes to AI though, we just need to drop that “trust” part. It’s just verify. We have to remember that large language models are designed to predict the next plausible word, not to retrieve facts. When Deloitte’s AI invented a research paper or a court case, it wasn’t malfunctioning. It was doing exactly what it was trained to do: tell a convincing story.

And that brings us to the concept of the human in the loop. This phrase gets thrown around a lot in policy documents as a safety net, but these cases prove that having a human involved isn’t enough. You need a competent human in the loop. Deloitte’s Canadian report undoubtedly went through internal reviews. The Australian report surely passed across several desks. The failure here wasn’t just technological, it was a failure of human diligence. If you’re using AI to write content that relies on facts, data, or citations, you can’t simply be an editor. You must be a fact-checker.

Deloitte didn’t just lose money on refunds or potential reputational hits; they lost the presumption of competence. For those of us in PR and corporate communications, we’re the guardians of our organization’s truth. If we allow AI-generated confabulations to slip into our press releases, earnings statements, annual reports, or white papers, we erode the very foundation of our profession. Communicators need to update their AI policies. Make it explicit that no AI-generated fact, quote, or citation can be published without primary source verification. And you need to make sure that you have the human resources to achieve that. The cost of skipping that step, trust me, is a lot higher than a subscription to ChatGPT.

Neville Hobson: It’s quite a story, isn’t it really? I think you kind of get exasperated when we talk about something like this, because we’ve talked about this quite a bit. Most recently, in our interview with Josh Bernoff—which will be coming in the next day or so—where this very topic came up in discussion: fact-checking versus not doing the verification.

I suppose you could cut through all the preamble about the technology and all this stuff, and the issue isn’t that; it’s the humans involved. Now, we don’t know more than the Fortune article, I’ve seen the one in Entrepreneur magazine, and the link that you shared. Nowhere does it disclose detail about exactly what it was other than the citation. So we don’t know, was it prompted badly or what? Either way, someone didn’t check something. I don’t know how much you need to really hammer home the point that if you don’t verify what the AI assistant has responded to or the output to your input, then you’re just asking for this kind of trouble.

I did something just this morning, funnily enough, when I was doing some research. The question I asked came back with three comments linking to the sources. A bit like Josh—because Josh mentioned this in our interview—every instruction to your AI goes: “Do not come back with anything unless you’ve got a source.” And so I checked the sources, one of which just did not exist. The document concerned on the website of a reputable media company wasn’t there. Now, it could be that someone had moved it, or it did exist but it was in another location. But the trouble is, when these things happen, you tend to fall on the side of, “Look, they didn’t do this properly.”

So I’m not sure what I can add to the story, Shel, frankly. Your remarks towards the end about your reputation is the one that’s going to get hit. You look stupid. You really do. And your credibility suffers.

I found in Entrepreneur they quoted a Deloitte spokesperson saying, “Deloitte Canada firmly stands behind the recommendations put forward in our report.” Excuse me? Where’s your little humility there? Because you’ve been caught out doing something here. And they’re saying, “We’re revising it to make a small number of citation corrections which do not impact the report finding.” What arrogance they are displaying there. Not anything about an apology—or fine, let’s say they don’t need an apology—but a more credible explainer that at least gives them the sense that they empathize here, rather than this arrogant, “Well, we stand by it.” It’s just a little citation? It’s actually a big deal that you quote as something that either doesn’t exist or is a fake document. Exactly. So I don’t know what I can say to add anything more. But if they keep doing this, they’re going to lose business big time, I would say.

Shel Holtz: It didn’t exist. Yeah, I understand their desire to stand by the report. I have no doubt that they had valid information and made valid recommendations, but that’s hardly the point. The inaccuracies call all of the report into question, even if at the end of the day they can demonstrate that they used appropriate protocols and methodologies to develop their recommendations based on accurate information.

You still have this lingering question: “Well, you got this wrong, what else did you get wrong? What else did you turn over to AI that you’re not telling us about because you didn’t get caught?” Even if they didn’t do any of that, those questions are there from the people who are the ones who paid for this report. If I were representing a government that needed this kind of work, first of all, I would be hesitant to reach out to Deloitte. I would be looking at one of their competitors.

If I had a long-standing relationship with Deloitte, and even if I had a high degree of trust with Deloitte, I would still add a rider to a contract that says either you will not use AI in the creation of this report, or if you do, you will verify each citation and you will refund us X dollars—the cost of this report—for each inaccurate, invalid verification that you submit. I’d want to cover my ass if I were a client based on having done this not once, but twice.

Neville Hobson: Right. I wonder what would have happened if the spokesman at Deloitte Canada had said something like, “You’re absolutely right. We’re sorry. We screwed up big time there. We made a mistake. Here’s what happened. We’ve identified where the fault lay, it’s ours, and we’re sorry. And we’re going to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

Shel Holtz: “Here’s how we’re going to make sure it doesn’t happen again.” Yeah, I mean, this is like any crisis. You want to tell people what you’re going to do to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, exactly. So they say—and you mentioned—”AI was not used to write the report, it was selectively used to support a small number of research citations.” What does that mean, for God’s sake? That’s kind of corporate bullshit talk, frankly. So they use the AI to check the research citations? Well, they didn’t, did they? “Selectively used to support a small number of research citations…” I don’t know what that even means.

So I don’t think they’ve done themselves any favors with the way they’ve denied this and the way their reporting has spread out into a variety of other media, all basically saying the same thing: They did this work for this client and it was bad. Didn’t do a good job at all.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. So, I’m, as you know, finishing up work on a book on internal communications. It was originally 28 blog posts and I started this back in, I think, 2015. So a lot of the case studies have gotten old. So I did some research on new case studies and I used AI to find the case studies. And then I said, “Okay, now I need you to give me the links to sources that I can cite in the end notes of each chapter that verify this information.”

In a number of cases, it took me to 404s on legitimate websites—Inc, Fortune, Forbes, and the like. But the story wasn’t there and a search for it didn’t produce it. And I would have to go back and say, “Okay, that link didn’t work. Show me some that are verified.” And sometimes it took two, three, four shots before I got to one where I look and say, “It’s a credible source, it’s a national or global business publication or the Financial Times or what have you, the article is here and the article validates what was in the case study,” and that’s the one I would use. But it takes time, and I think any organization that doesn’t have somebody doing that runs the risk of the credibility hit that Deloitte’s facing.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I mean, this story is probably not going to be front-page headlines everywhere at all. But it hasn’t kind of died yet. Maybe there’s going to be more in professional journals later on about this. But I wonder what they’re planning next on this because the criticisms aren’t going away, it seems to me.

Shel Holtz: No, and as the report noted, it’s not just the Deloittes of the world. It’s Robert F. Kennedy’s Department of Health and Human Services justifying their advisory board’s decisions to rewrite the rules on vaccinations based on citations that not only don’t exist, but that contradict the actual research that the scientists produced.

Neville Hobson: Well, there is a difference there though. That’s run by crazy people. I mean, Deloitte’s not run by crazy people.

Shel Holtz: Not as far as I know. That’s true. And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #491: Deloitte’s AI Verification Failures appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In this episode, Chip and Gini discuss the complexities of hiring in growing agencies. They highlight the challenges of finding skilled, reliable employees who align with agency values.

Sharing personal experiences, Gini explains the pitfalls of hasty hiring and the benefits of thorough vetting and cultural fit. They stress the importance of a structured hiring process, including clear job roles, career paths, and appropriate compensation. They also underscore the value of meaningful interviews, proper candidate evaluations, and treating the hiring process as the start of a long-term relationship.

Lastly, Chip and Gini emphasize learning from past mistakes to improve hiring effectiveness and employee retention. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 290: Balancing skills and personality when hiring a new team member appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Studies purport to identify the sources of information that generative AI models like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude draw on to provide overviews in response to search prompts. The information seems compelling, but different studies produce different results. Complicating matters is the fact that the kinds of sources AI uses one month aren’t necessarily the same the next month. In this short midweek episode, Neville and Shel look at a couple of these reports and the challenges communicators face relying on them to help guide their content marketing placements.

Links from this episode:

• Webinar: What is AI Reading? (Muck Rack)
• AI Search Volatility: Why AI Search Results Keep Changing
• Study finds nearly two-thirds of AI-generated citations are fabricated or contain errors
• Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written fully by AI

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, December 29.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Shel Holtz Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 490 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson And I’m Neville Hobson. One of the big questions behind generative AI is also one of the simplest: What is it actually reading? What are these systems drawing on when they answer our questions, summarize a story, or tell us something about our own industry? A new report from Muckrec in October offers one of the clearest snapshots we’ve seen so far. They analyzed more than a million links cited by leading AI tools and discovered something striking.

When you switch citations on, the model doesn’t just add footnotes, it changes the answer itself. The sources it chooses shape the narrative, the tone, and even the conclusion. We’ll dive into this next.

Those sources are overwhelmingly from earned media. Almost all the links AI sites come from non-paid content, and journalism plays a huge role, especially when the query suggests something recent. In fact, the most commonly cited day for an article is yesterday. It’s a very different ecosystem from SEO, where you can sometimes pay your way to the top. Here, visibility depends much more on what is credible, current, and genuinely covered. So that gives us one part of the picture.

AI relies heavily on what is most available and most visible in the public domain. But that leads to another question, a more unsettling one raised by a separate study published in the JMIR Mental Health in November. Researchers examined how well GPT-4.0 performs when asked to generate proper academic citations. And the answer is not well at all. Nearly two thirds of the citations were either wrong or entirely made up.

The less familiar the topic, the worse the accuracy became. In other words, when AI doesn’t have enough real sources to draw from, it fills the gaps confidently. When you put these two pieces of research side by side, a bigger story emerges. On the one hand, AI tools are clearly drawing on a recognizable media ecosystem: journalism, corporate blogs, and earned content. On the other hand, when those sources are thin, or when the task shifts from conversational answers to something more formal, like scientific referencing, the system becomes much less reliable. It starts inventing the citations it thinks should exist.

We end up with a very modern paradox. AI is reading more than any of us ever could, but not always reliably. It’s influenced by what is published, recent, and visible, yet still perfectly capable of fabricating material when the trail runs cold. There’s another angle to this that’s worth noting.

Nature reported last week that more than 20% of peer reviews for a major AI conference were entirely written by AI, many containing hallucinated citations and vague or irrelevant analysis. So if you think about that in the context of the Muckrec findings in particular, it becomes part of a much bigger story. AI tools are reading the public record, but increasing parts of that public record are now being generated by AI itself.

The oversight layer that you use to catch errors is starting to automate as well. And that creates a feedback loop where flawed material can slip into the system and later be treated as legitimate source material. For communicators, that’s a reminder that the integrity of what AI reads is just as important as the visibility of what we publish. All this raises fundamental questions. How much has earned media now underpin what AI says about a brand?

If citations actively reshape AI outputs, what does that mean for accuracy and trust? How do we work in a world where AI can appear transparent, citing its sources, while still producing invented references in other contexts? And the Muckrec and MJIR studies show that training data coverage, not truth, determines what AI cites. So the question, is AI reading, has two answers, I think. It reads what is most visible and recent in the public domain, and it invents what it thinks should exist when the knowledge isn’t there. That gap between the real and the fabricated is now a core communication risk for organizations. How do you see it, Shel? Thoughts on that?

Shel Holtz It is a very, very complex issue. I was looking at a study from Profound called AI Search Volatility. And what it found was that search engines within the AI context, the search that ChatGPT and Gemini and Claude conduct, are probabilistic rather than deterministic, which means that they’re designed to give different answers and to cite different resources, even for the same query over time.

Another thing that this study found was that there is citation drift. That is, the percentage of domains cited in July are not necessarily present in June for the same prompts. You look at these results, the number that weren’t present in June that were in July for Google AI overviews, nearly 60%, just over 54% for ChatGPT, over 53% for Co-Pilot, and over 40% for Perplexity. So 40 to 60% of the domains that are cited in AI responses are going to be different a month later for the same prompt. And this volatility increases over time, goes from 70 to 90 percent over a six month period.

So you look at one of these studies that’s a snapshot in time and it’s not necessarily telling you that you should be using this information as a strategy to guide where you’re going to publish your content if the sources are going to drift. And by the way, a profound study by their AEO specialist, a guy named Josh Bliskolp, found that AI relies heavily on social media and user generated content, which is different from what the Muckrec study found. They were probably getting that snapshot in time where the citations had drifted. So, while I think all these studies are interesting, I think what it tells us as communicators looking to show up in these answers is we need to be everywhere.

Neville Hobson Yeah, I’ve been trying to get my head around this. I must admit reading these reports and the Nature one kind of threw me sideways when I found that because I thought how relevant is that to the topic we’re discussing in this podcast? And so my further research showed it is relevant as the content is being fed back into the system and that’s showing up in social results. You’re right. In another sense, I think you can get all these survey reports and dissect them which way to Christmas.

But they have credibility in my eyes, certainly, particularly Muckrec’s. I find the MJIR one equally good, but it touches on areas that I’m not wholly familiar with. This one in Nature is equally good, quite troubling, I think, that that one shows. Listening to how you were describing the profound report on citation consistency over time, I just kept thinking now about the Nature one as an example, let’s say. What if that sounds great, it’s measuring citation consistency over time, but what if the citations are fake, they’re full of hallucinations, they’re full of invalid information? Where does that sit? That’s my question, I suppose.

Shel Holtz Well, yeah, this shouldn’t surprise anybody who’s been paying attention. AI still confabulates. It’s still at the bottom. I think of the ChatGPT or Gemini that this is still prone to misinformation. They are configured more to satisfy your query than they are to be accurate. So when they can’t find or don’t know an accurate citation, they’ll make one up.

We still have attorneys who are filing briefs with cases that don’t actually exist. So this is the nature of the beast right now. If you’re not verifying the information that you get before you do something with it, that’s on you. That’s not on the AI. They’re telling you that these things still hallucinate. They’re working on it. They hope to have that fixed one of these days, but they’re not quite sure how that actually works. So it’s not like just going in and turning a dial or flipping a switch, the researchers are struggling to figure this out. And if it were that easy, they would have done it by now.

Neville Hobson Sure. Although what you just said does not come across at all in any of the communication you see from any of the chatbot makers, except in four point tight at the bottom, you know, it can hallucinate, you need to do your verification. I don’t hear that clear call to a kind of a warning shot, if you like, from anyone when they’re talking about all this stuff, and that needs to change in that case. I don’t feel that it’s as bad as what I got from what you were saying.

Although the point does rear itself quite clearly and it’s got to be repeated again and again. You’ve got to double check everything that you run through. Well, not run through an AI, but the results you get when you do a search. So, you know, it’s all very well talking about citation consistency of time frame from one month to the next. You’ve got to check that yourself. The question will arise, I think, for many. How do you do that? You might use a chatbot to do it, would you? Of course you would, because it’s a tool you’ve got in your armory, but you’ve got to check that.

Shel Holtz Well, I’ve got Google in my armory too. If I see it make an assertion and has a citation, I’m going to go to Google and look it up. I’m not going to look up the URL that the chat doc presented. I’m going to type in the information about the report or the study or the white paper or whatever it was that is cited and see if I can find it. And then if I can and it’s the right one, I’m going to check and see if the link is the same one that the AI provided.

I did a white paper. I used Google Gemini’s deep research for the first pass of this, it was loaded with citations. Where I spent my time wasn’t in doing the initial research, it was validating every citation that it provided before I passed this along to people. So that’s got to be part of the workflow with these things for now. I hope they fix it one day, but for now, you can’t just crank one of these things out and, you know, submit it to a judge or, you know, use it in your medical practice or pass it along to your boss. You have to validate that it’s all accurate.

Neville Hobson Yeah. By the way, didn’t you say once a long time ago now, I expect you didn’t use Google anymore? was only only ChatGPT or Gemini.

Shel Holtz I switch back and forth based on which one is performing better on the benchmarks. I also find that the three primary models, ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Claude, are better at different things. So I tend to use different ones for different things. But Gemini 3.0 is spectacular. This most recent upgrade that just came out, I think it was last week, wasn’t it? It’s amazing. So I have sort of shifted most of my work using one of the large language models to Gemini right now. I still use ChatGPT for a few things right now. Of course, they’re going to come out with their own big upgrade, probably. Well, there’s some speculation before the end of the year. So we’ll see where they land. But right now, I find Google Gemini is best for a number of things. And by the way, Nano Banana Pro, the image generator. If I were the product manager for Photoshop or for Canva, I’d be worried because you can just upload an image and edit it in Nano Banana with plain text and just tell it what you want done and it does it and pretty awesome. I’ve been playing with it. I can tell you what I did with it, but it’s spectacular.

Neville Hobson Okay, so yeah.

Shel Holtz And fast. You compare that to OpenAI’s image generator, which takes minutes. You’re just sitting there watching this gray blob slowly resolve. Nano Banana’s, boom, there it is.

Neville Hobson Yeah, I see a lot of people posting examples of what it can do. It looks pretty good. So going back to this, though, I think let’s talk a bit about the kind of verification because I think many people know, I don’t know how many it might be, maybe a small number needs some guidance in what to do with that. It’s a quite an additional step, you might argue, in what some people see as the speed and simplicity of using an AI tool to conduct your research, for instance, or to summarize a PDF file or whatever it might be. So what would be your tips for a communicator then on building this into the workflow so that it becomes a natural part of what they’re doing and not a pain in the ass, frankly? So what would you say to them?

Shel Holtz Yeah, well, my tip is to build it into the workflow. It’s still going to save you, well, first of all, it’s still going to save you time. For me to go through and validate the facts that are presented in a bit of AI research takes me less time than it would to conduct the research and draft the white paper. And by the way, I want to be sure everyone understands, I do heavily edit the white paper for language, for style. I rewrite entire sections based on how I would say this. But for that first draft, think that’s the point is that you have to look at these as a first draft. This is why we have interns, right? Is to crank out first drafts of things and save us the time. And I still think that metaphor for AI being a really smart intern who doesn’t go home at the end of the day, doesn’t need a paycheck and just works 24 hours and never gets sick. I think that’s an apt metaphor.

But to just ignore the need to review these things and think it’s going to give you a finished product, that’s a mistake. And you need to come up with a workflow, define your own, but it has to include validation of the information that it provided. If it doesn’t, you’re setting yourself up for some real grief. I mean, if you share the results of that with somebody who is important in your career, in your life, and they make decisions based on it that turn out to be bad decisions because it was a confabulated citation, then that’s going to roll right back on you. So you have to build it into the workflow, just like any other workflow. This is the step that comes after the first step.

Neville Hobson I wonder if this is, tell me what you think, is this significantly more concerning if you’re in academia, say, or working for scientific firm in the science side of things, where peer reviewed, citation-led work on research for medical breakthroughs, or whatever it might be, or scientific discoveries, typically takes months, if not years to go through a process. What would you do if you were in that situation where you are, I know they’re relying on this and this is now emerging that academic papers in particular, well becoming what, untrustworthy? That’s to me is a pretty big deal if many people see it that way. I’m just curious how you discuss that with someone.

Shel Holtz I don’t think my guidance would change. There is an obligation to ensure that what you are sharing is accurate. And if you are using Gen. AI to produce some or all of this report, that obligation extends to fact checking. Mean, hire an intern to do the fact checking so that you have time to do other things. There’s a reason to have an intern. I’ve had this as a question that we hear, if AI can do what an intern can do, what will an intern do? And the answer may be validate what the AI cranks out.

But the risk is so severe that this just needs to become a matter of routine. And especially in science, where these things can be translated into medicines and treatment protocols and the like, you don’t want to be responsible for people getting sicker or dying because you had a confabulated resource or a citation that you didn’t check before you moved on to the next step with this. And if the peer review of the document that you have created produces those errors, if the peers that are reviewing it find the fictitious citations or the wrong citations, it’s your reputation that’s on the line. No one’s going to blame the AI. They’re going to blame you. So your credibility is on the line.

One other point I want to make here in terms of what I would recommend, I would go back to Ginny Dietrich’s PESO model, paid, earned, social and owned, and recognize that that model hasn’t changed in the age of AI. If you want to be cited, don’t chase the shiny object of the latest report that says, it’s reading this, it’s reading that. The fact that it shifts from month to month means you need to be in all those places. And before AI, we were paying a lot of attention to the PESO model. And I’d hate to see it fall by the wayside as lazy people think they can get away with just doing one thing. It’s gotten so easy because AI reads this. Well, that’s this month. Next month, you’re toast.

Neville Hobson Yeah, of course I recall that many people I know still now talk about I don’t need an intern anymore because I have an AI.

Shel Holtz Yeah, well, then they must be spending a, they’re either spending a lot of time validating with the AI produced or they’re putting garbage out into the world.

Neville Hobson I sense not a lot of time, actually. So this then comes back to you got to put in the time. On the some of the work that I’ve been doing recently on research reminds me of something I did, I guess, two weeks ago, which was checking the links in a report that cited this, this and this. And I would say of the 65 or so links I checked 15 404s or not known or not, you know, or even the browser errors you get when it can’t connect to something. So no one had checked those. But I’m okay with that because that’s why I’m here. That’s what I will do. And you’ve got to do it. I agree, you’ve got to do it.

Shel Holtz Well, exactly. Yeah, and the net is still a gain for you, the communicator. You’re still going to save time. You’re just not going to save as much as you think you will if you don’t have to do anything other than write a prompt. There’s more to it than that.

Neville Hobson Right. So I would say that could to conclude on that then we kind of rang the alarm bell about in the in my narrative intro about, you know, this this report in Nature in particular, that flagged up all these fake citations. Just see that then as something if you’ve got a report that that had lots of links in there and all sorts of things being said, you have to manually check each one. And that then comes

Shel Holtz Yes, yes you do.

Neville Hobson back to good old Google probably. But it’s not just the tool, it’s the framework under which you do it in that for instance, minor thing. But if I was doing that, now I would be doing it on a clean interface like the browser I’m not logged into, probably different browser perhaps than I normally using even a different computer if I really wanted to take to extreme level. But it gives you more confidence that your own persona, if you like, is not influencing anything even unbeknownst to you that it might be doing. I mean, I’m not saying it is, but this gives you the, the best way of doing it, I would say so this is best practice. So we should write a best practice guide on this, perhaps. But you know, it’s it’s food for thought.

Shel Holtz It certainly is. And by the way, I think I said paid, earned, social and owned when I was running down what the letters in PESO stand for. The S is actually shared, which includes social, but has a few other things in it. Go look up Ginny Dietrich’s PESO model, folks, and you’ll find it.

Neville Hobson think she did an update to to this for the AI age. I’ve seen to recall a lot of talk about that. Yeah, as well as a tool for ChatGPT that that you could use just, you know, based on that, basically.

Shel Holtz She did. Yeah, she did. I believe she did. And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #490: What Does AI Read? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

The forward-looking discussion was joined by five seasoned leaders: two professors shaping the next generation of communicators and three senior practitioners traversing today’s real-world pressures. Together, they bridge campus and workplace, theory and execution, to define what readiness really looks like in a world of constant change. Shel Holtz, SCMP, IABC Fellow, will moderate the session.

This episode featured a candid, fast-paced discussion on the skills and mindsets that matter now — and the ones you’ll need next. From AI literacy and data comfort to ethical judgment, change agility, and human-centered storytelling, the panel will share practical frameworks you can apply immediately. You’ll hear how universities are evolving curricula, how employers can cultivate lifelong learning, and how individual pros can future-proof their careers without losing the craft that sets them apart.

You’ll get actionable guidance, plenty of examples from classrooms and boardrooms. Whether you lead a team, teach, hire, or are building your own career path, this conversation will help you set priorities for the year ahead.

You’ll leave with:

• A clear, current skills map for modern communicators
• Practical ways to integrate AI and analytics—without sacrificing trust and creativity
• Playbooks for continuous upskilling across individuals, teams, and organizations

About the panel:

Diane Gayeski is recognized as a thought leader in the practice and teaching of business communications. She is Professor of Strategic Communications at the Roy H. Park School of Communications at Ithaca College and provides consulting in communications analysis and strategies through Gayeski Analytics. Diane was recently inducted as an IABC Fellow; she’s been active in IABC for more than 30 years as a featured speaker and think-tank leader at the international conference, the author of 3 editions of the IABC-published book, Managing the Communications Function, and the advisor to Ithaca College’s student chapter. She has led more than 300 client engagements for clients, including the US Navy, Bank of Montreal, Fiat, Sony, Abbott Diagnostics, and Borg-Warner, focusing on assessing and building capacities and implementing new technologies for workplace communications and learning teams.

Sue Heuman, SCMP, ABC, MC, IABC Fellow, based in Edmonton, Canada, is an award-winning, accredited authority on organizational communications with more than 40 years of experience. Since co-founding Focus Communications in 2002, Sue has worked with clients to define, understand, and achieve their communications objectives. Sue is a highly sought-after executive advisor, specializing in leading communication audits and strategies for clients across all three sectors. Much of her practice involves a strategic review of the communications function within an organization, analyzing channels and audiences. She creates strategic communication plans and provides expertise to enable their execution. Sue has been a member of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) since 1984, which enables her to both stay current with and contribute to the field of communications practices. In 2016, Sue received the prestigious Rae Hamlin Award from IABC in recognition of her work in promoting global standards for communication. She was also named 2016 IABC Edmonton Chapter Communicator of the Year. In 2018, IABC named Sue a Master Communicator, the Association’s highest honor in Canada. Sue earned the IABC Fellow designation in 2022.

Dr. Theomary Karamanis is a multiple award-winning communication professor and consultant with 25 years of global experience. She is currently a full-time senior lecturer in Management Communication at the Cornell SC Johnson College of Business and regularly delivers executive education programs in leadership communication, crisis communication, and strategic communication. She has held several professional leadership positions, including Chair of the GCCC (Global Communication Certification Council), Chair of the IABC (International Association of Business Communicators) Academy, and Chair of the IABC Awards committee.

