In this episode, Chip and Gini discuss what agency owners can do to weather the current climate of economic uncertainty and potential recession. They suggest preparing for different economic scenarios by creating best, neutral, and worst case plans, cutting unnecessary expenses, and keeping lines of communication open with team members.

Chip and Gini also touch on the idea of diversifying income streams and being flexible with the type of work taken on, while cautioning against overreacting to market changes. They share personal experiences and practical steps to help agency owners lead through economic downturns. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 266: Preparing your agency for an uncertain future appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

We are swimming in data. Are we using it as effectively as we could? Join four Fellows of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) for a lively discussion on leveraging data to enhance organizational communication. In this episode of Circle of Fellows, our panel will explore how communication professionals can use data to shape strategy, measure impact, tell better stories, and drive better decision-making across all communication disciplines. Whether you’re tracking audience engagement, demonstrating ROI, or using AI-driven analytics, understanding data is more critical than ever.

On Thursday, March 27, four Fellows of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) gathered to discuss data in communications.

About the panel

Adrian Cropley is the founder and director of the Centre for Strategic Communication Excellence, a global training and development organization. For over thirty years, Adrian has worked with clients worldwide, including Fortune 500 companies, on major change communication initiatives, internal communication reviews and strategies, professional development programs, and executive leadership and coaching. He is a non-executive director on several boards and advises some of the top CEOs and executives globally.

Adrian is a past global chair of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC), where he implemented the IABC Career Road Map, kick-started a global ISO certification for the profession, and developed the IABC Academy. Adrian pioneered the Melcrum Internal Communication Black Belt program in Asia Pacific and is a sought-after facilitator, speaker, and thought leader. He has been a keynote speaker and workshop leader on strategic and change communication at international conferences in Canada, the U.S., Europe, the Middle East, Malaysia, Singapore, China, India, Hong Kong, Thailand, New Zealand, and Australia. He has received numerous awards, including IABC Gold Quill Awards for communication excellence, and his Agency received Boutique Agency of the Year 6 years running.

Adrian is the Chair of the Industry Advisory Committee for the RMIT School of Media and Communication and a Fellow of the IABC and RSA. In 2017, he was awarded the Medal of Order of Australia for his contribution to the field of communication.

Robin McCasland, IABC Fellow, SCMP lis Senior Director, Corporate Communications, for Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC). She leads the company’s communications team and the employee listening program, demonstrating to senior leaders how employee and executive communication add value to the business’s bottom line. Previously, Robin excelled in communication leadership roles for Texas Instruments, Dell, Tenet Healthcare, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe. She has also worked for large and boutique HR consulting firms, leading major communication initiatives for various well-known companies. Robin is a past IABC chairman and served in countless association leadership roles for more than 30 years. She was honored in 2023 and 2021 by Ragan/PR Daily as one of the Top Women Leaders in Communication. She’s also received IABC Southern Region and IABC Dallas Communicator of the Year honors. Robin is a graduate of The University of Texas at Austin and a Leadership Texas alumnus. Her own podcast, Torpid Liver (and other symptoms of poor communication), features guest speakers addressing timely topics to help communication professionals become more influential strategic advisors and leaders. She resides in Dallas, Texas, with her husband, Mitch, and their canine kids, Tank and Petunia.

Leticia Narváez, ABC,  is CEO and Founding Partner of Narváez Group, a consulting firm focused on Strategic Communication, Employee Engagement, Corporate Reputation, Social Responsibility and Communication Training based in Mexico City. A 30 years experienced professional, she held management top level positions at Sanofi, Merck, American Express and Ford Motor Co. among others. She builds communication bridges with the utmost excellence standards. During her career path, she has been at the forefront of divestitures, mergers and acquisitions, diversity leadership, issues and crisis management, team and leadership development, strategic planning and senior executive consulting. She has been a speaker at international forums, is co-author of several books and manuals on business communications and has written a large number of articles on the subject. Leticia has a Bachelor’s Degree in Communications and Public Relations from the Latinoamericana University, a Master Degree on Digital Communications from Cantabria University and a Postgraduate Diploma on Top Business Administration at the Panamerican Institute of Top Business Administration – IPADE-.

Angela Sinickas is the founder of Sinickas Communications, which has worked with companies, organizations, and governments in 32 countries on six continents. Her clients include 25% of the Forbes Top 100 largest global companies. Before starting her own consulting firm, she held positions from editor to vice president in for-profit and government organizations and worked as a senior consultant and practice leader at Hewitt and Mercer. She is the author of a manual, How to Measure Your Communication Programs (now in its third edition), and chapters in several books. Her 150+ articles in professional journals can be found on her website, www.sinicom.com. Her work has been recognized with 21 international-level Gold Quill Awards from IABC, plus her firm was named IABC Boutique Agency of the Year in 2015. She holds a BS degree in Journalism from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and an MS in Leadership from Northeastern University.

