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

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

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

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

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

In this conversation, we discuss:

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

About Pete Blackshaw

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

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

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

Resources

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

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

Neville Hobson (02:18)
Ha ha.

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

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

Pete Blackshaw (02:45)
Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neville Hobson (12:14)
Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shel Holtz (16:47)
Claude?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete Blackshaw (19:56)
I did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What will that look like, do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete Blackshaw (25:44)
Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neville Hobson (33:59)
Mm-hmm.

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

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

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

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

Shel Holtz (36:08)
Yeah.

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

Pete Blackshaw (36:33)
no way.

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

Pete Blackshaw (36:55)
Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete Blackshaw (40:24)
That helpful?

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

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

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

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

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

Neville Hobson (41:55)
Mm mm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neville Hobson (44:05)
Right, right.

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

Neville Hobson (44:34)
Yeah.

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

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

Neville Hobson (44:59)
Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neville Hobson (49:54)
Mm-hmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neville Hobson (52:35)
Hm.

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

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

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

Pete Blackshaw (53:47)
No different.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neville Hobson (56:44)
Mm.

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

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

Neville Hobson (57:31)
Yeah.

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

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

Shel Holtz (58:02)
Yeah.

Neville Hobson (58:04)
But

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

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

I love that. And I

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

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

Neville Hobson (58:59)
Yeah.

Shel Holtz (59:04)
Ha ha ha.

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

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

Neville Hobson (59:20)
Brilliant.

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

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

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

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

Neville Hobson (1:00:16)
Guys.

Yeah, likewise. That was good. Appreciate it.

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

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

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

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

Links from this episode:

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

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

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [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 521 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz

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

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

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

Shel Holtz
It’s an interesting question.

Neville Hobson
Yeah.

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

Neville Hobson
Yeah

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

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

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

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

Shel Holtz
say

Neville Hobson
Yeah.

Shel Holtz
that. Yep

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

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

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

Shel Holtz
do that now

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

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

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

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

Neville Hobson
Yeah.

Shel Holtz
is

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

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

Neville Hobson
I do have that choice

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

Neville Hobson
Yeah, I know, but,

Shel Holtz
the workplace?

Neville Hobson
sure.

Shel Holtz
gonna happen. Yeah.

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

Shel Holtz
Yeah

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

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

Neville Hobson
Yeah

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

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

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

 

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

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

Links from this episode:

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

Links from Dan York’s Report

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

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

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [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 520 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz in Concord, California.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shel Holtz: A lane for that, right?

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

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

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

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

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

Shel Holtz: Russell Brand thought it was hysterical.

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

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

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

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

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

Shel Holtz: No boycotts, huh?

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

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

Neville Hobson: ‘Tis.

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

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

Shel Holtz: Yeah, outcomes-based.

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

Shel Holtz: About the —

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

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

Neville Hobson: What to do, indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have known about media bias effect for decades: the belief that the media is biased against your side of a debate. New research finds that the same belief applies to misinformation. While the research was focused on political issues, the underlying cause applies equally to misinformation about brands, companies, and business issues. In this short midweek episode, Neville and Shel find that the PR industry has not yet acknowledged the phenomenon, which requires strategies to address it.

Links from this episode:

• Think the Media’s Biased Against You? You Probably Think Misinformation Is, Too
• The Hostile Media Effect
• The Influence of Hostile Media Perceptions on Misinformation Beliefs and Sharing
• Hostile Media Effects on Twitter, Social Identity, and Media Bias Perceptions
• Fake News Has Real Effects on Consumer Demand
• The Impact of Fake News on Consumer Behavior and Market Outcomes
• Political Identity, Media Trust, and Susceptibility to Misinformation

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, June 29.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [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 Hobson:
Hi everyone, and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 519. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz:
And I’m Shel Holtz. When you think about all the misinformation out there—fake news, bad-faith spin—do you think it’s mostly aimed at your side of an argument or the other side? Most of us, if we’re honest, feel like it’s aimed at us. And there’s now research saying that feeling is nearly universal.

Even though the research was based on political discourse, it has a direct connection to organizational communication. We’ll explain right after this.

All right, let’s start by backing up for a second. There’s a concept called the hostile media effect. It’s been around since the 1980s. The original study showed pro-Israeli and pro-Arab students the exact same news coverage of the exact same event. Both groups walked away convinced it was biased against their side.

Everyone saw exactly the same footage, but they reached opposite conclusions. And the more committed you were, the more certain you were that the media was out to get you.

That finding has held up for 40 years, and it’s a big reason trust in news has collapsed as politics has gotten more tribal.

Now let’s add the new wrinkle. A team at the University of Amsterdam asked whether that same instinct applies to misinformation—to fake news. They surveyed 4,000 people across Germany, the Netherlands, and Poland around the 2024 European elections.

Nearly half said their preferred party was particularly targeted by misinformation. Ask about the party they liked least, and that number got cut in half. They’re calling it the hostile misinformation effect, and it got stronger the more politically engaged people were. The more plugged in people felt, the more victimized they felt.

Now, Neville, you might think that’s a political science finding. But the mechanism underneath isn’t about politics; it’s about identity and motivated reasoning. Every brand, every company, every department is an identity group.

Your most loyal customers are partisans. Your most engaged employees are partisans. The research says the people most attached to your organization are exactly the ones primed to believe any criticism out there is unfairly targeting them.

Now think about a crisis. Your defenders don’t need convincing that your critics are unfair. They already assume it. The minds still open are the uncommitted people in the middle.

Among neutrals, knowing more made them see less bias. It’s only partisans who dig in.

So if someone criticizes a brand that some people love, the brand’s biggest fans may see that as an attack rather than just an honest review—and respond in kind. There was no crisis, but now maybe there is.

There’s an internal angle here, too. Picture a layoff memo or a return-to-office announcement. Leadership reads it as fair. But every faction inside the company—by department, by level, by tenure—is wired to read the same message as unfair to them.

“We said it neutrally” is no defense because neutrality is in the eye of the beholder.

This notion reveals a trap for communicators. When bad coverage hits, it’s tempting to wave it away as misinformation. But “fake news” self-destructed as a term the moment it got weaponized to mean “any story I don’t like.”

Cry misinformation every time you’re criticized, and you train your audience to tune out the label. You also look evasive to the exact neutrals you need to reach.

So this is where I want to bring you in, Neville. We’ve spent years on this show talking about declining trust and the misinformation environment. This research says the problem isn’t just that there’s more bad information out there; it’s that people are wired to feel personally besieged by it.

And I’m not sure our profession has reckoned with what that means.

Neville Hobson:
Yeah, it doesn’t sound like it, Shel. I don’t think so.

It’s actually quite fascinating looking at the Nieman Lab article you shared with me in our Slack channel and seeing the depth of the research on a topic that I had no idea was even a thing to look into.

I found it interesting in a number of areas.

For instance, the study you quoted from the 2024 European Parliament elections got me thinking. The tendency to see misinformation as directed at you seems more pronounced the farther right politically someone is.

That caught my attention because isn’t that precisely what we’re seeing in the United States with the Trump MAGA movement?

Here in the UK, we’ve got Reform and an even newer party that’s emerged further to the right. Those groups often function as an echo chamber for the kinds of messages Trump promotes. They’re constantly criticizing anything anyone else says as an attack and talking about issues in ways that rile people up and stimulate hostile reactions in return.

We see a lot of that in this country right now.

It’s interesting that this study has been done, and I think the way you’re connecting it to organizational communication is a good call. It certainly gives us a lot to think about.

One question it prompted in my mind concerns the point about engagement and partisanship. If the more engaged and partisan someone is, the stronger this effect becomes, does that mean an organization’s most loyal stakeholders are actually its most vulnerable to this kind of perception?

What do you think?

Shel Holtz:
Absolutely. I think that’s exactly the connection we can draw between this study and organizational communication.

If somebody criticizes the company based on an experience they had—and let’s say that criticism goes viral—and it was sincere and well-intentioned, then the partisan defenders of that organization are going to feel attacked. They’re likely to respond in kind and escalate a situation that probably would have faded into the background if left alone.

I think that’s one of the fallouts organizations can experience from this phenomenon. The more partisan you are, the more besieged you’re going to feel when you perceive something being said about the brand or organization as unfair—even if it was perfectly fair.

Neville Hobson:
So how do you address that within the organization?

Shel Holtz:
That’s an interesting question, and it’s hard to fight because you really can’t argue people out of it.

One related concept is the third-person effect—the idea that other people are more susceptible to media influence than we are ourselves.

In other words: I can see what the media is trying to do, but other people are going to be fooled by it.

When you stack that together with the idea that your group is being unfairly targeted, you get a complete worldview: I’m clear-eyed, my group is the victim, and everyone else is gullible.

There was a fascinating study where researchers took 661 Coca-Cola drinkers and showed them a real fake-news story—a 2016 hoax claiming that Dasani water was being recalled because parasites had been found in it.

The finding was that the people most confident in their own ability to spot fake news were the most convinced that other people would be fooled by it. They were also the ones most loudly demanding that Coca-Cola take corrective action.

Sometimes the stakeholders who are screaming “Do something about misinformation!” aren’t reacting to the actual threat. They’re reacting to a belief that other, less discerning people are being duped.

That makes the challenge even more complicated for communicators.

Neville Hobson:
Yeah, it’s weird, isn’t it?

The next question that comes to mind is this: If both sides feel targeted regardless of what’s actually out there, what should communicators do? Is there an approach that works when perception is this detached from reality?

Shel Holtz:
From an organizational standpoint—and I’m less interested in the political implications for purposes of this podcast—I think there are a couple of things.

First, the more prebunking you can do, the better.

When one of these situations comes up—a bad review, criticism from the media, negative reporting—you can immediately point people to information you’ve already published that addresses the issue. Having a bank of credible material you can reference may keep people from getting unnecessarily riled up.

The other thing is to respond quickly, but not emotionally.

If you can maintain a sense of calm—or even a sense of humor—you increase the likelihood that others will follow suit.

If people see that the company isn’t feeling besieged and isn’t acting attacked, that may help tamp down some of the reaction.

Neville Hobson:
So this becomes a major issue for trust, doesn’t it?

And I imagine the role of artificial intelligence in all of this only exacerbates the problem. Is that how you see it?

Shel Holtz:
Yeah, I do.

The flood of AI-generated slop out there—content targeting your organization, your brand, or your leaders—is only going to increase exponentially.

If somebody has an axe to grind and wants to flood search engines or AI summaries with negative content, AI makes that dramatically easier.

Now, to be fair, the research we’re discussing focused on information published through media outlets. That may be an important distinction.

People might be more skeptical of something posted on a blog or LinkedIn than something published by a mainstream news outlet.

That’s where this research suggests people feel especially attacked.

Neville Hobson:
That was my thought as well.

Going back to the study, we’re looking at this from a political perspective. We all consume information online, and most of us have preferred sources.

Meanwhile, mainstream media is going through what seems like a growing crisis of trust.

You see constant battles online between people citing one newspaper versus another. It’s distracting, and it wastes an enormous amount of time and energy.

It also got me thinking about how I react to some of this. The suggestion that people on the political right are more susceptible to this phenomenon doesn’t really describe me. I’m more in the middle.

I don’t react the way I see some people reacting—especially on that delightful conversation platform known as X.

People vent their spleens there. Maybe it makes them feel better, but I don’t think it advances understanding in any meaningful way.

Then again, perhaps that’s not the point.

The point seems to be: I win, you lose.

And that’s very much the Trump approach. It feels like that’s where much of this is headed.

Shel Holtz:
Yeah.

One of the stranger findings from the research was that when researchers examined whether people felt more victimized after their party lost an election, the results weren’t what you’d expect.

You’d think the losers would feel most targeted.

Instead, the people whose party won were more likely to believe their side was being targeted by misinformation.

Feeling besieged isn’t necessarily about being under threat. It’s about identity.

And since you mentioned X, there’s another interesting strand of research.

People may dismiss something because they saw it on X. But researchers found that the source of a message can trigger hostile media perceptions independently of the content itself.

Your company’s name on a statement can be enough to act as a bias cue for people who already have feelings about you.

The exact same words can land very differently depending on whose logo appears at the top.

That’s worth thinking about because it means message discipline alone can’t solve a credibility problem.

Neville Hobson:
This is a bigger dilemma than it might seem at first. A real conundrum for communicators.

The Nieman Lab article is lengthy, but it’s definitely worth reading.

Shel Holtz:
Yeah. And there will be links in the show notes to some of the original research on identity bias as well.

The reason I chose this topic is that I’ve never heard it discussed in PR circles. I’ve never seen it covered in PR textbooks or books about public relations.

This was completely new to me.

That’s one reason I’m still struggling with an answer about how to deal with it.

But it certainly starts with recognizing that it’s happening.

Neville Hobson:
I agree. It was new to me as well.

The more I think about it, though, the more it seems to describe the environment we’re operating in today.

Now we just have to figure out what to do about it.

Shel Holtz:
Yes, we do.

And that will be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #519: Is Misinformation Biased Against You? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

The history of public relations over the last 30 years is a litany of one failure after another — failures to recognize and embrace technologies that represented seismic shifts in how people and organizations communicate. The internet. The web. Social media. Smartphones. The video shift. And now, with AI, the industry seems poised to do it again. As many organizations explore how AI will reshape them, PR agencies still seem unable to figure out billing models to replace the now-useless hourly rate. In this short midweek episode, Neville looks at a post from Stephen Waddington that laments the industry’s intransigence, and Shel and Neville discuss what PR should be doing.

Links from this episode:

• The future of jobs in PR: will we get the third technology shift wrong too? (by Stephen Waddington)
• It looks like PR has its head in the sand about AI (by Neville Hobson)
• Senior practitioner neglect of digital/social skills a huge threat to PR’s future (2015 post by Shel Holtz)
• Once Again, This Time with AI, the Communications Profession Will Be Late to Embrace a Valuable Technology (2023 post by Shel Holtz)

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, June 22.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [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 five hundred and eighteen of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson. So here’s a question I want to put to you right at the start, and I’d like you to sit with it as Shel and I work through this topic today. Public relations as a profession has faced two seismic technology shifts in the last 30 years. In fact, more than two, but I’m just going to mention these two. The internet arrived in 1995. Social media arrived around 2007. And in both cases, PR largely got it wrong. Not wrong in the sense of ignoring the technology. Wrong in the sense of fundamentally misreading what it meant. In 1995, we thought the internet was a publishing problem. In 2007, we thought social media was just another broadcast channel. And the disciplines that grew out of both—search, content marketing, influencer marketing—were largely built by people who weren’t us, people outside the profession who saw what we missed. So the question is: are we about to do it a third time? We’ll address that question in just a minute.

That’s the challenge Stephen Waddington lays down in a piece he’s just written for Influence, the member magazine of the CIPR, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations. Stephen is someone whose thinking I respect considerably. He’s been one of the sharper and more honest voices in UK PR for years. And this article comes off the back of a book he’s just co-edited, AI and Public Relations: A How-To Guide for Implementation and Management, published in May. And what he’s arguing in this piece is that this is no longer a theoretical debate, as job reductions are happening now. He gives specific examples. Three account executives doing media monitoring—that’s now one tool. A two-person intranet team—that’s now a fraction of the effort. The UK government has listed public relations professionals among the twenty occupations most exposed to large language models. We’re on the list. Early career employment in those sectors is also in relative decline.

Now, Waddington is not a pure pessimist. He sees a plausible optimistic path. The career pyramid becomes a diamond. Firms building roles around insight and risk management rather than billable hours. A rough near-term reduction of perhaps fifteen to twenty percent in entry-level positions, followed by net growth as scope expands and new roles emerge, the way digital did after 2000. He thinks in-house teams especially have an opportunity here. When AI absorbs the routine, it frees space for the work that corporate communication teams have always needed but rarely had capacity for. But he gives serious, genuine weight to the pessimistic case too. And this is where I think the article gets interesting. He references Martin Ford, author of The Rise of the Robots in 2015, and Ford’s argument that previous technology waves hit one tier of the workforce and the tier above absorbed the displaced.

This time Ford says there’s no tier above. The advisory work that absorbed previous shifts is itself the target. Waddington doesn’t fully accept that in his article, but he doesn’t dismiss it either. And then there’s the argument that I think should be keeping every agency head and comms director awake at night—the pipeline. He’s hearing a common response from firms right now: freeze your apprenticeship schemes, freeze your graduate intake, let AI cover the production work. And he calls that, bluntly, organizational self-harm. Because in five years, those organizations will have nobody who understands how the systems actually work, why they fail, and crucially when to override them. You cannot run an advisory profession without a pipeline. And you cannot build a pipeline if you spent five years dismantling the entry points. So that’s where I think we should start today’s conversation. Not with the technology, with the choices.

Because Waddington’s closing argument, and it’s what I find compelling, is that human agency still exists here. The technology isn’t making decisions. We are. The question is whether we’re making them wisely, or whether for the third time in thirty years, we’re about to hand the future of our profession to people who aren’t us. Shel, what’s your instinct on this?

Shel Holtz: Very much what yours and Stephen’s is. I have been saying for decades that the public relations industry is always, always, always late to the game when there is a new technology that is going to shape the way communicators do their jobs. We were late to the internet, for sure. We were late to the World Wide Web. My first book on communicating online—well, actually, my first book was on intranets, but the first one that got any attention was Public Relations on the Net—came out before the World Wide Web, before there was a graphical user interface. So there were plenty of opportunities for PR before the web, based on the capabilities of the internet. Then we missed the web, then we missed social media. In between we missed some other seismic shifts—mobile, being able to communicate with people based on the fact that they now had this computer in their pocket. We missed the pivot to visual communication, we missed the pivot to video communication. And now, yeah, we are poised to miss the pivot to AI. And that’s not to suggest that PR people aren’t using it. I think they are, but I think they’re using it at a very superficial level and are succumbing to a lot of the hype out there about things like job loss and “get rid of your entry-level people.” That’s all mundane drudge work that the partners and senior people don’t want to do—the account execs—so hand that all off to the AI and you don’t need to pay those people anymore.

And you’re exactly right. I was listening to a podcast over the weekend where they were talking about the same issue, but they were talking about it in the context of law firms. And they were making the point that the associates that are brought in out of law school do the drudge work that the partners don’t want to do. They write contracts, right? They do things like that. And now that the AI can do that, who needs them? Well, the question becomes: where do the future partners come from when the ones who are already at the partner level retire? There’ll be nobody to take those jobs. We are not rethinking the industry, and we’re not rethinking it from two perspectives. One of those perspectives is the agency. The other perspective is the in-house side of communications. They’re two sides of the same coin. But I think we need to split them apart and look at them in terms of how we need to reinvent the profession. You and I have talked about reinventing how we bill, how we price, because the hourly model makes no sense anymore. But what does an entry-level person do if the AI can handle a lot of that drudge work? And it can.

I mean, we’ve talked about on this show that I’ve set up a Hermes instance and it is out there. In fact, I haven’t checked my Telegram account yet, but there should be 10 links to recent news stories that are prime for me to news-check because I set up an agent to do that. I have an agent set up, a skill set up, that I can deploy anytime I want to. It is set up to analyze the websites of twenty-two of our competitors. And all I have to do is tell it what I want it to analyze. Do I want it to look at how they handle their project portfolios? Do I want it to look at how they handle their thought leadership? I can ask it any of those questions and it’ll come back and give me a very nice report. I could absolutely set it up to do media monitoring. I’m starting to question the need for my media monitoring service at work, although the agent that I have set up to do some of this certainly can’t get behind the paywall the way that the media monitoring service can, because they pay the licensing fee for all of those. So if the AI can assume all of this work, it’s not a question of saying we don’t need entry-level people. It’s a question of reimagining what entry-level people should be doing.

In terms of AI: What should they be doing with AI, and what new things can we be having them do that we haven’t thought of before, or that we always wished they could do if they didn’t have all of this drudge work that they had to spend their time on? It’s time for a reinvention, and I don’t see anybody talking about that. I haven’t seen a whole lot of ideas about where all this should go.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I’m with you on that a hundred percent. Exactly my sentiment as well, that you don’t see people talking about this in a truly serious way. I see on LinkedIn—if that’s any barometer, I don’t know if it is or not—but I see people mentioning this now and again and “we ought to do something about that.” But there’s no webinars, no seminars, no get-togethers on the topic of reinventing the agency, let’s say. It’s a topic I’ve written about myself, and value-based pricing versus time-based pricing. And it’s interesting how Stephen Waddington addresses that topic in his article. It’s quite a pointed observation he makes that’s worth pushing on. If you’re still selling time rather than value, he says, AI will break your model. That’s a direct challenge to the billable-hour structure that much of agency PR still runs on. So the firms getting this right are building around insight, outcome, and risk management instead. It’s worth asking how many firms are actually making that structural shift versus just talking about it. Not enough. Doesn’t mean to say they’re ignoring it. Far from it. I think it’s largely because they don’t know what to do. How do they address this? So there’s an opportunity for someone with some insights and answers to help educate firms like that. There’s a consulting opportunity, if you like.

Shel Holtz: I was thinking exactly the same thing. If somebody’s looking for a pivot in their career, that sounds like one to me.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, yeah. So we are at that place. Again, go back just three years, 2023, when we wrote our pieces about that CIPR survey, and twenty-five percent of the respondents said they’d never ever use AI. It was pretty absolute, the answers. Here we are, three years later, and I bet you that number’s down to five percent, if not less. I can’t imagine anyone—and it causes a very broad question, “would you use AI, yes or no?” It’s a bit like “should we stay in the EU, yes or no?” I mean the Brexit referendum—well, people, what a dumb question. But so that’s where we’re at. But I believe a lot of the landscape is now so polluted with everyone’s opinion that it’s very confusing to zero in on what are the issues I need to be thinking about in an organization. Plus, I see so many people—I saw one just this morning—someone’s got a PDF book on how to move your business to selling value, basically, not time. And it’s not how many hours you did, it’s what did you deliver to the client.

So it’s great, but it needs to be more authority than that, I think. And this is where the profession comes in—professional bodies like the CIPR, the PRSA in the US. The CIPR has done a good job in raising awareness about AI in the right way, in context related to public relations. They’ve had this AI panel for some time now with senior practitioners leading it. This book’s come out and it’s got a lot of support from practitioners in the UK and beyond. So maybe now is the time that this is going to get taken a bit more seriously than people do. I think though what Stephen worries about—and I think it’s not a misplaced worry—is the point that people are being laid off. Layoffs are happening all the time and most people believe it’s because AI is going to be more efficient and all that kind of stuff. And there must be some truth in some of that. But he also mentions something quite interesting in his article, because he says that most of the conversation about AI and jobs focuses on redundancy risks from above—leadership cutting roles. We’ve talked about that quite a bit. But Waddington notes a quieter pressure running in the opposite direction. Junior and mid-career practitioners are walking out of organizations they consider too far behind the curve.

So firms that move too slowly aren’t just at risk of getting the technology wrong, they’re at risk of losing the people who could help them get it right. The talent drain is bi-directional. Now that’s an interesting element to bring into this discussion, I think—that it’s those folks who are walking away. He doesn’t say, and I hadn’t found anything before we started recording, as to where they’re all going. Are they leaving the profession entirely, or are they just looking for a place that—in a sense they feel it’s worth going to this company because they’ve got it switched on, that they’re clued into this? So maybe that’s the state we’re in. Doesn’t answer the questions, mind you, and they’re coming thick and fast now, I think. I see, again, LinkedIn is a kind of barometer of sentiment, if you will—not in the analytics way, but the feeling you see expressed in some posts from some people who are worth reading about it. And that includes many of the people that I follow and that you would follow as well. So you’re seeing this, but it’s all very random. That’s the thing. And it requires something more than that. And voices like Stephen’s, yours when you were talking about this—we’ve missed about three, four, five times, that sort of thing. What’s going to make people really pay attention to this?

Shel Holtz: I hate to say it, but it’s the same thing that has always made the industry pay attention, and that’s when they suffer financial pain. The reason we have not embraced as an industry these technological changes is our billings were fine. We were doing just fine as an industry financially. So why should we make this risky change to something that we don’t quite understand and we’re not convinced is going to have all that much impact or will necessarily stick around all that long? That leaves an opening for other industries—advertising and marketing—to sneak in. It also leaves an opportunity for boutiques that specialize in this to start up and take money off the table that was there for the PR agencies that were already in business. And this seems to be a recurring pattern: if we’re not feeling the financial pain, we’re not gonna make any change. As soon as we start to feel that pain, as soon as we see our clients going to the boutiques and going to the marketing agencies, then we go, “we better change.” And then we’re behind the curve. So I think that’s the big issue and the big challenge—to be proactive rather than reactive when these technologies create these opportunities, or create the requirement, if we wait, that we must change because we’ve already seen these revenues go to somebody else.