Her academic background includes a PhD in communication studies, a Master of Arts in mass communication, and a postgraduate certificate in telecommunications, all from Northwestern University, as well as a bachelor’s degree in economics from the Athens University of Economics and Business. She also holds professional certifications as a Strategic Communication Management Professional (SCMP), online facilitator, and executive program instructor. She has received 40 professional communication awards, including 12 Platinum MarCom awards, 7 Gold Quill awards, 4 Silver Quill awards, and a Comm Prix award. In 2020, she received the Award for Excellence in Communication Consulting by APCC (Association of Professional Communication Consultants) and ABC (Association for Business Communication). She is the author of several books and academic papers on communication, and she also regularly delivers presentations at international conferences and other business forums.

Leticia Narváez, ABC, is the CEO and Founding Partner of Narváez Group, a consulting firm specializing in Strategic Communication, Crisis Management, Employee Engagement, Communication Training, and Change Management. A 30-year experienced professional, she held top-level positions at Sanofi, Merck, American Express, and Ford Motor Co., among others. She builds communication bridges to the highest standards of excellence. She has developed communication strategies for several employers and clients, including those involved in mergers and acquisitions, diversity leadership, crisis management, and senior executive consulting. Many of these strategies have earned global awards for their proven results and successful impact. She has been a speaker at international forums, is a co-author of several books and manuals on business communication, public relations, and inclusion. She teaches Measurement and Evaluation in the Master of Institutional Communication at the Panamericana University in Mexico City.

Jennifer Wah, MC, ABC, has worked with clients to deliver ideas, plans, words and results since she founded her storytelling and communications firm, Forwords Communication Inc., in 1997. With more than two dozen awards for strategic communications, writing, and consulting, Jennifer is recognized as a storyteller and strategist. She has worked in industries from healthcare and academia to financial services and the resource sector, and is passionate about the strategic use of storytelling to support business outcomes. Although she has delivered workshops and training throughout her career, Jennifer formally added teaching to her experience in 2013, first with Royal Roads University and more recently as an adjunct professor of business communications with the UBC Sauder School of Business, where she now works part-time to impart crucial communication skills on the next generation of business leaders. When she is not working, Jennifer spends her time cooking, walking her dog, Orion, or discussing food, hockey, or music with her husband and two young adult children in North Vancouver, Canada.

Raw Transcript

00:00:00 Speaker: Hi everybody, and welcome to episode one hundred and twenty two of Circle of Fellows. I’m Shel Holtz, your moderator today, and I am the senior director of Communications at Webcor. We’re a commercial general contractor in California, headquartered in San Francisco. And I’m coming to you live today from our offices across the bay in Alameda. Uh, and I am also a certified, uh, communication professional through the Global Communication Certification Council. And I am delighted to have a terrific panel joining me today to talk about preparing tomorrow’s communication professionals. Uh, that includes some people from the world of academia. Uh, you’ll learn who they are as they introduce themselves in just a couple of seconds. But first, I’m going to give you the, uh, the first of a few reminders that, um, you are welcome to participate in this discussion. You are watching this presumably through YouTube and there is a chat feature. And if you send us a question or a comment or an observation through that chat window, I’ll be able to share it on the screen and we can get feedback from the panelists who will now introduce themselves, starting with Letty. Um. Hi, everybody. Um, I’m Letty Narvaez, I’m based in Mexico City, and I’ve been working on communication for more than thirty years. For the last ten years, I have had my own consulting firm specializing mainly on employee communications, change management, crisis and risk management, and and a lot of training on measurement and presentation skills. And it’s great to to be here. It’s great to have you here, Letty. Uh, Theo. Mary. You’re next. Hello, everyone. Thanks for being here with us. I’m Theo America. I’m based in Ithaca, New York. This is upstate New York. I work for Cornell University, and I teach MBA and executive MBA students. And I’m also very much involved with executive education. So I get to see a lot of executives and leaders across industries and professions. Um, I’ve been in communication for more than I don’t want to say, but I will, uh, twenty five years now. And I started after my PhD. I started in corporate communication. So I had a corporate life. Then I went into consulting. I had my own boutique firm, and for the past ten, maybe now close to fifteen years, I’ve been full time in academia. I’ve been in contact. I always have contact with executives, uh, through my executive education courses and also through my Um, MBA courses, and I’m looking forward to sharing with you some insights about communication professionals and what communication will mean to us, uh, in the future. And thank you so much for inviting me. Uh, thanks for being here. Uh, Diane, you’re up. Hi, I’m Diane Gajewski, and I am on the other hill from Theo Mary, also in Ithaca, New York. I’m a professor of strategic communication at Ithaca College, which is also my alma mater. And, uh, I’ll embarrass myself and say I’ve been there for forty seven years. Um, in addition to teaching, I practice what I preach through my consulting firm, Gaieski Analytics. Um, I mostly focus on new technologies and, uh, trends in both corporate communication and corporate learning. And I teach almost exclusively undergraduates. And, uh, they are very worried about the topic that we’re talking about today, so I look forward to the conversation. It’ll be a good one. Uh, Sue? Hi, everybody. Sue from Edmonton, Canada. Um, I have been in communication for forty three years. And, um, through the course of my time, I have actually been, um, uh, an instructor with MacEwan University, and I have worked with other academic programs as a guest lecturer. Um, but, uh, I think I’m hoping to bring the perspective today of somebody who’s done a lot of hiring, um, over the years and have seen a lot of different folks come through the door for our small agency, which is focused communications in Edmonton. So, yeah, happy to be here and happy to be here with this great group of very impressive women. So thank you. Thank you. Uh, Jen, your last but not least. Excellent. Uh, hello. From Vancouver, Canada. Just over the hill, as it were, from Sue in Edmonton. Um, and, um. And happy Thanksgiving to those who will be celebrating in the next, uh, in the next day or so. Um, I, uh, I’m, I teach as an adjunct professor at the UBC Sauder School of Business. So I teach business communications to first and third year students, which is, um, which is a, um, something I’ve been doing for the last four or five years. Um, I absolutely am enchanted by it and by the students and, um, love being in the classroom with them. And it, uh, I think only makes me stronger as a, as a professional. Um, in my consulting business, as a storytelling consultant for organizations. Um, and, uh, yeah, really looking forward to the conversation today and and echo what, what I’ve even heard so far in terms of what what the next generation of entering the workforce are worried about and how, um, and how we all just need to keep learning. I’ve been doing some rough math as we’ve gone around, uh, at my forty eight years in the profession. I was a newspaper reporter for a few years before that. Uh, and I think we have well over two hundred years of experience on this panel, so you should get some good wisdom. We don’t look a day over one ninety nine, so that’s true. Uh, it’s good. Genes is what it is. Um, so let’s jump into this and I want to share a quick story. Uh, several years ago, uh, I was invited to come speak to the faculty at San Jose State University by the dean of the journalism department. That was Bill Briggs, who is an Iabc fellow. Um, and one of the questions I was asked, uh, really struck me. They said, what aren’t we teaching that we should be? Um. And I thought about it a minute. And this was in the heyday of blogging. Um, you know, the big social networks didn’t exist yet. Facebook and LinkedIn and the like were not around. Uh, but blogging was getting really big. Uh, and, uh, newspapers were starting to close, uh, in some frightening numbers. And I said, I think what you need to be teaching is entrepreneurial ism. Uh, when I went to journalism school, they taught us to work for a newspaper or a news magazine, uh, a news broadcast outlet or a news radio station. And that was it. Um, and I think today, uh, journalists are going to have to reinvent themselves. I mean, look at the number of them that are doing podcasts, like, uh, Jim Acosta, who used to be with CNN, uh, they’re doing Substack newsletters for communicators. Uh, let me ask, what aren’t universities, uh, with, with communication programs, teaching that they should be. Well, I can start if you want. Um, I want, um, I’m in a business school, and of course, I don’t have communication students, but I have the future business leaders, and we teach them communication skills, and I’m really, um, very happy about it. But I think what we do not teach, and we need to start teaching, and I don’t know how is agility, adaptability and the the capacity to take things as they come and be able to, um, confront the challenges and have grace under fire, uh, being calm under stressful situations. So I think that a lot of the preparation that we do is based on the assumption that you know what’s coming and therefore you do the steps and ABC and the stakeholder analysis and all of that. But I don’t think we teach them necessarily, um, how to be resilient and be adaptable when things change. And I could add also that I think it could be very important. We speak a lot about being strategic, but I don’t think that universities really insist on this, on how to be really strategic, how to participate and to design strategic plans and to, um, to get to know the business much better so that we really can advise on how what kind of of communication strategies we should use, how to, uh, emphasize the human connection and to understand and listen to the needs of our audience so we can, uh, respond with our communication according to the, to our audience needs. And another thing is, uh, measurement and evaluation of the communication. I think that very few universities really, uh, really teach the different techniques and the benefits of really measuring the communication and what we are doing in our communication plans. Good point. I was going to add to what you said, Theo. Mary. Um, uh, sorry, Diane. Um, and just, uh, build on that in terms of, in terms of the agility and the resilience. I would say, like I kind of joked in my intro about, you know, that all of us need to keep learning, but I think there is a critical need to bring that beginner brain along with us, uh, especially for the next generation entering the workforce. They will need to learn and relearn skills and strategies and approaches, uh, within different contexts, at a much faster speed than than previous generations. And so I agree, I don’t quite know how to teach that either. That, um, that, um, ability to pivot, that ability to, uh, to, uh, re-embrace and, um, turn a corner and, and, uh, reengage in a whole new way on a regular basis, not just a couple of times over a career. Um, so sorry, Diane, back over to you. Uh, yeah. Great points. You know, I’d like to build on what everybody has said, I think, and I do teach communication students. And what I think we could do a better job of is teaching them business acumen and, um, financial analysis and being able to, uh, understand how businesses and nonprofits really work. Um, I find that my students often avoid that as I talk to them. They don’t understand how the stock market works. They they really have not much sophistication in terms of understanding, uh, how how businesses really get along. And, uh, and to build upon the point of, uh, assessment, I think is a really important one that what I find is because students don’t really understand how businesses make money and they don’t know how to read financial reports. Uh, they will often come in with, um, you know, very proud of some kind of ROI, thinking that they’ve done a great job because they’ve saved the company a thousand dollars or, you know, or they increase sales by, you know, a couple of dollars. And they don’t understand that in the large scheme of things, that is quite literally lunch money. So, um, I think we could do a better job collaborating across communication schools and business schools. Can I just second that? Because what you’re describing is exactly the opposite of what’s happening in business schools. So my students know everything about budgeting, everything about accounting, and they’re just focused on that, but they don’t necessarily understand the value of stakeholder analysis. Audience analysis how to communicate to different people. So I really think that your point, Diane, is very valuable. Uh, we need to just somehow find a way to merge these schools of thoughts and show students that there’s value to both. Like, of course they want to. They need to know the business side, but they also need to know the communication side. Um, I’m not sure how much I can add to this, except I would say, as someone who’s hired a lot of new graduates, um, we’ve always had entry level positions in our firm. Um, the thing that I would like to see schools teach them is how to better value every voice. Um, you don’t know everything when you graduate, you certainly have learned a lot and you’ve gained a lot of skills. But there’s there’s wisdom everywhere. And so how do we invite conversation? How do we invite people to accept constructive feedback and criticism? I feel sometimes, um, especially young employees, they get offended easily if someone corrects their work, and I feel like they just need to be better at understanding that they don’t know everything. They may have learned a lot, but there’s still. It’s a big world. I learned something new every day. Um, so I feel like if we could get them to to just be open to hearing other voices, um, that would go a long way to develop their soft skills around the boardroom table when they eventually get there. Yeah. Diane, uh, my favorite, uh, ROI assertions by by young communicators is when they come in and tell me the ROI was something that has absolutely nothing to do with money. Uh, you know, uh oh, we we we grew our readership. You know, that’s that’s not ROI. ROI is always money, always expressed as a percentage. Uh, it’s a formula. It’s it’s, you know, not negotiable. Um, but, uh, Sue, you mentioned, uh, entry level positions. Uh, one of the things that I’m hearing a lot about the, the threat, uh, to employment that AI, uh, is, is, uh, potentially going to, to bring us, uh, is that if it takes away a lot of the drudge work? Uh, well, that’s what a lot of entry level positions are all about. Uh, so, so what do we do with entry level positions in order to, uh, get people started on their careers in the right direction, doing work that that matters, um, but is still entry level. It’s not, um, you know, raising unrealistic expectations about what? Somebody brand new to the field might be able to do. Yeah. So what we’ve done is we’ve really brought our entry level staff in to things like client meetings and, um, you know, leadership meetings so that they can understand the business of the business. Um, not so much the financial statements necessarily, but we’re a small agency. So there’s, there’s how do you get new clients? What do you do with them? What’s the process? So we’re trying to teach them skills that they can. Then um, they will be the front end part of that of course. But then eventually they will start to manage projects on their own. And having had the experience of, um, you know, being in the, in the room when the big meetings are held, being in the room when decisions are made, they can see the debate, they can see different points of view, and it really helps to round them out. So I feel like that that’s probably something that more organizations can do. Do not put your, you know, new employee in a room by themselves and say, okay, here you go. Um, they need interaction and they need role models. They need people to understand how do I behave at work? Um, what does a what does a board meeting look like? Um, because this is all new experience for them. You can’t just, you know, suddenly be thrown into a board meeting and expected to, um, expected to, you know, swim. You’re probably going to sink if you haven’t had that exposure. So I really encourage people, if you’ve got an entry level position, is make sure you’re teaming them up with mid-level or senior level people so that they can shadow you to important meetings and, uh, see how the assignments are, are managed and how strategy works and how to anticipate things like that’s critical thinking that they can learn by observing. Yeah, that’s a great point, Sue. Um, you know, I, I think we’re running into, uh, almost like a triple threat of problems We still have students coming off a Covid experience. Um, the ones graduating now at least had a much more normal high school and college. But, you know, there was still there was still a lot of disruption. Um, then many organizations are doing more hybrid and remote work and, uh, still pointed out a lot of the entry level jobs are this kind of, you know, sort of routine grunt work which people can say, oh, you know, you don’t need to come into the office. You can do that at home. Um, you know, and then we have, you know, AI, um, stepping in and doing a lot of those kind of tasks. So what are young employees going to be doing? So, um, I, I know that our students are very worried about all of that. One of the things that I’m telling them is that they have I’ve got to kind of get them to the point where I was in my career, fifteen years in, and be much more adept at speaking to executives and understanding their language and holding their own and actually being able to push back. Um, what I’m doing a lot of is having consulting projects with my students. We, you know, always gave them projects, but now I am trying to take on projects where clients will, um, allow meetings to be on zoom in front of my class, and I’ll have the students watch me interact with a client, and we’ll debrief afterwards. And I’m trying to model how to politely push back and understand that what a client or a project sponsor comes in asking may not be at all what they need. And, um, you know, I think they need to learn how to do that in a convincing way, Even though they are young. But the ability to be in the office and have mentors and have that sort of informal learning cannot be overemphasized. If I may interject here, I’m so happy to hear you say all these things. I think that the industry needs and we as educators, we need to understand, in essence, there are no entry level positions anymore because that’s AI. It’s really if you think about it, it’s what we call an entry level position is a sort of a mid-level position because you require three years of experience, you require a master of analytics tools, the ability to manage stakeholders. And that’s a lot to ask. I would agree with both Diane and Sue that organizations and this is not on the candidate, but this is on businesses that they need to maybe rewrite job descriptions and focus on trainable capabilities. So like maybe curiosity, writing fundamentals, critical thinking and learning mindset. So I love that Sue said. Bring them in in a meeting. Show them how it’s done. So shadowing or I hear some businesses have this, um, rotational, um, programs where they go from one department to the next, uh, for training. So I think that this is where we are supposed to go as a, as a society, not even as communication professionals. Yeah. Something else that I think would also contribute to the, the entry level or the or just graduated is, uh, the experience of, of working in a company, in a big organization and also the experience of working for a consultancy or an agency. Having worked myself like for more than twenty years in different companies, you learn many things that you have not learned at the university as the importance of interacting with the cross-functional situation to to learn about the other areas of the company, to interact with all of them. So you can you can advise them on on communication strategies and to support them to to get to reach their objectives and the importance of the human connection, not only not only the communication tools, but what understanding, learning, listening so you can respond to their own needs. Um, the adaptability and then being on the on meetings within the organization so you can learn from other leaders. And also if you work in an agency then how to work with the client, how to respond to a client, how to contribute and advice. So both experiences, I think are very important for for someone who’s just starting in their career. To marry you. You mentioned AI, which it’s it’s inevitable that any panel is going to talk about AI these days. Um, I am reading continuously on LinkedIn professors, uh, saying they don’t allow AI in the classroom. They don’t teach it. Uh, to me, that’s insane, because as soon as they get to the workplace, they’re going to be expected to know how to use it, uh, and apply it in their jobs. Um, how I’m wondering, for those of you who are teaching, uh, what’s your view and how are you employing AI as as part of your curriculum? I’ll start. Since you mentioned my name. Um, You’re very right. Uh, there’s a lot of talk and a lot of backlash in the academia about AI, and I want to recognize that it’s different for different courses. But I will tell you how I am managing this. I’m telling them to use it as much as they can. First of all, AI literacy will be is a skill that, uh, people need, uh, at the workplace. And I think my students need to be able to, to use it. I still tell them that they’re responsible for accuracy of the final outcome, and they should have a unique perspective. So through the prompts, they need to give a perspective to the assignment or to the project that they’re doing. And the other thing is that AI cannot replace the critical thinking of the human. And because I’m in communication, just like all of you, they need to be able to defend it so they get an outcome. Okay, fine. It might be perfect. Can you come in front of me in person and justify it? Defend it, explain it. Um, and give me all kinds of aspects on the specific project. And I think at least with my level of students, because they’re, they’re a bit older, they’re not undergraduates. Um, I think they get it. And a lot of them are working towards that. So how do I use it? Uh, so that it’s very authentic because of course, authenticity is part of what leadership is nowadays. So if you come to me and you feel robotic or you feel like you are AI generated, you do not promote trust. And that defeats the purpose of any organization or any leader. And people are still grappling with that? Um, but I do feel that there’s a need for us to incorporate AI into what we’re doing and still find what is the differentiator, uh, between using AI, everybody will use AI. But what makes you stand out as a leader? What will make you stand out is if you own it, if you have a unique perspective and if you can present it with credibility, empathy and confidence. Just to build on the innovation factor, um, I recently had, uh, students doing a group project and they all each group in, in my class had a different idea, groups of four or five. And they were building that into a group presentation. And, um, I, uh, had them. I also embrace AI in the classroom and in, in, in all the ways that you described the human input in human. In human. Humans at the beginning and end of the process. Um, but I had them ask, uh, AI to take their idea and expand on it in bold and innovative and new ways and and help them consider some ways, some some different, uh, elevated ways of thinking. And they and frankly, I were quite their jaws dropped. These were third year students because, um, because AI returned to them all like five, five or six or eight different ideas in the classroom. And each group got very, very similar responses. And so we had this very robust discussion about originality and, uh, and unique thinking and, and so just to circle back to the last question about entry level positions or whatever we’re calling them, um, I actually think that that original thinking can be part of, of the learning process in workplaces because although they’re coming into the workplace with, with perhaps more, um, mature skills than, than many of us did, they haven’t necessarily caught up, uh, in other ways, especially especially some of the Covid impact, uh, young people. Um, and so they may be, um, you know, they may be looking for a professional maturity and opportunities to grow in other ways, uh, that I think exploring critical and innovative thinking can really, uh, allow them to do so. Um, yeah, I there’s we need the AI fluency. I’m not sending my my students out into the world without that. Yeah, I’m I’m doing the same thing. I require my students to use it in different ways, and not just the large language models to, you know, help them write things. I have them, uh, do at least prototypes using AI generated images and video. So, for example, in an intro PR class, one of the assignments is to do a PSA, a video PSA, and uh, they don’t have time to go out and and shoot it professionally. And a lot of them don’t have those video skills, but I will have them mock something up on AI. Um, I’ll have them mock up things like, uh, posters, uh, or bus wraps. Um, in some of my other classes, I will, uh, have them use AI as a thinking partner, as a brainstorming partner, uh, to help them come up with clever titles for a white paper, for example. Um, and then I also, uh, as they’re writing recommendations, I will have them, uh, ask AI what’s missing in this report, or if I were to deliver this final report to clients, what might their questions or pushback be? Or how might different stakeholders react to these Suggestions? Um, I’m also building some simulations where, um, AI will act as various stakeholders, and they can interview those stakeholders and get different kinds of interviews and feedback on on an issue. So, uh, but you know, what’s really interesting is students are all over the place. A lot of them really don’t like AI. Some of them because they don’t know how to prompt it very well, get frustrated. They, they they work with it. And it doesn’t, doesn’t give them anything that they find as usable. And so we need to work on that. But a lot of them are, um, ethically, uh, very worried about AI. Uh, some of it in terms of harvesting their ideas or other kinds of data or profiles about them and the environmental impacts. Um, Ithaca is a place where there’s a lot of people very interested in the environment from way back, and our college attracts a lot of students who are, um, very concerned about sustainability. And so we have a number of professors and students who really don’t want to use AI because of what they feel are the significant, uh, climate impacts. As, uh, as an employer, I’ll just pop in and say that we use we have our, um, staff use AI not to draft things, uh, to final product or anything like that, but more for research purposes. Uh, I loved your examples, Diane, of some of the things that you’ve asked your students to do. We do the same, you know, read this. Tell me what’s missing. Um, just to prompt ideas. Um, you know, when you’re staring at the proverbial blank page, you know, give me five words that describe space. Um, you know, that kind of thing. Um, we use it carefully at this time. Um. We’re still waiting to see. And I know you can do a whole show on this. We’re still waiting to see where it all shakes out in terms of, um, you know, need for disclosure and all that stuff, uh, that’s happening in the world. So, yeah, I mean, we do expect students to come with some AI, uh, fluency when they show up to work. Yeah. We have a comment. And this is from, uh, Brian Kilgore. Uh, I think he means twenty twenty five here, not twenty fifteen. But why don’t PR students in twenty twenty five have video production skills? Uh, any thoughts on that? I mean, I’m doing video all the time, uh, largely based on the trend of of people paying attention to short form video. Yeah. Our our staff do it with their, with their phones. I mean, they do video production and we have actually on our staff, we have a graphic designer who’s an animator. And so he does animations and that sort of thing. So you can absolutely do Video without having to have the old school, you know, video camera situation happening. Yeah. Our students certainly can do video for social media. But, you know, if you’re asking them to do something that might be like a public service announcement where, you know, they would need locations and actors and all that sort of thing, they’re certainly not up to to that level of production or complexity of logistics. Yeah. There are things where I would still hire a video production company, but on the other hand, for example, for recruiting, uh, I saw a trend of injecting videos into, uh, job listings that have people currently doing that job talking about what it’s like to do that at this company. And I went out and recorded the interviews. I edited it together. I did all the titles and the transitions. I just used Camtasia, you know, if you can use word, you can use Camtasia. And, uh, you know, they’re fine. Um, are they up to the level that I would get, uh, production quality from a professional? No. Clearly not. But, you know, some of these things, uh, as Martin Waxman would say, just have to be good enough. Yeah. From from what I’ve seen, they’re good with video production and tech and using even, like, their own phones to do stuff. I think that the, the script is a gap, like the key messaging, how they’re reaching their, their audience. So I see a lot of good videos, like from a video production standpoint, but I don’t see the background of it that I would have liked to see, you know, like like how do you reach your target audience? What are you trying to say? The key messaging. You know what we did that with, uh, with a few of our staff. We do a lot of videos and, uh, you know, we’ll get new staff or young graduates out of school and we’ll say to them, hey, how’d you like to write a video script today? And we walked them through the process of how you do that, how you do the key messages, how you, you know, make it interesting and engaging, uh, concise, uh, because you’ve got about fifteen seconds these days. Um, you know, if you’re doing it for social media. So again, we need to expose young employees. I say young, but I mean new to the field. Um, you know, right at the beginning, don’t let them, you know, hang out for two years before you let them do something like write a script, model the behavior, show them how to do it. And they’ve been terrific. Yeah, I’ve been, uh, actually doing some, uh. Yeah. Go ahead. Mary, I want to ask a follow up question to Sue because you’re employing people and I hear a lot. So I fully agree with what you said. Uh, the backlash when I give that advice to employers, just, you know, get people engaged really early on, they’re like, oh, they don’t know nothing. So let them just learn first and then I’m going to engage. Engage them. So how do you feel about that? Like how do you would you, um, respond to someone who says they’re not ready? They’re very young. They don’t know what they’re doing. Um, what would you say to that? Well, you don’t learn anything sitting in a cubicle by yourself. I’m sorry. So to say that they’re not experienced, they’re not going to get it sitting in a cube by themselves. So we always bring our staff along, uh, on, on client meetings, both on zoom or out of the office or at the client’s workspace. Um, we did a website for a client. Uh, that was a retail site. So we took the staff there to go and look around and experience it like a customer. So you have to do these things because it’s a real world out there. You cannot just sit at your desk and expect to, I don’t know, learn things by osmosis and waiting two years is to wait. You’re going to lose good people in the short term, because they will go and find a company that will give them those experiences. And arguably, those of us with two hundred years of experience don’t know what we’re doing. So there you go. There’s that. There’s a lot of learning to do both ways. That gets to what I was going to say. I’ve been creating animated videos, uh, which, you know, two years ago I would not have had the budget to do. Now they’re pretty damn close to free. Uh, I watched a couple of YouTube videos on how to do it. Um, I paid the ridiculously low monthly fees for some of these services. And for example, we’re doing one that is, uh, their three minute management tips. And I’ve got a sort of a grizzled, wise old construction manager out in the project trailer or out on the construction project, uh, talking about this particular management issue. And then we do cutaways to scenes that sort of convey the idea, tell the story, and he comes back and says, well, here’s the four things that you need to remember. Um, and so far, uh, they seem to be well received. Uh, they take me about a half a day to to crank one out. Um, which which leads to the question I have. Yeah. Uh, I had to learn how to do this. Um, you know, uh, how do we keep people engaged in learning new things? I find that a lot of the people who speak to that. Yeah, go for it, Sue. Yeah. So we we hired a really talented young guy fresh out of university, uh, a couple of years ago. And, uh, he expressed an interest in learning all about digital media. So we supported him with, uh, training courses, with, um, webinars, with research, anything he needed. And now he is, uh, making incredible, um, advancements for our clients in the areas where they want to either grow their client base or they want more, um, click through to a register for something or what have you. Um, He designed himself for one of our fundraising clients. Uh, he came up with an idea that raised through digital media. Organic? No, uh, no paid posts. Um, he did a little video, he did a little pitch, and he raised thirty thousand dollars in ten days for that client. Just an initiative he did on his own. I’m going back to your question, Shel. I think it’s quite. If we want to future, future proof our communication careers. Precisely. It’s to adopt a mindset of continuous learning. Because technology will evolve. But curiosity, adaptability and ethics will always matter. So, uh, we need to advise to learn one new tool every few months. Seek feedback often. Never stop refining your ability to tell stories that inspire action, because the future will see professionals moving away from manual content creation and focusing more on leveraging creativity, contextual awareness and strategic input. And the winners will be business communicators and agencies that can integrate AI to drive insights, campaign evaluation, and and stakeholder engagement skills. Less susceptible to automation. If I may add to that, I’ll tell you what I tell my students in class and also even in executive education workshops, which is very risky. But I do tell them I give the content and I always tell them what I’m telling you now is probably good and valid for the next two to three years. I don’t know what’s going to happen next. Maybe in three years time we come, you come back and I’m going to tell you something different. So I kind of position, uh, all the content, especially communication based leadership based on the fact that there’s also so many societal perspectives to take into account. What I’m telling you now might not be the same in five years from now, and people need to understand that there’s a dynamic, um, nature into what we teach, at least at least what I do with leadership and leadership communication skills. It’s it’s almost as if, uh, Frank Diaz was listening in. I, I happen to have LinkedIn up on one of the screens here in the office, and he just posted. Are we hiring internal comms roles for yesterday? Uh, three years after ChatGPT launched, ninety one percent of IC internal comms roles are designed as if generative AI didn’t exist. Uh, based on an analysis of one hundred job postings. Uh, he said, uh, ninety percent of roles still demand strong writing skills. Uh, while storytelling is vital, reframing the role around a skill that is rapidly being commoditized. By AI scaling, eighty percent ask for strategic expertise. Yet this is rarely defined. Employers want strategy, but they describe tactics, managing channels, drafting updates and supporting campaigns. And his killer stat only nine percent of roles mention any AI capabilities or skills. Um, I don’t know if that’s worth a comment, but, uh, I thought it was interesting that that scrolled by just as we were talking about this. You know, I will say that my clients on the on the client side of things, from my perspective, um, if I think of my three, say, three top clients right now, like in the last six months, um, none of them are. They’re very they’re slow to AI. And so, um, I do think that the that the hiring organizations are doing right now are not necessarily with that skill set in mind, because the organizations themselves aren’t, um, Um, for various reasons, including, uh, firewall related and and security related, etc.. Um, for various reasons, the organizations themselves are are hesitant or moving more slowly toward that, including for Diane, some of the reasons you talked about from an environmental impact perspective, organizations are getting their their their own strategies around their own strategic heads around that part of it. Um, so I do think that’s worth considering. Like, we’re not it’s not like it’s not like new employees, depending on the industry, are are new to the field. Employees are running to running to catch, uh, running to catch, catch up kind of thing. Um, it might be the other way around. I think what’s also interesting is that AI is rapidly being baked into every kind of platform. So you can’t not use AI in a way, if you use Canva, if you use PowerPoint, you know, Web browsers, I mean, AI is baked into everything. So, um, I think at a certain point it’s not even going to be relevant to mention it. It would be like saying, um, that you have internet skills, you know, so we’re we’re all on the internet, right? It’s kind of assumed, uh, so, you know, I think you have that. And then as others have pointed out, uh, most organizations don’t have their heads wrapped around AI yet either. And they still think of it, especially in terms of the kinds of things that communicators do. Uh, it’s seen as kind of cheating, you know, it’s like, well, you’re having this write it for you. And do you really know how to do this? Do you really know anything? Or are you just having AI do your job for you? Yeah, I guess you could always make the t, I, uh, calculator uh, argument there is, you know, there was great resistance to having a Texas Instruments calculator to do your math for you. And now it’s a given that you’ll do that both in school and at work. Uh, I want to get Brian’s follow up comment in here. Uh, he said there’s no significant difference writing a video than there is writing a brochure than inviting a TV news crew to come to a factory for a business interview. Sue, you have a thought on that? Yeah, I have to disagree. Um, I mean, the video scripts that we write are very strategic, and they’re definitely, um, set to meet the client’s needs with whatever that is, whether it’s, uh, like I say, it could be sales, it could be fundraising, it could be, um, hiring. Um, and so that is very different than, um, just asking a news crew to come. Uh, of course, videos belong in the owned category of media. So you have the right and the ability to control the message and the distribution of that message onto the channels where you want it to be seen. So yeah, I’m not sure I would agree with you, Brian, on that one. Um, the skill level is very different because you have to think both, uh, with words and visuals together at the same time, um, when you’re writing a script. So. Yeah. Okay. Uh, I don’t remember who it was who mentioned critical thinking earlier, but I did write it down, uh, several years ago when I was still an independent consultant. Uh, I had a client who asked if I could, uh, create an online course for his staff on critical thinking because they didn’t learn it in school. Uh, this was an organization that dealt with a lot of scientific papers, uh, generally papers that were, uh, not complimentary to the kind of product that this organization was, an association, uh, professional, uh, business association, not like ABC. It was around a a product type. Um, and they would come up with a response to it that was not based on critical thinking, and he felt it was important for them to learn it. Um, I did develop that training, but I’m wondering, uh, do you find that students have not been taught critical thinking at earlier grade levels? And is it important for students of communication to to learn that before they enter the workforce? Absolutely. It’s it it is quite probably the most critical skill that we can encourage and, and, and teach and insist on and hold to a standard, um, and, you know, uh, like Mary, I teach in a business school. And so I would say that those, uh, qualities are more baked into the business curriculum in general, um, because of because of more, um, um, quantitative analysis Processes that that come with business. Um, and, and so ensuring that we are also bringing that same level of rigor and thinking to communications teaching, uh, I think is, um, is is absolutely essential. And to, you know, that idea, that slow process of, of questioning everything and, and coming to our own conclusions and, and, uh, applying our, our, our own original human and ethical brains, um, to processes. So for me, critical thinking, a huge element of critical thinking has to do with ethics and integrity as it relates to our work and our businesses. Let me add on to that. Critical thinking is a core course, uh, for for our business school. It was not like that. Uh, shout out to my good friend and colleague Amish, who’s amazing at teaching it, but she was the one. She’s a lawyer, uh, by by bye profession, and she was the one to propose it and make it a core course for the curriculum. But what is interesting is that we do a lot of executive education together, like for senior professionals, and sure enough, they get a leadership development program that combines critical thinking, which Risa does, uh, with communication, which I do. So it’s a very important skill. Um, it’s often overlooked, but I do feel that there’s, um, I see a trend, uh, where the industry has really recognized that this is something that people really want. I’m not sure that it’s embedded in undergraduate education, though. It is. It is difficult. Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead. Uh, I just wanted to mention that I think that, uh, if there’s one thing that can differentiate us as communicators, uh, from just, uh, writing or speaking or delivering a message. Is that the skill of critical thinking, uh, adaptability, data literacy, uh, to know how to interpret analytics, understand human behavior, collaborate across functions, and being able to translate complex ideas into human language, I think will will make us invaluable. So I think, uh, that really would be the difference that we can make, uh, in order to be strategic and to give a strategic advice to the CEO and to the executive committee. I think it goes back to those job descriptions, uh, you know, and, and expectations. You know, I see that business leaders say they want critical thinking, but then I also see how they treat communication professionals, especially young ones, and they treat them like order takers and and they want them to be responsive and helpful. Right. And give them good customer service. When really I think what critical thinking implies is to be able to look at a problem from a very different angle and probably reframe things and show, um, the client or project sponsor the person requesting your services to kind of push back or give them a different viewpoint or a different approach to something. And it’s and I think in our job descriptions and expectations, we’re, we’re supposed to be, um, you know, pleasant little order takers who are creative and come up with cute ways, cute words or graphics to kind of make our audience happy. And, and and that’s not critical thinking. So I think there’s two aspects of it, I think especially for newer employees, early career employees. They’re kind of not sure how to employ that critical thinking. They’re not sure whether they’re just supposed to do what they are asked to do and not raise questions, or whether they are supposed to use their brains. Yeah, I think that’s really on the employers, to be honest. They need to, you know, make sure that they’re they’re being open to all of that kind of thinking. I mean, as I said at the beginning, there’s wisdom in many voices. And even if you are like five minutes out of university, you have life experience and cultural background and, you know, whatever, um, that that can inform something maybe we’re working on. So I don’t know why I would discount that just because you’re young or you’re fresh out of school. I mean, that makes no sense. Um, so, you know, I think you’ve really hit on something, um, Diane, that, uh. I think it’s important, but I think the onus is on the is on the employer to be honest. Yeah, I’ve been paying a lot of attention very recently to quantum computing. Uh, there are people who are saying that it is going to be more consequential than AI, uh, and bigger than AI. Uh, I really can’t wrap my mind around how this works. The idea of superposition is, is something that I just can’t grasp. But, uh, I am looking at the fact that these computers, which, uh, should be, uh, ready for businesses to buy in the next three to five years if what I’m reading is right, will be able to do in five minutes what it would take a supercomputer today, uh, a couple of trillion years to do. Uh, it’s going to be remarkable when it comes to things like drug discovery. Um, I wonder how many communicators at the mid level are paying attention to emerging technologies and, you know, massive trend shifts that will prepare them to thrive and be relevant as as they move forward. So what do those mid-level or mid-career communicators need to do in order to be relevant, and how do they impart what what they what they learn and what they do to to those, you know, incoming communicators, they need to take training from folks like the wonderful people on this panel who are educators, uh, with their various universities. So you need to keep up training. You know, I think all of us probably started as I did, which is on a manual typewriter. Big day when we moved up to an electric with an automatic correct button. Uh, everything I know about computing is. And technology is self-taught. Um, I think we’re beyond the ability for people to teach themselves. And so continuous learning. It’s just that simple. I will I will second that and say that everybody, including us, need to do continuous upskilling and especially mid-career communication professionals. And also I think that they the the way that I conceptualize mid-career communication professionals right now is that they would have some, uh, AI fluency and data data literacy, but the differentiator for them would be the ability to frame decisions, uh, which goes back to what Diane was, was saying to guide leaders and how to navigate complexity. And I will confess that in classes, it’s very difficult to teach that. And or we have not been trained as as professors to teach navigating ambiguity or how to, um, do strategic thinking. And I think that we need to reinvent ourselves and how we teach to help young people to go into the into the work with more skills, um, into that direction we have. Go ahead. Um, I was just going to add that I think that part of the upheaval that we’re discussing and talking about and bringing into classrooms, um, is right across the spectrum of all careers. So, again, we are most of us with our two hundred years of experience are, um, are though although I, you know, we are bringing some fresh thinking, we have grown up in a framework that is that is linear, that talks about a early level career, a mid-level career, and an advanced level career. And I think that’s part of the upheaval that’s going on right now, is rethinking what those entry points in the career and entry and exit points and contribution points look like. Um, I, uh, you know, I’m sure for any of us in the classroom, I, I it’s a cliche, but I learn as much from my students as, as I hope they learn from me. And, uh, and, and I would jump at the chance and I tell my clients I would jump at the chance to employ, uh, many of them, um, as business school graduates with strong communication skills and, and, and vice versa. Um, and the same. So I think it comes more to the packaging of and the, the curiosity and again, the ethics and integrity that we bring at afresh in the face of new ambiguities at all points in our career that makes us that is going to make us valuable, that future proofs us. We. I’m sorry. Go ahead. Yes, definitely. I would also recommend just to build that is, uh, evolving from tactical execution to strategic leadership. That is, shift your value from from producing content to shaping decisions, to influence strategy, advise leaders and connect communication to business outcomes. Uh, to build tech fluency but not take of sexual obsession. So you don’t need to be like an AI engineer. But you do need to understand how AI, analytics, automation, and digital ecosystems reshape audiences and reputation and workflows, and but also to strengthen our unique human advantages like judgment, empathy, cultural sensitivity, um, facilitation, storytelling, ethical decision making. I think those those characteristics I think could help also mid-career professional. We have about three minutes left. And I do have a last question and I’ll go around and ask you each to give me a a nice, terse answer. Letty, you suggested this question, so I’m going to ask you first. And that’s what’s one thing you wish you had known earlier about the future of communication? Um, I think, uh, mainly, uh, that I had to develop strategic judgment, uh, becoming comfortable with ambiguity, uh, strengthening my storytelling and influence skills and understanding that trust and not technology is is the real currency. Theo. Mary, how about you? Well, this is, uh, relatable to Letty’s experience, but I’m a very structured person, and I like preparation. And I like the degrees and the studies and all of that. That’s why I have a PhD. Um, but I wish I knew sooner how much adaptability and agility would be a huge skill for the future. I can confess that even now I know it. Cognitively, I know how much adaptability means in this world and how we need to change. Uh, like in real time, even like I’m going into classes and I’m getting interactions I almost have to change every day. And I find that very challenging, very difficult. But I also will tell you that it’s it’s a skill for the future. Agility, adaptability and and resilience. Diane, what do you wish you had known? Boy, um, so I’m kind of a tech nerd. I was a radio and television major undergrad, and so I feel comfortable around technology. I’ve always been playing around with whatever was new. Uh, but what I didn’t realize, and what a very kind client, uh, kind of advised me, was that, um, there are times that when I meet, especially with more senior executives, I need to get my hands off the technology. One. One very nice client, said, Diane. You’re great at setting all this stuff up, but you don’t. You shouldn’t ever do that. Bring somebody with you and have them set all this stuff up. So I guess I wish I knew earlier how to be convincing to upper level management and how to get out of the nerd, uh, technology creator content creator mode and get more into the strategic conversations. Great. Sue. Um, similar to Thea Mary. Um, I wish that I had known when I started my career that change was going to be as rapid as it is today, um, in the mid nineteen eighties, the organization I was with had a major organizational change program, and my goodness, there was a lot of pearl clutching and swooning and the whole thing around. Oh, change, change. What’s that going to mean? And now today, it’s like we’re going to change. People go, yeah, okay, cool. So I wish I just wish I’d known that I had to get comfortable with it a lot faster and just know that that’s the way it is. And what does Jennifer wish she had known how much fun I was going to have. And if you’re not having it and you’re not around people who are inspiring you and and, um, giving you juice, giving you fuel on a regular basis, then, um, look for it somewhere else, uh, because we all got to be having some fun. I couldn’t agree more. Uh, I want to thank the panel. It’s been a terrific discussion. We could probably go on for another hour, but I do need to let everyone know about next month’s circle of fellows, which will be episode one twenty three, uh, scheduled for five p m Eastern time on Thursday, December eighteenth. It will be, uh, morning on December nineteenth for two of our panelists, uh, we have Zora Artis and Adrian Cropley coming to us from Australia and Bonnie Carver and Mary Hills from here in the US, and we’re going to be talking about, uh, something very, uh, related to what we’ve been talking about today. It’s our crystal ball moment, the future of communication opportunities for our profession in twenty twenty six and beyond. So mark your calendars. That’ll be a fun one. Uh, it’s always fun when Adrian’s, uh, part of the panel. Uh, again, thank you everybody. It’s been great. Uh, and see, everybody next time. Thank you for facilitating, Chelle. Thank you for everything. Hey, everyone. Bye. Bye bye

