The most common refrain we hear about society and the rapid advances in Generative Artificial Intelligence is, “We’re not ready.” We’re not ready for Artificial General Intelligence, and we’re certainly not ready for Artificial Superintelligence. Yet both are approaching uncomfortably quickly.

Business (along with government) is near the top of the list of unprepared entities; in business, managers lead the list of employees who need to get up to speed…fast. It could be as soon as this year that managers will be asked to lead hybrid teams of human employees and AI agents that autonomously perform multiple tasks — emulating what a skilled employee can do sitting at a computer, but much faster and perhaps more accurately. This will need to result in a new approach to managing. In this midweek FIR episode, Neville and Shel look at what this means for managers and how far business is from enabling their managers to succeed in this new work reality.

Links from this episode:

• AI Agents Mean We Are The ‘Last Generation Of Managers To Manage A Wholly Human Workforce’
• The rise of the AI manager
• “The Manager’s Job,” 50 Years Later
• AI has more emotional intelligence than many people. Here’s what human managers can learn from it
• Will AI Agents Join the Workforce This Year? 
• Q&A: ManpowerGroup exec explains how to manage an AI workforce

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, April 28.

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

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

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

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

Raw Transcript:

Neville Hobson: Hi everyone, and welcome to four immediate release. This is episode 4 5 8. I’m Neville Hobson.
Shel Holtz: And I’m Shel Holtz.
I read an article in Forbes the other day that pointed out that because of the role AI agents will play in the workplace, we are the last generation to manage a wholly human workforce. Uh, I spend a fair amount of my time communicating.
I. With managers, uh, through a variety of channels where I work. So with all this in mind, let’s take a look at the evolving role of managers in the era of generative AI and how internal communicators can support this transformation Traditionally. Managers have balanced administrative tasks, strategic planning, and people management.
However, recent McKinsey research confirms that less than 30% of a manager’s time is spent on people leadership with the majority consumed by individual execution, uh, or [00:01:00] administrative duties. How is this all going to look in the era of generative ai? Well, that’s what we’ll talk about right after this.
With the integration of generative ai, many routine administrative tasks are being automated, enabling this profound shift that we’re seeing in what managers focus on where they spend their time. This transition transforms managers from day-to-day administrators to strategic orchestrators who can coordinate complex systems.
Involving both human talent and AI tools beyond simply using ai, its co-pilots for their own individual tasks. And it’s worth, uh, noting that that remains important since, uh, there is data that shows that managers spend a heck, a lot of their. Time on, uh, that individual performance, that, that individual contribution, uh, and not on managerial tasks, but beyond doing that, managers are now creating and, and managing [00:02:00] sophisticated workflows where humans and multiple AI systems, this being the agents that we’re hearing so much about, collaborate to achieve outcomes that weren’t possible before.
Uh, this evolution redefines quality and excellence in management, moving beyond supervision to creating environments where both human and AI capabilities can thrive cohesively. While AI handles routine tasks, managers will focus more on the uniquely human aspects of leadership, building the team’s culture, fostering innovation, providing emotional support, and making ethical judgements.[00:03:00]
We’ll look at the new managerial competencies and how communicators can help managers make this transition right after this. Now the shift isn’t without its challenges. Managers need to develop new competencies, including understanding AI capabilities and limitations, interpreting AI generated data for decision making, managing the ethics of AI implementation, fostering collaboration between human and AI team members.
Intelligence to support [00:04:00] teams through technological change. Yet as managers navigate through these changes, internal communicators have a pivotal role to play in facilitating a smooth transition. We do that through education and awareness, demystifying. AI by providing clear, accessible information about what it is, its capabilities, its limitations.
This includes creating informative content, working with the training and IT departments to develop workshops, sharing success stories across the organization. This is a change, so we should be looking at change management support with all the conversation going on about the relevance of change management.
This is a change. It does require some support. Uh, we need to highlight new managerial skills that will evolve as we move into this era. This might involve collaborating with HR to create competency frameworks or sharing resources for skill development. Uh, feedback loops will have to be implemented, channels for [00:05:00] continuous feedback that allow managers and employees to share their experiences.
We can facilitate these mechanisms through call surveys, focus groups, and digital platforms where insights can be collected and acted on. Uh, and storytelling. Finally, obviously, sharing those narratives about how AI integration is positively affecting the organization. That can be really powerful stuff.
Highlighting the stories where AI has taken over mundane tasks, letting managers focus on strategic initiatives and team development that can be really motivating and, and provide some practical insights for others as well. Finally, there’s that issue of ethical considerations, uh, and developing those guidelines because AI will become more integrated into management practices, and we’ll have a role in facilitating discussions about how that should be done ethically, that includes helping develop and communicate guidelines around data privacy, algorithmic bias, and ensuring human oversight.
Remains in critical [00:06:00] decision making processes. So as we continue to explore this intersection of organizational communication and digital technology collaboration between managers and communicators is, is really going to take center stage here sooner rather than later. And as communicators, we can navigate the complexities of this.
AI driven era, we can foster workplaces that leverage technology and value, uh, that irreplaceable human touch that makes organizations really thrive.
Neville Hobson: Okay. Lot to, uh, lot to think about there. Uh, one question I have shell about all of this and, and I’m kind of confirmed in my thinking by looking at, uh, all the articles we’ve assembled that will be in the show notes that are talking about this topping in one way or another, that we talk about the last generation of managers to manage a who holy human workforce.
I, I, I don’t disagree with that at all. It seems very likely, , but. I wonder why there’s this kind of fixation in the mainstream media, the [00:07:00] tech press, and in fact anyone talking about it, that they want a graphic or an illustration to go along with the article. Why is it they always show a robot or some kind of machine that’s human-like sitting, typing at a computer or shaking a hand with a, with a human being?
That’s absolutely not what we’re expected to see. Yeah, it’s a bit of, it’s a metaphor, Neville, it’s a metaphor, it’s a bit of software, but it fixes in people’s minds that your workforce is gonna be robots sitting there. So how do you, , manage that then in the context of, uh, day-to-day. Uh, work in teams that are human beings.
, you have , your Microsoft teams call typically, uh, you’ll have physical meetings. , so where does the AI sit in that context? Where, where’s a scenario where you’ve got your AI colleague. Whether it’s an AI assistant or whatever it might be, , where does it, or are you gonna call it he or a she or a they, whatever, uh, how does that integrate into [00:08:00] the physical workforce that you are managing?
That
Shel Holtz: is the million dollar question. Uh, and I think the answer right now is, which no,
Neville Hobson: no one is asking or even answering actually. Well,
Shel Holtz: yeah, and I think, I think that’s, a couple of these articles start to point to that they, they make the point that if the agents can go out and do things that right now people are doing and they’re doing it using processes that take considerably longer, how do we then integrate?
These so that there are now workflows and processes that accommodate what those agents can do, the timelines that they can do them in. And the problem is we don’t know what those agents are going to do yet. , very, very few are available. The ones that we see from, you know, HubSpot and Salesforce are fairly rudimentary at this point.
, I think we’ll see some. Significant leaps this year. , some really startling stuff, , in 2026. , and then we’ll be able to start to see within [00:09:00] job categories. In the field I work in, , how is it going to. Integrate into the actual project as it’s being built. How does it integrate into pre-construction and estimating?
, and those people who have very longstanding, , well-defined processes and workflows to do that, , it’s all gonna be thrown into the wood chipper, right? Because with these agents doing things in minutes that used to take hours, days, weeks, months, . You’re gonna have to come up with new workflows, and you’re gonna have to figure out exactly what the people do, how they do it, when they do it, to accommodate what’s now available.
And if there are, , consulting practices that will be built on this, there will be trainers who will go out and work with organizations on this. None of them exist yet, because again, we need the agents to see exactly what kind of impact it is and have some practical field experience with this.
Neville Hobson: So it seems to me that we’ve got things around the wrong way in that [00:10:00] case. ’cause all I see are lists of tasks and things that, that the ai, , , the participation of AI in your workforce team is gonna have to do. I. So, , you know, the evolving workplace dynamics, how people do things, and, uh, looking through just some of them, , enterprise applications, customer service, transformation, research and data analysis, software development, cybersecurity, blah, blah, blah.
, okay, fine. That’s great. Identifying the tasks that need doing, but it seems to me that the, maybe the more essential task is somebody has to be talking about how will the AI fit into this, , without. Indeed it probably isn’t a, without, without a whole scale shift and change in how teams actually work, where you’ve got, , you know, your typical team, groups of people reporting to managers.
, it’s not, you know, hierarchical only. It’s, , across cross fertilization of ideas. You name it. , people will get together, they’ll chat on the phone, , they’ll do text message. [00:11:00] They’ll communicate with each other on the fly as a project is developing. , where does the AI fit in there in the sense of, you’ve asked your AI assistant to, , hey, take, , this is what we wanna do.
Go and get that data. Come back to me with, , the top 10 things. You actually probably wouldn’t have to tell it that. Go and analyze that and come back to me and tell me what you that be, what you.
30 seconds later it’s done that, , and , probably 10 seconds after that, there’s your spreadsheet all prepared and wait, hang on a minute, that’s, , way too fast because, , you are not capable of this. And that’s an extreme example. I’m sure it isn’t gonna be like that, but we need to be discussing those things, right?
Right. Now, if this is already on the, , on the horizon for people, and you’ve just mentioned something, I agree with you, within a year. This is gonna be real and not a mass, not widespread, not universal, certainly not. But there’ll be some many businesses doing this already. So, , [00:12:00] I just wonder, , the practicality of this, , the ideals are fantastic and I remember when I was at IBM, this is now nearly 10 years ago, with IBM Watson, talking about the role of.
Tools like Outlook at the time would be autonomous in terms of fixing your appointments. So scheduling this and doing that kind of thing, wonderful. But that’s just one-to-one in a sense. And, and you can’t, , uh, use that, uh, effectively in a group who aren’t, who aren’t ready for this kind of thing. So I, I, I’m just curious.
I think, I suppose really why is no one talking about this? You mentioned some of these articles pointed to this, but no one’s actually discussing it. Certainly not that I’ve seen outside of academia. And so when are we gonna get to that in, in business? What about, uh, the companies that you work for, the ones that I might work for, or the clients that you might engage with?
What’s happening with these guys early days with most
Shel Holtz: companies? . I can tell you , where I work. We have a, an AI committee. I’m [00:13:00] pleased to be on it. You mentioned that, , we have divided into subcommittees , and we have objectives and goals and we’re working on it. But, you know, I don’t think there are many organizations that are routinely using agents now to, no, it’s too soon.
Take over, a routine element of a workflow. , they’re, they’re just not, they haven’t been deployed yet.
Neville Hobson: Hence, , if you talk in your organization, say, Hey guys, this is coming. Okay. We’ve got AI agents coming. They’re gonna be doing all this work that you hate and it’s gonna be wonderful ’cause they’ll give you all the results in this short period of time.
So, are we ready? I. No, we’re not, we’re not ready. Nope. You’re so don’t talk about this stuff yet, then it needs to be the other way around. I think before we get into this for the flow, , so that you can set the right expectations with everyone. , actually I. That’s what I make.
Shel Holtz: Yeah. I mean, the agents are on their way, , , and very, very soon.
, and you’re gonna see them as with HubSpot, , [00:14:00] and Salesforce built into products that you’re already using. , so it’s around the corner that we’re gonna be able to deploy them within the organization. Or organizational tasks that are not part of a branded product. It’s just something that we have built or we have hired somebody to come in and build.
Uh, and it does the thing that we need it to do. , so I do, I think we do need to start thinking about, we don’t wanna be confronted when there are suddenly agents doing things and everybody’s in disarray because the workflows that we have been. Using for the last decade or 30 years or 50 years, depending on your industry, , have , just been thrown to the winds.
It, it doesn’t work based on when deliverables are happening. So, , I don’t it, it doesn’t mean that we need to figure out how to do it now, but we need to let people know it’s coming. Otherwise, it’s just, yeah, I gonna be a chaos and a shock.
Neville Hobson: Yeah, we do. We need to be telling this is what’s coming and this is what we need to do now.
Ready for when it’s coming. But I, I do wonder Shell as [00:15:00] well, , is this perhaps also not a case of, , , how could you, how could I, how’s the best way to describing It’s , of jargon overloads that suddenly there’s this AI agent and everyone’s latched onto this, Hey, the agents are coming. , whereas much of what your AI agent.
Or whatever you have been used to calling it until now that your chat, GPT generator, AI assistant may be, uh, is actually doing a lot of this stuff already, if just not at scale, , in groups where it’s all communicated across a whole team. So, for instance, I’m thinking of a number of case studies that , , I’ve.
Read, over the past year, , one in particular, , from Microsoft talking about, , an advertising agency out in the far east out in Asia who, , had, , a software tool that was based on artificial intelligence that would manage everyone’s tasks and let everyone know the status now and again, automated.
So I see to, I say to myself, think of something like, , Asana. Or one of those tools except fully automated, [00:16:00] and people were getting used to that and seeing great results from it that they recognize as well, that it required them to do certain things differently than they’d done before. But they didn’t see that as a, oh God, I’ve gotta do this and I don’t wanna do it.
They wanted to do it. I’m thinking that’s where we need to be. , and maybe it is a partly a thing, a jargony thing. , it’s called AI agents All sounds cool and blah, blah. , that, it is missing the bit though that we’re talking too much about the, the outcome without understanding how we’re gonna get there.
That’s what seems like to me.
Shel Holtz: I think agent , is definitely jargon, but I think there’s some substance behind it. I mean, remember when we interviewed Aaron Quien from. Profit, , and what he’s doing with AI and press releases. Now, if you take that to the, , agentic level, , imagine that your company has an announcement to make, so you provide all of the details of the announcement to your AI agent, which has been trained on your media space, and it will go, , find all of the reporters who might be [00:17:00] interested in reporting on that.
Draft a press release or press announcement, or a press kit or all of the above, , that each one is tailored to each reporter, , produces three versions and three different tones of voice, , and cues them up for distribution to those reporters and puts everything in a folder for you to go review before you choose the one you’re going to send to each reporter.
It’s just the multiple steps that it takes without intervention, unless it has a question in which case it asks you. Right, right. This is so much different than a chat bot box.
Neville Hobson: Right. I get it. I get it. But it just needs to set the right expectation, I think. Because that is not universe, not mass market yet.
And, and this is part of the trouble with some of these things where , the talk focuses on this is gonna be with us, meaning it’s univers, it’s everywhere. This is what everyone’s gonna be doing. It won’t be like that. I’m sure it won’t be. , it comes in small steps and in iterations, and some will do it and others will see it and they’ll start [00:18:00] doing it.
This is how most things tend to happen. , it’s ideal. It sounds wonderful, but I think it, it’s, to me, the expectation setting is key in that, , we want to get down this road and bring everyone along with us to understand this is what’s coming. This is what we need to do now. So what your company’s doing is a good example of that.
And I’m sure many, many other companies are doing that as well. And some of these examples and these articles, the ones you showed, the ones I dug up to miss that. Actually, , and they’re talking all about, you know, development of frameworks and, , customer service, absolute transformation in the customer experience because of this Well, and that, thank God I say Ben’s better than the current state of customer service, even with menuing, voicemail systems, all that stuff.
So yet it’s not yet. There. , and we need help to understand how real this is, but without people saying, yeah, rubbish, this isn’t gonna happen, because that’s not right either. But it’s a long way off, it seems to me. But the steps need to be taken now, and now I I, I’ll backtrack on what I just said there.
She, because we know that a long way off [00:19:00] means six months. Yes.
Shel Holtz: Yeah. , , this is, , an, an accelerated world that we live in.
Neville Hobson: It
Shel Holtz: is.
Neville Hobson: It’s exciting without any doubt. , I just would hate to see that excitement, , eyes glaze because people don’t see how they’re gonna get there, and that’s the bit that we need to focus on, I think.
Shel Holtz: Yeah. And by the way, you, , wondered how, , we would deal with the AI in the meetings? I, expect it won’t be very long before, it’s just like talking to the computer and Star Trek. it’s just part of the conversation, correct. Representing all of the agents that knows Right. Everything that’s going on, , in that AI space and can answer any of your questions.
And by the way, if, if teams wanna start getting used to this now, one of the things they can do is start using Notebook, lm, , throw , all of the documents for whatever it is you’re working in. There. And then during meetings, just start to query lm. If you have a question about anything, , it can answer based on any document that you have put in that notebook.
So get used to having that conversation with an AI agent. It’s, it’s, yeah, [00:20:00] not, , I mean, it’s available right now and useful and it’s gonna be everywhere sooner or later. Yep. And that will be a 30 for this episode of four immediate release.

 

The post FIR #458: Preparing Managers to Manage Human-AI Hybrid Teams appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

There are few business leaders who won’t need to explain to various stakeholders the impacts of U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs and the trade war it will initiate. How they position those impacts could determine whether they find their organizations in the Administration’s crosshairs. Communicators should counsel leaders on how to address the impacts. Neville and Shel share their thoughts in this short midweek FIR episode.

Links from this episode:

• Trade associations: PR’s secret weapon during tariff battle
• More pocketbook, less politics: How C-suites should talk about tariffs
• Trump’s tariffs – how should the EU react?
• Adapting Communication Strategies During Trump 2.0

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, April 28.

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

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

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

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

Raw Transcript:

Shel Holtz:  Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 457 of four immediate release. I’m Shell Holtz.
Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville. Hobson. Today’s episode, we’re gonna have a talk about Trump’s terrace. This is a hot topic. You cannot avoid this if you turn on the TV news or pick up a newspaper ’cause this is a hot topic, , everywhere you go, anywhere in the world.
So we’re gonna talk about this from a communicator’s perspective. Now, let me set the scene. Um, the second Trump administration, which is where we’re at Trump 2.0, has begun introducing aggressive tariff policies. These acts are already reshaping the global trade landscape. Trump has proposed across the board import tariffs including a 10% levy on all foreign goods and potential increases of 60% and more on Chinese and other imports if implemented, these acts would trigger broad economic consequences, including a high probability of retaliatory tariffs on American goods and [00:01:00] services by affected nations.
In practice, this means five things. First, rising costs for consumers and businesses. Then disruption of global supply chains, retaliation from other countries, as I mentioned, investor uncertainty and market volatility, and to geopolitical tensions and strategic risks. This isn’t only a US issue, it’s a global risk that requires proactive communication planning, especially for multinationals and export heavy sectors in North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
So I mentioned we’re looking at this from a communicator’s perspective. So the question is, what must communicators do in this situation? Wherever you are, whatever you work in, particularly if it’s a large enterprise and it’s multinational, these are likely to be issues that concern your business, concern you as a communicator and the people in your organization who need to do the communicating much of the time.
So to help companies navigate this volatile [00:02:00] environment, communicators have a central role to play strategic messaging, stakeholder, stakeholder reassurance, and political risk mitigation will be critical. Drawing on insights from a wide range of sources that I research, including in particular, I’m quoting from PR, daily Campaign, Asia.
And, , a really interesting report from Fleischman Hillard in January. There are a number of key actions for communicators to guide their companies through an imminently volatile trade landscape. That means four key actions. First work with professional associations for coordinated advocacy. This way you can help present unified positions on tariffs.
, professional associations can effectively lobby policy makers and frame public messaging without exposing individual companies to political backlash. Second, help the C-suite focus on economic impacts, not politics. Executives should focus on how tariffs impact the business prices, jobs, supply chains, [00:03:00] without drifting into political commentary.
This approach keeps the company above the political fray while remaining transparent and informative. Third, build agile response strategies for today’s fast moving media Monitor emerging platforms where trade issues trend from TikTok to Reddit. Be prepared to respond in real time misinformation spreads fast in politically charged conversations.
And fourth, localized and aligned messaging tailored for each market and audience. Translate global strategies into locally resonant narratives, especially for markets where trade tensions may spark consumer or political reaction. So before we get into any kind of detail on this, let’s talk about that overall picture.
So shell, how do you see this shift? Affecting the way companies approach public communication, especially when the policies originate in the us, but have global consequences. You are in the us how do you see it all?
Shel Holtz: Well, I think it’s a crisis communication scenario for most organizations. , the [00:04:00] threat is consistent with the types of activities that lead us to.
In crisis plan or crisis scenario, and I think those principles apply.
Recommendation to look to associations is a good one. , what we’re trying to do is protect our reputations while still advocating for the organization. , and I really think there’s two ways to look at this. One is, , as you mentioned, professional associations. Professional associations are IAB, C and PRSA.
For example, they represent people in professions. , then there are trade associations which represent industries. And I think there’s tremendous value in those trade associations. , I remember when I worked at Allergan, a pharmaceutical company, we were a member of the American Pharmaceutical Association.
, it was a lobbying organization, did other things, but it’s primarily a lobbying organization so it could go to Congress and. Make a lot of noise [00:05:00] without painting a target on the backs of its members. , you know, a legislator wouldn’t know which member had supported a position that the trade association was taking and, and which opposed it.
, so there’s, there’s a lot of, , value to doing that. But I also think. A couple of, , other things that weren’t mentioned in these reports. One is, you know, you have to define what it is you want the reputation of your organization to be if you haven’t already done that. And if you have done that, you need to figure out how that aligns with what’s going on with these tariffs.
And it’s not just tariffs. I mean, let, let, let’s clarify. It’s also, I mean, if you look at. The activities here on DEI that’s having global implications because you have global companies, you have American based companies with European affiliates and Asian affiliates and Latin American affiliates and so on.
You have internationally based companies that have a a, a large presence in the us. Look at Unilever. [00:06:00] As an example. , and what are the European parts of the organizations and, and the other non US parts of these organizations going to do around DEI? Are they going to. Tailor their policies outside the US to accommodate what the Trump administration wants done in the us.
, if they don’t, will they, um, provoke the ire of, of the administration. So, , I think this, this goes beyond tariffs. So identify, , how all of this affects your reputation and then. Counsel your leaders on how to talk about this. So, you know, rather than talking about the politics, for example, talk about the economic impacts of these things.
. Might keep you out of the crosshairs of, of the administration as, as they pursue these policies within, um, individual organizations. , so yeah, and, and, and one other thing to keep in [00:07:00] mind here is that. Trump is fairly mercurial. , he announces a tariff and then three days later he says, well, we’ve had talks and I’m not going to implement the tariff.
And then three days later, well, yes I am. And well, it’s gonna be a different, it’s gonna be higher, it’s gonna be lower. , what all this means is that there is tremendous uncertainty. Out there. , and I think uncertainty is probably the key thing that’s happening as a result of all of this. So we need to be communicating with our stakeholders and especially our employees on a regular basis to let them know, look, this is where things are today.
It may change tomorrow. Your leadership team is nimble and watching all of this, and we will respond appropriately, , based on. The latest announcement out of, out of Washington. But we also have to acknowledge the fact that we know that this could change in 24 hours or less. , so I think addressing uncertainty is part of crisis [00:08:00] communication, and one of the reasons I think crisis is, is.
The underlying approach to take to all this.
Neville Hobson: Yeah. It’s interesting, I think because you mentioned this goes beyond tariffs. I don’t disagree with that at all yet. , ta the tariff issue, , and , you just outlined it, is full of uncertainty. Mm-hmm. Whereas things like, , restrictions on DEI that’s certain that has happened already, so they’re not that.
Unlikely to be a backtrack, so you kind of know what you need to do about that. This is very different. , and I think the uncertainty issue is, , something that, , spooks everyone, , particularly, , stock markets, , particularly the, those external groups that have a big influence on your share price.
If you’re a listed company listed on your market position, , your competitive position, you name it. , and so, , the, the idea of, , helping, , the, , C-suite, particularly senior leaders in the organization on framing, what is the messages that you’re gonna con be consistently communicating? [00:09:00] And you mentioned, , certainly yeah, stick to the economics of it all.
Don’t get into the poli political era, , area. , even though it, , it might be difficult to remain politics free depending on the business you are in and where you’re operating, but, . There are clearly opportunities, even in the time of uncertainty, where you need to be able to, , explain to your various stakeholder groups how tariffs, whether they’re implemented, particularly if they’re, if they’re implemented, how they will impact your business.
, and that’s a valid. , top, , valid focus. So on prices, jobs, , supply chains, all of that, as I mentioned earlier, without going into the political area. , and linked to that is used language that resonates with those everyday concerns. , rising costs, impact on choice or supply delays, rather than the abstract jargon that emanates, , outta the, the political area when they’re communicating stuff about tariffs.
So we hear about, 10% on this, 60% on that, [00:10:00] even 200% on, , wines from France, for instance, if they don’t obey Trump’s whims, , what does that actually mean? , it doesn’t necessarily mean that your price in your bottle of wines suddenly getting up by 200%, so you need to be able to help people. Put that in the right context for them.
, and that applies to employees particularly, I think. So you’ve got that. , I think also, , , saying to employees for instance, , don’t worry, we’re on the case. We’re taking care of all this. You need to explain exactly what you’re doing. In that case, I would argue. So you need to, , assemble.
You know the right people to respond. That’s not just a communicator. You need legal, government, affairs, whoever, , who are ready. And this is where the role of communicators comes in to craft , and prepare timely responses to tariff announcements or inquiries from the public. So that’s very reactive and there are undoubtedly things you can do on assumptions that would stand you in good stead if you just see which way the wind seems to blowing.
This is where Trump makes it very difficult because of the fact that he’s changing his mind all the [00:11:00] time. He has said on multiple occasions that he sees, , this whole thing of tariffs as a negotiating tactic, but then as you pointed out, suddenly he changed his mind. I mean, this makes it very, very difficult.
I think the. The picture’s not too different. If you are, , , a business in another country outside the United States, and you work for a, not a US based company, you are working for , a big, , company in your particular country that sells to various countries around the world, including to the us, , your dynamic approach might be different, but I, I think that the issues are not.
That dissimilar in terms of how you need to explain this to your various stakeholder groups, what’s going on? So you could argue that much of that is not really the role of communicators in the, in, in there is so much uncertainty they can, you know, it’s not really affecting you, I would argue. Yes, it is.
You need to have that 360 degree view no matter what. So, you know, in a sense , with, with some confidence, what not to [00:12:00] include in your communication is not really relevant to particular situation. Isn’t, , gonna come any easier as we get into this now? Because what we’ve been seeing, I believe is, is kind of like the, just the first shots in the battle.
, where now we’ve got an events, . And I find this extraordinary, I don’t know how you see this, but the, the vice president and his wife, , saying, we’re gonna go to visit Greenland in on Friday. And the Greenlanders and the Danes are saying, you’re not welcome. And they say, well, we’re still gonna go.
So they’re gonna go no matter what. So what happens if they’re a fused entry? I mean, what impact is , that I’m not suggesting that that should be in all your communication, but you need to be aware of potential implications for something like do something crazy like invade Greenland.
I don’t see how that’s possible. , but we are in this, , very strange situation where. Truly anything is possible. , I was thinking about something I saw , on TV news at lunchtime today about the stock markets. , , all the stock markets are up [00:13:00] big time. , the major ones around the world are all up.
, what does that tell us about, , realities of, like, the cynical view from me certainly is that, well, as we know from history in wartime there certain. Types of business do extremely well, , , and some people benefit from that. We’re seeing something similar now, it seems to me. Communicators, , have an opportunity here to, , really demonstrate leadership in, , in advising the C-suite in particular, but not just the C-suite, , other parts of the business too, and external audiences, , with clarity in uncertain environment as far as they know, and they can earn some respect for doing that, , , being proactive as well, and I’m sure that’s happening in many companies.
So what else is there shell, do you think that, , communicators could do that we’ve not touched on? Oh,
Shel Holtz: quite, quite a bit. I do wanna say that, yeah, I, I haven’t looked at the markets today, but, , , they took quite a fall over a period of a couple of weeks. So this could be a correction too. Yeah.
Probably rather than a response to anything that’s making them feel [00:14:00] positive, but. , I also wanna come back to the DEI issue just for a second, because there is tremendous uncertainty around that. Not for the same reason, not because they’re changing their minds, but because the executive order and the, , the regulations that have been produced within the administration are ridiculously vague, , and legal teams and HR teams are having a lot of difficulty.
Interpreting them and deciding exactly what they need to do in order to not run afoul of them. , so there’s uncertainty there too. But in, in terms of, you know, what else communicators can do, the first thing we can do is put together response teams, , assemble the teams with, , the various.
Perspectives and expertise, both internal and some consultants. , where I work, we, we have lobbyists in, in each of the regions where we operate that are familiar with the governments, , of those regions. , and, , would probably wanna bring them into this, , so that they are, , on deck and ready, , when something is announced to craft a [00:15:00] response, , to make recommendations to assess the impact.
, and then, , those rapid response protocols for those teams to use need to be developed too. What are the guidelines for really fast responses to unexpected developments? , you know, and have to incorporate the research we’ve already done, , and the scenario planning that we’ve done around various potential issues that could emerge.
This also requires that we. Expand our monitoring. There may be emerging, , networks, , and platforms, , that people are using to, , discuss this and share information. , identify those and incorporate them into your media monitoring mix might even pay off, , your leaders are very busy people.
They’re running the organization. Yes, they’re getting the news and they have, . Groups that they’re a part of that share the news, but it’s still sort of cherry picked. It might be worthwhile if you could do this. , and here’s an opportunity to put, , generative AI to work, , to do a daily summary of where things are at on, .
[00:16:00] These issues, , what are the latest executive orders? , what are the latest changes that the administration has made to previously announced actions? , what are the reactions from various countries and other stakeholders? What are the impacts that are being reported in various industries, especially your own?
, and just a daily bullet point summary that says, this is where we’re at to help guide them. In their decision making. , but again, I think the primary thing, , , is what do we want our reputation to be dur during all of this? And then how do we couch the communication, the messaging that we are delivering in response to this in order to reinforce that reputation and to avoid getting engaged in divisive political arguments, , which wouldn’t be beneficial for most organizations.
Neville Hobson: Yeah. , that, that’s sound advice. I think. And I would just simply add to that, that, , this applies wherever you are in the world. If you are in Europe or in Asia, it doesn’t make any difference that you would do this [00:17:00] as it relates to the relevance of your organization, the country you are in. , I think the other bit to, to mention is if you are working for a global company, whether it’s American or any other, , you could also, .
Perform a really valuable service to others by translating global approaches that affect your business on a global level into locally resonant narratives that apply in that particular country you are in. Or if you’re responsible for communication, a number of countries to tailor it to. To help you communicate effectively in those other countries too, and in the languages too.
So, , there may be different trade tensions in some of those other countries, which is likely to be the case. This is not all very uniform, , what we’ve been seeing about 10% of this and 60% of that. It may be, , different , in in particular countries, particularly smaller ones, but. The effects are likely to be resonating around the world, and some of the things that , are very hard to predict indeed is exactly what and where.
, so hence the, , the, that adds uncertainty [00:18:00] to , the broader uncertainty about what all that this means. So. Opportunity for communicators, I think is how I summarize all of that. Shell in un very uncertain times, this is a moment to shine, if you will. Even if what you are doing is not kind of like headline making.
It’s valuable to those you serve in the organization in terms of the intelligence you give them that enables them to confidently talk about these issues. So that’s what you need to pay attention to.
Shel Holtz: Absolutely. And listeners, we would love to know how you are handling all of this in your organizations, both within the US and outside the us.
, how are you counseling your leaders? What kinds of messages are you sending to employees? What kinds of teams have you assembled? , we would love to report on that. If you would rather we don’t mention your name or your organization. That’s fine. We don’t need to. Just the case studies would be, , an amazing follow up and that will be a 30.
For this episode of for immediate [00:19:00] release.

The post FIR #457: Communicating Tariff Impacts appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

It’s not just jobs that AI will affect. It’s the perception that employees have important expertise. After all, if AI can do the work, it’s easy to view employees’ special knowledge and experience as less important to the organization. Neville and Shel examine the steps communicators can take to continue to be viewed by leaders as subject matter experts who expertise brings value to the company. Also in this episode:

• The publishing platform Ghost is enabling technology to embed it in the fediverse.
• New studies reveal that bad communication is leading employees to leave their jobs.
• A national UK newspaper has launched AI-curated news for “time-poor audiences.”
• Unilever is stepping back from its purposeful activities, opting to invest heavily in influencer marketing.
• Have fans of your brand given it a nickname? New research suggests you probably shouldn’t use it.
• Dan York reports on the Internet Engineering Task Force’s work on a way for websites to signal what AI can collect and process.

Links from this episode:

• The social web beta is here
• Social web (beta)
• Substack rival Ghost is now connected to the fediverse
• Newsletter platform Ghost adopts ActivityPub to ‘bring back the open web’
• Ghost Connects Creators Across the Social Web
• The Social Web Foundation
• Communication breakdown: 61% of employees unlikely to stay in their job cite poor communication among top reasons
• Survey Results: People take Pride in Their Jobs
• Independent launching AI-powered news service for ‘time-poor audiences’
• BBC News to create AI department to offer more personalised content
• The LA Times’ AI Experiment Sparks Backlas
• How Gen AI Could Change the Value of Expertise
• LinkedIn Skills on the Rise 2025: The 15 fastest-growing skills in the US
• Companies’ biggest barrier to AI isn’t tech — it’s employee pushback. Here’s how to overcome it.
• Farewell Photoshop? Google’s new AI lets you edit images by asking.
• Unilever swaps social purpose for social media as new CEO calls brands “suspicious”
• Ben & Jerry’s claims CEO was unlawfully fired over political issues
• Why Brands Should Avoid Using the Catchy Nicknames Consumers Give Them
• How nicknames may weaken brands

Links from Dan York’s Tech Report

• IETF’s AI Preferences Task Force (you are welcome to join the mailing list and participate)

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, April 28.

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

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

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

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

Raw Transcript:

Neville Hobson: Hey everyone, and welcome to for immediate release. This is episode 4 5 6, the monthly long form episode for March, 2025. I’m Neville Hobson in the UK.

Shel Holtz: I’m Shel Holtz in Concord, California. We are delighted that you have chosen to join us for today’s review of really interesting material that has surfaced over the last month in the world of communication, business, and [00:01:00] technology.

We will start as all of our monthly episodes start with a look at the short midweek episodes that we have produced since the last monthly, which was episode number 452, but Neville, we have some comments that predate that episode that have come in, , since that last monthly episode in in February. , the first of these is a comment on episode 4 51 that comes to us from Sally Get who says Verizon Recruiters have a new tactic dangling the remote hybrid work Carrot.