One thing to keep in mind: absolutely there have been layoffs within the industry and they have been attributed to AI. It is important to keep in mind though—and this was reinforced in that very same podcast I was listening to that I mentioned earlier—that if you look at economic data, there’s no evidence of mass layoffs as a result of AI. The unemployment rate is pretty much where it was before all of this. The number of new jobs that are being reported, at least in the US, has actually been pretty strong. The jobs report the last month was quite encouraging. So we keep hearing about the mass layoffs and they may be coming. They may not.

Because frankly, what I see—and I don’t know if this is unique to the construction industry, I doubt it; I think it may be a bigger issue in the construction industry, but I think this is probably true of most jobs—is it’s not the job that gets replaced by AI, it’s tasks within the job. And then there are other tasks that the AI can’t do. The other thing is that there are things that we have wished that we could do, but haven’t had the time to do, from an internal comms standpoint and even, I suspect, a PR standpoint from inside the organization, the client side. I mean, I remember when I was in my first corporate job. This was with Arco. I was there from ’77 to ’83 with some brilliant communicators, but the company believed in it. So they funded the internal comms department. We had 25 employees in internal comms in five cities.

And each of us had beats, just like you were a newspaper reporter with a beat. I had two beats. I had Arco Petroleum Products, which was the gas stations and the merchandising of cans of motor oil and things like that, and Arco Marine, which was the oil tankers that transported oil mainly from Alaska down to the refineries along the West Coast. And I spent time—I mean, that was my job, was to go hang out, to spend time, to shadow somebody, to do a ride-along, to ride on a tanker, to spend a day at one of the gas stations and really get a sense, and to be able to report on this a little more intimately than just calling somebody and doing an interview over the phone. And in public relations, I think it’s important to remember that “relations” part of the public relations label. How do you build relations? Well, if AI really does take away a lot of that drudge work that we spend the time doing while we’re sitting at our desk, then we have time to get up from our desks and go out and hang out with the publics that we are dealing with and build those relations. And why wouldn’t we want to do that? AI can’t do that. AI can’t get up, get their car and go to where the public is. Maybe it’s a community relations organization, maybe it’s a division of your business. Maybe it’s a customer base that is gathering—well, let’s say it’s Ford Motor Company and there’s a car club that’s meeting. Whatever it may be, we have the opportunity now to become much more entwined with those publics.

And do a much better job of understanding them. Yeah, we still want to do the data, we still want to do the analytics, but there’s nothing like sitting with them and looking them in the eye and talking with them to build an understanding that’s going to help you communicate with them and help you build trust among them. That’s just one idea of what we can do with this freed-up time. And this is an important point—and I saw this in one of the reports that came out just last week, I think it was—the value that we get from saving an hour because AI can do it just leaks out of the bottom of the organization if we don’t know what we’re going to replace that hour with that has value. And we hear about all the savings of time that AI is going to give us. I haven’t heard a whole lot about how organizations are figuring out how to reallocate that time among those employees.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, yeah, neither me. No, I agree. And you do hear a lot of talk about the concept of that. I mean there’s lots in this topic, Shel, really, and you’ve thrown some bright light on some of the things we should be doing. I like the idea of going out to meet your publics, as it were. It’s winding the clock back, actually, to how we used to do all this back in the day, before all this tech was there.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, it really is.

Neville Hobson: We had to go out and find the sources and interview them face to face and, you know, meet down the pub or whatever. So maybe we need to examine what worked in the past and bring it to the fore again.

Shel Holtz: When I was a newspaper reporter, before I made the switch to corporate communications, I was with a local community daily newspaper, and I used to go hang out at the bar after work where all of the government workers hung out after work. Got to know them, got to listen in, got some pretty good stories out of that. But also I could pick up the phone and call some of these people because they knew me. I wasn’t just the reporter who called when I needed a quote or needed some information. I was the guy they just had a drink with.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, exactly. Lessons to learn there, I think. So yeah, lots of good ideas here. I think Stephen Waddington did a good job in literally describing the landscape and expressing some of his concerns. That’s prompted this conversation. So let’s hope this adds to the topics that people need to be talking about. So listeners, hope this is helpful.

Shel Holtz: And listeners, if your organization is actually making some changes and doing some pivots, we’d love to hear about it. And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

 

The post FIR #518: Is the PR Industry Blowing It Again? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

First, they were told to use AI. Experiment! Add it to your workflows! Go wild! Then the bills started piling up, and companies realized the cost was not tenable. Now the walk-backs are happening. Usage caps! Caution! Slow down! Among the issues communicators need to address is employees questioning leadership’s judgment. In this short midweek episode, Shel and Neville explore approaches communicators can take to help employees understand the pivot while maintaining the perception of leader competence.

Links from this episode:

• AI can cost more than human workers now
• Microsoft reports are exposing AI’s real cost problem: Using the tech is more expensive than paying human employees
• When AI Costs More Than the Worker It Replaced
• AI isn’t paying off in the way companies think. Layoffs driven by automation are failing to generate returns, study finds
• AI layoffs may be backfiring on companies
• Uber, Microsoft, and Others Burning Through AI Budgets. Now What?
• Uber burned through its entire 2026 AI budget in four months. Now its COO is questioning whether it’s worth it
• Uber Burns Its 2026 AI Budget In Four Months On Claude Code
• Sam Altman says OpenAI’s top token spender uses 100 billion tokens a month — and they’re not even the world leader
• OpenAI CEO Sam Altman admits AI token costs are becoming ‘a huge issue’ — company seeks improved value as overspending becomes a meme
• Token Billing Exposes AI’s Missing ROI And Puts Billion-Dollar Bets At Risk
• AI savings misses should make executives uncomfortable
• AI saves workers a day a week, but they don’t know what to do with it

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, June 22.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [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 Hobson: Hi everyone and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 517. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz: I’m Shel Holtz. In some companies right now, that AI that was supposed to replace expensive humans is costing more than the humans it replaced. The numbers are kind of breathtaking. Uber burned through its entire 2026 AI budget in four months. In fact, I just heard today that they’re introducing a monthly AI spending cap of $1,500 per employee. One unnamed company, a real one though, spent half a billion dollars on AI in a single month because nobody had bothered to set a spending limit. An NVIDIA executive flat out admitted that for his team, compute now costs more than the engineers using it. A lot of these companies didn’t just overspend, they made decisions on the strength of what they thought AI could do. And in plenty of cases, those decisions cost people their jobs. The pitch was that AI can do this work for a fraction of the cost.

Then Bain and Company studied a thousand companies and finds that most aren’t getting those savings. Gartner found the layoffs delivered no better returns than not laying anyone off at all. In its study, Bain looked at the books and saw money leaking out of the top, companies spending the budget without the savings showing up. And Boston Consulting Group went and asked employees and found that the leak runs from the bottom too. Over 40% of regular AI users say they’re saving a full workday every week. But Boston Consulting Group’s point is that saved time doesn’t automatically become value. If nobody tells an employee where to redirect those reclaimed hours, that value just evaporates. So two consultancies looking at two completely different ends of the organization landed on the same diagnosis. This is a management failure. It’s not a technology failure. So put yourself in the shoes of employees who are still there.

They watched colleagues walked out the door because they were told the machine could do it cheaper. And now they’re watching leadership start to walk it back. In most cases, walk it back really quietly. What does that do to employees who see their leaders’ judgment, their competence? Because that is where this becomes a communication story. It’s about trust, credibility, and what we as communicators are supposed to do when leaders make a big public painful bet that doesn’t pay off. We’ll share our thoughts about that right after this.

Now there’s a lot we can talk about with this story, like communicating a suddenly altered governance model. But let’s start here. The bet companies made was about people, that AI could replace human labor at a fraction of the cost. When that turns out to be wrong, employees don’t just see a line item on a P&L. They see leaders who either didn’t understand the technology they bet the company on, or who used the AI story as cover for cuts they were going to make anyway, what we’ve come to call AI washing. Both of these readings are poison. The second one travels fastest. A communicator’s first job is to make sure that the accurate story is the one that gets out there. And to add a little context to that idea, Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, just recently said that this cost discussion is new. It started early this year. Before that, nobody was talking about it. And that’s probably because before early this year, most employees were prompting AI chatbots, and that didn’t blow up budgets. What changed early this year? Agents. Now employees have agents running complex tasks in an endless loop, and that burns tokens like nobody’s business. I heard about one employee who burned through a billion tokens in a month. That means costs are exploding. It’s not something anybody really anticipated, and a lot of CEOs were caught unaware. You know, they paid for the subscription cost to say Anthropic, now they’re paying the subscription, but they’re also paying for tokens. So Neville, if you were leading a comms department in a company that laid off a bunch of people because AI could do their jobs, and now it’s either costing more for the AI to do those jobs, or the AI isn’t doing it as well as the people did, how do you communicate that without making leadership look like fools?

Neville Hobson: Yeah, it’s a good question, isn’t it, Shel? I mean, you’ve painted a picture that’s pretty dire, it seems to me. And I like to think that this is a kind of outlier territory we’re in. This is not the mainstream. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. You know, I don’t recognize this in the UK, so it could not yet be a big deal over here. But I’m thinking you mentioned that the original AI narrative, if I can describe it that way, was sold to people as we’re replacing you with robots or we’re replacing you with tech. I wonder, is that the case everywhere? Because I would have thought it was, many would have sold it as additive. It’s AI plus you, not AI instead of you. And that’s a wholly different kind of message if that were the case. Either way, they’re walking it back. And I think there’s a handful of things the communication leader should do. And that person would also be the counselor and the advisor to the leadership of the organization. So I think one of the first things, if not the first thing, is that you mustn’t let the leadership hide behind euphemisms. You know, restructuring, right sizing, optimizing for the future, that kind of stuff.

Employees see through all of that, particularly in this example. And it makes things even worse, I think. The communicator’s job is to push for plain language, even when that’s uncomfortable. So that’s one thing. The second, and again, this may well be the first. I’m just putting these out there as bullet points effectively without saying which is the most significant. Acknowledge the whiplash directly. Acknowledge it. Don’t pretend that the earlier message just didn’t happen. All those lovely messages about this rosy future’s coming when we’re introducing AI. You could say, we told you AI would be a productivity multiplier for everyone. We believe that. The reality has turned out differently, and you deserve an honest explanation of why. Of course, your next bit is so what are you going to say? But that’s the framing you need to do. Separate the human cost from the technology story. The people losing jobs are not a line item.

Communication that treats them as a budget adjustment will destroy trust with everyone who remains behind. And the people who remain are watching very carefully. Give the survivors something real, not platitudes about the future, concrete information about what the new operating model looks like, what’s expected of them, and what support they’re getting. And there’s a harder truth for communicators, it seems to me, and this kind of popped out of the woodwork sideways when I was looking into this. If you’re the comms person in a situation like this, and leadership won’t let you be honest, won’t acknowledge the contradiction, they won’t speak plainly to people losing their jobs, then you have a professional and ethical problem, not a communication problem. And that’s a different ball game. And if you’re in that situation, I would say, easy to say this naturally, is get your resume brushed up and start looking around someplace else. You don’t want to be in that kind of environment. So the best communication advice in the world can’t fix a leadership team that wants to paper over a broken promise. And that’s worth saying out loud. And I think these are the things that should be on the communicator’s to-do list in a situation like this that could, I suppose, go some way towards restoring or maintaining some level of trust in the leadership, where we do, we hate what you did, we’re angry at you, but we believe that you are willing to fix it in some form. And even saying like, yeah, I’m with you on that, you thought this would work and it didn’t. So there’s other questions that will arise too. But either way it’s going to be an uncomfortable journey to get to an outcome that you like.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, to your first point, no, I don’t think every organization is going through this. I think it’s the ones that are actually providing employees with a budget to use tokens. I mean, we heard the stories about the leaderboards that were encouraging people to rise to the top of the leaderboard for the number of tokens they were burning, because that would indicate, it would signal that they’re using AI, which the companies wanted them to do. But you know, the models, the frontier labs were not really forthright with their pricing structures on the tokens. This was something new. They introduced it. It’s not very transparent. Not all of them even have the ability to show you how many tokens you’ve burned through. A couple of them do, but it’s not clear what that means in terms of your costs or what you have left available. But you know, from the communication standpoint, yeah, the trap I see here is that the original decisions were announced really loudly.

Shel Holtz: They issued press releases. They had all hands meetings. It was discussed on earnings calls. The correction here is happening more like a whisper. Spend caps are being added quietly to governance language. I know Uber is out there talking about it, but not everybody. The leaderboards for those token maxing exercises are just vanishing without explanation. Contractors are appearing in company offices to do the work that the AI was supposed to do. Some of them are the employees who were laid off in the first place. So, you know, when you boast loudly and walk back quietly, employees are going to fill that silence, right? Information abhors a vacuum. And they’re going to fill it with the worst possible interpretation. But, you know, leaders do have this instinct to either double down, you know, this is what we said we were going to do, and by God, we’re going to do it. Or they go quiet, and both those approaches are wrong. I think what actually rebuilds credibility isn’t a groveling apology. It’s a clear here’s what we expected, here’s what the data actually showed, and here’s what we’re changing in response. I think that reframes what looked like a wrong bet into a process that we employed to arrive at the best outcome.

And it’s a continuum, and we’re here at the continuum. We’re not at the end game. We’re still learning and adapting and adjusting, and we still believe in the promise of AI, which by the way, I do. Look, employees don’t lose respect for leaders who update their thinking. They lose respect for leaders who pretend they were right all along when they weren’t. So we should counsel leaders to stop measuring AI adoption and hours saved, and start measuring whether that saved time is actually being reinvested into something that matters. We should never have been celebrating who can burn through the most tokens the fastest. In communication terms, that’s like focusing on which communicator can produce the most articles for the intranet and ignoring whether people are modifying their behaviors or reinforcing their support for company goals or whatever other outcomes you had determined that those articles were supposed to produce. Deciding what an organization celebrates, what it puts on the scoreboard, that’s partly our job.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I’d say you’re right. It’s interesting. I think there’s a kind of an underlying question behind all this, it seems to me, that I was mulling over when I was looking at this. The real question is, can communications actually repair the damage that’s been caused by this? Can it? I think the honest answer is partially. So good communication can reduce the damage, preserve some trust with the people who stay and give the organization a chance to rebuild its credibility over time. But it can’t undo the promise. It can only help people understand what happened and why. Now that may sound like, well, in that case, this is doomed. No, not at all. Because if you get to that point, help people understand what happened and why, you’ve then got a foundation where you can build from, it seems to me. And that’s connected directly to your point you just made, that you have to, you know, grasp the nettle as it were, take the bull by the horns, etc., think of the metaphors, and be honest and truthful, fess up. It’s not like, yeah, we screwed up, not at all. We made the bet, we had all the research, everyone was convinced this would work, and indeed our vendors who persuaded us to sign up for all those tokens were saying the same thing.

There’s also another element. I’ve been reading about this in, I’ve forgotten, one of the US papers that I subscribe to, about this supposed huge AI backlash in the US that isn’t happening here. Yeah, it’s not happening here, although it’s a whole different landscape here in that context. Not on the scale that you have in the States. But I’ve been reading a bit about that. Maybe that needs to be factored into this as well, because that would fuel people’s anger, I think, at the outcome that they’re experiencing, particularly if there’s kind of iffy communication somewhere in there that doesn’t resonate with employees. So it’s a complex picture. But I think the real question is, can communications actually repair the damage? And I think the answer is precisely that, partially.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, you raise a really interesting point. If 70% of the population is feeling negative about AI, you have to figure that that is reflected in your employee population. And now you’ve got this piled on top of that. That’s just fueling those views. So you have to factor that into the approach that you’re taking to communication and maybe even into the employee profiles that you’re using to craft those communications on that whiplash that you were talking about. Important to remember that for, you know, like a year, employees were pushed. Yeah, there were mandates, those leaderboards I mentioned. They were pushed to use it as much as humanly possible, and now they’re being told, oops, use it carefully. Yeah, and I think communications does set the narrative that connects those two poles. You know, without it, the reversal just looks like leadership didn’t know what they’re doing.

Shel Holtz: And again, that reads as incompetent. So I think we do have to build the bridge. We learned something on the road. Here’s what’s changed and why. It doesn’t mean that the promise of AI isn’t still there. It’s just the road that we are taking to get there is a little more winding than we expected. And by the way, speaking of the whiplash, according to that Boston Consulting Group survey, nearly half of workers, 47%, say they spend more time managing and directing AI than doing the actual work they were originally hired to do. Think about that against what leaders promised, because the pitch was that this was going to be a labor-reducing thing, a productivity improver. And what employees are actually living is the labor didn’t get easier, it just got transformed from doing the work to supervising the AI that does the work. Boston Consulting Group found that four in ten reported an increased cognitive load, which is, I have to say, exactly what I have been experiencing. I’m not spending less time, I’m spending more time, and AI is part of the reason for that. So when the lived experience doesn’t match what was said in the announcement, the gap is where leaders’ credibility can go to die, right? It’s the communicator’s job to close that gap. Make sure that the story leadership is telling matches the work that people are actually doing and the experience they’re actually having.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I would subscribe to that view. I’m also thinking, Shel, that, you know, the way this has been presented, let’s say, is as if, you know, lots of communication when this started, big promises from leadership, and then silence. And now there’s this, we’ve got to rethink all this and you’re not going to be able to do that. So there was no effective communication in the meantime, there was no updates on what’s going on and this is what people are doing and these are the benefits they’re having. So I feel there was a lack of continuity in the communication. Otherwise this wouldn’t have landed as a big surprise, or as big a surprise as it has to many. There would have been signs that might have prompted some to say, whoa, hang on a second. I’m getting this little note here saying I’ve used so many tokens. I mean it could even be, what are these tokens it keeps talking about? How was that communicated? That every time you do this, this is going to happen. And I’m thinking of my own experience as an individual and the experiments I’m running with Claude, for instance, that when I was experimenting with Claude Cowork, it would, or it might have been the project, I can’t remember which one it was now, but there was a little script I could put into the model that told me how many tokens I used. And it didn’t tell me that and then some kind of tech gobbledygook that I wouldn’t have a clue what the hell does that mean. It actually told me this project you’ve done used so many tokens, which is nought point one two percent of your total allowance until the next reset. Now that makes me think, that’s okay.

So, did they have anything like that in the organization that enabled people to just keep a running total on what they’re doing? You know, it’s kind of like the average MPG in your car kind of thing. Everyone knows that kind of thing. That’s helpful, even though it’s not very scientific or detailed, but it would be enough. And maybe I haven’t encountered it myself. I see people talking about this on LinkedIn quite a bit, where they are getting fed up with this tool telling me I’ve reached my token limit, and I’m thinking, okay, they’re obviously doing the kind of work that not everyone is doing that burns through tokens like this. And it’s quite tech oriented, those kind of comments. So you’ve got to take that into account. But I think it does come back to, from a comms point of view, that you told people this is what was going to happen, this is why we were doing this, and there’s this lovely rosy future for all of us. Did you explain the detail about how things were going to actually happen? Probably not, I would say. So otherwise there wouldn’t have been the backlash at the end. The backlash would have started earlier and you might have been able to head it off. You might have been able to make a difference. So these are all, you know, what-ifs perhaps, but nevertheless, it comes back to that underlying question, that can communicators actually repair this? The answer is partially, it seems to me.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and I could definitely see myself burning through a lot of tokens without a tech rationale for it. If I set up ten agents to scan the media environment 24 hours a day, seven days a week, each with a different area of focus, and they’re just constantly running, that’s tokens being burned. That’s like the car never being turned off and going through the gas. So, by the way, imagine the message that companies can send to their employees if the company was more deliberate and slower about the implementation of AI. They know it’s coming. They’ve given Copilot to employees, but in terms of everybody going out and building agents and things like that, well, we’re still remediating our internal data to make it useful for an AI model. And we haven’t launched our training yet. No, they can rub their hands and say, you know, being slow and deliberate paid off. Look what’s happening to all these other organizations. We’re pretty smart leaders here in this company. By the way, one other communication opportunity I want to address before we wrap up, and that’s around governance, because there’s, you know, a remarkable detail in this story. The companies that overspent mostly already had the tools to prevent it. You know, spend limits like you set up in the agent that you had that told you how many tokens you’d gone through. Routing simpler tasks to cheaper models. I just heard this morning on a podcast that there’s something you can sign up for if you use their tools, it’s automatically going to route you to the right model for the task. So you’re not always using the high-end model, the reasoning model, the thinking model, that costs a lot. Budget caps, all of these rules have always existed as capabilities inside the platforms, the companies just never switched them on. So for a communicator, that’s a gift because it lets leadership say we’re putting real discipline in place without it sounding like punishing employees for using too many tokens, like they were initially told to do. The framing here is everything. The governance change needs to be framed as here’s how we make sure this actually pays off for us. And it lets employees know the company’s approach to AI is maturing. If you frame it as AI use is now restricted, well, that signals panic and confirms the exact incompetence story you’re trying to tamp down in the first place.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. Again, what was communicated, how was it communicated, to what depth was it communicated, and how did you know that people absorbed it well? So what kind of feedback mechanism did you have to see if people understood the message? But I think there’s also another element, this is an organizational one, which is, you know, you’ve got a hundred and fifty employees, let’s say you’ve got five hundred employees in your company, did every single one of those five hundred need unlimited token access to do anything they wanted? No, they shouldn’t have done. So the example you mentioned, a tech person or enabling someone to be monitoring something twenty-four seven, not everyone would need to have that. And in fact, you’d need to structure it so that only these guys who need to do that. And I would imagine you’ve done a comparison to say this is definitely going to be cheaper than doing it that way, which you’ve always been doing it. So that would make sense. I wonder how many didn’t even do those kind of, you know.

Shel Holtz: Many, if not most. Yeah.

Neville Hobson: Right, I wouldn’t be surprised. So perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at this outcome that we’re discussing here. And again, that is now the fifth time I think I’ve mentioned this, that communications can only repair this damage partially. And I think the bits it can repair are going to have some good outcomes, I would say.

Shel Holtz: One other thing that communications can do here is to set the stage. It’s, this is not the end game. We have not reached the place where, now we get it, everything’s right. The message is anticipate more change from this. I mean, the frontier model companies, Anthropic, OpenAI, you know, they’re going to change their pricing models because they know that people are dissatisfied. They know that it’s opaque. They know that it’s costing more than people and companies can afford. So you can look for this to get changed. I just recently heard somebody suggesting an outcome-based pricing model as opposed to a token-based model. I don’t know how that would work, but it’ll be interesting to see what they come up with. But you need to prepare employees for more change. You can’t let them be surprised again. Look at what agents did to the way this has pivoted. There’s going to be more of this on the horizon. You know, prepare yourself, but in the meantime, we are still on the right path of figuring out how to apply this to the organization’s best advantage. And that’ll be a thirty for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #517: How to Communicate AI Whiplash to Employees appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

The Economist has gone public with an experiment: it has created a shadow website featuring an AI-friendly version of its front-of-paywall content. The idea is to improve the odds of this content surfacing in AI answers and responses to AI queries. It’s based on a new standard, llms.txt, which has been described as the robot.txt of AI. What does this mean for communicators? Neville and Shel break it down in this short midweek episode.

Links from this episode:

• The Economist tests AI-ready web pages
• The Economist prepares for a two‑track internet: one for humans and one for AI agents
• The Economist is testing content read by AI agents
• How The Economist is using AI to extend its global reach
• The next version of the web will be built for machines, not humans

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, June 22.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [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 For Immediate Release. This is episode number 516. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson.

Something quiet is happening to the web, and The Economist is one of the first major publishers to talk openly about how it’s responding. A piece published by Digiday last week describes how The Economist is building what its VP of generative AI, Josh Munker, calls two versions of the web.

One version is the one we’re all familiar with: richly designed pages, feature photography, navigation, everything optimized for a human reader browsing with intent. The other version is quite different: stripped back, structured around questions and answers, designed not for you, but for an AI agent acting on your behalf.