The post Circle of Fellows #122: Preparing Communication Professionals for the Future appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In this episode, Chip and Gini tackle the difficult subject of firing an underperforming and problematic employee. They discuss a real-life scenario where an employee with a bad attitude refuses to do their work, causing frustration among team members.

They advise against prolonging the inevitable firing decision, suggesting that acting swiftly can alleviate overall team stress. Both hosts share insights on why Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) are largely ineffective, stressing the need for proper documentation and the guidance of an HR advisor during termination processes.

Additionally, they highlight the importance of showing proactive steps to the remaining team to mitigate the workload burden and maintain morale. The episode emphasizes the critical role of leadership in making tough decisions for the greater good of the team and the business. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 289: Firing underperforming team members appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In the long-form episode for November 2025, Shel and Neville riff on a post by Robert Rose of the Content Marketing Institute, who identifies “idea inflation” as a growing problem on multiple levels. Idea inflation occurs when leaders prompt an AI model to generate 20 ideas for thought leadership posts, then send them to the communications team to convert them into ready-to-publish content. Also in this episode:

• A growing number of companies are moving branding under the communications umbrella, detouring around Marketing and the CMO. It’s all about safeguarding reputation.
• Quantum computing has been a topic of conversation in tech circles for years. Now, its arrival as a commercially viable product is imminent. Communicators need to prepare.
• AI’s ability to generate software code from a plain-language prompt has put the power to create apps in the hands of almost anyone. There are communication implications.
• Share some photos of yourself with an AI model, or companies that provide this as a service, and you can get an amazing likeness of yourself. But is it okay to use it as your LinkedIn profile?
• Research finds that leaders not only handle change management badly, but it’s also having an impact on employees who have to endure the process. Communicators can help.
• In his Tech Report, Dan York reports on WhatsApp launching third-party chat integration in Europe; X is finally rolling out Chat, its DM replacement, with encryption and video calling; Mozilla has announced an AI “window” for the Firefox browser; WordPress 6.9 offers new features, collaboration tools, and AI enhancements; Amazon has rebranded Project Kuper as Amazon Leo; and Open AI says it has “fixed” ChatGPT’s em dash problem. (We dispute that it’s a problem.)

Links from this episode:

• Why companies are merging communications and brand under one leader
• Will quantum be bigger than AI?
• ‘Vibe coding’ and other ways AI is changing who can build apps and how
• The market has spoken: Vibe coding is serious business
• The potential of vibe coding
• Everything Wrong with Vibe Coding and How to Fix It
• Vibe Coding: How to Avoid Over-Engineering and Build Smarter, Not Harder
• Mastering Vibe Coding: How to Get Better AI-Generated Code Every Time
• Why AI Thought Leadership Hurts Content Teams
• Is it Ok to use AI-generated images for LinkedIn Profiles?
• Your Staff Thinks Management Is Inefficient—They May Have a Point

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, December 29.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript:

Shel Holtz: Hi everybody and welcome to episode number 489 of For Immediate Release. This is our long-form monthly episode for November 2025. I’m Shel Holtz in Concord, California.

Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson in Somerset in England.

Shel Holtz: We have a jam-packed show for you today. Virtually every story we’re going to cover has an artificial intelligence angle. That shouldn’t be a surprise — AI seems to dominate communication conversations everywhere these days.

We do hope that you will engage with this show by leaving a comment. There are so many ways that you can leave a comment. You can leave one right there on the show notes at firpodcastnetwork.com. You can even leave an audio comment from there. Just click the “record voicemail” button that you’ll see on the side of the page, and you can leave up to a 90-second audio.

You can also send us an audio clip — just record it, attach it to an email, send it to fircomments@gmail.com. You can comment on the posts we publish on LinkedIn and Facebook and elsewhere, announcing the availability of a new episode.

There are just so many ways that you can leave a comment and we hope you will — and also rate and review the show. That’s what brings new listeners aboard.

As I mentioned, we have a jam-packed show today, but Neville, I wanted to mention before we even get into our rundown of previous episodes: did you see the study that showed that podcasting is very male-dominated as a medium?

Neville Hobson: I did see something in one of my news feeds, but I haven’t read it.

Shel Holtz: I heard about it on a podcast — I don’t remember which one — but I found it really interesting because the conversation was all about equity. And I’m certainly not in favor of male-dominated anything, but podcasting is not an industry where there is a CEO who can mandate an initiative to bring women into a more equitable position in podcasting.

This is a medium — let’s face it, even though The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal and other major media organizations have jumped into the podcasting waters — where it’s essentially a hobbyist occupation. You and I started this because we wanted to, and the tools are available to anybody who wants them.

I remember when we started this, one of the analogies we used was trying to walk into a radio station and say, “Hey, I want to have an hour-long show every day on public relations.” You’d be laughed out of the radio station because there’s not an audience big enough to support that kind of content. But here, if you can find an audience, you can have a podcast.

So I don’t know how you go about making this more equitable, but I found that to be an interesting perspective.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I agree. There are some podcasts I’ve listened to that are hosted by women — which, frankly, are few beyond the realms of kind of “feminine-oriented” content. But there are a couple in our area of interest in communication that are. So they’re out there, but the majority, very much, are men.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. I mean, just in internal communications, there’s Katie Macaulay, and there are a lot of women doing communication-focused podcasts. Maybe if you’re going to look for somebody to make this a more equitable media space, it has to start with the mainstream media organizations that are producing podcasts — The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal of the world.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, over here you’ve got The Times and a few others who have women doing this. They are there in the mainstream media orientation, but the kind of homebrew content that we started out with, I don’t see too many.

Shel Holtz: No.

Well, Neville, why don’t we move into our rundown of previous episodes?

Neville Hobson: Okay, let’s get into it.

So we’ve got a handful of shows. We’re actually recording this monthly episode about a week and a half earlier than we normally would. I think the reason for that, Shel, is something to do with U.S. holidays, your travel, and stuff like that.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I’m going to be in San Diego next weekend, visiting my daughter and granddaughter because they’re not able to come up here for Thanksgiving. And then the next weekend is Thanksgiving weekend. So that’s why this is early this month.

Neville Hobson: Right. Okay, that explains it.

We are, we are. So, not too many episodes since the last one, but they’re good ones, though, I have to say.

Before we talk about those, let’s mention episode 485, which was prior to the last monthly. We had a comment.

Shel Holtz: We had two that we didn’t have when we ran down this episode in our last monthly episode. The first is from Katie Howell, who says, “Already reward return visits over one-off reach and the clever brands are catching up. If your brief still says ‘go viral,’ you’re chasing a metric that won’t help you keep your job. Repeat engagement with the right people is the proper goal. Less glamorous, miles more useful.”

And Andy Green says, “Good clarification over strategies, but you also need to recognize viral — also known as meme-friendly — is at the heart of effective communications. Also greater recognition of the impact of zeitgeist. Check out Steven Pinker’s latest book, When Everyone Notes.”

Neville Hobson: They were on LinkedIn, I think, weren’t they? That’s where most of them come in.

So, to the ones we did: we have the monthly of October that we did on the 27th of October, when it was published. The lead story we focused on in the headline was “Measuring sentiment won’t help you maintain trust.” Other topics — there were five others — including an interesting one: Lloyds Bank, the CEO and executive team learning AI to reimagine the future of banking with generative AI.

We talked about case studies in a piece that described, “Conduct, culture, and context collide: three crisis case studies,” reviewed in Provoke Media.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, they did 13 or 14 case studies. It was a very interesting article, so we highlighted a couple. And there was more content there too.

Neville Hobson: Episode 487, we published on the 5th of November. This was a really interesting discussion. You and I analyzed and discussed Martin Waxman’s LinkedIn post about slower publishing, deeper thinking, better outcomes — a pivot he’s made with his business and his newsletter.

He left a number of comments, but on the show notes post he left a long comment that was great. We don’t normally get comments on the show notes, so thank you, Martin.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, there were several comments from Martin. I’m going to run through these. He said, “Thank you for having me as a virtual guest once-removed on the episode, Neville. I just listened today and enjoyed your and Shel’s take on my post. You gave me a fresh perspective and I was honored and thrilled to be a conversation topic. And thanks to both of you for holding up the comms podcasting torch all these years and having a lot of fascinating and insightful ideas to share.”

You replied. You said, “Thanks so much, Martin. It was our pleasure. Your post struck a chord with many of us who feel the pace accelerating. It was a great springboard for our discussion, and I’m glad our take offered something new in return. Slowing down to think more deeply about how we use AI feels like the most human move we can make right now.”

But Martin also posted on his own LinkedIn account — and this isn’t short, so bear with us, everybody, as I read through this because I think it’s worth sharing:

“As the first and longest-running communications podcast — and one I’ve been listening to for a long time — this meant a lot. As I listened and heard Shel and Neville’s take on my observations, I gained a new perspective, one I didn’t see when I was writing and revising my post.

“Something I didn’t mention out loud is that it’s been getting more and more difficult to come up with fresh ideas on where AI fits in marketing and communications and the various implications around that, the kind that inspire a person to write. Like social media, it feels like we’ve tipped past the point of saturation.

“As Shel said, we’re now getting drenched by the all-too-familiar commentary and quasi-expert advice swirling around our feeds. That certainly doesn’t diminish the utility of AI or using it where it helps. And I appreciate Shel’s view on how AI helps speed up doing the good-enough tasks that are inherent in all work, to concentrate on the things you want to spend more time on.

“I could also relate to Neville’s comments about saying no to projects that don’t excite you so you can focus on the ones that do. And yes, the three of us are all fortunate to have reached that stage in our careers when we have a little more freedom to pick and choose. I also realize that many people aren’t in that situation.

“As someone who has spent my entire career writing, it’s exciting and a bit frightening to wonder what I’m going to write about next. Yet there’s energy in uncertainty. So thank you to Shel and Neville for having me back as a guest, albeit one who didn’t have to press record.”

Neville Hobson: Really, really super comments that Martin left. Thank you, Martin.

And then our final one before this episode, 488, we published on the 10th of November. I enjoyed this discussion a lot — about Coca-Cola’s generative AI Christmas video that they have done before, but this one got rid of all the people; it was full of bunny rabbits and sloths and all sorts of stuff and those red trucks.

There were plenty of opinions out there, ranging from “What a creative and technical masterpiece this is” to “Utter AI slop.” So we were quite impressed with it and stood back to look at what they were doing rather than being judgmental in any shape or form. But there were plenty of comments, and we had at least one we should mention, right?

Shel Holtz: Yes, from Barbara Nixon, who said, “Thanks for sharing this. I’ll use it as a basis of discussion in my PR writing class next week.”