At t is requiring workers to return to the office full-time. Rival Verizon is touting its more flexible opportunities as a way to add top talent to the V team per an email sent to at t employees business in Insider found that, , 1,200 open Verizon roles across the us, , 10 of which are remote and many of which require at least eight [00:02:00] in-office days a month.

But at and t isn’t budging telling Business Insider. It wants people who want to work in team environments with strong relationships and collaboration fostered by an office construct. So this battle over return to office, , and employees who desire to continue to work remote is ongoing.

Neville Hobson: That was a good comment from Sally.

It, it, , makes a lot of sense what she said. , let’s have a quick look at the, , at the episodes we’ve done, including the last monthly, because we got a few comments, right? She, , so we talked about quite a range of things in, , in 4 52, the long form monthly for February, YouTube. Shifting from mobile to tv.

Are we living the age of chaos communication? That’s a big topic, I must admit. , the impact of loosened content, moderation, policies, Gallup report, and what people want from leaders. Any value to AI generated research panels? We asked. It may be the end of the line for LinkedIn hashtags, we pondered and Dan York Tech report, , [00:03:00] Macedon and a few other things in there.

So a pretty big, , discussion field over the course of 90, more than 90 minutes. That one, I think it was Cheryl. And as you mentioned, we got some comments to that.

Shel Holtz: We did two of them, , one from Kristi Goodman who says, I have a note to add to your conversation about changing social channels. My nonprofit had a surprise last week.

We’re on a crazy number of social channels because as you know, it’s important to be where your people are with dwindling followers and engagement. Our plan at the start of the year regarding Twitter X was to maintain our main account, just to monitor it. We’d never advertised there. We expected to walk away soon.

But during a 20 hour state legislative committee that we were part of, advocates and reporters took to Twitter with lots of live tweeting, info sharing and even new followers, 85% of our engagements that day were on Twitter. I honestly don’t know what to think. And then as a bonus, she shared a photo from a few months [00:04:00] ago when Bryan Person drove to Austin for my office holiday breakfast.

He’s been producing IRA’s podcast since it launched in 2025, it says.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. Terrific. Yeah, I saw Christie’s comments on LinkedIn. I think I left a reply , to it. , that picture of Brian’s neat though. He looked, , he looked quite, , alert and alive. Haven’t seen Brian for a while. It’s good to see that I haven’t

Shel Holtz: seen or spoken to him in a while.

I see a comment from him every now and then. , but he was one of the original. He was members of by our audience. He was, the second comment comes from Catherine Arrow who says, hello there, Neville must say it was wildly disconcerting to see myself tagged in your post and then listen to you read and discuss my article on the podcast.

I would’ve happily discussed it with you both and answered some of the questions you had on your mention of the Melbourne mandate. And I think that was actually my mention of the Melbourne mandate. Yes. That’s still up there on the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management site.

You can find it here. She shares the link, which we will add to the show [00:05:00] notes and that will take you to the old WordPress site, which still has a lot of material on it. It’s old now to the point that it’s almost wearing whiskers, but much of the thinking we did then I was, , the Global Alliance secretary at the time is as relevant as ever in today’s operating environment.

Neville Hobson: Hmm. Great. I did, I think I did respond to her comment as well on LinkedIn that I saw.

Shel Holtz: I believe you did.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. So then, , 4 53, which we recorded on March the fourth. , that’s what, , we discussed some research inspired from, , by Duke University’s for Cure School of Business, , and explored why strategically roasting customers with humor and light-hearted banter can enhance brand loyalty and deepen customer connections.

In 4 54 that we recorded on March the 10th, we broke down the many implications for the practice of pr. The actions required to prepare brands to be targets of the same kind of treatment. Ukrainian [00:06:00] President Zelensky got at the hands of, of the Trump, of Trump vans and the complicit media that infamous White House press conference, and that’s a topic I still see being discussed a lot online.

And then in 4 55, the episode immediately prior to this one we’re recording. We did that on March 17th. We shared our thinking about the advice offered by Lulu Chang, messa founder and CEO at the agency roster in her manifesto, calling on leaders to skip the agency and go direct. In other words, traditional PR is dead again.

We had a good chat about that one. Didn’t we show?

Shel Holtz: We did. And interestingly, I just read a post by Jenny Dietrich talking about how in this very same environment, how important the peso model is and to engage in paid, earned, shared, and owned, , that they all have relevance and I importance. She didn’t mention MEVY at all, , but you could sense that presence there.

Anyway.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. Yeah. [00:07:00] Excellent. , we also did two new interviews, , in the preceding 30 plus days. , the first one, , which was something we were both looking forward to quite a bit. So we recorded it on, we published it on the 26th of February. That was with Steve Ruble, who is a big figure from the early days of social media and a stellar career over almost two decades with Edelman.

And Steve had a lot of insights, , on what we discussed, which broadly speaking, we covered the wide spectrum of artificial intelligence, media analytics, and the future of pr. , it was big and it’s definitely an interview worth, , listening to, or conversation I’d say covered about 40 minutes just over.

, and, , it’s worth the 40 minutes having a listen to. We also had, , a great conversation with, , Sam Michelson, , the CEO and founder of Five Blocks. And that’s, we asked him in the interview, , what the origin of that was. , so listen to the interview and you’ll get that. , [00:08:00] that was a great conversation about how AI search is changing reputation management.

So it was focused particularly on that area. , and , it really was great, how Sam shared his thinking. And we contributed to the overall conversation on how PA AI powered search is changing, , the whole landscape of how reputations are built, managed and perceived online. So we talked about that in some detail and discussed what companies and communicators need to do in that new landscape.

So it was definitely worthwhile. So that’s quite a lot of stuff we published in the last 30 Days show.

Shel Holtz: And we’re prolific, aren’t we? , , and in addition to the interviews, there’s also a new episode of Circle of Fellows up on the FIR Podcast Network. This is the monthly panel discussion, , featuring fellows from the International Association of Business Communicators.

I moderated the panel. It was on ethics in communication that went. Nicely with Ethics Month at I-I-A-B-C. [00:09:00] The the panelists were Todd Hattori, Jane Mitchell, Diane Eski, and Carolyn sel. The March Circle of Fellows is scheduled for this coming Thursday at noon eastern time. That’s March 27th. And this is, , an interesting one.

We’ve never tackled this topic before. It’s working with data in communication. And the panelists are Adrian Ley, Robin McCaslin, Leticia Vez, and Angela Seneca. So if you’d like to tune in, live and participate in that conversation, that’s coming up again, March 27th, this coming Thursday at noon. If you head over to the FIR Podcast Network, you’ll get the link to the YouTube live, , stream.

So hope you can join us for that. And we’re gonna take a short break, , to sell you something and we’ll be back with our stories of the month.[00:10:00]

One

Neville Hobson: of the more significant developments in the world of digital publishing happened last week, and it’s a move that caught the attention of creators, developers, and advocates from more Open Web ghost. The open source publishing platform that powers many independent blogs and newsletters has announced support for Activity Pup, the protocol that connects users and platforms across the Fedi us.

We’ve discussed Activity Pub and the Fedi US in previous episodes of this podcast. It means that every user of the Paid Ghost Pro platform now has the option to publish content on their ghost site that can be followed, shared, and replied to directly from platforms like Mastodon, pixel Fed Peer Tube, and others in the Federated Social web.

Once you’ve enabled the social web beater, your ghost account becomes a fed averse identity, for [00:11:00] example, at you, at your domain. That would be your web, your social web handle. Every post you publish is automatically pushed out as a federated object, and when someone on Mastodon replies to your post, that rep reply should show up as a comment on your blog.

Although I’ve not seen that yet myself, your blog essentially becomes a native part of the Fedi verse. Not just a website you have to visit, but a presence you can follow and interact with from anywhere in the network behind the scenes. This is part of a broader vision from Ghost to make the web more open and interoperable.

They’ve also co-founded a new nonprofit, the Social Web Foundation, with the goal of accelerating adoption of protocols like Activity Pub and pushing forward a decentralized model of content and social interaction. Ghost, CEO, John O. Nolan is one of the founders, and this latest feature release aligns perfectly with that mission.

It is also a clear point of differentiation from platforms like Substack, which operate in a much more closed [00:12:00] ecosystem. In fact, TechCrunch’s headlines said it best. Substack rival Ghost is now connected to the Fati verse that framing is telling. Ghost isn’t just a tool for publishing, is becoming part of a distributed, creator owned web where no single platform owns the relationship between publishers and their audience for communicators and digital, digital strategists.

This is an important moment. It signals a shift in how we think about publishing, reach and engagement. Instead of building audiences within walled gardens, there’s now a viable way to build a presence that is platform independent, but still deeply connected to where conversations are happening. As I wrote in a post on my New Ghost blog last week, I think this move is more than just a technical upgrade.

It’s a cultural signal, a sign that a growing number of people, creators, readers, and developers alike want to return to the principles that made the web powerful in the first place, openness into operability and user control. Indeed, ghost [00:13:00] noted in its announcement. If you’ve been writing things on the internet for a while, you might describe it as the return of the blogosphere.

You’ll know the significance of that. If you were here the first time around. I should mention that ghost newsletters aren’t yet part of the activity pub enabling in the beta only posts on your ghost website. I imagine embracing newsletters will come in the near future. Also, I mentioned earlier that the public beta is available to users on the subscription based hosted Ghost Pro Service Ghost has said that support for Activity Pub on self-hosted Ghost Pro will come with the release of the Ghost version six upgrade later this year.

So let’s dig into what all this means for communicators, for independent media, and for the direction we see social platforms evolving. She, what’s your take?

Shel Holtz: Well, a few thoughts on this. First, , I miss my RSS news reader from the first go around the bloggersphere. That was how we managed to avoid having to go visit each [00:14:00] blog that we followed independently, , to see what was new.

, and I think the fedi verse is kind of like that, but better, , given what’s coming with the ability for comments to move freely, , around the fedi verse, not just your most recent posts. , of course, I. Don’t think that this is the return of the blogosphere because it never went anywhere. It maybe a return to greater awareness and, and more utility of, of the blogosphere.

Yeah. Again, the challenge with the blogosphere and the reason that these walled garden social networks became so prominent is because setting up a blog is work. , and in many cases it’s also money. And a lot of people who felt I would like to share something, didn’t wanna go to that trouble, it wasn’t that important to them.

, or they just weren’t technically able or financially able. And along [00:15:00] comes, Facebook. Suddenly they’re able to share their cat photos and whatever’s on their mind without having to create something and maintain something and, and pay a monthly bill or two, , in order to do so. , I think that’s not going to change because of this, , the fact that you set up, , a ghost blog and a and a ghost newsletter is testament to your commitment to this that not everybody has.

That’s fine. There are people who wanna be consumers of this, and I think it’s gonna make it easier for people to consume and easier for people who engage with comments, which is great. Now, how successful will ghost be with this, , you know, Substack for all of the issues that it has still has a first mover advantage?

, it’s. Referenced now routinely in the news. I mean, I’m watching a mainstream news broadcast and they’re saying this person in his [00:16:00] substack, , this is becoming as common as it used to be to hear that so and so tweeted something. , it’s becoming sort of the defacto place where people are sharing their perspectives that get picked up in the mainstream media.

Can, can ghost overcome this? , perhaps I, I don’t know. , nobody has really overcome some of the other organizations who have capitalized on that first mover advantage. Think of Amazon, for example, but we’ll see, , this move into the fedi verse may give them the momentum they need

Neville Hobson: possibly. , I think, , it is interesting.

You are, you are absolutely right. I, I, , in what you say. but. I see this as much more than just newsletter publishing. , for instance, I moved from WordPress where I’ve been for 18 years, , to ghost. I shut up shop on my WordPress blog, , with consequences from that, , SEO, the historical, , history built up, , with, with Google, search count, , console, et cetera.

All of that, [00:17:00] I start from scratch. But for my goals were different. I’m not interested so much in that. I was interested more in the writing. And the thing that is different with Ghost, in my view, , even compared to WordPress, which is a, which is a better comparison, WordPress is also enabled. The activity pub via plugin, but ghosts is a way easier to set up.

In fact, there is no setup. It all happens. You just enable the beater and boom, you’re there. WordPress, you ought to publish a plugin. In my case, one of the reasons why I shifted was my hosting service would not support the plugin, wasn’t WordPress, it was the hosting service, refused to enable it, , ’cause they had something else going with a similar file name and so forth and so on.

So I thought, no, I’m outta here. I’m gone. , so there are other factors too, but that was a big one for me. But the major reason was simply the writing. I didn’t want to be a website admin anymore. I was a WordPress admin person more than I was a WordPress blogger. Fed up with it, didn’t want that anymore.

So I stopped the [00:18:00] old site’s still there as an archive. , but I’ve got a new site. The only difference with the domain name is now.io as opposed to.com. so, , that will appeal to many people. . It doesn’t yet support the activity pub on the self-hosted version of Ghost, because I could have done that.

I could have downloaded the software set up on a server just as you do with WordPress. I didn’t wanna do that anymore yet. I know two friends of mine are doing that. Well, you don’t have to do that word with WordPress

Shel Holtz: either, right? You could, you could set up on wordpress.com.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. But I had also had enough of the WordPress issues going on in WordPress with the CEO and his, , his legal fights with another, , reseller of WordPress, , hosting.

It was ugly and it also struck me, , that you’re constantly bombarded with upgrade to this. Hey, this new plugin is only $20 a month, all that daily. Literally enough. So I moved, , I don’t have any regrets, , after three weeks from the move, although I started the new presence back in January, so. In terms of where this is [00:19:00] going, , from a social web slash activity pub point of view, this is purely the beginning for Ghost.

, the Fedi verse has been there a while and Mastodon has been the big leader in that. I think now is the time for this sort of change to happen with another player making a firm commitment, which Ghost did quite a while ago. Now it’s public. The public beater is there. , they’ve had warm support from many of the obvious places.

The tech. Press, for instance, the likes of TechCrunch, verge, Vox, et cetera, all of those guys, , and a number of, , of their prominent, , influential voices who are set up shop on ghosts for both blog and newsletter. So I’m just, you know, one of the many individual users there. , I’ve had some great engagements via my new newsletter, which has been quite pleasing, more than I ever had with WordPress.

That’s no criticism of WordPress. They had a newsletter, but not to the same, , scale as how Ghost does it. So I think when the newsletter is supported in the activity, pug activity, [00:20:00] that’s when you’re gonna see. Bigger take up, I think from many of the big newsletter publishers, will that shift the needle in any form?

Right. It’s hard to tell. , I think the, , , reality as I see it certainly is that , from a communicator’s point of view, let’s say you are a, a communicator that in an organization looking at developments, , in this broad area, particularly with all the talk about, let’s look at blogging again, move away from these walled gardens.

Here’s another option you need to be considering. , it’s not too, it’s not. , much different to WordPress conceptually, , practically, it’s very different. WordPress has a huge ecosystem of hundreds, if not thou. In fact, it’s thousands of developers, plugin developers, theme developers. There’s theme marketplaces that work.

Ghost doesn’t have any of that, or very little of it. So there’s a lot more, , of, of the need for you to be hands-on, like in the very early days of blogging. , yep. You’re gonna have to write some h TM L. You’ve got JavaScript and CSS to get a handle on if you want, customize [00:21:00] stuff. If you don’t wanna do any of that stuff, there are resellers who will host it for you and take care of that.

In my case, I went to the hosted route to take care of the general installation of everything. I concentrate on the writing, and largely I’m doing that. I think this is an important move in terms of what is gonna happen with, , the fedi verse and, , enabling this idea, this appealing idea of wherever you are, , on a part of the Fedi verse that’s connected to everything else on the Fedi verse.

You can engage with content on a different service entirely, and guess what? Even blue sky. Is supported and that uses a different protocol to activity Pub. Now, that’s still, I think, an intent rather than an action because there’s a workaround you have to do, you’ve gotta follow somebody who’s developed a bridge to enable it.

And that’s not working too well at the moment, but I’m excited about that because of that brings blue sky in. There’s a barrier down immediately between tutor and protocols because it doesn’t really matter. You, the [00:22:00] average user won’t be bothered about, oh, it’s a d it’s at protocol and I’ve got activity.

But you don’t care about that. You shouldn’t even be thinking about that. You just write, publishing someone on Blue Sky leaves a comment on Blue Sky that shows up in your block. Reminds me very much of, , not the early days so much, , of the beginning to get developed. Days of WordPress. In particular, WordPress, , Shannon Whitley comes to mind immediately.

Mm-hmm. With his tweet chat plugin that enabled you to comment on Twitter. That would show up. In your WordPress blog post that you’ve commented on, and that was outstanding. An outstanding feature that all went away during the changes that went on, and, , a ton of other reasons. Now we’ve got something that has the promise to fulfill that intent, , in a way that you don’t have to do anything, , at all.

You as the you, as you as the blogger. , it would be great if once that’s connected to newsletters too, because then you’re gonna see all the barriers down in terms of engagement. And that should be of interest to [00:23:00] communicators in, in business B2B. This will come to the platform. , there are already a lot of businesses on Ghost already, , and some, .

There and others are experimenting. And that’s what I would advise community to take a look at Ghost with this thought in your mind that this is going to break down barriers across different platforms because of the fedi verse, whether it’s at protocol, whether it’s activity, pub, , work arounds, whatever.

It enables you to do things and enables others to connect with you. So I’m pretty excited about what’s coming.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I have an email newsletter for the company I am employed by, and it goes out once a month. We use MailChimp to Yeah, create and distribute, manage the subscriptions and the like. And I have been thinking about changing to, frankly, Substack, , just to get that cash littles on Substack, I

Neville Hobson: hear.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. Well, it’s the cachet of the name because you’re now hearing it in the media. You, you, you’re now hearing it on podcasts, [00:24:00] people referencing, oh, on this person’s substack on that person’s, they don’t even say newsletter, they say Substack. On the other hand, , transitioning to Ghost would give us the ability to build a broader readership through.

The integration with the Fedi verse. , on the other hand, you have to wonder how many people hear Ghost and go, well, what kind of rinky dink outfit is this? , for people who haven’t heard of it , and don’t know what it is. , just that reputation , and it’s not, the substack doesn’t have some reputational challenges that they’re facing, as we have mentioned.

Seriously here, there are people who have, have left over some of this, but, but still, yeah, I would have to stop and think about what’s best for my organization. Sure. , if I were gonna make that transition.

Neville Hobson: I, I would say I have a simple view. Shell, frankly, and it’s easy for me as an independent person. I don’t work for a company.

I don’t have big organizational issues to consider, but I look at that the same as I would look at XI definitely would not wanna be in [00:25:00] a toxic place like that. Now, I’m not saying to sub sex toxic, I don’t know that. I do know though a number or a handful, let’s say, including a couple of prominent ones who have left Substack and have joined Ghost because they do not wanna be in a place that has, as I mentioned, the N word, , a number of people, , allegedly, , find, , tuned into that kind of, of thinking.

So, , I think your point is valid, though. It’s got. Name recognition right now, but hey, listen, everyone had that issue when they started out and time will tell whether they’ve got traction. I believe Ghost has serious traction. They’ve got, , a good presence. They’ve got a, a, a nonprofit foundation behind them.

They’ve got money, they’ve got support, and they are approaching it absolutely the right way. , unlike WordPress for instance, which I think about quite a bit still. So I think. The newsletter is, , important. , it’s definitely comparable to Substack. It’s not comparable to MailChimp or any of those other ones.

It was a newsletter only via email. [00:26:00] This is newsletter and web via a publishing mechanism on the, on the server that you host your blog on. It’s all takes care taken care of in the background. It is very much a social web approach to it all, and this then enables this, , beta service.

, it’s, , I think as I mentioned, , maybe I should restate. It’s a very early beta, the stuff not enabled yet, so I think you should test it out. , test out Substack too, if you have time. , it’s

Shel Holtz: interesting. I don’t know if either of them have corporate clients. I mean, , they very well may, but it’s not something I’ve, well, it depends how

Neville Hobson: you’re defining corporate clients.

I mean, there’s a number of public listed companies on there. There’s a handful of big media properties using Ghost as there are on Substack. So, you know, take a pick.

Shel Holtz: Well, let’s move along and talk about jobs because people leave them, , they leave them for all kinds of reasons, but the one we hear about most is that people don’t quit their jobs, they quit their bosses.

We may need to put a new spin on that. [00:27:00] According to a recent survey from the Grossman Group, people may actually be quitting because the company doesn’t communicate well. The survey found 61% of employees who say they’re unlikely to stay in their current jobs. Cite poor communication is one of the top reasons why that’s not a marginal number.

That’s the majority of employees who are at risk of walking out the door, pointing directly at communication breakdowns, and it’s not the first time we’ve heard this. Alert Media’s 2025 Workplace Survey Report finds that employees are craving more consistent, clear communication, especially when it comes to their safety and wellbeing.

One of the standout findings from the report. Psychological safety depends heavily on good communication, and when that’s lacking, trust falls apart. We’re not just talking about the usual day-to-day work cranked out by professional communicators. You know, HR emails, articles on the internet weekly newsletter.

What employees are flagging isn’t always about [00:28:00] channels or campaigns. It’s about day-to-day interactions. It’s about the way their leaders talk to their teams. It’s how transparently companies share bad news. It’s whether employees feel listened to and included in the loop. These are all things that internal communicators should be focused on if the company has an internal communications function at all.

In the Grossman Group research, a full 70% of respondents said that when communication is poor, it negatively impacts their productivity. Close to the same number. 69% say it drags down morale. That’s a direct line to disengagement, quiet, quitting, and ultimately attrition the cost. Well, Gallup estimates that low engagement, much of which stems from communication issues, costs the global economy $8.8 trillion.

That’s trillion with a T. Now, there’s a wrinkle. In the Grossman survey results, it found that employees overwhelmingly believe communication is [00:29:00] everyone’s responsibility. Yet they also made it clear that their number one ask is for better communication from wait for it, their direct managers. In fact, that was the top request, even more than hearing from the CEO or the leadership team.

So maybe employees do leave their managers, but specifically the managers who can’t or won’t communicate effectively. Now, another thread worth pulling comes from a recent CNBC piece highlighting what they call a vibe shift around layoffs. For years, companies could lay off workers with a boilerplate statement about market conditions, and that was that.

Now employees and the broader public are demanding transparency. That is, they want better communication. They wanna know why certain people were cut, how the decisions were made, and what leadership is doing to support those who are impacted. Anything less feels disingenuous and fuels a toxic narrative inside and outside the organization.[00:30:00]

Now, I find it disheartening that companies are still doing this. I I, I communicated all of this kind of information during layoffs going back to the 1980s. What can internal communicators do about the situation today? First, we can stop thinking of our job as just publishing information. I know I harp on this a lot, but I still see a lot of communication departments, that’s what they do.

Professional communicators should be training, coaching, and empowering people, managers to communicate better, especially in high stakes, high emotion moments. Think layoffs, reorgs, workplace safety in incidents, this is where trust is either built or broken. Second, we need to listen more and help others listen better.

Employees wanna feel heard. That means internal comms teams should be building better feedback loops, making space for upward communication and encouraging open dialogue between teams and their leaders. I’m reading a book right now called Leading the Listening [00:31:00] Organization just so I can figure out how to better do that.

Third, we can help shape the culture of communication by modeling clarity, empathy, and transparency in everything we produce. Interestingly, even in companies where morale is high, , consider North Carolina State University, where a recent survey showed strong pride among the staff, there are still gaps.

Fewer than half of the employees at NC State said they felt fully informed about leadership decisions. Pride and positivity don’t eliminate the need for better communications. If anything, they underscore the importance of maintaining that trust through consistent, honest communication. We’re in a moment where communication isn’t just a soft skill, it’s a retention strategy, it’s a risk mitigator, and for internal communicators, it’s an opportunity to step up, not just as messengers, but as the strategic enablers of better leadership at every level of the organization.

Neville Hobson: [00:32:00] It makes a lot of sense, I think. , this is something we talk about frequently, isn’t it? And here we are again with, with this about managers about better, better, better naming them to communicate, et cetera. I just wonder why it doesn’t happen. I mean, you’ve seen that

Shel Holtz: interesting

Neville Hobson: because

Shel Holtz: the survey indicates that for all the years we’ve been talking about this, the needle doesn’t seem to have moved.

Neville Hobson: It doesn’t, and I’m, I’m also thinking about Edelman’s trust barometer, this, this area features in there and in terms of general lack of trust, but you threw out a lot of metrics in that, in that narrative there. Shell, so let me ask you if, what would you say are the top three things communicators need to do about this if it’s enabling managers to be effective communicators themselves?

What do communicators need to do specifically?

Shel Holtz: Well, communicators, first of all, need to get the buy-in from their leaders. That what they are there for is not just to inform employees of what’s going on. This is more than corporate journalism. This is a department. [00:33:00] Whose expertise is to improve communication throughout the organization, and that means all kinds of communication.

How many communicators out there are partnered with their training departments, you know, learning and development? How many of them are working with managers around communication issues that they’re facing, either in their teams or in dealing with other teams? This is what we should be doing. We should be facilitating the flow of information and knowledge and helping managers communicate effectively two way with the members of their teams, , at all levels, , of the organization, frontline managers , , and senior leaders.

, we, we really need to help organizations become effective at communication at all levels, not just on the intranet and across email. Hmm. So that’s the big thing.

Neville Hobson: Okay, so, , how do we then avoid [00:34:00] having this conversation again in six months? Then what do you say? What do you say to that?

Shel Holtz: I don’t think there’s any way we can avoid having this conversation in six months. , I, I think that there are, , organizations that are led by people who think that communication should be writing nice stories about, , the wonderful things that are happening in the organization that nobody’s going to read.

, and that’s great. , that, that that’s all we need. , you know, we talk about how the internal comm star rose during the pandemic because companies had to lean on communicators when everybody was working from home and we. Weren’t accustomed to reaching people and engaging people that way. Well, it’s been five years and that star is falling again, I’m afraid.

, and I think it’s incumbent upon us as the communicators to make the case that what we do really is about retention and risk mitigation, and [00:35:00] building engagement and improving productivity. , and we just have to connect those dots for the, for the leaders of the organization so that they can take advantage of what communication brings to the table.

Neville Hobson: A call to action for internal communicators. I hear there, shell, that’s a, that’s a good one. So, , let’s go back to something we haven’t really talked about yet in this episode. Ai, we knew it was coming. It was coming. This is a interesting, to me, one of the more interesting developments, , recently and how traditional media is experimenting with ai.

And this comes from the British newspaper, the Independent, which, , has announced the launch of a new AI powered news service called Bulletin. Designed specifically for what they describe as time poor audiences. The idea is simple but compelling. Use artificial intelligence specifically Google’s Gemini AI model to generate ultra brief news summaries each no [00:36:00] longer than 140 words.

These summaries are created by rewriting original reporting from the independent, or content from news agencies. The key point though, is that journalists review and check every single summary before it goes live. They’ve hired a dedicated team of seven staff to support bulletin, and the goal is to offer readers a fast, accurate briefing service while maintaining journalistic integrity.

It’s part of the independence, broader strategy to make its journalism more accessible to busy readers. Those they say who are juggling long work hours, family responsibilities, or are just overwhelmed by information overload. Bulletin will launch at the end of March on bulletin news with initial sponsorship from the social platform.

We are eight, , that includes investor and former English Premier League footballer Ferdinand among its backers. As part of that partnership, the independent will produce exclusive content for we are eight as well. What makes the Bulletin particularly interesting, [00:37:00] I think, is how the publisher is positioning this effort.

Christian Broughton, the Independence managing director, said the journalists themselves were closely involved in shaping the AI workflow, ensuring they remain in control of the content editor-in-Chief Jordy. Greg describes Bulletin as brilliant shorthand for the independence journalism, a supplement, not a replacement for the deeper Coverage newsletters, podcasts and documentaries.

And of course, the independence move isn’t happening in isolation as other UK publishers like Newsquest and Reach are also experimenting with AI assisted reporting. Others in the US and elsewhere are also experimenting. Still, the independence in the UK seems intent on framing bulletin as a human led initiative supported by AI rather than the other way around.

So is this a new model for trusted, scalable journalism in an age of short attention spans and algorithmic overload? Or is it a step towards automating too much of what journalists do? [00:38:00] What do you think she,

Shel Holtz: well, it could be either one. Depends on how they go about it. It’s all in the execution. But you’re right, there is a lot of AI infiltrating the world of journalism these days.

And what I find most interesting about it is that it is uneven.

It,

Shel Holtz: there don’t seem to be trends. It all seems to be. Ideas that are generated internally and implemented so that you have different publications using AI for different things. And some of them could be really good for journalism, some of them not so much.

For example, the Los Angeles Times has introduced an AI driven labeling system to flag articles that take a stance or are written from a personal perspective. Their billionaire owner, , introduced this in a letter. , it’s called the Voices Label, and it applies to opinion pieces along with news, commentary, criticism, and reviews.

Some [00:39:00] articles also include AI generated insights, which summarize key points and present alternative viewpoints. , this is not. Making a lot of people happy. , Matt Hamilton, vice chair of the LA Times Guild said in a statement to the Hollywood Reporter, we don’t think this approach, AI generated analysis unvetted by editorial staff will do much to enhance trust in the media.

And earlier results have raised concerns. , the Guardian, , highlighted an LA Times opinion piece about AI generated historical documentaries where the AI tool claimed the article had a center left bias, and suggested that AI democratizes historical storytelling. Another flagged article covered California cities that elected Ku Klux Klan members in the 1920s.

The AI generated counterpoint stated that some historical accounts frame the Klan as a cultural response to societal change rather than a hate driven movement, which I suppose is not [00:40:00] necessarily an accurate but awkwardly positioned as an opposing view. , then you have, , El Folio, an Italian newspaper, , published.

In addition, entirely generated by ai. , the Associated Press has collaborated with Google to integrate realtime news updates into Google’s Gemini Chatbot Time Magazine. Introduced time ai, , platform that enhances journalism. Engagement using, , generative ai. It offers personalized and interactive storytelling experiences.

Reuters, , employees generative AI across various aspects of news production, including reporting, writing, editing, production, and publishing. But they do disclose when content is primarily or solely AI generated. ESPN began publishing AI generated recaps for women’s soccer games. , the Garden Island, , newspaper in Kauai, Hawaii introduced AI avatars named James and Rose to deliver live broadcasts by discussing [00:41:00] pre-written news articles.

, courts uses chat GPT to write hundreds of articles every day on securities and exchange filings. , and various news outlets are using AI for things like generating interview questions, predicting churn, transcribing interviews, suggesting headlines and proofreading. It is all over journalism and to.

Argue that is somehow inappropriate or unethical. , I think is, , the metaphor that we have used on this show more times than we probably should have is King Knut trying to hold back the tide. , it’s going to become a defacto part of journalism. And one of the reasons this makes sense is if you think about the budget cuts that especially print journalism has been experiencing, if they can get AI to pick up some of that drudgery load, , so that the reporters can focus on doing the reporting, you know, the, the shoe leather on the streets, , that’s to their benefit.

So yeah, I think you’re gonna see some [00:42:00] newspapers, , and other media outlets succeed with this. , they’re gonna find the right balance. They’re gonna keep the human exactly where they should be in the loop. , others, , like the LA Times, maybe not so much.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, , I, that’s how I was it too. I think, , given the information , I’ve found about what the independence planning to do and the key part of the role of journalists in the production of the content that is, generated with the help of the AI is absolutely crucial to this.

, you mentioned courts. , I was reading a courts piece recently, and it was quite clear to me that this was not, this, no journalist has written this content, and I just wonder, again, I don’t know this, but I just wonder, do they have actual humans checking the stuff before it gets out? I’m assuming they would.

, therein lies, I think, interestingly with

Shel Holtz: courts, they, they temporarily shut it down because of inaccuracies and then brought it back, expanding it to publish longer articles with disclaimers about the potential AI related, , hallucinations that. You could read that. [00:43:00] Yeah.

Neville Hobson: But that you see that that’s not good enough.

, totally not because , you get that , with the raw prompt response from chat GPT at the bottom, every single one. You know, it may be inaccurate. You need to check it. What what you need to do is, , is to create content. And you might use the ai, , in the case of the independent to gather, , the stories that, it has been asked to do.

And, and assuming it’s prompted in the right way, if that’s how they’re going about it, to, , create the content that you, the human then can edit. And you are the subeditor if you like. , let’s call it the verifier, the checker, whatever. You’ve gotta do all that too. , and so you don’t actually have to write the story.

, which is again, a, a discussion topic that would take us down a huge avenue, huge road , if we wanna get about into that in this episode, which we don’t. That’s another day, I think. , but, but I think. You are right. It’s a tsunami that’s approaching, this is going to impact journalism and questionably.

So in good ways, certainly, and in not so good ways. [00:44:00] Certainly, , the not so good ways I, I suspect is likely to be self-inflicted from within the industry more than anything else, by those who see an easy way to, , replace people or to not have to worry about increasing budgets to do the things they wanna do.

They can employ an AI to do this. And, , part, I suspect partly the failure of those organizations are gonna be mixed because of the fact the human people, the humans who need to read the content, pay money for it, are not gonna do that. There’s likely also to be regularly pushback in, in significant numbers of countries so that they’ll be threatened all those ways.

, there will be protests no matter what. There will be people who think this is a very bad idea. Totally. And the bad idea, I, I think is definitely the case for those who do not. Go through the, the, the right process to do this, which the independent seems to be planned. I’m looking forward to seeing the first edition.

That website, they’ve, they’ve got bulletin news. I took a look at it, , just before we started recording and [00:45:00] all it gave me was a completely blank page. Nothing on the page at all. I looked at the page source and there was nothing there either. So I dunno what’s happening with that. Maybe it’s just not live yet.

Shel Holtz: Well, , it’s late in March if the out, but it’s not

Neville Hobson: the end of March. Well, indeed. But if the story’s out there, they, they, they would be wise, I would say, to prepare something saying coming soon or whatever it might be. So, , but I’m gonna keep a cosign it because I’m keen to see how they’re doing this.