Now, if that framing sounds familiar, it should. In episode 515 last week, we spent some time on what Google announced at its developer conference in May: that searching the web will increasingly be done by AI agents rather than by humans, and that people will focus on acting on the information those agents surface rather than clicking links themselves. I made the point then that the question for communicators was shifting from, “How do we get found?” to, “How do we become part of the information environment that AI systems draw from?”

What The Economist is doing is a direct practical answer to exactly that question. And here’s what makes this particularly interesting. The Economist itself published a piece last December describing this shift in precise terms: a move from a pull internet, where people initiate actions, to a push model, where agents act unprompted, setting up meetings, flagging research, handling tasks, often without a human ever typing a query. They wrote about it then as an emerging phenomenon. Now, six months later, their own team is operationally responding to it. They’re not just observers of this trend; they’re participants in it.

The logic behind their approach is straightforward. A growing share of people, particularly in B2B contexts, no longer start their discovery process with a search engine or a home page. They start with ChatGPT or Gemini or Claude. They ask a question, get a synthesized answer, and may never visit the original source at all.

For a publisher like The Economist, that creates an obvious problem. If your content isn’t structured in a way that an AI agent can parse and surface clearly, you effectively become invisible. Not because your content is poor, but because the intermediary can’t read it properly.

So The Economist is experimenting. Right now, the focus is on content that already sits outside the paywall: marketing copy, B2B sales material, the kinds of pages where you want a potential subscriber or corporate client to find you. They’re building parallel versions: the polished human-facing page alongside a clean, agent-readable equivalent. The aim is to show up accurately and usefully in AI-generated answers.

Now, why does this matter to communicators beyond the publishing world? Because what The Economist is describing isn’t a publishing problem. It’s a communication problem.

And it connects to something that one researcher quoted in The Economist’s December piece put plainly: Marketers and communicators may need to pitch not to people, but to agent attention. The audience increasingly will be algorithms, and the humans will act on what these algorithms surface.

Think about your own organization’s public-facing content: press releases, executive bios, policy statements, corporate FAQs, product and service descriptions. All of that content is increasingly being read and summarized by AI agents before it ever reaches a human. If that content isn’t structured to be understood accurately by an agent, you lose control of how your organization is represented in AI-generated answers. And unlike a Google snippet, you may not even know it’s happening.

Alessandro DeSantis, a media consultant quoted in the Digiday piece, puts it bluntly. He calls agent optimization a defensive baseline, not a competitive advantage, but the minimum requirement to remain visible at all.

There’s a deeper question sitting underneath all of this, which we’ll get into: Who do you trust in the AI-intermediated world? What does it mean for the communicator’s job when the first reader of your content isn’t a person at all?

Shel, you and I discussed the Google side of this in FIR 515. Here’s a publisher responding in real time. What’s your take?

Shel Holtz: I have lots of takes on this.

This is, I think, a big issue. The first thing I want to point out is that, as I read the commentary of people who are talking about this, there’s an expectation that in the not-too-distant future, the AI version is all that we’re going to need to publish because we’re going to be publishing for AI as people rely on AI to get their information. I find this a troubling idea.

I think people are ignoring the fact that right now, 25 to 60 percent, depending on the nature of the site, of visits to a website are direct. They are not coming from a search engine. It’s somebody who already knows the URL. As I mentioned in a post I published to LinkedIn last week, nobody going to Amazon starts at Google and says “online retail site” and waits for the URL to come up. They just type Amazon.com.

There are a lot of people who know the URLs. There are URLs published in magazine articles, in advertising, in TV commercials, for example. And then there is the dark web: I send you a link by email or in our Slack channel, and you click it. There’s no search involved at all, so there is no opportunity to see that AI overview.

So I think we have to keep in mind that there are still a lot of people who are coming to our websites, not through Google or some other search mechanism, or starting with Claude or ChatGPT or Gemini or what have you. They’re coming directly to your website, either because they know the URL or it has been shared with them by somebody else. So I think we do need to keep that in mind.

The other reason I think we need to maintain our own websites is because we own them, and we don’t own that intermediary. You publish that Markdown version of a web page and you provide the proper router to it. Was it called LLM text, I think? They’re calling this the robots.txt of the AI era. And it’s going to share with the person who’s making the query what it shares. It may not be exactly what is on your page. So now you’re down to using a third party.

Neville Hobson: Something like that.

Shel Holtz: So, yeah, it’s good to have at least as a statement of record what your original content was. I have some other thoughts about this, but I’ll let you react to that first.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, no, I get it totally. Yet the trend seems to be quite clear. This is the way it’s moving. And I would say that, from what I’ve been reading, not just this, but The Economist is actually a probably good signal for what other media properties may or may not be doing or might want to do, depending on the outcome of The Economist’s experimentation. Being discoverable in this new way is critical; otherwise, you are invisible.

And I think the behaviors of people are gradually changing, not to the extent that it’s a groundswell. I don’t see it like that myself. Maybe it is generational, potentially, I suppose. But I think applying that kind of “it’s because of age differences in the different generations” is a bit of a tired argument nowadays, I think, as a kind of answer to everything.

We’re seeing a shift in how people not only find information, but how they think about going about finding information. So the idea of thinking, “Okay, let me just type into this search box: How do I do so-and-so? Where do I go to?” or whatever words you might use. I kind of talk in literally conversational language when I’m searching for something, and I’ve had more good experiences, way more than not good, with Google Overviews as a result.

And again, I sometimes stop and think, “What did I just do then?” I took Google Overview and I didn’t go any further than that because it gave me exactly what I wanted. And not only that, I’ve got a list of all the sources it looked at as well. So why am I going to spend any more time on this? I got what I need. So this is evolving fast, even though it’s still not totally clear exactly what’s happening.

And I think the idea — and this is my take on this, Shel — the idea of, as a matter of course, sharing URLs in an email or in a WhatsApp message with colleagues in the workplace, that ain’t going to be the way it’s going to be as a matter of course. There are going to be other, better ways of doing it than that, generally speaking, of course.

So this isn’t suddenly going to happen next week. This is going to take some time to evolve. But it seems from what I’ve read, Digiday being one good example, and a handful of others I’ve also looked at, this is the clear trend that’s evolving. And The Economist is clearly betting on their experiment that AI-agent content prepared for AI agents is an essential move for them to take as a publisher so that they do not become invisible. And I get that.

Shel Holtz: I agree that it’s an essential move. I’m not suggesting that organizations not do this. I’m just suggesting that they not abandon their websites. For now, we’ve got to keep that 25 to 60 percent that are coming directly to your website in mind.

You also have to keep in mind that your website may have things on it that can’t be duplicated in an AI Overview. In fact, the advice that’s circulating out there is that if you want to drive traffic still to your website, you need to have that kind of content. It may be calculators, for example, interactive elements that just can’t be summarized. You have to get to the website and interact with that tool.

I know that the ability to purchase from an AI Overview is coming. It’s not here yet. I haven’t heard a timeline for when it’s going to be here. It’s coming, but for now, if you want to make a purchase, you need to go to the website to do that. So I’m suggesting that there are still reasons to provide a website. You need to do both.

Now, when I say you need to do both, I think it’s important to understand that you don’t need to have a one-for-one of all of the content on your website. You need to make a judgment about what on your website you want to have summarized by AI and what is unnecessary or superfluous, or what you otherwise just don’t need to spend the time on. It doesn’t matter if the AI gets this particular content summarized in Markdown so that it can give you the AI summary.

So I think you have to do some strategizing. But undoubtedly, what’s coming from the web development platforms that are out there is the automation of this. I think it’s inevitable that WordPress and Wix and Squarespace and Webflow and all of the other services out there for creating websites are going to add the ability to automatically convert this page to Markdown and put it in the right place. I think that’s probably going to ease this. I haven’t heard any conversations from these website creation companies about this, but I do think it’s inevitable.

Neville Hobson: It is, I agree. One hundred percent, it’s inevitable. And like I said earlier, this is not sudden. So your point about keeping your website with links and all that stuff — for some years, that’s still going to be the case for many people, but it’s going to decline.

I think it’s interesting what you said about some stuff not lending itself well. I totally agree. And in fact, one of the tips for communicators that I came up with from all the stuff I’ve been reading is to go through your key external pages in your organization — the About page, FAQ, leadership bios, product or service descriptions — and ask, “If an AI agent were summarizing this, what would it say?”

And you talked about the examples you made: content buried in carousels, PDFs, JavaScript-heavy pages, or dense narrative prose is harder for agents to parse accurately. So restructuring even a handful of high-priority pages into clear, direct, quick Q&A formats is a practical first step. It could matter a great deal.

And the other thing, which I picked up from Digiday, but also from some others, is worth noting for everyone, I think. The technical landscape is still forming. Nobody has the full picture yet. But as The Economist example tells us, they’re not waiting, and neither should we as communicators. You start with what you can control: your own content, your direct audience relationships, your messaging clarity. And as Digiday concludes, the organizations that experiment now, even tentatively, will be better positioned than those waiting for a definitive playbook that may never arrive.

And I think if I were doing this — and again, it’s easy to say, “Well, if I were doing this, I’d do X.” It sounds easy, doesn’t it? — but the idea of literally kind of duplicating your website for this purpose is quite a bit of work. But it could stand you in good stead where your competitors haven’t done that and they’ve still got these beautifully designed, laid out, immaculate photos and stuff that’s animated, designed for human readers, without the version designed for the algorithms.

And I think that, to me, would be a key thing to truly investigate thoroughly in your organization: What am I committing to if I say, “Okay, our gorgeous website wins awards for its design, and here are all the metrics showing all the leads it delivers and all that kind of stuff. What do we need to do to get on the radar of the AI agents version?”

So you build a version. What’s entailed with that? One thing I didn’t see in Digiday’s piece, and I haven’t found it anywhere else yet, is what exactly is involved in creating a duplicate of your website designed around this? Where, for instance, you’re treating everything as structured data, not just copywritten text, which doesn’t translate well to an agent-intermediated world, to quote Digiday.

So it talks about, you know, starting to think about your key messages as discrete, unambiguous statements that can be lifted and represented accurately without context. That doesn’t mean dumbing things down. And this bit I did like: It means being deliberate about what an agent will extract if it only gets 30 seconds with your content.

Now, there’s a good pointer that the way of thinking about how you present yourself online now isn’t about beautifully designed websites and the nuanced meaning of words and phrases that are emotive about your products or service. It’s about data. And you need to appeal to — and this is a human emotive statement, which isn’t really applicable — but you’ve got to appeal to the AI agent. What will appeal to an AI agent? It doesn’t care, using the word “appeal.” It’s what will make it index you and include you when someone types, speaks, or whatever it is that produces search results, where the engine or tool you’re using goes out and pulls in all the information. You want to be sure you’re included in that. So it’s a bit of work to do.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. It’s not a one-to-one copy and paste from your existing website. In fact, we know that AI likes Q&A, for example. If your website’s not already in a Q&A format and the text can lend itself to that, you’re going to want to repurpose it that way.

We know that it likes what’s in the top 30 percent of the content, so you’re going to want to front-load the most important information. And frankly, if you’re not doing this, then your company is not going to show up in those AI summaries, or at the very least, it’s not going to show up represented the way that you want it to.

I do have two other issues to point out. One of these is the increased use of agents. You mentioned an agent, but it’s an agent that’s working on behalf of the model. Now I’m talking about the agent that’s working on behalf of me. In which case, that LLMS.txt file is going to become the routing layer to your official content.

And this is a big deal for regulated industries, because people have to find the canonical information. They have to find the approved information, not necessarily the one that was created for AI. So if you’re doing this, you do need to make sure that what you are creating for AI is official. It is going to present the information that the lawyers have approved, that is going to pass muster with the regulators.

The other thing is that if I can rewrite the text of a web page for the AI version of this that I’m creating, I can put something completely different on that page. And this becomes an ethical issue that we need to watch out for. People might try to game this. I mean, remember the early days of SEO and all of the gaming of SEO that we saw with tags that had nothing to do with what was on the page. They just knew that this was a popular search term, and it would drive traffic there.

We can see the same kind of gaming with this LLMS.txt routing to the AI-compliant pages, with information on it that’s there to get you into the search results, there to get you into the AI summary, not necessarily to give you the same information that you would have found on a web page. So this can be problematic, and I think it’s something that the industry’s going to be watching for.

Neville Hobson: I agree. So you compile your list of “these are the things we need to pay attention to,” but again, in the back of your mind, you’ve got this reality: The technical landscape is still forming. No one has the full picture yet. That would include what are the requirements of this, that, or the other. So assume it’s going to be like we currently have, although I would argue it’s not going to be like we currently have. It’s going to evolve, but that’s going to take time. So you need to do that precisely.

I would say pay attention to experiments like this. And again, this is a media company doing this, so they are publishers of content that might mention your brand. That’s why it’s important to you that you show up in these kinds of search terms as well. So a lot to pay attention to here, Shel, I think, really.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and remember, The Economist isn’t doing this with their articles yet because that’s still behind the paywall. This is all that stuff in front of the paywall. I mean, eventually it’ll get there to some degree, although I don’t know how you do this behind the paywall when it’s just showing up on, you know, Google Search or…

Neville Hobson: No, again, the technical stuff is not worked out yet. They’ll find ways here.

The other thing to mention — I’m glad you mentioned The Economist. I meant to mention this, but the final point in Digiday’s piece, I thought, was really interesting. It’s a reminder, I suppose, that for all the experiments, The Economist sees AI as infrastructure rather than authorship: something to speed up research, workflows, and product delivery, not a shortcut to churning out more copy.

So AI is not going to be writing their content, they say. It will do all this stuff at the back end, if you will, that would enable its journalists, its human journalists, to do the stuff that they do well. That’s admirable. And I think The Economist has a track record of that kind of behavior in its history. So it’s great.

I think it’ll be interesting to see what other major properties do, including the big ones in the U.S., the big ones here, and elsewhere in the world. And I bet you they are working on stuff like this, too. They have to be.

Shel Holtz: No doubt. And that will be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #516: Your New Shadow Website appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

Employees at the Pentagon have spun up over 100,000 AI agents. In the private sector, we’re seeing reports of 10,000 or more agents being deployed by employees at a variety of companies. The problem is that most organizations lack governance to address agents, and the problems this explosion of agents operating on employees’ behalf can cause are innumerable. In the long-form FIR episode for May 2026, Neville and Shel delve into the rise of agents, the harms they could cause, what companies should do to ensure these agents deliver benefits rather than problems, and how communicators can take a leading role in addressing the issue.

Also in this episode:

• AI copyright lawsuits are coming for communicators
• Google’s search overhaul could signal a post-citation era
• Placing your thought newsmakers, thought leaders, and subject matter experts on podcasts is becoming a standard media relations practice
• “I worked all weekend” is no longer an argument for the fees you charge
• Short-form video clippers are creating go-to content from long-form videos — including yours

Dan York outlines the big enhancements in WordPress 7.0

Links from this episode

• Slopaganda, the New Rules of Narrative Warfare
• AI Copyright Lawsuits Pose Growing Risk for Communicators
• Practical Considerations for Managing IP Risk in AI-Generated Content
• Best Practices for Mitigating Copyright Risks in AI-Generated Content
• AI in Litigation Series: An Update on AI Copyright Cases in 2026
• Powered by A.I., Google Changes Its Search Box for the First Time in 25 Years
• Google Search as You Know It Is Over
• Why Podcast Placements Are the New Press Coverage
• Including Podcasts in Your PR Strategy
• Podcast Guesting vs. Traditional PR: What Works in 2026
• U.S. Newsroom Employment Has Fallen 26% Since 2008
• U.S. Podcast Consumption Reaches Record High: The Infinite Dial 2025
• You Can’t Beat AI.
• Steve Rubel on AI, Media Analytics, and the Future of PR
• AI and the End of Billable Hours
• The Clipping Economy: How Short-Form Video “Clippers” Are Overrunning the Internet
• How Short-Form Clips Took Over the Internet
• The Clipping Economy
• The Case for and Against Clipping
• Inside the “Clipping Farms” Driving Fintech’s Marketing Boom
• Companies Have a New AI Problem: Too Many Agents
• Businesses Will Have Over 150,000 AI Agents by 2028, Says Gartner
• AI Agents Introduce a New Class of IT Management Challenges
• Why Most Enterprise AI Agents Will Fail — And What Leaders Are Missing
• How Smart Governance Can Contain Agentic Sprawl
• Six Capabilities Enterprises Need to Scale Agentic AI in 2026
• Pentagon Workers Vibe-Code 100,000 AI “Agents” to Use on Unclassified Networks

Links from Dan Yorik’s Tech Report

• Turn Your Blog Posts Into Podcast Episodes
• Google Search as you know it is over
• Google Changes Its Search Box for the First Time in 25 Years
• WordPress 7.0 Field Guide
• AVFTCN 040 – Returning From A Hiatus, and Plans for 2026

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, June 22.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [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 Hobson: Hi everyone and welcome to the For Immediate Release podcast long-form episode 515 for May 2026. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz: And I’m Shel Holtz, and we have six really interesting reports to share with you today. And not all of them are about AI. I’m not saying most of them aren’t, but a couple are on other topics of interest to communicators. Also have a really excellent report from Dan York looking at the latest upgrade to WordPress, a massive upgrade, one of the most significant upgrades WordPress has seen in some time, and Dan’s report is fascinating as he talks about this. But we are going to start by filling you in on a new podcast on the FIR Podcast Network. We haven’t had a new show on the network in a while. You know, we started this as just FIR and we needed a place to house multiple FIR shows. Those who have been listening a long time may remember FIR book reviews and FIR speakers and speeches. And we had a number of these. And then we had some people say, hey, can my podcast live on your network? And we said, as long as it has something to do with communications, sure. So all of them have pretty much faded except a couple that Chip Griffin continues to crank out, but now we have a new one. And the reason we have a new one is because I’m doing it as a new podcast by me and my longtime friend and colleague, Steve Crescenzo. And it is called On the Same Page. It is an internal communications focused podcast. We’re recording it twice a month, about 20, 25 minutes per episode. And each episode focuses on an element of the strategic internal communications framework that I developed. It was several years ago. It was actually before I took a job in the private sector again. I’ll have been at the company I work for now nine years in October. So yeah, I developed this a long time ago. Then I wrote 28 blog posts about it. Somebody said, turn it into a book. So I did. And I have found a publisher for that book. So the podcast and the book are companion pieces and the first episode of On the Same Page is out now. You can find it on the FIR Podcast Network or wherever you get your podcasts. For me, that’s Pocket Casts. For you, it may be Apple Podcasts or any of the countless places that you can get podcasts these days, including Spotify. So we’re there. We’re on Spotify, as is this podcast For Immediate Release. And speaking of For Immediate Release, Neville, we’ve done a few episodes since the last long-form monthly episode.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, we have published quite a few, four in fact, over the past month. All of them have listener comments and that’s unusual, pleasantly so, every single episode with comments. So let’s run them down. So in the long-form, episode 511 for April, on the 27th of April, our lead story was the tale of law firm Sullivan & Cromwell and how in spite of AI policies, training programs and guardrails, a public document went out filled with AI-generated errors. No human in the loop, seems, as we explored what went wrong and what it means for organizations trying to operationalize AI responsibly. We also talked about new evidence that AI is not leveling the workplace, why AI is raising the bar for PR, the rise of slopaganda, and much more. Comments, Shel, on that one?

Shel Holtz: Yeah, a couple, and a couple of responses to the comments. We’ll start with Wayne Asplund who said, for what it’s worth, I have a way I tend to think about this. Simpler work, smarter decisions, better customer outcomes. You should be focused on all three when working with AI. If not, you’re reducing quality and raising risk. The obvious example is what you talk about. If your only care is speeding up work and you’re not focused on the customer outcome, which describes many people, magnify the risk and reduce quality. You reduce the smart side of things too, because you’re not engaging with the content. The model works for all sorts of AI activities. And Neville, you had a response to that. You said, simpler work, smarter decisions, better outcomes is a good test of whether AI is actually adding value or just accelerating activity. The law firm example feels like a case where the first of those dominated: speed and efficiency, but the other two didn’t hold. And that’s where things break down. I particularly like your point about engagement. If people aren’t really engaging with the content, then the smarter decisions part never really happens. It just looks like it does. The balance you described feels like something organizations need to make much more explicit, not just assume. And then we had Philip Weiss who loved the word slopaganda. My thoughts on this are from an earlier post, and he shared the post that he wrote called Slopaganda, the New Rules of Narrative Warfare, and the link to that will be in the show notes. And Wayne Asplund replied to Phillips saying, “some of the creative terms coming out at the moment. One newspaper I read stoked the fear of job losses by talking about the job- the job-pocalypse. And another article I saw used the term e-idiots.” Definitely going to pinch that one.

Neville Hobson: Ha Excellent. Great to have.

Shel Holtz: And by the way, the idiot’s comment reminds me of a T-shirt that I saw the other day that said any fool can use a computer, many do.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, that’s good. Yeah, it’s good when we see that kind of engagement, comment discussion taking place in the all on LinkedIn, of course, right?

Shel Holtz: yeah, yeah, although I think I got one or two of these actually off of Facebook this month. I can’t remember which ones, but.

Neville Hobson: cool. Excellent. OK. So our next show, we asked the question, when does AI stop supporting decisions and start shaping them? In episode 512, published on the 4th of May, we explored a provocative idea that AI is becoming the new executive influencer. Some research suggests leaders are already relying on AI for the majority of the decisions. But what does that really mean in practice? We have comments, right?

Shel Holtz: Yeah, Vincent Brunel left a comment saying, accountability question is the one that keeps me up at night when AI shapes the outcome, who actually owns the decision? The algorithm suggested it can’t become the new, I was just following orders. And Dean Landaish, I’ve known Dean, God, I can’t tell you how long through IABC. Having done lots of genealogy work with AI, its use for policy and decision guidance frightens me. Even with safeguards in place, AI systems will eventually tell you what you want to hear rather than facts or even even-handed evaluation. Like the social media algorithms, it eventually feeds you what it thinks you want based on patterns. Aside from writing progressively more restrictive prompts to stop this, I’ve had to go so far as erasing and dumping my user history. I wonder how many neophyte business users will build in proper safeguards to prevent the bias creep that AI builds over time.

Neville Hobson: And next, a Harvard Business Review article about redesigning marketing organizations for the agentic age provided context in FIR 513 on the 11th of May as we explored what happens when AI moves beyond generating content to orchestrating workflows and organizational systems themselves. We discussed examples of using Claude CoWork and AI agents in communication workflows. Work that once took hours now happens in minutes. Comments, right?

Shel Holtz: David Bradfield from up in Toronto. Great episode, Shel and Neville. The shift to the agentic age is less of a tech hurdle and more of an accountability crisis. If a communicator can’t hold an autonomous agent accountable to the brand’s ethical and strategic guardrails, the operating model isn’t just slow, it’s dangerous. I’ve just launched Avalere Advisory, which is very much aligned to the opportunities you cover. The narrative code only works if you have the right cultural upskilling and governance to match. Moving managers from task supervisors to agent auditors is key. I love the focus on the narrative code. It’s something we were building into my last corporate role for our CEO and other executives. It’s the backbone of the unified model communication teams need to succeed. And another comment from Vincent Bruneau who wrote a year ago, this was demos. Now it’s workflow design and organizational architecture. The speed of that shift is what makes the experimentation point so critical. The gap between those who are testing and those who are watching is widening fast.

Neville Hobson: And finally, was Twitter a unique moment in media history rather than a repeatable model? That’s a question we asked in episode 514 on the 18th of May when we explored the growing arguments that text-based social networks are entering irreversible decline, not because text itself is disappearing, but because giant algorithmic public feeds may no longer fit how people want to communicate online. And comments, One comment.

Shel Holtz: One comment from Mark Hillary, who says, of smaller rooms is a good analogy. I have my friends and family on various private WhatsApp groups. This now serves the same function that social media used to perform. As social media becomes more more aligned with entertainment rather than connectivity to a network, everything changes for people who want to communicate to a wide group of people.

Neville Hobson: Brilliant. So now you’re up to date on FIR episodes.