Neville Hobson: That’s cool. So that’s the content leading up to this one. And of course, now we’re in the November episode that kicks off the next cycle of reporting for the next edition, when I can talk about what we did since this edition.

Shel Holtz: That’s right. And I also want to let everyone know that there is a Circle of Fellows coming up. I would be reporting on this if we were recording at the normal time of the month toward the end of the month, but it hasn’t happened yet.

It is coming up on November 25th, Tuesday instead of Thursday, because Thursday that week is Thanksgiving. So it’s happening at 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday, November 25th. This is episode 122, and the topic is “Preparing Communication Professionals for the Future.”

It’s a larger-than-usual panel — there are five Fellows instead of four. It’s going to be a good discussion. I think the future — obviously AI factors in here, I think quantum computing does too, as we’re going to talk about shortly in this episode — but also changes in business trends. The zeitgeist is changing, and politics is going to have more of an influence on business. All of these are things that I’m sure we will be discussing.

We look forward to having you join us for that. Of course, if you can’t be there to watch it in real time, it is available both as a video replay on YouTube and as an audio podcast that you can subscribe to right here on the FIR Podcast Network.

And we will now jump into our content for the month — but not until we run this ad for you.

Neville Hobson: So, one of the most interesting shifts happening inside large organizations right now is the move to combine communication and brand under a single leader. We’re seeing this across companies as varied as IBM, GM, Anthropic, and Dropbox, and the trend is accelerating.

According to research cited by Axios, CCO-plus roles — where communication leaders take on brand or marketing responsibilities — have risen nearly 90% in recent years.

What’s driving this? The short answer is volatility, says Axios. AI is changing how people discover what a company stands for, and reputational storms seem to ignite faster and with far greater consequences. A marketing decision that once would have sparked a debate in a meeting room can now become a political flashpoint within hours. That forces the question of who should really own the brand narrative.

Communication leaders are increasingly being seen as the natural fit. They understand stakeholders. They have a risk mindset. And they are often the ones who know how to navigate the cultural and political sensitivities that shape reputation today.

In other words, this is not just about messaging. It’s about trust, judgment, and the ability to connect what a company says with how it behaves. There is still a need for specialist marketing functions, but for many companies, brand stewardship is shifting toward the people who are closest to reputation.

And in a world where AI can bend or reinterpret a narrative in seconds, bringing communication and brand together under one trusted voice feels less like a structural tweak and more like a survival strategy.

So the bigger question for us is what this means for the future of the communication profession. Are we seeing the emergence of a new kind of leadership role — or simply a correction to reflect the reality that brand and reputation have always belonged together?

Shel Holtz: That’s a very interesting trend, and I don’t disagree with it in general. If you look at the big picture, it does make sense. Public relations is all about reputation; it’s all about maintaining relationships with the various stakeholder audiences.

So, as a communicator, you tend to have a big picture. You understand what the reputation is among investors, among the local communities in which your organization operates, among the media, for example, among your customers.

Marketing is all about driving leads for sales in most industries, and they don’t necessarily have that big picture. So it makes sense. And to bring marketing into the communication fold means that you get the benefits of the things that marketing is exceptional at — and branding is one of those things.

Most communicators aren’t involved in developing the trademarks for the organization and the logos and the like — that tends to be marketing, and for good reason. But to have that within the purview of communications enables that chief communication officer-plus to ensure that what’s coming out of that operation aligns with and is consistent with the things that we know drive the reputation of the organization.

You can find some gotchas maybe in the outputs that they’re developing that they wouldn’t have thought of.

That said, I know in my industry, which is commercial construction, the marketing department is not doing traditional marketing. There’s not a lot of effort to drive leads. The relationships with prospective clients are driven through other means. It’s getting to know people through industry contacts and the like. It’s building those personal relationships with developers and owners and the like.

I’ve just celebrated my eighth anniversary where I work, so I’ve seen this in play for long enough to understand that it’s right and it works very, very well.

In my company, the marketing department is also the steward of the brand, and I am fine with that because I’m mostly doing internal communications. I’m also responsible for PR, as far as it goes — media relations and the like — but I don’t have that relationship with the client base. Not at all. It’s rare that I meet a client. Usually I’ll shake hands at a groundbreaking or something like that if I’m out covering it, but by and large, this is something that the marketing department does.

So I’m inclined to say I agree with this, but it depends. And I think there are probably exceptions, and my industry is probably one of them. I’m part of a group called the Construction Communicators Roundtable — 18 or 20 commercial construction companies represented there — and I get the impression that it is the same with all of them. So this may be an industry-by-industry thing.

I don’t disagree with it, but I do think it depends.

Neville Hobson: “I think it depends” is definitely the start point to the discussion on this, I would say. My thought when I read the article — and the reason I included it in the topics for this episode — was precisely that: it does depend.

I’m not sure it is strictly industry-by-industry, meaning that this industry is entirely this way and this one isn’t. It’s probably a mixture. But there are some compelling reasons, I think, why it makes sense to do this even with the argument you’ve made for not doing it, let’s say.

For instance, one interpretation I have from Axios’s research is that the argument is: brand is no longer just a marketing asset. It’s a reputational construct shaped by every stakeholder interaction. That squarely leans toward understanding the impact on reputation — particularly in that communicators are the ones for that, not the marketing person.

It also speaks to the need for a trusted, politically aware leader. This combined role, according to Axios, is shaped by the reality that brand crises are increasingly political. Organizations want leaders who bring judgment, sensitivity, and crisis literacy. And that, in my view, leans much more into the communication person than the marketing/brand person.

And the one I think that is most interesting is the broader reinvention of the communication function. Sorry, marketing folks — this is about communication. The trend echoes the ongoing elevation of communicators as strategic partners rather than support functions, reinforcing the argument that communication is increasingly a governance role, not just an executional one.

Now, that argument would apply to marketing too, but not in quite the same way. Taking into account all of that — particularly the connection with reputation, the political awareness, and I like this term “crisis literacy,” fair enough, it’s a good way of describing it — this is more likely to fit in the bucket where the communicator sits than the marketing one.

And by the way, I’ve seen a number of people’s job titles — communication and brand. And I saw someone recently on LinkedIn who is a Chief Communication Officer and Director of Brand and Reputation, playing exactly to what Axios’s point is.

So yes, “it depends,” but I think there’s a compelling reason why, if you’ve got to pick one person, it should be the communicator.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and again, I don’t disagree. And still I am untroubled by the fact that marketing owns the brand where I work. And I should clarify: they’re not engaged in traditional marketing. This is not a marketing department like at, say, Procter & Gamble or Coca-Cola. They’re engaged primarily in business development.

So they’re putting together the proposals, they’re responding to the RFPs, they’re preparing the members of the team to go out and be interviewed by the owner or the developer who’s selecting the general contractor. So it is B2B. And, I mean, if they’re not concerned about the organization’s reputation, nobody is.

So this is why I say it depends.

The other point I will make is that even though we are not part of the same reporting structure, we’re pretty well joined at the hip. The VP of Marketing and I talk all the time. He’ll call me into his office to run stuff by me, I’ll run stuff by him. We meet regularly. We have a marketing director right now we are working with incredibly closely to develop a year-long recruiting campaign. We’ve won a ton of work and we need to staff up to support that work.

We’re going to take advantage of her expertise in branding and in marketing to recruits, and we’re going to take advantage of our expertise and the things that we do well. And that collaboration is probably going to produce a much better result than if it had just been one of us or the other of us.

So at the end of the day, I don’t think it matters who has the highest title, as long as everybody’s working together, they’re aligned, and they’re working toward the same goals. So again, I don’t disagree with the sentiment and the underlying foundation of the point that was made in this piece, but I think there are organizations where that is being done without having the communicator necessarily at the top of the food chain.

Neville Hobson: That’s the place where I think the communicator should be — which, of course, plays to the decades-old desire expressed by many in our profession that the communicator needs a seat at the top table.

I guess the concluding point I would say is: anyone listening to this discussion who occupies that joint function and would care to share his or her thinking about all of that — we’d love to hear a comment.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, a seat at the table, yeah.

We would always love to hear comments.

If you feel like AI is sucking all the oxygen out of the room, you’re not wrong. It seems like it was just last week we were talking about blockchain and the metaverse and a slew of other technologies. But while we’ve been fine-tuning prompts and governance, another technology has been quietly moving toward the comms agenda — and that is quantum computing.

The BBC recently framed it as potentially as big, if not bigger, than AI. It’s time to start paying attention to quantum computing and how it matters to communicators.

A quick primer: classical computers process bits, zeros and ones. Quantum computers use quantum bits, known as qubits, which can be zero and one at the same time. That’s called superposition.

If you read the book or watched the Apple TV series Dark Matter — I did, it was really good — you know about superposition, and it has been the foundation of a lot of other science fiction: this idea of being able to be in two places at the same time, quantum superposition.

Two, the zero and one in the same place at the same time can influence each other through something called entanglement — a phenomenon where two or more quantum bits, those qubits, become linked, sharing a single quantum state, so they cannot be described independently even when separated by vast distances.

In some problem classes — chemistry, simulation, optimization, factoring — this enables speed-ups that make the impossible suddenly possible. The machines we have today are still noisy, error-prone. But the security world is acting as if a capable quantum machine will arrive within the planning horizon, which is why standards bodies and platforms are shifting now.

You’ve already seen early signals in consumer tech: post-quantum cryptography, warnings from cybersecurity experts, and quantum-resistant messaging from big platforms. Quantum-resistant messaging uses new encryption algorithms to protect communication from both current and future quantum computers. It’s also called post-quantum cryptography and aims to safeguard data by using mathematical problems that are believed to be difficult for both classical and quantum computers to solve — unlike current algorithms, which can be broken by a powerful enough quantum computer.

In fact, I’m reading a really interesting book right now. It takes place about 150 years in the future, and everything that we today thought was encrypted and nobody would ever see — they’re seeing it all because they have access to quantum computing.

These aren’t just niche issues. They tie directly into how you tell stories, how you prepare for crises, and how you work.

So what does this mean for communicators beyond asking IT if we’re on top of it? I’m going to run through three buckets, and then we’ll tie in how quantum and AI overlap, because that’s where things get especially interesting.

First, storytelling and public understanding. Quantum is famously hard to explain, which makes it vulnerable to hype and confusion. Your job is to translate it without overselling it. “Quantum-safe” doesn’t mean “quantum-proof,” for example, and timelines remain uncertain — we don’t know when you’re going to be able to go to your local Best Buy and get a quantum computer.

You’ll want to build narratives now that help your audience support the idea that your organization is looking ahead, not getting caught flat-footed. Use everyday language. Say, “We’re updating encryption today to protect the data of tomorrow.” That works better than “We’re quantum resilient.” You’ll gain credibility when you help people understand what’s changing and why they should care.

Second, this is all about crisis preparedness and trust. If your organization holds long-lived sensitive data — health records, intellectual property, government contracts — then you need a communications plan for cryptographic agility. That means plain-language FAQs explaining why you are updating encryption, updates to stakeholders as you migrate to approved standards, and scenario planning for legacy data exposure.

Quantum computing introduces a new dimension of risk: the idea that what you publish or promise today could be decrypted or exposed years later. In a crisis, you’ll need to be ready to say, “We anticipated this risk, and here’s what we did.” That anticipatory positioning goes a long way toward preserving trust.

Third, it’s about how communicators can use quantum — and quantum plus artificial intelligence — in our work. Eventually, you’ll have new tools. For example, quantum computing may be able to provide far more advanced modeling of message flows, audience networks, and sentiment behavior, letting you identify optimal outreach paths or refine campaigns under dynamic conditions.

You could simulate scenarios in complex environments more quickly, refining your messages in a what-if matrix classical tools can’t easily handle. These scenarios might include things like stakeholder cascade effects, social media virality, and supply chain disruption.

And as quantum key distribution and quantum-resistant encryption mature, you’ll be in a position to tell audiences, “Our channels use the latest quantum-secure messaging,” which becomes a differentiator from your competitors.

Then there’s the overlap with AI. Quantum computing will amplify AI’s capabilities, helping it crunch deeper patterns faster and handle volumes of data plus complexity that classical systems struggle with. For communicators, that means the analytics layer you rely on — for sentiment, for influence mapping, for risk modeling — will evolve.

AI plus quantum means faster insights, more complex scenario modeling, and new ways to anticipate issues before they explode. So when you describe your comms strategy, you might say, “We use advanced modeling powered by AI today, and we’re tracking quantum-enabled tools so we’re positioned for the next wave.”

The fact is, quantum isn’t just a side story to AI — it’ll reshape AI. Research indicates that quantum computing and AI together massively increase computational speed and breadth of analysis. For example, quantum can remove some of the bottlenecks in data size, complexity, and simulation time that limit today’s AI systems.

For you as a communicator, that means three practical things.

First, what you pitch as “AI-enabled” today will evolve into “AI-plus-quantum-enabled,” and part of the story you tell stakeholders is, “We’re future-proofing so we don’t fall behind.”

Second, monitoring of reputational risk must extend to both AI misuse and quantum misuse — encryption break, advanced surveillance, things like that. The combination raises the bar for your “what could go wrong” list.

And third, your metrics and narrative signals will shift. When AI and quantum intersect, you’ll need to help people understand not just faster insights, but insights from a new class of computing. That means simplified metaphors and careful framing. The message no longer just flows faster — the infrastructure itself is changing. If AI rewrote the message, quantum will test the envelope it travels in.

You don’t need to wait until quantum has fully arrived. You need to start telling that story now. You need to show that your organization is looking ahead, educating stakeholders, and building trust today so that when the change arrives, you’re not scrambling.

Neville Hobson: Well, that’s heavy stuff, Shel.

It’s interesting how Zoe Kleinman, the BBC journalist who wrote this piece, started her article. She says, “You can either explain quantum accurately or in a way that people understand, but you can’t do both.” So I think this is very much in the “accurately” bucket, this discussion.

Shel Holtz: Isn’t it, though? I strive for accuracy.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, and she notes as well, it’s a fiendishly difficult concept to get your head around. I couldn’t agree more. I’ve tried to thoroughly understand this — and maybe I should get rid of the word “thoroughly” because I can’t thoroughly understand it. I need to understand the bits that matter.

So to me, on the one hand I’m thinking, “Fine, this has not arrived yet,” but your point about “get prepared” is a valid one. Although I wonder how many people are going to say, “Well, it hasn’t arrived yet, so what are we going to do? How am I going to do this?” That’s where communicators come in, by the way.

But I think she gives a great example that you really can grasp. Talking about how quantum computers could one day effortlessly churn through endless combinations of molecules to come up with new drugs and medications — a process that currently takes years and years using classical computers.

She says to give you an idea of the scale, in December 2024 Google unveiled a new quantum chip called Willow, which it claimed could take five minutes to solve a problem that would currently take the world’s fastest supercomputers 10 septillion years to complete — that’s 10 with 24 zeros after it.

I mean, just thinking about the number, you cannot imagine how long that would be. The sun would probably have died before it gets to it. This would do it in five minutes.

So it then talks about what it paves the way for — personalized medication, all that kind of stuff.

I don’t think we’re at the stage yet where you could equate this to, “Okay, in your average business, all the business processes they do will be materially impacted by this in a very powerful way.” We’re not there yet, because you can’t explain it like that, I don’t think — hence these very big-picture examples.

Everything I read about quantum talks about this: personalized medication, chemical processing, quantum sensors to measure things incredibly precisely. That’s all coming. It’s not here yet.

So it’s interesting. The examples they give are all wonderful, I have to say, but the mind boggles. My mind certainly does, when you look at so much information on this that you wonder: what on earth are you going to pay attention to in order to get a handle on how it’s going to affect my industry, my company, my job, how we live, my family — all these things? No one’s got that yet, and that’s probably what people want to know — but you can’t yet.

Shel Holtz: No, but it’s close enough that we need to start preparing for it and we need to start communicating about it, especially if you’re in an industry that is computing-intensive in its work. And I’m not talking about customer relationship databases and things like that; I mean in your R&D, for example. And certainly the cryptographic implications are severe on the risk side.

So being ready for that now, rather than scrambling to get ready once it’s actually here, is, I think, an imperative.

You do need to be a physicist or physics-adjacent to really understand this. But I’ll be honest: science has never been my thing. Science and math were my worst subjects in school. The humanities were where I rocked. And I struggle understanding the zeros and ones in fundamental computing — the opening of the gates and all that.

But you know what? I don’t need to know how my carburetor works in order to drive my car. The fact is that these tools are coming, and understanding how they work or not, people are going to be able to use them.

And as I say, it’s close enough. It’s probably within the next 10 years that companies are going to be able to buy quantum compute time, if not buy a quantum computer, that we really need to start thinking about it. We really need to start preparing for it, especially from a security standpoint.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I get that. I think, though, that people — communicators, this is our area of interest and focus — would need to know: how are we going to do all this when so much of it is theory?

They’re talking about — I’m just looking at the piece here that goes into detail about how to break current forms of public key encryption. Hot topic: security of information. It says here it’s awaiting a truly operational quantum computer. That’s years away. But as the article notes, quoting a cybersecurity expert, “The threat is so high that it’s assumed everyone needs to introduce quantum-resistant encryption right now.” That’s not the case. So there’s probably a lot of hype.

Although it mentions earlier — and I think you might have mentioned — that there’s even more hype about AI. So this was the king of hype before AI emerged.

The prediction I’m reading is that an operational quantum computer could be around the year 2030. So that’s five years away. Okay, in that case, now is the time to get prepared for this, then.

Shel Holtz: That’s pretty fast. And there are operational quantum computers in labs.

Absolutely — there are operational quantum computers in research labs right now. They’re not commercially viable yet, but as you say, the projections run anywhere from five to 15 years. That’s fast; that’s soon.

When we were talking a lot about the metaverse, we were saying the fully operational metaverse was 10 years away — you need to start thinking about that now. Same thing here.

Neville Hobson: Did you notice the concluding paragraph? This is actually where it kind of fits in with the current status of alarm and concern from a political point of view about what certain countries are up to — China, which it calls out as an example.

It says the GCHQ — that’s the UK’s intelligence cyber agency — says that it’s credible that almost all UK citizens will have had data compromised in state-sponsored cyber attacks carried out by China, with that data stockpiled for a time when it can be decrypted and studied, and that you need a quantum computer for that.

For instance, the economic headline in the UK right now — the cause of the kind of unexpected dip in GDP — is caused specifically by the cyberattack on Jaguar Land Rover, the automaker. That cost nearly two billion in losses because of the cyberattack that compromised them and their supply chain.

So this brings it home to you: what are they doing with the data? They can’t do much with it until they’ve got the computing power to be able to. So these things add to… I’m not sure it really adds to understanding — it adds to confusion, adds to worry, probably.

So it’s helping people organizationally, in this context, understand why we need to be prepared for this. And it needs to be, I think, presented in terms they can more readily grasp and understand than is currently the case for what I’ve seen people talk about in quantum computing.

This is a good article, by the way, and I think Zoe Kleinman did a really good job. I’ve read another article — I think it was from Microsoft — where you truly need to have a degree in advanced physics just to understand the article. These are not designed for your average Joe to grasp. There’s a gap.

Shel Holtz: Absolutely. But I think the role of the communicator here isn’t to help people understand how quantum computing works any more than it is with classical computing. Our job is: what are the benefits and what are the risks? What do we need to prepare for? Where do we need to start building that foundation so that when it arrives, we’re ready and not suffering consequences or falling behind our competitors?

So I think that’s the role of the communicator: to say, “Look, you don’t need to understand how it works. These are the things that it’s going to be able to do, and these are the implications for us and our business and our reputation and our competitiveness.”

Neville Hobson: So I see an opportunity here for someone like Lee LeFever to come up with one of his really cool videos that explains in simple terms what quantum computing is.

Shel Holtz: I’ve got to go find myself a good explainer video — see if there is one out there that does a really great job of it. There probably is. Maybe Lee has, for all I know.

Neville Hobson: So, let’s continue on the theme of a computing topic which is not really connected to it, but it’s a similar theme. We’re going to talk about vibe coding and what it means for communication leaders.

Every so often a piece of technology comes along that seems small on the surface but signals a much bigger shift beneath the surface. Vibe coding is one of those moments.

On paper, it sounds like a technical trend: using AI to build software by simply describing what you want in natural language. No coding, no syntax, no engineering background needed. You just talk, and an AI generates a working prototype. Sounds wonderful.

In early November, it was named Word of the Year by Collins Dictionary. Of course it’s two words, but who’s counting? Anyway, it was chosen to reflect the evolving relationship between language and technology and how AI is making coding more accessible to a wider range of people.

This is not a coding story; it’s a future-of-work, future-of-skills, and future-of-organization story.

What makes this interesting for us is not the code; it’s what happens when anyone in an organization can create digital tools on the fly. A business analyst can build a workflow. Someone in HR can automate a process. A communicator can sketch out an app for an event or a campaign — all without waiting for IT.

Suddenly the boundary between people who solve business problems and people who write software starts to blur.

This has real implications for culture and communication. It empowers people in new ways, but it also introduces new risks. AI-generated code is fast, but it’s not always secure, compliant, or ready for production — or even necessarily working properly.

And as we know, when technology becomes more accessible, organizations need a stronger narrative on how to experiment safely, what the guardrails are, and when creativity gives way to rigor.

There is also a shift in skills. According to Cognizant, in the age of AI the most important capability is moving from problem-solving to problem-finding — being able to frame the right questions, articulate needs clearly, and work collaboratively with both humans and machines. That is a communication skill at its core.

So the story here isn’t about developers being replaced or apps being magically created. It’s about how work changes when AI becomes a conversational partner.

And it raises a bigger question: if every team can now build its own tools, what role do communicators play in shaping culture, governance, and the shared understanding of how organizations innovate? Big questions there, Shel.

Shel Holtz: It is a big question. There are big questions there.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading about vibe coding and listening to a lot of podcasts that talk about it. I have been so excited about it, I’ve been working on a proposal — completely unsolicited, no one at my company knows it’s coming — but it is for a vibe-coding training program for project engineers: the entry-level people on the building side of our industry.

Because right now, if they need something — say a dashboard, an app that creates a dashboard that pulls data in from various sources, or that allows you to plug data in and produce charts and graphs and the like — they have to open a ticket, and IT has to create it if they have the time. They’ll prioritize based on the urgency of the things that they’re working on, and you may not get what you want, and it may take a long time.

Now you can just do it yourself.

So I’m very excited about this, especially given the threat that entry-level jobs around all of the business world are facing from AI. They need to be redefined, because entry-level people have to be part of the mix — how do you develop those who are going to move into higher roles in the organization if they don’t start somewhere?

So it’s a rethinking of what those roles are, and enabling these people to create their own apps is one of them.

But now they would still have to submit that app for approval, because if you don’t have expertise in coding you may have done things that you’re unaware of that can create certain risks or problems, or it may stop working at some point. All types of things could go wrong.

I think vibe coding without any foundation in coding is fine for some very, very simple things. I think the more complex it gets, the more of that foundation you need.

While you were talking, I went and looked at what Christopher S. Penn had to say about it, because I’ve heard him talk about it a number of times both in his writing and in the video podcasting that he does.

He thinks that you do — if you’re going to be doing this in a serious way — need to have an understanding of the software development life cycle.

At a minimum, this is what he says: you have to be able to provide detailed instructions and guardrails to the machine. You have to know what you’re doing to prevent poor results, like a vague code request — it’s like asking an AI to write a fiction novel with little information. That would just result in slop, right? Same with code. You have to give it a precise enough series of prompts to get the output that you want.

You need to know not only when the solutions are right or wrong, but also whether they’re right or wrong in the context of the work.

He says best practices for vibe coding require a structured approach that relies heavily on planning, which maps to the Trust Insights Five P Framework — which is really good, go look it up at trustinsights.ai.

This structured method is essential to vibe-code well and includes steps like: spending three times as much time in planning as in writing the code, creating a detailed product requirements document and a file-by-file work plan, and integrating security requirements and quality checks.

And then, of course, if it doesn’t work right the first time, you can keep iterating — but you should have some understanding of debugging and know somebody who does in order to get it to do exactly what you want.

So I think for very simple stuff, yeah, you can just tell it, “Please create me an app that does X, Y, or Z.” But the more complex it gets, the more of a grounding in coding you’re going to need.

Neville Hobson: So that’s where guardrails and guidance and policies and procedures come into play.

But you know what’s going to happen — we saw it with ChatGPT — is that people are going to get hold of the tools to do this and just go ahead and do stuff themselves. That’s what’s going to happen, with the risks inherent in doing that for everything you’ve outlined.

I look at what I’ve done that I suppose you could call vibe coding. What I did on my websites, which run on Ghost — it’s not like WordPress in that you want a theme that you customize, dead easy, build a child copy and all that. Not with Ghost; you’re into the code.

So I used a combination of tools, including the excellent VS Code tools from Microsoft, but also a tool called Docker — astounding, running on Windows. But my “coding partner” was ChatGPT-5. I prompted it with what I wanted to do, and it wrote the code.

We tested it and nothing fell over, except where there were some things like CSS for styling — some dependencies didn’t work for some reason until it fell over and we went back and fixed it.

I was amazed, constantly, by being able to talk to the chatbot in plain English about what I wanted to achieve, and it then proposed how we find the solution to doing that, and then it wrote the code.

I couldn’t do that because I don’t know the code. I would have had to hire a developer or, if I were doing this properly in an organization, file a ticket to get support. I did this myself over a weekend, and I’m still truly amazed. It was an offline copy — all working, everything worked. We packaged it, uploaded it to the Ghost server, enabled it, and the live site just worked. All the changes were perfect; nothing was wrong by that point.

Now, that’s not necessarily the same as building a website for an event, or an app for an event. That would be interesting to see how that would work. So there are levels to all of this.

I think it’s finding the balance between: you have to follow these rigid guidelines if you want to build X for your role in the company, or you want to do something like a website or an app, where the guidelines are not so rigid — they’re still guidelines.

This is designed for a world where content creation and data analysis are becoming everyday skills, as is software creation. Yet I don’t disagree with your take on training at all, nor with what you quoted Chris Penn saying — they make complete sense to me.