I’m like every average Joe, I’m time poor like everyone else, but I’d put time into this just to see how it is. , I did ask Gemini myself, how can I do this, do something like this if I wanted to. , be a, , , kind of new summary publisher. And to make it easy, I said, you know, how would I produce a newsletter that summarizes everything I’ve published on my website in the preceding 30 days with little summaries of all of this?

And it told me quite clearly how I could do this. The only thing missing is the bit I’m keen on, is it automating it? I don’t wanna have to create a template and then [00:46:00] copy and paste. No, no, no. What’s what’s the point of that? I’m looking for something that would enable me to create something additional that I can then review and approve and publish.

, there are ways to do it, and there are third party tools you could do. The Zapier comes to mind, but there’s two manuals. So I look into it further, I think. But if the independent is doing this, therefore there is a means. It may be that it’s a cost and the specialists you need to bring on board, but I could see this coming, , in a big way.

, and here in the uk, , reach is a, a newspaper publisher that owns a number, a significant number of regional newspapers, as well as a number of the national tabloid dailies. And, uh, they’ve been employing. AI tools to create some of their reporting for quite a while. So when you read in my local newspaper down here in Somerset, for instance, about, you know, this restaurant in that town has just published a new menu with their summer offers of nice food and all that stuff.

It makes a story. , I , don’t know. And I’m if, if you are listing here, correct me if I got this wrong, but I bet you an [00:47:00] AI did that, not a journalist. So, , some of the writing also you get suspicious about the quality of the writing. So you make is this AI generated. So I think the more you can do this where their, their approach, it seems to me, , is very good.

AI is the assistant for the human. So these are human led initiative, assisted by ai, not the other way around. That’s the way to do it in my book.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. I’m untroubled by the notion of articles in the mainstream press that have been written by ai. If there are articles that don’t require great writing and the securities filings.

Articles is a great example that hits some government database that you’re monitoring. The basic facts are there. The model has been trained on tens of thousands of articles about securities filings, and if it can share the facts accurately, , somebody does a quick review to make sure it’s right, why not?

Does that need a Pulitzer Prize winning journalists to crank that article out? I [00:48:00] what’s important is the information be shared timely among people who are going to make investment decisions based on these types of things, not how well it was written. Have those reporters go out and do the writing on the stuff where it matters.

Some of this writing just needs to be good enough.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. Yeah, you could be right. I’m not saying I disagree with you. I, and I don’t necessarily think I fully agree with you, but I, I think the, to me it’s like, , you need to be sure that what you are reading, , or consuming, , , in a different way of looking at it, is authentic.

And that doesn’t mean the literal use of the word authentic, , is, is it what they say they do. , so if they’re using AI to, to help them, they need to disclose that somewhere. And yes, I know, I hear the arguments from people saying, no, you don’t need to do. Yes you do. We are not yet in a stage where you don’t need to help people understand that you are genuine, , and that you are approaching this the right way.

Because if you didn’t do this, that news that someone will find interest wouldn’t get reported. ’cause you don’t have enough [00:49:00] journalists to do that. So that answers a big. Part of the question about how are we gonna, , ensure that we’re fulfilling a social purpose, , even though we’re a business, of course, but the purpose in society, to report on the news of interest in your niche, in your community, in your geography, whatever it might be.

When we don’t have enough journalists, we are stuck with cashflow problems and so forth, and we’re probably gonna close down. So that is one of the reasons why I remember reading this about Reach a year or so back, why they were doing this for local reporting and indeed sports reporting in particular.

So, , the thing about, , business results that you talked about where it’s just data that makes it easier for it to be, , reported on by an ai because it won’t necessarily have, here’s what x, Y, Z company did, and they reported the loss. It therefore means that for their market position going forward, X the human rights that bit, unless the AI’s.

The means to do that, which requires a human to be involved at that [00:50:00] stage. So that’s taking it down a slightly different avenue. It seems to be, again, this is a huge topic. Shell, , and I think it’s great to talk about it like this because there is no, , silver bullet answer. There’s no, this is the way you do this.

And there there are 15 other ways you could do it too. But I, broadly speaking, your point I agree with though is that, , there are things that, , are worthy of reporting in the media that don’t justify that Pulitzer Prize winning journalist to be doing it. , so in which case you’ve got a bot to do it.

Yeah, that makes sense. But the human, and it doesn’t have to be the pulitz surprise winner, , although why shouldn’t it be needs to revise it and authenticate it and verify the story. So the human must still be involved.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I you need to have that copy editor role for sure. , but yeah, I don’t need authenticity, , for certain types of, you know, two paragraph.

Purely factual articles. I know I’ve mentioned this multiple times, but even before chat, GPT was released in [00:51:00] November, 2022, , there was Associated Press using I think writer or Jasper to crank out articles about high school baseball games. They had never had the reporting staff to go out and cover these games before, but the stats were recorded in some accessible database, and now you could just turn the AI loose, train it on baseball score stories and let it.

Scrape up the, the statistics from the game and write the story. , somebody edits it , and off it goes, who cares? I, it doesn’t need to be authentic. I need to know if my kid’s team won. , and you know, if, if it’s a question of are we gonna send reporters out to do this, or are we gonna send out to cover the government scandal, I’m gonna let the AI write the high school sports stories and send the reporter out to report on the government scandal.

That’s where the authenticity is required.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, disagree. Sorry, I, I I need the authenticity for everything, no [00:52:00] matter what it is. In fact, it’s, well, the thing is that too, before the AP only a two paragraph report, I wouldn’t read it anyway. ’cause I want the meaning. I don’t just want the score, I want the meaning.

But before the

Shel Holtz: AP started doing this, they weren’t covering those games at all because the resources weren’t there to do it.

Neville Hobson: No, indeed. So the resource there is now to do it properly, in which case do it properly is, is what I would say. So yeah, the authenticity is important. Like I said at the beginning, not the literal meaning of the word authenticity.

So can I trust what the, what what I read in print, metaphorically speaking is, is the truth or is accurate or is factually correct? How do I know that? And

Shel Holtz: what’s going to damage your credibility is if enough of those articles turn out to be inaccurate. Which is why you still need somebody checking, but, and hence you

Neville Hobson: need the authenticity.

Exactly. Yeah.

Shel Holtz: But do you need somebody to go to the game? Take notes, sit in the press box and, and take notes during the game and file the game. It depends on the game game. Well, not, not a high school game for sure. Not a regular season game. High game. No. Depends. School game. It depends on,

Neville Hobson: on what the report’s gonna be.

If it’s a lot of, of analysis and [00:53:00] prediction and so forth that you, you’d expect. So I was looking at a report about, , just, just over, just over, over this weekend about the recent, , rugby championships in Europe, the Six Nations, and a terrific report I read on, , one of the news on the sports websites that was full of, I could tell the writer really knew this topic exceptionally well, but the start of writing this tone, all that stuff was engaging.

It was entertaining. That’s what I wanna read. Not a dry two paragraph. That’s simply this is what happened. And at the 46th minute this guy did that and they went ahead and they won the championship. No, I can get that anywhere. Get a blogger to give me that source. I want to read that. Breadth and depth of information.

Well, I, I guarantee therefore guarantee I, I would pay pay for that newspaper and I would subscribe to it.

Shel Holtz: I guarantee you the people who are interested in how the high school team did, will read any story versus reading no story. Uh, and, and that’s the option that these publications have right now.

Neville Hobson: There we go.

Such as the landscape. She,

Shel Holtz: you know, and if it’s a feature story, , by all means, [00:54:00] but if it’s really just, , there were nine innings and here’s what happened. , I, I honestly don’t care how that got written, as long as it’s accurate. Fair enough. And like I say, I think the issues will arise if enough of those end up being wrong.

, not, or just simply people need them

Neville Hobson: not worth your time reading. ’cause it’s crap basically.

Shel Holtz: Well, again, if you care about the score of the game, that’ll be fine. As long as it’s good enough.

Neville Hobson: Okay. That’s a

Shel Holtz: good, good point. And we’ll move on because we have more ai. Exactly. We have more AI to discuss, , starting with a brief report from Dan York.

Dan York: Greeting she Neville And fr this is all around the world. It’s Daniel coming at you from the Vancouver British Columbia airport where I was planning to have a much, , longer time to give a report. But, , I didn’t. So the thing I will just say is I was spent the week in Bangkok, Thailand at the Internet Engineering Task force, meeting 1 22 about internet standards.

And there’s some interesting stuff going on this, , this time around. What’s happening with [00:55:00] just sort of the evolution of, of encryption and of protecting the web in so many different ways? There were a lot of, , interesting discussions. One thing to pay attention to is there’s some new work going on about AI preferences, which, if you’ve worked with websites for a while, you’ll know about the robots txt file that you use to go , and indicate that you want certain parts of your site, , blocked or not.

, in this case, it’s a new one, which will allow you to indicate whether you want certain parts of your site to be scraped by AI engines or not. , it’s a new bit of work. It’s called AI preferences. It’s something that’s happening, it’s emerging, it’s being standardized or it’s being developed.

Yet after that, it needs to then be implemented in browsers and things like that. So there’s a ways off to go, but it’s something to just, you know, there is work being made done to pay attention to this. Another big, , little area of work was, , some work around what’s happening with the World Summit on the Information Society or WSIs plus 20 review that’s happening this, this, , summer [00:56:00] in Geneva.

Well and on throughout the year. Something else to pay attention. If you look up WSIs plus 20 WSIS plus 20, you can read a bit about what’s going on this year as far as some of that. That’s all I’ve got time for today. I’m just gonna give a quick little report like this and send it off to you guys. , as always, you can find more in my audio writing at Dan York.

Me. Thanks for listening. Bye for now.

Shel Holtz: Thanks, Dan. Sorry to hear about your flight delays and I’m sorry it kept you from recording a full report, but, , did enjoy your discussion of AI preferences. The standard. We will have the link to the Internet Engineering Task force group that is working on that and, , very interested to see how that develops and whether there will be widespread.

Acceptance of it among the publishers of sites who would be affected by it. But let’s keep talking about ai, because the conversation around AI and the workplace is shifting and that’s happening [00:57:00] fast. We’re no longer just wondering if AI will impact our jobs. There’s a new question floating around. What happens to the perception of expertise when AI starts performing the tasks that we once, , relied on to prove our value?

That question is central to a recent Business Insider article, which outlines how generative AI is replacing entry level work that used to serve as a critical foundation for learning and advancement tasks, like writing first drafts, generating visual concepts, and summarizing research. These were once the building blocks of professional expertise, and they’re now handled with just a few prompts and clicks.

It’s efficient, but it’s also potentially destabilizing both for employees trying to climb the ladder and for leaders trying to hold onto their status as, as thought leaders or subject matter experts. At the same time, LinkedIn’s 2024 Future of Work Report adds another layer. AI skills are now the [00:58:00] fastest growing in demand skills globally across nearly every industry.

In fact, AI literacy isn’t a niche specialty anymore. It’s becoming table stakes. The report also found that job postings mentioning AI attract nearly 17% more applications than those that don’t. In short. Everyone’s looking to work with and learn from people who understand ai. There is even a study that found that 60% of C-Suite executive executives are actively looking for new jobs, and they’re looking at companies that are accelerating their moves into ai.

They wanna work at companies that are embracing artificial intelligence. So if AI is the new baseline, how do communicators and the leaders we support stand out? How do we maintain the perception of expertise when the tools we once relied on to demonstrate it are now automated? Take Google’s new AI image generation tool.

This is just released within the last few days with a few typed instructions. [00:59:00] Users can perform edits that used to take a skilled Photoshop pro hours. The craft of visual design is being democratized, but does that mean the designer is less value or is there value simply shifting from execution to discernment, from mechanics to meaning?

This is where communicators come in first. We need to help reframe what expertise looks like. In the age of AI expertise is no longer about being the fastest or the most technically proficient. It’s about context judgment and the ability to connect the dots. Internal comms teams can spotlight leaders who are doing just that.

Not just using AI, but thinking with it. Making smarter calls, guiding ethical use, understanding limitations. That’s real expertise and we need to make it visible. Second, we can help organizations avoid the trap of hollow leadership. When AI handles all the grunt work, it’s tempting for some leaders to coast, [01:00:00] but employees still wanna see evidence of strategic thinking, clarity, and vision.

Communicators can help leaders show their work, how they got to a decision, what alternatives they considered, and why they chose a particular path. That’s especially important in an environment where employees are already skeptical of AI’s impact on their careers. There’s a new survey from the AI tool writer that found two out of three executives say generative AI adoption has led to tension and division within their companies, and 42% say it’s tearing their company apart.

The Business Insider article points out that skepticism and resistance are growing, particularly when AI is introduced. Without transparency, communicators have a key role to play in framing these transitions as opportunities, not threats. That means telling stories of upskilling, sharing case studies of people who’ve reinvented their roles, and reinforcing that human value still matters.

Third [01:01:00] communicators should champion the human plus AI model, not human versus ai. That could mean creating content that shows how real employees are collaborating with AI tools to enhance their work. It could mean coaching managers to acknowledge the role AI plays without diminishing their own contributions.

The perception of expertise now includes the ability to use AI well, but it also includes knowing when not to. Finally, we should remember that communication itself is evolving. AI can help with drafting and distribution, but it can’t replicate cultural intelligence, can’t read a room, can’t build trust.

Communicators who master AI will become more efficient. Communicators who master both AI and human nuance will become indispensable. So while AI may be rewriting how expertise is demonstrated, it’s not erasing expertise. The opportunity for communicators and leaders alike is to redefine and reassert what expert [01:02:00] leadership looks like in a world where the machines are catching up.

And as the LinkedIn data shows the future belongs to those who are fluent in both technology and trust.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I don’t have any doubt that that is true. Uh, listen to what you’re saying. I, I’m just what? Was popping into my mind was, , these are great guidance points, but you know, for a communicator, for instance, to acquire the kind of skills you outlined, , the thought in my mind is where would that person go to If there’s no, if, if he or she is the kind of point person and there’s nowhere else that he or she can look at, where do they go to to find out about how to acquire those skills?

And that’s questions I’m sure many would be asking an organization. Where do you think, well, I think

Shel Holtz: if you accept the notion that the communication profession is being redefined as all of this unfolds, then the career path has to be redefined as well. Exactly. , I don’t [01:03:00] have an answer for what that is.

, I haven’t frankly given it a lot of thought. , but if I were to, I might be able to. Conjure up some thoughts on what a new career path is, when it’s not gonna be writing those first drafts and, and doing the research summaries that that, that the PR interns and the entry level communicators used to do.

We’re gonna have to rethink this.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I was reading the Business Inside piece that, , particularly the section that’s got the subtitle, AI Beyond the IT department that, , talked about this and given the example of Colgate Palm, , that was looking to. , developing an AI strategy. They were looking at their corporate values and code of conduct around workplace culture.

So they seem to be taking this, I think, , as a foundational approach. , they quote someone there saying that everyone should be able to decide to themselves how AI is going to impact their own job and their own tasks. Maybe that’s something that needs to happen. I’ve not heard anyone talk [01:04:00] about that when I see conversations happening about, helping employees get up to speed about how to use AI in the workplace and so forth.

But that. Tech typically tends to focus still, I think, on generative AI and the, the outputs as opposed to outcomes. It just what you get out of an a generative AI when you ask it to do something. , but how is it gonna impact their job? And maybe that’s something I could see as being a really useful way to go about getting consciousness on the, on the, on the broader topic than what am I going to use AI for?

Or, , these are the, I I’ve heard about all this, but deeper than that even. So, , again, going back to the business side of piece and, , Colgate Palm example, they give, , they talk about, they have an AI hub. Focuses on job specific use cases like sorting data or writing copy rather than technicalities, like AI model types.

So employees can build AI assistance that suit their needs. The Colgate tells employees to think of it as if they’re providing instructions [01:05:00] to an intern. I mean, , these are very empathetic approaches. It seems to me that, , why aren’t more people doing this, I wonder, or they are.

Shel Holtz: Think they are. , at least that’s my experience.

I was, , frankly blown away. I have to tell you, I’m on the AI committee at the company where I work, and we had our first meeting and , the senior VP who put this committee together was very deliberate in making sure that it represented the entire organization. There are people from the field, , who are part of this, , and skeptics as well.

He made sure that it was not populated just by people who were enthusiastic. But you know, one of the first exercises was to go around and talk about how you’re using it. And I had been under the impression that very few people were adopting it. People were skeptical, people were nervous, people just didn’t have the time.

People didn’t think it could do anything for them. Everybody was using it for something. And many for. You know, very specific [01:06:00] construction related activities that I had never even considered. , I was floored that so many people were using it, and I think this happened in large part because the company gave them the permission to, we have been very forthright, , in, in telling people that we want you to experiment with this.

We want you to figure out how this can help you in your job. We’re not going to be able to tell you, you’re going to have to do your own r and d and evidently a lot of people are.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I’m not surprised to hear that. , you tend to encounter it when something like you’ve described takes off or starts happening where you get people together and everyone is then telling their own stories about how they’re doing things.

Or you, as you pointed out, you find out that you are in this group and everyone is using iron one, one way or another. So I, I suspect you’re right that that’s, that is happening in lots of organizations. It’s not talking about it too much. What people are talking about though is the need that, that needs to be something like that needs to be in place.

And in the [01:07:00] conversations I’ve seen, many are talking about, it’s signifying it’s not happening in their own workplace. So it’s very uneven. Good opportunity, I think to, , for somebody, a consulting firm or someone 80, , someone else even to come up with some kind of program that is replicable in, in organizations that kickstart this kind of thing.

, in this example, again, on the inside of this business, I had a piece about Colgate Parli. It doesn’t say how they did this, but they clearly had some help to put together the program. I would, I would say, so that’s encouraging if it’s happening at scale and, , , it’s a good sign of that. So,

so let’s talk about, . Something quite intriguing, , that a big company is taking a big bet on influencer marketing, and that’s a topic we’ve talked about on and off, off and on in this podcast. So this story is about a striking shift in marketing strategy from Unilever. , the British multinational, [01:08:00] one of the world’s biggest consumer goods companies.

It operates in over 190 countries and reported annual revenue last year of more than 51 billion pounds. $66 billion. 60 billion euros. To get a sense of the scale of the numbers, in February as past February, Unilever ousted its CEO Hein Schumacher, who had been little more than a year and a half, uh, at the helm, replacing him with its finance chief Fernando Fernandez, to speed up the company’s turnaround plans.

Fernandez has made headlines with his plan to dramatically increase the company’s reliance on social media influencers, influencers, as part of its advertising strategy. Today, about 30% of Unilever’s global ad spend goes into influencer campaigns. Fernandez wants to push that up to 50% or more. The reasoning behind this, as he put it bluntly, brands are default suspicious.

Now we see that actually shall, , not those exact words, but the sentiment behind that in [01:09:00] the Edelman Trust barometer and others on distrust of brands. So that’s interesting. So brands are default, suspicious, says, Unilever’s new CEO. Consumers no longer take brand messaging at face value. He says, especially when it’s coming from polished campaigns.

But when the message comes from someone they trust and follow, an influencer appear, a personality they relate to, it lands very differently. And this isn’t just about a few celebrities fronting global ads Unilever’s going granular. According to a report in Tortoise Media last week, Fernandez wants to build a content machine aiming to partner with micro and nano influencers, people with between 1,050 thousand followers across every region where they operate.

So that’s across 190 countries. Fernanda says he wants to see at least one influencer promoting its brands in every region of every country, including in 19,000 Indian postcode areas and 5,764 municipalities in Brazil. [01:10:00] After the us. It’s these two countries that account for the largest share equivalent to more than a fifth of influencer sponsored posts online.

So the goal is hyper-local storytelling that builds trust at scale. This change also reflects a cultural pivot inside Unilever. Under his previous leadership, the company became known for its bold stance on social purpose and environmental, social and governance, or ESG messaging. But that direction drew increasing scrutiny and pushback from investors.

Fernanda appears to be shifting gears away from brand activism and towards pragmatic engagement influence over ideology. That said, this approach isn’t without risk. It highlights how influencers are becoming the new information. Brokers often more trusted than news outlets, but also harder to control.

Missteps can have real consequences, whether it’s a celebrity failing to disclose paid promotion, or an influencer aligning even unintentionally with controversial [01:11:00] causes or campaigns. So this raises some big questions. Can brands truly scale authenticity without losing control? What’s the role of the communicator when influence is increasingly decentralized?

And how do we strike a balance between reach, relevance, and reputation? It’s worth unpacking some of this shell, don’t you think,

Shel Holtz: oh boy, is this worth unpacking? And here’s an opportunity for ai, , to be used strategically in the communications team in order to scrape up all of the influencer messaging that you have paid for and get an analysis of the sentiment, , , and the response so that we can report back to Mr.

Fernandez what the payoff of all of this is. You know, the problem I have with, and I realize 50% isn’t putting all your eggs in one basket, but relying so heavily on influencers with all [01:12:00] of the potential issues that they bring, that you’ve already outlined, , is that it ignores the other channels, , in the peso model.

Where would influencers fall? I would say that they fall and be owned. , I’m not, not the owned, the, , the paid, , because. I mean, he, he’s already said 50% of the advertising budget we’re going to be paying these people. But on the other hand, you might also call it earned. They have followers who listen to them and therefore, , they’re able to influence those followers.

So maybe it straddles that line, but if people recognize that, Hey, this influencer that I follow and respect, and, , I I am influenced by them, has touted this product from Unilever, , maybe I will go buy it. , they still realize that, especially if the influencer is ethical, , and has disclosed it, that they were paid to pitch this product.

I think that heightens [01:13:00] the need for earned media where it wasn’t paid for, but it reinforces and validates what the influencer has said. It reinforces the need for shared media so that people can engage around this and the company and the brand can engage, , because it’s an engagement that you build the trust not in, in pitching canned messages.

, I’m also troubled by the withdrawal from societal type of issues. it’s interesting that Unilever fired , the CEO of Ben and Jerry’s just within the last couple of weeks, a guy named David Steve, and it was over disputes involving Ben and Jerry’s social mission and the CEO taking a stance on polarizing.

Political issues, , in an amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York. , the ice cream brand known for its outspoken views on human rights in the environment said that Unilever’s dismissal of Stever violated [01:14:00] a merger agreement, which prevents the un unilateral removal of the CEO. And, you know, you have to wonder, , when Unilever acquired Ben and Jerry’s, they had to know that Ben and Jerry were hippie activists who mm-hmm.

Used the company as a platform for social discussion, and suddenly they’re out firing the CEO because he did exactly what Ben and Jerry’s has always done. Makes you wonder about the future of Dove and their real beauty campaign. Is that gonna fall by the wayside? Because somehow it is seen as too woke , and not transactional enough.

I don’t know, but it, it wouldn’t surprise me.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, , it’s, it’s a time of change. The report I quoted from talks about the cultural shift happening within Unilever. This IC is very much as part of it. They’re in the middle of spinning off the ice cream business, including Ben and Jerry’s into a separate company.

Whether that’s for a sell off or what, I, I have no idea. , but your point, I think, I, [01:15:00] I agree. I remember when they acquired Ben and Jerry’s, I remember reading quite a bit about, listen, these, , this, this company is very outspoken on issues that offend corporates. You know, what are you gonna do about that?

Unilever, hands off, we are gonna let ’em get on with it. And they have done, until now it seems. But things are changing quite radically, it seems, certainly in Unilever. And I, I agree with you that spending 50% of your ad budget , on nano and micro influences, , is a risky move. As I mentioned, there are big risks in doing this.

So, , I dunno more than the reports , I’ve cited, , what, from the report side, I’ve cited no detail about their marketing team and any of the individuals or what Ady plans might be. , but I find it interesting that one of the world’s biggest consumer products companies is taking this route.

, this is something that they, , you mentioned Dove. They have a stellar reputation with how they position dove in the marketplace. I can’t imagine for a second they’re going to [01:16:00] risk damaging that. I can’t, I just can’t see it. I mean, dove isn’t part of Ben and Jerry, so no hippies involved there, I don’t think.

But, , they went through. We’ve, we’ve quoted them quite a bit from use cases of how they treat women, for instance, in an exceptionally positive way. Some of the, , ad campaigns we’ve talked about that are really, truly are remarkable. So they’ve got, , a lot of equity tied up in that, in reputation, et cetera.

, I don’t believe they damage that. Then again, we don’t know precisely what Mr. Fernandez has been tasked with doing , and how soon quick is what, I guess from reading what reading this article I quoted from plus others in the financial press. So, , it’s early days, but nevertheless, these are bold steps they’re taking.

I mean, look at the idea of, having at least one. Influencer in every region where they operate, , in, in every, in everywhere there’s 190 countries and all these 19,000 postcode districts in India, that’s humongous. How are they gonna police all that? So these are questions I’m sure they have answers to nearly all of them.

So time will tell, shell won’t

Shel Holtz: [01:17:00] it, , undoubtedly will. And if there is any element of your report that will send chills up the spine of communicators everywhere, it’s that Mr. Fernandez was the chief financial officer and he’s now making the marketing decisions. Yeah. I’ll also point out that, uh, if, if, if you’re doubting Ben and Jerry’s hippie credentials, they have not one but two flavors that are named for jam bands.

Neville Hobson: ,

Well, the good news about Mr. Fernandez, he’s, he’s, he’s not a lawyer. So that, I suppose a good thing, well, at least there is that.

Shel Holtz: Well, let’s take a quick drive down memory lane. Back in 2010, general Motors made a small internal comms decision that sparked a surprisingly big public reaction. A memo from Chevrolet’s Detroit headquarters asked employees to stop referring to the brand as Chevy.

The goal was consistency, especially important as the company looked to strengthen its brand presence in international markets where it was just [01:18:00] entering like France, where Chevy didn’t carry the same recognition as the full name Chevrolet. They even had a cuss jar in the office with employees dropping in quarters every time they slipped and said Chevy.

Sounds kind of quaint now, right? But the backlash was Swift social media lit up with mockery brand experts and journalists called it tone deaf. Even the New York Times weighed in suggesting the company was squashing a beloved cultural shorthand in favor of corporate rigidity. Within days’, GM had to walk it back clarifying that they weren’t banning Chevy, just aiming for consistency in global communications.

We reported on this story on FIR back in 2010, , and how a member of the PR team who called himself gm, Joe, ran across the parking lot to shoot video of this executive, I believe he was Australian, , explaining why they had made this move and he had to run because the guy had to catch a flight. He only had a couple of minutes to go [01:19:00] get the video.

At the time, all of this looked like a classic case of over management, but today. GM may have been more right than wrong. New research suggests that nicknames, even though they can be charming and familiar, might actually weaken a brand’s image, especially when that brand is trying to convey authority, credibility, or professionalism.

An article in the Wall Street Journal highlighted a growing body of evidence that suggests brands using their full names, especially in new markets, as GM was trying to do with Chevrolet in France, or in formal contexts, are perceived as more competent and trustworthy than those that lean on nicknames.

According to a study published in the Journal of Marketing, when a brand uses a nickname in its messaging, consumers are more likely to perceive it as warm, but less competent. That’s a problem if your brand needs to be taken seriously. It’s one thing to be liked. It’s another to be respected. [01:20:00] The researchers tested this theory across a wide range of product categories from car brands to investment firms, and the results were consistent.

If a brand needed to convey dependability, professionalism, or technical prowess, nicknames hurt. In one example, people were more likely to trust a toothpaste brand named Colgate than one marketed as Colgate. And when asked who they’d rather invest their money with participants overwhelmingly chose Anderson Wealth Management over Andy’s.

Let’s go back to Chevrolet for a second. In the us, Chevy is a particularly endearing term. It shows up in country songs. It’s short, catchy, and nostalgic, but in a global context, like launching a new European market where no one grew up with a 57 Chevy in the garage. That familiarity is lost, and what’s left is a name that might sound informal, unserious, or even confusing.

This all has real [01:21:00] implications for communicators. First, it’s a reminder that names matter and not just for logos and legal documents. The language your organization uses about itself as part of your positioning and sometimes the very thing that makes your brand feel close and approachable in one market can undermine its credibility in another Second, it underscores the importance of intentionality in brand messaging.

Are you trying to be relatable or reliable? Warm or wise, fun or formal? Of course, the best brands often manage to be all of these things, but you can’t assume a nickname will always land the way you want it to. This is especially relevant for internal communicators, guiding tone and voice across regions or audiences.

If your company’s entering a new market, introducing a new service line, or expanding beyond a friendly niche into a more regulated space. How you refer to yourselves matters. The nickname might feel authentic and beloved internally, but if it undercuts the [01:22:00] perception of competence externally, that could cost you.

Third communicators have a role to play in managing transitions. If your organization has relied on a nickname and now wants to shift to something more formal, don’t just drop it cold Turkey. That’s what made Chevrolet’s original memo field jarring. It, tried to turn a branding nuance into a black and white rule.

Instead, we can help organizations evolve their brand language gradually explaining the why to employees and building consistency across touchpoint over time. Finally, it’s worth considering the emotional side of nicknames. As much as the research says nicknames can dilute authority. They also build affection sometimes being Andes instead of Anderson.

Wealth Management makes a brand feel human, local, and loved. And if your brand leans more into hospitality, entertainment, or consumer culture, that may be exactly what you want. So the takeaway here isn’t that nicknames are bad, it’s that nicknames are [01:23:00] powerful and communicators need to understand when they’re working for the brand and when they might be working against it.

Chevy may never shake the nickname and. Maybe it shouldn’t, but thanks to the research we have now, we’re better equipped to have that conversation, not just at the executive level, but with employees, partners, and audiences too. Because in the end, how you talk about your brand shapes, how people think about your brand, and that’s not just a naming issue, it’s a communication issue.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. That’s interesting. That’s an interesting analysis you’ve given, Michelle. I was actually reading through the Wall Street Journal piece when you were talking and came to the mention of Chevrolet in this article. It’s quite interesting. In research that was done, , I could see the name Zang. I, I can’t catch where, what his affiliation is with the university.

I think, , examined historical social media posts by Chevrolet, so I bet it included back to 2010. Cheryl and online advertising efforts from a few other firms [01:24:00] target your UPS and compared engagement metrics when those companies used their nicknames versus their trademark names. In every case, the use of nickname branding was associated with inferior engagement.

So, for example, when Chevrolet’s tweets included Chevy, it received 143 likes on average when the brand used Chevrolet. Instead, engagement tripled, garnering 4 21 likes on average. And the same applied to ads for targets , as well. So, uh, completely, supports what you were saying and the overall look here, and I think the minefield for communicators, and you talked about that a bit, is, is getting to know which to do when with what and where.

And that requires amongst other things, , a deep understanding of your audience. It would, it would appear to me. I mean, you mentioned Chevy is using country songs, so first thing that came to mind was driving my Chevy to the levee. I mean, everyone knows that, , phrase outta that, , outta that song Madon, even though that’s a rock and [01:25:00] roll song.

Yeah,

Neville Hobson: well, no, I dunno about that. But Madonna’s version was the best better than Don McLean’s in my book, who was heresy to my friends. But in any case, . That’s in ingrained, but it’s very interesting having this analysis. It’s something you don’t think about. I, I think, and maybe that’s part of an issue, it also talks about, and I’ve heard this mentioned elsewhere plenty of times, that you no longer own the nickname of your brand and in some cases even your brand, particularly when you get into areas where your brand name has become homogenized.

So that’s generic. Xerox being one, I suppose. Hoover another one.

Shel Holtz: Kleen Hoovering.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, exactly. So, yeah, bandaid. Exactly. Another one like that. , so these are all things to consider , and maybe we’re in a, a time now where these now become more important than they ever would’ve done in the past, possibly because of skepticism, , mistrust, whatever it might be by your audience to your behavior [01:26:00] or to things that suddenly emerge that people, people that, , that are memes across the internet are criticisms that grow and then vanish.

So you need to understand these dynamics, which is where clearly monitoring and, and, and analysis is important, but it’s a minefield to navigate without doubt. And knowing the right approach is well. That’s a kind of salary raised territory if you get it right. , not about reduction if you get it wrong, but you need to get it right.

Shel Holtz: Well, that’s the kind of expertise you need to demonstrate to show management that you, , bring value. And AI can’t do the work that you do. There go. I have seen McDonald’s commercials where they refer to themselves as Mickey D’s, and after reading this research, I’m wondering how wise that that is.

Neville Hobson: I suspect those American brand names never made it outside the us. I’d not heard of that about McDonald’s, , before, I must admit. But it is, , it’s, I’m gonna think about this some more now and I’m sure I’ll come up with some, , examples from here. , that, uh, either didn’t work or did, [01:27:00] I’ll have to have a think about that.

But there’s, it’s a good, it’s a good topic. And it’s our last

Shel Holtz: topic that will bring this episode of four immediate release to a close. Our next monthly episode is scheduled to drop on Monday, April 28th. We will record that on Saturday the 26th, and I hope I get to read some of your comments in that episode.

You can leave your comments as most people do these days to our LinkedIn posts announcing. Episodes, , that’s one venue. You can always send us an email to fi comments@gmail.com. , we check that, , once a month before the episode to see if we have any comments. I, somebody emailed me directly through FIR comments and it was like a month old and I was, oh my God, why didn’t we send this to my email address?

I only check this once a month. , you can attach up to a three minute audio file, , if you are so inclined, and we will play that and react to it. You can leave a [01:28:00] comment on the show notes at fir comments@gmail.com. You can record a comment directly from our website@firpodcastnetwork.com. , and, , we also announced these episodes across other social channels.

We check those for comments. . Facebook , and Blue Sky and Threads. , so leave us a comment. , we would love to have you be part of the show and to engage with you. And, , we also appreciate your ratings and reviews wherever you get your podcasts. And that will be a 30 for this episode of four immediate release.

The post FIR #456: Does AI Put Communication Expertise At Risk? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

In the early days of Web 2.0, several pundits told us that traditional PR was dead, especially for startups, where founders would be better served by handling their own public relations. After some disasters, along with many founders finding themselves overwhelmed by the need to build their business and craft thought leadership pieces while handling media inquiries, that philosophy faded. But now it’s back, and getting a lot of attention as Lulu Cheng Meservey, founder and CEO at the agency Rostra, has released a manifesto calling on leaders to skip the agency and “go direct.” Neville and Shel share their thoughts about the advice in this short midweek episode.