Shel Holtz: Yep, that’s right, and 515 will get underway in earnest here in just a minute, but first I do want to let you know that Circle of Fellows is coming up, the May episode this coming week. It’s the second of our special episodes with Brad Whitworth moderating a panel to discuss the remaining chapters of the book, The 7 Cs of The New Communication Compass. The book’s author and editor, Dianne Chase, is going to join Brad along with the remaining fellows who wrote chapters who weren’t part of the last episode. That includes Zora Artis, who wrote the Cohesion chapter, Cindy Schmieg, who authored the Collaboration chapter, and me. And I actually was the moderator last month. This month, Brad is doing it so I can be there to talk about the chapter I wrote on community. The panel is going to be live streamed at 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time this coming Thursday, May 28th. Participants of the live stream will be able to ask questions, share comments, observations and experiences and be part of the discussion. But if you can’t join us live, there is, of course, the audio podcast and the YouTube replay coming up after the episode has been recorded. So as I said, we’re going to jump into our first report dealing with copyright right after this. I have two reports today that have nothing to do with AI at all. I hope that’ll be refreshing, but let’s start with AI. According to the law firm Davis and Gilbert, 99% of public relations firms are now using AI. That’s a pretty dominant number and it could be a rounding error that would take you up to a hundred percent, I suppose, or maybe there was one company that said, uh-uh, not us. But the top use cases should come as no surprise. They’re using it to write content, take notes and summarize meetings, spark ideas and monitor media. In other words, AI is touching just about everything communicators produce. And while we’re busy adopting these tools, copyright laws have been piling up. Now the specifics I’m about to cover are based on US copyright law, but copyright is a thing in most of the developed world. So even though these cases may not apply in the UK or Europe, principles, at least some of them probably do. So let’s look at an update from the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright published in March that walks through six of the most important AI copyright cases working their way through the courts right now. First, there’s Thaler versus Perlmutter. The Supreme Court denied cert on March 2nd, which means the rule is now settled, at least for now. Purely AI-generated work cannot be copyrighted in the U.S. Period. If a human didn’t, and here’s some core language to keep in your mind, if a human didn’t make a meaningful creative contribution, you cannot and do not own it. In Bartz v. Anthropic, the court ruled last June that training on copyrighted books was fair use, but storing pirated copies was not. Anthropic settled for $1.5 billion, the largest copyright settlement in U.S. history. The fairness hearing happened just this past May 14th, like a week and a half ago. The judge didn’t rule from the bench, she took it under submission, but observers expect final approval any time now, and authors are looking at roughly $3,000 per work. And by the way, I have applied for that relief for several of the books I’ve written. And if I get it, Neville, you’ll get a piece of that three thousand for the How to Do Everything with Podcasting book.

Neville Hobson: ha ha! Twenty years after we wrote it. Yeah, okay. Wonderful. Wonderful.

Shel Holtz: That’s right. But yeah, it’ll still earn you 1500 bucks if this all goes through. Yeah, in Kadrey v. Meta, we saw the same fair use conclusion on training, but a different judge in the same district disagreed with the Bartz judge on market harm. He basically told the plaintiffs they brought the wrong argument and signaled that a future plaintiff who actually builds on

Neville Hobson: Excellent. Look forward to it.

Shel Holtz: An evidentiary case on market harm, showing that AI-trained models flood the market and depress demand for the original works, that could win. Then there’s Disney and Universal versus Midjourney, where the studios are alleging willful infringement of their characters, Elsa, Shrek, Darth Vader, the minions, and ask for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per copyrighted work, plus an injunction and disgorgement of Midjourney’s profits. Now, here’s where the story has often gotten more interesting. Since Norton Rose published their article pointed to the Disney OpenAI deal, the one where Disney was investing a billion dollars and licensing characters for OpenAI’s Sora video app as a sign of two things. First, that formal licensing was becoming the path forward. And second, that every signed deal strengthens the case against AI companies that didn’t license because it proves a licensing market exists, which is exactly the kind of market harm courts look for in fair use cases. Well, on March 24th, OpenAI announced it was shutting down Sora. The consumer app went dark on April 26th. The API goes dark in September. And Disney’s billion-dollar investment, the so-called bridge between Hollywood and AI never closed. According to Deadline, a Disney insider said simply, the deal is not moving forward. So one of the most cited pieces of evidence that an AI licensing market was emerging, it just evaporated. That makes the legal terrain more uncertain for communicators, not less. You might still be tempted to say that’s an interesting legal story, but it’s a problem for the AI companies and law firms. Not for me, not so fast. A PRSA panel reported in a recent piece on the PRSA site titled, copyright lawsuits pose a growing risk for communicators, quoted Samantha Rothaus, a partner at Davis+Gilbert, who made the point that for communicators, accuracy in AI-generated content isn’t just about looking smart. Inaccuracy, she said, can be misleading and deceptive, and that creates regulatory and legal risk. Another panelist, Michael Lasky, said he sees significant gaps in AI policies and governance within the PR field, and those gaps create significant risk. And Debevoise & Debevoise & Plimpton article from early March written by attorneys who advise marketing and communication clients lays out exactly where that risk lives for us, for communicators, not for the AI labs. And it lives in three places. One, ownership. If your team uses AI to generate a campaign asset, a logo concept, a hero image, an ad headline, and there’s no meaningful documented human contribution, you can’t copyright it. You don’t own it, and a competitor could pick it up tomorrow and use it. And there’s nothing you could do about it. Two, vicarious liability. Debevoise, and I know I’m not pronouncing that name right. It’s the name of a law firm. They flagged this and it’s worth understanding. If you’re using a third-party AI tool, and you are, and that vendor’s model was trained on infringing material, courts have already held in non AI cases, that the company using the tool can be liable too. The rule is roughly this. If you benefit financially from someone else’s infringement and you had the contractual ability to control how they were operating, you can be on the hook, even though you didn’t do the infringing yourself. So the AI provider’s training practices and your indemnification language are now your problem too. Have you read your AI vendor agreement? Do you know what’s indemnified? What’s excluded? And third is output infringement. If an AI tool produces something substantially similar to a copyrighted work, even unintentionally, even because of a sloppy prompt, and you publish it, you can be sued. One analyst made the point that images are especially exposed. Reverse image search trolls are already a cottage industry, and AI is just going to feed them. So what should communicators be doing? Three things, none of them particularly unusual. First and probably most important is to build an IP clearance step into your AI workflow, the same way you’d clear a stock photo image or a freelancer’s contribution. Document the human contribution to anything you actually need to own and read your vendor contracts with your legal team, specifically for training data sources and indemnification carve-outs. The legal landscape is going to keep shifting fast, as the Sora story demonstrates. Communicators who get ahead of it now are the ones who will be in a position to keep using these tools aggressively. Everyone else is going to be playing defense, and defense is a really bad place to communicate from.

Neville Hobson: quite a picture. So I think that actually makes it adds a significant dimension to what we’ve already been talking about, not just you and I, but many, many people we have on this podcast. On the example I mentioned in an episode recently, we talked about the law firm that submitted, it was actually a document to a court in a bankruptcy case. It was a corporate bankruptcy, with big numbers involved, riddled with errors because no one had checked it. So that’s been the focus: human in the loop has got to check it. It’s deeper than that, There’s your kind of, in a sense, your obvious level of foundation of the things you need to do to ensure that you’ve done everything you possibly can to ensure that what you produce using an AI assistant to help you. It doesn’t contain errors that can trip you up because you didn’t check it. Here we got something that makes that even worse sounding, frankly. What troubles me most is the statistic in the PRSA’s piece, quoting the law firms report they did that 99% of PR firms are using AI. And we already know from other reporting that, you know, many of those, I’m not going to say most because I don’t know, don’t have the governance in place to protect them. Do they have a human in the loop? I’m getting very cynical about hearing that phrase because I hear it like it’s a nice thing to say and there’s absolutely no substance behind it whatsoever because we’re seeing evidence and prominent examples. So there are others that aren’t so prominent, but they’re happening where they don’t have a human in So we’ve talked about this before. You had an idea a few episodes back that you need to have verification specialists. Maybe it had got to come to that because not everyone has the ability to verify. And even if you do, what’s the legal implication of that person? Is that the responsible person on behalf of your firm? What if they’re the intern doing that? It’s got to have someone with authority to do that kind of thing. So 99% using AI, the top reason. writing content, 79 percent. That really does make this sound very serious indeed, that you could run into deep trouble. Now, I know you said this is the examples you gave under US copyright law and copyright law is jurisdictional and it’s based on geographies. It hasn’t changed any in hundreds of years in that regard. So if you’re a global firm operating in 20 countries, you need to understand the copyright law in each of those 20 countries. So the risks are high, I would say. And you painted some dark picture there of here are the potential consequences if you don’t do this. But this needs to be part of your thinking. You mentioned as well, reverse copyright trolling to find stuff that could land you with a request of payment for the copyright infringement, stuff like that.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, the digital version of ambulance chasers.

Neville Hobson: AI-generated images. Right. But that’s part of the landscape, I guess. So it’s something to take seriously. I did note the concluding part from the PRSA story where they’re talking about this same law firm did a survey last autumn. Thirty-seven percent of PR companies they surveyed were developing their own closed proprietary AI systems specific to their clients. Will that protect them? I think it gives a false sense of security because I doubt it would. So you can’t think, I don’t need to use, you know, take your pick, Claude, Gemini, chat GPT or whatever. Even I create a bespoke version of the LLM, I’ll build something unique. If you haven’t got safeguards in for this, it won’t matter. You’re still going to run into trouble. So this is huge, I think. I can see lawyers everywhere rubbing their hands with glee because this needs legal input to this in each of those different jurisdictions of the copyright law.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I’ll give you two quick examples just from my own experience in recent days. And by the way, Chris Penn, this goes back a couple of months, but he did publish a post on LinkedIn that gave you a prompt to use in order to check your output for copyright violations. And he said, it may not catch absolutely everything, but if you’re sued, you could pull up the fact that you did that as a good faith effort to ensure that you weren’t violating copyright. It could stand in your favor in a lawsuit, but presumably most of the instances it would actually catch. But these two instances that I’ve experienced recently, was a search I was doing. I use AI for tech support all the time. I find it better than tech support. And I was trying to resolve something. I won’t get into what it was, but it said, if And the language it used was very specific, right? It said, if you’re losing sleep over this, stop. Google has said that they understand that this is a bug. They’re aware of it. All of us are experiencing the same thing. They’re working on it. It should be fixed in a day or two. So I was looking for more information on this. So I went to Reddit and I did a search and there I found exactly that same language in a post that somebody had left in the discussion for this particular software product. So it’s not that Google Gemini had taken that information and put it in its own words. It had actually taken those words from whoever wrote that post and shared it with me as a response to a prompt on Google Gemini. So yeah, if that were copyrighted, that would be copyright infringement right there. And if I quoted it, that would be problematic. The other I shared on LinkedIn, I thought this was a really interesting story about somebody who uploaded a photo, an image and said, is an AI-generated image that I created. I prompted the model to use the style of Monet. And there were thousands and thousands, according to the article, there were like 1.6 million people who said, this is AI garbage, it’s slop, it’s horrible. Here’s what’s wrong with the art, the lighting, the brushstrokes. And then it was revealed it was actually a real Monet. It was not an AI-generated. He just said it was. And I shared that on LinkedIn, got some interesting comments. But one of the comments I got said, all AI-generated art is theft, presumably because all AI-generated art was trained on real art, just like all AI-generated text responses is based on text that it pulled off of the net. But with people having that attitude and the person who shared that comment isn’t the only one I’ve heard say that. You know that there are people out there who are looking for this. As I said a minute ago, the ambulance chasers of the digital era are the ones who are out there looking for something actionable and then going out and finding somebody to represent in a lawsuit based on that. So copyright and AI, especially in this period we’re going through right now with AI backlash in general, I think you’re going to see this activity ramp up. And I don’t see any reason why corporate communications using AI can’t be caught up in some of these legal actions.

Neville Hobson: There is plenty to think about in that case. So moving on to our next topic, if you’ve been following how AI is reshaping search, and I’m sure many of you have, we’ve talked about this on FIR before, including our discussion a few months ago about GEO, Generative Engine Optimization. Then what Google announced at the developer conference recently in May is the next chapter. And it’s a significant one. Two pieces caught my attention amongst the many reporting about this. Sarah Perez’s writing in TechCrunch and a report in the New York Times by Tripp Mickle, Kate Conger, and Brian X. Chen. Both cover the same announcement, but from different angles. And together, they paint a picture that communicators really need to sit with. Here’s what Google announced. The search box, that iconic long slender bar that barely changed since 2001 is being overhauled for the first time in 25 years. It is getting bigger, more conversational, and more interactive. But that’s almost the least interesting part. What’s really changing is what happens after you type. Instead, or you even speak, actually, now, instead of a list of links as part of an AI overview, Google will increasingly serve you AI-generated interactive experiences, custom visuals, dynamically built mini-apps, and what they’re calling information agents that work in the background around the clock, tracking the web on your behalf and alerting you when something relevant changes. TechCrunch makes the point starkly. Searching the web will increasingly be done by AI agents rather than humans. People will focus on acting on the information those agents surface rather than clicking links themselves. The New York Times goes further with a quote from Richard Kramer, a financial analyst with Arete Research. He said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that Google is reducing everyone to raw data providers. The open web, said, is on the way out. Now think about what that means for communicators. We spend years adapting our content strategies, first for SEO, then for GEO, trying to get our content picked up and cited in AI-generated answers. But what’s the strategy when the answer isn’t a list of links, isn’t even a text summary with citations, but a dynamically generated interactive experience that never surfaces a source at all? That’s the question I want to dig into. We’ve moved from SEO to GEO, and now we may be moving into territory where there’s no citation game left to play. I’ve got some thoughts about that. But first, though, what do you think, this means for communicators? And what should they actually be doing differently right now?

Shel Holtz: Well, I think communicators need to adapt. We always have. So has the marketing world and the advertising world. When Google first came out, I mean, you know, first of all, I have to say, I think this idea that it’s the end of the open web is utter nonsense. If anybody can go build a website, then the web is open. The question is, can they be discovered? Well, depends on how well they play the game. It could be that they just want to notify their customers that this is where you come to do X, Y, and Z with this company that you have aligned with. So, you know, that could be easy. But, you know, if you want to be discovered more broadly, you’ll have to figure out how that gets done in this new world. There’s going to be a way. I do think some of the things that Google has introduced here are interesting. The agents… I don’t know, man. They just seem to me to be the AI version of Google Alerts. How many of the emails that I get every day are based on the alerts that I have set up for things related to the company I work for and the topics we discuss and the markets that we serve and things like that. I have all of these Google Alerts set up. I’ll be happy to make them agents now on Google, that’s just fine. I don’t see that that’s going to change my relationship with it all that much. It’s going to surface pretty much the same information. I do like the multimodal capabilities that they’ve introduced. You can now include multiple images and things like that in a search. But they’re not getting rid of those 10 links down at the bottom. You just have to scroll all the way past the AI overview, which is getting more sophisticated and occupying more of the page, but those 10 links are still going to be there. In fact, I was listening to the episode of Hardfork that dropped yesterday, and they interviewed Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google. And he said, people are always going to want to be able to click a link, especially based on the kind of search they’re running. He says, that’s what Google does. We’re never going to abandon the links, but they certainly have pushed them farther down the page. And we know that the AI overviews have led to a significant decrease in the number of clicks that people are enacting on a search results page. So that kind of traffic has dried up to a large degree. So, you know, even though you can still get to those links, I don’t think that solves the problem for people who want to be discovered on the web. We’re going to have to figure this out. I would continue to look at the AEO slash GEO approach to visibility and also keep your eye on what the search experts tell us as they gain experience with this revised version of Google.

Neville Hobson: Hmm. I’m not sure that the links and AI overviews are going to stay as they currently are. I’m certain they’re not. One of the, in fact, three of the articles I read that go into quite significant technical detail about this are based on people’s interpretation, a lot of what was announced at the Google Developer Conference. So there’s no clean answer yet where this is going. We don’t know yet. But there are a number of directions worth looking at from a communicator’s point of view, I believe. So I’d start with if it means that the citation game, as I might describe it, was fundamentally about being findable. So you are signed, your content is cited, it shows up in AI overviews. So getting your content into the results that humans would click on. But that’s not what’s going to happen here. If agents are doing the searching and humans are acting on what the agents find, the question shifts from how do we get found to how do we become part of the information environment that AI systems draw from? That’s a subtler form of presence. It’s less about individual pieces of content, they’re more about sustained authoritative voice over time. This won’t happen quickly. So if you’ve not done prep, for overviews, you’re behind the curve on this because when this lands and becomes clear how it’s going to work, I think it’ll attract huge interest, particularly thinking about, we have a, one of the topics we’re going to talk about is on this AI agents topic, that you’ve got AI agents out there while you’re fast asleep or traveling or doing something else when you come back to your computer the next day or the next hour or whatever it might be. It presents you with the answers to your question. And they are unlikely to include links. They will be, in the sense, for many people, the complete answer to your question. You won’t need to click anywhere. That will appeal to a lot of people. So this is doing all the donkey work, as we might say. I think it suggests that owned channels will matter a great deal, not less. So a search as a distribution channel is being restructured. Direct relationships with audiences like lists, communities, podcasts, trusted platform, et cetera, become more valuable precisely because they don’t depend on being surfaced by an algorithm or an agent. The communicators who’ve invested in direct audience relationships are going to be better positioned than those who relied on search-driven traffic. And I think you made the point that AI overviews started something which was lessening click-throughs. And that is going to get even worse with this from a website owner’s point of view. There’s no click. So that whole model will have to change. So I think that said, there’s some other issues here too of interested communicators. The human moment is still the moment that matters. Even if an agent does the searching, a human makes a decision. So the communication challenge shifts to the point of decision rather than the point of discovery. That’s a more interesting place to operate, closer to the outcome, closer to the relationship. One of the downsides to thinking about this is you are still, let’s say, the human in the verification loop. You’ve got to check all this stuff. Do you just believe what the agent’s surface is? We’re not at the stage yet where it’s a bit like, self-driving cars, know, you’re 99% sure it’s not going to crash and kill you. Well, you actually need 100%. You don’t need 99%. And this could be in that kind of area.

Shel Holtz: I’m not even 100% driving my own cars 100% safe.

Neville Hobson: Well, you got it. You’ve got to conduct that. So the uncomfortable conclusion that I take from what I looked into was that some of what communicators have been doing for years, content volume, keyword optimization, SEO-driven publishing may genuinely be losing its value. So the honest conversation with clients and employees is we need to redirect effort from producing content for search algorithms to building genuine authority and direct audience relationships. That takes time and you will not see the benefit of that for a while. In the meantime, you’ve got utter disruption to the existing model heading our way.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, we definitely need to do that. But I do need to reiterate that as they were making the announcements about the brand new updates to Google search at I.O., they did double down on including reference links. Here’s what I got. Even though Google is transforming search from a simple box of links into an agent driven conversational interface powered by Gemini 3.5 Flash, they are integrating reference links deeper into the experience. There’s going to be a split over how that’s done. If you’re getting AI overviews doing a regular search, they’ll still appear at the top of the standard results page and you’ll still get the blue links visible right below it. If you go into AI mode, click the AI mode button. It completely replaces the traditional results page. Within AI mode, websites are either explicitly cited as references within the AI response or they receive no visibility at all as there are no traditional link positions under.

Neville Hobson: Right. So that comes into the area of there’s no clean answer yet. So you’ve got the kind of vested interest vendor saying, well, the link’s going to be down here. I’ve not seen that prominently mentioned in any of the tech reports that I did read. Indeed, I’ve seen one that said this is not prominent at all. Where does that fit then? Or is it going to be parallel? If AI agents are going to be out there on your behalf doing all the search work, you don’t have to do anything. How does that fit? Is it going to be like, well, if I don’t want to use AI agents, I can still use the old search. Is that how it’s going to be? No one knows yet. So this will emerge, I’m pretty sure. And it may well be right that they’re scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll. There are all the links I’m used to seeing. I don’t think that’s actually how it’s going to be, matter what they said in the I.O. Developer Conference. We don’t know.

Shel Holtz: or contextual.

Neville Hobson: So you and I are actually doing what everyone else is doing, speculating what it all might be. But there’s some clear direction, such as what I mentioned just now, for communicators in particular to pay attention to here, that you could see wind of change is blowing here. And whether there’s still going to be links at the bottom of the page or there’s an AI overview somewhere else on the page, you need to pay attention to this, what’s changing. The AI agents are going to really change things here.

Shel Holtz: Well, here’s the thing, even if there are links contextually in the narrative of the AI overview or there are still blue links below, people aren’t clicking them anyway because they’re getting that AI overview answer. And we talked about this when they first released the Amazon Echo because they talked about the issue of one. Yeah, we talked about the idea that this is one true answer. It’s not 10 links. And if you don’t like those, you can scroll to the next 10.

Neville Hobson: There you go. Four years and years ago, yeah, yeah.

Shel Holtz: It’s one true answer and you don’t know where they drew it from.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. But I think it’s shifting, though, the behavior, how it works, the idea that you enter a search term, either speak it or whatever it might be, and on the fly, will create interactive visuals. It will do all sorts of things that search can’t do until now. And so you won’t get an AI overview that’s just text. It might have links to it. Whenever links to visual, it’ll have the content there and then, as I understand it from what I’ve read, but hey, it’s not clear yet. So I’m sure we’ll see voices of people that you pay attention, that I pay attention to with some sensible analysis. There’s not enough information to go on yet. The trick I’ve been thinking most about is how do I separate, I won’t call it slot because it’s not, it’s just someone’s opinion that’s not informed from the stuff that is informed. So I’ve got a handful of the latter, and probably scores of the former. I’m trying to ignore all that stuff. To me, this is like the first alarm bell. Alarm is the right word, the first alert bell that you are about to see as a communicator, a fundamental shift in how search works. And it’s going to be, I think it’s going to be pretty. It’s going to be chaotic. So you need to pay attention to this in the right way. And that’s where you need I guess really to find voices that are authority that you can trust to hear how they’re described.

Shel Holtz: Well, let’s switch gears and put AI behind us for a few minutes and talk about something entirely different. Ron Culp’s blog, Culpwrit, ran a guest post earlier this month by Anuj Agarwal with a title that’s hard to argue with, Why Podcast Placements Are the New Press Coverage? By the way, I met Ron when he was running comms at Sears when I was doing some internet consulting there. Ron is one of the senior dons of public relations these days, and I do pay attention to what’s on his blog. In his post, Agarwal isn’t talking about having a podcast. He’s talking about pitching your client, your executive, your subject matter expert as a guest on someone else’s podcast. That distinction matters because that’s where actual news is happening. And if you’re not doing this yet, you’re already behind. Now let’s start with the audience math because the case is overwhelming. According to Edison Research’s Infinite Dial 2026, which they released back in March, 80% of Americans 12 years old and older have now listened to or watched the podcast. 58% listened in the past month. That’s about 167 million Americans, an all-time record. 45% listened in the past week. And among 18 to 34 year olds, weekly podcast reach is now equivalent to broadcast television. I want you to let that sink in. I’m going to say that again. Among 18 to 34 year olds, weekly podcast reach is equivalent to broadcast television. For your client trying to reach younger adults and appearance on the right podcast has the same weekly reach as TV. Now compare that with what’s happening on the traditional media side. Pew Research found that newsroom employment in the US dropped 26% between 2008 and 2020, and that bleeding has continued ever since. Newspaper newsrooms alone are down 57% from 2008. There are just fewer journalists and fewer editorial slots, which means there’s been a shift around where people are finding their content. Your clients still want earned media that channels worth pitching have just expanded. So why is a podcast appearance more valuable than a traditional press hit? Four reasons, and they’re all important reasons. First is the time on stage. A press mention is a paragraph. Even a feature article gives you a few quotes wrapped around someone else’s narrative. A podcast guest appearance gives your client 30 to 60 minutes of uninterrupted access to an audience that chose to be there on a podcast that’s likely to be specialized as opposed to generalized. That’s not just longer, more time. It’s a fundamentally different kind of exposure. The audience hears how your client thinks, not just what they say. They hear the tone, the texture, the moments of pushback. And Nielsen research has shown that listeners trust long-form audio hosts more than they trust traditional advertising. And that trust transfers to the guests by association. Number two is durability. A press hit spikes for a day and then disappears. A podcast episode lives forever. It sits in someone’s back catalog. It shows up in search. It gets clipped and shared on LinkedIn six months later. That’s the long tail at work. And Neville, I don’t know if I’ve shared this with you, but I get emails from the host of our archive site. Remember, we switched sites at one point and we archive the old site where many, many, many episodes of FIR live and I’ll get emails saying your site has exceeded the allowed site traffic for the month and won’t be accessible until the first of the month. Who’s going and visiting this site that hasn’t been active in 11 or 12 years and listening to those old episodes of the show? 40% of podcasts

Neville Hobson: Hahaha AI agents, I would hazard a guess. Yeah.