But the reality, particularly in enterprise organizations and even more so in small- to medium-sized businesses, is: you’re just going to give it a go and see what happens. Risks and all.

Shel Holtz: Sure. Regardless of whether you’re trying to do something very simple, where you don’t need an understanding of the software development life cycle — you can just tell the AI, “Write me this app,” and if it’s simple enough you’re probably going to get something serviceable — or something more complex.

For the more complex stuff, you need to have a deeper understanding of the output you want, and you have to spend a lot of time planning so that you can give it the right information. It’s not that you sit back in your chair and say, “I think A, B, and C.”

You can work with the AI to develop that stuff, of course, but one thing I do at the end of virtually every prompt — not the really simple stuff like “How many Oscars did somebody win,” but the more complex prompts — is add, “Ask me questions one at a time that you need answered before you give me your answer.” Because it’s going to think of things that I haven’t thought of.

So yeah, I think my point is that whether you’re doing something simple that doesn’t require a lot of upfront work or you’re doing something more complex that does require a lot of upfront work, this is going to speed up the development of software immeasurably and have a big impact on how this gets done and by whom. That represents significant change in the current structures in organizations, I would say.

Neville Hobson: You’ve got it. So this is worth paying attention to as well. Get used to the phrase “vibe coding,” I would say.

Dan York:  Greeting Shel and Neville and our listeners all around the worl. This is Dan York coming at you today from Los Angeles, California, where I have been attending an event by an organization called the Marconi Society that has been looking at internet resilience. Basically, how do we keep the internet functioning, uh, in the light of disruptions and things of various different forms?

Great conversations. Great, uh, thinking. I look forward to talking a bit more about it in the future when there’s some things that are useful to share with our listeners, but in the meantime, I wanna talk about chat. Specifically two different platforms. But first, if you’ve been paying attention for a while, you know the chat systems like WhatsApp, iMessage, uh, telegram, signal, whatever.

They’re all their own thing. You can only chat with people in there. Well, in the European Union, the EU passed something that’s called the Digital Markets Act, or DMA that required. Chat systems that operate in the EU to roll out, to have third party integration in some way that you, that other chat systems could interoperate with that.

So we’re starting to see a bit of what this could be with the announcement from Meta that they will very soon be launching third party integration between WhatsApp in Europe with two other messaging systems called Birdie Chat and hiit. Now, if you haven’t heard of them. Neither have I and neither did the writer of the Verge who was putting this together.

But the point, the point is they’re trying to make it so that chat systems could interoperate. We’ll have to see what this means. The important part to me. Was that WhatsApp is actually doing this to ensure that the end-to-end encryption continues to work, that your data can’t be seen by other people when you’re using the messaging system, which for me is critical for the privacy and security of any kind of conversation I’m having.

So that is preserved in the system. So we’ll have to see where that goes. But speaking of end-to-end encryption X, the formerly known as Twitter, which I don’t even use anymore, but I was pleased to see that they are rolling out a new system to replace what we’ve always called dms or direct messages.

They’re rolling out a new system that they call Brilliantly Chat, but it will have video calling. It will also have end-to-end encryption, and it will have other things. It’s coming first. It’s rolling out on iOS and the web, and then it will be coming on to Android, et cetera. So it looks interesting. So there’ll be a new messaging component there.

So for those who are still using X, stay tuned. Your messaging system may be changing around in what you’re looking at, moving to something completely different. Mozilla announced an AI window for Firefox. Uh, there’s been a slate of AI browsers. I think I talked about some last week. There’s last month. I mean, there’s been other different announcements, but this isn’t available yet.

But it appears to be an interesting thing that it would be a, a window that would sort of be separate from your main browsing experience that would allow you to engage with an ai um, assistant basically, while you are. Browsing and stuff. Stay tuned. Again, we’ll have to watch. It’s if you’re a Firefox user, this will be something that you’ll be able to go and work with as you go along.

Another, just switching gears again. WordPress is coming up on its final release for 2025. It’ll be WordPress 6.9. The target delivery date is December 2nd, and it’s got a couple of interesting things. A lot of the release is focused on, uh, a new APIs for developers on performance improvements and things like that, but there’s.

Two interesting parts for people listening to this podcast probably one is that it will be introducing something called notes or block notes that you can be able to add in a similar form to how you might do something with Google Docs, where if you’re editing a doc, you can leave an A note. And be able to go and, and respond to that, reply to it, you know, close it out, whatever else.

This capability is coming into WordPress so that if you’re doing collaborative editing with other people on your team, you would be able to leave notes about this and say, you know, I, I don’t like this text, or whatever, or, you know, that we should really include an image here, and then other people can reply to that and work with it.

This is all visible only within the. Editor interface. So one of the big pushes for WordPress right now is to look at collaboration. And so this is part of that enabling you to be able to work with your team and, and leave notes for each other and be able to work with that and, and use that. So stay tuned.

This is coming out December 2nd with WordPress 6.9. Another interesting piece about in this release. Is the ability to, to very quickly and without a plugin or anything, change the visibility of blocks mostly so that, so that they’re visible in the backend, in the editor, but not out on the front end. And the important part about this is if you’re testing things, if you’re, if you’re working on, on developing a new interface or a new pages and something and you want to try something out, you can get it all ready to go in the editor.

Then you can flip on the visibility, look at it, check it, whatever, flip that off if you don’t want to, or if you’re preparing for a new announcement, you can have all of that ready to go, uh, on a page. And then just toggle the visibility of the blocks. Now, yes, there are other ways you could do this as well inside of WordPress, but this is just a new way that you could work with this in doing that.

So two features I personally find interesting of the upcoming release. The ability to toggle the visibility of blocks and the ability to leave comments if you’re collaborating with other people. Switching to something completely different. Again, if you’ve been listening to me over the years, you know that I’ve been following what’s called low Earth orbit or LEO satellite systems, such as starlink and what they can do out there.

For the last, actually about seven years, one of the other competitors has been Amazon’s, what they’ve called Project Kuper. Now. The, one of the challenges, first of all, is they’ve had issues launching their rockets, but they’re getting there. They’re getting their satellites up, they’re getting ready to offer service.

One challenge has been, people haven’t known how to pronounce it. Is it Kiper Keeper Cooper? What is it? Well, Amazon’s, it was, it was a project name. It wasn’t really meant to be the out there, it was just an internal project name. So they’re solving this by calling it simply Amazon, Leo. That’s what they’re calling it.

Now, what’s I find fascinating is, I mean, first kudos to them. Good to have it. So now we’ll be hearing about SpaceX’s starlink and we’ll be hearing about Amazon. Leo, I find it rather clever because of course people have been talking about satellite systems in leo, which is low earth orbit. It’s a specific range from zero to 2000 kilometers or 1200 miles.

That’s this range, um, above Earth. But now when you talk about LEO systems, you’ll sort of be like, well, are you talking about LEO systems in general or are you talking about Amazon Leo? So. You know, kudos to them for being clever to take that name and, and run with it. So stay tuned, more tech, more things coming out.

With that, they’re gearing up to really launch this service and provide a competitor for starlink. So especially if you’re in an area that has poor internet access, this may be an option at some point soon. Finally. Chat, GPT just announced something, which is that they are making it so that you don’t, it won’t generate m dashes for all those people who work with typography and punctuation who have liked their M dashes.

One thing about chat GPT was that it was putting m dashes in a lot, which are the longer dashes, and it was being a, a signal that something was created by AI or by chat GPT. Well now. You can now turn that off so it’s becomes a little bit harder, but perhaps the people who like using M dashes will be able to start using them again.

We’ll see. That’s all I’ve got for you this month. This is Dan York. You can find more of my audience writing@danyork.me and back to you shall Neville. I look forward to listening to this episode. Bye for now.

Neville Hobson: Thanks a lot, Dan. Great report as always.

There was some stuff in there that was really quite interesting. I think the one I would comment on was your last topic — what ChatGPT has done with the em dash.

Shel and I talked about this in a recent episode, and it is quite extraordinary how people get so exercised and excited about how it “indicates without any shadow of doubt” that an AI wrote something, no matter whether you did or not. There are lots of opinions flying about that.

But the thing you mentioned I found quite interesting, that OpenAI has done this so that you can tell the chatbot not to use an em dash and this time it’ll work.

Well, I started doing that about eight months ago in the custom personalization box. One of the things I’ve told it to do is to avoid using em dashes and instead use en dashes, with a space either side. That certainly goes against all the rules of grammar people talk about in terms of how you should use these things, but I like that. I prefer that.

I don’t like em dashes at all — particularly where they touch the preceding and following words in the sentence. It doesn’t look right to me. Yeah, I know, it’s been like that for centuries, I know all that. But they did that.

So I thought, okay, does that mean my personalization command will actually work properly now? Because sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. I have to keep reminding the chatbot to do this.

What struck me as well is that when OpenAI announced this, both OpenAI and Sam Altman himself, there was no statement about, “Okay, this is what will happen now: if you put an em dash in, it’ll change it to a normal hyphen or an en dash,” or what. No one said anything. And I can’t find anyone with an answer to that question. So that’s still the question: what’s going to happen?

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I’m of mixed mind on the whole dash controversy. I’ve been using dashes as a writer for more than 50 years. I started using them extensively when I was setting type as a part-time gig in college, and a lot of the technical manuals that I was typesetting had dashes in them.

The reason — and I’ve said this before on the show — the reason AI is using dashes is because in all of the stuff on the web that it hoovered up as part of its training model, there were lots and lots of dashes that humans created.

I have no issue with an em dash. I think this whole attack on the dash is absurd, and it’s from people who don’t know punctuation.

On the other hand, I look at a lot of outputs I see from AI — and I’m not talking about stuff I plan to use in publications, just answers to questions or research that I’m going to factor into, say, a proposal — and I see the dashes misused. They’re put in places where commas belong.

So from that perspective, yeah, I’d rather do the placement of the dashes or en dashes myself. I mean, I don’t remember what the rules were, but there used to be rules around when to use an em dash and when to use an en dash, right? I think those have largely fallen by the wayside.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, no, there still are rules — largely ignored by my use completely against those rules.

But I find it’s a very good point you just made, because when I write — and this I find quite interesting — I’ll write a piece of text, say a first draft of an article, and I’ll run it through the chatbot to give me its opinion. And it will often “correct” commas and put en dashes in instead.

And I think: is this an American thing, or is it the kind of bastardization of the English language generally, that things are changing with variants of how people use the language, so it’s hard to know what correct syntax is now?

It doesn’t matter, in my view, as long as people understand what you’re trying to convey. Yet I recognize equally that to many people it is of significant importance. So this is not an argument that’s going to stop anytime soon, I don’t think.

Shel Holtz: No. And the other thing is, along with everything that was contained in the training sets that the models used, so were the rules of grammar and punctuation. So I suspect at some level it’s actually using them correctly, but not the way we use them in current modern English.

And that’s why I will change a lot of them to commas if I’m going to extract something from AI output and use it in a proposal or in a research document.

Neville Hobson: So I suppose people like authors — and others, not just authors, but anyone who feels strongly about using dashes and who uses ChatGPT — I would say to you: put in a custom personalization line that tells the chatbot to use dashes, not take them out.

Shel Holtz: Yes, that’s absolutely right. And especially in technical documents now, because that’s where I saw most of them.

I want to give a shout-out to Robert Rose over at the Content Marketing Institute, among other ventures. This Old Marketing is a great podcast — Robert Rose and Joe Pulizzi. If you’ve never listened to that, I highly recommend it.

Robert has written an article called “Why AI Idea Inflation Is Ruining Thought Leadership and Team Dynamics.” And if you lead a content team, it probably feels less like a think piece and more like a documentary.

His core point is pretty simple: gen AI has made it incredibly easy for senior leaders and subject matter experts to generate ideas for content. Not thoughtful, worked-through concepts — just lots and lots of “We should do something on this”-type ideas. It’s like we turned content strategy into Netflix. There’s always something new in the queue, but more often than not, you don’t feel great about picking any of it.

This isn’t hypothetical. The Content Marketing Institute’s latest B2B content marketing trends report found that 95% of B2B marketers now say their organizations use AI-powered marketing applications. Ninety-five percent — that’s pretty much everyone.

And going back a bit, a previous CMI study found 72% were already using gen AI, but 61% of their organizations had no guidelines for it.

So we have this perfect storm: nearly universal use, very little governance, and leaders with what Robert calls “idea superpowers” that they didn’t earn the hard way.

You’ve probably seen this movie inside your own organization: an executive spends a weekend playing with ChatGPT and asks for “20 provocative points of view we should publish this quarter.” And Monday morning, your content Slack channel lights up with screenshots. None of these ideas are attached to actual budget, resources, or strategy — but because they came from the corner office and because they looked polished, they land on the team like assignments.

Robert’s argument is that this idea inflation doesn’t just create more work; it erodes trust between leaders and content teams. The strategists and writers become order-takers, constantly reacting to an AI-fueled idea fire hose instead of shaping a coherent editorial agenda.

Over time, resentment builds. Leaders feel like, “I keep bringing you ideas and nothing gets done,” while teams feel like, “You keep throwing spaghetti at the wall and calling it thought leadership.”

The data backs up that this isn’t just a workflow annoyance — it’s starting to show up in audience behavior. One study from last year, from Bynder, found that about half of customers say they can spot AI-written content, and more than half say they disengage when they suspect something was generated by AI. We referenced this earlier, Neville.

Another study published this year looked at brands using gen AI for social content and found that overt AI adoption actually led to negative follower reactions unless it was blended carefully with human input.

So the idea treadmill doesn’t just burn out your team; it risks flooding your channels with content that audiences increasingly mistrust.

At the same time, we’re seeing a massive shift on the supply side. Axios, working with Graphite, reported that the share of articles online created by AI jumped from about 5% in 2020 to nearly half — 48% — by mid-2025.

In other words, the content universe is experiencing its own inflation problem: a lot more stuff, not a lot more meaning.

So where does that leave content marketing leaders? Robert’s prescription — and I think this is where communicators really earn their pay — is not “turn the AI off.” It’s to reassert our role as editors of the idea layer, not just the content layer.

That starts with reframing the relationship with your thought leaders. Instead of treating every AI-generated list as a backlog to be cleared, treat it as the raw ore. You sit down and say, “Great, let’s pick one of these and go deep. Which of these ideas would you still fight for if AI hadn’t made it so easy to generate 20 others?”

This is where the leadership part comes in.

The CMI 2026 Trends Report — yes, we’re at the point where we’re looking at 2026 trends — makes the point that the teams who are winning aren’t the ones shouting “AI” the loudest; they’re the ones doubling down on fundamentals like relevance, quality, and team capability, and letting AI breathe more life into those efforts.

In practical terms, what does this mean?

It means putting a simple idea filter in place. If an idea doesn’t align with your documented content mission, target audience, and a defined business goal, it doesn’t make the calendar — no matter how clever the AI prompt was.

It means creating a shared point-of-view backlog where leaders can park AI-assisted concepts, but agreeing that only a small number graduate into actual content every quarter.

And it means being transparent with your team about volume: “We’re going to say no to more ideas faster, so we can say yes to a few that matter.”

There’s also a morale decision here. Other research shows a weird tension: a majority of marketers say AI makes them more productive and even more confident, but a lot of them also fear it could replace parts of their role.

If you’re leading a content team, how you handle idea inflation becomes a signal about your priorities. Are you using AI to respect people’s time and focus on better work — or are you using it to flood them with tasks they can never realistically complete?

And while Robert’s article is squarely aimed at content marketing, I don’t think it stops there. The same dynamics are starting to show up in internal communications, executive comms, even investor relations. Anywhere a leader can spin up “10 talking points for our next town hall” with a prompt, you’re going to see this idea inflation in practice.

If communicators don’t step in to slow that down and curate it, we risk overwhelming every stakeholder group with more, faster, shallower content — and training them to tune us out.

So I read Robert’s piece less as a complaint about AI and more as a leadership challenge. In a world where ideas are cheap and infinite, can you be the person who protects your team, your audience, and your brand from inflation?

Neville Hobson: Yeah, it’s a very good piece. I agree. I’m not sure I like the phrase “idea inflation” — it sounds pretty gimmicky to me, I must admit — but it does capture it quite well.

I found it really interesting reading Robert’s article where he talks about “why AI feeds the engagement crisis.” Now that’s a phrase I can get my head around: engagement crisis.

There are some to-the-point views here which make you think, “Absolutely right.”

For instance, he says when people hear the phrase “employee engagement” they tend to picture enthusiasm — people who are motivated, satisfied, and inspired by their work. But he says employee engagement means more than how people feel about their jobs; it’s also about how much meaning they find in the relationships that shape their work, and AI is causing those relationships to fracture.

“The dynamic between marketing leader and content practitioner, once a creative dialogue, has become transactional. The leader produces ideas, the practitioner packages them.” That’s in line with what you were saying. “Each side feels overextended, underappreciated, and increasingly indifferent.”

And I like how he progresses the thinking here, because you can picture this. “Nobody challenges ideas anymore because nobody loves or hates them enough to care about getting them right.” That’s a hell of an indictment, but I think it’s quite spot-on about some of the behaviors that are happening.

“In that scenario,” he says, “there is no right. When the origin of the idea and the expression of it both come from a machine, neither side can recognize originality or craft when they see it.”

These are alarm bells, to me, that are ringing — that leaders need to really pay attention to.

It’s difficult, though, because it reminds me of two or three cartoons I’ve seen recently on LinkedIn — different, but broadly the same — which show a kind of flowchart of an idea for a press release or an announcement you need to make, and it needs to be this.

So it goes to the next step; then someone says, “Actually, we need to make sure we include that.” Okay, fine, you do that. Then the CEO chimes in with six things he reckons need to be in there as well. And so it goes around all these various steps until you’ve got this bloated thing that gets to the final point in the cycle, with the person at the top of the loop saying, “This is terrible. This is rubbish. This isn’t telling a story. We need to be a lot simpler than this.”

The communicator — by the way, the smart person in this story — had kept the original draft: short, concise, three bullet points. So she submitted that, and everyone said, “Oh, that’s what we need; we’ll approve that.”

To me, that’s a great analogy for this. But someone’s got to recognize the bloat — the inflation of ideas, let’s say — that arises in situations where you’ve got so many people who’ve got their own stakes in the ground and their own agendas they follow.

This isn’t a criticism; it’s a recognition of reality in organizations.

So the communicator in that little story I just told was the smart person here. You’ve got to navigate this sort of thing when it happens. The marketing folks who get dumped on from the corner office — someone at that stage has got to recognize the likely trajectory of all of this and plan accordingly, so that when it gets around to the top of the circuit, they go back to the smarter idea.

It sounds easy saying that, doesn’t it? In reality, it’s not quite like that. Nevertheless, this is a leadership issue. This is not a marketing or content issue — this is a leadership and management issue, it seems to me.

Shel Holtz: It is, and I think it’s an opportunity for communicators to demonstrate some leadership. Because, as Robert says, it’s really easy for an executive over a weekend to get a model to produce 20 ideas for “thought leadership.”

That’s not thought leadership. We’ve talked about thought leadership fairly recently on FIR. This is subject matter expertise that brings new thinking, new angles, sheds new light on the situation. You have a unique perspective to share — that’s thought leadership. It’s generating content that makes people go, “Wow, I hadn’t thought about it that way before; now I’m thinking of it.” You’re leading thinking — that’s what thought leadership is.

I’m not sure that, “Here’s a list of 20 things Gemini came up with for me,” is anywhere near thought leadership unless you see one that you actually have unique perspective and expertise on. And you say, “That’s a great one to talk about.”

If that’s what you’re using AI for, great. But if you’re just copying and pasting that list and sending it to your communications team and saying, “Write these, these are thought leadership pieces,” that’s just going to erode trust in that leader and the organization they represent.

I’ve got no issue with generating lists in AI models — I do it all the time.

On our intranet we have a “Construction Term of the Week,” and I exhausted the list that our engineers sent us, and they’re not inclined to add more. So now I’ll say, “Give me 20 terms related to MEP” — that’s mechanical, electrical, plumbing — and I’ll pick one and that’ll be the term of the week. That saves me a lot of research. It’s a great use of AI, I think.

But if I were to say, “Give me 20 ideas for thought leadership that I can propose to my CEO so we can get a thought leadership article up on LinkedIn,” man, I would never do that. That’s a terrible idea — but evidently, lots of people are.

Neville Hobson: Plenty to think about here. So let’s move on to another topic with plenty to think about.

Question: is it okay to use AI-generated images for LinkedIn profiles?

Over the past few months, we’ve seen AI-generated headshots spreading across LinkedIn. I certainly have. The ultra-polished portraits with perfect lighting, perfect posture, and, in many cases, a slightly uncanny resemblance to the person they represent — these are typical. That description defines most of what I see.

Your first thought when you see it is, “They’re clearly AI-generated,” and you don’t necessarily have a critical take on it, but you note it.

I have to admit, I tried this myself recently — a few months ago, in fact. For a while, my own LinkedIn profile featured an AI-generated photo. It looked professional enough with uncanny realism, but the longer it sat there, the more uncomfortable I felt about it.

It wasn’t quite me. What if people thought it was me and later realized it wasn’t? I hadn’t said it was an AI-generated image created from a selection of actual photos of me. What would the effects be?

Eventually, I removed it and used a real photo.

That personal hesitation is exactly what Anna Lawler explores in a thoughtful LinkedIn article about the ethics of AI headshots. Lawler is Director and Head of Digital and Social Media at Greentarget, a corporate comms agency based in London.

She describes the pressure to have a sharp, executive-style image ready the moment a new role is announced — something many of us will recognize. AI offered her a quick, clean solution. But then came the real question: should she use it?

Her piece gets to the heart of what communicators are wrestling with right now — well, many communicators, I would say.

What does authenticity look like when technology can generate a version of you that is polished and accurate, but still artificial? Does using that image strengthen your professional brand, or does it introduce a small crack in trust?

What if you don’t disclose how the image was created? And does it matter if no one can tell the difference?

Anna’s LinkedIn post attracted many comments about whether to do this. One comment was blunt: “Just no. Not at all. Never.”

Another explored the idea a bit: “You’ve used an AI image of yourself which looks dead like you — so much that your dad couldn’t tell the difference, other than to say you look well. How different is this to putting a filter on a real photo of you? So no major harm done for a personal LinkedIn photo. But what happens when PRs and marketers start doing this on behalf of others?”

Another analyzed the situation: “Most images — portrait or otherwise — are subject to some form of post-production. It is similar to editing a paragraph of text. You take the original content and adapt it to fit the requirements of the medium, ensuring the tone and voice are appropriate. In the case of a photograph, a human may use Photoshop. In the case of text, they can do it in Word or use Grammarly. If the final decision of whether or not to accept the edits lies with the human, does it matter what method was applied to make them?”

If the purpose of a profile photo is to represent who you are, does an AI-enhanced or AI-created version cross a line? Does “close enough” count?

Anna makes a thoughtful distinction between personal use and corporate use — on websites or official materials, where misrepresentation risks are far greater. She also highlights the reputational and ethical factors that communicators must now weigh, because our profile photos are no longer just photos. They signal identity, credibility, and intent.

It raises a bigger question for all of us: as AI becomes more deeply woven into our professional lives, where do we draw the line between convenience and authenticity? And how do we guide our organizations through those decisions when the norms are still being formed?

Now I know you’ve got some views about this, Shel, so what do you think?

Shel Holtz: Hell yeah, I have some views on this.

I’ve stated before on the show and elsewhere that I think the line is around deceit. Are you trying to deceive somebody? And if the use of AI could lead somebody to be deceived, then I think you need to disclose. If not, I don’t think there is any compulsion to disclose.

What if I have a photo of me — and that’s what I use — but I use a service like Canva or Photoshop to remove the background and put in an AI-generated background? Is that okay?

AI is a tool. It’s just a tool.

We use tools for… I mean, we use photos — there was a time when there were no photos available. You had to hire an artist to paint your portrait if you wanted somebody to know what you looked like.

I think the utter prohibition that some people are suggesting on AI images on LinkedIn is, frankly, stupid. I disagree with it wholeheartedly.

My profile picture on LinkedIn is AI-generated. Now, why did I do that?

When I started at Webcor in 2017, there was a professional photographer who was taking everybody’s photo, so your profile photo on the intranet directory was consistent and professional. I used that everywhere for about six and a half years. Then I lost 70 pounds, and frankly, I didn’t look like that anymore.

I didn’t have access to a professional photographer through work, and I didn’t have the time to go sit for a portrait. So I did that thing where — and I didn’t use one of the paid services; I think it was Gemini — I gave it 20 headshots of me looking the way I do now, post-70-pound loss, and I said, “Aggregate these into a professional headshot.”

I had to do it eight or 10 times before I got one that actually looks like me, where you can’t tell the difference. And that’s the one I’m using.

Is it misrepresenting me? No, it’s not. It looks like me, and I am fine with that. I don’t think I’m deceiving anybody. I don’t think I’m pulling the wool over anybody’s eyes. It’s me.

I don’t have any issue with that at all, and I can’t imagine an argument that would convince me otherwise.

Neville Hobson: No, I get you 100% on that, Shel.

In my case, I mentioned I had an AI-generated image as my LinkedIn profile picture, which I removed. There’s now a normal shot; it’s not as good, in my view, as the one I took down.

But that same picture, large size, I’ve got on my About page on my website. And there’s nothing there saying it’s AI-generated. People I’ve shown it to — only about four or five — couldn’t tell the difference that it wasn’t real when I told them it was AI-generated.

So your point about deceit is a very valid one.

If I put a picture of me up there looking slightly thinner maybe, with fewer age-driven gray hairs appearing, and I made myself blond maybe, changed my eye color or something — that’s not me at all. That, to me, would cross the line.

But I also, on the other hand, get entirely the illogic — if I can use that word — of people who are critical about this. But that is part of the platform you’re on, and people will judge you.

Now, I’m of strong belief myself that I really don’t care much about what people think about me in the sense of that, but this can have impacts.

I don’t want to do something that stimulates that kind of discussion or opinion-forming or commenting. And people are doing that a lot.