Links from this episode:

• Rostra’s “Go Direct” Manifesto
• ‘Traditional PR is dead’: Inside Lulu Cheng Meservey’s radical in-your-face playbook
• Dissecting the “go direct” communications debate
• Lulu Cheng Meservey on When You Need an Agency and Who You Should Hire (on X)
• Is PR to Blame for “DEI” Becoming a Four-Letter Word in Corporate America?

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, March 24.

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

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

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

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

Raw Transcript:

Neville Hobson: Hi everyone, and welcome to for immediate release. This is episode 455. I’m Neville Hobson.

Shel Holtz: And I’m Shell Holtz. And several years ago there was a trend making the rounds of startups. Who are passing on bringing a public relations professional on board, opting for the founder to do their own pr. The rationale for this was that the founder was in a better position to tell the company’s early story, and that with resources limited, spending money on PR shouldn’t be a priority.

There were plenty of arguments on the other side, too, focused on, understanding the media, knowing what kind of story is gonna produce the kind of results you’re looking for and so on. In any case, the whole debate just seemed to fade away. Until now, a PR practitioner named Lulu Chang Meserve is shaking up public relations with this bold stance that traditional PR is dead.

I guess we could put this under our blank, is dead series. Her philosophy centers on empowering [00:01:00] founders and organizations to go direct, meaning they should take control of their narratives without relying heavily on traditional media.

Her philosophy centers on empowering founders and organizations to go direct, meaning they should take control of their narratives without relying heavily on traditional media intermediaries or PR agencies. This approach emphasizes authenticity. Transparency and direct engagement with audiences. We’ll explore what Meserve is saying right after this.

Messer V derives the label corporate communications as though it’s the corporation and not a team of talented communicators or even the company’s leaders and other spokespeople and thought leaders who are doing the communicating. But her [00:02:00] strategy is appealing to startups and tech companies that are eager to maintain their unique voices without the dilution that can come from conventional PR methods.

By advocating for leaders to communicate directly through platforms like social media, company blogs, and other owned channels, she believes organizations can foster more genuine connections and swiftly address issues as they arise. Now, this isn’t just theory that she’s slinging around. She’s implemented it in high stakes environments.

She was at Activision Blizzard where she NA navigated complex public scrutiny with assertiveness and transparency. Her approach has garnered attention and endorsement from prominent figures in Silicon Valley, including Sam Altman and Brian Armstrong, who appreciate the emphasis on authenticity and direct engagement.

Now critics of traditional PR argue that relying solely on established media channels can lead to misrepresentation or a loss of control of the [00:03:00] message. Messer v’s approach addresses this by cutting out the middleman, allowing organizations to present their narratives unfiltered. However, it’s worth noting the strategy requires a deep understanding of one’s audience and the nuances of various communication platforms to be effective.

Her approach also ignores the value of earned media having . A trusted third party tell your story. But in parallel, we’re witnessing instances where traditional corporate PR strategies are facing significant backlash. And DEI has been raised as an example. The question some are asking is whether companies were motivated by the anticipated PR benefit of promoting DEI than to a commitment to genuinely improve diversity inclusion in the organization over a long term.

Chris Gez, and I hope I’m pronouncing that it’s G-I-D-E-Z-A. Strategic Reputation and communications advisor asked this question in a LinkedIn article last month, and he concluded that PR [00:04:00] should share some of the blame for DEI becoming a four letter word in corporate America. I. He argues that a lot of companies wrap themselves in the DEI flag because they looked at DEI first and foremost as a reputational opportunity, or they said the potential risk was serious if they didn’t wrap themselves in that flag.

It’s a situation that highlights how traditional pr, can backfire, especially when it’s perceived as ina inauthentic or reactionary. So this backlash against DEI efforts underscores the importance of authenticity and direct communication in organizational strategies. When companies implement DEI initiatives primarily as Pete.

Our maneuvers without genuine commitment, they risk public skepticism and potential backlash. Mastery’s emphasis on direct and transparent communication can serve as a valuable lesson. Here. Organizations have to align their public messaging with their core values and actions to maintain credibility. [00:05:00] Of course, some, including me might argue that going direct is just the owned and shared part of the pay zone model.

There’s still plenty of evidence that traditional PR is still useful. Would you really wanna just go direct during an existential corporate crisis? I don’t know, Neville. I find the, all or nothing approach here not be one that I advise people pay much attention to.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I tend to be with you on that.

Shall I? Had not heard of this lady before this conversation. But I did read the manifesto. She posts on her firm’s website, the firm called Roster. Traditional PR is dead as the provocative clickbait like headline. And she goes into her explainer on that, which is largely I suppose I could summarize it with the bold sentence she has on her site saying The old PR playbook of relying on third parties with misaligned interest is obsolete.

I wouldn’t disagree with that although I might say it’s not obsolete. It’s actually alive and well. People with misaligned interest is all over the place, but that [00:06:00] therein lies the issue that where you can agree with some of what she says but it’s difficult when she applies what she says to the entire industry.

The whole PR profession is basically full of charlatans and not worth your time. They have their own interest, not yours, and you shouldn’t waste any time with it. Spent quite a while dissecting this. I think if we wanted to and come up with a dozen, two dozen reasons why you shouldn’t do this to the exclusion of working with, as you mentioned, the talented folks who tend to occupy the PR space.

Certainly in most organizations. I did read as well a kind of a postscript to all of this. She published on X, which was linked to an article about all of this just a few days ago actually, where she posted a lengthy tweet. Obviously she’s got the account that lets you do the 40,000 characters or whatever it is.

When do you need a PR agency and who should you hire? That’s the first part of her. Submissive and she who has [00:07:00] a second part that goes into that in more detail, how much should you pay for one? These to me are quite provocative statements. All of it’s great for discussion. If you think it’s worth the discussion, I’m not sure it is shell to be frank.

Certainly not in the PR industry even though I would argue that she does make a number of. Kind of head nodding statements that you could say. Yep. I wouldn’t disagree with that. Where she does talk about some of the issues in pr, she talks about press releases, read like they were written by a baker’s dozen of middle managers where she she talks about corporate communication itself, an oxymoron as nothing meaningful, as you pointed out, communicated by face committee if it were thus.

I wouldn’t disagree hard, I don’t think with almost anything she’s written, but it is not like that at all. Maybe in her world it is other, I suspect these are serving statements that serve simply to reinforce the argument she’s making for why go direct is her mantra. And as you noted, I. We’ve [00:08:00] been here 15 years ago, if not 20 years ago, at the dawn of the social media age, where there were a number of people, particularly in that Silicon Valley startup environment you mentioned, who were talking very strongly about, you do not need pr, don’t waste your money.

You, the founder, can go direct and do all this stuff yourself. It became quite clear. That’s not really a wise thing when the founder is trying to talk to investors and raise money and actually do the founding work of his startup. But this, as you said, this kind of goes around and comes around and now here’s the latest wave.

She, is in the kind of celebrity PR area because of all the quotes she’s got there. She mentions an interesting expression the podcasting circuit sort of makes it sound like a celebrity magazine. So that’s the kind of era, this is not the real world at all, but good luck to her really.

I think there are a couple things we can learn from what she says though, that I think make it easy perhaps to . Reinforce the view [00:09:00] of why traditional PR is not dead at all. And you could actually counter all these with some sound arguments on that. I think it’s worth putting a list, a link to this website manifesto in the show nutshell.

So if anyone was interested, they can go and look at it themselves, but I don’t think this is anything. We should worry about in the PR profession, UN, unless or until or maybe both. We suddenly hear different from normal companies rather than celebrity types.

Shel Holtz: In this post on X she has a line here that I think is very telling.

She’s. Saying, of course I don’t mean that you need to do absolutely every communication activity yourself. She says, if you can’t keep up with all the comms work that needs to be done, you’re a bottleneck and need to get help . So it’s only a matter of being overwhelmed by it. She also says that finding strong writers is hard, so unless you’re luck out, you’re better off doing the writing yourself.

Even if it’s mid, at least it’ll be mid in your voice. I, again, I think this completely [00:10:00] ignores the value of, of third party coverage. She talks about misaligned interests. I talk about reporters who are writing about the things that you are interested in getting out to an audience and whom your audience is reading.

This is why you find those writers who are . Taking an angle that is consistent with the approach that you wanna take to get to tell your story and work with them pitch them appropriately so you get their interest and then they tell your story to their readers in a way that resonates.

And it’s credible because it’s not coming from you. Of course, you said that it’s your organization, you’re looking to get the best response you possibly can, that here’s somebody who went out and did some research and some interviews, and they said it based on. Their investigation or their reporting and that is of value there, there’s just no question about that.

Maybe their interests are misaligned. That’s why you work with them to get the best outcome that you can. Doesn’t mean that you don’t [00:11:00] go direct, it’s a long with not instead of, as Mitch Joel. So often said and anytime anybody says X is dead I, and I don’t mean x, the former Twitter I mean fill in the blank is dead.

I, I. Get very skeptical. We’ve been hearing this for so long now. We’ve done so many episodes going way back 20 years on people claiming that something is dead. That wasn’t traditional PRS is doing just fine. The other thing that I think she is saying here, and it has been said before and I have couched it in these terms before.

Is that bad? PR is bad. Don’t hire bad PR people. Don’t hire somebody who’s gonna write a press release. That sounds like it was written by committee. I know they’re out there. There’s a lot of them. It’s that situation that we exist in which anybody can hang out a PR shingle and say, I do PR and crank out crappy press releases.

Doesn’t mean that there aren’t. Agencies out there, or independent practitioners or people that you can [00:12:00] hire in-house who can write a great press release, it’s gonna get a lot of pickup and get a lot of the attention that you need. So you know, bad PR is bad. Don’t use it. Use good pr.

Neville Hobson: Ha. Yeah. Simple answer there.

Shall I agree with you? I think thinking about the reality of public relations practice compared to what what she writes about it does occur to me that again, reading her manifesto in particular, that it’s almost as if the kind of major thing a founder. Going direct is almost like telling the story in his or her own words, directly talking to influential people.

He or she may engage with, most of that kind of approach isn’t like that. Um, I’m thinking for instance, where and you actually touched on the point where you’ve got a, not you, not a potentially biased voice telling the story. Like you said, it was a sound, of course he’s gonna say this or that is someone who is [00:13:00] able to

Provide the nuances of the story tailored to the people they’re talking to which is, the relationships that you build, not just with other fou, with founders, it’s with journalists, it’s with influencers, it’s with industry analysts, policy makers who shape public discourse, all of that. So is a founder gonna have time to do all of that?

And there comes back to, I think a genuine reality. That this is not really the kind of job the founder of a startup could or should be doing. Even that’s why you have professionals. So you could apply the argument if you don’t need PR people ’cause he or she could do this themselves.

What about all these other areas in the business? The finance. What about strategic planning? You could do this all yourself. Unless you’re Elon Musk, of course. Then most people don’t do that.

Shel Holtz: I remember the Melbourne mandate from the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communications Management 12, 13 years ago that put PR at the middle of the business because they understood.[00:14:00]

All of the issues that could weigh on a business and counsel the leaders about actions they’re going to take and what message that might inadvertently send and what kind of repercussions it, it might create. If a founder’s doing this on their own then there’s nobody there to say, wait a minute.

If you say that, then this could happen. They’re not experienced professional communicators, and again, it’s not a, it’s not a job where you just hang out a shingle and decide . Today, Hey, I think I’m gonna become a PR person. It takes practice, it takes experience. It takes work to be able to look at what a company is planning to do and anticipate what the feedback from various stakeholders is gonna be.

I just don’t think a founder’s equipped to do that. Should they be going direct? Yes. Yes, they should, but they should be doing it with counsel. And it should be balanced with paid and earned media.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. So if we take the manifest, going back to a manifesto, the section on communications, the founder’s job, you take that [00:15:00] literally as it is written.

You could pick holes in that. A big one would be in, in the event of. A crisis that erupts the communication that’s required from that the planning that goes into all of that, of course the monitoring, the paying attention, the nuanced messaging you might create, and identifying who you’ll deliver it to on a timely basis that you can’t do this.

I I’m. Pretty certain. She doesn’t mean it exactly like that, but that’s how it reads. Communicates to founders, they’re irreplaceable. They’re the ones who can do all the communication. They don’t need polished people or those with the. Right credential. So I’m not sure where she’s going with that argument, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense, it seems to me.

It, like I said, it’s worth a read to contrast that with what, if you’re in the PR business, how you see the role of public relations. I think though, one thing I would add to this is, to me this adds even more kind of pressure, [00:16:00] if you will, on . The, this whole issue we’ve discussed a number of times on the regulation of the industry, the licensing of practitioners where you could uh, sidestep being blindsided by bad PR people.

So it’s in that area too, it seems to me. But this is definitely not something a proce procedure. I would recommend to anybody to follow this line.

Shel Holtz: No, and I raised that whole situation about pr contributing perhaps to the fall of DEI by touting it when the commitment wasn’t there in the organization.

That’s cautionary we, we can’t engage in that kind of communication. I’m a full supporter of DEI, but if I were counseling an organization and saw that the leadership wasn’t really bought into it, I wouldn’t. Suggest that they make a big deal out of it publicly, and I think that’s what a lot of organizations did.

Neville Hobson: I agree. I-I-A-D-E-I hasn’t been a big thing over here in [00:17:00] the UK compared to the promise it has in the US and the kind of backed on it all. Certainly not that I’ve seen in mainstream media reporting, and certainly not what I’ve seen . Practitioners talking about on open platforms. But you are right.

What I’ve observed and this is mostly in the US is that there are numbers of things I’ve read about DEI initiatives and organizations where my first thought was. This is a PR activity they’re talking about. Yeah. It makes them look good. And in which case, yeah, no surprise, all this stuff is going on.

I dunno where this is gonna end up. Shell it seems to be going from bad to worse in terms of kind of de deprioritizing deleting even anything related to those three acronym letters. Don’t see that happening over here. But another interesting, as a kind of an aside to all of this is some US companies, I don’t have my notes at hand are not implementing what the parent company in the US is doing about DEI across a number of European countries.

That’s interesting. It seems to me, [00:18:00] because are we gonna end up with, severe battles going on between subsidiaries in different countries refusing to follow the lead of the parent? That’s interesting. May or may not happen, but it’s certainly something I’m seeing people talking about.

So it’s I, I. It is a tough one from a communications point of view. And if we go back to, it’s the founder’s job, go direct. You are the one who has to do all this. The founder of a startup is faced with a similar issue to communicate on DEI as the founder of a big global multinational corporation.

There’s an issue and you might be asked about what’s your DEI initiatives and how come you’re not employing this kind of people? Or how come you are employing this kind of people? What are you gonna say? That’s of course purely reactive. What about proactivity? About all of this? Yeah, there’s too many wooly holes in this.

That would make me very uncomfortable if I were having this conversation with a client saying, what about go direct? Should we ditch PR and and do all this ourselves? Although I don’t, I can’t imagine anyone asking [00:19:00] that question, frankly. Hel

Shel Holtz: Yeah. Oh no. My only concern is that people look at the blow back to DEI recognize that it’s partly because it was just a PR thing in the first place and say maybe this is right.

Maybe we do need to go direct and as true public relations, a council and I think it’s on the public relations profession to ensure that we don’t do that type of thing so that our value is not, tarnished by these kinds of mistakes. Yeah. Agree with that. And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of four Media Release.

The post FIR #455: Traditional PR is Dead (Again) appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

At the now-infamous press conference that turned out to be an orchestrated ambush of Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Real American’s Voice correspondent Brian Glenn lobbed a hand grenade of a question to Zelenskyy. That single question was emblematic of an entire shift in the way the media works, requiring a comprehensive rethink of how public relations practitioners prepare for a media environment in which engineered outrage is rewarded by the press because spectacle earns more clicks than substance. In this short midweek episode of For Immediate Release, Neville and Shel break down the many implications for the practice of PR and the actions required to prepare brands to be targets of the same kind of treatment Zelenskyy got at the hands of the leaders of the free world and the complicit media at the press conference.

Links from this episode:

• When a Trump-supporting journalist heckled President Zelensky for not wearing a suit
• Trump and Vance attack Zelenskyy in remarkable Oval Office exchange
• Antisemitism in the Oval Office

 

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, March 24.

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

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

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

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

Raw Transcript:

Shel Holtz (2): [00:00:00] Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 454 of four immediate release. I’m She Holtz.

Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson. I’m sure almost every listener to this podcast has heard about the extraordinary encounter between Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, and US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on the 28th of February with US Vice President JD Vance.

During the argument. Here’s what happens. A Rightwing journalist, Brian Glenn, questions, Zelensky choice of attire, rather than focusing on war or democracy during a press conference alongside Trump and Vance, why wasn’t he wearing a suit? They wanted to know, this wasn’t an offhand remark, but a calculated attempt to manipulate perception.

Demonstrating how mainstream media today isn’t just about information, but about controlling narratives. In the post on LinkedIn last week, mark Bukowski highlights a fundamental shift in pr, media, [00:01:00] and public discourse, illustrated by the seemingly trivial but strategically loaded question asked of Zelensky by Brian Glenn setting the scene for an ugly ambush on the unsuspecting zelensky by Trump and Vance in front of an assembly of journalist reporters and TV cameras.

As Politico described it, Trump advanced both turned on the embattled Ukrainian wartime leader during a remarkably tense exchange accusing zelensky of failing to express sufficient gratitude for US involvement and overplaying what they said was a weak diplomatic hand. Bukowski argues that the media landscape has fractured, no longer functioning as a singular town square, but as a collection of information silos shaped by algorithms, AI driven amplification, and engagement driven clickbait.

Traditional pr, once focused on managing reputation and discourse, is now deeply entangled in a performative attention economy that prioritizes spectacle over substance. Trump [00:02:00] exemplifies this shift by not just controlling messaging, but orchestrating the entire conversation, selectively choosing which media outlets get access and ensuring that only those who play his game shape.

The narrative this Bosky warns is a crisis not just for pr, but for public discourse and truth itself. If pr, media and politics are now entangled in a world where attention is weaponized communicators and industry associations must take proactive steps to adapt and uphold credibility. I. So she, how do you see it all?

Where you sit in the us?

Shel Holtz (2): Yeah, here in the US this was all anybody was talking about for a few days. But I didn’t look at it from the PR perspective until you shared this Mark Bakowski link in our Slack channel, and that led me down quite a rabbit hole. I started dissecting all of this in terms of the implications for.

Public relations and communications. You [00:03:00] touched on a few of them. Certainly. There’s the fragmentation of the media ecosystem. We don’t have a town square anymore. We have silos. They tend to be driven by echo chambers. And those echo, echo chambers are driven by algorithms. Organizations trying to reach broad audiences have a problem.

So that’s one thing to consider. That’s also something that we were aware of. There’s this shift from message control to conversation control that I teased out of Marx. LinkedIn post we in PR typically sought to manage a message and shape public perception. That’s the role of public relations.

Now, as Mark suggests in the article, some figures don’t just control the message. They control who gets to ask and what conversations dominate. You referenced that as well in terms of him picking which media get to. Report on him in person blocking AP and Reuters because he doesn’t like them.

Then there’s [00:04:00] this notion of performative media. In pr we used to focus on crafting narratives for traditional media. But today’s media as characterized by this reporter’s question was an example of spectacle over substance and the fact that the media. Reported on that shows that it works.

The heckling that Zelensky got from Trump and Vance and some of the press in the room wasn’t about getting an answer. It was all about engineering outrage. So what does this mean for reputation management? Do pr people need to get ready for performative attacks on their executives, on their brands?

I don’t have answers to these things. These are questions that, as far as I can tell are just emerging now. But I think a couple, I

Neville Hobson: think they, they have to prepare for this kind of thing. Oh yeah. There’s no

Shel Holtz (2): question they have to, but how is a question.

Yeah. There’s also the suggestion in the article, the truth is devalued when attention is the currency. Now we’ve all known that attention is the currency. [00:05:00] With the rise of social media in its current form with its clicks and its ads and the way the Facebook and the rest of them make money.

How do you balance engagement with integrity? There’s this pressure to win the attention game that, does that lead us to continue to prioritize clickability over credibility? This is another. Issuer, I think we have to weigh the two sides and make some decisions and implement some processes.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, I agree. I think you mentioned when I interrupted you earlier about how the, how I utterly agree therein lies the huge dilemma for communicators because we could come up and indeed I do have a laundry list. These are the things we need to do this. It doesn’t have the how I. For instance, one of ’em I’ve got here is about prioritizing media literacy and narrative analysis amongst your communication team.

So it talks about train the teams to identify and contract disinformation tactics, recognizing when narratives are being manipulated. Great. How do [00:06:00] we do this regularly. Audit media sources, influencers of credibility for engage. That’s an easy one because I’m sure many are doing that now too.

But some of these things I have to admit are almost common sense. Champion fact-based storytelling, for instance e emphasize accuracy over engagement aligned storytelling with verified sources. And that probably gets, I think, to the. To the heart of the matter on the how. And there are some things that we are, I think overall collectively, many communicators are a bit lax on which is a thorough verification of sources.

And so you are not, if you are encountering a situations such as the a the outcome of that event in the White House and you are gonna report on it, you’re gonna look at who’s saying what about it, you . Probably got more work to do to verify your sources because anyone with an opinion is posting including in the mainstream media where they might not be as, as thorough in their verification procedures as they could be quoting some, even some [00:07:00] papers.

But I’ve seen blogs mostly with unverifiable. I was gonna say facts. They’re not facts. I say their opinion and most of ’em aren’t. So again, that just makes it even more essential to do your due diligence properly when you’ve got this kind of situation that you’re trying to address.

That’s one, one area. Another

Shel Holtz (2): area to consider is that going forward Zelensky going into a meeting with Trump will probably be anticipating this type of an attack. And I think I. Brands and leaders should do the same. Manipulated narratives are going to become a routine tactic in competition, whether it’s in the political arena or the arena of commerce.

So do we need to shift toward narrative defense strategies in a media landscape where . Bad faith actors are manufacturing this kind of outrage. If we continue to do as Mark says in the LinkedIn piece focus on [00:08:00] influencer fluff and corporate vanity metrics, we won’t be ready for these.

No. And it is pretty clear that in this kind of immediate landscape, those kinds of attacks are coming. And we have seen the things that start in the political realm. Migrate their way over. We saw that with DeepFakes, for example. First they were in, first they were in entertainment with ridiculous and just fun stuff.

But then they went into politics in order to. Make you think you were hearing or seeing a politician who never said or did what you heard or saw. But now it’s affecting business. So far it’s mostly, phishing attacks and the like. But we’re seeing this particularly with the ai Yeah.

Generated stuff. I think there needs to be a shift in the focus of what PR is working on if we wanna remain relevant and. Prepare content that helps us when these kinds of manufactured outages are targeting . The business.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. [00:09:00] Yeah. I think projecting this out into a business situation it, it had got me thinking when I was thinking this through myself even about how would you, how do you anticipate, let’s call them weaponized PR tactics by the other side, let’s say and have yourself prepared for that.

How do you do that? We’ve now have a clear indicator of what that looks like. The Trump Vance ganging up on Zelensky, so it wouldn’t be difficult to project that out to, for instance, your a PR agency pitching for a client’s business. And this. This also I guess clearly shows how the age of politeness has diminished entirely.

Where before if you disagreed, it’s polite disagreement. Here you’ve got a situation where it’s outrage and it’s anger. It’s vulgar and it’s, the effing and the blinding language going on that in polite conversation you never had. That’s changed radically. And that’s now common currency.

Look at any TV program, a series, a topical series on anything. And the f word is [00:10:00] almost it’s it’s occupying now the space as, oh damn we, we all said many years ago, and that was a rude word, no longer. So all that has shifted radically. So that is your environment. You are making a pitch.

And beforehand what might have happened is that the other side, if they didn’t like it wouldn’t say much, but you’d tell after you’d done that, they weren’t that impressed. Now they tell you in extremely strong terms that you’re full of. You know what? How do you anticipate that? That’s actually not too difficult.

So I place that under the heading of Anticipate weaponized PR tactics and that. Is part of that, you are in a pitch and that’s the response you’re getting. How are you going to address it? Are you gonna say anything about it afterwards? And this is another thing the kind of traditional non-disclosures and privacy elements are now questionable whether people will observe those.

So you gotta assume that NDA procedure we had many years ago ain’t gonna, ain’t gonna work anymore. So you’ve got to take that into account. So the environment has shifted. [00:11:00] If you then look at a product launch media invited, they’ve been told not to, embargo until so and so that I’m afraid I would place no trust in anyone obeying that anymore at all.

Shel Holtz (2): I. You remember Andrea Beckley and her civilization efforts to bring civility back into the public online commons. She must be despondent over the state of things right now.

Neville Hobson: The politeness thing I wrote a post the other day about are you polite to an AI when you’re talking to a chat bot?

And I argue the case as to why I saw that you should be. Yeah. And I am. That’s I say please, and thank you. Sure. I do all the time. So that’s where we’re at. And this is under threat to all these behaviors by the likes of people like Trump and his supporters or Hisense, whatever you want to call ’em.

And people take advantage of that too. So you’ve got a landscape that is extremely. Difficult to truly understand based on the rules [00:12:00] we’ve been following for a long time. And this reflects, I see big headlines in some of the tabloids here in the uk. Trump has overturned the world order.

He has, frankly, he has. And we have to accept that there’s no, there’s probably no going back on anything now until Trump’s gone. But his legacy is gonna be that this is actually gonna be the norm for quite a while forward, I would say.

Shel Holtz (2): Just to come back to the PR implications of this. Sure. A couple of additional thoughts.

One is that there may be some people who work in media relations or public relations who are watching Trump and wondering if the things that he is succeeding at are worth emulating. And I’m looking at, as we’ve already discussed, his control of message through controlled access. Is there something that

PR people are going to take away from that. Are we going to start to think that we should be controlling who shapes public discourse about our brand, about our products about our [00:13:00] organization? And I’m not sure that’s the best tactics to adopt in pr, but there may well be some people who are considering that.

One other thought and that’s what I saw, an article

Neville Hobson: one. One quick comment on that before we move on is that then presents an opportunity for professional associations to really show their value. Sure. Revise their codes of ethics, advocating for responsible media practices public education campaigns, or media literacy, for instance.

Just a couple of things. Supports. PR training for this kind of thing but also

Shel Holtz (2): advocating for open access to your. Content. You’re not going to tell what a media outlet? No. We don’t like the way you report things, so you can’t

Neville Hobson: cover us, yeah, that, that actually was truly stunning when the AP was banned.

But they don’t seem to be too alarmed themselves about it any longer after the initial, what kind of thing. So it’s happened, but it still could happen further. So it is to do with that control. This is getting a [00:14:00] bit like. Oh, dare I say, it’s Soviet Union Days. I mean it’s extraordinary.

Shel Holtz (2): One other article crossed my feeds and it’s tangentially related to this.

And I think this is a communications unintended consequence that maybe Trump and Vance didn’t consider. And if you’re planning on engaging in some of these kinds of tactics it’s a fair warning. That this kind of communication might follow. Now, this happens to be on a substack of somebody that I have never heard of before.

He’s a Holocaust historian. But this was making the rounds. He wrote a piece called Antisemitism in the Oval Office, and it is a rather lengthy and very well documented. Essay that essentially says that the attack on Zelensky was an anti-Semitic attack. Now I didn’t see that. I saw the press conference.

I saw it while it was happening. Is he Jewish zelensky? Pardon? Is he Jewish? Zelensky? Yes. Zelensky is Jewish. Okay. [00:15:00] Yeah, definitely. But what this guy is arguing is essentially that if you look at the laws. That were implemented in Nazi Germany at the beginning of the Third Reich? Not, yeah before they started hauling people off to concentration camps where they were just trying to marginalize the Jewish population in society.

It was exactly the same criticisms that were being leveled. Its zelensky, the way you dress and things like that. And he documents this extremely well. Yeah. And this is making the rounds. And if it’s. Gaining traction among populations that are opposed to antisemitism. And you listen to the Trump administration talk about its efforts to STEM antisemitism.

A lot of this at universities, which I really think is just targeting universities, finding an excuse to target universities. . But you’re gonna lose some support among some of the people who have been supportive. Thinking through what people might [00:16:00] say or might do as a result of this action that, you’ve been looking at what we get out of attacking Zelensky what do we pro prospectively lose should be another consideration.

This goes back to something I. Talked about years ago, which is in the communication strategic plan, we should have a step that just before launch, we close our eyes. We project six months out into the future after we have launched whatever it is that we’re going to launch and say what went wrong. It was a tremendous failure.

Why what failed and anticipate consequences that you hadn’t anticipated before.

Neville Hobson: There’s something that just popped into my mind, a news story I saw this morning about empathy and how Trump and Musk demonstrate with their words and their deeds, a complete and utter lack of empathy. And the article paralleled that with what happened or what was happening in Nazi Germany.

At the same time of the period you are talking about. So I’m thinking we, [00:17:00] we would like to see more of this kind of comparison being made. It’s alarming frankly, because I think there’s a lot of people are gonna say, you know what? I think they’re probably right. These guys are like that. I dunno what that says for where we go from here.

Shell, frankly, but this is not as usual. That’s a fact.

Shel Holtz (2): Oh, it’s gonna get worse before it gets better. Count on that, and that’ll be a 30 for this episode of four immediate release.

The post FIR #454: When the Media Rewards Spectacle Over Substance appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

It may seem counterintuitive, but playful teasing between brands and customers can produce unexpected benefits. Inspired by research from Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, we explore why strategically “roasting” customers with humor and lighthearted banter can enhance brand loyalty and deepen customer connections. Discover how embracing a bit of playful provocation might be the surprising secret ingredient your brand needs to stand out, build lasting relationships, and keep your audience coming back for more.

Also in this episode, we follow up our report from FIR #442 (December 26, 2024) about the publicity battle between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively: A report in the Hollywood Reporter finds that the fallout from this conflict is affecting publicists everywhere.

Links from this episode:

• Why ‘Roasting’ Your Customers May Help Your Brand
• FIR #442: Justin Baldoni’s Attack on Blake Lively Explains Why PR is a Dirty Word
• Lively vs. Baldoni Has Already “Change Hollywood Publicity Forever”
• The Ethics of PR: Lessons from the Blake lively Smear Campaign (Neville’s Blog)

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, March 24.

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

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

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

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

Raw Transcript:

Well, hi everyone, and welcome to four immediate Release. This is episode 4 53. I’m Neville Hobson. I’m Shell Holtz, and all of our reports of late have been very serious in tone and nature. So we’re gonna lighten it up a little bit today and talk about poking fun at your customers in public. Doing that in, in insulting your customers, while others are watching, may not seem like the best way to get their business.

But brands are increasingly embracing playful provocation to engage. Consumers and foster deeper relationships. This strategy, often referred to as a roasting customer involves lighthearted teasing that humanizes the brand and makes it more relatable. This isn’t just a, an observation I’m making based on, tweets and other messages that I see from brands. This is based on Uni University research, that rigorous academic research in this case from Duke University’s Fuqua [00:01:00] School of Business, which highlighted the effectiveness of this approach. I. Professor Gavin Fitzsimmons and his colleagues found that playful provocation enhances the customer brand connection by making brands appear more human-like.

Their studies demonstrated that teasing increases engagement compared to humor alone, but caution that excessive provocation can lead to negative perceptions, to which I said, well, no, duh. So there’s a balance that needs to be struck, but let’s. Take a quick look at several brands that have been implementing this tactic successfully.

Starting with one of the ones that I think is best known for this, which is Wendy’s known for its sharp and witty social media presence. They frequently roast both. Competitors and customers. In fact, they have a national roast day where they invite followers to request a roast leading to some pretty funny and engaging interactions.

A user, for example, said, roast to me Wendy’s, and Wendy’s said, you’re like a participation trophy in human form. [00:02:00] And there’s Ryanair. The European airline u uses a cheeky and irreverent tone on platforms like TikTok, often poking fun at common travel mishaps, and even its own services, which resonates with a younger audience.

On TikTok they said, when you realize your carry-on is bigger than our leg room I didn’t see the photo that went with, but I can imagine. Duncan the Coffee and Donuts place and a Halloween campaign, they featured a spider themed donut that was accompanied by suggestive messages on social media, aiming to rebuild interest in the product and engage customers with playful content.

Netflix often engages in playful banter with its audience on social media, teasing fans about their viewing habits and preferences that humanizes the brand and fosters the sense of community. KFC another fast food place. They’ve employed humor and mild provocation in its marketing, such as responding to customer tweets with pretty witty remarks, [00:03:00] enhancing brand relatability and customer engagement.

There’s Old Spice. They sent a tweet that said If your grandfather hadn’t worn Old, old Spice, you wouldn’t exist as the type of thing that they do. Dollar Shave Club has viral marketing campaigns that invo include humorous and edgy content that mocks traditional shaving brands. Oreo. During the 2013 Super Bowl blackout, they were quick-witted saying You can still dunk in the dark.

We reported on that when it happened. They took advantage of an unexpected situation, earning some praise and engagement by being a little. Snarky. Spotify their annual rap campaign highlights users listening habits, sometimes teasing them about their most streamed songs or genres, which encourages social sharing and brand interaction.

And Telstra, the Australian Telecommunications Company, they launched a whimsical animated campaign titled Wherever we Go that was aimed to reshape its [00:04:00] corporate image and connect with customers on a more playful level through that personal . Content research supports the effectiveness of the strategy.

A study published in the Journal of Consumer Research found that playful provocation increases engagement and connection to the brand by making it appear more human-like and relatable. But they also caution that doing this too much can pro provoke negative feelings and underscores the importance of balance.

There was also research highlighted in the magazine, frontiers in Psychology. That indicates that witty brand teasing can be an effective communication strategy as low aggressive humor increases consumer interest by reducing perceptions of manipulative intent. So when executed thoughtfully, teasing and playful, Provo provocation can serve as a as powerful tools for brands to enhance customer engagement and build stronger connections.

So you’re gonna start teasing people on LinkedIn, Neville. It’s it’s interesting I have to say shell the examples you gave, [00:05:00] many of them I’ve heard of some I haven’t. I’m actually intrigued. I guess it, it leads me to ask the follow up question, which is, okay, they did these things. What were the outcomes?