Shel Holtz: No doubt. I don’t know if they’re listening to the episodes, but they could well be scraping that site. But 40 percent of podcast consumers now name YouTube as their primary podcast platform, which means a single guest appearance can produce both an audio asset and a video asset all from one hour of your client’s time. And that’s content you can repackage and repurpose for multiple channels. Here’s the third reason. And this is the one I really want you to hear, because most communicators miss it. A podcast appearance is increasingly how you earn traditional press coverage. Newsworthy things your client says on a podcast get picked up by the mainstream media. And now they’re not just quoting your client, they’re amplifying an extended quote in context and they’re sending readers back to the original episode. Look at Jamie Dimon. A couple of weeks ago, he gave a podcast-style interview at a Norway Sovereign Wealth Fund conference where he warned that the private credit market is worse than people think. That’s a quote, worse than people think. That single cent has generated coverage across Bloomberg, Reuters, Fortune, the Financial Times, and erased about $500 billion in alternative asset manager value the same day. The Jensen Huang interviews, a Stratechery, BG2, the All-In podcast, those generated Fortune and CNBC stories, and they do every single time. Howard Lutnick told the All-In host that, “‘Boeing executives follow me around like puppies,’ because of how he was structuring trade deals.” Fortune quoted that line word for word in a feature on the Trump administration’s trade strategy. The podcast appearance was the press strategy. That’s the model. You’ve got to, you’re not just earning a podcast placement, you’re earning the cascade of secondary coverage that flows from it. And finally, there’s depth of message. An interview lets a thought leader actually develop an argument. In a newspaper, quote, complex ideas get compressed into one sentence, usually the wrong sentence, often the safest sentence. On a podcast, your client gets to explain the why behind the what. That’s where credibility gets built and where the next sales conversation gets seeded. Now, the catch, most podcasts aren’t worth pitching. Agarwal makes this point bluntly, and he’s not wrong, of the millions of shows indexed across hosting platforms. A lot of them haven’t published in months, maybe years. They have audiences that are minuscule. They’ll book anyone with a pulse. Recommending a weak placement to your client costs them time and signals that you’re vetting is getting lazy. So here’s what to actually look for before your pitch. Publishing pattern, you know, at least two episodes a month consistently over the last six months? The guest history, scroll back through 20 or 30 episodes. Who were the guests that they booked? If your client doesn’t fit that pattern, walk away. Niche depth over raw audience size. I mean, a 600 listener show inside your client’s exact industry will outperform a 50,000 listener general business show on almost every metric that actually matters. The host social application. A host who promotes new episodes on LinkedIn extends your client’s appearance for free. And listen to one recent episode before pitching. If the host lets guests just monologue without pushback, the audience tunes out and your client gets nothing. And here’s what your client needs to bring to the conversation. Not talking points, a point of view. One counterintuitive take, one framework that actually gets used, one honest answer to a hard question. Hosts are really good at spotting the difference between a guest with something to say and a spokesperson reciting messaging. The appearances that earn return invitations, produce shareable clips, and get picked up in tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal are built on original thinking. The PR pros who figure this out now, who develop a real podcast pitching practice the same way they developed a media relations practice 20 years ago, are going to look like wizards to their clients.

Neville Hobson: That’s quite a landscape you described there, Shel. I think I look at it in a way when I hear all these statistics being rattled off about how many people listening to podcasts, what’s up, my kind of eyes glaze completely because, you know, and then I hear about, you know, the Jamie Dimon of this world and these kind of, you know, CEOs of mega corporations and how they move markets with a phrase that gets picked up in the mainstream media. That doesn’t happen with, you know, as a matter of course for everyone. Amongst all the rubbish podcasts you outlined, where you’ve got minuscule audiences or not, I think about this, if I were advising someone to start a podcast and it was a business that’s a medium sized business, maybe a thousand employees in a not particularly exotic sounding industry, but they’re the market leader and they’ve got some interesting stories to tell. How is that relevant to them, knowing that the CEO of JP Morgan or whatever said something in the FT report, completely and utterly irrelevant and not likely to happen to them. So what would be of interest to a company like that who has, as I say, stories to tell, it’s worth doing something with them for a podcast for all the reasons you mentioned that how they get noticed and so forth. So that’s the trick, finding that relevance to convince them or to pitch them if you like on doing it. I mean, you’ve got some good stuff mentioned in this piece you’ve been discussing that are valid, absolutely would make a good way to pitch it. I did like the section in this piece where it talks about how to build the skill before a client formally asks. And totally. And it got me thinking, it says, identify 15 podcasts relevant to their audience and industry. It got me thinking immediately and this is where AI comes into play. Okay, so we can’t escape. This is about AI as well in this topic. Your example, where the experiments you’ve been doing, where you’ve been looking for podcasts in your industry that take guest speakers or all the criteria you’ve done and you’ve been sending out agents who’ve returned with amazing data. That is exactly how you would approach this. And you get your results fast and probably well, they’re probably definitely more accurate than if you do this manually yourself. So where the guidance talks to you about filter, filter these findings you get from shows that publish consistently and actively except guests, there’s your AI tool to do that for you. So you could apply that to this. And it would probably, again, depending which AI tool using, I would say it will give you things you didn’t know to ask even because you didn’t know, but it would find something. So AI would help you do this without doubt. But that’s not the main trust the story though. The thing you’ve outlined is very good. I agree. I just think you need to make it wholly relevant to your client who is not a Fortune 500 company, who is just a regular business, even with 20 employees, they still got a story to tell. If they’ve got a valid story to tell, there’s a chance that they’ll get noticed. And your goals might well be very different from that mega corporation example that you had, where it might be resistive temptation to listen to the sales guy to say, we want leads generated and I want to get 10 sales out of this. You might, but your goal might be different to that. Still got to be a measurable goal. So talking about our CEO will do a thought leadership piece. No, please don’t go there. You need a measurable goal. It could be leads, it could be something less esoteric than that, quite simple, raise awareness of something that you can measure. Now that then puts it in the area of something that you as a communicator know about measurable objectives. So I think scaling it back to reality is a way to do this, not just look at how many millions of people listen to podcasts, because that to me is a total eye glazing metric for most people.

Shel Holtz: Well, I think the point to be made from the number of people listening to podcasts is just that it’s a valid medium now as influential as TV. You know, if we had made this case 15 years ago, it would have been a tough sell. But the fact is that a lot of people have started to recognize the importance of being a guest on a podcast. I mean, this is something the Republicans figured out during the last presidential election cycle. So I think the scale is important, especially as you look at the numbers of diminishing opportunities in the mainstream press. In terms of Jamie Dimon, yeah, I mean, I made the point that he’s going to get on a general business podcast with 500,000 listeners, a million listeners and make news. But I also noted that for some CEOs, for some thought leaders is probably the podcast that has 600 listeners that’s in that niche area. Now, you mentioned the agent I created. It’s actually a skill. I created this in the Hermes agent platform that is configured when I launch it to go out into the podcast space and find the podcasts that meet these criteria that I listed there. But I’m able to enter the information about the person or the story or the thought leadership concept that I’m trying to pitch. So if, for example, I want to get a story out there with this guy that we have who works on all our airport projects. He is a design manager. He is really good. And he has some thought leadership ideas on construction work airside in active airports. Now, do I want to get that into the construction trades? No. What do I care if builders hear that? I want to get that into the airport trades. where the people who are hiring the builders will hear it and hear about his expertise and hear his thoughts and go, yeah, I think I want to talk to them about our next airport project. So yeah, I have the AI agent set up to go do that. It even does a first draft of the pitch based on what it knows about the host and the content of each of the podcasts it returns to me. But yeah, I have to go out there and make that pitch. I’ve got one going on right now based on a sustainability story. So it’s interesting finding the places where we want that story to go because everybody’s looking for more sustainable ways to build, but how does that affect our reputation? So I have to cue this skill in the Hermes platform to find ones that are going to be of high value for me. But I have no doubt that if my CEO gets on a podcast or that design manager gets on a podcast, and says something really interesting, it’s going to find its way into ENR, the engineering news record, which is the primary trade publication or building design and construction or any of the other trade publications out there. And that’s that trickle down. It’s not the scale of what Jamie Dimon can do, but it’s the same concept exactly just at that smaller, more niche scale.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I think that’s the key thing for me, certainly, is you’ve got to scale it relevantly to your client and their audience and market. The only other thing I’d add to that, Shel, is to let our listeners know, listen to episode 513, where you’ll hear Shel talk at length about the experiments he’s been doing with Claude CoWork, particularly, but also this example that you kind of touched on, as it were. It’s worth the listen.

Neville Hobson: Well, Dan, that was quite a report. I think an excellent assessment of what’s happening with WordPress. I know you’re a big, long time fan and user of WordPress. And so you did a good job in conveying the significant changes from WordPress 7. I think it’s worth emphasizing, and you did make the point, Dan, that a lot of the cool stuff that you talked about, AI-driven in particular, is only on the hosted WordPress, the WordPress.com service, not self-hosted WordPress. So no doubt that will be coming at some point, I would imagine. So

Shel Holtz: Yeah, the FIR site is on WordPress, but it’s the hosted version. And I’ve read about this. I upgraded it to 7 and went looking for these cool features and they weren’t there. that’s Dan’s report clarified that for me.

Neville Hobson: No, exactly, exactly. It’ll come, I’m sure. So thanks a lot, Dan. That was a really, really good report. So our next topic, going now back to the AI, the AI themes we’re following. Yeah, we can’t escape AI at all these days. We know that. But here’s the thing. There’s a Substack writer I follow called Ruben Hassid. He writes a newsletter called How to AI. And if you don’t know his work, He’s worth your time. There’ll be a link to that in the show notes. He publishes twice a week. He’s prolific. He’s sharp. And he has a gift for making uncomfortable ideas land without making you feel attacked by them. His latest piece is called You can’t Beat AI. And before you groan at the title, it’s not the piece you might expect. It’s not a doom narrative. It’s actually a remarkably clear-eyed analysis of what’s happening to the value of knowledge work and what to do about it. The core argument is this, AI is getting cheaper at a rate most people haven’t fully absorbed. We’re talking about a 6,000-fold reduction in the cost of AI intelligence over four years, he says. Not twice as cheap, 6,000 times cheaper. And crucially, not just cheaper, smarter too. So your salary is now being compared to a subscription, and the subscription is winning on price. The part in his newsletter that really got my attention was his argument about what this means for how we communicate our value. He makes the point that for decades, time spent was a proxy for quality. If something took six hours, that effort signaled something. It signaled expertise, diligence, craft. But now that production is cheap, now that a decent first draft, a market scan, a slide outline, a campaign proposal, can be generated in 30 seconds or less, time spent is a weak argument. He puts it simply, nobody cares that it took you all weekend. The better argument he says is, I understand the real problem. I knew what to ignore. I found the missing risk. I made the decision easier. I saved the team from doing the wrong thing beautifully. And that lands differently for communicators, I think, because most of us would say, Yes, of course, we’ve always sold judgment and strategic counsel. But here’s the uncomfortable follow-up question. Do our clients and employers actually pay for that? Or do they still at some level pay for the volume of deliverables, the press releases, the reports, the campaigns, and just assume the judgment comes with it? That’s what I want to explore, because if intelligence is becoming a commodity, communicators individually and as a profession, need to get much clearer and much more explicit about articulating what they offer that can’t be replicated for $20 a month. What do you think about all that, Shel?

Shel Holtz: Well, I think we’ve been talking about this issue of pricing in the AI era. Yeah, I mean, yeah, even well before AI, the hourly model has been questionable. I’ve shared this anecdote, I think probably five or six times on the show. But for those who haven’t heard it, when I was a consultant, Mark Schumann was visiting us. He worked for the same consulting firm I did at the time. And he was talking about value-add, which I opposed. I said, that should be baked into our hourly rate. And he said, okay, how does the hourly rate factor into the fact that I bring 35 years of experience to this job and I have a brainstorm in the shower that took me 20 seconds. I wouldn’t have had that brainstorm if not for that 30 years of experience, 35 years. But it still produces tremendous value to the client that may make them millions of dollars or save them hundreds of thousands of dollars. How do you value that 30 seconds it took to have that brainstorm? And I haven’t come up with a really good answer to that yet, except pricing based on outcomes. That said, I have to say that when I was an independent consultant, which I did for 21 years, I had some clients who wanted me on a retainer. And the retainer was so that they could call me when they had an issue. They didn’t want me to produce anything. They didn’t want me to write anything. They didn’t want me to create anything. They just wanted my counsel. They wanted an hour on the phone. So for X dollars, they got 10 hours a month and they could call and say, we’re going through this. What do we do? Or what’s your experience with that? I think you can still charge based on time for that. It’s the time you’re spending on the phone with them. So I don’t I don’t think charging. based on time vanishes, you just have to figure out what your formula is, where you can factor in how much time it took, where you can factor in what the overall value of it is. And then finally, what you can factor in as the ROI that the client has gotten from this, that you can come up with a formula to make a reasonable return for your effort. But the old model of saying, you know, he’s billed out at $375 an hour. It’s going to take 25 hours for this project. Here’s your price. And by the way, if there’s scope creep, we’re going to come back to you and tell you how many more hours that adds to the project. That’s not going to wash anymore. Not not under these circumstances. Especially by the way, I have to say, not when they can go to AI and ask the question before they come to you for that hour of phone time.

Neville Hobson: I think that’s a key. I mean, that’s the key thing. A client might say when you present the proposal, you just outlined, for instance, that they’ll say, you use AI. You’ve told us consistently how you’ve developed skills in how to use the tools that give you the results that you’re seeking. and you have expertise in that area. So if that’s the case, how come you’re me, you’re quoting me X hours at so much per hour at this price? So what’s your AI doing? better question might be, well, what are you doing in that case? So that’s something that we need to figure out. And I don’t think anyone has yet how to kind of Deflect that into the real questions that need to be answered, the real discussions that need to be going on, which is not that. That’s kind of an emotional based one. But the point you made, absolutely true. Anything you’re thinking of doing, the client’s already also looking at the AI tools they use to find an answer to that. They’ll be second guessing you even. In which case, that cannot sustain itself, that kind of model. It’s not going to suddenly vanish, I’m sure. And to your point too, I agree with you that some elements of service that you might provide that others will buy from you will probably still be time-based, such as the retainer model, for instance. Then again, I think your competition is the smart AI model, frankly. So that comes down to the, you you’re being… Your salary has been compared to a subscription now by the client in particular. So again, more change coming to communicators and not just communicate, but I’m focused on this. What does it mean to communicate? I’ve written about this a few times in my blog. I’ve had many conversations with people about this recently on how to counter the interference of AI. As one person put it to me, you can’t, it’s not interference. you’ve got to learn to live with it. You’ve got to learn to make the most of it, ally yourself with augmenting your ability and not just churning out stuff from a chat bot effectively and do what we’ve been discussing in previous episodes about hallucinations and setting out stuff riddled with errors because you didn’t check it. So your methodology has got to shift. And it doesn’t address the base question, which is how do we migrate as a general rule from time-based charging to value-based charging? I hear that question being asked a lot. I’m asking it too, and I don’t have an answer to that yet. So that requires some exploratory analytical conversation. And it may well turn out that there isn’t a single model that works for everyone, although there must be elements that will be consistent no matter what you do. And it requires significant input from your client or your employer to have that conversation that give you as the communicator, the kind of intelligent input you need from the business owner or your employer. What are they looking to achieve? What do they want exactly? And how can this help them achieve that? So we haven’t started any of that yet, other than asking the question. So we need to pay attention to this sooner.

Shel Holtz: yeah, we definitely do. But there’s one other factor to keep in mind here. And this is a phenomenon that I have been experiencing in addition to reading about it. And that is that for all of the productivity gains that we’re seeing from AI, and we are, mean, the time it takes my agent to go out and find those podcasts for me to do that would be hours with the agent. send it off. I go do something else and it delivers the results when it’s done, which is not hours and hours. It’s usually 15 or 20 minutes. But does this mean that I now have an extra day that I can take off because I have got all of my work done? No, I’m as busy as I ever was. I am filling those hours with work for my employer. I believe it is high value work and it’s either figuring out how to do something with the AI or managing those AI agents or creating the agents or skilling up the agents or it’s doing the things that AI can’t do. So yeah, I’m busier than I’ve ever been. And by the way, I know we’re not talking about the job-pocalypse here as we heard it referred to earlier. But increasingly, I know there are some things that AI can replace customer service agents being a great example. I think for most of the jobs out there, there’s elements of your job it can replace. It can’t replace the whole job. And for all of the companies I’ve seen announcing layoffs that are tied to AI, I have not heard one of them say, and these are the full-time agents that have replaced the full-time work that this person did. I think they’re just anticipating what they’re going to be able to do with AI. So I don’t think we’re going to see the job loss that we’ve been talking about because I think they’re going to realize that what we still need 70% of what this person does and he can devote more time and attention to that because the 30% that the AI can do, we’re going to let the AI do. So, the reason I point all this out. is that while companies may for a while think, who needs an agency? I can do all this with AI. They’re going to realize what they’re producing is slop, that they don’t have the time to put in the effort required to generate the right kinds of agents, the right kinds of skills, the right kinds of prompts. They don’t know how to assemble all of this together in a strategy. And they don’t want to take the time to work with AI to do it. my God, this is what agencies are for. I’m going to have an agency do it. So the agencies will take advantage of the AI, but I think there’s still going to be work for agencies to do. There just may be a valley as companies say, the AI can do all this for us before they realize, well, you know what? It really can’t.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I guess a short answer to this, there’s no single answer to how you do this. There’s no real way of proving value in an age of cheap intelligence, I suppose, to use that way of describing it. It’s going to get cheaper, according to Hassid, I agree, based on what he said in this, but also what I’m seeing others say. But there’s still a role. I think we need to be clear-eyed about what the future holds in this regard. And you’ve mentioned a good point, I think, about job losses and the way in which that’s currently playing out, where people are taking a big hammer to a tool that doesn’t require that at all to solve, where you’re just laying off people. You’ve got some leaders in some organizations who truly do not deserve to occupy those roles in those companies, the way they treat employees in this regard. But you’ve also got some very sensitive, empathetic people who don’t do it like that. So that’s the landscape we’ve got. In the meantime, I would say communicators need to think about this more. Even if you don’t know the answers, OK, compile all your questions then. Then do some research yourself even to find out what others say. Hey, I will help you do that. And at least get this on your radar before it’s too late.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, and it is definitely going to get cheaper for no other reason that the AI companies don’t want to be spending the money they’re spending on their infrastructure, especially the power requirements. So they are investing in finding solutions to this, not because they are all deep, sincere environmentalists, but because it’s costly to them and they’d rather not be spending that money. All right, well, we’re going to shift away from AI again for a moment. Here’s a phrase that was,

Neville Hobson: There you have it. I bet you we’re not. Go on then, go on, go on, go on.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, bet we are. Well, maybe not entirely. Here’s a phrase that wasn’t in my vocabulary three months ago, the clipping economy. And if you’re a communicator, you need to know what this is because it’s already changing how content about your client or your employer travels and whether you have any control over where it ends up. Here’s what’s happening. A piece from NPR featured a 24-year-old guy in Antwerp, Belgium named Emre Bayraktar. He was working three part-time jobs. He was cleaning cars. He had the night shift at a warehouse. He was making sandwiches at Subway. But in his spare time, he’d take long influencer interviews, edit them into short clips and post them. And one night he got a notification telling him that he’d earned $12 on one of his clips. Two weeks later, he’d earned $2,500. Today, he runs a network of 40,000 freelance clippers. 40,000 individuals like him who take long-form content and turn it into short term clips. He runs that network and that’s the model. Streamers, podcasters, brands, even political campaigns post bounties on marketplaces and anyone with a phone and a video editor can claim the bounty by chopping up the long-form content into vertical clips and posting them to TikTok, Reels, Shorts, X. You get paid per thousand views. NPR cited recent bounties at a dollar per thousand views for Major League Baseball clips, $25 per thousand views for an AI startup. Forbes reported that generating a million views through one of these clipping companies, a company literally called Clipping, founded by a guy named Anthony Fujiwara, cost somewhere between a hundred bucks and a thousand bucks. Fujiwara’s company did $7.7 million in sales in 10 months. MrBeast started his own clipping company called Vyro late last year. Ed Elson, who co-hosts the Prof G Markets podcast with Scott Galloway, calls this the clip economy. And his argument is that the clips are no longer promotion for the show, the clips are the show. The live streamer, Hassan Piker, pulls about 33,000 viewers for a typical live stream. His average clip pulls 700,000 views. The clip is 20 times bigger than the thing it was clipped from. And Adam Rosenberg from Digiday says clips used to be the byproduct. Now they’re the product. And yeah, I’ve got personal evidence. This is true. I think I mentioned just recently someone I work with told me she does not watch Saturday Night Live. She’ll watch 10, 12, 13 clips so that she can see the funny bits. So what does this mean for those of us who work in PR and corporate communications? Let’s answer three questions. First, do you need to watch for Clippers using your client’s content out of context? Yes, always. The streamer Tim “TimTheTatman” Betar, told Digiday that being clipped out of context is now the cost of putting anything long-form online. Clippers will pull the line that fits a narrative they want to push and let it travel. If your CEO does a 45 minute podcast and says something deliberately provocative at minute 31 to make a setup payoff at minute 33, you should assume someone is going to clip the provocative part and lead the payoff on the cutting room floor. So monitor for that. Set up alerts on your client’s name across TikTok, Reels, and Shorts the same way you set up Google Alerts 20 years ago. And have a response plan ready because by the time you find the clip, it may already have a million views. Second, should legal get involved? Sometimes, but think carefully before you reach for the cease and desist. Frank Poh, who runs a creator focused law firm called Poh Law, told Digiday that publicity rights are the live legal issues here, meaning your client’s image, voice and likeness being used to sell something without permission. If a clipper is making money off a clip of your CEO, and especially if the clip is being used to promote a product, you have an argument. You have a case, but if it’s a clipper just monetizing views on a clip that’s substantially accurate, you’re probably stuck with the Streisand effect. Going after a clipper with 200 followers can generate more press than the clip ever would. Pick your battles, save the legal response for clips that are deceptively edited, false or commercially exploitative, and let the rest go. Third, and this is the one I expect people are going to push back on, Should you pay clippers to amplify your clients content? Well, here’s the case for it. The Digiday piece pointed to a clip of John Hamm dancing in a club on the Apple TV show, Your Friends and Neighbors, that went so viral that Hamm got asked about it on The Tonight Show. That’s an enormous earned media outcome from a 30 second clip. Spencer Pratt, the former reality star now running for mayor of Los Angeles, is openly running paid clipping campaigns through the Whop platform, and disclosing it, which is the right way to do it. fintech, crypto, and AI companies are the heaviest users of clipping farms precisely because they operate in legal gray areas. Most clippers don’t disclose payment, which means almost every paid ClipYou commission is potentially a violation of the Federal Trade Commission rules. Here in the U.S., the U.K. Gambling Commission has already taken enforcement action. X has flagged the practice publicly. Instagram CEO Adam Masseri put out a video on April 30th saying the platform will crack down on re-uploaders. And if you go down this road, you disclose every payment every time, no exceptions, and you assume that the FTC is reading your contracts. The clip not going anywhere. The question isn’t whether your client gets clipped, it’s whether you have a strategy for when it happens.

Neville Hobson: Well, that’s quite a story, I had not heard about this either. The whole idea of clipping farms or as the NPR piece wove its story quite skillfully in an interesting way about the kid in Antwerp, how he started out and then the other examples in there of these people. There’s not really a flip, but a kind of an alert note. that the ones who are making the real money on this, they say, tend to be the middlemen clippers rather than the original creators. And that, think, is clearly a sign that this is ripe for intervention by regulators and others in companies who see this kind of behavior. So this may well be one of those things that is temporary in the context of that. The idea of clipping, though, isn’t. And so some big names are going to move into this soon, I would guess. But the thoughts occurring to me when listening to what you were saying was, how does this kind of start? How do you find companies to do this? You asked a question not rhetorically on should your employee or client get involved in this? It’s high risk, but potentially significant. return on that risk, think, like the example you mentioned of the John Hamm example. I heard about that. I heard about that without realizing it was because of a clip. So this probably is one of these natural evolutionary steps in the stage of where we are with online communication, online digital communication that is generational largely, isn’t it? If it’s what is it, Gen Z or even Gen Alphas, I suppose. sharing all this stuff to TikTok and other places. I’ve not seen it on Facebook, but again, I wasn’t knowing what to look for. I’d make a point of looking. How do you identify this stuff, particularly if they’re not disclosing anything? Does it look kind of like, that guy posted this really interesting clip, not knowing that he’s a clipper? Definitely, you need to be aware of this from a communicator’s point of view. you’ve looked into this more than I have. So it’s difficult to say more than that at this point. But I think this is a phenomenon. It’s growing. We’re going to see more of this before, in some way or form, it gets regulated. I don’t mean that from an official point of view. But I don’t see this as remaining unfettered for much longer.