So to me, it’s simple: this is not a huge deal, to have an AI-generated image up there, when I can just have a normal pic that I take with my webcam and touch it up in Photoshop — which I do. I had one previously where I changed the background because I didn’t like the background.

That happens all the time. That’s not deceit. Nevertheless, there are some things you might want to take a stand on. This isn’t one of them for me — “I’m not going to use it” or “I am going to use it.”

So why have I kept it on my blog, you might ask? That’s part of a simple experiment. No one’s noticed or commented, and it actually fits the way I want to portray myself in the context of what I’ve written about myself on that page.

Shel Holtz: Thematic consistency.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, that’s different from using it on LinkedIn, because that’s a wholly different description on LinkedIn. So I’ll keep it up there until someone screams loud enough, saying, “You’re a fake, you’re deceitful,” which I don’t believe is going to happen.

Shel Holtz: The camera is a tool. A photo of you is not you; it is a representation of you that was captured by the camera. What if the white balance was off? What if the depth of field was off? There are so many things that a camera captures that are inaccurate or inconsistent.

AI is a tool. In five years, no one’s going to be having this discussion. It’s going to be so common, and the outputs are going to be so spot on that this isn’t even going to be an issue.

I just think if people are talking about this, they need to find more fruitful things to spend their time talking about.

Neville Hobson: This is always going to be here, and it depends on how you want to judge it.

But to me, there’s another thought to throw into the mix here, which we’ve touched on previously: this is not just about a photo. It has more about it than just a photo of someone. This is about your identity. This is about your credibility. This is about how others perceive you. That does matter — to varying degrees, depending on the industry you’re in and how you portray yourself and the people you’re connected with.

So it’s a preview, I suppose you could argue, of wider ethical decisions that we must make as AI is embedded everywhere — until it gets to the point, as you say, where no one’s talking about this anymore. We’re not at that point yet.

Shel Holtz: Maybe I’ll take my LinkedIn portrait and have the AI generate it in the style of a Pixar 3D animated movie and see what people say.

Neville Hobson: Well, you used to have a cartoon up there back in the early days.

Shel Holtz: I did. That was a service that would take your photo and turn it into a cartoon, an illustration. It was a service that used freelance artists. They would parcel it out to one of them. It was pretty cheap; you got it back in multiple file formats. It was great.

Neville Hobson: There you go.

I think I can answer my own question about why I’ve kept it on my blog, because the blog serves multiple purposes. It’s no longer a business site — I’ve changed what I do. It’s much more a personal site that’s intermingled with business. That’s different to LinkedIn, which is a social network with a business focus — that’s different. So that’s why I keep it up there, I guess.

Shel Holtz: All right. So if an executive has their photo taken and they have a makeup artist work with them, is that an accurate representation of them? Do they need to disclose that they were wearing makeup for this photo?

Come on. Let’s talk about more serious things, folks.

Neville Hobson: Like I said, logic is not part of this discussion; it’s emotion-driven. This is again a reflection, I think, of accessibility to ways to voice your opinion if you have one — and everyone has one, and they are voicing it.

Shel Holtz: Clearly. Well, let ’em.

Neville Hobson: I say thank you to Anna Lawler because that prompted this. She wrote the piece at the beginning of the year, but it did prompt all of this in my mind. I think it’s worth reading, so there’ll be a link to it in the show notes.

Shel Holtz: Well, I read an article recently with a pretty brutal headline: “Your Staff Thinks Management Is Inefficient. They May Have a Point.” This was in Inc. magazine.

It’s just the latest in a long string of big changes that employees feel are being done to them rather than with them.

The article by Bruce Crumley leans on new data from Eagle Hill’s 2025 Change Management Survey. In the past year, 63% of U.S. workers say that they’ve been through significant change: tech like AI, new products, return-to-office shifts, headcount changes, cost-cutting, cultural changes, acquisitions. But only a third of them think those changes were worth the effort.

A lot of them say their efficiency actually went down, their workload and stress went up, and the supposed innovation never really materialized.

Now, when Eagle Hill digs into the “why” around this, the picture gets even more familiar. Employees say management is picking the wrong priorities, not managing the rollout well, not supporting people as they adapt, and not monitoring how the change actually lands.

Only about a third feel leaders really listen to their input on what needs to change. Forty percent say they’re basically ignored.

The line that jumps out for communicators is Eagle Hill’s conclusion that the key to successful change is not what you change, but how you change — and that change is experienced at the team level, not somewhere on the org chart.

Now, layer AI on top of that. From the employee perspective, there’s a pretty consistent story emerging: they’re interested in AI, but they don’t feel included or supported.

Eagle Hill’s tech and AI research found that 67% of employees aren’t using AI at work yet, but more than half of those non-users actually want to learn about it. At the same time, 41% say their organization isn’t prepared for the rise of AI.

Workday’s global survey paints a similar picture. Only about half of employees say they welcome AI in the workplace, and nearly a quarter aren’t confident their organization will put employee interests ahead of its own when implementing it.

Leaders are more positive about AI than employees are, but they share that same lack of confidence about whether the rollout will be done in a people-first way.

And there’s a trust gap on top of that. Gallup finds only 31% of Americans say they trust businesses to use AI responsibly. Over two-thirds say “not much” or “not at all.”

Let’s make it even spicier. A recent global study from Dayforce found that 87% of executives are using AI at work compared with just 27% of employees. Execs are out ahead, using AI heavily, while a big chunk of the workforce is still on the sidelines — worried, undertrained, or just not invited in.

So if you’re an employee sitting in the middle of all this, what does it look like?

You see leadership trumpeting AI as the future. You get more tools, more dashboards, more “transformations,” as they call it. Your workload goes up during rollout. Your voice doesn’t seem to shape the priorities. And you’re told it’s all about efficiency and innovation while your own day-to-day experience feels more chaotic.

“Management is inefficient” starts to sound like a very reasonable conclusion.

That’s where communicators can earn their keep, especially around AI.

First, we can make the “why” legible. A lot of AI change stories stop at “This is cutting-edge” or “This will make us more efficient.” The Eagle Hill findings are basically a giant flashing sign that says that’s not enough.

We need to tell a story that starts with the team: What pain point is AI solving for you? What are you going to stop doing because this is now available? What does success look like in your specific function, not just on an earnings slide? Helping leaders anchor AI messaging in outcomes people actually care about is step one.

Second, we can bring employees into the design of the change rather than just leaving them on the receiving end. That means building in genuine listening — pulse surveys that ask, “What’s getting harder as we roll this out?” Small-group sessions where teams can talk about how the AI actually fits into their workflow.

Storytelling that highlights not just the shiny pilot, but the tweak that came from frontline feedback. And then — and this is the part we skip so often — closing the loop and saying, “Here’s what you told us, and here’s what changed.”

Same as surveys, right? We issue surveys, we get the feedback, and maybe changes are made — but we don’t tell anyone. If 40% of people feel unheard during change, that loop is our job.

Third, we can equip managers to be translators instead of amplifiers of confusion. Most people don’t experience “the organization”; they experience their manager. So when Eagle Hill says the team should be the core unit of change, that’s a giant invitation to communicators to build manager toolkits around AI.

Simple talk tracks: “Here’s how to explain this change in two minutes.” “Here’s what to say if people are worried about their jobs.” “Here’s how to be honest about the short-term workload bump.”

FAQs, slides, even suggested phrases that sound human instead of legalistic — that’s all in the comms wheelhouse.

Fourth, we can push for pacing that matches reality and help leaders talk about trade-offs. A lot of the resentment in these surveys comes from people feeling like change is something piled on in addition to their regular day jobs.

Eagle Hill’s advice to slow down, phase changes, and temporarily ease workloads isn’t just an HR tactic; it’s a narrative opportunity.

Imagine the difference between: “Here’s another AI tool, please adopt it,” and: “For the next eight weeks, we’re pausing X reports and Y meetings so you have time to learn this new workflow. Here’s the schedule. Here’s where to get help.”

We communicators can frame that pacing as a deliberate, respectful choice.

And finally, we can insist that AI change stories include trust as a first-class citizen, not a footnote. That means naming the concerns, not dancing around them.

Employees are reading headlines about bias, surveillance, job loss. They’re seeing that most people don’t fully trust businesses on AI. We can help leaders say out loud, “Here are the guardrails; here’s what we will use AI for, and here’s what we will not. Here’s how we’ll measure the impact on workload. Here’s how you can challenge a decision if you think AI got it wrong.”

That transparency is the only way to close the trust gap.

If we don’t do any of this, AI just becomes the latest exhibit in the “management is inefficient” file — another transformation employees experience as stress without payoff.

If we do our jobs well, AI can actually become a proof point that this time, the organization learned from the last wave of change — that it listened, it paced itself, it treated teams as the unit of change, and it used communication as a way to share power, not just spin the story.

Neville Hobson: I have to admit, I’m quite shocked to hear the picture you’ve painted there — that it’s so bad. Is it truly that bad?

Because this is actually, to me, like what you just said, particularly your concluding part — this is Leadership 101, for Christ’s sake, and yet so many people aren’t doing this.

Shel Holtz: Well, if the research is accurate, then it really is that bad.

Neville Hobson: What the hell is going on?

This actually touches on everything we’ve said so far in this episode — what leaders need to do in certain situations. Don’t allow it to be like this.

The whole idea of “management” being all up to speed with AI while employees are completely in the dark and don’t have a clue how to use the tools — I find that truly hard to believe as a significant factor across the board.

That doesn’t gel with some other research I’ve seen here in the UK — and mostly in the US — where the issue is getting leaders to embrace it, while employees are out there experimenting, which is why there aren’t guardrails or guidance properly.

So this is a pretty shocking state of affairs, it seems to me, Shel.

Some of the things here are so obvious that I just wonder why people enable this situation to be the norm, if it is as portrayed in this article.

There are a lot of tips though — I have to say everything you need to know about what to do is here. So pick this up and read it, for God’s sake, please.

Shel Holtz: I remember early in my career, I was at a Ragan Communications conference and a CEO was speaking. He said he believes that every CEO, as soon as they sit in the CEO chair, gets hit by a “stupid ray” aimed right at their head — because they stop listening.

They think, “I’m the CEO. I’m here because I know everything, and I can make these decisions in a vacuum. I am at the top of the food chain.”

I think that’s happening right now. If you look at the number of layoffs that are happening, and AI is a factor in these — they’re coming right out and saying it. They’re not hiding it; they’re saying, “AI can make us more efficient.”

They’re not talking to the teams that do the work, to find out, “If we end up with three people instead of 10 because you think AI can do the work, we happen to know that’s not the case, and this is going to make us less efficient.”

There’s not a lot of listening going on in these decisions being made. There’s not a lot of querying of the teams to find out exactly how they can use AI to be more efficient and what that means for the staffing of the team.

I think there are executives who say, “I have this tool, I’m in charge, I’m slashing the workforce.” I think that’s what’s happening. And I think that’s why so many employees think that the leaders are now inefficient.

Neville Hobson: Well, it’s missing completely the voices that — as we’ve discussed in previous episodes, and indeed thinking back to our interview with Paul Tighe from the Vatican — it’s missing the humanity.

It’s missing, “How does AI augment and improve how people do their jobs, not replace them? Not ‘become more efficient, therefore we don’t need so many people here.’” That voice is missing.

To me, that’s the essential part. You could extend that thought: that voice is not just about AI, although that’s a huge element because it is permeating organizations, and in many cases not in a good way, because the conversations are all about becoming more efficient and not needing people. It’s part of that bigger picture.

This article does talk about, in its concluding parts, “Change is experienced collectively, not individually.” That means a team, not the org chart, must be the core unit of change.

They talk prior to that paragraph about how the majority of modern workplaces are shaped by the teams that drive most activity and success. Initiatives come from the top, but success relies on the base embracing them. These are the fundamentals of leadership, surely.

I’ve noticed here — as an aside — that in some of these things you hear about that are going wrong in organizations, the people leading are just damn incompetent. Some of the speeches and things they say in public exhibit nothing but utter incompetence, and they should be fired.

That’s a bigger story, frankly, but it’s part of it. The most useless people leading these organizations are dragging them down, and the employees are the ones who are suffering. I’m straying into big-picture politics and opinions, but nevertheless, that’s what you see.

Shel Holtz: I’ll join you in that string.

It seems clear to me that a lot of leaders are abdicating the principles of leadership to the exuberance they feel about the potential for AI, and they’re just running with it. I don’t think that’s going to bode well for the performance of their organizations, especially when they’ve lost the trust and confidence of the people who are expected to execute on all of this.

Neville Hobson: So on that note, we would say that the next episode will have a lot of good news.

Shel Holtz: I sure hope so.

But that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release. Our next long-form monthly episode — we will return to doing this toward the end of the month. We’re planning on recording that on Saturday, December 27th, and releasing it on Monday, December 29th.

Until then, go back to the beginning of the episode and learn about all the ways that you can comment. And we will have our midweek short episodes beginning in a week or so.

And until then, that will, in fact, be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #489: An Explosion of Thought Leadership Slop appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

For the second year in a row, Coca-Cola turned to artificial intelligence to produce its global holiday campaign. The new ad replaces people with snow scenes, animals, and those iconic red trucks, aiming for warmth through technology. The response? A mix of admiration for the technical feat and criticism for what some called a “soulless,” “nostalgia-free” production.

Shel and Neville break down the ad’s reception and what it tells us about audience expectations, creative integrity, and the communication challenges that come with AI-driven content. Despite Coke’s efforts to industrialize creativity — working with two AI studios, 100 contributors, and more than 70,000 generated clips — the final product sparked as much skepticism as wonder.

The discussion explores:

• Why The Verge called the ad “a sloppy eyesore” — and why Coke went ahead anyway
• The sheer scale and cost of AI production (and why it’s not necessarily cheaper)
• Whether Coke’s campaign is marketing, corporate signaling, or both
• How critics’ reactions reflect discomfort with AI aesthetics in emotional brand spaces
• Lessons for communicators about context, authenticity, and being transparent about “why”

Links from this episode:

• Coke’s AI Ad Isn’t Just Marketing. It’s Corporate Communications.
• Coca-Cola | Holidays Are Coming (YouTube)
• Coca-Cola | Holidays are Coming, Behind the Scenes (YouTube)
• Coca-Cola’s new AI holiday ad is a sloppy eyesore
• Coca-Cola Sparks Backlash With New, Entirely AI-Generated Holiday 2025 Ad, Insists ‘The Genie Is Out of the Bottle, and You’re Not Going to Put It Back In’
• Coca-Cola Is Trying Another AI Holiday Ad. Executives Say This Time Is Different
• What Coca-Cola has learned on its generative AI journey so far
• Coca-Cola’s AI Chief Dishes on Why the Brand Went Ahead With Another AI Holiday Ad
• Hilarious graphic shows how bad the Coca-Cola Christmas ad really is
• Remember kids, without the creative, we just have blank squares. It’s ALL about the CREATIVE.

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, November 17.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Neville Hobson:
Hi everyone, and welcome to For Immediate Release, episode 488. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz:
And I’m Shel Holtz. Coca-Cola is back with a holiday spot created using AI for the second year running, and the blowback is about as big as the media buy.

If last year’s criticism centered on uncanny humans, this year they tried to sidestep that by leaning into animals, snow, and those iconic red trucks. The problem is that a lot of viewers still found the whole thing visually inconsistent and emotionally hollow — more of a tech demo than Christmas magic.

The Verge didn’t mince words, calling it a “sloppy eyesore.”

This wasn’t a lone creative prompting a model in a dark room. According to The Verge, Coke worked with two AI studios — SilverSide and Secret Level — involving roughly 100 contributors. So when people say AI is taking work away from humans, this example complicates that argument. The project generated and refined over 70,000 clips to assemble the final film, with five AI specialists dedicated to wrangling and iterating those shots.

If you think of AI work as cheap and easy, that scale tells a different story. This was massive, industrialized production. Despite all that, audience reaction has been harsh. Delish collected consumer responses labeling the ad “soulless,” “nostalgia-free,” and — my favorite phrase — “intentional rage bait.” In other words, people felt provoked, not moved.

The general sentiment is familiar: “Just bring back the classic trucks or polar bears and let real filmmakers work their craft.” The level of blowback reflects a mainstream discomfort with AI aesthetics invading a beloved ritual.

So why is Coke doing this again? Partly for speed and efficiency, sure — but the more interesting rationale is signaling. As Forbes argues, this isn’t just marketing, it’s corporate communication: a message to investors and partners that Coke is a modern operator experimenting across its value chain. In that sense, the ad is a press release in moving pictures — “We’re innovating.”

Whether consumers cheer or jeer, the signal still gets sent.

For communicators, I see three takeaways.

First, scale doesn’t guarantee soul. You can throw 100 people and 70,000 clips at a film and still end up with something that feels off. Craft and continuity remain stubbornly human problems, and current video models still struggle with temporal consistency and art direction.

Second, context beats novelty. Holiday ads are about rituals and memories. When the urge to adopt AI clashes with audience expectations for warmth and authenticity, “innovative” can come across as “indifferent.” If you’re going to bring AI into sacred brand moments, you need strong creative guardrails — and maybe keep flagship storytelling human-first until the tools catch up.

Third, be explicit about your “why.” If your real audience is Wall Street or prospective partners, say so — ideally without sacrificing the consumer experience. Coke’s narrative of blending human creativity with new tools can work, but only if the end result still feels like Coca-Cola. Otherwise, you’re asking consumers to bankroll your R&D with their attention during the most sentimental time of the year.

These trucks will keep rolling — and so will the debate — until the models solve for continuity and feel. Brands risk trading wonder for workflow, and audiences know the difference.

That said, I watched this ad last night during Monday Night Football. Looking at it through that lens, I didn’t see what the critics were talking about. I suspect most of the audience didn’t either. The vast majority probably aren’t aware it was generated with AI and didn’t see any problem with it. I think the hypercritical responses are mostly from people who are following the AI conversation closely — and maybe looking for an excuse to slam something that wasn’t made by human creators.

Neville, what do you think?

Neville Hobson:
I watched the video on YouTube — both the global version and the one Coca-Cola uploaded for European audiences. Honestly, I couldn’t tell the difference. They’re exactly the same length. Like you, I thought it was well done.

It was pretty clear to me within a few seconds that it was AI-generated — not because it looked AI-generated, but because of the scale and scope. You just know they’d use AI for something like this.

Coke has used this theme for years — the trucks, the snow, the feel-good singing. This time, there aren’t any humans front and center; it’s all animals. But as storytelling, I thought it worked.

That said, I did see some severe critiques, particularly from design industry voices. Creative Bloq, for example, called it an example of “how a company risks decades of hard-won brand equity through the use of nascent tech that’s still not up to the job.” I think that’s a bit unfair and shows a lack of understanding of what Coke was really trying to do.

There’s also a fascinating behind-the-scenes video Coke posted. It’s narrated by AI voices — the same ones from NotebookLM, actually — so it’s an AI explaining an AI. And the prompts they show are incredible: dozens of paragraphs for a single shot. This wasn’t a one-line “make a Christmas ad” job.

That explainer reinforces your Forbes point — this could be as much about corporate signaling as marketing. Personally, I see it more as a brand experiment than a corporate ad, but I can see both perspectives.

And yes, some critics are inevitably Coke detractors. One UK designer, Dino Berberich, posted screenshots showing technical errors — missing truck wheels, misaligned shots, and so on. Maybe Coke fixed those later, maybe not. But if they take that kind of feedback seriously, it’ll be invaluable.

Overall, I think it’s what you’d expect from Coke. Set aside the fact that it’s AI — it’s actually quite good. It continues the “Real Magic” theme they’ve been running for years. I remember one a couple of years ago with paintings in an art gallery coming to life when they got a Coke — also beautifully done.

So this feels like the next step in their evolution. Most viewers won’t realize it’s AI unless they’re already thinking that way. Awareness is growing, but the average person just sees a nice Christmas ad.

Of course, we’re now in a world where people start by asking, “Is this AI?” before saying, “Wow, what a great image.” That mindset can distract from the story — but it’s part of the landscape now. This kind of work will only get better, and Coke is helping to move it forward.

Shel Holtz:
Yeah, I agree. And if you look at Berberich’s LinkedIn post, you can see the issues he points out, but that’s not how most people watch ads. They’re not stopping every frame to analyze wheel placement. They’re watching during a football game or between shows. Most people just see a Coke commercial with some fuzzy bunnies.

One critique I read said the ad couldn’t decide whether it wanted cartoony or semi-realistic animals. I didn’t notice that. If you go in looking to criticize AI, sure, you’ll find something. But again, that’s not most people.

The YouTube comments are full of people saying things like “I’ve never wanted a Pepsi more in my life.” But honestly, nobody’s switching brands because of an ad like this. People drink Coke or Pepsi based on taste, not commercials.

As for Forbes’s point about corporate signaling — I don’t think this was meant as a corporate ad, but rather a way to say, “We’re embracing AI.” And the fact that they released a behind-the-scenes explainer reinforces that. They’re telling the world they’re leaning into this technology, iterating, and getting better at it.

You know, I don’t remember this kind of backlash when animation shifted from hand-drawn to CGI. That shift also displaced artists — the inkers and colorists who worked on traditional cells. This feels like a similar transition.

You still have people giving thought to story, design, and imagery — but the tools have changed. Does it have the same soul as a Pixar film? No. But then, Pixar doesn’t have the same soul as early Disney animation either. Time marches on. Deal with it.

Neville Hobson:
Exactly. And a lot of the negativity is just the nature of online discourse these days. Anything posted publicly attracts critics, trolls, and nitpickers. Among them, there are some valid points, but it’s hard to find them amid the noise.

The explainer video also includes a section showing how Coke evolved its Christmas ads — from sketches to animation to AI-rendered realism. It’s fascinating to see how deliberate that process was. Again, Coke released this publicly, which supports your point: this is about transparency and experimentation.

So yes, critics have a right to their opinions, and some make constructive points. But for most people — what we’d call “Joe Bloggs” here in the UK — it’s just a nice Christmas ad. They’re not thinking about AI strategy.

From real trucks to AI ones, Coke is pushing creative boundaries. Some say they should’ve shot it live and hired more people, but there’s no crime in trying something new. They’re pushing the envelope, and I think they’ve done a pretty good job.

Shel Holtz:
And to reiterate: they did employ people. Two studios, probably dozens of professionals. I doubt they saved much money doing it this way. They’re just moving forward with the technology — and that’s the point.

And that will be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #488: Did a Soda Pop Make AI Slop? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In this episode, Chip and Gini discuss the growing concerns surrounding AI in the agency world. They highlight the irrational fears and cyclical nature of technological disruptions, drawing comparisons to social media and content marketing trends of the past.

The hosts argue against the notion that agencies should discount services due to AI efficiencies, emphasizing that AI should be seen as a tool to enhance productivity and strategic value rather than a cost-cutting measure. They stress that agencies should focus on delivering more value and maintaining regular client communication instead of simply protecting existing revenue.

The discussion also touches on the importance of transparency in AI use without oversharing minute details. Finally, they underscore the benefit of quarterly planning to align agency efforts with client business goals, thus fostering stronger client relationships and ensuring mutual success. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 288: AI myths agencies must avoid appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

What happens when the AI conversation turns from a quiet side road into a crowded superhighway? Recently, Martin Waxman — digital strategist and LinkedIn Learning instructor — pressed pause on the churn to make room for curiosity, quality, and quiet. He’s not quitting; he’s recalibrating: publishing less often, thinking more deeply, and reminding us not to let AI do the thinking we should be doing ourselves.

For communicators, that raises bigger questions: When do we slow down? How do we trade volume for value? And what does “good enough” look like when our audiences are drowning in near-identical insights?

Neville and Shel dive into this topic in today’s short, midweek episode of “For Immediate Release.”

Links from this episode:

• Knowing Where to Start and When to Make a Shift
• What If You Redefined What Work Means to You?

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, November 17.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. Shel has started a metaverse-focused Flipboard magazine. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Shel Holtz:
Hi everybody, and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode number 487. I am Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson:
And I’m Neville Hobson. In this episode, we have a story that’s less about technology itself and more about what happens when you pause to think about the pace of it all. A few days ago, Martin Waxman published a reflective piece on LinkedIn called “Knowing Where to Start and When to Make a Shift.” Martin, as many of you will know, is a Canadian digital strategy consultant and LinkedIn Learning instructor. He was our guest in an FIR interview in January. Martin writes the AI and Digital Marketing Trends newsletter, which has become one of LinkedIn’s most successful, now reaching well over half a million subscribers. It began humbly in 2020 when Martin set out to explore the intersection of AI and marketing at a time when few others were doing so. His goal was to reach maybe 10,000 readers—he’s now 50 times past that. But this isn’t a story of relentless growth or scaling up. It’s the opposite. We’ll explore this next.

Martin’s post isn’t a farewell—it’s an adjustment. After years of writing about AI’s impact, he’s decided to slow the pace of his newsletter and make space for deeper thinking. In his words, the AI conversation has moved from a path less followed to a crowded superhighway. Everyone seems to be writing about the same things and the constant noise can be exhausting. So he’s taking stock, reevaluating his direction, reshaping his LinkedIn Learning course, and thinking about how to bring a fresh human perspective to the next stage of this conversation. There’s a generosity and humility in that move that feels rare today. He talks about resisting the temptation to let AI do the thinking for us—stop relying on AI as a crutch, embrace the blank page, don’t give up on your brain. He’s reminding us that creativity and discernment still start with people, not prompts. And he’s choosing to slow down—to step back from the rapid churn of publishing and make room for curiosity, quality, and quiet.

That theme of slowing down connects powerfully with a discussion I led in September in an IABC webinar on redefining what work means. The answer may not be doing more or moving faster, but taking the time to notice, reflect, and realign what we do with what really matters. Martin’s story feels like a practical expression of that—an intentional deceleration that invites us to think more deeply about purpose and pace in our professional lives. As we unpack his post today, perhaps the real question isn’t just about how communicators keep up with AI. It’s about how we decide when to slow down, how to add meaning amid abundance, and what to let go of so our work and our thinking can stay human. With everyone producing AI-related content, Martin’s pivot reflects a move from volume to value. How can communicators preserve credibility and originality when audiences are saturated with near-identical insights? Martin’s post isn’t just about pausing; it’s about reclaiming agency in how we learn, create, and lead with AI. It invites communicators to redefine productivity, not by the speed of output, but by the depth of thought.