Were they worth doing? I have to say, when I was listening to what, to you outlining all of these, I was trying to think of some recent ones and I can’t actually recall any. I mean there obviously have been some. But I think it’s a it’s a risky proposition, isn’t it? You need to be very confident in your brand proposition and the fact that it’s well understood, I suspect, or you are strong enough to withstand a backlash to that.

So you gotta have your plan well structured to get the result you want, I would imagine. Some of ’em are clever. You mentioned Ryanair. It’s an Irish airline actually, and they have a reputation. We’ve talked about this in episodes from many years back. The CEO of Ryanair is renowned for insulting customers but not in a humorous way.

He really does insult them. I. He’s had a sea change in the last couple of years where he’s actually become [00:06:00] a normal, reasonable human being. rather than the kind of obnoxious person He was bellowing with age, is he? Yeah. I think, and he has some smart people running the social accounts without doubt because I still see them with some of the witty approaches to very snarky approaches, which actually

Produce a smile rather than anger. That’s a sea change in how they’ve gone about it. But it is a fine line, isn’t it? You need to be careful with humor. We know that otherwise, if you get it wrong, it can have serious implications. I think it begins with your brand voice. I believe.

If your voice is one that is very serious and then all of a sudden you decide to. Engage in some of this banter with somebody online. It’s going to be very much a non-sequitur. It’s gonna be jarring. People are gonna wonder what you’re up to. But if you have established a voice that is playful like that, Wendy’s did this early on, on Twitter.

In fact, I remember when I was [00:07:00] consulting I met with a team from Wendy’s, and this was. Before they were on Twitter for, I’d have to go look my notes, but it may have even been before there was a Twitter and they were trying to figure out what to do with social media. They were thinking maybe they could have their stores each set up a, a Facebook.

Page and talk about their little league sponsorships and the like. But then along comes Twitter and boy did they find their voice, and it’s been their voice consistently. So nobody is surprised by it. Everybody’s expecting it. And that’s one of the big reasons people follow that account. Oh, and by the way, here’s a coupon for a dollar off of one of our burgers.

It is, it’s been very effective for them. And yeah. Yeah from the get go, I think you’re, you have to establish a voice that is consistent with this kind of thing. Yeah. That makes total sense. And weave it into your brand strategy rather than just big events.

You mentioned the Super Bowl is one example and there others, we see it here, although not to this extent that [00:08:00] I can recall during football. Match it at major championship events, for example, where there’s big audiences. So opportunity is there if you get it right. And Phil, marks of those who do well.

Before we wrap this episode up, I want to. Offer a quick follow up to a story that we reported back on episode 442 on December 26th of last year about the kerfuffle between Justin Bald and Blake Lively. That has led to accusations and counter accusations and lawsuits and counter lawsuits. And the reason we reported on this is that Mr.

Baldoni was represented by a public relations firm a publicity firm that engaged in some practices that. We’re dodgy to say the least. Now the Hollywood reporter is reporting that the situation has created a considerable [00:09:00] anxiety among Hollywood’s publicity class. According to several personal and studio publicists that the Hollywood reporter interviewed, the scandal has changed how representatives not involved with the case operate.

One of them said, this will change the personal publicist game forever. 100%. When a client says, I want you to protect my reputation and get ahead of this story, or, I don’t like that headline, can you call the reporter? No way. If what you’re doing has ramifications for another celebrity, you’re now going to think that you could get sued.

Another veteran publicist said from the start from the very start of the lively baldoni shit show, it was PR who made the situation worse. Changing the face of PR is what this veteran publicist said that the case is doing. The fiasco notes of Veteran Studio Publicist brings to mind something that publicists are taught at the very start of their careers.

All comms folks are taught from day one. [00:10:00] Never put anything in writing you wouldn’t want on the front page of the New York Times. This has been a reminder of that all important rule. So some changes going on throughout our industry that have been sparked by this situation. Neville. Yeah. It ha it has, we did report on it.

You’re right. So I wrote a blog post myself with further thoughts on it, and I’ve been following it as I’m sure you have. On the latest developments in the case. It’s still an ugly lawsuit situation without any doubt and the reputational damage to the main protagonist. Blake Lively.

And Justin Baldoni is severe in B’S case. He’s suffered massive damage to his career in being ignored and dropped Lively’s, fallen foul of some missteps, I think in how she’s been talking online, including embracing, uh, taylor Swift is her support that, has she rejected that?

So that was an interesting development. I saw recently that Lively’s husband, Brian Reynolds had been, come out [00:11:00] speaking for her that misfired a little bit. So it’s messy. I think though the thrust of what we talked about, certainly my post was the ethical. Thing regarding B’S PR team or agency or whoever they were.

And indeed, we, I think we named the person who, whose name doesn’t spring to mind right now that was behind all of this. There was outrage on the ethics thing. And I suppose we could bring out the cynical hat. Put it on because that’s it. Nothing else has happened as a result that I’ve seen commented on publicly.

The flurry at the start was how dreadful this is, and it’s bad for the industry, and they should know better. I’ve not seen anyone commenting further on that. So it’s all about the lawsuits and the fallout from that. That’s still developing, but. I think we ought to be looking at this still from the ethics point of view and I guess reminding us this is not how you should do this.

But I’ve not seen anyone talking about that show. Yeah. Apparently the publicists themselves are talking about it because [00:12:00] they’re going to reject requests from their clients to engage in any of the kind of activity that, bald was looking for when all of this got started we’ll see how much that trickles over into the rest of the public relations industry when it comes to badmouthing your competition, for example.

Yeah, doubtful that it’ll have that much of an impact, but. We’ll see. Yeah. Yeah. I’ve not seen you mentioned about publicists reported over this side of the Atlantic at all. So maybe it’s a US focus, I suspect, but it, it needs more than that and I dunno what would stimulate it. It’s probably.

Not interesting enough for most people, it’s yet another case of something bad going on. And maybe it’ll get lively, pun not intended. Once it gets, if it is, if it does get to court or if some other development happens, but the accusations are really bad on both sides. The missteps on both sites seem also to be impacting this and what other work.

People think about it. So I think Blake [00:13:00] Lively has lost some of the sympathy. She attracted at the very beginning with those missteps. And so mill advised advice on some of the behaviors. Balian in the meantime, as I mentioned earlier, has suffered big time from this. But he’s doubling down on his defending of it.

So this thing’s got legs for a while. I think she. Yeah, exactly why most PR people now looking at this wouldn’t want to touch anything even close to it. , and that’ll be a 30 for this episode of four immediate release.

Raw Transcript

The post FIR #453: Humor Us — How Playful Teasing Strengthens Brand Relationships appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

“We are once again at a moment in time where things will not — and cannot — be the same again. However it unfolds, the only certainty is chaos will follow.”

So wrote global PR practitioner Catherine Arrow in a post on LinkedIn. In this monthly longform episode, Neville and Shel discuss Catherine’s observation that communicators are caught in the thick of conflict in which division is actively cultivated and truth is disputed and weaponized.

Also in this episode, YouTube viewing has shifted from mobile phones to television sets, with implications for the way communicators and marketers produce video for YouTube; there is much for communicators to consider when engaging on platforms that have shrugged off content moderation (part of the chaos Catherine Arrow referenced); Gallup’s Global Leadership Report is out and we’ll share what people want from their leaders; you can now create personas using AI — does that mean it’s a good idea to ask them questions instead of convening a panel of humans for your research? And LinkedIn is de-platforming the value of hashtags — does this spell the end of hashtags on LinkedIn?

In his Tech Report, Dan York discussed Mastodon Quote Posts, Apple’s ending of end-to-end encryption in the UK, and WikiTok, a TikTok alternative that delivers an endless scroll of Wikipedia.

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, March 24.

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

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

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

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

Links from this episode:

• CEO Says TV Overtakes Mobile as “Primary Device” for Viewing
• I was watching YouTube on my TV before it became more popular than phones – here are 3 reasons why it’s better on the big screen
• There’s a Good Reason Most People Prefer YouTube on TV
• Welcome to the Age of the Chaos Communicator
• The Global Alliance’s Melbourne Mandate
• What loosened restrictions on social media content moderation means for B2B communications leaders
• Perplexity search on impact of loosened content moderation on communication and marketing
• Global Leadership Report: What Followers Want
• The Case Against AI-Generated Users
• Synthetic Users: If, When, and How to Use AI-Generated “Research”
• User research. Without the headaches.
• FAQ: What Are Synthetic Panels?
• What is synthetic sample – and is it all it’s cracked up to be? And can GenAI be used off-the-shelf to create one?
• The end of the road for LinkedIn hashtags?

Links from Dan York’s Report

• Bringing Quote Posts to Mastodon
• Apple removes Advanced Data Protection for iCloud in the UK after the government ordered it to build a backdoor, something the company says it will never do
• Apple pulls iCloud end-to-end encryption feature for UK users after government demanded backdoor
• Developer creates endless Wikipedia feed to fight algorithm addiction



Raw transcript:

Shel Holtz: [00:00:00] Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 452 of four immediate release, our long form episode for February, 2025. I’m She Holtz in Concord, California.

Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson in Somerset in Ingot.

Shel Holtz: And we have six really interesting topics to share with you today. Some serious implications for communicators that we’re going to help you navigate.

Before we get there, though, we have our usual monthly rundown of housekeeping to take care of, starting with a look at what we have reported in our short midweek episodes since the last monthly show in January. Neville. We’ve got quite a few episodes four we’ve had since the last episode.

Neville Hobson: And they’ve been great topics. I think we’ve we’ve covered some pretty interesting areas. The first one since the last monthly, that’s episode 4 48, we recorded on the 29th [00:01:00] of January was riffing on a couple of LinkedIn posts that looked at change management and enterprise social networks is at the end of the line for these things written by Caroline Keeley and Sharon O’Day respectively.

And they did a good job of setting out the case. So we talked about that. Worth a listen, we have a comment right on that one.

Shel Holtz: We do, we have two comments on that one. The first is from Natasha Gonzalez, who says, definitely agree that internal usage may be a reflection of a change in external social usage and that the Godspeed approach has never worked well.

And then Sharon O’Day, who was one of the people who. Was the source of the material that we riffed on in that episode said great discussion. Thanks. Shell and Neville. I agree with most of the points you bring up here. People need clarity on what channels are for and how they should use them, but that’s more of a challenge than you might expect.

Very many comms reviews. I do reach the conclusion that even the comms team don’t know what their ESN their, employee social network is really [00:02:00] for and with trust on the decline. As you discuss, it’s understandable that employees might be reluctant to share. Will people look through my past contributions to our employee social network and conclude my disagreement is disloyalty.

No wonder people are retreating to smaller forums or choosing to check out active discussions in a world where Elon and his ilk are in the ascendancy, having an opinion on your employee social network may be, may mean putting your neck on the line. I was tempted to title my piece. Did Elon Kill the Employee Social Network?

If leadership are active, authentic on social themselves, it creates psychological safety, which will encourage people to participate. But the reality is very few leaders really do this, and if comms are using employee social networks as another broadcast channel, then long term they contribute to their decline as they’re no longer positioned in audience’s minds as a place of listening, debating, or sharing.

Neville Hobson: Good comment. [00:03:00] So then episode 4 49 on the 5th of February. This is a topic we’ve talked about before. The title of our episode was Employees Use of Shadow AI Surges. We talked about shadow ai. I’ve forgotten the date show. It was about a year ago, I think quite a while ago. And this looked at an aspect of this that’s not decreasing.

If anything, it’s increasing. On the risk side people are using these tools still in organizations and not telling anyone that they are, particularly where there is prohibition in place. So as a stealth approach to using generative ai, we said, but there are plenty of risks. So we looked at the data.

There’s data now on this and discussed various approaches companies can take that will benefit both them and their employees in four 50 on the 13th of February. That was a really good topic where we discussed recent research that shows senior leaders in organizations have doubts about [00:04:00] communicators abilities.

And that’s a that’s a pretty bleak assessment. It talked about complexities in the worlds of business, medium politics, and where you’ve got that situation. The concern of senior executives. The confidence is not high. It decreases. Our people up to the task is what they’re asking.

And you and I outline the research results and discuss ways communicate, can reverse this troubling trend naturally. We had lots of suggestions in that area, and we have a comment on this one too, don’t we?

Shel Holtz: Two of them here, actually three here. First from Amy Santoro who says, this saddens me, but I’m not surprised still since I started in communications in the nineties, we’re not valued and struggled to get a seat at the table.

Patrick Edwardson says, great conversation. Think you’re absolutely right when it comes to communication professionals needing to be more proactive in offering solutions and perspectives to leaders, rather than ending up in a reactionary mode, which is easily done given [00:05:00] the current volatile external environment.

More on that to come in this episode. And finally, Steve Renzo sums it up pretty well, saying that’s depressing.

Neville Hobson: Good ending to that one. Then in episode 4 51 on the 17th of February we talked about return to office. Obsessed executives are minimizing the employee voice. This is the now infamous and widely known behavior of the CEO of JP Morgan Chase.

The bankers Jamie Diamond, who unfortunately for him had a severe rant during an employee meeting that was recorded. And of course, the recording leaked. It’s, the expletives are dreadful. It is seriously someone who really doesn’t care. What did employees want to do or think? They need to do what he tells ’em and just get into the office and be there.

So we talked about that. And I see that we’ve had on LinkedIn, certainly a lot of people who’ve who’ve who, who liked it and stuff like that. We provided mostly you shall evidence that productivity, morale [00:06:00] higher with remote workers. We did cite a lot of that research. But if it comes down to, or when it comes down to a leader who behaves like this, your work is cut out to to, to show the benefits of a hybrid approach to the workplace or any other method that splits the get into the office or work from home.

It’s a never ending debate, it seems to me. But I’ve seen others talking about this too since that episode. IE other behaviors not leaked recordings, but leaders of big organizations saying, I don’t care. You gotta get in the office. So this is an argument that has still got a long way to run, I’d say.

So that was yeah, sorry. We got comment two, haven’t we?

Shel Holtz: We have three. Starting with Stuart Bruce who says, if it’s a simplistic back to the office mantra I’m against it. Simply having people sitting behind a desk in an office is counterproductive. However, if it’s managed intelligently by rethinking office layouts, what people do when they do it and more, then there’s value.

The osmosis effect is [00:07:00] invaluable. Junior people, learning from senior people simply by being around them. The spontaneous sharing of ideas. The problem is that too often in offices, there isn’t a lot of those two things happening. If people are to be back in the office, it needs to be benefit, both the employer and the employee.

That means rethinking what being in the office really means. And I have to say, I, I really agree with Stewart. It’s why I favored the hybrid model over a fully remote model. Although there are cases where an employee, it makes sense for them to be fully remote, but not as a routine. Be at home, be remote when you’re gonna be nose down, doing.

Individual work and be in the office when there are things happening that are gonna put people together, interacting, engaging, collaborating, sharing. That’s what makes sense to me. Jesper Anderson also commented he asked, did you hear Richard Edelman on Provoke Media’s new PR agency leader podcast?

He’s very much in favor of mandatory returning to the office, saying people [00:08:00] are at their best when they are together. And finally, Steve Neruda says, having read a couple of discussion threads on LinkedIn on this subject, what stood out to me were the comments that one’s employees couldn’t be trusted, which read to me like a very Trumpian every accusation is a confession.

People projecting their own faults and failures externally.

Neville Hobson: Good comments. All of them. Great. Yeah. So that’s a hot topic. No doubt. We’ll be talking about it again in the future.

Shel Holtz: I also wanna let you know that the most recent episode of Circle of Fellows from January is up and available on the FIR Podcast Network.

Was a really good discussion on creativity, on how to get that creativity sparked, especially in the busy corporate environment. Zoa artists, Diane GSKi, Andrea Greenhouse, and Martha Mka joined me for that episode. And then coming up this Monday an unusual day to [00:09:00] record. Circle of Fellows. That’s usually the third Thursday of the month, but this month it worked out for Monday at noon Eastern time.

We’ll be talking ethics because it is communication ethics month at IABC. And that conversation will involve Diane GSKi again two months in a row. Todd Hattori Jane Mitchell and Carolyn Riel. Should be a great discussion on communication ethics, especially in light of some of the communication we’ve been seeing in the last few months.

Neville Hobson: Definitely. And also just to let you know, we have a new FIR interview that will be published next Wednesday, the 26th of February. Those of you who’ve been in this game for a long time in terms of digital and social will recognize this name. Steve Ruble. Steve has longevity in this. He is a hugely influential voice and kickstart a lot of the developments that happened from 2005 onwards.

He spent nearly 19, [00:10:00] 20 years at Edelman and he’s now looking at new pastures, new ideas, new ventures. New adventures. I would say we had a great conversation with Steve, just a week or so back. And we’ll be publishing that, as I mentioned on Wednesday. So that’ll come out in the morning, GMT, so you can catch it when you wake up.

And also that same day, we’re recording the next FIR interview, which we’ll publish sometime in March with Sam Michelson, who is the founder and CEO of a company called Five Blocks. That is a digital reputation management agency among other things. He’s involved with his company, which is how I came to know.

Sam also runs a server, offers a service called Wiki Alerts which lets you track. Pages to Wikipedia pages, and I’ve been using that service myself for probably five years. But Sam and I connected, we had a long chat. He’s based in Israel. The company’s based in New York. And looking [00:11:00] forward to exploring Sam’s thoughts on a topic.

Both you and I have talked about quite a bit the letters, AI feature in there in terms of digital reputation management. So we’ll get some insights from Sam on what he thinks about where this is going and in, in the context of organizational communication. So that’s all coming up. New interviewing published on Wednesday the 26th of February.

The following interview will come out in the first half of March, I reckon.

Shel Holtz: Looking forward to that interview on Wednesday. Sounds like it’ll be an illuminating session. And now it’s time for us to start reporting on our six topics of the month after this.

There is a major shift in video consumption Communicators need to pay attention to. YouTube is now watched more on TVs than on mobile devices. For years, YouTube has been synonymous with mobile viewing, but according to YouTube’s, CEO Neil Mohan TV screens have [00:12:00] overtaken smartphones as the primary way people watch YouTube.

In the US viewers now watch over a billion hours of YouTube daily on their TVs. This trend isn’t just happening in the us it’s in the UK too, where 34% of YouTube viewing already happens on TVs and among kids aged four to 15, that number jumps to 45% in the uk. Clearly, this is something that’s not slowing down.

So why is this happening? There are several factors driving this transformation, and it starts with the evolution of smart TVs and streaming devices because YouTube is now pre-installed on most of them on the Sony TVs and the Samsung TVs, those smart TVs they come with the YouTube already pre-installed.

Same with the Roku and the Apple TV box just makes it easier than ever to watch it. On your tv. It’s also not just for short clips anymore. YouTube is just teaming with documentaries in-depth, explainers and [00:13:00] episodic series. I think it’s interesting that Epi episodic series are thriving on YouTube and it’s turned into a shared viewing experience with more people watching YouTube together.

Just like traditional television. And I know I do most of my YouTube watching on the computer, but if I see something I think my wife would be interested in, I pull it up on the TV and we watch it together. So there’s that. For communicators using YouTube, this shift has some pretty big implications. If audiences are consuming YouTube like tv, then we need to adjust the way we create this content.

So what do we need to do differently? First you need to optimize for TV screens and most of the YouTube videos that are up there. Now were designed for mobile. And if your audience is watching on tv, you’re gonna need to adapt. First of all you need that 16 nine aspect ratio, the wide screen format, because vertical videos suck on tv.

And I can tell you that from personal experience, [00:14:00] you need to make your text and graphics bigger. What works on a phone that is a few inches from your eyes might be unreadable from across the room. And you also need to make sure your audio is high quality because poor sound is a lot more noticeable on your sound bar or your surround sound system, even your native TV audio than it is.

Listening to it on your phone. Next thing you need to do is think more like a TV producer. They’re watching YouTube more like tv, so you need to lean into longer content. Viewers on TV are a lot more likely to watch content that is 10 plus minutes. You need to invest in better production, quality lighting, sound and editing matter more on a large screen and consider episodic content because as I mentioned, recurring series and repetitive formats, episodic formats encourage you to come back and watch the next episode, so you get people hooked on your content.

It’s no longer just a one-off, oh, I saw this, I [00:15:00] watched it, it was interesting, and I’ll never see anything from you again. Third, it’s important to leverage the second screen experience because viewers may be watching YouTube on tv, but their phones are still in their hands. YouTube is expanding features in order to accommodate the fact that people are watching on their TV with their phone in their hands.

They’re doing QR codes and videos because it’s a simple way to drive viewers to take action, and they’re offering phone-based interactions. They’re making it easy to comment or engage with the video on your mobile phone while you’re watching the tv. If you want viewers to sign up, comment, share, you have to make it easy for them to do that from their phone.

Because they really aren’t gonna use their remote to do that on the tv. And if you are advertising on YouTube, you need to consider your ad strategy too. They are rolling out TV specific ad formats. Three of them are interesting. One are pause [00:16:00] ads. These are ads that will appear when you pause the video.

So what kind of ad would you like people to see when they pause a video? Next is non-intrusive overlays that are better suited for passive TV viewers. And finally, is high quality skippable ads. If you can skip the ad, you will, unless it draws you in. Viewers are a lot more willing to watch if it’s a well made, interesting, compelling ad.

Now, if you’re using YouTube ads, these formats could be more effective than traditional pre-rolls. The takeaway from all this is that YouTube isn’t just another social platform anymore. It’s the new television. If you’re using YouTube for communication, it’s time to start thinking like a broadcaster.

Neville Hobson: Listening to what you’re saying there, she I just said to her, my God, the manipulation is dreadful.

Truly. But I watch, more t more YouTube content on TV than any other device. In fact, the worst device to watch YouTube on is a mobile phone. Frankly I, in my experience, horrible not only is [00:17:00] it a small screens, it’s squeezed in, the vertical you mentioned, okay. But all the popups and all the ads and all the kind of and particularly the ads that break in the middle of something you’re watching.

So it’s a dreadful experience in my humble opinion. Maybe not so humble, but that’s my opinion. So I tend to watch YouTube on TV for stuff I’ve saved that I found elsewhere. I actually quite and this is not like I see something, I think, oh, my wife and I would like to watch it together.

We don’t do that with YouTube. We do that with Google movies. That’s a fact. Now that’s not YouTube. That’s a separate thing, but it’s the same company of course. But I like to watch things I’ve found elsewhere that I’ve saved. I can watch on a big screen, and it could be an ad, it could be something else, anything.

Even yet, that experience is not brilliant no matter what device you’re using, simply because of the int inclusivity of the advertising, other messaging that interferes with what you’re watching. So you could say. If you take the premium account, pay for it, you don’t get the ads. That’s actually not quite [00:18:00] true.

You do, but maybe not so badly as this. So I think your point is a key one that you mentioned towards the end of what you were saying, which is if an ad is done really well that draws you in, you wouldn’t object. Utterly agree with that. But I’ve yet to find any on YouTube in the uk. The worst ones are, the kind of over fifties life insurance plans.

Maybe that’s the algorithm looking at me and serving up that rubbish, wor, badly made, I mean everything. I better stop me now, shall I get you on a rant yet? So I think TV’s great. It’s a better medium to watch it, but you don’t always have time to do all of that. So the next option I think I would agree with you is a big screen monitor in your office attached to your desktop computer.

Definitely not a phone tablet. Okay. If it’s a large one, but I think. The rest of what you said makes sense from the, from the content writer’s perspective and the medium that people are shoving this content out there. I just don’t think anyone’s really doing that very well on YouTube. That’s my take.

The feeling I [00:19:00] get often is that you’re there and you will be interfered with intrusive advertising, whether you like it or not. And often there’s no skip. You gotta watch the damn things. In some cases not all. So I don’t have a very good perception of YouTube. So I’m not the target audience as much of this stuff and I’m totally fine with that.

Lemme tell you that

Shel Holtz: I don’t see any ads on YouTube ever because I pay the premium fee. Oh, I don’t to avoid the ads. Yeah. Oh yeah. It’s worth every penny as far as I’m concerned, to not see those ads. Sure,

Neville Hobson: I get that.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. But the fact that more people are watching on TV now than mobile doesn’t mean people aren’t watching on mobile.

So you have to know who your audience is and where are they more likely to be watching. I didn’t see any demographic breakout except that number for kids four to 15 in the uk watching more than the overall population on their TVs. So yeah, I think it’s partly recognizing where [00:20:00] you’re.

Audience demographically is likely to be watching, but it’s also what kind of content are you thinking of producing? If, if you’re looking for a TikTok like video if you’ve made it for TikTok, I, there’s no reason not to repurpose it for YouTube. The more places it, it is, the better, as long as you’ve made whatever adjustments need to be made for the differences in the formats.

But on the other hand, and I know I’ve talked about this on the show before, there are businesses now companies that are making documentaries and YouTube is now a good place to host those because people will sit and watch a documentary. I’ll tell you the truth, Neville, michelle and I wanted to watch a movie. There was a remake of the movie that was about to come out, and the original starred one of Michelle’s favorite old time actors, Tyrone Power and we wanted to watch the original before we saw the new one and checked every streaming service and nobody had it.

I was, oh my God, this movie has to be somewhere. Where it ended up being, it [00:21:00] was YouTube. So that’s what we did. We pulled up YouTube because it’s on both our Apple TV box and our Samsung tv. So we just pulled up YouTube, did a search for the movie, and sat there for an hour and 40 minutes and watched a movie.

So that’s a new behavior and I think people, who produce content have gotta get accustomed to that and start factoring that into your thinking about what kind of content are you gonna produce.

Neville Hobson: I would agree with you. I would, the only thing I’d say to what you, the kind of pace you outline, I don’t do any of that with YouTube other places I do that.

Not a place I naturally look to, to spend time on except, as I mentioned, as I saved, I wanna catch up with a concert a clip of an ad that I really thought was impressive, things like that. I don’t watch movies, I don’t watch documentaries. There, there are other places I go for that kind of content, but we’re all different and that’s why there’s so much choice out there.

I just get, find so much choice. I gotta limit it to something. So I don’t pay [00:22:00] for that. I pay for other servers, but not pay YouTube. So I tend not to use it. That much in that regard. But it the point though, you are making, I think I would agree with that. You’ve gotta get your aunt together, offer content in a way that’s compelling to the viewer that keeps them around.

And they might then look at other stuff. And that’s why I’m reading the Gizmo article that you shared on this, talking about the revenue that has been steadily increasing. The writer of this piece, by the way, has a a scathing review of YouTube’s mobile app, . I agree with him. He talks about the brain brot of the YouTube mobile app turns me off more than it turns me on.

If I truly wanted dumb quick hits to shock my brain with numbing dopamine, I would turn to TikTok . But and he also makes a comment too which was in my mind, strange to consider YouTube’s popularity on TV when the company keeps raising the price. Obviously YouTube TV service. That’s an interesting point.

So in the US he says YouTube TV now costs [00:23:00] $83 a month. That’s a lot of money. Wow.

Shel Holtz: Might as well just pay for cable.

Neville Hobson: Gosh. Yeah. That’s crazy. He says, if I’m gonna be forced to watch ads because I can’t afford a premium subscription, I wouldn’t wanna do it on my TV or phone.

Okay. That’s his take. But it’s an interesting topic. Shell and I think content creators really should think this through better than they do to make it a more compelling experience for the viewer.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. And by the way, one of the reasons I watch a lot of YouTube is because jam bands tend to upload their concert videos, to YouTube, and I am a jam band fan and one reason I can watch them on my phone is that I did get the pixel fold okay.

My phone is now it unfolds into a mini tablet and it makes that experience a whole lot better.

Neville Hobson: Is it any good?

Shel Holtz: I love it. Yeah, it’s great. It’s a little heavy a little heavier than I’m used to for a phone, but I got used to that pretty quickly. I like it. I like it a lot.

Neville Hobson: Cool. Okay next we’re going to talk about a different world in an age of chaos.

And this [00:24:00] stems from a post on LinkedIn. LinkedIn’s coming up a lot in my research when I look for topics these days. And that’s a good thing. There’s some great content there. I’ll tell

Shel Holtz: you, I’ll tell you, I’m saving more and more LinkedIn articles to my Tumblr feed which is what I use to look for articles to write about or to talk about on the show.

So I agree with you.

Neville Hobson: Sure. I use pocket for that, and it’s chock full of LinkedIn content, but I also save on LinkedIn as well. But now picture this. Imagine a world where reality itself is contested, where facts are no longer agreed upon, and truth bends under the weight of disinformation. Does that sound familiar to what’s happening right now?

It could be some familiarity there. This is the world we find ourselves in today, and as communicators, our role has never been more crucial or more complex. Five years ago at the dawn of the COVID-19 pandemic communication had some semblance of order governments held daily briefing scientists stood alongside officials, and even as chaos unfolded, there were still structures in place to [00:25:00] make sense of it all.

Fast forward to 2025, and that coherence has all but vanished now. We find ourselves in an era that Catherine Arrow calls chaos communication. A time when public relations professionals, journalists, and communicators, are no longer just sense makers, but active participants in an information war, in a thought provoking post on LinkedIn.

Welcome to the Age of the Chaos Communicator. Arrow. Arrow warns that we’ve entered a new phase of public discourse, one where truth is deliberately distorted. Polarization is a strategy, and neutrality is no longer an option. We face a world shaped not just by geopolitical tensions and economic upheavals, but by deliberate attempts to reshape reality.

She critiques the role of public relations and communication professionals pointing out that they are no longer just mediators, but often find themselves entangled in battles over truth itself. Some uphold ethical standards while others willingly participate in disinformation [00:26:00] for personal or political gain.

Arrow warns at the stakes are now higher than ever. . As those in power actively work to reshape narratives for their own benefit in this environment, neutrality is no longer an option. Communicators must take a stand, push back against misinformation and act as defenders of truth, even at personal or professional risk.

As communicators, what role should we play? Do we amplify messages regardless of the truthfulness, or do we take a stand knowing that speaking up could come at a cost? Arrow argues that we are now one step beyond traditional crisis communication, and we must embrace the uncomfortable reality of chaos communication, where defending the truth is not just an ethical responsibility, but a battle in its own right.

Ultimately Arrow calls for a redefinition of the communicator’s role in this new era, urging professionals to move beyond traditional PR functions and embrace the responsibility of countering manipulation, upholding integrity, [00:27:00] and ensuring that history is not dictated solely by those with loudest megaphones.

This age of chaos raises important questions for communicators. How do we ensure that ethical communication remains at the forefront? How do we counter disinformation without adding to the noise? And most critically, if we don’t take a stand for truth, who will?

Shel Holtz: Well, the question I have is, are we doing this on our own using platforms like LinkedIn or are we doing this on behalf of our organizations? Because if we’re doing this on behalf of our organizations, we certainly can’t just go off and do it on our own. A lot of organizations are grappling with the chaos that is coming out of Washington, DC right now and making some tough decisions about what they’re going to say and what they’re not going to say in order to protect their business.

Good god look at Elon Musk right now and specifically thinking of Twitter or [00:28:00] X where he is suggesting not in so many words, but everybody is . On top of this interpretation that if you advertise on X and you don’t increase your ad spend, you could end up being the target of a government investigation, your organization.

You talk about the weaponization of government and the administration is doing that. If you don’t tow the line on DEI policies, you’re, you could end up being the target of an investigation by the Department of Justice. These are pretty serious threats. And I think organizations that have employees they need to pay so that they can feed their families and, keep a roof over their heads.

They need to keep their vendors working. They need to keep their investors happy. That’s a tough call to take a stand. I think there are fewer and fewer organizations, frankly, that are doing that be because of the threat. Now I. Absolutely agree. And I am taking a stand [00:29:00] individually, online, wherever I can as, as well as through other community activities.

But I think it’s interesting if she’s talking about, as an official spokesperson of your organization, you are speaking for your organization. You can’t make that up as you go. .

Neville Hobson: I’m not sure she’s talking about that. Although that may be part of what she’s saying. She doesn’t state it, but it is more of a general thing, it seems to me.

And I think it makes sense. Like you I could see the risk element of this but perhaps more significantly to your prime point, which is you can’t just go out and do this if you are talking on behalf of the organization. Of course not. I don’t think she’s suggesting that.

It does make you think when I read her article, this was before the news rapidly emerged about the thousands of people that Trump and his psycho fence are firing in public sector or the federal employees. I read today, I think the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta is letting go some thousands of employees.

The big [00:30:00] one is the 10,000 or so that have been let go in. I’ve forgotten which government department shell, do you remember? It was in the news? Yeah,

Shel Holtz: it was the US agency for international development.

Neville Hobson: Is it that one? Okay. Because I think Department of Defense is coming up next. So I was reading Generals this morning.

They had about

Shel Holtz: yeah, chairman of the

Neville Hobson: so I guess in the context of that without this conversation just focusing on all this stuff going on in America, I think. In my mind it’s been why aren’t we seeing more people pushing back on, on stuff like this? But the wider picture would be generally what the US is, the current administration in the White House is doing, broadly speaking across the board, the threat of tariffs and this kind of deal making in Ukraine.

It’s all about mining these precious metals that’s all Trump wants. He wants a deal, and he’s talking about how much money everyone can make on this. Good grief. He’s all about the transaction. And, uh, cozy up to Putin and so forth. No one’s really saying a lot about that.

And I [00:31:00] can understand that. Part of me understands that, the high risk element of that. But I think it’s more why do that? No one has a clue how to respond to this yet. That’s what it looks like to me. Whether you are in a European government, whether you are in a global multinational corporation, let’s wait for.

Someone some company that’s a big global enterprise is gonna get in the cross hairs of either Musk or Trump and have to go through some kind of serious accusation. So what are we gonna do about that? So I would imagine what Catherine Arrow is pointing out is already on the discussion tables of large organizations.

I would think the what if, and this is what would you call it? Chief says, we’re beyond crisis communication. This is chaos, communication planning. So that is already going on, and maybe we’re in the, to use a second World War analogy, this is the phony war. There’s not real war broken out yet.

These are little skirmishes. These are the . Probing and the pushing. That’s what it seems to me. And yet the consequences of these actions are dreadful and dreadful. They’re dire, [00:32:00] they are gonna affect all of us. So you mentioned about, in a company people have gotta, look after their employees, they can feed their families or totally.

Right. Maybe that’s what’s influencing the lack of things as well. So we’ve got all that. This then is the, almost like the game plan for this is what you’ve gotta decide as a communicator in the organization. And by the way, thinking about that, the communicators.