Shel Holtz: No, not at all. I mean, figure the kid in Antwerp has what, 44,000 clippers working for him. Then there’s the Whop and the one that MrBeast started. So you’ve got to figure there’s tens of thousands of people out there creating these clips. How many can they create in a day? Probably hundreds, if not more. And they’re probably flooding the Internet. We just don’t see them because we’re not looking for things that are associated with the tags.

Neville Hobson: Incredible.

Shel Holtz: that they’re putting on them. you’ve got to figure that people are seeing clips and assuming that they’re something that was created because somebody was passionate about it or it came from the company or it came from the person whose image you’re seeing when that may not be true at all. Somebody else is making bank off of that without permission and may not even need the permission. But I got to tell you, the next time I get somebody at my company placed on a podcast, assuming there is a video, I will be clipping that podcast and sharing those clips both to raise awareness of what our spokesperson said, but also to drive views back to the podcast so they can see everything that she said. I’ll be doing that. In fact, for on the same page, the new podcast I started with Steve Crescenzo, I am using a service called Opus Clip. That’s what they do is clips. You upload video. And it creates clips with the closed caption type of, here’s what they’re saying in real time. And I’ve been sharing those on TikTok and Instagram and Facebook and not X because I’m not there. But we’ll see if it drives any more awareness of the show, but this is real and it’s big and it’s important.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. Yeah, I did like the concluding part of the NPR piece where they where someone said, suddenly I realized clips aren’t the promotional material for the content. Clips are the content. And that, to your point on your colleague you mentioned, who doesn’t watch Saturday Night Live, watches the clips so she could pick out the best bits to her, the best bits that she finds on TikTok without watching the show. I do that with some stuff and I never realized, hey, that’s clipping. I didn’t realize that. So that actually got me thinking a bit about something I was doing not long ago with a podcast. I was contracted to a company to produce podcasts. We did a little bit of that. And I remember thinking at the time that the clips are getting more traffic than the actual podcasts. Okay, I have learned from, I should have. paid more attention to that. So maybe we could try with FIR. I mean, I’m thinking one of the reasons we don’t do that, I’m sure from suddenly speaking, just from my point of view in in producing content is I didn’t have time to do it. I have no time to spend. So I would look for something that made it dead simple to just create five clips and I could look at each say absolutely spot on with the have to say Now I need to edit the front and the back. No, no, Just give me that content. Riverside offers that tool, as you know. And maybe there’s something we can do there. But that might be interesting.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I haven’t been terribly impressed with Riverside’s clips so far. That’s why I’m paying separately for Opus, which I think does a better job. And they do give you some editing tools that makes it really easy to clean them up quickly. I picked on the same page for this for two reasons. One is every other week. So I have plenty of time between episodes to do this. And the other is it’s brand new. So we’re trying to gin up awareness. So we’ll see how it goes. I don’t have any metrics on this yet, but I’m really curious to see how it pays off.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, definitely worth paying attention to. The Wall Street Journal ran a piece on the 15th of May in its CIO Journal section that I think deserves more attention from communicators than it’s likely to get because on the surface it looks like an IT story, but underneath it’s something more interesting than that. The headline is, Companies have a new AI problem. Too many agents. The reporter is Belle Lin and she spoke to technology leaders at companies including Lyft, Davita, GitLab and FICO about a phenomenon they’re calling AI agent sprawl. We’ve talked about AI agents quite a bit recently. So this really is relevant to those conversations. Here’s the situation. As agentic AI platforms have become easier to use, we’re talking tools that even non-technical employees can operate without involving IT. People across organizations are spinning up AI agents. at a remarkable rate. Agents that summarize emails, write briefs, analyze data, automate workflows, conduct research. One company told the journal its 3,500 employees are creating dozens of new agents every single day. Another has over 10,000 agents already deployed. And Gartner projects that within two years, so that’s before 2030, the average Fortune 500 enterprise will be running over 150,000 agents. So that’s the average enterprise multiply that by how many Fortune 500 enterprises around the big numbers. The IT problem is obvious as the journal costs cybersecurity duplication conflicting outputs, but only 13% of organizations believe they have adequate governance in place. That’s a striking gap. Now here’s where I think communicators need to lean into this. When you have agents operating across an organization. often invisibly, often without central oversight, summarizing information, drafting communications, automating decisions, who is responsible for the accuracy and consistency of what those agents produce. And when something goes wrong, when an agent produces conflicting results or surfaces inaccurate information that makes its way into a client communication or an internal briefing, who owns that? Who manages the narrative around it? We’ve talked about agentic AI on FI before, as I mentioned, mostly from the angle of what agents can do and why communicators should be paying attention. This story is the flip side of that conversation. It’s what happens when agent adoption outpaces the governance frameworks needed to manage it. And it’s a reminder that governance isn’t just a technology challenge, it’s a communication challenge. Somebody in these organizations need to be thinking about transparency, accountability, and trust. And that sounds a lot like a communicator’s job to me. So we talked about some really serious errors made by organizations by not having the human in the loop, as I mentioned earlier. This, in my view, fits into that conversation, except it’s now become much more urgent if you’ve got this scale emerging, which clearly it is emerging. And what do we do about it? So is it the communicator’s job? I kind of qualify my own question. Sounds like a communicator’s job, but is it? What do you think?

Shel Holtz: Well, partly. I mean, there’s definitely a role here for IT and definitely a role for the senior leadership of the organization. But we absolutely have a part to play here. So I think one of the problems is that a lot of organizations establish their governance, their guardrails, their policies in the early days of Gen.A.I. as they saw employees starting to use it, say, hey, we’d better have some rules, especially since we’re going to adopt it. So many companies that had Office 365 contracts suddenly had access to Copilot and wanted to make that available. So they came up with their governor’s policies before anybody was talking about agents. Well, I can’t say nobody was, I’m sure they were at the AI labs and…

Neville Hobson: Yeah, just one, don’t forget, the journal says only 13% of organizations believe they have adequate governance in place, which means what? 70%, 80%, something percent do not have it in place at all.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, that’s the thing. And I think those are the ones that may think that they do because they spent a lot of time, they worked with legal and HR and they came up with their governance and now we have agents and the governance doesn’t address them. It addresses prompting and it addresses things like don’t put sensitive information into a prompt in a public AI model, doesn’t say a word about agents. So I think one thing we need to look at is revisiting the governance policies that we have. And here’s where a communicator can come into. into play is look at your governance and then propose some enhancements in the great language that only we communicators are able to craft and send those to legal NHR and IT and say, you know, we need to update our governance. Here’s a proposed draft and at least get things kick started. But, you know, not all of the agents are ones where we need to be thinking about them. Although, I think there are some issues where we could get involved, but I work in a construction company. I have project engineers who are doing things like submittals and RFIs, stands for requests for information. And a lot of that, I think there’s potential for agent work. I’m not that interested. If you can be more productive in your job as a project engineer, more power to you. I think where there’s some process. One of the things to worry about is I don’t want every PE spinning up their own agent independently. If somebody comes up with a good agent to do this with, we should be sharing that throughout the organization so that there are consistent results and we don’t have to be worrying about any mistakes or misphrasing or anything that went into the creation of an agent, creating bad results over here on this project, but great results on this one where they knew what they were doing when they spun up their agent. So there should be, I mean, that should be baked into the governance that says we don’t want, you know, 175 agents created by different people all doing the same thing. Where I get worried though is where they’re answering emails, where they’re answering customer service questions. You know, who reviewed the voice and the tone of those responses and who approved the messaging guardrails? When an agent says something wrong publicly, who’s accountable for that? If it’s a marketing message, is marketing responsible or is it IT? Nobody has the answers to this yet. And I don’t think anybody’s asking. We should be the ones who are asking.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, it’s, what a chaotic landscape we live and work in. I think, I agree, Shel. I mean, communicators have a clearly significant role. I could conclude as we’re saying, hey, communicators, this is another thing you’ve got to be getting involved in now in this. This is how you prove your value. So add this to the 15 new things that you now have to get to deal with. Here’s number 60.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I was just blown away when I read this, that the Pentagon staff used Google’s agent designer on genai.mil to vibe code more than 100,000 AI agents in about five weeks. They hold IL-5 authorization. That means they can deal with sensitive, unclassified data. Their chief deputy for intelligence said at a symposium, I’m on team go fast. So if corporate communicators think this is a problem, they have time to think about the military, the actor we’d expect to be most cautious is already at 100,000 agents and accelerating. Now, Gartner in step two of the process they outlined, step two is to build a centralized agent inventory. And that was framed as a technical thing. It tells IT what’s running. But for communicators, we need to know what they’re all saying, what tone, what facts, what brand voice. Our job is to make sure the inventory captures the messaging dimension, not just the technical one. Otherwise you end up with 150,000 versions of your brand voice. And once we’re able to analyze what they’re doing, we’re able to go back and say, hey, you need to adapt, adjust that agent. So it does this instead of that.

Neville Hobson: Well, interesting times ahead as always from everything we talk about here. I would say conclude, buckle up. That’s what I said.

Shel Holtz: Absolutely. Also something else to buckle up for, we have an interview coming in June. We haven’t had an FIR interview in a while, but we have a returning guest. He hasn’t been on the show in something like 15, 16 years, but Pete Blackshaw is joining us based on some work he has spent a couple of years doing about the role of AI in customer service. it’s going to be a great conversation. I was just blown away by what I read in his post about this. So looking forward to that. Yeah, watch for that in June. Also, of course, coming in June is our next long-form episode. We are going to record that on Saturday, June 21st and make it available on Monday the I’m sorry, it’s going to be on Monday the 22nd. We’re going to record on Saturday the 20th. I think I got that right. Anyway.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. Yeah. Looking forward. Yep. No, we’ll be recording actually on Saturday, yeah, the 20th, you’re right. And publishing on the 22nd,

Shel Holtz: The 20th. There you go. Yeah, I can count squares on calendars. But watch for that. It’s coming. And of course, we will have our midweek episodes in between all that. We do hope that you will comment on anything you’ve heard that raised a thought from this episode or from any of the upcoming shorter midweek episodes. You know where to share them. Send them to us at [email protected]. Attach an audio file if you like. You can record that audio file right off of the FIR website, in which case you don’t even need to email us. We get that. There’s a tab that says send voicemail right there on the side of the page. You can leave comments on the post for this episode at FIRPodcastNetwork.com or wherever we share news about the latest episode dropping, LinkedIn, Bluesky, Threads. We’re everywhere. We’re everywhere except TikTok. right now, and maybe we’ll fix that if we start clipping. And that will be a wrap for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #515: Agents Everywhere appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

There’s a concept circulating in Platformer, the Reuters Institute, and Nieman Lab: the text-based social networks that defined the last 15 years of public communication may be in irreversible decline. Apptopia reports that Bluesky’s daily users are down 96% from January 2024; Threads has lost users in seven of the past eight months (down 61% from its October 2024 peak); and X has been “culturally altered.” At its peak, was Twitter less a replicable product category than a unique moment in media history? The mass audience has moved to short-form video, algorithmic feeds reward attention over the social graph, and platforms increasingly refuse to be referral engines.

Text still thrives in newsletters, Reddit, Discord, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and AI chat interfaces — what’s collapsing isn’t text, but giant algorithmic public feeds. Neville and Shel look at what this means for communicators: the promise of scale is giving way to relevance, trust, and consistency — a shift that requires a different approach to brand presence on social. Get details in this not-so-short midweek FIR episode.

Links from this episode:

• Are the Twitter clones in trouble?
• Pew: Americans’ Social Media Use 2025
• Pew: Social Media and News Fact Sheet
• Reuters: Mapping news creators and influencers in social and video networks

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, May 25.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [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 everybody, and welcome to For Immediate Release episode 514. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel: And I’m Shel Holtz. Communicators devote a fair amount of time to social media management. It’s no different where I work. We’re a smaller team in the construction industry, so we don’t have any dedicated social media resources. But whether it’s a company like mine, where it’s part of the job that somebody does, or a global brand like Wendy’s or Starbucks with a full-blown team, everyone’s trying to make an impact on social network users. The strategy behind those efforts may need an overhaul, though, to address the decline of text-based social networks. Platformer’s Casey Newton wrote about this recently, focusing on Threads, Bluesky, and X — but I think it’s fair to throw Facebook into the mix. Depending on whose numbers you believe, Threads has lost momentum, Bluesky never became the Twitter replacement that political journalists or media folks had hoped it would be, and X is, well, shall we say, culturally altered.

Meta and Bluesky dispute some of this third-party data, so I don’t want to overstate the precision of the numbers, but we shouldn’t shrug off the larger point. This isn’t about whether Threads beats X or whether Bluesky can recover, but rather about whether that old Twitter model can be rebuilt at all. And increasingly, the answer looks like probably not. Twitter at its peak was a real-time public layer for news, commentary, expert reaction, and professional visibility. Journalists, politicians, academics, CEOs, and PR people were all there reacting to each other in public. That gave communicators something we had never really had before: a live dashboard of what influential people were saying, what stories were breaking, and how publics were interpreting events in real time. The problem is that this depended on a specific set of conditions — a text-first interface, a public follow graph, a tolerance for public argument, and a shared assumption that this was where you went to see what was going on. Even with a small subscriber base compared to Facebook and a lot of other networks, Twitter was where news broke, and it was frequently cited in the mainstream media’s reporting.

Well, those conditions have changed. The mass audience has moved heavily toward video. TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts are now the primary discovery platforms for younger users in particular. News and commentary arrive as video, personality, remix, and clip. In fact, I was talking about this recently with someone I work with who said she doesn’t watch Saturday Night Live — she watches 10 or 15 of the clips that Saturday Night Live shares on YouTube so she can catch the funniest bits.

At the same time, the logic of the feed has changed. The old social feed was built around who you followed. The new algorithmic feed is built around what holds attention. A post on early Twitter spread because of the social graph. A video on TikTok spreads because the system thinks it’ll keep people watching. Now that changes the incentives. It rewards performance, emotion, personality, and visual fluency.

It’s also why the link-in-the-post model is fading. Social platforms don’t want to be referral engines. They want the content consumed inside the platform. You can’t conflate social engagement and site traffic anymore. For brands, this requires a pretty significant rethink. Today, social is less about sending people somewhere else and more about creating native moments of value right there, inside the feed.

The implication for communicators is that we can’t just ask, “What should we post?” We have to ask, “What role does each of these platforms play in our communication ecosystem?” Some platforms are for discovery, some for reputation, some are mostly listening posts — environmental scanning, sentiment tracking, intelligence gathering. Some platforms may not be worth the effort at all anymore. We also need more human voices.

The logo account is not adequate anymore. Trust attaches to people — experts, leaders, practitioners, analysts. That doesn’t mean every executive needs to be dancing on TikTok. In fact, please, no. But organizations do have to get better at helping credible people communicate in platform-native ways. The decline of the old public square forces us to build more durable relationships. What matters? Newsletters, podcasts, owned communities. LinkedIn still matters for professional audiences. So I’d resist the lazy conclusion that text is dying. Text is everywhere — in newsletters (which, by the way, is where I latched onto this story, in Casey Newton’s Platformer), in captions, in scripts, in search results. What’s dying is something more specific: the idea that a text-first social network can serve as the default global town square.

Twitter may have been less a replicable product category than a unique moment in media history. For communicators, the job is no longer to master the town square. The job is to understand the map after that square has gone to seed. Neville, is this what you’re saying?

Neville: It’s a lot. There’s a lot going on here to kind of zero in on a handful of potential responses, I suppose. But one thing does seem to be quite clear from all that you’ve outlined, which I believe is the case: Twitter probably was historically unique. And I think the issue, or an issue, is that everyone doesn’t think like that. They think it’s repeatable, it’s replicable. And it’s not. I think you could also see AI maybe accelerating the decline. Content abundance — so much of it. Authenticity is getting really difficult to judge. And everywhere is noisy. And that’s not what many people want.

So I guess, to crystallize it in a sense — you know, we’ve got all these elements you mentioned. The paradox of Bluesky: it hasn’t grown. Threads has got scale, but it doesn’t really have a big identity. It’s kind of part of Meta. What does it all mean for communicators? We’ll come back to that, I’m sure, in a bit. But I wonder — the thought that keeps recurring in my mind from everything I’ve read about this is that the decline may not be about text at all. That’s not to say it’s because they’ve all migrated to YouTube and video platforms. I don’t believe that’s the case either. I think, as you pointed out, and that’s obvious to all of us, the text itself isn’t disappearing. People talk about the decline of text-based social networks. But the audience hasn’t vanished. They’re just dispersed. They’re elsewhere. They’re not in a central place. There is no public square — no global public square.

No matter what the likes of Silicon Valley folks seem to think, there is no global public square. Or rather, there are places online that are accessible globally, but they’re not controlled by big platforms solely. Text isn’t disappearing. It thrives in the examples you mentioned — newsletters, Reddit, LinkedIn comments, Discords, WhatsApp, AI chat interfaces — probably 20 more examples you could give. So perhaps people still want text, but they don’t want giant algorithmic public feeds. I think that plays a big role in this. They don’t want the manipulation of algorithms to tell them, “This is what we think you want to read.” And that is still very strong on most big platforms today. They want to keep you on the site. They want to keep you engaged. They want you to keep doomscrolling, or whatever it might be. I think that shifts the conversation we should be having. It’s not about the decline of text — it’s that people don’t want giant algorithmic public feeds. What do they want? Well, they don’t know what they want, do they? They don’t.

You mentioned LinkedIn — definitely the interesting exception. I think there are multiple reasons why it remains one of the stronger environments for text discussion. I guess I’ll put it as questions, basically. Is it because having something like this — that’s kind of affixed to your professional identity — changes behavior, or rather reinforces “corporate” behavior that is different to how it would be on Facebook or on TikTok or other video platforms? Accountability is higher, reputational stakes are visible, audiences are contextual rather than anonymous. It works, I think, partly because people behave differently when attached to their real professional identity. Hence — you know, I saw one today, someone complaining about Facebook-like posts being published on LinkedIn: “Please stop doing that. This is a professional place.” That kind of comment. So I suppose you could say a useful contrast — to this point about people behaving differently — is outrage-driven engagement everywhere else compared to reputation-aware participation on LinkedIn. I thought that was quite a good contrast to make.

Outrage-driven engagement is very strong everywhere you look, but not on LinkedIn. People really don’t put up with that. So I think you have these elements that take part in all of this — that maybe smaller communities may be replacing mass audiences. And I think there’s a lot to be said in that. The smaller communities that would comprise, for example, niche communities, private groups, curated networks, newsletters, podcasts, creator ecosystems, if you like — much more than these algorithmically driven giant public feeds. I don’t follow much on the other traditional social networks. I prefer my own discovery on things like that. So maybe we’re moving from broadcast social media to relationship-based digital communities. And maybe this is just the start of that — which clearly has major implications for communicators and publishers. We can get into that, I suppose, in a bit. That broadly is what it looks like to me.

I’ve read the Reuters Institute’s report, I’ve read Nieman’s report, which actually are much wider than just talking about the decline of text-based networks, but there’s very much in there. There was an interesting article in Fast Company which looked at Bluesky’s limitations. I thought that was intriguing — what they wrote. The contradiction, they said, was that journalists and intellectual communities (and they define what they mean by that) still love Bluesky, but broader mainstream adoption remains elusive. And that is absolutely true. Little blips here and there of this group or that group moving away from X. Good example in the media: Deutsche Welle, the German broadcaster, announced, I think last week or the week before, that they have multiple — maybe 20 or 30 — Twitter handles, and they’re all going to shut down, and they’re moving it all to Bluesky. And I think — brave. Reality: X is still the place where significant public announcements are made. Look at what’s happening, for instance, in Iran — in the Iran war with Israel and the US — the propaganda battle between the two is taking place on X, mostly.

Trump, well, he’s got his Truth Social network, but I see people on X quoting Trump a lot. So governments, big corporations — but large groups tend to still be on X, in spite of what many, me included, would see as that being definitely a place not to be because of its toxicity. Deaf ears for that message, frankly, to people who are invested big in a place like that.

But what does it all mean for communicators? Well, you’ve touched on a few things, and maybe that’s something that we could explore a bit. But broadly, that’s what I’m seeing.

Shel: Well, I agree with you about the dispersion. I’m going to stick with the idea that the text-based social networks are in decline. You mentioned the German magazine that is sending all of their handles over to Bluesky.

Neville: Well, no — they are the big broadcasting and media organization, not a magazine.

Shel: Well, I’m sure Bluesky is going to be very happy about that. According to the Platformer article, Apptopia said that Bluesky has effectively collapsed as a competitive threat, with daily users down 96% from January of last year. That’s a pretty steep decline. If you look at Threads, which is turning three years old in July, Casey Newton writes that daily active users on the platform have declined in seven of the past eight months. After peaking in October 2024, just before the US presidential election, daily users are down 61%, and global monthly users have held up better at 388 million, but that’s still down from an estimated 400 million at the beginning of January of this year. So these are declining.

Elon Musk took over Twitter and turned it into X, and people saw what he was doing with it. They talked about, “I’m going to Threads,” or “I’m going to Bluesky.” A lot of them were saying they were going to Bluesky, and they ended up being the left-leaning people who couldn’t tolerate the rise of hate speech and rage-baiting on X. So they went to Bluesky and effectively turned it into a left-leaning echo chamber, with left-leaning people arguing among themselves. Meanwhile, one of the people Casey quoted in Platformer said on X that the extreme right is pulling everybody else further to the right because there’s nobody from the left there to argue with them. So that’s what’s happening in the text-based social networks. They are losing monthly and daily active users at a pretty alarming rate.

Where are they going? Well, the numbers for Instagram and TikTok and YouTube Shorts — the video platforms — are all on the rise. This is where people are going, and in particular, young people. I think one of the reasons LinkedIn is succeeding, in addition to the fact that it has a focus on business, is the fact that their algorithm, at least in part, focuses on who you follow. Whenever I log into LinkedIn, I see people that I know — not everybody who’s posted, but I do see people that I know. When I’m scrolling through Instagram, it’s a couple, but really, it’s trying to send me stuff it thinks I’m going to stick with rather than things from people I have connected with. So that makes me less interested in scrolling through Instagram. But I do find myself, when I see something — a video that’s in Reels and I tap it, it takes me over to Reels (this is on Facebook too, by the way) — I’ll find myself stuck there for a while as I’m looking at more of those short video clips. So they’re onto something in terms of what’s going to grab attention. But what does it mean for the public square? I think that — and we talked about that a lot in the early days of social media — you may remember the book Here Comes Everybody by Clay Shirky. I loved that book. It was so optimistic about the public square and about the ability for people to connect with each other. And I just think that’s fading. That’s not what social media is about anymore. And I think the algorithms have driven a lot of that.

Neville: I have a copy. Well, I think you’re right. Indeed, as far as Casey Newton’s piece goes, that same argument — Twitter traffic has collapsed effectively. Many other people are saying the same thing. The Reuters Institute talks about that. Nieman talks about that. Fast Company doesn’t quite say it in the same words, but talks about the tensions there. I totally agree with that. So I think, though, that it has more to do with the shifts in how people see public spaces to connect with other people. I think it reinforces some views you see about users turning their backs on social media. We’re seeing that a lot, and much of it generational, I’m sure. Commentary about fewer platforms and deeper relationships — I think they mean to say fewer platforms that interest people, or that matter to many people.