Shel Holtz:
I was very taken with Martin’s post and I’m very happy for him that he has come to terms with this and made decisions that will make him happier. It’s not for me, however. I see this notion of slowing down in two ways. One is slowing down so you can take the time to produce quality output. I confess that I use AI to write things I don’t want to take the time to do. They’re not important enough that I need to be the author; they’re fairly rote. I give notes to AI, it cranks out a serviceable first draft, and I take 20–40 minutes to edit and revise rather than spending two or three hours. Nobody has ever questioned the provenance of these pieces. In fact, I’ve gotten praise for some of them, which makes me chuckle. I do this so I can appreciate the blank page and write the things where it’s important that it be me at the keyboard, in my voice.

The other way to look at this is simply slowing down in life. I appreciate people who want and need to do that—and especially people who find a way to accommodate that need. I want to go faster myself; I want more hours in the day to get more done. If I’m not being productive, I feel at loose ends and anxious, wondering what I can be doing now. Just this weekend, after a sleepless night, I wandered into the garage, noticed a box out of place, and the next thing I knew I’d been straightening the garage for an hour. That’s my personality: I have to be doing something almost all the time. So I think you have to look at what’s right for you. Don’t feel pressured to slow down if that’s not going to make you happy.

Martin’s prescription is a good one for people who are overloaded and overwhelmed, and I understand his interest in dialing back commentary on AI when so many are producing similar content. He has a unique perspective—he’s a thought leader and tends to be ahead of the curve—so I’d continue to pay attention to him. But scroll through LinkedIn and two-thirds of the posts seem to be about some angle on AI.

Neville Hobson:
I understand you, Shel. I’ve known you a long time, so I know that anxiousness about not doing stuff. I was like that. Each person is different; this applies to individuals, not a universal formula. The starting point is wanting to change—professionally, personally, or both. I went through that after moving a year ago to a rural part of southwest England from a busy urban area. That change catalyzed others, which is why Martin’s post resonated so strongly with me.

Now I take more time deciding what I need and want to do—not everything must be done right now. I still work late sometimes, but only when I feel like it, not every day. I’ve also been able to make changes and still pay the bills. I spend more time with my grandkids and my wife, take days off in the work week, and sometimes work on Sunday—with purpose. Going back to the IABC webinar on redesigning your work and life, doing things such as what Martin described fits into that bucket. We ran a quick poll at the start: “How aligned do you feel with your current work?” A third (33%) said, “I feel aligned—my work reflects my values and energy.” Sixty percent said, “I’m actively rethinking how and why I work.” Another 7% felt stuck or disconnected from what matters. So only a third felt aligned; nearly two-thirds are rethinking how and why they work, and some feel completely disconnected. In the chat, people said they now feel the need to question things they hadn’t been questioning—and that they aren’t happy.

Not everyone has the luxury to change, but there are things you can control. This isn’t a whole-life overhaul. It can be incremental—small steps. What Martin’s doing, as I interpret his post, is a small-step pivot in how he publishes his newsletter and updates his LinkedIn courses. He says he’s slowing his publishing frequency from twice a month to a less regular schedule—perhaps monthly or whenever something genuinely strikes him. Most comments I’ve seen are supportive.

He offers useful tips. “Stop relying on AI as a crutch” is a good one—don’t use it for the easy way out; use it to push you in unexpected directions. Embrace the blank page. For me, starting and stopping, taking a walk, doing something else often unlocks progress. Another tip I liked: aim for higher quality than before. Do less, take more time, and produce better work. That makes sense—rushing often reduces quality. Of course, that assumes you can do it.

Shel Holtz:
We’ve got deadlines out here in the real world, you know?

Neville Hobson:
You do, and you’ll still have them. But not everything has to be dropped immediately. This gives you empowerment to choose: that report due in ten days doesn’t have to be mapped out right now unless you want or need to. The key is deciding what you want to do about your life—and measuring it in a quantifiable way if that helps. Martin seems to have made an honest assessment of where he’s at, prompting further thoughts for his training and writing. Do you think this represents the visible front end of a trend among communicators choosing depth over frequency—slowing down to produce better quality work? I’m not sure I see it broadly, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s behind what some people are doing.

Shel Holtz:
You could connect this treatise with what we’re seeing from employees pushing back on full-time return to the office and preferring hybrid schedules. People want to be with their kids, care for elderly parents, or simply avoid traffic—as I did this morning behind a gnarly accident, hence our late recording. People are reevaluating how they work, and organizations will have to come to terms with it. Look at Glassdoor reviews and a common complaint is being worked to death—long hours and expectations that you’ll put in the time.

There’s another way to interpret this. Martin was on a panel I moderated at an IABC World Conference in Toronto a couple of years ago on AI. Someone asked about using AI to write—is that acceptable? Martin said most of what we do in communications just has to be “good enough.” If AI writes “good enough,” why is that a problem if it frees up time for other work?

The way I choose to interpret Martin’s post is: I don’t have to slow down across the board. I can slow down one thing to make time for another. Example: there are two of us in the communications department where I work, and we were swamped. As people learned what we could do, requests multiplied. Juggling them without letting anything fall through the cracks became hard. My boss suggested two things. First, open a ticket system. We use ServiceNow, so now anyone who calls with a request is asked to open a ticket. We can better manage work, keep notes on what’s been done, questions asked, and promises made. Second, we had to learn to say no. If we want more resources, start saying no more often.

We have—“Sorry, we don’t have time for that. It’s important to you, but it doesn’t rise to a top priority for our department based on leadership expectations.” Saying no frees time. Does that time fill up? Yes—but it fills with higher-priority, more interesting, more relevant work. So slowing down doesn’t necessarily mean slowing down overall. It means slowing one thing to make time for another—maybe more time with family. In my case, it’s more time on the work that matters and less on the work that doesn’t. There are multiple ways to interpret and apply what Martin has presented.

Neville Hobson:
I agree, Shel. To repeat your point, each of us is different. On saying no, I learned that too and put it into practice this year by turning down opportunities for paid work because they weren’t the right fit or interesting enough. I felt great. Instead, I learned, read, wrote blog posts—things I wouldn’t have had time for. I saw my grandkids more; my wife and I went out to lunch and visited places. I sleep well now without the worries and stress. I do miss some things, but the balance now outweighs any of that by a big margin.

Martin looks ahead and wonders what comes next once we’ve mastered the tools. When AI becomes mundane and the question shifts to meaning and impact, what might the next conversation look like? He asks how communicators can lead the dialogue on quality, ethics, and human contribution in a world where automation is taken for granted. That’s at the heart of much of what we’ve been discussing—and what I want to keep exploring. What do we say when automation is taken for granted? What are your thoughts?

Shel Holtz:
I think it’s consistent with the old Melbourne Mandate from the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management. It positioned communication at the center of the organization as, more or less, the conscience of the company. What the conscience focuses on varies with circumstances, but maintaining humanity in the organization fits that model well. We need to present leadership with data supporting the need to do that, along with ideas for how to do it without losing momentum. It fits squarely with that notion.

Neville Hobson:
We’ve shared some good thoughts here, Shel, and I’m curious what our listeners think. If anyone has a perspective—agreement or disagreement—let us know.

Shel Holtz:
You know where to reach us. That’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #487: Beyond the Churn — Slower Publishing, Deeper Thinking, Better Outcomes appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In this episode, inspired by a newsletter from David C. Baker, Chip and Gini discuss the authentic motivations and realities behind agency mission statements and values. They emphasize that many agencies publish values that are either not reflective of their true operations or are overly broad and similar to others.

The hosts stress the importance of being honest about the core purpose of a business and aligning public statements with actual behavior. They argue that values should stem from the owner’s true beliefs and actions rather than aspirational ideals.

They also caution against spending too much time wordsmithing values for marketing purposes, as clients are more interested in results. The conversation touches on the impact of leadership behavior on agency culture and the pitfalls of misrepresenting agency values. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 287: Do agency mission and values statements matter? And is yours even accurate? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

In this episode, Chip and Gini discuss a Reddit post about an agency leader going MIA and the repercussions for the team. They elaborate on the importance of communication, perception, and flexibility for agency owners.

The conversation includes personal anecdotes from both hosts, highlighting the need for frequent touchpoints, setting clear expectations, and maintaining a balance between taking personal time and being present for the team. They also stress the significance of transparency during challenging times and the benefits of empowering employees to reduce bottlenecks. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 286: Are you ghosting your own agency? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

View Details

Sentiment analysis has become a default metric for communicators. If sentiment is positive, trust must be high. But if your company’s words are diverging from its actions, trust could be eroding while sentiment remains constant. You won’t know until it’s too late. The new metric to consider is “trust velocity.” Neville and Shel unpack it in this monthly long-form episode for October 2025. Also in this episode:

• Is rage bait a valid marketing tactic?
• Lloyd Bank’s CEO and executive team are learning AI to reimagine the future of banking with generative AI
• A McKinsey report recommends that public affairs teams begin to factor geopolitical issues into their thinking
• When conduct, culture, and context collide: Three crisis case studies reviewed
• German firm launches ad campaign after its lift is used in the Louvre heist

In his Tech Report, Dan York reports on AI browsers and Mastodon’s approach to BlueSky-like starter packs, but in a consent-based manner.

Links from this episode:

• How thirst traps and rage bait affect workers on the clock
• Lloyds to put chief executive and all top bosses through six-month AI course
• Lloyds Banking Group's CEO and top bosses learn AI | Geoff Kates posted on the topic
• Lloyds Bank AI training course criticized as outdated and unnecessary
• Lloyds Banking Group scales adoption of Microsoft 365 Copilot to supercharge their AI transformation
• Upgrading corporate affairs for a new geopolitical era
• Q3 Crisis Review: When Conduct, Culture, and Context Collide
• FIR #483: How Tylenol Handled a High-Profile Falsehood
• AI Models Measuring ‘Trust Velocity’
• AI and Reputation: Trust Data You Can Use
• ‘Quiet as a whisper’: German firm launches ad campaign after lift used in Louvre heist
• Louvre heist lift-maker seizes the moment with new ad campaign
• German Company Launches Viral Ad Campaign For Lift Used in Louvre Heist: ‘Quiet as a Whisper’

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, October 27.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. Shel has started a metaverse-focused Flipboard magazine. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Neville Hobson: Hi everybody and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 486, the long-form episode, the monthly ones we do for October 2025. I’m Neville Hobson in the UK.

Shel Holtz: I’m Shel Holtz in the U.S. and we have a jam-packed episode for you today. So we’re going to jump right into it. Before we get into anything substantive though, I do want to ask that if you have any comments to share with us, and we always hope that you do, we have a number of comments to share with you today, please leave them on LinkedIn, where we share our posts, on Facebook, where we share our posts. You could even do this on threads or what’s, not WhatsApp, Blue Sky. That’s the one, Blue Sky. Yeah. You can send email to fircomments at gmail.com, attach an audio file. We haven’t had one of those in forever. You can record those audio files on our website at firpodcastnetwork.com. And you can always leave your comments right there on the show posts at firpodcastnetwork.com.

Neville Hobson: Blue sky.

Shel Holtz: And we do appreciate your ratings and reviews as well. So let’s get started with the rundown of our episodes from the last monthly episode in September till now. Before we do that, though, we had a couple of comments come in for some earlier episodes. You know, I was thinking, geez, these aren’t the episodes that we did between the last monthly and now. Then it occurred to me that, it’s a podcast. People can listen whenever they want. And apparently that’s what Sally Getch did. She said, yes, I am months behind listening to episodes, but I can’t believe no one mentioned the public library website is a way to get around paywalls. Contra Costa County Library gives you access to a ton of newspapers and magazines. So if you’re trying to get around a paywall, check out your local library’s website. They may provide access to that. And I have to confess, not something that occurred to me. Then episode 478, we have a comment from Steve Davis in Australia. Steve Davis says, Hi, Shel and Neville. I haven’t heard the term AI doomer before, and I don’t know if it’s right for me or not. We’ve been integrating AI tools for about two years in our practice, but we’re very focused on integrating them in a nuanced way. Maintaining the primacy of the human aspect of our creative and marketing business is key, and it’s what brings a lot of value.

Neville Hobson: Me neither.

Shel Holtz: AI tools and particularly large language models helped me do some grunt work in pulling some of our ideas together, but always on a short leash. Because of the name of our business, we have a great affinity with Oscar Wilde. There’s only one thing worse than being talked about, and that’s not being talked about. So I start every workshop with one of his quotes. However, at a recent one using AI in a thoughtful way, I actually wrote a song for Oscar to sing. You’re welcome to use any or all of this if it helps illustrate an approach to thinking about our charming little robots. I have a couple of thoughts on this before I go to his comment on episode 479. The first is, well, thank you for that little ditty, Steve. And rather than the usual music we use to play out the episode, we’ll play that and we will include a link to your musical channel on YouTube in the show notes. But in terms of P, the Doomer, these are the people who believe that AI is going to end humanity. And P-Doom is the percentage of risk that you think there is around the potential for AI to end the world. And in AI circles, they tend to ask each other, what’s your P-Doom? And everybody knows what that means. Oh, 70%, right? So. That’s what that means. I don’t necessarily subscribe to this concept, although I did listen to a podcast with a guy who’s been working in AI since the 1990s. And he has come around to actually believing very strongly that this is a likely scenario. So it’s always something worth considering.

Neville Hobson: It’s totally new to me. I’ve not heard of that term before.

Shel Holtz: It may be an American term that we bandy around here, although I hear it on podcasts all the time and you can listen to those anywhere, right? For episode 479, Steve writes, hi guys, I’m not sure you get these emails. And that’s because I only check our email once a month before this episode. We don’t do comments during our short form midweek episodes. So Steve, that’s why you didn’t hear us reference it, but.

Neville Hobson: That’s true. You

Shel Holtz: Do appreciate these. says, I’ve just been listening to episode 479 and the noble idea of creating a community site to get authentic content and attract LLMs. The problem is that increasingly people are contributing AI generated content into these places in lieu of actually writing content themselves. LinkedIn has basically become a cesspool. I hold little hope for new communities to thrive unless there is some mindset shift or mechanism to ensure what’s being shared is being communicated directly by humans. If not, these community projects will become yet another source of plastic information. That’s probably not as harsh a reading of the situation as the Oscar Wilde song I sent you last week, but it shares some common ground. And to that, I would only say, I guess your experience on LinkedIn is based on who you follow, because most of the people I follow are definitely still writing their own content, and I’m able to speed through anything that looks disingenuous or as you say, Steve, plastic. But I also think that those communities in some regard are alternatives to being found in search engines. Building the community and having those people engage in conversation I think may find its way into LLMs, but it’s also an alternative for getting your content out to people as opposed to having them go to the 10 blue links on the first Google search engine results page. Just a thought.

Neville Hobson: make sense? Totally. No great comments, Steve and the the song really super I must I enjoyed listening to that good voice singing that’s really super. So let’s look at the few episodes that we’ve done since the last monthly. That was episode 482 we published it on the 29th of September. The lead story in that like all our long form episodes. This has six topics. That’s why they they take long. The lead story in this one, though, was talking about work slop. So it’s kind of like AI slop except in the workplace. So it’s the latest term referring to low quality AI generated content in the workplace that looks professional but lacks real substance. So we explored the sources of this, how big a problem it really is, and what can be done to overcome it. A couple of other topics in that episode, notable to mention, Chris Hewer is at work on a manifesto for the H Corporation. And he had an online session, which I participated in, of people interested in this, which is, in a sense, making organizations human centered. It needs a lengthier narrative to go along with that to help you understand what it is. But he covered that in what we commented on, which was a summary, lengthy summary in a post on the recent online discussion leading up to talking about the H Corporation. So it’s definitely worth listening to that. And then one other.

Shel Holtz: Well, we have a comment actually from… I’m sorry, I’ll make a time code. I thought you were moving on to the next episode and we have a Chris Hewer comment.

Neville Hobson: Okay? Okay? No, no, I was going to mention one of the other topics we talked about. That’s okay. That’s okay. You can have to do a bit of tricking editing here because I’ll just go straight into mention. Okay. And one other topic we talked about, which we’ve talked about a few times on the podcast, communicators everywhere continue to predict the demise of the humble press release. But one PR leader has had a very different experience with that intriguing snippet, you can dive in and take a listen to that. So that was 482.

Shel Holtz: And we had a comment from Chris Hewer, in fact, thanking us for adding so much incredible value to the conversation on H Corp Manifesto. I am truly honored to have had your friendship and support now for almost 20 years, but in this big moment, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Particularly important in our efforts to define the human-centric organization is a point you raised that I hadn’t properly considered. The role of communicators in all this is to ensure that the attention of leadership and stakeholders is placed beyond the short-term efficiency gains and into the impacts of tomorrow. Not only in terms of thinking about the unintended consequences of layoffs, rifts, such as that experienced by Duolingo and Klarna earlier this year, but also in terms of the longer-term consequences of markets losing customers because they don’t have income to buy the organization’s products or services. Maybe we can collaborate on a kit for communicators to lead or host some of these conversations internally. We’ve already created a conversation guide to ethical AI integration stemming from the work Shel and others have done as research fellows of the Team Flow Institute, which we can use to get started. Neville, you replied to that. You said, thanks. Communicators are ideally positioned to frame these discussions in ways that resonate with both leaders, leadership and employees, ensuring the focus isn’t limited to today’s efficiency gains, but also encompasses the longer term human and societal impacts. It’s about helping organizations see beyond immediate cost savings and recognize the broader consequences of their choices for their people, their markets, and their reputations. That perspective feels more important than ever in shaping how AI is integrated into the workplace.

Neville Hobson: I forgot and I left that comment. Thanks for reading it out. Yeah, that was a good comment from Chris, I must admit. So waiting. Yeah, I think I did. You sounded quite eloquent saying all those things. So thanks very much for that comment, Chris. So moving on to the next episode, 483. We published that on October the 9th. This was a very timely one. Again, this is something we’re going to talk about a bit later too, the kind of political consequences of political intervention in topical business issues. And this related to President Trump with the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declaring that the product of Kenview, which is the owner of Tylenol these days, changed hands quite a bit over the years, that this product Tylenol leads to autism in children when taken by mothers during pregnancy. As you probably might expect, the reaction to that almost universally was, don’t be stupid, it doesn’t do that at all. And I’ve noticed some of the commentary here in the medical profession was a little more forthright than they have done in the past, to be very deferential to Trump to not offend him. That was different this time, it seemed to me. So nevertheless, we talked about that, the crisis. made a reference to the big one for them back in the 1980s, with the poison tampering of the products in Chicago that led to a number of deaths, how they recovered from that. Okay, that was then, this is now, but nevertheless, they still did well, as we noted, the stock recovered, it dropped dramatically. After one day, thanks largely, we said, to Tylenol’s Savvy, an almost perfect response to the crisis. So that was pretty good. We don’t have a comment on that one. So let me move on to 484. Yeah, this is kind of interesting one that we talked about the public relations industry, maybe having its Tilly Norwood moment. You might remember it’s not front of mind for everyone these days, but Tilly Norwood is a manufactured AI actress who caused quite a kerfuffle. it was unveiled, uncanny realistic realism was quite extraordinary. So is this the Tilly Norwood moment for the PR industry with the introduction of Olivia Brown, a 100 % AI PR agent that will handle all the steps of producing, distributing and following up on a press release? Is this PR’s future or just part of it, we said? Debate is still going on about that and I believe we have a comment on this one, Joe. Two, okay.

Shel Holtz: We have two, the first from Sally Slater, who says, is so fascinating. I had brief aspirations of trying to automate the whole cycle end to end, but chatted with some journalist friends first. They hell-nodded real quick. Journalists in particular are sensitive to AI disruption. Their jobs are as much as, if not more, at risk as comms and content writing pros. So they really don’t like the idea of dealing with a robot instead of a human. Which is interesting because one of the items that I toyed with making one of my reports today says that the research shows, and this is in the US, that journalists are fine with PR people using AI in their pitches and in their relations with them. By and large, it’s not 100%, but it’s up there. You replied to Sally’s comment, Neville, so you get to hear your words in my voice again. That’s such an insightful point, Sally. It’s easy to frame this as an efficiency debate for communicators. But your comment highlights the other side, the impact on journalists themselves. The erosion of trust isn’t only about what we send, but also about who journalists are dealing with. Once they sense that they’re talking to a robot instead of a human, the relationship changes entirely. And when that robot is reportedly relentless in its follow ups, there’s really no escape from the machine. And then we had a comment from Andy Green who said, I can envisage many. Digital agencies embracing this to cover what they perceive as the PR dimension to a campaign. These people think in numbers, not stories, and not understanding societal issues.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, it’s a big topic. I think the bit that tends to excite people in this particular story was the way in which I’ve seen other people commenting on this, this is an end to end solution in a sense, that you tell the PR, the virtual PR what your campaign is all about, it goes away, plans it, prepares the press release, handles all the follow up and therein lies the interesting bit because… I’ve seen words used to describe it as relentless follow up. It will not stop. And that’s the bit I’ve seen a number of journalists saying, I got to find a way to ditch this damn thing. And that’s not really what they are expecting here. And I can see that offending a lot of people, you know, but is this part of the future? Again, the debate is still ongoing on this. It’s a great topic, though, isn’t it?

Shel Holtz: It is.

Neville Hobson: So then 485 is the last one we did before this monthly episode. We did that one, published it on October the 21st. Is it time to stop trying to go viral? We asked in that one. Crafting content with the intent of going viral has been part of the communication playbook for more than a decade. There was never a guaranteed approach to catching this lightning in a bottle, but there didn’t stop marketers and PR practitioners from trying. So we said this effort is increasingly futile. We talked about how several marketing influencers have suggested that it’s time to move on from the attempt to produce content specifically in the hopes that it will go viral. We talked about, or rather we shared some data points on that and debated whether going viral should remain a communication goal. We disagreed on a number of issues here, but I think we were aligned in the word viral being the kind of confusion point here, because if we take viral out and talk about just the marketing aspect where you’re trying to achieve an outcome from something that is more than just a viral message, but we talked about that some length in this episode. So is it time to stop trying to go viral? We said, yes, basically, didn’t.

Shel Holtz: We did, and Katie Howell agreed in a comment. said, platforms already reward return visits over one off reach and the clever brands are catching up. If your brief says go viral, you’re chasing a metric that won’t help you keep your job. Repeat engagement with the right people is the proper goal. Less glamorous, miles more useful. And another comment from Andy Green, good clarification over strategies, but also need to recognize viral, AKA meme friendly, is at the heart of effective communication. Also greater recognition of the impact of zeitgeist. Check out Steven Pinker’s latest book, When Everyone Knows.

Neville Hobson: Good comments. No question.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and thanks everybody for your comments. They really contribute a lot to these monthly episodes, so keep them coming.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, we’ve had discussion that is not part of our kind of rundown list of topics. So it’s really good to have this kind of off the cuff stuff entering the discussion.