What about those folks who are in those organizations that have fired all those federal employees, the communicators, assuming they aren’t amongst the fires. I’ve seen a couple of people talking on threats who are communicators who’ve been let go in, I’ve forgotten which agency? So it’s across the board.

And we are gonna see some dreadful consequences of all of this. In the meantime, we’ve got what c Catherine Arrow is pointing out to us that we need to decide ourselves. How do we ensure that ethical communications at the forefront how do we counter disinformation? Listen to everything Trump says, and the fact checking [00:33:00] guys are hard at work on everything he says and almost.

The majority of everything he says is not true most of the time. So how do you counter that? Because it’s like we’ve often talked, if you don’t respond to stuff like that after a short period of time, it becomes the truth to most people. ’cause no one is saying different and there’s a big risk. If we don’t stand for truth, who will is her concluding point. That’s a very good statement. But we should adapt that to the real world, to the reality of the circumstances in our own situations. There is risk doing this without doubt. I don’t have the answers to these questions I’m asking too.

I’ve been thinking about this as I read Katherine’s post and just observing what’s going on as Musk with his chainsaw at a conference. Goodness me Trump, who. I just wonder, is he, does he think this is all a joke? Do you think so? Is he just letting Musk have his way until something goes wrong and then he fires him and then we see a conflagration?

Who knows? But this is a dangerous time. This, I, [00:34:00] in my view, is a good clarion call for us to think about some of these things and indeed this kind of conversation you and I are having, others should be having these conversations too, because we are at a time of grave peril. It seems to me, in this age of chaos.

And chaos is right.

Shel Holtz: Absolutely. And when Catherine Aero says that we need to take on a new role, I would argue it’s not a new role. It is something that was suggested maybe 10 or 12 years ago by the Global Alliance for Communications and Public Relations. Yeah. This is the organization whose membership is made up of communication associations.

I-E-B-C-P-R-S-A CPRS. They’re all members of the Global Alliance, and they met in Melbourne way back when and drafted what they called the Melbourne mandate. I don’t even know if you can still find that online. But at the center of the mandate was that the communicator’s role at the center is to be the conscience of the organization and to help guide.

The [00:35:00] doing of what’s right and the rejection of what’s wrong. And that’s exactly, I think what she’s talking about here. Just more speaking up than providing counsel. But as communicators I think that they were right in the Melbourne mandate that because we have that view, not only of all of the organization’s operations, but everything that’s going on externally, we’re in the best position to say, look, this is how people are going to react to our taking this position. I look at Target the gr the department store chain as an example. They dialed back their DEI, they dialed back the pride month celebrations. They used to have a lot of product from gay L-G-B-T-Q designers and the like in the store.

And they’ve dialed that back because of the pushback they were getting. But now there’s been a suit filed against them customers who supported their DEI initiatives and their supportive Pride month are boycotting and making a lot of noise. They’re being torn apart by both ends.

And [00:36:00] you have to wonder how an organization is going to deal with that when half of the people want you to do one thing and half of your customers want you to do another. And they you can’t have it both ways. So I’m, these are difficult times.

Neville Hobson: They are. And I’m thinking something you mentioned about the Melbourne mandate is a good point.

But I think we’ve got, we’re at a time now where nothing at all is black or white, is very nuance’s. Lots of dreadful shades of gray. Much more than that movie talked about. Lemme tell you that. And you’ve also got something we can observe which she references that some people uphold ethical standards.

And I would like to think the majority of communicators do, while others willingly participate in disinformation for personal or political gain. That’s not a new thing, of course, but at a time when things are not what they appear, particularly when. In the kind of good old days, an authority figure, like the [00:37:00] president of the United States, you could almost literally say, if he says it’s it is.

So, now you’ve got Trump doing that kind of stuff. If he says it’s it ain’t, that’s a fact, but what are you gonna do about it? And it gets worse every time he talks. I think this presents a, this kind of adds to the dilemma confronting communicators because it is not black and white, the old rule book that you may not apply the way it was intended back then.

So you’ve gotta think fast on your faith, be pretty agile as the word goes and look at how do you convince your leaders, your colleagues and others that of a certain course of action when evidence, quote unquote out there suggests it’s not that, it’s this, how do you deal with that? So it’s, it is a time of chaos.

Shel Holtz: We’re gonna stick with this topic. We’re just gonna zero in on one element of the chaos, and that’s the upheaval we find ourselves in. Thanks to this trend of loosening content moderation policies [00:38:00] on major platforms, notably X and Metis platforms this shift has profound implications for communicators, especially in the B2B sector.

So if you’re working the B2B sector, pay attention MET is transitioning from third party fact checking to a community note system that’s similar to the approach that X formerly Twitter took under Elon Musk’s leadership. If you care to call it that Zuckerberg is framing this move as a commitment to free expression, aiming to address concerns about over enforcement and perceived biases and content regulation.

But this relaxation of content controls has really sparked a lot of debate. Critics argue that reducing moderation can lead to increases in misinformation and harmful content, posing risks to public disclosure and brand safety. Really interesting to be having this discussion. Right now. I’m reading the book, the Sirens call by Chris Hayes, which is about the attention economy.

And we only have so much attention to give. It’s being commoditized, [00:39:00] but there is an endless supply of information out there and people are working hard to draw your attention. To their content. And if you spend your time with disinformation and misinformation, that means there’s less time for you to hear the countervailing opinion on all of this.

So what are the implications for communicators for those of us in communications, these changes require a strategic reassessment. Here’s what to think about. First, brand reputation management With fewer moderation controls, there is a greater risk of misleading or harmful content proliferating. You may find that your brand’s messages is right up against something that’s controversial or offensive, and that can damage your brand’s reputation and ERO trust.

So it’s really important to monitor social channels vigilantly, and respond quickly to any content that could negatively impact your brand. Then there’s navigating misinformation. The [00:40:00] potential rise in unchecked information means communicators have to be proactive in combating false narratives, developing clear factual content and engaging directly with your audience to correct misperceptions, misconceptions, and disinformation can help maintain your brand’s credibility.

Also, educating your audience on how to identify reliable information and information sources can empower them to navigate the digital landscape more effectively, and they may even be grateful to you for that. Next is evaluating platform strategies. As platforms change their moderation policies, we may need to go so far as reassessing where and how we engage our audiences.

There are already people pulling their X accounts and telling people you, and you’ll now find us on Blue Sky. That’s because X is among those platforms that have become less conducive to your brand’s values and messaging. Due to an increase in harmful content, diversifying your digital presence and considering alternative [00:41:00] platforms with moderation policies that align with your brand standards can mitigate potential risks.

Finally there’s enhancing internal policies that we need to consider internally. Revisiting your social media guidelines is imperative. Ensure that your team understands the importance of responsible content sharing and the potential implications of engaging with unmoderated content.

Providing training on best practices can help maintain a consistent and positive brand image across all channels. So by staying informed and being proactive, we can navigate this complex environment effectively, safeguard our brands, and continue to engage our audiences in a meaningful way.

Neville Hobson: Yeah, it sounds so wonderfully.

Let’s do this the way you say it, shell, um, it’s good to link it to Catherine Arrow’s assessment of the Age of Chaos, because this is part of that. I agree. I find it almost incomprehensible to, to understand why [00:42:00] anyone would want to, um, eliminate content moderation in this day and age notwithstanding Trump and Musk even, and Zuckerberg for that matter talking about, because moderation restricts freedom of speech.

That’s the kind of overriding argument that I understand they’re saying is that’s why they’ve done this, because they want to give. Better freedom of speech without these impediments of government censorship, which is really what it amounts to. So all this pushback in Trump’s style against the the European Union and their efforts to provide safeguards for people online and so forth, all that’s gone by the wayside basically.

So brands generally the people running those brands have serious difficulties. Now with this in being present on any platform that doesn’t have moderation, which is where ones like Blue Sky really do stand out with what they have, and they’ve ramped up their their safeguarding teams significantly.

Trouble is. The likes of X in [00:43:00] particular with what, 600 million users and Facebook with what are they got 3 billion users. The numbers are staggering that, that’s like a drop in the buckets. But maybe this, again, the extension of the conversations that we’ve had in prior episodes, which is that maybe this is something that brands who.

Do not wish to literally give up on their content and their messaging being overwhelmed by stuff that they abhor and does not represent their brand values at all. Being associated with a place that has stuff like that. Maybe this is another nudge to get going with, considering other platforms, which comparatively, in terms of user numbers are niche right now.

But that’s more honest it seems to me. And it’s not saying that, oh, great, we can have them to moderate all the content that, that’s one we can say, but we want not at all. This then becomes a far more strategic approach to this, and it actually sets in place, I think. [00:44:00] The beginnings of a framework for this is how it’s going to be in the future.

That these monolithic networks that are controlled by a single corporation or one crazy individual who changes things on a whim now and again, and it is more like again and now would not matter. It takes power away from those people and you then are more honest and truthful to yourself and your audience.

So that is the future though. ’cause what we got now is the age of chaos and it ain’t pretty.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. And I find the argument that this is all about free speech to be a little disingenuous. , honestly, if you’re looking for unfettered free speech there’s always four chan. It’s still there.

Last I heard. And anything goes on four chan. There are places that do that. But yeah it’s getting uglier and uglier. I am seeing stuff in my Facebook feed that I have never seen before. People I have not followed, I have not commented on, I haven’t even lingered on these posts.

And I [00:45:00] find them objectionable and offensive. And why are they in my feed? What is it about the algorithm that is injecting this stuff into my feed? You, I think what makes TikTok so addictive is that it. Figures out pretty quickly what you like and just automatically starts giving you more of that.

In fact, in his book, Chris Hayes says he had a, an evening at home one night. So he he was alone which is rare. So he decided to have a half a gummy an edible and play with TikTok. And he said after an hour he realized he had just been scrolling through videos of people making sandwiches lovingly and carefully and cutting them in half, one after another.

And he said, oh my God TikTok knows I’m stoned , so, why can’t Facebook do something a little more like that? Why is it loading me up with this content? And it is, I think this shift toward a more . Conservative approach to [00:46:00] what we see. And I’m actually blocking a lot more on Facebook these days than I ever have.

And I think it’s all because of this accommodation of the new administration and a desire to stay outta their crosshairs. That could be. I also think it’s the algorithm responds to what you post yourself, the content you post, and the volume of your posting. So I don’t do much on, on Facebook. I hardly ever maybe it’s probably less than 1% of my time there, less of that even engage with anyone who’s not a friend at all.

Neville Hobson: I spend all my time purely in my friends. The equivalent of the timeline. I don’t engage much now and again, I’ll have a look at what’s going on and I quickly go away because I don’t see anything there that interests me at all. But that’s just me. I know others who are completely the opposite to that.

TikTok I gave up on TikTok about six months ago. It’s just full of utter bilch. That’s how I see it. I have no interest in that at all. It’s a shame. But I think, [00:47:00] this is the landscape we have and it is not gonna improve. I shell I’m certain it won’t ever improve be, it’s getting worse, if anything.

And now with what’s happening it’s I despair that this is ever gonna be a pleasant place. So I’m still on Facebook. I’m still not a hundred percent decided whether I’m gonna completely shut it down, but I’m leaning that way. And that doesn’t sound like ridiculous fence setting. I dunno what does, but that’s where I’m at still right now.

Shel Holtz: I just finished reading a book. I can’t remember the author’s name. There are people listening, I’m sure, who would are shouting it at me. As soon as I tell you the title of the book it, it is called Nexus. And it is a history of information networks from the Stone Age to ai. And one of the points the author makes he’s a historian something of a philosopher an Israeli he wrote a book called Sapiens that I think was a bestseller.

But he says, what enables democracy is information networks that allow people to engage in [00:48:00] discussion about the issues that affect. The society and to arrive at some kind of consensus. And we’re losing the ability to have those conversations because of this chaos and because of this flooding of the zone with misinformation and disinformation and people latching onto conspiracy theories and whatever suits the tribe that they belong to.

And that’s worrisome. That is the conversation the authentic conversation seems to be drying up in favor of commenting on and sharing of misinformation and disinformation and, the spread of this stuff. I think, you’re paying attention to what is being shared about how to address all of this in unmoderated communities where your organization, your brand may be active.

Listening to Catherine Arrow’s advice all of this is important because, yeah, we gotta do what we can.

Dan York: Greeting she and Neville and FR listeners all around the world. It, Stan, you are coming at you from a [00:49:00] snowy Vermont USA, where we have about 20 inches or 50 centimeters for you, Neville, of that white stuff on the ground.

It’s beautiful out here. Cold, but beautiful. So this month I wanna mention first something that people have long requested for the Mastodon platform, which is the ability to have quote posts. If you think about that, we used to call them retweets back in the day of Twitter, but they have since been called many other things in different platforms.

But quote posts is certainly one topic, or quote, tweets, we used to say different ways, but a lot of platforms have them, and this is of course, the ability to go and take somebody else’s content and share it in your content, in your stream with your own feedback and comments and things. When Mastodon was first being created back in the mid 2010s, it was around 20 16, 20 17 that it first got started.

They, the developers chose very specifically not to [00:50:00] include quote posts. I. And one of the rationales they had at the time was really that one of the ways in which quote posts can be used is to be negative about somebody, process often referred to as dunking or something where you are going and

Taking somebody’s quote and saying, oh, look at what an idiot they are, or something like that. In much , much more profane words perhaps, but really, trashing somebody and doing it so in the wrong usage it can be a very unsafe kind of thing. And so the developers of Mastodon, when they were first creating it were against this.

And so they didn’t implement it. But over the years, they have of course noticed that a lot of people like quote post, and there are very many other very positive uses of how it can be used to share something, amplify it, work with that. And many communities like using quote posts in different ways, and also that people coming to Mastodon from other platforms, were finding, [00:51:00] wait a minute I can’t do quote posts.

Then, I don’t wanna be here and trying other things now because Macedon and the broader Fedi verse is an open environment, there have been a number of clients, including one that I use called Ice Cubes that have implemented a form of quote posts where it is basically taking the original post and forwarding and it sharing it very much like we used to do before the retweet mechanism was something that was created in Twitter.

There’s been a need for a better way. So Mastodon, the team there at the developers of it, the Mastodon team put up a post earlier this month that talked about how this could be potentially implemented and what they looked at was basically creating a quote post mechanism, but providing additional controls.

So what will happen as they implement this is that you will be able to choose whether your posts can be quoted. So [00:52:00] you’ll have a configuration if you don’t want people doing that, if it’s something you’ve seen abused for you or something, you can just not enable that. You will also be notified when someone quotes you, which other platforms allow as well.

And then interestingly, you’ll be able to withdraw your post from the quoted context. So if somebody were to go and take your post and forward it and say, you know what an idiot you could choose to have it withdrawn from that quote. Interesting idea about how to go and do it. They rightly point out in their post that there is no standard for this.

And so that’s one of the pieces of work that they’ll be doing is to bring it through the W three C or the process, a standards process. There’s now a fedi verse enhancement proposals kind of process that will go and write an extension to activity pub that will allow this to happen. So if you’re interested in the fedi verse and Mastodon, this is something that is working its way through and and we’ll see where this goes.

I’m looking forward to having that capability as I spend more and more of my time [00:53:00] in the fedi verse these days. Second topic this month, I wanna just comment on the fact that, in your world, Neville, the the UK government was being very assertive to Apple, that they wanted the ability to go and have a backdoor to be able to get into any and all encrypted backups of UK citizens in Apple’s iCloud.

They were demanding this under the UK’s Investig Investigatory Powers Act or the Snoopers Charter, as some people call it. They wanted to be able to go and get access to end-to-end encrypted files everywhere. So they were demanding that Apple put a back door in its system. I. If anybody has been watching the news, security news over here in the United States back doors, they never just stay for the government.

We’ve watched here in the United States where a group of Chinese hackers apparently have been able to use back doors in a telecom system to be able to go and get in into [00:54:00] all sorts of conversations and things all over the world. Back doors are an incredibly bad idea. So there’s a lot of concern about what would Apple do.

And what they chose to do is that they’re gonna stop offering their encrypted cloud storage offering something called advanced data protection to users in the uk. So now, as of this time or when this is happening here, UK users will have a less safe experience than anyone else in the rest of the world because they will not be able to have their data protected.

So any of the data, the photos they store, the family photos, the documents, anything else they put in the iCloud. Will not be protected anymore because the UK government wants to go and be able to hack into it or look at it. So, let’s be careful here a little bit about what’s going on.

FaceTime, some of the messaging will still be end-to-end encrypted, but the difference will be that the backups will not be, and so you will not have that protection with, if you turn on the advanced data [00:55:00] protection, your data is end-to-end encrypted. And so Apple can’t see it. A government can’t see it, nobody can see it.

It’s protected with it turned off the government or others could see it. So UK users will be less secure than the rest of the world. We’ll see what happens, whether the UK government relents and agrees with everyone else that back doors are bad or or what will happen. Stay tuned. I wanna end with kind of something a little bit more fun if we’ve been doom scrolling through whatever your service may be, threads, blue Sky, Mastodon, or even those other ones out there.

If you want an alternative, a developer Del Deliver, develop something called Wiki Talk. Yes, it’s a play on TikTok and if you go to their website, which is wiki to W-I-K-I-T-O-C-T-O-K, just search on that with your search engine, you’ll find it quickly. It is something where you can just go and do vertical swipes and like you would in TikTok or something, and [00:56:00] you’ll swipe through random Wikipedia articles.

It sounds hokey, but you know what, it’s . Fun, just looping through and seeing whatever different things are. It doesn’t have videos. It’s not like TikTok in that way. It’s just random articles, which then you can go and be able to click a button and read more. But it’s just something fun.

If you want an alternative to doom scrolling through all the news these days. With that, I’ll turn it back to you guys, shall Neville. Thanks for including me here and I look forward to this listening to the show. The outline you’ve got looks fantastic. So that’s all for me. You can find more in my audio in writing at Dan York.

Me. Thanks for listening back to you guys. Bye for now.

Shel Holtz: Thanks very much, Dan, as always a great report and I cannot wait to go take a look at Wiki talk . It sounds like so much fun. The idea of doom scrolling through Wiki the endless scroll of Wiki articles just sounds wonderful. I gotta give that a try.

Neville Hobson: Leadership is at the heart of everything. I think most of us listening to [00:57:00] this would agree from the highest levels of government to the smallest of communities, but what do people truly want from their leaders? What makes someone worth following? Gallup’s latest global leadership report offers some fascinating insights into this question.

Based on an extensive survey of more than 30,000 people across 52 countries, the research identifies four essential needs that followers expect from those in charge, hope, trust, compassion, and stability. Hope is the most crucial element, said 56% of survey respondents, leaders whose visions for the future inspire confidence and optimism are the ones who leave the most significant impact.

Trust is not far behind. It’s 33% ensuring that people believe in the integrity, honesty, and reliability of those who lead them. Compassion and stability round out the equation, reinforcing the importance of care, empathy, and consistency in leadership by focusing on what leaders contribute to people’s lives.

[00:58:00] Gallup’s study highlights the evolving dynamics of leadership and the critical role of understanding people’s expectations, but here’s where it gets even more interesting. 57% of survey respondents said they’re more likely to name family members as their biggest daily influences, followed by their managers or workplace leaders.

At 18% political and religious lead leaders came in at 7% each with celebrities trailing at just 2%. Leaders in the workplace have significant potential to improve lives with 34% of employed individuals, citing a manager, workplace leader or colleague, as having the most positive impact. And while hope is the primary need in every region, its emphasis varies.

For example, in Europe, people place relatively more importance on trust. While Latin America shows a greater need for compassion, younger people aged 18 to 29 are more likely to seek hope from their leaders compared to older individuals. [00:59:00] The report highlights that when leaders fail to provide hope, trust and stability followers experience higher levels of stress and dissatisfaction, which impacts overall societal wellbeing.

It also suggests that leaders who recognize and act on these needs will foster greater engagement, productivity, and resilience in their communities and organizations. It all means that leadership isn’t just about politics or public figures. It’s about the everyday decisions made in homes, workplaces, businesses, and communities.

Gallup concludes that modern leadership requires self-awareness and understanding of the expectations of followers and the ability to provide clear vision and guidance. Above all, hope is the defining trait that separates influential leaders from the rest. In an era of uncertainty, and dare I say an age of chaos, how can leaders better serve those who look to them for guidance?

How can they cultivate hope and trust in an age of skepticism? And what role do [01:00:00] communicators play in helping leaders connect with their audiences effectively? These are big questions. She .

Shel Holtz: These are huge questions. And how do you convey hope when people are feeling hopeless? That is a skill that is not something that you can just tell your leader they need to do if they don’t.

Already have the character or the experience or just the foundation to, to be able to do that? This is why I think having a leadership coach can be so useful to a lot of leaders. There are people out there who are certified executive coaches. I know a few. In fact I also think it’s worth reexamining the key styles of leadership.

There are, I, you can get master’s degrees in just servant leadership for example. And that’s one of the styles of leadership. It’s the style where you are humble and protective of your people, but you’re also there to serve them. What do you need from me to help you get your job done?

So [01:01:00] the organization can achieve its goals, but there’s also coach. Leadership style, visionary leadership style? Certainly autocratic. Think about Jamie Diamond. If you wanna peg his leadership style, it would be autocratic. There’s laissez-faire, which is hands off, just I’m gonna let people do what they do.

Democratic transformational, transactional, bureaucratic, there’s all these styles and the idea that you can latch onto one of these and beat just that these days, especially in light of the Gallup survey results. I think it’s absurd. If you are primarily a coach, that’s great, but you also need to be

Visionary, and you also need to be a servant to your people. Yeah. So which one of these is your foundational style, and then which other ones do you integrate into your leadership style? And as communicators, especially executive communicators, the communicators who work with. The leaders of the organization.

I think it’s important to work with them on this so that they are able to [01:02:00] pull out the type of leader that is needed in the moment. And, that progressive progress focused inspirational leader, that, that visionary style needs to come out in these days because people need to see that you have a clear vision of where we are headed and how we’re going to navigate through these chaotic times.

And if a leader’s not doing that and it’s certainly not what I’m seeing from the Jamie Diamonds of the world then your employees are going to feel disengaged and nervous. And you’re going to see. Productivity drop, you’re going to see client relations erode. All kinds of bad things happen when your employees don’t feel that they’re being led by people who are in a position to, to get us through this.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. Yeah. That’s about, it’s very valid. I think when I was reading the the global leadership report when I first got a copy last week popped into my mind quite early on that what I thought of hope as the most crucial element, [01:03:00] according to what the survey respondent said I thought of Barack Obama who actually introduced this.

In a memorable way to people globally, not just in America. Do you probably remember back in the first, when he was first elected we had people creating these kind of bits of code. You could get a badge with Obama’s face, you create your own, with your own. They proliferated everywhere across social media back at, back in the time, or blogs mostly as they were then.

But that is enduring what he did. No matter what’s happened since then or since he left politics effectively it, it resonates still with people. And that’s born out in this survey. And there we’re talking about leadership from a national figure in a country, not just a boss at work. This is embracing society as a whole and that element I think is key to ensure we don’t.

Lose sight of that big picture when we talk about, in the workplace and so forth. Yes, that’s important of course, but this is the bigger picture overall. And I think at a time, like where [01:04:00] we’re at now and this has been the thread of this entire episode we’re discussing, is that this is the age of chaos without any question.

And this, we add this then to the list of questions we are asking of communicators. How are you going to help your organization, your leader or boss, your CEO, whoever it might be, navigate this. The rest, the landscape that we’re currently strolling along. And you apply that then to your family.

The pressures I think are immense, particularly on communicators who’ve never really had to really stand out in areas outside their own niche areas. And this, ’cause this is definitely that. There’s no easy answers here, there, there aren’t. There’s just simply this is something to think about and that too take into account and so forth, which is really what we’re doing.

But it is a difficult time. And I think our role. It is precisely as communicators to help leaders be better be the best they can be. Oh God, that’s a [01:05:00] Gillette slogan. I saw an ad for that the other day. the best, best demand can be. That’s the one. Yes. That’s the role basically. And you gotta add all this to everything else we’ve discussed here.

It sounds a horrible laundry list of dreadful things you’ve gotta be aware of. That I am afraid is the landscape. So you don’t need to sit and look at it. Oh my God, having a deal with this. You just need to deal with it. And that’s very easy for me to say. But look at them individually. Don’t think of everything all at once.

That’s the old trick where you wake up at three in the morning and your brain says, okay, here comes everything that you’ve got locked away you are worried about or concerned about. It’s all coming out right now. Don’t do that. I. You need a plan. Coaching is great. That’s a good one.

But there’s so many things to think about that you, you need help. And that’s what professional associations can can really play a big role in that kind of thing. So it’s a bad time we’re in. That’s effect.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. And when Catherine Aero talks about this new role for the communicator, I think this is an, just a perfect [01:06:00] example because first of all, if you’re doing internal communications, presumably you’re listening to employees have a voice and you’re able to distill what you hear into some core messages that you can take to your leaders and say, look it’s fine to say employees need hope, but what do they mean by that?

And how can we craft your messaging and your interactions so that they feel that sense of hope and work with the leaders to project that that’s an ideal role for a communicator in the organization.

Neville Hobson: So bottom line is as the survey points out, hope is the key attribute, let’s say that people look for in leaders to give them hope.

And so our job is to enable the help our leaders do exactly that.

Shel Holtz: Let’s get off of these depressing topics and talk about something that we enjoy talking about, and that’s ai. A relatively new use of AI is con generating considerable buzz in the research community.

And this is [01:07:00] the use of AI generated users or synthetic users as research panelists. As more companies offer these AI driven solutions, we need to weigh their advantages and limitations, especially for communicators and user experience. That’s UX engineers. Synthetic users are AI generated profiles that are designed to simulate real user behaviors, thoughts, and experiences, leveraging large language models.

These artificial . Personas can participate in interviews, surveys, usability tests, panels, providing immediate feedback without it having to engage actual human participants. There are platforms like synthetic users that’s the name of an organization that offers tools to create these AI driven personalities profiles with the goal of streamlining the research process.

Now, there are benefits to doing this that start with speed and efficiency. Synthetic users can be generated and [01:08:00] deployed quickly, accelerating the research timeline. This immediacy is particularly beneficial in fast-paced environments where timely insights are crucial. You don’t have time to go out and recruit a panel and schedule a time for them all to be together, right?

Then there’s cost reduction. Traditional user research. Usually involves considerable expenses related to recruiting participants incentives for them to participate and logistics, especially if you’re gonna pull a focus group together face to face, getting them all into town. At the same time, AI generated users eliminate these costs, making research more accessible, especially for organizations with limited budgets.

Then there’s accessibility to hard to reach demographics. And this is I think one of the more compelling uses of synthetic users, because you can tailor them to represent a specific demographic that can be challenging to recruit. This could be a niche market sensitive population. And now these synthetic users can provide insights that might be harder to [01:09:00] obtain otherwise.

And there’s also, and I’m not sure this is necessarily a good thing, but I guess some researchers like consistency in responses. AI driven personas offer standardized feedback, reducing variability, and enabling clear comparisons across different studies or product inter iterations. But don’t, kick back and think, wow, this is great,

I’m gonna start using synthetic users for my research. Because there are downsides and limitations that start with the lack of genuine human emotion and behavior. As human behavior is complex and context to dependent, synthetic users are data-driven, so they may not capture the depth of real human emotions, spontaneous reactions, or the nuanced decision-making processes that genuine users exhibit.

Then there’s the potential for inaccurate or overly positive feedback. Studies have shown that AI generated responses can sometimes be overly positive or fail to reflect the critical perspectives that real users [01:10:00] might provide. That’ll skew your data. Relying solely on synthetic users raises questions about the authenticity of the data and the ethical impli implications of making decisions based on artificial feedback.

There’s a risk of missing out on genuine user voices, which are crucial and empathetic and user-centered design. And then, AI generated users may lack the ability to provide context rich insights that come from personal experiences, environmental factors and cultural backgrounds. And these often are critical in understanding user needs and behaviors.

I. We don’t come to you with problems and no solutions. So here’s the advice for communicators and UX engineers first. And this makes me think immediately of Mitch Joel who said it’s not, instead of, it’s a long with use synthetic users as a supplement, not a replacement.

While AI generated users can provide quick and cost effective insights, they should compliment, not replace research involving real users. [01:11:00] Balancing both approaches makes sure that the depth and authenticity of human feedback are preserved. You need to validate your AI generated insights with real user data before making significant decisions based on synthetic user feedback.

Cross-reference the findings with any data that you can find from actual users to make sure that it’s accurate and relevant. Be transparent about the methodologies that you used. This is really important from an ethical perspective. When you’re presenting your research findings, be very clear that you use synthetic users in your methodology.

Transparency builds trust and allows stakeholders to understand the context and potential limitations of the data and stay informed about the ethical I implications of synthetic users. Keep yourself educated, keep your team educated about the ethical considerations surrounding AI and research, and come up with some guidelines to ensure that your use of synthetic users aligns with your organization’s values [01:12:00] and respects user dignity For communicators and UX designer, the key lies in integrating synthetic users thoughtfully into a broader research strategy, ensuring the technology enhances rather than replaces the individual perspectives of real users.

Neville Hobson: That’s a lot to digest in that shell, I think starting with how much, I hate the phrase synthetic user, but it’s part of the lexicon. I get it. I. The main thing I would say is really to, what kind of echo what you said there, that to don’t use just this should compliment what you’re doing, which is how I have always approached using generative ai.

Generally speaking, it doesn’t replace, it compliments things that I’m doing. It enhances what I’m doing. This is surely how we should be looking at this. I think though, that there are big alarm bells. I’ve read a couple of articles that all they talk about are the cons. And I agree there are definite pros to doing this speed.

Ideally accuracy, [01:13:00] but assuming that it’s been fed accurate. Input to give the accurate output. It’s is part of the landscape and it is likely to increase in that way. But there should be big guardrails on this. And I think the ethical question is one that comes in there that it is really important to, to behave ethically and transparently.

And there we come against the age old human element. ’cause a lot of people don’t do that. It is part of the landscape and responsible people responsible communicators and others will do, use it wisely. We’ll take advantage of the benefits of this that will enhance and improve perhaps what they’re doing without using a tool like this.

And those who don’t, aren’t going to benefit and they just muddy the overall landscapes. You’ve gotta be aware of that, but this is part of what is evolving. And you just gotta be. Sure. Really sure of what you’re doing and how you’re going about it. That doesn’t leave any doubt in anyone’s mind about your own honesty and transparency.[01:14:00]

Shel Holtz: Yeah. What worries me is that there are going to be research reports released that are based on. What was gleaned from a panel of synthetic users. And you won’t know that, and we’ll be making decisions based on this when the data could be really flawed. Now I’ve been aware of synthetic users for a while.

It’s not a new idea relatively speaking because, I’ve talked to people. Yeah, the idea of employee personas is certainly not new that’s been around for, 30 or 40 years at least, maybe even longer. The idea that we have created a persona to represent this cohort of employees in the organization that helps us craft our communication if we know it’s largely meant for that portion of the audience.

And I have been aware that people have been translating their employee personas that they may have had around for years to ai, because now you can query. The persona, which is nice, [01:15:00] right? Yeah. And I think I’ve mentioned on the show once before, I was talking to an executive communicator. His team has trouble getting to the CEO just because of his schedule and unavailability.

So they’ve created a persona, an AI persona of their CEO based on all his speeches and all of his writing and everything that they could throw in there about him. And now if he’s not available and they’re writing a speech and they need to know what he would think about this they’ll query the AI version.

Now, that’s not the final say. Obviously the CEO’s gonna review the speech before he delivers it. But it’s an interesting approach. What I hadn’t thought about was assembling a group of these as a focus group or using them for something as. Seriously research focus as testing this user interface and telling us if it works for you based on the fact that you are from this region or are in this age group.

So that [01:16:00] worries me. That, I think the advice that was here about blending real humans with this research, using it as a supplement, as good advice, there are people who won’t take that advice. They’re just gonna take the cheap and easy way out.

Neville Hobson: Yeah I’m just reminded of one of the concluding points I read in one of the articles you shared from a company called IDO id o.com the case against AI generated users, and you’ll love this or not maybe, but one of their researchers says, using synthetic humans for direct research is like naval gazing, but not at our own navels , but into the great, messy, cluttered, and often disgusting naval of the internet with a capital I, Dan will like that.

The capital I, the solution isn’t to make up fake people. It’s getting better access to real people. I’ve been toying with that in my mind because I’m not sure I agree. The solution isn’t to make up fake people. It’s getting better access to three people. That’s actually not what’s happening. So that’s not, I don’t believe [01:17:00] a valid criticism, but it’s a, it’s like what I have heard from other people.

So again, that’s what you’ve gotta deal with when you’re trying to sell this idea internally.

Shel Holtz: Absolutely. I remember going out to Dell in Round Rock, Texas, and I was there with a group of social media folks in the early days. And I learned while I was there that they found the people who were making the most negative comments in the Dell forums online and convened basically a panel of them brought them, actually flew them out to Round Rock and had meetings with them.

What is it that drives you crazy about us? Because they figured that if they could solve some of these problems, they’d make a lot more people happy than just them. If you tried to. Encapsulate them in a synthetic persona, are you going to get the same level of information as you would from these people who are really pissed off at you?

And I have to say, I doubt it. It, you might get the basics, but it’s gonna be [01:18:00] sanitized. And as the research shows probably a little more positive than your real critics would be.

Neville Hobson: That’s a good point. So that was probably not long after Del Hell. I would’ve thought that in those earlier days where Jeff Jarvis was the star of that saga is great Wikipedia page if you’re interested in knowing what that was all about.

Because that’s 20 years ago now.

Shel Holtz: Yeah, I remember that.

Neville Hobson: Me too.

Shel Holtz: Tell hell .

Neville Hobson: Goodness me. That was a nice little diversion in, into a cul-de-sac away from all the terrible stuff we’ve been talking about. Le let’s get back to the terrible stuff. , look at our final story, which is at least it’s not politics.

No, this one is definitely not politics. Is it the end of the road for LinkedIn hashtags? Great question. For years social media managers, marketers, and content creators have relied on hashtags to increase reach, improve discoverability, and categorize their posts. But what happens when a platform like LinkedIn starts pulling back on their importance?