Industry reporting is showing that short-form video is dominating attention, as you mentioned — TikTok, for instance, and YouTube Shorts, stuff like that. Great, I get all that. But I think much of it might depend on how you use these networks yourself. And I’m not a big fan of algorithmically driven content at all. And, you know, I use LinkedIn maybe not the same as you. Indeed, my whole approach to it is different to what it was even two years ago, where it was important to connect with others and have people like your content and share it widely and all that. Those things aren’t important to me anymore. What is important to me, using LinkedIn as an example, is to connect with a handful of people whose opinions I really do value. And they are literally a handful — maybe two handfuls. I don’t really care about, you know, stuff getting shared 50 times and all that. So I pay attention to some of the metrics, but not a lot.

And I think, you know, Bluesky — I’m there since the beginning. Threads — I’m there since the beginning. And I’ve definitely noticed a change. I look at it this way, Shel: great, less noise, because there are fewer people in there now, which is wonderful — and new people. In fact, I use Bluesky in particular as a way to surface new people to connect with. Threads, that’s a different crowd entirely. And in fact, Threads is far more of a burgeoning community, let’s say, than other places are. But I think, you know, you kind of pause and look at the big picture and say, “Is this getting wider attention around, you know, for everyone?” Well, of course it’s not. It has very high attention amongst tech journalism, in the media and publishing industry — although both of their needs are different. Tech journalists, and I see this myself, actively discussing Bluesky, Threads, X fragmentation. You see a lot of commentary about that. We’ve just been talking about that. Media publishing industry — they’re concerned about traffic collapse and discovery. Comms professionals — attention is growing. And so our conversation today might be quite timely, especially among people who relied on Twitter professionally, says one bit of research that I pulled up. The general public — it’s very low. Yes, of course it is, because this is not mainstream. It will get there eventually, I suspect. Most users migrate without discussing the macro trend. They just move out of Twitter and go someplace else, or whatever it is. Academia and research are beginning to grow around Bluesky behavior and community structures elsewhere.

So people feel the change, but they’re not talking about it in a way outside these niche areas. Insiders are analyzing the change. That’s what a lot of the discussion is now. But generally speaking, no one’s really fully named the change yet. Is it a decline of text? Is it a decline of social network interest? Is it — whatever, whatever, whatever you think it might be. So I think the question, or rather the focus, isn’t or shouldn’t be on whether Threads or Bluesky are failing or collapsing. That’s the wrong perspective. It’s more, as we’ve mentioned earlier: were Twitter and others like it unique historical moments that you cannot recreate? In which case, are we looking at, you know, swathes of people looking for a home to go to? No, I don’t think so. I think most have found a place.

There is no longer a single place that’s a giant public square. There are multiple, and they’re all small. So are we going to see a kind of movement of thousands, maybe millions, of teeny niche communities? You could actually argue: what a nightmare for communicators. So that’s where your audience goes. But that’s what it looks like to me a bit, Shel, frankly. What I hear some people talk about, what I read — my own behavior, even — I’ve navigated myself to small communities. So I’m still a member of a number of LinkedIn groups, although, to be honest, most of them have really diminished in quality of content. A lot of people pimping their wares, full of consultants doing that kind of stuff. No value there at all. It’s almost like Facebook in that sense, where every other post you get interrupted by ads and stuff like that. So that’s going on too, by the way.

So is it fatigue? I think it could well be generational. I mean, I’m not looking right now at any research that supports that opinion, but it seems to me that, you know, if you’ve got migrations to video channels that are typically the home of younger-oriented people — younger-oriented communicators, I’d say — that’s where it is. I take a look at TikTok now and again. I’ve been on TikTok forever and I don’t contribute. I watch. It’s not my cup of tea, the kind of stuff there. The new successor to Vine, called eVine — I’ve got an account. I haven’t yet posted anything, because I couldn’t figure out what I want to say there. But I’ve looked, and there’s lots of interesting stuff. So I’ll keep that kind of perspective. On those, I’m a consumer as opposed to a creator and a sharer. On others, I create, and most of that’s text-based content. I don’t believe that’s always because I’m a boomer — far from it. That’s my preference. But I frequent these other places as well. Is that typical? I have no idea. I don’t think it might be. But who knows?

But I think this is definitely a conversation to have in terms of what it means for communicators more than anything. So, you know, audience building is going to become harder for communicators. That’s how I see it. Owned channels are becoming far more important. Trust matters more. We know that from all the conversations we’ve been having and what we can observe ourselves. Community matters more than reach. I believe that. Personality matters more than scale — I don’t see evidence of that, but maybe that is true. Consistency matters more than virality. I think that’s going to become increasingly more important, and that’s connected with trust.

So the old social media promise was scale, right? The emerging model may be relevance and trust. Are we seeing an emerging model? I’m not sure, but that’s where the direction of travel looks like it’s going, it seems to me.

Shel: Well, it starts with, I think, brands needing to adopt the philosophy that you just articulated with your subscription to eVine — not posting anything because you haven’t figured out what to post there. I think a lot of people in social media create content, they reformat it appropriately for each channel, and throw the same piece of content into all those platforms. That won’t work anymore. I think you need to look at each platform, look at the people who are there, and figure out what you want to share that’s relevant, that will resonate, that will produce some kind of movement of the needle. And for those where you can’t answer that question, maybe it’s time to abandon those networks as a brand. As an individual, go where your people are. We’re not talking about what network you like personally. For people who love being on Bluesky, I’m not suggesting that you stop. Go wild. Have a great time on Bluesky. But is it a place to share the content that you’re sharing from your organization? Is there a way that you can craft content that’s going to work there? Maybe, maybe not, but it’s time to reevaluate that based on these trends.

Neville: Yeah, I think so. I think so. I mean, I think things like human voice, the individual voice, the demonstration of judgment — making judgments about something, your own lived experience and the intentional participation you exhibit by being on a certain platform — I think are increasing. Not scaled. I mean, this is small beer compared to the scaling that used to be the important thing. But they’re all connected with what we’ve been talking about: trust, authenticity, oversight, the evolving role of communicators in AI-shaped environments, to quote a phrase. I mean, it’s all in there too. Whatever — we think communicators need to be paying close attention to this in a macro sense, and indeed maybe the micro sense without getting into the weeds or anything — just be aware. So I pay attention to a lot of this stuff. I may not read every Reuters Institute report or Nieman report — not all. I’ll read the executive summaries. It’s a bit like, you know, the TikTok clips — I’ll look at the clips to get interesting stuff out of it and reflect. Do I think this is something that people I’m connected with will be interested in knowing? And that drives a lot of what I write about on the blog, for instance, which is AI-heavy these days. I think this is important to pay attention to. Perhaps public social networking is in decline. Maybe it is. But the social behaviors in small groups are definitely not. And that’s the thing to keep in mind — those two contrasts.

Shel: Yeah, and that requires a whole different approach than we’ve been taking — to this blasting this content out. And that will be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #514: Was Twitter A One-And-Done Phenomenon? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

Neville and Shel dig into a provocative Harvard Business Review article that argues most marketing teams are structurally unprepared for the speed and scale that agentic AI now enables. The bottleneck, the authors contend, isn’t the technology; it’s the operating model. Neville and Shel connect the piece to conversations FIR has been having for the past year: AI as orchestration rather than automation, professionals shifting from supervisors of tasks to directors of systems, and 2026 increasingly framed as “the year of the agent.”

At the center of the Harvard piece is the idea of a “brand code” — a machine-readable knowledge system that lets specialized AI agents continuously create, adapt, test, and optimize marketing in real time. Communications urgently needs its own equivalent: a “narrative code” containing executive voice profiles, message hierarchies, sensitive-topic guardrails, and escalation rules. Whoever builds it first, he warns, will inherit the agentic stack, and if marketing gets there first, comms will be stuck with a system never designed for crisis, controversy, or stakeholder complexity. The episode also includes some concrete examples and early thoughts on Hermes, Wispr Flow, and where human judgment still has to win.

Links from this episode:

• Redesigning Your Marketing Organization for the Agentic Age
• The Year of the Agent: What it means for the future of communications
• Google Summary: The Year of the Agent: What it means for the future of communications
• If you work in PR and you’re unsure how AI agents will help you, this should help.

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, May 25.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [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 513 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville: I’m Neville Hobson. Over the past couple of years, we’ve heard countless conversations about how AI is changing marketing and communication. Most of those discussions tend to focus on tools — faster content creation, better personalization, workflow automation, synthetic media, analytics — all the things AI can supposedly do more quickly and at greater scale than humans. A new article in Harvard Business Review published last week takes the discussion somewhere much bigger.

Its argument is not simply that AI will improve marketing productivity. Its argument is that AI may fundamentally redesign how marketing organizations themselves operate. The article is called “Redesigning Your Marketing Organization for the Agentic Age,” and the authors argue that most marketing teams are structurally unprepared for the speed and scale AI now enables. The reasoning is interesting; we’ll look into this in a minute.

AI has already accelerated software engineering and product development dramatically. Products, updates, campaigns, and features are being developed and shipped much faster than before. But marketing organizations, they argue, are still largely built around sequential workflows, siloed teams, approval chains, meetings, handoffs, and coordination-heavy processes. So even when AI speeds up individual tasks, the organization itself still moves slowly.

In other words, the bottleneck isn’t necessarily the technology, it’s the operating model. What struck me reading this article is that in many ways it feels like the continuation of conversations we’ve already been having on FIR over the past year. About a year ago, Shel demonstrated some of the early agentic AI capabilities we were beginning to see emerge — systems that could move beyond simple chatbot interactions and actually take actions across workflows, tools, and platforms.

At the time, it felt experimental, slightly futuristic, and maybe just a glimpse of where things might be heading. Since then, we’ve repeatedly returned to related themes on the podcast: AI as orchestration rather than just automation, and managers becoming directors of systems rather than supervisors of tasks, to name but two. Recently, the wider communications industry has been framing 2026 as the year of the agent, a fundamental shift from generative AI, which creates content based on prompts, to agentic AI, which acts autonomously to achieve long-term goals. The rise of such autonomous agents requires a focus on agentic orchestration, with professionals acting as AI engineers who guide, manage, and audit these digital employees. As we discussed on this podcast last year, communication departments will adopt a hybrid structure where humans focus on high-level strategy and creativity while AI agents handle high-volume procedural communication tasks at machine speed.

We’re already seeing a marked impact on marketing and public relations. The Harvard piece explains how companies such as HubSpot and AWS have begun putting this model into practice. They say organizations are achieving measurable gains, with marketing materials adapted up to 98 times faster, unit costs reduced by 80%, and click-through rates increased up to 17 times. Research from BCG has demonstrated these benefits at scale.

Organizations embedding agentic AI into marketing workflows, the research has found, can achieve up to a threefold increase in ROI, campaign speed, and content volume. That’s why this Harvard article feels so interesting to me. It doesn’t contradict any earlier conversations; it complements them. It takes many of the ideas we’ve been discussing conceptually and places them inside a concrete organizational model. The authors propose something they call an agentic marketing organization — essentially a system where humans and AI agents work together continuously across multiple layers of activity.

At the center of this idea is what they describe as a brand code: a machine-readable knowledge system containing brand strategy, customer insights, messaging frameworks, business rules, governance structures, and operational guidance that both people and AI systems can understand and act upon. Once that foundation exists, specialized AI agents can continuously create, adapt, test, distribute, optimize, and report on marketing activity in real time. It’s a vision of marketing that starts to look less like a department and more like an operating system.

But what really caught my attention wasn’t the technology itself so much; it was the shift in the role of the marketer. Because beneath all the platform architecture and workflow diagrams is a much deeper question: if AI increasingly handles execution, what becomes the real value of marketers and communicators?

The article argues that value shifts away from production and toward judgment — setting intent, evaluating outputs, interpreting signals, shaping governance, and guiding how the system evolves. And that raises some fascinating questions for communicators. But first, Shel, your demo of those early agentic capabilities was about a year ago now. As I mentioned earlier, it felt experimental and slightly futuristic then. So what’s changed since then?

Shel: It feels like ancient history now. If I were to look at that, I’d probably shake my head and say, “my God, that’s pretty primitive.” The way it worked was, it took a screenshot of every site it visited and then acted on the screenshot. So it was a very slow and tedious process. The video that I shared, I edited out all of the waiting time for it to go through all of this, because it showed you everything. And those days are long gone.

That was clearly a demo. I don’t remember which of the AI models offered that — I think it was Anthropic — but it was just tedious and not all that functional. It did what it was supposed to do in the end, which was to create a spreadsheet with the information I’d asked for. It was some open-source spreadsheet that it used.

I ran a similar exercise just last week using Claude Cowork. And this was for a piece somebody in our sustainability department wrote. It was about two projects that had achieved world-first certifications for zero waste, which is kind of a big deal in the construction industry. It’s one of the biggest contributors to landfills and the like, the industry is.

So I’m looking to place this article. And what I did was, I told Claude Cowork that I wanted four subagents working: one to look at construction and AEC publications — that’s architecture, engineering, and construction; AEC is the category for the industry. Another one was going to look at sustainability publications. And there was one other, but I also had it look for podcasts where the authors of this report might be invited for an interview.

I said, what I want you to do is find the publications and podcasts based on their previous content that are most likely to be interested in something like this, and then create a spreadsheet with the name of the outlet. And of course, divide it into these categories — right? AEC, podcasts, sustainability-focused publications, and the like. Mainstream media was the other category. But I also wanted the URL, I wanted the name of the appropriate person to pitch the article to. And then, based on what that person has written — that particular reporter or editor — I wanted a pitch that was personalized to that person.

And I came back in about half an hour, and there was a spreadsheet ready to go. And I had started acting on it. I don’t copy and paste the pitches; I go and take a look at that reporter’s writing and review the pitch and then make some tweaks to it. But my God, can you imagine how much time that would have taken for me to go out and do this on my own by way of research? That would have been hours and hours.

And instead the agents went out and did it, and then Cowork assembled all that information into a spreadsheet. I was doing other stuff while it was doing that. I wasn’t sitting and watching, because there frankly wasn’t that much to watch. I mean, you could watch the agent tell you, “now I’m going to go look at this.” But, you know, that’s kind of boring. Let it do its thing.

Neville: Yeah. So a question I have related to this, I suppose, is to put it into one practical area, which is: people might think of this in the context of the interaction you have with prompts and the old-fashioned way of doing things that is still prevalent. So how did you — the agents went off and did their thing, and then you came across what they produced and so forth, and it saved tons of time — how did you gain confidence, let’s say, that it was accurate, that there were no hallucinations, no errors? Or is that not the issue anymore with this kind of development?

Shel: I believe that hallucinations would still be an issue. It’s still a model at some level doing this work. I mean, it’s Claude with Claude Cowork. I did install Hermes over the weekend. We’ll talk about that in a bit, but it’s an agent platform, an agent framework, and you create the agents to do things.

For example, I created one over the weekend that I set up to be a weekly job, and it’s going to go out and look at construction industry news to find things based on our areas of expertise where I work, where we have subject matter experts and thought leaders, to find the top three articles that are ripe for newsjacking. If you remember David Meerman Scott’s newsjacking — things where we can get some stuff out there quickly.

Neville: Yeah.

Shel: And take advantage of the fact that this is something that people are looking at and gain some traction over it. So every Monday at eight, it’s going to run this job, and by 8:30, 8:45, it’s going to give me the results. And all of this is through Telegram, or WhatsApp, or whatever app you choose to use to interact with the bot. It still starts with a prompt. The difference is that you’re not prompting a question in order to get an answer; you are telling it what task to perform.

And in the case of the one that I set up on Hermes, it’s now a weekly task. And the interesting thing about Hermes is that it learns as it goes. It continually self-improves based on the more it knows about you and the kinds of tasks that you’re asking it to perform. So I’m looking forward to seeing how that goes. But so far, I just have the one agent running there. But it’s still a prompt at the end of the day.

And in fact, I used — I think it was Gemini — to help me craft the prompt to get the best results I could. I said, here’s the list of requirements, turn it into the best prompt that Hermes will understand and act on most effectively. And it did that. It did a great job. And I’m very satisfied with the results so far. I ran one test of it, so I liked it.

Neville: Yeah. So Claude Cowork is kind of at the heart of this. I’m experimenting myself with Claude Cowork — with Claude generally, Cowork sort of. Nothing like you’re doing with this, I hasten to add. But one of the things that I’m very impressed with about Claude is the way in which you tell it the things about you, who you are and what you’re doing, all this stuff — your preferences in how it conducts what you’re asking it to do — in a way that, unlike ChatGPT for instance, where you have to, in a sense, include in a prompt stuff you’ve already told it for something previously, but you’ve got to do that again. It doesn’t kind of remember that in the same way. Claude is different, though.

So your setup — I mean, I guess what I’m asking basically is, when you set this up, did it require that level of preparation that is probably desirable to do that? Or was there anything special that you had to do that was outside of what you would normally do with Claude Cowork?

Shel: Well, for the byline piece that I was looking to pitch, that I set the subagents out to do their thing in Cowork, I did in the prompt explain what my goal was and what the organization was. I had it look at our company website to get a good sense of who we are and what our areas of specialization are. I gave it some additional information.

But then something I do with all of these now — not every prompt, if I’m just in Claude or ChatGPT, but especially with the agents, with deep research projects and things like that — I’ll say, “ask me questions before you go out and do this.” And it usually asks some very salient questions. It’s very good at deducing what it doesn’t know. And the answers factor into the results you get, which is really interesting to me — that it can, if you ask it to, understand where there are gaps in the prompt that it could use this information in order to deliver really excellent and pertinent results.

Neville: Got it. So thinking about our listeners listening to this, to how you’ve explained all of this — is it kind of credible and within the reach of anyone literally wanting to do this? Or do you need to have some kind of mental preparedness or knowledge technically to do this? Could anyone just dive in and start something? Right.

Shel: Well, I don’t know about diving in. With Hermes, for example, I watched a couple of YouTube videos. I watched one that actually walked me step by step through the installation process and then had a whole section on use cases. I’ve watched more. There’s one on 99 use cases for Hermes that I watched, which was pretty good. So it helps you get in that mindset. But in terms of, can anybody do this?

In the world of communications, anybody better be able to do this, because you’re not going to be sent out to look for these sites and assemble a spreadsheet anymore. You need to be able to orchestrate these agents. And that means knowing how to prompt it to get the results that you want. And that’s different, again, from prompting ChatGPT for an answer to a question, right? You are giving it a task, and it could be a recurring task that somebody on your team does.

Now, in communications, I still don’t see this replacing a communicator, because every communicator is going to have the human-only or human-required elements of the job. I cannot see one of these conducting, say, an employee focus group. There’s so much that we do. I mean, you know, in public relations, the word “relations” always stands out to me, and maintaining those relations is not something a bot can do.

But in terms of what that Harvard Business Review article was talking about, you can swap marketing for communications. I think it’s more true in comms. Comms workflows are more coordination-heavy than marketing. We have legal, we have HR, we have the C-suite. We have to make sure everything’s consistent with the brand and maybe get some brand representation approvals. They’re the owners of the channels that we have to deal with.

If marketing needs a brand code — and this was a concept I really liked in that article — communications needs a narrative code. You know, a machine-readable positioning, machine-readable executive voice profiles, message hierarchies, sensitive-topic guardrails, rules for escalating things that emerge that need to be taken up a step in the hierarchy or maybe up to the C-suite or the CEO. I don’t know anybody who’s built a narrative code.

Whoever builds this first in your organization, by the way, is going to end up owning the agentic stack. If marketing builds it first, we in communications are going to inherit a system that wasn’t designed for crisis communication, wasn’t designed for controversy or reputation damage or stakeholder complexity — it was built for marketing. And that’s the one we’re going to end up having to work with. You probably remember, Neville, in the early days of social media, Richard Edelman was out there sounding the drum that PR needed to own social media before marketing and advertising got their hands on it, because they would turn it into something inauthentic, right? It’s the same thing here.

Neville: Yeah. Yeah.

Shel: I think we in comms are going to have to build out the narrative code and let marketing take advantage of the agentic stack that we’ve built. But we need to be in the room when those decisions are being made.

Neville: So another challenge for communicators, and I can see that. I think the overall structure of the Harvard piece, as I mentioned in the introduction, is on the organization as a whole. And I think there are examples where that’s in work — I quoted a couple, and then there’s the BCG research, which I found quite interesting. But that’s… restructuring is a way away yet on an organizational level, I would say, for most companies. But the individual actions, such as experimentation you’re doing, are definitely right in front of us, literally right now.

And it prompted a thought in my mind, looking at this overall picture, about some assumptions in the Harvard piece that I think are worth looking at for a minute, where the article assumes that strategic judgment remains human, not AI focused, but execution becomes agentic. So I think, okay, then — though history suggests automation rarely stops neatly where people would like it to and where they would expect it to.

So perhaps a question that’s relevant to address in this context is: if AI systems — agentic is part of that — increasingly assist with strategy too, which is what they’ll be doing, where exactly does human value migrate to? That’s a broad question, but for communicators specifically, how would we address that one?

Shel: I think, first of all, if you’re going to look to the agentic system to assist with the development of the strategy, I would sit down and map out a game plan for that. I wouldn’t just say, “hey, you know the company I work for, come up with a strategy for us.” I would say, first of all, what is this strategy…

Neville: Ha ha ha.

Shel: …going to be designed to achieve? What do we know about the direction the company’s going and decisions that have been made? I would certainly use it to go out and say, research the marketplace and research our competitors and identify, to the extent that you can, what their strategies are. I would develop the strategy myself, but I would give it to the AI to stress-test.

And by the way, some of this is agentic and some of it is just querying a chatbot. I mean, let’s just take crisis communication as an example. No CEO is going to go into a boardroom with an answer from an AI system telling a leader something they don’t want to hear. That is amplified by the agentic stack. If we go in as the crisis counselor and say, “look, I know you’re not going to like this. Here’s my judgment. And I’ve got this information that came from the weekly analysis of sentiment in the marketplace,” so I think it can bolster your argument. It can’t replace your argument. You’re going to walk into that boardroom as a human and make a case.

Same thing, maybe, with focus groups. When passive signals in social media, for example, and message boards get gamed, sitting in a room with 10 employees becomes the truth that the dashboards that are out there — the agents that are out there looking at sentiment — get checked against. So when a dashboard says that morale is great and the focus group says it isn’t, I’m going to pay attention to the focus group. I’m going to pay attention to those 12 people in the room before I listen to an agent that says, “well, we’ve been analyzing all the sentiment in Slack and email, and everything is just dandy.”

So I think it’s the same with strategy. I think I would never abdicate strategy…

Neville: Mm.

Shel: …but I could certainly develop it faster and be more confident in its viability by using agents and chatbots.

Neville: Yeah, I agree. And it makes me think of, I guess I would say, what’s coming, which is already here in ways that lead to even greater — well, integration, I suppose, is the right way. I’m thinking what you said at the beginning of this segment we’re talking about now, which is, you don’t hand the whole thing over to the AI and say, “hey, go and develop a strategy.” You would do…

Shel: And you know there are people who are, right?

Neville: Yeah, they will. They will. But it seems to me that this is really, in a sense, the fulfillment of an expectation — a promise — from artificial intelligence tools like this, that you would have a conversation with it in the same way you would with a human being who might be an external consultant or a colleague who’s a subject matter expert or whoever it might be, that you would explore with that individual: we’re developing a strategy for next year, let’s look at how we’re going to do this.

You set the framework for how you might start that conversation with your AI assistant. And as you said, this is not specifically agentic; it’s the whole spectrum of what the tools are. And you set it on course to go and research this. And that’s probably what an agentic tool will do. And that to me is the excitement of where this is going — that you can get to that stage, which then I think would address some of the skepticism and indeed alarm bells by some in organizations when they see unfettered technology going all over the place or being asked to do stuff. This, though, makes it credible and gives it some legs of credibility.

Which leads me, I guess, to possibly the final question here. We’re seeing this, as you’ve explained, this is light years ahead of the demo you gave a year ago, which gave a signal, a strong sense of what’s possible, where this could go. We’ve seen that fulfilled. It is eminently possible. And you don’t need to be a rocket scientist, as you might have expected you would have to be a year ago. This is doable. And the more people experiment with it in simple ways, like you’ve outlined as a real-world example, they will want to do that in that case.

So the question then, therefore, is: okay, fine, a year on from last year, you’ve explained something you’re doing that delivers value quite readily every Monday morning, let’s say. So what’s next, do you see, in terms of developing technology and the developing value people will get from it that would accelerate probably its uptake? How do you see it?

