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.

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 [email protected].

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.

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.

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.

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 [email protected].

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 [email protected].

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 [email protected] 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 [email protected].

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.

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 [email protected].

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.

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.

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 [email protected].

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.

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 to create 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.

At 11 a.m. EDT on Thursday, March 26, four Fellows of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) will present a livestream on Communicating in the Era of the Polycrisis. Please join us for this hour-long conversation and participate with your questions, observations, and experiences. If you can’t make it for the real-time panel, you’ll be able to watch the video replay or listen to the audio podcast.

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 IABC Fellows Will Discuss the New World of Polycrises appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

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 [email protected].

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.