The post Circle of Fellows #114: Working with Data in Communication 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.

In this episode, Chip discusses with Patrick Rogan of IgnitionHR the challenges small agency owners face in supporting stressed employees.

They delve into the impact of both work-related and external stressors on employee performance, noting the increased stress during and after COVID-19. Patrick shares strategies for addressing these issues, such as maintaining open communication, offering flexibility, and utilizing employee assistance programs.

They also discuss the balance between being supportive and maintaining business operations, emphasizing the importance of creative solutions and understanding regulatory requirements. [read the transcript]

The post CWC 107: How to support your team in times of stress (featuring Patrick Rogan) 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.

In this episode, Chip and Gini explore strategies for agency owners contemplating an exit plan. They discuss the importance of planning and the different options available, depending on the agency’s size and structure.

They talk about the limited choices for solopreneurs, as well as a wider variety of possibilities for larger agencies, including mergers, transferring ownership to employees, or simply stepping back from daily operations.

They emphasize the need for a solid timeline and a leadership team to ensure a smooth transition and successful exit. Additionally, they caution about potential pitfalls and unrealistic expectations, sharing insights from their own experiences and those of others in the industry. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 265: Choosing the right exit strategy as an agency owner appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

In this episode, Chip chats with Lee McKnight, Jr. from RSW/US about the findings from their latest survey on agency and marketer perspectives.

They discuss key topics such as the discrepancies between agencies’ efforts to productize services versus clients’ preference for customized solutions, the increasing trend towards fixed-fee pricing over hourly billing, and the importance of staying ahead of trends to meet client expectations.

The conversation touches on the effectiveness of direct outreach and the role of AI and short-form video in modern agency practices. They also highlight the need for more meaningful client conversations and the diminishing popularity of RFPs as agencies focus on quality over quantity in their business development efforts. [read the transcript]

The post CWC 106: Client perspectives on agencies in 2025 (featuring Lee McKnight, Jr.) appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

AI-powered search is fundamentally changing how reputations are built, managed, and perceived online. In this FIR Interview, we’re joined by Sam Michelson, founder and CEO of digital reputation management company Five Blocks, to discuss how companies and executives must rethink their approach to digital reputation management in a world where search is no longer just about Google.

Sam explains how AI-driven platforms like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity are shifting search behaviour. Users are no longer just looking for links; they’re asking complex, conversational questions and expecting detailed, AI-generated summaries. This means that traditional SEO tactics, like keyword optimisation and structured markup, are becoming less relevant. Instead, companies must focus on creating rich, authoritative content that AI models can reference to shape narratives.

A key challenge, Sam notes, is that most companies don’t address their own challenges online. When people ask AI models about the risks or controversies surrounding a brand, the answers often come from news sites or third-party sources rather than the company itself. By not filling this information gap, businesses risk having others define their reputation for them.

We also explore the rise of Agentic AI, where autonomous digital agents gather, analyse, and summarise information, both for consumers and businesses. Five Blocks is experimenting with AI-driven monitoring tools that track how different AI platforms present brands, helping companies stay ahead of reputational risks.

Key Takeaways

• AI search constructs narratives, not just ranked results – brands must ensure their voice is included.
• Companies need to surface their own rich, authoritative content to influence AI-generated answers.
• Ignoring reputation challenges means others will define them for you. Transparency is key.
• Traditional SEO is losing ground to AI-driven search – brands should shift focus to thought leadership and authoritative content.
• The time to act is now – early movers in AI search strategy will have a significant advantage.

About Our Conversation Partner

Sam Michelson is a recognised thought leader in digital reputation management and the Founder and CEO of Five Blocks, a pioneering firm that helps executives and brands take control of their online presence. With over 20 years of experience, Sam has worked closely with industry leaders and top PR and public affairs firms, advising them on strategies to shape search results, Wikipedia pages, and AI-driven platforms like ChatGPT.

A sought-after speaker and consultant, Sam shares insights on the evolving digital landscape, reputation strategy, and the intersection of technology and communications. He holds two U.S. patents for innovations in knowledge base technology and interactive digital advertising.

Beyond his work, Sam is an avid traveller, scuba diver, and mountain biker. He is married and has eight children.

Follow Sam on LinkedIn

Links from This Interview

• Sam Michelson’s Blog: Sam’s Block
• Five Blocks

The post Sam Michelson on How AI Search is Changing Reputation Management 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.