Shel: I think that the next thing we’re going to see is an evaluation of every role and where an agent will fit. This is something we went through a couple of years ago. Ethan Mollick was talking about it in his book, Co-Intelligence, before we were even talking about agents — talking about inviting AI to the table and figuring out where you could work it into your workflows. But it was still the chatbot. It was still the, “I’m going to ask you a question and you’re going to deliver some kind of answer.”

I think we need to do that again and look at agents. What tasks are we performing, and which ones can we hand off to agents? And I think there are probably roles where this is going to be even easier to do, where you’re going to see more opportunities than in communications. I mean, you know, engineering, for example, I think is wide open for this sort of thing.

So I think that’s what’s next — as we do hand off certain (and I’m going to call them) mundane tasks, because this is not the high-level strategy and the human-touch stuff that is so important in so many jobs. But as we hand these off, and it now takes an hour instead of a week, what does that do to the rest of our workflows? What does that do to our organizational structure?

One of the things that I was reading over the weekend was the expectation that middle managers are going to be a thing of the past, because what do they do? They handle the flow of information up and down between the people who report to them and the people that they report to. They handle a lot of mundane tasks that might now be handed off to an agent. Agents, according to — I don’t remember who this was who was saying this. It was somebody noteworthy. It might’ve been Dario Amodei at Anthropic, but I honestly don’t remember for sure — but middle managers can be replaced by agents by and large.

So what does that do to organizational structure? Certainly flattens it. But now, in terms of those executives who have a lot of people reporting to them, what part of that reporting structure can be handed off to an agent? So I think this is sort of a cascading situation where everything we do leads to a reconsideration of something, that leads to, well, what else can we do with the agents, which leads to further reconfiguration?

I think that’s what we’re looking at. And I don’t think it’s going to happen overnight, because, as you alluded to, the technology may be moving fast, but organizations tend not to, particularly when it comes to issues of structure and governance.

Neville: I think this is so exciting, to be frank — the idea of the changes we can see coming that will be painful for many. But is it more structural change? It’s a constant in our lives, is it not, with all of this? Something we should embrace emotionally and logically, that we can control this. And I don’t mean control the tech — we can’t do that. But we can control the risk and the benefits of something like this by not reacting to something that’s coming, by, in a sense, embracing it and experimenting with this and learning it. And as you said, if we don’t do this, the marketing guys will. And so we can’t have that. I think…

Shel: And then we’re stuck with theirs.

Neville: I think it’s something to really pay attention to. So this has been a useful, interesting discussion, Shel, getting your thoughts on this in particular. So yeah, I think we’ll come back to this conversation unquestionably at some point in the future.

Shel: No doubt, as we see developments. In fact, as I say, I just started working with Hermes over the weekend, and it was an eye-opener, and I expect, as I work with it more, I’ll have more thoughts about it and my thinking will evolve. I should point out that I did install this on a personal virtual server, not on a company computer. I’m not taking that kind of risk. And it’s my personal account.

One other thing I thought I’d mention — you talked about the idea of having a conversation with the AI, and I think that’s becoming more of a focus. And I’ll give you two quick examples. One I already mentioned is with Hermes: you don’t go to a terminal and engage with it or go to its website. You do this through WhatsApp or Slack or, in my case, I’m using Telegram — just like I’d be having a conversation with a person in that same app.

But on, I think it was Thursday, I did a half-day webinar that was offered by the Marketing AI Institute, Paul Roetzer’s organization, and it was on AI for writing. And it was very interesting. Chris Penn was among the speakers; he did a great job, as always. But one of the folks there talked about, you know, have the conversation with AI for real — do it with your voice, not with your keyboard. And she talked about a tool, which I haven’t used it yet — I have installed it across my personal computer, my laptop, and my phone — called Wispr Flow. It’s an AI tool. Have you…? It’s pretty cool. I mean, in any tool you’re using, you just click it and talk. And it doesn’t go directly into the chat box; it interprets it…

Neville: Yeah, I’ve been using it. Yeah. Yeah.

Shel: …and then puts the best prompt based on what you just said into the box. And that’s what you use to prompt the model. And I’m looking forward to giving that a try. And it’s called Wispr Flow, by the way, because if you’re in the office in an open-space format and you don’t want to disturb the people next to you, it understands what you’re saying when you whisper to it.

Neville: Yeah, it is interesting. I’ve got a hurdle to jump with it, though, which is getting accustomed to speaking what I want things to be done and how, rather than typing them. You know… yeah, and I haven’t got across that hurdle yet. That’s limiting my use of it. So I’m reverting to the, well, I’m more comfortable typing, I can type fast and all that kind of stuff. But, reality, this is faster than that. And it is…

Shel: Yeah, same.

Neville: I recognize the benefits of it. I can see this. Not everyone will be used to this. This is not dissimilar to the argument we could have about voice notes. I know people who love voice notes; I don’t. And I know more people who don’t like it. It could be a generational thing, I think to myself. But it’s part of the communication landscape. So you need to get accustomed to these developments.

Shel: Yeah. And I hear about voice notes being preferred by some reporters who are being pitched, because it’s evidence that it wasn’t AI slop that’s pitching them.

Neville: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yep, yep, yep.

Shel: And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #513: Why Communications Must Build the Narrative Code for the Agentic Age appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

While there’s no evidence that business leaders are outsourcing the most important decisions to AI, there are reports that many executives are relying on AI to make many — in fact, most — of their decisions. The implications for communications could be huge.

Links from this episode:

• AI Is Changing More Than Work, It’s Rewiring Executive Decision-Making
• Inside the C-suite: How AI is quietly reshaping executive decisions
• AI and the future of human decision making
• C-Suite Executives Dominate AI Decision-Making as Strategy Becomes Priority
• Decision-Making by Consensus Doesn’t Work in the AI Era
• How AI Is Transforming the Way Executives Lead
• Leadership at a Turning Point: How AI Is Shaping Executive Decision-Making
• Can AI Make Executive Decisions?

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, May 25.

We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [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 everybody, and welcome to episode 512 of For Immediate Release. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel: And I’m Shel Holtz. The inspiration for this week’s report came from a post Brian Solis wrote recently. In it, he argued that AI isn’t just changing work — it’s rewiring how executives make decisions. Once Brian put that in my head, the trend started standing out in other things I was seeing. I’ll summarize the numbers and what they mean for communicators right after this.

The numbers Brian pulled together are honestly alarming. A Confluent study of UK private sector leaders found that 62% of executives now use AI to make the majority of their decisions. That’s not some — it’s the majority. 70% say they second-guess themselves when AI disagrees with them, and 46% say they rely on AI more than their own colleagues.

On the U.S. side, SAP’s research found that 44% of C-suite executives would reverse a decision they had already planned to make based on AI input. 74% place more confidence in AI advice than in the advice they get from family and friends. Meanwhile, McKinsey reports that 92% of companies plan to increase their AI investment over the next three years, but only 1% — 1 percent — describe themselves as mature in deployment. The money to pay for AI and a sort of blind trust in its abilities are racing ahead of the internal competence to use it. Now, I want to be clear before I go on. I’m not anti-AI, Neville — you know this. Anyone who listens to the show knows I’ve been beating the drum for AI as a tool for communicators and for business in general for a long time.

AI as a thinking partner, a research assistant, a stress-tester for ideas — that’s enormously valuable. But there’s a meaningful difference between using AI to inform a decision and using AI to make the decision. And Brian puts this well: AI is becoming the new executive influencer. The problem is that it hasn’t earned that role, at least not yet.

So let’s talk about what this means for those of us in communication, because the implications are everywhere. Start with employee trust. The implicit deal between an organization and its workforce is that the people at the top got there because they have judgment and experience and pattern recognition that the rest of us don’t have — or at least they’ve been able to employ it really well and get noticed by the people who promote you into those leadership decisions.

That’s the story leadership tells, and it’s the story employees buy into. Now imagine the all-hands where the CEO announces a major restructuring, and somewhere in the Q&A, or worse, on Blind or Reddit a week later, it comes out that the decision was essentially handed to a chatbot. What happens to confidence in leadership? What happens to engagement? What happens to the social contract that says, follow me because I know where we’re going?

You can’t credibly ask people to bring their full selves to work, as they say, while you’re outsourcing your own judgment to a language model. Now extend that to external stakeholders — investors, customers, regulators, the board. They’re paying, and in a lot of cases they’re paying a lot, for executive judgment. If a strategic call goes sideways — and you know that happens — the explanation that the AI suggested it isn’t going to land well.

It’s going to sound like an abdication, because it is an abdication. And from a crisis communication standpoint, “we trusted the algorithm” is one of the worst defenses I can imagine. I don’t expect that anybody’s going to say that, but it doesn’t mean it’s not going to come out. Just ask anyone who’s worked an aviation incident, a financial services failure, or a healthcare AI misfire. Imagine the reaction when either the leader tells people, or they learn through a third party, that the afflicted stakeholder hears, “Well, that’s the decision the AI told me to make.”

And there’s a third implication that I think communicators need to surface inside our organizations: the erosion of dissent. I find this particularly interesting and disturbing.

Confluent found that 65% of leaders say decision-making has become less collaborative since adopting AI. The Harvard Business Review just ran a piece arguing that consensus is dead in the AI era. That may be — but debate isn’t consensus. Debate is the friction that exposes bad assumptions. It’s what didn’t happen at that auto manufacturer — I think it was Volkswagen with their emissions standards. They didn’t have the psychological safety to feel safe in dissenting against the decisions being made. In this case, we’re not even looking forward at the leadership level in some cases. If AI is pushing aside the colleague who would have pushed back, whatever process your organization had for dissent just stops functioning. And when dissent dies, so does the early warning system communicators rely on to spot reputational risks before they get out of control.

So what do we do? A few things. We push for governance — and if you already have a governance model, push to revisit it. Your governance needs clear declarations of which decisions AI informs versus which ones it actually makes. We coach our executives to talk publicly about how they actually use AI, with appropriate humility, before the question gets asked for them.

We build the internal narrative that human accountability is non-negotiable, no matter how good the model gets. And we keep reminding leadership that machine confidence isn’t the same as strategic clarity. Brian’s right: AI is a test of leadership. It’s also, increasingly, a test of communication. Neville?

Neville: Well, just to set my position clear on this, too — I’ve been a drum-beater for AI as a research assistant, as a useful tool, since GPT first came out. The initial kind of hysterical enthusiasm was tempered over time, but I use the tool every single day in what I do for work, or for pleasure for that matter. So it’s something I believe strongly in. But I’ve got this, how could you say, in the back of my mind always — this thought that I don’t accept blindly anything the AI assistant tells me. If I’m researching something, for instance, I’m going to make a recommendation about something, let’s say, or I’m writing a report or even something relatively simple like an article for the blog. If I felt I wanted to say this and it’s telling me that, that’s a simple decision: I’m either going to follow it or not. Typically when that happens, I’ll ask it questions to further that angle. But this is something else, what Brian writes about. And The Register — I’ve read their piece — tempered with a bit of hysteria, it seems. I mean, this is a very alarmist piece, or argument, you could say. If it’s saying, as it is — the survey that The Register reports on — 62% of leaders of private sector companies, and according to The Register that’s owners, founders, CEOs, managing directors, the C-level leaders of various types of companies. They didn’t say sizes. But they use AI to make the majority of the decisions, which leads to some of the alarm bells ringing that you outlined. What if it gets out that the AI made a decision when something goes south? You could flip that. What happens if it gets out that an amazing decision that led to the company being massively successful was actually made by an AI?

I think it’s inevitable you’d have that sort of focus on it alongside more sane arguments, perhaps. You could argue, well, that CEO is pretty smart that he used an AI to help him do that — as opposed to the other side, which is, gee, we’ve got to fire this guy, he used an AI and it went wrong. So you’ve got to put some balance there. Also, I think you mentioned this earlier, and I agree with you, that there are two angles to every question we might ask about this. One is internal, within an organization, and the other is external. So it is an interesting point. And one thought I had in my mind, the pragmatic question: if a leader changes a decision he or she has made because the AI assistant suggests something different, who actually owns that decision in the end? In fact, whether he changes his mind or not, if the AI said, “I recommend you should do this, and here are the 10 reasons to support that idea,” that are different from what the leader was going to do, and he or she made the changed decision based on that — who actually owns that decision? Or, as I asked myself, is that really the most important question to be answered? But it’s still a natural one to arise. And yes, we could run through a long list of the implications in this scenario for the employees of the organization, other stakeholders, and the external audiences. But I have to say Brian’s arguments are well made. He sets the scene — the executives are relying heavily on AI. From there it goes more into the alarm function.

Judgment being reshaped — the judgment exercised by a leader is obviously so flaky that it can be reshaped by the AI assistant. In other words, that individual is willing to let that happen. I wonder whether this is all part of, perhaps, the speed with which people are expecting decisions to be made. Indeed, something I was doing this weekend — we’re on a holiday weekend here, by the way, so I had time to do this — that was nothing to do with work. It was a personal thing I was involved with that required analyzing a document that had a lot of financial information in it. I asked my AI assistant, in this case Claude, as part of my experiment with Claude, to summarize it and pinpoint the key aspects. It did that in about 20 seconds. And that was enough for me to know what questions I would need to ask it next, to develop it the way I want, rather than starting from scratch trying to do that. So there’s the benefit. But I think treating AI like a trusted advisor, to me, makes a lot of sense. And I’m trying to balance that thought with the alarmist approach — you know, this is a bad thing, all these terrible things are going to happen, and it will all come out. So how does that gel with treating AI like a trusted advisor? Although your point, I agree, it hasn’t earned the trust in the context of this conversation. So does it mean leaders are willing to override their own decisions or instincts based on AI input? Well, according to The Register, 62% have said they are, I suppose. If that’s true, I think we’re in trouble already, before this gets any further. So the real challenge — I think you’ll agree with this, Shel — is not the tech at all. It’s the leadership aspect, the human behavioral aspect of this, as is so often the case. When people talk about the relationship between the human and the AI and they just talk about the tech, it’s not — it’s a human issue. Cut through all the alarm bells and pluck out something which to me is extremely important, that really doesn’t get much airtime in Brian’s report at least: isn’t this really about the whole point of judgment? That someone in a leadership position in an organization is in that position partly because he or she is very good at exercising judgment in the work they do or the decisions they make. Are we saying that judgment is so fragile that an AI could just overturn all of that in an instant and lead all this? I guess my point is that I’m noting this. I listened to what you said. I haven’t read all the surveys you mentioned, or the other reports — the Harvard Business Review, for instance — I will. But I find this literally the worst-case scenario, and that’s being pitched as, you know, this is upon us, based on The Register, which, by the way, has a — let’s call it interesting — reputation over the years for some of their reporting. But this is very factual; their own report is actually quite well written. So what do we make from this then? Should we be worried? I don’t think we should, if we see this as simply something to note and look at as a communicator — let’s say the role you’ve got in ensuring that the CEO isn’t going to have his or her judgment completely overwhelmed by an AI. I just find the idea of that frankly ridiculous, in the sense of, well, not implying or even saying that this is the norm. It’s a result of surveys. There’s other research also supporting some of this, I think. But we should put it in perspective: this is, I guess, an inevitable discussion point that’s emerging at this stage in the development of AI and organizations. We’ve reported recently on this podcast how leaders are taking ownership of the AI deployments in their organizations. That doesn’t mean to say every company is doing this, because they aren’t. But we’re seeing that, and then we’re seeing other reporting we’ve commented on — that employees and other stakeholders related to an organization are unhappy with what’s happening with AI rollouts in their organization. So you’ve got all these mixed messages coming left, right and center, and now this. It doesn’t mean we should — oh my goodness — stop doing this, or have a meeting with the CEO and say, “What are you doing?” No, I don’t think so. But we need to note this nevertheless. I don’t believe this is something we should all get terribly alarmed about, to be honest, as long as we apply our own common sense to observing what’s going on and making sure we understand the CEO we’re supporting as communicators — let’s say the leadership teams — that this isn’t happening.

Shel: Well, I don’t think this is the most important issue we’re facing with AI. I do think it’s a time to worry. Now, I will say I don’t imagine that the CEOs leading the world’s biggest companies — the Jamie Dimons, the Josh Domaros, the Tim Cooks of the world — are using AI to make important decisions. And you have to wonder, because I don’t think they asked, in the survey they did, what types of decisions these CEOs are making. Are they the game-changing decisions, the most important decisions they have to make, or are they lower-level decisions? We talk about AI taking all that drudge work off the table. Are they allowing the AI to make decisions associated with that kind of work? But I think, as people — and CEOs are people — as they get accustomed to letting AI make decisions, it might get easier and easier to turn bigger and bigger decisions over to AI as time goes by. With any luck, AI is going to get better and better and may earn that trust. But this would cause that decision-making instinct that leaders have, based on their experience and their judgment and the other things that got them to that level, to atrophy. I mean, atrophy is happening elsewhere as a result of AI among some groups of people — the ability to write your own thoughts down, to craft your own email, to conduct your own research. As far as CEOs making good decisions with support from AI, I think support from AI is going to become table stakes. I think CEOs who don’t know how to use it are going to become dinosaurs in fairly short order — not necessarily the ones who have the job now, but I don’t think you’re going to see people getting promoted into that position, or hired into it, if they don’t know how to use AI for decision support and the other things we see AI being used for very effectively at leadership levels. And leaders are using AI, according to most of the research I see. I wonder, though, if they start turning more and more decisions over to AI, what is the board or the owner going to see as the value of the CEO? If most of this work — or much of this work, the majority according to that Confluent study — is being done by AI, does that mean the enormous salaries being paid to the people at the top of the organization are going to decline? Or does it mean that the role changes altogether, or maybe even ceases to exist in favor of some other model? And by the way, I’d love to see the same question posed to people at other levels of the organization, because this probably is not something confined to the C-suite, this turning decisions over to AI. I wonder how much it’s happening in middle management. I wonder how much it’s happening among frontline workers. If it’s at the same level, then it’s a company-wide issue that needs to be addressed, because there are going to be some problems that emerge if we don’t — I mean, along the Volkswagen lines with their emissions scandal. Dieselgate, exactly. Yeah.

Neville: That was Dieselgate, as it was dubbed. I mean, it’s a good point you make. I agree. And the point you made earlier, too, is actually a critical question: what kind of decisions are we talking about here? Is it on the scale of, let’s proceed with the merger with this company rather than that one? Or is it something like, should I fit in a stopover in this city on my way to that city to meet with these people and so forth and achieve these things? Is it that? Or is it even something more prosaic? You know, what do I get my wife for her birthday next week? I’ll have my secretary do it — but the AI could tell me. I mean, that’s ridiculous, actually. But it’s significant to know what kinds of decisions we’re talking about, because I’ve not seen it referenced. It’s implying — and people are jumping, obviously, on this — that these are the kind of organization-affecting major decisions that are suddenly at risk because an AI is doing it. I find that ridiculous, to be honest. So we need to know what kind of decisions.

Shel: Yeah. I mean, in my industry, there’s a go/no-go decision on pursuing a project. I cannot imagine, in my wildest imagination, in my organization, anybody turning that decision over to an AI. But what if somewhere in the industry they do, and end up pursuing a project that ends up being more trouble than it was worth? Somebody in the organization at that leadership level, who was involved in the previous discussions, would have known for various reasons, but the AI didn’t have the experience and the insight that that individual had. That could be a financial problem for the organization.

Neville: So the role of the communicator in all of this — and this is not to say that the communicator who works closely with the leadership teams, including the CEO and others in the C-suite, is involved in every single thing they’re doing. No, that’s not realistic, because they’re not. But the communicator’s role in preserving human judgment is the right question to ask. What is it in this context? Where do communicators fit in helping leaders balance AI insights with human insight and judgment and experience? Where do they fit in doing all of that? So the two angles I notice: internal comms — communicators act as sense-makers, ensuring context, ethics and human impact remain part of decision-making. Externally, they help articulate how AI is used responsibly in the organization, which is increasingly central to trust and reputation. That addresses the point you made about when it leaks and it gets out that AI did something. I think increasingly we’re going to see that point — articulating how AI is used responsibly in an organization — because the impact can be huge if rumor builds, which it would do: “the AI is making all the decisions in this company, and why do we need the CEO and all that?” So that’s a good role for a communicator to take on, and to be seen to be the person who is the “yes, but” person and the key advisor to leadership in these things, which strengthens the communicator’s role, in my view. So there are things we can do to address this. If this is as big a problem as these articles make out, I don’t believe it’s something we should lose any sleep over right now in the context of everything else that’s going on in the organization. But nevertheless, we’ve got respected sources — Harvard Business Review, we’ve got Deloitte talking about it, and others that we pay attention to because they’re credible publications talking about this.

Shel: Well, yeah.

Neville: Brian seeded an interesting discussion point, it seems to me.

Shel: Yeah. And let’s look at a very plausible scenario. Let’s say somebody sues the organization over a decision that the CEO made, or that leadership made, that affected them badly, and they feel they deserve compensation for that. In the U.S., anybody can sue anybody for anything. And we have seen some recent lawsuits. Look at the lawsuit that we’re seeing play out right now between OpenAI and Elon Musk.

Neville: Yeah.

Shel: And look at the records, the emails that have been surfaced in discovery. Look at the trials that have been held over lawsuits brought by the parents of children who killed themselves because they got encouragement or assistance from ChatGPT, and who sued OpenAI over that. What they got in discovery was access to the kids’ entire ChatGPT history. So you have a shareholder or a customer who sues the company, and in discovery, all of these things come to light — and that’s how it gets out. So I think even decision support has to be balanced with other input that you can demonstrate in a courtroom influenced the decision that was made, so it doesn’t look like the decision was completely outsourced to the AI. I think that’s an entirely plausible scenario in a lawsuit. So yeah, it’s something we need to consider. And as you say, and as I said, there are things communicators can do about this. One is making sure people are aware of the potential for this situation. And then, as I said, influencing the governance model so that it incorporates decision-making — if it doesn’t already have decision-making and decision support in the governance document, it needs to be added. And then making sure the leaders are talking about how they’re using it, so it never comes up that they’re using it to make a decision of importance in the organization — that it’s focused on using it in very effective ways.

Neville: Yeah. I mean, I think the picture you painted — lawsuits and stuff like that — are very possible, particularly in America, where, as you said, anyone can sue anyone for anything, usually for amazing sums of money, in the billions. So maybe what needs to happen in organizations that would address this, among other things, is keeping records. So that, for instance, in an organization that has deployed or rolled out AI tools such as chatbots — let’s say maybe their own version of something based on ChatGPT, whatever it might be — it needs to be known that those record anything you interact with on an AI. Whatever level you are in the organization, there’s a record kept along with anything else: emails, internal reports, you name it, they’re monitored and tracked in most organizations. And the fact that you could add to that picture even some of these automated note-takers, like Otter and others, that are commonly used in intrusive ways in Zoom meetings — and you hear stories of private Zoom meetings —

Shel: AI transcripts of Zoom meetings in which the decisions were made.

Neville: — where the outcomes are disclosed or leak out publicly because someone used one of these tools that summarized things, including the recommendations or suggestions if they were made by anyone. If that gets into a law case by the plaintiffs, that’ll be shown out of context — you can be sure of it. So, right.

Shel: Yeah. And that’s why a lot of organizations are saying to their employees, you can’t record these kinds of meetings.

Neville: Right. But someone will, and it’ll happen. So you need to head that off the path, as it were, and have your own structure in place and your communication surrounding it. So, for instance, you have to have very clear narratives around decision ownership, for example, that would help you in crisis situations. That’s the internal focus. Externally, you’ve got to communicate the kind of structure you have for human accountability — not “the algorithm said we should do this.” We can laugh about it, as I am at the moment, but imagine the reality of something like that happening. So I think these are all things that are plausible, I do believe, particularly in the U.S., I have to say — but hey, could be anywhere. It isn’t complicated to work out a plan of how you would prepare for things like this. But I’d rather look at it not as preparing for worst cases, although you need to. It’s just a switch — flip it over a bit and look at the benefits of all of this. And again, not solely the communicator: the individual leader has to be willing to go along with this, has to be willing to share some of the thinking he or she is doing and the discussions with the assistant, whether it’s an AI or anyone else, to realize that you can’t do this without full transparency, at least to your advisors, including the communicator.

Shel: Yeah, absolutely. And we will be back with a follow-up episode when the inevitable headline surfaces of a company that gets in trouble because it’s revealed that the CEO abdicated a decision to AI. Until then — actually until next week — that’ll be a 30 for For Immediate Release.

The post FIR #512: The AI Shift in Executive Decision-Making appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.