Luke, [01:19:00] Brendan Jones raises this very question in his LinkedIn post the end of the road for LinkedIn hashtags where he explores LinkedIn’s shifting stance on this once powerful tool previously using three to 10 hashtags in the LinkedIn post would significantly increase reach as the platform relied on them for categorization and discoverability.

However, LinkedIn’s improved natural language processing now allows it to determine a posts topic without the need for hashtags. Some reports suggest that LinkedIn is gradually making hashtags irrelevant with some even predicting they’ll become unclickable within the next year. It is a significant reversal considering that LinkedIn only introduced hashtag support in 2018.

So what does this mean for communicators and marketers? Are hashtags officially dead on LinkedIn, or do they still hold value? Bernie Jones argues that while hashtags may no longer be a discovery tool, they still serve as visual markers helping readers quickly understand a post’s theme. They [01:20:00] also remain valuable for branding, categorization, and campaign tracking.

The shift also reflects a broader trend across platforms. Instagram, for example, has recently imposed limits on hashtag use while X, formerly Twitter and TikTok continue to rely on them. Blue Sky supports them as does threats, although in the latter case, a thread message will only enable one hashtag out menu if you include more than one.

There is real value in using them strategically said one reader on LinkedIn to Brin Jones’ Post, there’s still a useful tool for our B2B client. She says to ensure primary keywords are covered, especially in a thought leadership strategy, when you may have a post that focuses on a secondary topic rather than thinking of them as a way to be found.

It’s more about reinforcing relevance within a niche. Another reader said, I think unless LinkedIn is actually starting to penalize hashtag use this key point in your article will remain very true. Even denuded of their discoverability power [01:21:00] hashtags provide strong visual labels for your content to flag it as to flag it to relevant readers at a glance.

So should we abandon hashtags on LinkedIn altogether or simply rethink how we use them? Bri Jones says, in my view, the LinkedIn hashtag hasn’t reached the end of the road. Just a consequential fork. What do you think she.

Shel Holtz: I think it’s sad that we’re not gonna be able to use ’em for discovery anymore. And I agree that they are visual cues, but it’s important to remember that hashtags like the at symbol to designate a, an individual were user generated tools.

These were not innovations from the social networks themselves. It was users going, Hey I think this would be a great way for people to be able to find posts, comments that deal with this topic. I gotta tell you I am currently at work. Going through the transition from one intranet provider to a provider [01:22:00] of an integrated internal communications platform.

Our current intranet, I won’t name the vendor because I don’t wanna say anything bad about them, but I don’t like the platform. If we wanna tag an article so people can search for the article, we have to go into SharePoint and go through this rigmarole to establish a tag that now shows up on the intranet.

And when I want to tag the article, I have to go to the tag page and find the tag and click it. It’s a process. The one we’re switching to, the tags are all based on hashtags. Anybody who creates a hashtag, that now becomes a searchable term and. The reason this user generated approach to coming up with the searchable label for this kind of content is that the people who are in charge don’t necessarily know what’s important to a group of users.

I. I am not a construction superintendent. I don’t know what the issues are that they are grappling with, but if there is something that has emerged and over the course of [01:23:00] the next month or so, they need to have a conversation about this and it’s going to be intermingled on teams or down the road in a community on the intranet.

Once we get this thing launched all they need to do is establish that hashtag and now the system will be able to group all that content together. We could even put it all in one widget if we want to, and it’s in their control. And that’s what I like about this. If this is a user focused environment in the social space losing that control I think is not a good thing.

But even with LinkedIn making this decision I do agree just being able to see that pound symbol at a glance, I can say, oh, this is of interest to me. I’m gonna go ahead and read the rest of this post.

Neville Hobson: Yeah. By the way, we never call that a pound symbol. Here in the UK we call it a hashtag. A hashtag Hash symbol.

Yeah, hash symbol. Hashtag you call it pound symbol because it means pound weight, right? Is that why you call it that? Because here, I have no idea. I just know that

Shel Holtz: it’s no pound time. [01:24:00] Sound sign and we quote the hashtag design too, but

Neville Hobson: yeah, you do. I know, I was just teasing. It reminds me this does of Chris Messina, who is the guy who invented the hashtag this was about gosh, getting onto 18 or so more years ago now.

And I interviewed him actually on an episode when you were traveling and I was doing one, one solo and I interviewed him. This was September, 2023 in episode 3 55, as the numbering was then. And he was talking about that it’s time for an upgrade to the hashtag that was his big argument at a time when it was under threat from being hijacked for nefarious purposes on the negative side, but it wasn’t delivering what he thought it ought to have been doing.

And I’m wondering what he would think of this idea on just one platform, but it could spread to others. This discoverability element is not is not so strong. If that vantage is linked in, I think that would be a shame. Um. I think Luke Briney Jones was, had a good post and the people who [01:25:00] left comments there had good points to make.

So there’s no kind of solution of answer to the question. Are hashtags done and over with on LinkedIn? I don’t think the other commenters made that play in their view. So maybe it largely comes down to usability by users to keep it going. Maybe

Shel Holtz: would be if users adopt something it tends to find its way into the mix from the social network owners.

We’ll see. Also I do see them on blue sky, so

Neville Hobson: yeah, they’re alive somewhere. blue sky is Twitter was back in the day where you could actually pepper your posts with hashtags. Sensible use doesn’t suggest that. But that’s still embryonic, relatively speaking. It’s still small, but I search for hashtags like I used to on Twitter, and that’s one way of surfacing content.

So there’s no sign or signal that, as far as I know from Blue Sky, this is gonna stop. So I hope it doesn’t I hope LinkedIn doesn’t abandon support for it the way it seems that it seems [01:26:00] to be going, and that’ll be a shame if they do.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. And the other thing is, so you remember, they haven’t been as, as prevalent lately as they once were, but hashtag campaigns and on LinkedIn for B2B organizations to run a hashtag campaign I think people are gonna miss being able to do that.

Neville Hobson: I agree.

Shel Holtz: And that’ll wrap up this episode of four immediate release, episode number 452 for February, 2025. Hope you’ve enjoyed it. Our next episode is scheduled to drop on Monday, March 24th. That’s our. Long form monthly episode. We’ll be back with midweek episodes here in a little bit. Until then, we hope that you will comment as so many people did.

And I have to say, all of the comments that we shared in today’s episode came from LinkedIn. They were comments left to the posts announcing the availability of an episode on LinkedIn. That’s not the only way to comment. You can comment by sending an email to fir [01:27:00] comments@gmail.com. I scroll scrolled through 227 emails in that account and not one of them was a legitimate comment.

Most of it was spam . But you could do that. You can attach an audio file up to three minutes. We would love to play a clip of your comment. We haven’t had one of those in a long time. It would be great. You can leave a comment directly on the show notes at FIR. Podcast network.com. You can leave a comment in the FIR community on Facebook.

There are lots of ways that you can get your comments to us wherever we share an announcement, we do it on Facebook, we do it on threads, we do it on Blue Sky. Wherever you’re following us, leave a comment. We’ll find it and share it here on the show. And we also appreciate your ratings and reviews wherever you’re inclined to do that.

And until our next episode, that’ll be a 30 for immediate release.

The post FIR #452: Communicating in Chaos appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

Leaked audio of JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon reveals an executive who has dug in his heels and has no interest in listening to the voice of the employee. In the clip, he essentially tells employees, “My way or the highway.”

While the return-to-office mandates don’t represent a majority of businesses, they have been high-profile, as have employee responses, most of which plead for continued accommodation of remote or hybrid work schedules. Executives, of course, are empowered to make the final decision, but ignoring the voice of the employee comes with high risks, including the loss of top talent and disengagement among those who remain.

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that productivity and morale are higher with remote workers, but that ultimately depends on the culture the organization has established to support it. In this short midweek FIR episode, Neville and Shel listen to Dimon’s rant and offer their thoughts on the state of work in this volatile era.

Links from this episode:

• Leaked Audio: Here’s What JPMorgan CEO Dimon Said About Hiring and Remote Work
• “I’ve had it”: JP Morgan boss rails against Gen Z in expletive-laden outburst
• Meta CTO says employees who think ‘everyone has to like’ its policy changes should ‘quit’ and ‘consider working elsewhere’
• Meta censors internal dissent over Mark Zuckerberg cozying up to Trump: report
• Dimon Says He’d Be Cutting ‘Stupid’ DEI Costs Even Without Trump
• Terry Szuplat on LinkedIn: Wow. Zuck just gave every CEO a masterclass…in how NOT to announce layoffs
• Meta’s recent layoffs take an unexpected turn
• Gen Z Wants More Face-to-Face Interaction in the Workplace, Survey Finds
• Meta employees question the company’s removal of posts on its internal forum: ‘This is a free speech issue’
• Remote work is now the top requested workplace accommodation
• The Big Four are sticking with hybrid work. Here are the RTO policies of Deloitte, KPMG, EY, and PwC.
• Returning to the office? Focus more on practices and less on the policy
• In-person work doubled over the past year, survey finds
• ‘Hush hybrid’: When some employees work from home despite in-office policy
• Hybrid And Remote Work Still On The Rise, Despite Misconceptions, Study Shows
• Opinion | The unexpected impacts of ending remote work
• Hybrid Work Reigns Supreme, Despite Leadership Doubts
• Hybrid working has benefits over fully in-person working — the evidence mounts
• WFH isn’t going anywhere: 1 in 4 active job listings offer full-time hybrid; remote arrangements
• Hybrid/Remote Isn’t Going Anywhere. It’s Time to Stop Treating It like an Interim Arrangement (Shel Holtz’s blog)

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, February 24.

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

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

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

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

Raw transcript:

Hi everybody and welcome to episode number 451 of four immediate release. I’m Shel Holtz.

Neville: And I’m Neville Hobson. Jamie Diamond, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase made headlines last week when a leaked recording of a staff meeting captured him delivering an expletive filled tirade about remote work. His frustration was clear. He’s had it with hybrid working bureaucracy and what he sees as employees slacking off on Zoom. We’ll dive into his rant next. In his rant, diamond dismissed work from home Fridays as a fast. He claimed Gen Z employees are being left behind due to remote work and accused staff of wasting time in meetings and approvals. He made it clear JP Morgan employees should be in the office or find another job. It is a stark example of the growing divide between corporate leaders trying to enforce [00:01:00] return to office policies and employees who have embraced flexibility the way Diamond delivered.

His message raises bigger questions, not just about the future of work, but about leadership itself. Here’s a clip of the last 20 seconds of diamond’s remarks where he lays into remote work bureaucracy and his expectations for JP Morgan employees. Bear in mind the tone and included expletives, so put your earbuds in if you’re listening in the office.

Jamie Dimon: Now you have a choice. You don’t have to work at JP Morgan. So the people of you who don’t wanna work at the company, that’s fine with me. I’m not, I’m not mad at you. Don’t be mad at me. It’s a free country. You can walk with your feet, you know? But this company’s gonna set our own standards and do it our own way. I. And, and I’ve had it with this kind of stuff and you [00:02:00] know, I, I come in, you know, I’ve been working seven days a goddamn week since Covid, and I come in and I, where’s everybody else? Are they here or there? And the zooms and the zooms don’t show up. And people say they didn’t get stuff. So that’s not how you run a great company. We didn’t build this great company by doing that, by doing the same semi disease shit that everybody else does.

Neville Hobson: Well, that’s quite something. Shell really quite extraordinary. His remarks are a, a high profile example of the ongoing struggle between executives pushing for office returns and employees who value flexibility. His outburst may energize some traditionalists, but at risks alienating younger workers, harming employee morale and reinforcing jps Morgan. Morgan’s image as an inflexible employer, it serves as a strong [00:02:00] example of executive missteps in workplace communication. broader debate on remote work’s future undoubtedly continue, but diamond’s handling of the issue may not win. JP Morgan, the hearts and minds of its workforce. shell, what’s your take on his approach?

Shel Holtz: His approach suck. Is my take on his approach. Yeah. It, it’s, it’s made headlines, but the reality of the workplace tells a, a different story despite all of the skepticism from some executives. And I think it’s worth pointing out that something like 60% of organizations are sticking with their, their hybrid or remote arrangements they, they continue to thrive in this.

Configuration and the data overwhelmingly supports the staying power of, of hybrid and remote work arrangements. You have studies consistently show that nearly one in four active job listings still offer full-time hybrid or remote options. And this aligns with broader trends across [00:03:00] industries. A lot of companies recognize flexibility is a key factor in attracting and retaining talent.

I saw one study very recently that said retention is higher. In organizations that allow remote and hybrid work and, and the cost of replacing employees is high. And we, we see a lot of employees disaffected in the current work environment and even in sectors where leadership is pushing return to office, employees are resisting requests for remote work accommodations have searched, is one of the most sought

Workplace benefits, but the tension between employees and executives just keeps growing. There was a McKinsey report that highlighted the successful return to office strategies, focusing less on rigid policies and more on. Effective workplace practices, companies that force mandates without addressing employee concerns, risk disengagement, and attrition.

Deloitte [00:04:00] EY formerly, formerly Ernst and Young PWC, formerly PricewaterhouseCoopers and KPMG are all experimenting with different hybrid models. Acknowledging that one size fits all doesn’t work. The firms recognize that employees expect some degree of autonomy in their work arrangements. In fact, autonomy.

And purpose are among the key intrinsic rewards that employees seek in the workplace. And all of this is reinforced by findings in the Washington Post, which point out that businesses rigidly enforcing return to office policies are facing, push pushback, higher turnover, and decreased productivity.

There’s also a major contradiction at play. Many executives are lamenting a lack of in-office collaboration. Yet employees report feeling unheard in workplace decisions. Internal communication best practices emphasize two-way dialogue, yet a lot of leaders out there like Jamie Diamond. Are failing to listen, engage for success.

This is a an [00:05:00] employee engagement initiative over there with you in the uk, Neville, they’ve long identified employee voice as one of the four enablers of engagement. When workers feel like their concerns are being dismissed, whether it’s about work flexibility, productivity measures, or broader company policies, then they disengage.

This recent internal backlash at Meta that we’ve seen is a case in point. Employees questioned leadership decisions only to have internal discussion forums, censored that deepens mistrust. So you have this widening gulf between employees and leaders. I. Interestingly, while Gen Z employees express a desire for more face-to-face interaction, it’s not necessarily about being physically in the office five days a week.

What younger workers want is meaningful connection, mentorship and clear career progression things that aren’t automatically guaranteed just by bringing people into the office. If anything, research shows us that hybrid work when done right, can enhance [00:06:00] collaboration rather than hinder it. There was a report in the magazine nature that underscored how hybrid models improve efficiency while maintaining work-life balance.

And then there’s morale Studies are emerging around hush hybrid. This is a phenomenon where employees pretend to comply with return to office policies while actually working remotely as much as possible. It’s their supervisors who are enabling this. So we get a major disconnect between leaders and employees.

One that can erode trust and weaken workplace culture. Companies like JP Morgan Chase that fail to acknowledge this risk. Alienating their workforce, particularly when there’s clear evidence that hybrid and remote work aren’t just popular, but effective diamond’s, broader fru frustration isn’t just about hybrid work.

His comments about cutting what he calls stupid DEI costs reflect a larger mindset shift among some corporate leaders. But whether it’s workplace flexibility [00:07:00] or diversity initiatives, executives who ignore employee sentiment do so with their own peril. Companies that succeed in this evolving landscape will be the ones that balance leadership priorities with genuine employee engagement.

The world of work has changed whether leaders like it or not, the smartest companies are fighting against. These aren’t fighting against these shifts, they’re adapting to them.

Neville: Yeah, it’s, it’s interesting. Listen to what you’re saying. I mean, seen a lot of these surveys too in these reports, and the thing that I just wonder you know, surveys indicate time and time again that workers value flexibility with productivity studies, Showing mixed results on whether remote work hinders or enhances efficiency. many executives are struggling to enforce office attendance post pandemic, leading to tensions between leadership employees, as you point out. But this, this, we, this kind of surfaces with regularity. Every week almost seems to be, there’s another survey saying, here are the benefits, and [00:08:00] yet people like Jamie Diamond Say what they’re saying on one you know, on one level or another, a rant like his edicts about, you’ve gotta come to the office or the unspoken part, find another job. So what is it you think then that is going to, I guess. Make the common sense view as I see it according to the surveys the ascendant in all of this, and not the other way around. Because what I see almost every time I look at a business journal or the business section of the newspaper is another company’s trying to enforce you gotta come back to the office. That’s relentless. So is that, do you think?

Shel Holtz: I think it’s a combination of detachment and arrogance. I think the, these leaders are not close to their workers. They’re not listening. They’ve, they’ve shut down either their own ability to listen or the listening channels. I mean, Facebook meta, I. Has done this by censoring their internal [00:09:00] channels.

So employees can’t talk about this stuff with each other. And I think it was the, was it the CTO? I can’t remember his name, but he was reported at meta telling employees you called it the quiet part. He came right out and said, you don’t have to work here. I think Diamond said the same thing out loud too.

Neville: Oh, a number, a number of times in his rent. Yes.

Shel Holtz: Yeah. And that’s what’s happening in a lot of these return to office initiatives is that the best employees, the, the, the greatest talent in the organization, they’re the ones leaving they value the ability to have greater work-life balance that comes with a hybrid arrangement. And they’d rather work for an organization that appreciates that and accommodates it.

Rather than one that puts its foot down. Yeah. And, and there are some other issues that are emerging out of this as well. I mean, in addition to attrition, I was reading that Amazon, which has required all employees to come back to the office, finds it doesn’t have enough office space for them. So where are they gonna put ’em?

You know, I’ve probably, in [00:10:00] of the US federal government offices that are now

Neville: Well

Shel Holtz: I.

Neville: I was gonna, I was gonna mention that in, in the context of what is happening since Trump took office the firing of thousands of of public sector workers in the us. Is that, do you think I. Emboldening those companies with leaders like Jamie Diamond to really go hard on this. You’ve gotta come back and you can always leave if you don’t like the idea. stimulating, I guess more fear, more panic, more alarm about your own career and your, whether you’re gonna have a job or not. And, and so. The kind of stories that are part and parcel of the reporting, I suppose that people are leaving in droves. The best ones are going and finding work elsewhere.

Are they really? Is, is this perhaps another indicator of the you know, goodbye to the first two decades of this century? That was the golden time really of, of travel everywhere. Easy money, no low interest. Ideas people could start. the idea of [00:11:00] DEI took roots and suddenly that’s all in retreat in the face of this, this literal relentless authoritarianism we’re seeing that the US is certainly promoting and that’s having repercussions elsewhere in Europe, certainly so. Is this the end of, these choices that you better buckle down if you want to keep a job because you will not find it easy to get another one? Is that, is that what we’re looking at? Do you think?

Shel Holtz: At least the pendulum has swung that way for now. eventually swing back again, as it always does. But yeah, I think you have seen this kind of behavior from people like Mark Zuckerberg, who I think I. Initially felt like they needed to accommodate Trump in order to stay out of his crosshairs, and then found that this bro alpha male sort of approach to leadership appealed to him.

This is somebody, of course, who did not go to management school [00:12:00] or work his way up through an organization to learn how cultures work. He built a company from the ground up. He’s always been in charge and doesn’t know any better. He, he used to have Sheryl Sandberg there to sort of moderate him.

Now he’s saying she was the problem, her, her influence, led them to do all of these woke things. But you know, the job market is definitely tightening right now, but the best people will always be able. To find a job and the data that I shared, one in four job listings is either full-time hybrid or full-time remote.

Those people are gonna pick those best who are out looking for companies that accommodate that. And. You’re gonna end up with the companies like JP Morgan Chase are gonna be left with a workforce characterized by mediocrity and who wants to do business with that. I anticipate that if employees listen and say, yeah, I don’t wanna work here.

I can go get a job, I. Where I can have work life balance [00:13:00] and I can be productive and I can do great work, and I will come in when there’s a reason to come in. I, I just wrote about this today, by the way. I think face-to-face is vitally important. You just need to do it. As a mandate when there’s something going on where people are gonna be able to interact, because I gotta tell you, Neville when I am working in an open space I usually have an office with a closed door.

When I go to one of our offices, the other office I, I. Sit out in the open office environment. If I am nose down writing articles or preparing a report or editing video, I have my earbuds in so people won’t bother me. And this is really common in those environments. So bringing people into the office when the work they have to do is individual contributor work doesn’t create collaboration.

It doesn’t create innovation. It just creates frustration and isolation. Let people do that work at home, and I’m, of course I’m talking about [00:14:00] the people who can, there are obviously

many jobs out there that don’t work from home. I, I work in the construction industry. Buildings can’t build themselves with workers working from home and.

What we need to do is acknowledge that hybrid remote is the way of the world these days, and start to train managers to manage hybrid and remote teams so they understand how to do that in a way that doesn’t disenfranchise, disengage Those full-time onsite workers who feel like they don’t get to take advantage of a benefit that other workers do.

This is, this is a consequence of treating it like. It’s an interim solution to a short term problem as opposed to a tectonic shift in the way work is done.

Neville: I think another thing that got me thinking as well, listening to to diamond’s rent [00:15:00] he highlighted things. I see other people talking about other leaders and organizations, the ones who . Argue for a return to work. So Diamond’s example in this case was talking about the, the Zoom and the Zoomers who don’t show up.

I mean, I’m in on a Friday and where is everyone? They’re not here. he talks at the beginning of his rent. And this is where most of the. His expletives come in about people on Zoom calls, who all they do is is chat with each other and, and, and, you know, insult others, of what idiots they are and stuff like that. I, I, I refuse to believe that’s completely common practice in his organization that’s tells me there’s something seriously wrong in that organization. If that is the case.

Shel Holtz: What you’re looking at, there is a, a leader who is trying to force a. In the office culture on a workplace that is now hybrid and the culture has to change to accommodate it. The, the problem here is [00:16:00] not solved by making everybody come back to the office. It’s by implementing policies and building a culture in which people understand that this is the way we do things on Zoom, and this is, is not acceptable.

I mean, there to consequences for that kind of behavior, right?

Neville: Sure. I mean, he, he’s got a wholly different view to that, in which case I would argue just, if this is an example, nothing’s gonna change there at any time soon. As long as he’s the CEO

Shel Holtz: No, I don’t think anything’s gonna change there as long as the CEO is Jamie Diamond and the dinosaurs like him who look up in the sky and, and see the asteroid coming and say things don’t have to change, you know? Let’s see what happens to JP Morgan Chase’s earnings over the next couple of years as he continues alienating his workforce or building a workforce of people who, you know, are content to come into the office every day, and, you know, is that the workforce that’s gonna produce the kind of bottom line results that the shareholders [00:17:00] are looking for?

I doubt it. I, I don’t think so.

Neville: So what’s your, what would you say to communicators in an organization where this, not necessarily the CEO, but senior leadership or people in positions of power have this attitude. What would you say to them?

Shel Holtz: I think we need to as internal communicators serve as a conduit for information to move up. Jamie Diamond’s not listening to his employees beyond the messages that they are sort of inflicting on him petitions and the like. And he has said he doesn’t care. You could do as many petitions you want.

I don’t care Contextualized. By the communications team to say, look, these are the issues. This is what’s happening. Let’s look at the data. Let’s look at our attrition rates. Let, let’s look at who we’re losing and what the pool is like out there of people who are willing to come work for an organization where they can’t be.

Hybrid or, or, or [00:18:00] remote. And, and to present the scenarios that can make all of this work so that he is satisfied. I, he, he began his rant talking about young employees, right? But a young employee being in the office head down with an earbuds, with the earbuds in their ears so that they can focus on their work.

They’re not getting the mentorship. Or the exposure to the culture or the other things, you know, the, the, the clear career paths that, that they crave. And there’s no reason that that has to be . Limited to an in the office experience. I, I am a big believer in face-to-face. I have repeated a line for years I heard at a conference, which is that we we’re hardwired for face-to-face communication.

And anything that isn’t is, is a corruption of face-to-face communication. I mean, this, this goes back to, you know, the days of our lizard brains with fight and flight reactions, right? It’s all face to face. I do think that that’s important and I think . [00:19:00] A corporate or an organizational identity a sense of shared common purpose face-to-face in the real world, not on Zoom.

I is important and I think that organizations should create the opportunities for that. This, you know, you, you might. Chuckle at the idea of the company picnic, but getting everybody together for a casual non-work event where you can have exposure to the leaders of the organization in that kind of, you know, casual setting where you can.

Engage with a lot of people that you don’t see all the time and have a sense, wow, this is, this is the company. It’s not just my team that I interact with and my internal clients that I interact with. I get a sense of this broader team. The same thing with town hall meetings. Get everybody together, have a social hour before that with, with some beverages and, and some hors d’oeuvres, and then let people mingle for an hour after the town hall is over and have this interaction and have [00:20:00] this opportunity.

To see the whole organization or your part of the whole organization together. Bring people into the office when there are big meetings to be had or, or celebrations, or recognitions reasons to have everybody in the same place at the same time. Focus on the reason. For having people work from home or come into the office rather than they need to be here five days a week, or they need to be here three days a week, even if they are gonna jam earbuds into their ears and, you know, focus on their, their single, you know, individual contributor work.

Neville: Yeah. I find it very surprising that that we’re, you know what you just outlined, here we are in 2025. I remember this kind of thing in the mid nineties talking about this town halls, picnics, or get togethers with everyone in an informal setting in the organization. So here we are 25 to 30 years later and we’re still talking about that.

Something’s not right here. It seems to me.

Shel Holtz: [00:21:00] No, I agree. And, and I think it’s intractable leadership that is to blame here. They’re not listening, they’re not engaging, they’re, they’re not collaborating. Something that they’re telling everybody that they’re bent on is, is more collaboration, but they’re not doing it. And, and again, this is a minority of organizations, most are still.

Embracing hybrid and remote. But they’re gonna continue to have conflict. They’re gonna continue to have disaffected, disengaged employees until they wrap their minds around the fact that that hybrid and remote are here to stay. Either that or, you know, they die and are replaced.

Neville: Yeah. Well, it’s a, it’s a huge topic and we’ve touched on something that’s made the news headlines last week. it makes us think about this. And indeed listeners, if you have any thoughts on this topic, any experiences you wanna share, we’d love to hear them. So let us know.

I.

Shel Holtz: We definitely would, and the link to the full rant as it was recorded in a leak will be in the show notes and that’ll be a 30 for this episode of [00:22:00] four immediate release.

The post FIR #451: Return-to-Office-Obsessed Execs Are Minimizing the Employee Voice appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

Listen to communicators talk about their impact on their organizations and you would be forgiven for thinking that executives find their communication teams to be indispensable. Recent research says otherwise. As complexities mount in the worlds of business, media, and politics, less than 20 percent of senior executives are confident their communicators and public affairs professionals are up to the task of navigating the current environment. Neville and Shel outline the research results and discuss ways communicators can reverse this troubling trend.

Links from this episode:

• CEO confidence in communications dwindles, new report
• Study: Only 17% of Executives Have High Confidence in Their Comms Function

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, February 24.

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

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

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

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

Raw transcript:

Hi everyone, and welcome to episode four 50 of four immediate release. I’m Neville Hobson. And I’m Shell Holtz. And there’s a very troubling trend emerging one that might be surprising given all the rhetoric we’ve heard about how communications Star Rose during the CO pandemic four years ago. What we’re seeing today is.

Kind of the opposite of that the declining confidence that CEOs have in their communication leaders and teams. This isn’t just an anecdotal observation. There’s a new study from Weber Shandwick and KRC research that finds that only 17% of senior executives have high confidence in their communications and public affairs functions.

That means more than 80% of executives feel that their comms teams aren’t where they need to be. That’s a striking statistic, and it suggests that many CEOs and senior leaders don’t see their communications teams as ready to handle the complex challenges that [00:01:00] those leaders are facing today. We’ll dive into this research right after we try to sell you something.

So what’s driving this lack of confidence among CEOs in their communicators? One factor is the sheer complexity of the business landscape. The environment today is unpredictable. Geopolitical conflicts, economic uncertainty, social movements, misinformation, campaigns, and other things may get harder than ever for companies to.

Consistent and trusted messaging. At the same time, digital transformation and AI driven automation are changing the way companies engage with employees, customers, and the public. Executives who participated in this study ranked delivering economic value as the highest priority. At 41%, functional value came in second at 24%.

Almost half the number of executives who ranked economic value as most important ethical, societal and emotional values ranked significantly lower each with [00:02:00] less than 15% of executives saying they were top priorities. And that says something. It suggests that many leaders are still viewing communications primarily through a financial lens, how comms supports revenue growth, investor confidence, market performance.

While that’s understandable, it also reveals a gap in how communications is valued as a strategic business function. I. Take stakeholder priorities. For example, the study found that while 79% of executives say it’s very important to consider all stakeholders, there’s a big gap in which stakeholders actually get attention.

Customers and shareholders remain the top priority, but only 45% of executives see employees as key stakeholders in decision making, and just 22% consider the communities where their businesses operate to be essential. That’s a problem I. Employee engagement, company culture and corporate reputation are all directly tied to communication effectiveness.

If leaders don’t see employees as central to [00:03:00] the company’s success, they may also fail to recognize how critical internal communications is in shaping workforce alignment, motivation, and retention. This desk this disconnect extends to what CEOs expect from their communications leaders. The research shows that many CEOs are looking for a T-shaped communicator, someone with broad knowledge across multiple areas, but deep expertise in a specific function.

Sustainability. For example, finance or employee engagement. That makes sense given the complexity of moderate business. But it also suggests that communication professionals need to move beyond traditional PR and corporate messaging to embed themselves deeper into business operations, risk management, and strategy.

That’s interesting. In light of the study we reported just a few months ago that found more and more CCOs, chief communication officers are in fact seeing their roles expand beyond communication. Another issue is the rapid rise of AI and automation, [00:04:00] which is reshaping communication workflows, and executives may not be seeing their communication teams leading the charge on these innovations.

If comms leaders aren’t proactively demonstrating how AI and digital transformation can improve corporate storytelling, employee engagement and crisis response, CEOs may assume they’re not adapting fast enough. The study also reveals that in large companies, that’s companies with more than 50,000 employees operating in 20 or more countries, executive confidence and communication teams is even lower.

This suggests that as organizations scale, the ability for communication teams to maintain strategic alignment and influence across global markets becomes much harder. So what should communication professionals be doing to rebuild confidence? First, comms teams need to demonstrate their business value more directly.

That means tying communication outcomes to clear business metrics, whether that’s revenue impact, employee retention, or brand trust. Leaders who speak [00:05:00] the language of business finance risk operational efficiency, we’ll command more credibility in the boardroom. Second, communicators need to play a bigger role in shaping corporate decision making.

The fact that employees and communi communities rank so low as stakeholder priorities suggest that communication leaders need to advocate for a broader view of corporate responsibility. A company’s reputation today is shaped by form, far more than just financial performance. It’s about trust, credibility, and how well an organization engages with its employees, partners, and society at large.

Third communication teams must embrace emerging technologies like AI and automation. If CEOs feel that their comms teams aren’t adapting quickly enough to the modern landscape, that could be another reason for the declining in confidence. Communicators should be at the forefront of leveraging AI for content creation, crisis monitoring, and data-driven audience insights.

And finally, it’s [00:06:00] time for communication teams to prove their ability to navigate uncertainty. Today’s CEOs face unpredictable challenges from regulatory changes and political instability to generative AI disruptions and cybersecurity threats. Communication leaders who can help companies stay ahead of these issues rather than just react to them, will be the ones who earn their seat at the table.

Neville, what did you take away from this report? A lot actually, and you covered most of it. I think your last point is the starting point. I would look on this, and this is reflected in other surveys we’ve commented on, which is agility. It’s being able and willing to go hand in hand to pivot, react, adapt, whatever you might wanna call it, rapidly and confidently.

That means you need to know a lot more than you. Possibly are know about today. And therefore you need to be very proactive to ensure that you do know literally everything possible that is related to what you need to do as a [00:07:00] communicator. That’s probably something many of us are doing now anyway, but if you’re not, you really do need to do that.

It doesn’t surprise me. It’s troubling a lot of this. That headline figure only 17% of senior execs have confidence that their communicators are well prepared to tackle the current volatile environment. And a lot of this relates to the shifts we’ve seen in the last month led in the United States.

By the actions of new President Trump on his second term and the executive orders and all the stuff he has as we see literally almost daily on the TV news. This phenomenal signature on these executive audit documents that he physically signs and weighs ’em at the camera. They’re having repercussions everywhere.

It’s actually quite extraordinary. She, frankly. The Trump effect that is global, that’s taking place every single country is impact or paying attention to wondering what is he going to do next. So this is truly quite extraordinary, I think. So that’s part of the environment. And the tariff wars that are about to [00:08:00] begin by all accounts are definitely gonna have an impact on global business.

We’re already seeing. Effects in the financial markets in stock markets, we’re seeing that in interest rates that are they gonna go up and go down or whatever it might be. And the nervousness that is derived from that, we’re also seeing which is mentioned here a real change in DEI initiatives in organizations.

And in fact, we’re seeing I have to say mostly American companies that are backpedaling like crazy to. Ditch these that’s gonna have a big impact on perceptions. And they we’re not yet seeing exactly what that impact’s gonna be. ’cause it’s only been the last week or so that this is impacting people’s perceptions and opinions and therefore their behaviors perhaps.

But that is part of the landscape. Whether it’s temporary, pardon? That we don’t know. I just was just reading a story literally before we, we got together to record this episode about what Disney. Is decided to do, which is literally pull back completely on [00:09:00] DEI and speculation now about what impacts that can have on their animation studios and therefore perceptions of kids.

You could project this out in a big way. So 17% of senior execs don’t have comp, or only 17 have confidence that communicators are up to it basically. The other thing I think just to mention was. And maybe this goes hand in hand with DEI, I don’t know, but the the metric talking about how employee communication is way down the priority list on the stakeholder total of who you’re paying attention to, customers, et cetera.

Employees aren’t as high as I would’ve thought they should be. So there, there’s lots here that is concerning the provoke media story. Talks about, in fact, it’s not provoked, it’s the exo story talks about. So it’s some interesting things I think that are worth paying attention to.