Shel Holtz: Very quickly, I just want to let everyone know that the latest episode of Circle of Fellows is up on the FIR Podcast Network. This is the monthly panel discussion among fellows of the International Association of Business Communicators. This was a really interesting discussion about the fact that the role of the communicator keeps evolving, but the goal of supporting the business and the business plan remains absolutely fixed. And how do you square that particular circle. had Laurie Dawkins, Mike Klein, Robin McCasland, and Martha Lozichka on this episode. It is up now. We’ve just recorded it this past Thursday. It’s available for your listening pleasure. Episode 122 is on November 20th at 5 p.m. Eastern time. And another interesting topic, it’s about preparing the next generation of communicators. And we will have five fellows in addition to me moderating this episode. It will be Diane Gajewski, Sue Heumann, Theomari Karamanis, Letitia Narvez, and Jennifer Wah. So put that on your calendars, November 20th at 5 p.m. for that conversation. And now we’re ready to jump into our stories for this episode, but first, we’re going to try to sell you something. Social media and the e-tension. E-tension. Everything gets an E in front of it now. Social media and the attention economy are both changing how we communicate externally and how we engage internally. There’s an article I read, a really fascinating article, that asks whether marketers should lean into rage bait, the use of content designed to provoke anger and engagement. The second article that I read on this topic, also very fascinating, looks at how social media content and consuming it, including contentious posts and RageBait style content, is affecting the mood of people at work, how it’s affecting productivity and how organizations might respond. So something here for those of you who are considering using RageBait in your marketing and something here for you who deal with internal communications, all about this issue of RageBait. So let’s start with the external lens. The piece from Morning Brew via their brand strategy column is titled, Should Marketers Lean Into RageBait? makes the basic point that in an era where attention is the scarce commodity, brands are increasingly tempted and some are already experimenting with campaigns designed to provoke outrage. They stir up audience reaction, they polarize conversations, and all of this drives engagement. The article lists examples. Brands like American Eagle, ELF, The Ordinary among them have been accused of or credited with rage baiting in various forms. The proposition is actually compelling. It does drive clicks, it drives shares and visibility. But the caution coming from the article is just as strong. Not all press is good press. Building exclusion or anger into your brand could carry long-term risks to trust, reputation, employee sentiment, and ultimately consumer loyalty. Now, switch to the internal lens. This is an article from HR Dive. It was titled, How Thirst Traps and Rage Bait Affect Workers on the Clock. Reports on research from the Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations, researchers surveyed workers over two studies, asking them to reflect on the most salient social media posts they saw that day, how it made them feel, and how productive they were. The results? When people saw fit pics or family posts, they felt more self-assured and engaged, but when they consumed contentious content, politics, rage-bait-style posts, They felt anxious, withdrawn from coworkers and less likely to engage productively. The takeaway content that triggers emotional turbulence may carry hidden organizational costs from distracted employees, reduced collaboration, maybe even increased attrition. So what should organizational communicators, that would be all of you, do with this convergence? Let me offer four action points. First, Be intentional about how your external messaging may echo internally. If your brand is experimenting with provocative campaigns, know, calling out norms, stirring up debate, maybe even courting a little outrage, ask yourself, what are the internal ripple effects? An external campaign that invites polarizing reactions may energize some audiences, and I would argue possibly just in the short term, but internally, it could signal to employees, our company is comfortable being controversial. That could boost excitement for some, but raise discomfort for others. Communicators need to work with HR and talent teams to assess sentiment inside the organization. How are employees reacting, especially those who engage on social media during the day? Are we inadvertently creating internal friction or disengagement by the tone we adopt externally? Second, create and enforce thoughtful social media consumption policies and supports. The HR Dive article suggests a practical approach. Treating social media use at work like a smoke break. Designate pause time, especially during heavy project phases because volatile content can hijack someone’s attention. As communicators, you should partner with HR and IT to provide guidance and structure. For example, quiet hours of connectivity, guidelines for personal device usage during high-focus times, and training about the emotional contagion of negative or polarizing social content. Document the rationale. productivity, wellbeing, and team cohesion. Third, align external and internal narratives around emotional tone and brand purpose. If your brand decides that provocative is an acceptable part of your tone, then the story you tell employees must reconcile with culture. Yeah, we provoke debate, but we do so respectfully, grounded in purpose and we value inclusive dialogue. That alignment prevents cognitive dissonance. You know, our brand is edgy externally, but our culture is conservative internally. And it supports trust, which we’ll be talking about in greater detail later. It also gives you a stronger foundation if things go sideways. You’re always defining the why behind your tone and you’ve prepared employees for what that means. And fourth, monitor, measure, and respond, both externally and internally. Externally track engagement metrics, brand sentiment, media coverage, social listening signals after campaigns that lean into controversy. Internally, partner with HR to monitor employee sentiment, surveys, pulse checks, be ways to do this. Collaboration indicators, retention metrics, maybe productivity signals tied to social media exposure. If a campaign triggers backlash, you should have a response plan. How would you communicate internally? How will you support teams to cope with any fallout? How will you pivot? Look, we’re working in a moment of heightened sensitivity. Clearly, socially, culturally, digitally, The attention economy is powerful, but the rule book is not what it used to be. What once was any attention is good attention is not universally true anymore. For external campaigns, building outrage may bring short-term visibility, but a thoughtful internal strategy, may undermine employee morale, productivity, and trust. I just said that wrong and it’s bad enough that I need to reset. For external campaigns, building outrage may bring short-term visibility, but without a thoughtful internal strategy, it may undermine employee morale, productivity, and brand trust. And inside the organization, the invisible cost of consuming polarizing social content is real and measurable. So the role of the organizational communicator becomes as much about internal ecosystem design as external narrative design. You’re not just pitching or broadcasting. You’re orchestrating tone, channel, culture, and consequence. If you lean into controversial creative, do so with your eyes open. Prepare your employees, monitor sentiment, align culture, and build in the feedback loops that show you’re aware of the risk and capable of navigating it.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, interesting. Listen to what you’re saying, Shel. My own thought is I have almost an inbuilt instinct that this is a bad thing, rage bait. And indeed, reading the marketing brew piece you a comment from a TikTok creator called Dulma Altan, who posts about business strategy struck me as probably summarizing the whole thing. If rage bait becomes a widely adopted strategy, she says, she anticipates that audiences might unfollow brands to avoid seeing it. And there to me is a big alarm bell. I recognize the interest many marketers have in provocative kind of content, whether whatever we call it, rage bait, okay. Example, I suspect would be something that’s very topical. is the American Eagle’s controversial Sydney Sweeney campaign for genes. Just one recent example, Marketing Brew says, it got plenty of people talking. Company execs defended the campaign, which drew backlash over the summer for its reference to genetics. And the chief marketing officer, Craig Bromance, told Marketing Brew that the campaign wasn’t designed as intentional rage bait, but instead aimed at sparking a conversation about optimism, confidence. and self expression. You can spin it any way you want, frankly, but he says so far, the company has reported initially positive results. So therefore I could say, okay, basically what you’re saying is the the end justifies the means then right? Is that what you’re saying? Well, you got great results for something that offended and upset a lot of people. Therefore, it’s okay is what I hear your message. I think you’re dead wrong, mate. That’s really not what you should be doing at all. So I wouldn’t support this at all. I don’t see any redeeming feature of this that has honor attached to it at all. you know, there’s other examples we could talk about, but the American Eagle one I did find quite interesting how that played out. And there are other examples too. And it’s interesting the angle you’ve brought into it, on the impact it will have on employees. And I often wonder whether marketers don’t really take that into account when they do some of these things. So this is not good, in my opinion.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I agree with you. I don’t think marketers consider the impact of any of their campaigns on employees. Employees are not their audience. Although employees are, let’s face it, expected to reinforce and support the message of marketing. So your employer brand could take a hit unintentionally from something like this. But you also referenced from that article that the people who are offended by it could stop following you. What that means is that the people who are still following you are the people who are likely to succumb to this kind of rage and enjoy getting worked up and angry and hurling invectives at other people in the conversation. Is that the market you really want for your product or service? So, yeah, I think there are some long-term consequences of engaging in this kind of marketing that you really have to sit back and consider. It’s a very strategic approach to, it’s a critical thinking approach. to taking on this particular type of marketing activity.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. And again, going back to marketing brews article, they had some interesting comments from people they talked to about this. One in particular struck me from Megan Morris, the co-founder and CEO of a creative agency called Full Fat. She commented, quite interesting, if a brand is intent on courting controversy, she pointed to a Doritos campaign from early this year in which the brand implied it might change its signature triangle. chip shape into a square as exemplary an example for example the campaign drew some backlash and plenty of online chatter but all in good fun that is really nicely done rage bait if there is such a thing morass said megan trust me there is no such thing as nicely done rage bait okay it’s right it’s it’s nothing serious said morass it’s not going to create any emotional or behavioral triggers so

Shel Holtz: It’s faux rage bait. It’s what it is.

Neville Hobson: You could do that. Why would you not do that? Why would you go ahead and do something that seriously offends people, risks damage to your brand and your audiences across social channels and elsewhere who could have dropped you and don’t talk about you except in negative things? Why would you want to do that? This is good. But let’s not call it rage, please, no matter how nicely done it was. So that was a good one, Shel. So let’s talk about AI, actually. We haven’t talked about AI yet. Yeah, I found this a very interesting one. And it’s in the financial services industry. I doubt it’s unique to this particular institution, Lloyd’s Banking Group. But they’re doing something at sending a very public signal about AI, starting at the top.

Shel Holtz: AI, yeah, we should talk a little bit about AI.

Neville Hobson: The CEO Charlie Nunn and the entire executive team are enrolled in a six-month, 80-hour generative AI program designed with educational technology company Cambridge Spark and University of Cambridge experts with hundreds of senior leaders also in scope and more than 110 already through the course. Lloyd says that the program blends hands-on sessions, virtual master classes, and real-world projects with potential future Gen.AI use cases put forward to progress to pilot phase. These include using Gen.AI to support market insights, customer relationship management integration for commercial customers, freeing up time for strategic high-value client engagement, and improving overall customer experience and retention. This sits alongside a group-wide scale-up of Microsoft 365 Copilot. So it’s not training in a vacuum, but part of a platform commitment and an enterprise change program. Reactions unsurprisingly are mixed. Supporters say you cannot lead what you do not understand. Executive fluency creates permission, governance and budget for real change. Critics call it AI theater, a costly slow course in a fast moving field and argue a sharp briefing cadence would beat a six month syllabus. Both can be true. Literacy without delivery is performative. Delivery without literacy is reckless. If this is more than theater, we’ll see it in KPIs, resolution speed, onboarding time, and front-line productivity, not in slide decks. So glancing at some of the reactions on LinkedIn illustrates all of this. One supportive post on the business network said, I think this is a great move by the bank. The only way to understand and gain the full benefit from AI is a full understanding of the benefits and problems from the top downwards. One commenter said, being a little deliberately controversial, I do wonder if some of the staff and directors will return from these courses with a very different view of AI’s potential, not just for good, but for harm too. Other comments included empowering leadership with AI literacy as a foundation of sustainable innovation and bold move and sets a strong message internally and to the industry. But another post is more critical saying that Lloyd’s AI training courses are a waste of time. and money and a weak attempt at demonstrating that they’re staying up to speed on tech developments. What they learn in month one will be mostly obsolete by month six. One commenter on this post said, most AI education is not as good as what you’d get if you just asked the AI to teach you about it. Well, according to Lloyds, their entire executive committee and senior leadership team are expected to complete the program by the end of 2026. The communication question. is whether this becomes a credible narrative of capability and control or raises expectations that the bank cannot possibly meet on customer experience, risk or productivity. Is this smart leadership signaling that builds real execution muscles or a well-packaged promise that will be hard to cash? I do wonder.

Shel Holtz: I think this is a great idea. I am 100 % behind this. We had the conversation on Circle of Fellows day before yesterday. Remember, the theme was that the role of the communicator remains fixed. It is to support organizational objectives and goals. However, the way we do this continues to evolve. And one of the questions that came up was, how do you learn new technologies? When you are a chief communication officer, for example, you’re pretty busy. How do you learn new technologies? And one of the answers was, well, reverse mentoring. I don’t think reverse mentoring is adequate for AI. The implications for business, for your business, are too huge to rely on a young employee saying, here’s how I use it. Isn’t this cool? Look what you can do. I think you need to understand strategic implications here. I think you need to understand how this is going to affect the way your business is managed, the way the work gets done, the way your organization interacts with customers and other stakeholders. How are things going to change? I think, you we’ve talked about a lot of these implications in previous episodes. The fact that there are going to be job displacements. The fact that entry-level jobs are going to change dramatically if 75 % of the work that an entry-level person does, because it tends to be more grunt work. If that can be done by AI, what does that do to entry-level jobs? You have to have entry-level jobs where your future higher-level employees are going to come from, if not from those entry-level jobs. So there’s a lot of thinking that has to be done around this. And what I see in most organizations is training being pushed down to the people who do the work, not the people at the senior level of the organization. They’re the ones endorsing training for everyone else. They’re not learning it themselves. And how can they lead the organization through this kind of change? And let’s be clear, we’ve never seen the kind of change that’s coming before. And I think this is the way to do that. You get your leaders completely immersed in it and trained in all the dimensions that are going to have an impact on your organization. I think it should be a requirement. And I think it’s actually kind of sad. that there’s an article about an organization that’s doing it because that means that most of them are not.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I’m with you on that. And I agree fully that I think this is an extremely good idea, a very good initiative. When I was researching and looking into it, it became clear to me that this was truly immersive up and down the every hierarchical level in the organization. So that at the end of this 80 hour program over a six month period, the leadership team and the whole executive committee are going to know what it is, how it works, what are the impacts in X number of areas in the business throughout the entire business to understand the magnitude of what this means. And it puts them in a very good position, I think, to ask questions, to support it, to debate it. If they don’t want to support it, they don’t think it’s very good, that’ll stimulate further discussion. So it’s kind of like They are on the same level as the folks lower down the organization who doing all that grunt work you mentioned. And they will understand more about the value of that and what support those people need elsewhere in the organization. So it is interesting and it’s totally unsurprising to see some of the criticisms out there that is just illustrative of people’s different opinions. And I think the fact they’ve done this and then the scale up of Microsoft 365 pilot. in parallel with this in a wider part of the organization. They’re taking this extremely, extremely seriously. And I’m sure other institutions in the financial industry are doing similar things, bet, except I saw Lloyd’s writing about it themselves. I saw media reports on what Lloyd’s Lloyd’s press releases about some of the stuff they’re doing were extremely well explained what this is all about. So I think it is something that is worth paying attention to how they’re doing with this. So it’s good that they have shared this information.

Shel Holtz: I’m baffled at the notion that there’s criticism of this. You don’t want the leaders of organization to be up to speed on the technology that’s going to change the entire world. mean, come on. I just don’t get that. These are the people who are going to be guiding the organization through this change. And if they don’t understand it, they’re not going to guide the organization very well.

Neville Hobson: Go figure.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. Well, there’s a new report out from McKinsey. They are a report machine. They are a report factory. So there’s always going to be new reports out from McKinsey. This is a good one, though, and one that as we are so focused on AI and some other issues that organizations face on a daily basis is one that’s sort of bigger. And we may not be seeing the forest for the trees. The role of corporate affairs is being redefined in a world of rising geopolitical and geo economic complexity. If your eyes glaze over, that is probably part of the problem. Because if you work in communications, external affairs or stakeholder relations, this really is something you need to pay attention to. They begin this with something that we all are sensing right now that geopolitics is back and in a big way. After decades of a relatively stable global order, we’re now seeing rising trade policy shifts, export and import controls, sanctions, regulatory fragmentation, and governments using economic tools in strategic ways. These changes are putting new pressure on companies, not just on operations or supply chains, but on how they engage externally, how they structure themselves, and how they tell their story. McKinsey’s research finds something really intriguing. While executives view trade policy change and geopolitical instability as major risks, only 28 % say trade policy change is a top leadership priority and just 15 % say geopolitical instability is. So there’s a gap between risk and attention. That is where we step in. The article lays out a five-point playbook for upgrading the corporate affairs function. I want to walk you through these and then we’ll talk about what you can do in practical terms. Number one is map the world. Which geopolitical trends matter for your business? When you’re exposed, what the value at stake is, who the key stakeholders are. Many companies don’t quantify their exposure. McKinsey says only a small share do rigorous modeling. Find your corner solutions, you know, your best case and worst case, so you know what you need to be prepared for. Next, hone your narrative and strategic offering. Once you know the terrain, you need to refine how you talk about it. McKinsey notes that language matters. For example, the difference between the word advocacy and the word lobbying. And leaders are increasingly expected to act as commercial diplomats. For communications people, this means your story can’t be generic. It needs to reflect the geopolitical context behind the business and tailor the message accordingly. Third, optimize your engagement. It’s not enough to hope that someone will listen. You need to engage proactively with regulators, governments, associations, third parties, and choose the right level and channel. For example, you might find local or state or provincial officials more relevant than national ones, or you might use a trade association forum rather than a press event. It’s about effectiveness, not volume. Fourth, adapt the function’s organizational structure. Corporate affairs can no longer be an above the line support activity. It needs to be embedded in the business units, aligned with key metrics and operationally relevant. For communicators, that means moving from being message makers to being strategy partners with influence on business decisions and operational design. How much do we talk about wanting a seat at the table? Wanna know how to get one? Finally, the article calls for upgrading skills, analytics, geopolitical insight, and even AI. McKinsey notes that while AI and analytics can help, communicators must be paired with these AI tools in order to provide that human judgment. This means getting comfortable with new tools, but also building the strategic thinking around them. So what does this mean for you, the organizational communicator right now? First, advocate for and help lead the map of the world exercise. Partner with your risk operations and strategy folks to identify the top geopolitical and trade policy issues that affect your organization. Which markets are exposed? Which supply chains cross sensitive jurisdictions? What’s at risk if things change? Number two, revisit your messaging to reflect these stories and risks. If your company is operating in geopolitically sensitive markets, your external and internal narrative should acknowledge that and not simply assume a Global will work the same way everywhere, story. Choose language that resonates with regulators, governments, local stakeholders. Point three, review your stakeholder engagement plan. Are we talking only externally when something goes wrong? Are we connecting with the right offices and arenas? Should we be attending different forums, using different channels, working with different third-party partners? This is your chance to make the engagement smarter. The fourth action point, elevate your role in the organization. Use this geopolitical context to show how communication really matters to the business’s license to operate. Work with business leaders. What do they need? What are the key risks for them? How can you help structure narrative engagement and intelligence so it’s not just a communication afterthought? And action point five, embrace new tools and insight. You don’t need to become a data scientist overnight, but you should start experimenting. Just one thought, use scenario planning for external affairs. build a what-if narrative for potential trade disruptions or create a dashboard tracking emerging regulatory actions. We’re not just talking about a world where communications can add polish. We’re talking about a world where communications and external affairs and by extension, organizational communication has to be strategic, agile and grounded in real business context. As McKinsey puts it, your function can either shape the geo-economic environment or be shaped by it. If you’re in communications, raise your hand and say, let’s upgrade how we do this. Let’s map our exposures, refine our narrative, engage more smartly, embed ourselves in the business, and build new capabilities. Because this change isn’t going to slow down anytime soon.

Neville Hobson: That’s a very interesting report from from McKinsey, I think you did. You did a pretty good job in in in summarizing the whole thing and those very steps you mentioned. It’s hard to pick a topic that is that you that you didn’t cover. In fact, you you cover them all. But the one that I would definitely reference is the is the towards the end of the report where it talked about leveraging AI. It made me think instantly of the Lloyds Bank executive training. So this talks about leading enterprises are creating AI lighthouses. Now that’s a new phrase to me, but I can visualize a lighthouse. I mean, I kind of get where they’re going with that. That incorporates analytical, generative and agentic AI to reimagine their corporate affairs workflows. So for example, it says an AI agent can automate a communication campaign cycle from setting the requirements to generating content to testing messages to tracking impacts. Teams can also use GenAI. to create briefings, combine the external sources of insight on stakeholders with internal insights on policy positions and lines to take. The shift is certainly taking hold, says McKinsey. So that’s just one example. But that illustrates to me that you need to have the kind of thrust of this overall argument in this story, in this article, made aware within the organization at the senior levels in particular, the whole spectrum. that helps them understand why they need to do this. And I wouldn’t be surprised if this or some form of this or an element of this is part of what Lloyds Bank is doing in their executive education program that they’re running. know, McKinsey quotes Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, the makers of ChatGPT, among other things, has gone so far to predict Wait for it. 95 % of what marketers use agencies, strategists and creative professionals for today will easily, nearly instantly and at almost no cost be handled by AI. Now that brings in another element of these kind of elements that are popping up. was in a, what do call it? It’s not a webinar exactly. It was more a Zoom presentation via LinkedIn yesterday on. changing the billable hours function in consulting firms from hourly billing through to value-based charging. Now, I didn’t hear much new in that session, to be honest, but I keep hearing people talking about this topic now. And there’s something I’ve written about two years ago when I was getting interested in it. How would you do this? I said to myself in a blog post. So I sort of said it to everyone basically. How would you change your model suddenly? yet recognizing that your clients who are some of these leading enterprises, are tweaking it quite straightforwardly, very clearly, that, wait a minute, I’ve hired this person or this firm to work with us, and they’re charging us X by the hour, and yet 80 % of that time, they’ve got an AI doing it. So what are we paying for? So those questions are being asked. And indeed, some consultants are asking those, how do I change this before my client asks me to change it? So that’s part of the picture. So leveraging AI to me is part of that very much so.

Shel Holtz: absolutely. And at the speed with which these geopolitical and geo-economical events are happening and the fallout is happening, we absolutely need to be using the tools that can help us stay on top of it and analyze the data that comes in. So I think the workflow recommendation, not just, gee, how can I help it? how can it help me write a headline or edit a press release? We really need to be looking at the data analytics capabilities and how agents can collect information, analyze it, and then do something with it on our behalf, with human guardrails, of course. But I agree with you. If this McKinsey article had come out a couple of months ago, I would say I’d Bet those folks at Lloyd read this, but they’ve already taken their action by the time this came out, which means that they’re even more on top of things than the people reading this and going, hey, I ought to be doing this.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. And I suppose the good thing to mention to conclude, particularly this 95 % thing that Sam Altman talked about, is what McKinsey says that as AI gathered intelligence, they start to say, however, as AI gathered intelligence becomes increasingly commoditized, teams need to supplement it with direct knowledge of events only humans can provide. So that means you need to reinvent yourself slightly, I would say maybe more than slightly to be positioned and perceived and indeed deliver if you can precisely on that. So you’re part of the, I’m going to say the 5%. I mean, it’s not quite like that, but you’re someone with direct knowledge of events only the human can provide. So you will leverage AI to support you. in delivering whatever it is you’re delivering to your client or your employer as part of this big picture of what you need to do in this new geopolitical era. So it’s no small feat this. If you’re not thinking about it, and these kind of warnings people talk about all the time, but it must be clear, I think, to most people. You get a sense of momentum is really building in this. We keep seeing articles. and opinion pieces, the reports you name it almost daily on this about AI, that about AI, along with the critics as well. So it’s a rather muddy picture to understand. who should I pay attention to with all this? But it’s relentless. It’s coming at us left, right and center. we need to be on top of that. Communicators are well placed to help their company employ and navigate this.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, there’ve been a couple of posts lately. There was one from Chris Penn yesterday talking about how you can’t opt out of AI anymore because of the AI browsers now that all of the browser providers are baking into it. But I also see a lot of posts on LinkedIn, several every day, from marketers and communicators saying, AI is never going to take our jobs because of this human requirement and that human requirement. They’re trying to make themselves feel better. And they should be doing exactly what you just said, reinventing themselves.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, it’s an essential thing to do now and you need to get on top of that. So we’ve got down now, right? Yeah. Can we take a quick P break? No, I didn’t. I had lots of water though before that. So listen, the last time I did this, I went out with the earbuds plugged in. When I came back, I completely screwed up the audio. So I’m taking them off. I’m taking them off. I may need to still recalibrate them when I come back, but I’ll leave them off here. Right, I’ll be back ASAP.

Shel Holtz: Yes. and I need to make a time code. Yes. Did you have a code zero? So leave the earbuds there. Okay, no worries.

Neville Hobson: Yadoke. Let’s see, do we still have these things plugged in? Can you say something?

Shel Holtz: Check one, check two.

Neville Hobson: It It worked. Good. Now.

Shel Holtz: getting dark outside. We’re expecting rain today.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, we, our clocks go back overnight tonight. So I think you’re next weekend, right?

Shel Holtz: I was going to ask when that happens. I even made a note. So I think for two weeks.

Neville Hobson: So I think you’re the first Sunday in November. That’s next weekend.

Shel Holtz: I, is it, Alexa, when does the, when do the clocks change in the US? When do we fall back? Daylight saving time ends on Sunday, November 2nd, 2025 at 2 a.m. local time. So, so we’re fine for, yeah, for next Monday. It will be on the same schedule. Right.

Neville Hobson: Next week, next weekend. Right, so next week we’re not doing anything. So next Monday, we’ll still, we’ll be back to the normal eight hours difference. So next week was, yeah. So next week we’re seven hours apart, just FYI. So back to normal following week. Okay. So hang on, let have a quick sip. I’ve got this tickly cough and we had our flu jabs on Thursday and I tell you, both of us, we knocked a bit with this.

Shel Holtz: Exactly. Alexa, stop! Right. OK. Really?

Neville Hobson: I think we had the mild case, not as bad as last year, because last year we had COVID and flu at the same time. This year we didn’t get COVID because the government’s changed the eligibility. And as the cynics say, me included, say it’s because of the same money on the budget probably. So last year it was anyone over 65. This year it’s anyone over 75, unless you’re a special need or all that. So first time since 2020, we haven’t had a COVID yet. Now I could go… to the pharmacy just down the road and pay a hundred pounds and have it done privately. I ain’t gonna do that. Because it’s FluJab and everything else we do is on the NHS, it’s free.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, see, had, yeah, we still get the COVID at 65, so, but not younger. Used to be anybody, so.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I think people are looking at budgets more than anything. Anyway, so.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, well, we’ll see if there’s another COVID outbreak that leads to a change.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. So you could mention Dan.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I’ll say something about Dan and then I’ll throw it to you.

Neville Hobson: then we’ll go on to this corporate crisis thing.

Shel Holtz: Right, okay. And my velocity thing is actually pretty short. So, all right, 100.

Neville Hobson: Yep. Ready?

Shel Holtz: Thanks, Dan. I’m sure that was a great report. Neither of us have had an opportunity to listen to it yet. We’ll do that later. But the reports are always great. So I can’t imagine this one’s any different.

Neville Hobson: are. No, I’m sure it isn’t. Thanks, Dan. It’s good to have them. So this next topic is an intriguing one, I think. We’re going to take a look at a report by Provoke Media that editors of the magazine, plus invited experts they brought in, weighed in on corporate communication crises involving 14 organizations. So these included Tylenol, Nestle, JP Morgan, Cracker Barrel, Suntory, Intel, Meta, Adidas, Astronomer, Jet Two and more. We talked about Tylenol ourselves in episode 483 in early October. So 14 corporate comms crisis, that’s quite a bit and many will be familiar to you. The report reveals a world where reputation risk is increasingly shaped by behavior rather than policy. and where leadership conduct, cultural context, and digital amplification combine to test corporate credibility in real time. These crises share a clear pattern. Behavior lights the match, culture supplies the oxygen, and context decides how fast the fire spreads. The organizations that recovered fastest moves with speed and accountability, not legalistic hair splitting. They put people first, sought credible third party validation, and treated employees as a primary audience. Where leaders delayed, defended on technicalities, or ignored the cultural moment, issues lingered and reputations bled. We can’t discuss each of the 14 in detail as there just isn’t enough time. What we can do, I’m sorry, we would have been here till 10 o’clock tonight probably, Shale, I mean, it would have been too long. What we can do though is consider three of them to see what happened and what we can learn. And there’s a link in the show notes to Provoke’s detailed report. So what we’re to do is I’m going to outline the three one by one and in between, Shail and I will have a chat about each particular case as we go along. So we’ll start with Nestle, where the CEO’s secret affair tested the corporate compass, mild, mild way of putting it, I think, an undisclosed relationship between CEO Laurent Frick’s and a senior employee surfaced. a clear breach of the world’s largest food company’s code of conduct. It raised questions about power imbalance, conflicts of interest and disclosure standards. The issue quickly moved from private conduct to public governance, forcing the board to weigh privacy against policy and to show whether values apply when they are inconvenient. Fricks resigned roughly a year into the role. Already suffering from a sales slump and bracing for new US tariffs, The Swiss company saw its share price dip after Frex’s departure, compounding its underperformance. Investors, having seen two CEOs exit within a year and a one-third drop in the share price over five years, were not impressed. I think that’s putting it mildly, Shell, to be honest. what do you think of this undisclosed relationship between CEOs and relationships with senior, or maybe not so senior, in some case, employees? seems to be, dare I say, almost a common occurrence to what you read these days. But the consequences, certainly in case of Nestle, of this crisis were quite serious.