Particularly their concluding point about no scenario plan is ever gonna survive contact with the amount of volatility that’s out there. And that [00:10:00] again. Be prepared, be make yourself agile, get to know exactly all these various things that are happening and try and understand what they mean. So you need to be paying attention to that.

So 70% according to S’S interpretation of of Weber Sandwick survey, 70% are anticipating heightened volatility in the year ahead, and very few of them feel prepared. That’s not a good. At all? No, as I said at the top troubling and I think DEI is probably an excellent example to elaborate on a little, because as you look at what has happened in just the three weeks since Trump took office and began his executive assault on DEI, what have we seen?

We’ve seen some. Companies, several companies do what Disney has done and many others, especially those in the tech industry although I saw a statistic the other day that said 65% of companies are not changing [00:11:00] their DEI programs, and of those 22% are actually planning to invest more in 2025.

So they’re defiant. But among the companies that have. Scaled back, they’re starting to see blowback from their customers. Take target for example, the retail giant here in the us. Target said that they were going to scale back their DEI in response to the administration’s mandates and customers revolted.

There has been a sell off of their stock. Their share price has. Taken a precipitous drop. There has been a considerable fall off on sales as customers have called for boycotts of the organization, and they have actually reversed themselves as a result of this. So public pressure brought to bear has created a whiplash at Target. Now, how good are their communicators at reading the marketplace and advising leadership on what [00:12:00] stakeholder audiences are saying and thinking in order to help them with their decision making? I would say based on what I’ve seen from Target, not very well. So I think it’s vital that communicators understand the issues that are roiling out there.

In the media space, in social media, in the business world and be doing environmental scanning. This is a term I learned from IABC research Foundation’s excellence study, years and years ago. What was that like 19 86, 87, around then. But environmental scanning means that you are on top of.

What the trends are and what the thinking is and what the sentiment is around these issues. And essentially you’re doing an every morning intelligence briefing like leaders of countries do so that you can let management know what’s going on. I woke up. Some mornings ago to the news that the Trump [00:13:00] administration was going to impose 25% import on all imported steel and aluminum.

I work in the construction industry. We work with a lot of imported steel. We set prices for the buildings that we’re building based on what the price was of steel at the time that those. Deals were made. If those prices go up 25% the building’s gonna cost more. Are we prepared for that? Do our employees know what’s going on?

If they’ve heard about these tariffs, are they worried about our ability to be profitable? We need to tell people. So the first thing I did is fire off a message to one of the senior executives saying, we need to let employees know where we’re at with this. He thought it was a good idea. This is the kind of thing communicators need to do in order to build that confidence at the leadership levels.

You can’t just be reacting to things and reporting what the leaders say. We need to be counselors who are advising them based on our read of what’s going on out there. Yeah, you’re right. And one other [00:14:00] point related to all of this that struck me as well, was the metric in the report that leaders of larger companies and those operating in more than 20 countries are more likely to report a loss in comms and public affairs confidence.

It got me thinking that much of the examples that we might. Discuss or read about or in the us not outside the US yet. I wonder some of these larger global multinationals, whether they’re American or whatever they might be with operations in other countries, what’s the effect gonna be if the US company, the owner, the kind of parent company rolls back on DEI and that meets with fierce resistance in, in, in some of their subsidiaries or associated companies elsewhere around the world, then what?

What are we gonna do about that? I did read, and I don’t have the details in front of me, so I can’t remember the name of the company. One company has already experienced that with employees in Germany, France, and the UK saying, no, we, we refuse to implement this and this big turmoil going on internally in that organization.

So [00:15:00] will we see a lot of that? I would suspect we will. In which case, what’s the impact? Project out what the questions are we need to be asking that if we are communicate is what does this mean? To what do we need to do? What do we need to advise? How do we prepare for this? So that you’ve gotta have that in your planning list.

If you are in that position with a company in that situation. You’ve then got larger Italian companies. What about in the in the Arabic speaking world, out in Asia, et cetera how does this impact those? Is this a ripple effect? We’ll see from DEI. ’cause you are seeing. Again, it’s largely in the US according to Axios, they talk about several CEOs are tripping over themselves to appeal to the new Trump administration.

I call that sucking up like big time. Really, it’s embarrassing seeing some of the behaviors by these CEOs, yet pragmatism, I suppose you might call it the effect on the share price if they’re publicly listed. All these things. Are very distasteful, but this is reality. What do you do [00:16:00] about this?

And what about the values you profess, this is a long discussion. We’ve talked about this before. Yeah. You say these things, we stand by this. And I remember that conversation we had in a recent episode. She, and that particularly did a total reversal and said what we said then is not the case anymore.

We don’t believe in that. So where does all that fit into this overall landscape? So the volatile. Picture is very wide. It’s a very large landscape to look at. Yeah. You, I had not heard about this company that had the the uprising from among employees in other, I’ll see if I can dig out the note on it.

Yeah. Good. But I think one of the things and. Ties directly back to the results of this survey is that A CEO sees this happening in their foreign subsidiaries or affiliates, and they say, our internal communicators aren’t doing their job because they didn’t create alignment around this decision.

Yeah. As opposed to counseling the leadership to say, this is how you’re going to [00:17:00] experience a response from our. Subsidiaries in Germany and France and Italy and the like, based on the fact that we have employee profiles that, that cover our geographic regions and we can project based on, it could even be AI analysis of our employee sentiment data from.

Everything that we’ve done in Teams and Slack and email and the other channels that employees are engaging in, we can come right out and say, this isn’t gonna fly. You’re going to have some unhappy people and that’s gonna affect productivity. Let’s rethink this. That’s the kind of counsel that we need to give, not, oh, yes sir, we will communicate that we’re doing this even though we know you’re gonna run into resistance.

The other thing I’m seeing and this is really interesting and I’m seeing this mostly on LinkedIn, is. Experts in DEI who are providing counsel on the difference between legal and illegal DEI as defined in the Trump administration’s executive orders saying that [00:18:00] basically illegal DEI is anything that elevates somebody.

Because of their protected class or background or what have you, which frankly, that’s not D-E-I-D-E-I does not do that. D that, that’s equality, not equity. Equity is creating a level play playing field that gives everybody the same opportunity and that they’re saying is legal. DEI under the definition, who’s.

Reading all of this and going to their leaders and saying, we can continue to offer DEI that is in compliance with what the Trump administration is asking. If we do A, B, and c based on my reading of what the experts are saying, again, this is proactive rather than reactive, and it’s what we need to be doing.

It is. So a lot to pay attention to with this, I think. And the DEI, I guess is the hot one on everyone’s radar because of the rolling back on it as per an executive order. But all the other [00:19:00] elements, indeed looking at what Axios is interpreting from the port, from the from the survey on the share of CEOs who say they plan to expand specific functions, top of the list marketing and brand building or marketing communication and brand building.

And that I think, does reflect what you said at the very start, that the focus is external on this and employee communication is actually second on that list, but there’s quite a big gap between the numbers. And then all the other functions, investor relations, public relations, crisis, et cetera.

But marketing, communication and brand building is number one. So if you’re a marketing communicator, pay close attention to that one. Absolutely. And of course DEI was just an example. Yeah, there, there are tons of issues out there that could be affecting your organization, that could be challenging your leadership.

You need to know what those are, and you need to be monitoring all of those and providing counsel on how stakeholders will react and what the impact of the business will be from the wrong messaging. And that’ll be a 30 for this episode [00:20:00] of four immediate release.

The post FIR #450: Senior Leaders Doubt Communicators’ Abilities appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

Employees everywhere are using AI to save time and be more productive. The thing is, many of them are using tools their employers have not approved and they’re not telling anyone. Companies are benefiting from this stealth approach to using generative AI, but there are plenty of risks, too. Neville and Shel look at the data and discuss approaches companies can take that will benefit both them and their employees.

Links from this episode:

• Why employees smuggle AI into work
• 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 – NevilleHobson .com
• Chasing Shadows: Getting ahead of Shadow AI
• Half of all employees are Shadow AI users, new study finds

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, February 24.

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

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

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

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

Raw transcript:

Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 449 of four immediate release. I’m She Holtz. I’m Neville Hobson. In episode 4 1 9 last July, we explored the concept of shadow AI questioning its potential risks within organizations. Shadow AI refers to the use of unsanctioned artificial intelligence tools and technologies by employees without the knowledge or approval of their company’s IT governance.

This practice can lead to security and vulnerabilities, data breaches and compliance issues as these tools operate outside established protocols. A recent survey by Software Ag highlights the surveillance of this phenomenon revealing that over half of all employees admits to using AI tools that work artificial approval.

The survey underscores the need for organizations to address this growing trend by implementing clear policies and providing sanctioned AI resources to ensure security and compliance. So what does this latest survey add to the topic we [00:01:00] discussed last July? We’ll discuss the picture next.

This week the BBC reported on this latest survey noting that many employees resort to unauthorized AI applications to enhance productivity, especially when official tools are lacking or inadequate. This unauthorized usage shadow AI mirrors the earlier concept of shadow it where employees used unsanctioned software or devices for work purposes.

The report suggests that organizations should proactively engage with employees to understand their needs. And provide appropriate AI tools, thereby reducing the reliance on unsanctioned applications. And we have three good examples of how different organizations are addressing shadow ai. In response to the growing use of unsanctioned AI tools, banking giant JP Morgan Chase develops an internal generative AI assistant called Index GPT for over 60,000 employees.

This tool assists with tasks such as document summarization and problem solving, [00:02:00] ensuring that employees have access to approved AI resources within a secure environment. The Australian Telecommunications Company, Telstra has implemented a rigorous process to assess all AI tools and capabilities within its business.

Telstra maintains a list of approved generative AI tools and provides guidelines on their usage. For instance, while the company has not officially banned the use of Chinese AI model deep seek, it discourages its use and prefers employees to utilize Microsoft’s copilot for which it is rolling out 21,000 licenses.

And US Retail Giant Walmart monitors AI use within the company and prefers in-house tools, but does not strictly prohibit external platforms. This approach allows Walmart to balance innovation with security by providing employees with approved AI resources while maintaining oversight of external tool usage.

So there’s a number of takeaways here. Shell, I think the first one being there’s a prevalence of shadow ai. Over half of employees use [00:03:00] unsanctioned AI tools at work, posing potential risk to organizations. Those risks from using unauthorized AI can lead to security vulnerabilities, data breaches, and compliance issues.

Proactive organization responses play an essential part in addressing this. Companies like JPMorgan Chase, Telstra, and Walmart are proactively engaging with employees who understand their needs and provide appropriate sanctioned AI tools, thereby reducing your reliance on unsanctioned applications.

Your thoughts? I think that, first of all. Organizations that are restricting the use of ai, which is leading employees to practice shadow AI so they can, enjoy the benefits that AI is going to deliver to them. These organizations need to understand what’s happening with these tools, what these employees are using them for.

I don’t know if it was the same survey you were looking at ’cause what I was. Reading didn’t cite the source of this, but it was a recent survey that found that knowledge workers [00:04:00] are using shadow ai. 83% of them say to s save time. 81% to simplify tasks and 71% to increase productivity. Those are just horrible things.

What business would want that? And I think there. Are misconceptions at leadership levels people who really aren’t paying attention to what’s happening that’s preventing the organization from implementing tools that employees could use with permission. . And that’s driving a lot of this.

I think it’s. Got to be more understanding at the most senior levels of the organization of what these tools bring to the table. Then it’s a question of. Education of employees. Employees really need to understand, first of all what the risks are of using unapproved tools. They need to understand the organization’s process.

Where I work, we have gone to great pains to explain the process of identifying, not just ai, but any. [00:05:00] Technology that might be beneficial and how it is evaluated how it moves into testing and then how it moves into common use across the organization so people understand that there’s a process and if there’s a tool that you like, recommend it and.

It will be put into that process. And finally, I think employees need to understand what tools are available to them. For example, today I will be communicating to employees in our organization that the tool they already have access to, which is co-pilot baked into Office 365 now offers. Access to chat GPTs full complete reasoning model.

You have to pay extra for this if you just have the access to, to chat GPT. But Microsoft decided to, to bake it right into co-pilot at no additional cost. So I’m gonna talk to our employees about what a reasoning model is, when you might want [00:06:00] to use it and hey, you can extra cost. No hassle right there within copilot.

So I, there are steps that organizations can take to minimize the use of shadow it shadow ai. I think what’s concerning is that they’re not taking these steps. They’re just worried about it. Yeah I think that’s the key point. She, what I took mostly from those examples for instance, those three companies in different industries and different countries even are doing is the key to this.

Particularly what struck me was, um, Telstra in Australia. I. Who are right on the ball with the latest thing going, which is deep seek the Chinese AI model that they haven’t abandoned at all, but they’re discouraging its use. So what does that tell me? That little bit of information, not the detail of anything, is they’re communicating something that employees might be wondering about.

They’ve read about deep seek and some might be thinking, oh, I’d love to try that, but can I, should I? Now they’ve got some clarity. They’d rather you didn’t, [00:07:00] and presumably they’re giving some reasons why not and so forth. So it’s not quite clear from that example, but it illustrates, jP Morgan Chase has taken a whole new level.

They’re rolling out an internal generative AI tool for 60,000 employees. So they, at that level, that’s way advanced than just simply explaining what AI tools are and whether you can use ’em, not, they’ve embraced that. They’re rolling that out. Then you’ve got the other extreme, which is Walmart, who, don’t who prefer in-house tools, but don’t strictly prohibit external platforms. I think they, I’m assuming therefore that they’ve explained the reasoning behind all of that. But the point is though they’re proactively communicating, which is the exact thing organizations should be doing.

They need to be proactive for a lot of reasons, and not the least of which is the speed with which all of this is advancing. I was listening to a marketing AI podcast just yesterday. Excellent podcast by the way, called the Artificial Intelligence Show. Yeah. And they were talking about the fact that there is this.

Benchmark [00:08:00] that has been introduced recently called Humanity’s Last exam. You’ve probably heard of it, I think it’s 3000 questions that are asked of a new large language model and it evaluates how well they answered the questions and the. First time it was used, and I can’t remember which models were used in which sequence, but one of them scored something like 8%.

Then the next one a new model was released by a different AI company and it scored something like six 16%. And then a new model was released by another AI company and it scored 24%. These are not. Trick questions, but they’re not simple answers where it could go into its training set. It has to reason to get to the answer.

And what was frightening was that the time that last between that first test that did six or 8% and the last one that did 24. Was about two weeks. So that’s how fast all of this is advancing, which leads a lot of people [00:09:00] to think that we’re probably closer to artificial general intelligence than we had thought we were before.

And companies that are sitting on their hands with this are just opening the door to more and more problems. You talked about deep seek. . If you use deep seeq on the web, one of the many interfaces that allow you to play with it. You’re exchanging data with servers in China and that could be proprietary company data.

There is some statistical evidence about the amount of proprietary information that has been shared using shadow ai. I don’t have the number in front of me, but it’s not inconsequential sharing that with. Open ai, sharing that with Google or Anthropic is one thing. Sharing it with the People’s Republic of China is another

Now I’m playing with Deep Seek. I like it. I love R one watching it think the process it goes through and it’s almost like watching a human think with the text. Displaying on the screen, but I’ve installed it on my computer. It’ll run [00:10:00] if I disconnect myself from the internet completely.

That’s the whole idea of these open source models, is that they don’t call out to any servers anywhere, any data centers. It’s all contained right there on your hard drive if you wanna be able to. Let your employees use this thing, consider an implementation behind your firewall that’s completely protected.

But we have to start thinking about how we give these tools to employees so they can be more productive and efficient. The company can do better, and we don’t run the risks associated with employees bringing tools into the organization behind the backs of it. So bottom line effect, essentially it comes down to communication, doesn’t it?

Because everything you’ve outlined, it requires that proactive engagement with employees to help ’em understand why you’re doing it. What is it, how they can take advantage of it, and the pros and cons of all. The point is though clarity that there is no question in the employee’s mind, [00:11:00] can I use this?

Should I, or I better bring my own? And I think one other thing that you need is not just communication to employees, but engagement with them around this. I will share one other thing that we’re doing where I work, we’re establishing an it an AI committee. And we have an open call for membership on this committee.

And I’m. Not responsible for this. It’s out of the IT department. But what they’re looking for is a cross section of the company. They don’t care how well you understand AI or how much you’ve used it or what level in the organization you’re at. They’re looking to get people from all across the organization.

So there is representation from all corners of the company Yeah. In the decisions that are made about this. And that will be thoroughly communicated. So people don’t think this is executives in the ivory tower, or this is the software police in it. These are representatives from our parts of the organization.

That have [00:12:00] looked at the issues. They’ve looked at the risks and they’ve made these decisions. And I think that makes it a lot more understandable and a lot more acceptable. So engage employees in the process. Yeah, I would agree with that. Shell. So we’ll have a link in the show notes to this survey.

To all the references we’ve made here that you can take a look yourself and get up to speed, but there’s some useful stuff to understand here and for employers. Yeah, you build up that proactive engagement with employees on this very topic and you will be, I’m certain, please, with the outcome from that, I would say, and that’ll be a 30 for this episode of four immediate release.

The post FIR #449: Employees’ Use of Shadow AI Surges appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

Change leadership consultant Caroline Kealey thinks change management is dead. Communication leader Sharon O’Dea thinks Enterprise Social Networking (ESN) is dead.

That’s right: It’s time for another installment of “X is Dead.”

In this short midweek episode, Neville and Shel outline the cases these two communication thought leaders make and offer our own thoughts.

Links from this episode:

• 2025: The Year Change Management Died
• Sharon O’Dea’s LinkedIn post on Enterprise Social Networks

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, February 24.

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

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

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

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

Raw transcript:

Hi everyone and welcome to four immediate release. This is episode 4 4 8. I’m Neville Hobson. And I’m Shell Holtz. And it is time for another segment of our recurring series X is dead. This is X as the algebraic symbol, not former elite Twitter. It’s been a long time, but we do occasionally dedicate some time to arguments that something we’ve been all.

Taken for granted is dead. And in just the last week, I saw two of these both on LinkedIn and both making pretty compelling cases. We’ll discuss both of them right after this.

Let’s start with change management. Carolyn Keeley wrote this one titled 2025, the Year Change Management Died. I’ve known Carolyn for years through IEBC, and she has a global practice in change leadership. A point she makes in the article. She calls it a sobering realization given her work in change management for the last 20 years.[00:01:00]

But she says change management isn’t working. It had been a useful third pillar in the traditional triangle of strategy, project management and change management when deploying planned transformations. She writes, that was then. This is now. Carolyn says, we’re now operating in a fundamentally different world.

The assumption of toggling between periods of change and of business as usual, entrenched in traditional change management now seems quat. She writes a variety of patterns. Account for change, management’s demise, including the dismantling of trust and legitimacy across all sectors. There’s a pervasive AI inspired fear of becoming obsolete.

Employees feel overwhelmed and underwhelmed at the same time. Silos are calcifying as we retreat to information cocoons and people are in a perpetual state of continuous partial attention. Carolyn is certified in the ADKAR model of change management, but she says that the [00:02:00] thing that. Changing isn’t clear.

The essential quality of organizational today tends to be emergent, not planned, making it hard to progress through a change sequence and the acar model. That’s awareness, desire, knowledgeability and reinforcement falls apart these days at the desire checkpoint. Where we go now, she says, is to clarify the North Star and the fog of chaos.

Many teams have lost the plot. She writes, before introducing a map, focus on the compass. Make sure your teams are crystal clear on which way is north. That is ensure the goal of your goals is well defined. Second, cut out or trim the noise in your organization so your employee’s attention and focus are on the right things.

And third. Cultivates Sturdy leadership. The second piece is from Sharon O’Day, founder of DW Access and Litho Partners, a pair of communication focused firms in the Netherlands. For Sharon, its enterprise social networks That’s dead. [00:03:00] She says she was speaking to a comms leader who was surprised when the hashtag they created for a public launch wasn’t used by anyone other than members of their own team, not a single mention across external social or their internal social channels.

She ascribes the death of enterprise social networks to the shift to short form video as the social networks where we all used to immerse ourselves. Twitter, Facebook have gone bad as public. Social media turns toxic. People have shifted to sharing in small groups or not at all. She writes a phenomenon that you and I have discussed a lot recently, Neville.

It’s no surprise then that we’re all seeing that shift reflected in how people communicate at work. And she says. She’s hearing a lot of that participation in, so enterprise social networks is failing. A lot of companies are shutting them down. She also sees digital fatigue as a contributor. One thing she wrote gave me pause.

She says, Viva, engage, which is what Yammer evolved into, continues to lack [00:04:00] clarity of purpose. A report that looked at data from hundreds of organizations concluded that Veeva Engage has shifted from a collaboration and community tool to a broadcasting platform for communicators. To me that’s blaming the tool for how people use it.

Kind of like blaming PowerPoint for bad presentations. In any case, Neville, change management and enterprise social networks. What do you think? Are they done? They ought to be ? I think when I read Caroline’s piece, it’s a very well written article and it does provoke a lot of thought. Even though I don’t see a lot of

Trenchant discussion going on. It’s a lot of agreement to her points in the comments which is good. But a couple things stuck out to me, like flashing lights almost. Some of the comments she made one is unquestionably a reality of what’s happening now. And this is. Connected directly to what we’ve been talking about recently, the collapse of trust.

So she says, just when we crave institutional stability the most, we are seeing the [00:05:00] dismantling of trust and legitimacy across every sector, politics, business, culture, education, religion. So if you extrapolate that to Edelman’s Trust, which we’ve discussed in two episodes recently that is spot on.

In terms of what’s actually happening collapsing trust, I’d say it’s collapsing as opposed to declining. It’s in serious trouble. People do not trust organizations and the people who lead them. And we’re seeing that played out in reports like this, including the other one we talked about in the last episode from Fleischman Hillard in terms of focus on corporate affairs, so that.

Is a kind of a yes. We need to recognize that, which is part of her argument. But then at the end I think is a is a point as well. So we recognize col trust has collapsed, which is behind a lot of these shifts that are happening. Caroline says in her concluding points, what the world needs now is a forward motion propelled by a new form of leadership.

One that holds the tension between being grounded and [00:06:00] unleashed between head and heart and between fear and hope. The collapse of traditional models is an invitation for the brave to challenge, to reinvent, and to create absolutely spot on in my view. So the old models change management. I see some comments.

Cognize. This is a term and maybe the way it’s been practiced that’s been going for . Two decades and more. I can remember a decade ago when I worked for IBM that was what I was doing was attached to change management programs in the mega enterprise monolithic style. Here’s the Rigid Rule book.

We follow this every step, and there’s absolutely no divergence from this. And so you think that? I, in fact, I now think about it, question, was that really effective back then? I don’t believe that works at all today in this current change in climate. So where are the new leaders then who can nod and say, yep, absolutely.

It’s all changing. So what are you gonna do about it then? So that’s a big point that’s come out of Caroline’s article. Sharon’s article. Is also [00:07:00] great. Is enterprise social over, I would say the way it’s been done for X years ought to be over. We need something different, she says.

Again, this struck out to me, one of the comments she men mentioned anecdotally. She says, I’m seeing more comms Pros report declining participation and engagement. On their ESNs, they’re questioning whether to relaunch them or close them down. I’d say the latter is probably the best route to go if you’re asking this or that.

But I think also people, is it perhaps that there are too many organizations who have these expecting it’s almost like saying if we put it up there, they will come. Use it. If we build it, they will come. They’re not doing that’s the thing. And with the lack of trust, and again, these are very generalized comments I have to say, but we’ve talked about this.

The younger you are, the more questioning you are and the willing less willingness to accept. You must do this simply because [00:08:00] some senior person with a long job title tells you that. Or we’ve done the survey that says this is where we’re gonna go. People want to be I guess schmoozed a lot more, they need to be schoo, that’s the word, not schmoozed, smoothed a lot more to recognize value that.

They provide to the organization. ’cause they’re the future. They’re the future. But it works both ways. You’ve gotta have a bit of give and take Here we’re not seeing that it’s there’s too much. In fact, it’s not even carrot and stick shell, I don’t believe. You don’t, there’s no dynamism in my view, with some of these things.

Yes, all these tools are there expecting miracles to happen. And I think, again, back to my IBM days this rather cool tool at the time, the name of which I can’t recall offhand. It was a a bit like GaggleAMP, that kind of tool, an employee advocacy tool as part of an advocacy program where you have

Pre-written text people would share across social networks. And there was a laity to do this gamification approach to it. You get rewards and there’s peer pressure and competitions, all that. I think those are absolutely [00:09:00] artificial now, frankly. In the sense of. Advocacy in such a controlled manner.

So those are all things that maybe we ought to be questioning how they fit in an enterprise in particular. And so it probably means I’m just glancing through Caroline’s. Sorry, but Sharon’s article, do we need to review the role of ESNs in the channel mix? Yes, we do. I believe, or just accept things change and maybe the time’s just coming to end.

That could be the answer too, but something must replace these things, I would say. So this is therefore the time perhaps. Turmoil again that we haven’t seen in quite a while. The way we’re seeing it, that’s a reflection of what else is going on. So these are all jigsaw pieces in the big puzzle, it seems to me.

But change management, as Caroline writes, I don’t believe that has a future at all in that form. But I can’t tell you ’cause I’m only just reading this, what I think should replace, I don’t know that I think that needs some more conversation. But it’s excellent what both of these have written [00:10:00] because it’s stimulating discussion.

Absolutely. I thought both of them were outstanding pieces. Yeah. And I am in I’m largely in agreement with some caveats. Yeah. With Carolyn’s piece on change management. I, all of the conditions she outlines all of the changes that we’ve gone through, where people are at I and the nature of much of the change organizations are facing these days.

I think she’s right. It is emergent. There is still programmatic change that happens in organizations. There are mergers and acquisitions. There is a change in a core technology that the organization uses and you have to get employees from here to there in a defined period of time. And I think largely the principles of change management up continue to apply in those.

Narrow circumstances in terms of enterprise social networks. I think that and this is based largely on my experience, 21 years as an independent consultant working [00:11:00] with organizations on their digital, internal media, and most of them are introduced to the organization using what I have for years called the Godspeed method, which is, here you go, everybody, Viva, engage.

Godspeed. And what we need is a culture of messaging. It was Pitney Bowes maybe . 23, 24 years ago, I was at a conference and I heard somebody from Pitney Bowes talk about message, mission control. Somebody needs to establish the culture of messaging and reinforce it. This is what this tool is for. Here’s how you use it.

This is what this one’s for. Here’s how you use it. We don’t use it for this, we use it for this. We use this for that. Reinforce that through, among other things, reward and recognition. If you call somebody out for having used a messaging system in support of organizational goals, other employees look at that and go, oh, is that what you get recognized for around [00:12:00] here?

I can do that. And. We need tools that allow employees to share knowledge and information with each other. And Carolyn in, in the change piece talks about calcified silos. And that’s absolutely happening in organizations. We can’t let that happen. That means organization is trapped in those silos and people who need it can’t use it.

Back in 1996, and there were no intranets, there were no. Enterprise Social Networks. Bob Buckman at Buckman Labs started a social network at his company called Kinetics, and it was for one specific reason. It was for people who needed information in order to. Do something work related would post it and everybody was expected to check in daily and if they had the answer, they were expected to share it.

He was not looking to establish enterprise social networks and [00:13:00] make them succeed. He was looking to create a knowledge-based organization rather than one where people kept their knowledge because it was. Power and sharing it should exact some sort of cost which is what happened in a lot of organizations.

And it was wildly successful, largely because he was the most active user. Everybody saw him out there and knew that he would see them sharing or soliciting information. And he would also notice the people who weren’t participating. This is what I mean by establishing a culture. Of messaging.

This wasn’t, Hey, let’s have an enterprise social network and we can throw hashtags out there when we’re launching a program. This is a very well-defined network that had a clear purpose and clear expectations, and everybody could see how it benefited the organization. I. But he was clear. He came right out and said in a memo to employees that if you don’t use this there are opportunities in this organization that are gonna close up to you.

So I think you can have success with [00:14:00] these, and I think we need to find success with these, especially in a world where we have a lot of workers who are remote or hybrid. And we’re not all in the same room at the same time to be able to share knowledge and information. But it needs to be ingrained in the culture, what it’s for, how it’s used, what we use it for, what it’s not for and what the expectations are.

I think I remember one of the conversations we had in an episode within the last six months I think talked about people in organizations, in teams trusting their direct supervisor, the person they report to in the team. And I think that’s where. This needs to focus. So one of the points that Caroline makes in the three step to consider I think this would be very germane to this part of the conversation.

She says, organizations are aching for sturdy leaders, change agents, managers, and executives who have the fortitude, the skill and capabilities to support [00:15:00] and galvanize teams building fit for-purpose, leadership capabilities in leading through change, chaos, and ambiguity is vital. So that stuck with me in, now, in the context of what you’re saying here, that in my view is how you need to galvanize people to participate in knowledge sharing in an organization, not the kind of almost threatening approach.

I see. You are not using the network and. These things are gonna be close to you. If I don’t see you doing this here, that ain’t gonna work today. That worked 30 years ago. And I’m thinking now in many organizations, I’m just reflecting on one in particular that I did some work with last year, that everyone was, looked about 12 years old.

You mean? They’re under 30? Most close to 20. And their whole approach was different, and that, that struck me as an observer. It wasn’t at all in any way negative at all unless you were someone who really had difficulty handling with, [00:16:00] dealing with people younger than you who were utterly different to you.

I think. We’re seeing that more and more. We’ve talked many times about the new wave coming into the workplace, who were born after 2000 who are different. Expectations are different. Our structure’s that different. I’m not in the enterprise loops as much as I used to be working for big organizations.

But what I observe, what I hear anecdotally Sure is you’ve gotta make connections with their younger generation. You are on their mobile phones and all this kind of stuff. If you build an internet, it’s there. They’ll come. They won’t, if they can’t get it on their mobile device in a way that is easy.

User interface, all that. So these are I think elements of the points. Caroline’s making in particular, and the points that Sharon makes too in what she’s saying about enterprise social networks. So it maybe reminded me actually when she talks about Yammer Viva engaged. Now I remember this is about 15, 16 years ago, introducing Yammer to an organization that [00:17:00] I felt this was perfect for this organization and employees with

Alacrity jumped on this before you knew it. 60 people had signed up and we were chatting away and I thought, oh my God, we got an emergency here. Because there was no strategy behind it. There was no guidance on what to do and how to use it. And of course, some significant issues, particularly as some of the senior leaders in the organization didn’t think it was a good idea at all.

Others did. So that. Wasn’t the way to do it. But what struck me about it was an un a kind of a hidden and suddenly emerging desire by people to share things that way that didn’t exist in any shape or form. And they just jumped on it like nobody’s business. It’s often, I’ve often reflected on that as an example of great outcome, but absolutely not the way to aim for it.

So the point I’m making though. Is that it helps you discover, I think preferences of people in ways that are live right in front of your eyes. You can see it. And if you [00:18:00] can somehow embrace that, and that to me means not the CEO or a very remote senior leadership figure, particularly if you’re a big organization, but that small.

Part of the organization you are in and your leader, if you see he or she embracing this, and you trust that person, and that’s becoming more important. Forgotten who it was. Sharon or Catherine talked about cocoons the old silos that we’re talking about getting calcified.

I agree, but they’re still there in many organizations. So silos aren’t necessarily a bad thing if they’re not closed. Silos, in fact, silos, the ventilations. You need small groups of people. That’s more, maybe that’s more in line with what we’re seeing externally. The shift away from centralized social networks to more dynamic niche per, personal interest ones.

How can we replicate that in organizations without the risk of them becoming their own silos that no one’s allowed in ’cause it’s a small niche. Big challenges, I think. So these are great. Aspects or milestones really along that [00:19:00] road to where we’re gonna get to with this chaos all around us, I think.

Yeah, you’re absolutely right. That Bob Bachman’s threat wouldn’t carry much weight today. It was a different generation that was in the company. It was also a group of people who had never experienced any kind of social network before. I, how many of them had been on CompuServe?

Probably very few. So there he needed to use every tool in his toolkit to, to get people. Started with this. But the idea of a network, I think continues to be important. And, Yammer I mean I saw many terrible implementations of Yammer, but I read a report from Deloitte where they worked with a company to launch it.

And what they did was initially have three pilot groups. They identified three groups of employees who were struggling. Largely because they were dispersed different time zones, different geographic locations. Yeah. And it, it was communication the need for asynchronous communication that would improve what they were doing.

And [00:20:00] so they created these three pilot groups and they held their hands through 90 days of using Yammer to help ’em get their work done. One of them was a group of people who used to work in the field. I think the report referred to them as gray beards. And now they had jobs in the offices and these were people who were the least likely to use a social network like a Facebook or a Twitter.

But they became great champions of this because their cycle time, their time to market. Was reduced by 30 or 40% because of their use of Yammer. But they were using it in a strategic way with guidance from a group of people who knew what they were doing. And they were able to take those three pilot groups and tell those stories to the rest of the organization and have the people who participated service champions so that when the rest of the organization adopted it, they adopted it for what it was.

Intended in that organization to do and was very successful. So go figure, if you’re strategic about something, it works better than if you’re not. And I, yeah I think that’s what’s needed here. [00:21:00] I’m not suggesting that, the, the typical enterprise social networks that we have seen over the years, and I’m trying to remember the names of some of them that I have worked with a lot back 10, 15 years ago.

May not be the solution, but channels that allow people to engage and share information when they’re, when some are remote and some are in the office and some are in the field and some are in the off the main office, the headquarters and some are in different time zones in different countries.

I think we still need that. We just need a culture of messaging that provides the guardrails and the. The rationale for why, this is, why using this is part of the way I get my job done. It’s not extracurricular. It’s not something we do for fun. It’s not something we do to build camaraderie.

This is the way we work here. And then they’ll work fine. Yeah. The I love your optimistic view there. Shell really, I do. But I don’t disagree with you. One comment I did like in in Sharon’s LinkedIn piece there’s lots [00:22:00] I liked actually, but this one in particular from Susie Robinson says, I think this is a complex topic that can’t be answered with a binary yes or no, as there are so many variables.

I shared some thoughts, but not exhaustively and honestly think it depends. I agree with that. I love this woman . And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of four immediate release.

The post FIR #448: Has Night Fallen on Change Management and Enterprise Social Networks? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.