The FIR Podcast Network Everything Feed

Most hiring processes obsess over the wrong things. Do they know our project management software? Are they proficient in this specific tool? Meanwhile, the one capability that actually determines whether someone will make your life easier or harder—their ability to solve problems independently—gets a cursory “are you a good problem solver?” question that everyone answers with “yes.” In this episode, Chip and Gini break down why problem-solving ability should be the primary hiring criterion, especially as AI makes technical skills easier to acquire and offload. The conversation explores why this matters more now than ever: as AI handles tactical execution, the ability to define problems clearly, break them into components, and figure out solutions becomes the differentiator between humans who add value and humans who get replaced. Chip and Gini discuss how problem-solving cuts across every role, even ones you don’t typically think of as problem-solving positions. Designers facing impossible deadlines, account people navigating last-minute client demands, anyone dealing with the reality that things rarely go according to plan. They all need to be able to figure out how to move forward rather than escalating every obstacle upward. The episode tackles the mechanics of actually interviewing for this capability. You can’t just ask “are you a good problem solver?”—you need scenario-based questions that reveal how candidates think through challenges. But not hypothetical scenarios you make up; real situations that have happened in your agency. Ask them to walk through how they’ve handled compressed timelines, missing information, conflicting priorities, or last-minute changes in past roles. Gini shares how her daughter’s school explicitly focuses on humanities and emotional intelligence rather than technical skills, anticipating that AI will reshape what jobs exist. She connects this to Anthropic’s hiring practice of seeking people with humanities degrees who can absorb information, think critically, and demonstrate emotional intelligence rather than just technical proficiency. The episode concludes with an important reminder: if you hire problem solvers but then micromanage how they solve problems, you’ve wasted the hire. You need to let them solve things their way, even if it’s different from how you’d do it, or you’ll end up with everything back on your plate anyway. [read the transcript] The post ALP 299: Hire people who understand how to solve problems appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

Take a stroll through LinkedIn. You’ll find no shortage of posts stridently deriding the notion that anyone should ever use AI to write for them. While that case isn’t hard to make for professional writers, there are countless professionals in other fields who struggle with writing, never trained to be writers, yet now have to write everything from emails to reports as part of their jobs. Should they really sweat for hours over wording, time they could be devoting to the core areas of subject expertise, when AI can produce content that is cogent, clear, and direct? In this short mid-week episode, Neville and Shel look at the trends in using AI for writing, despite the plethora of opinions from the pundits. Links from this episode: Meet the Tech Reporters Using AI to Help Write and Edit Their Stories Meet the Journalist Using AI to Write Stories How Journalists Feel About AI Muck Rack’s 2026 State of Journalism Report Finds 82% of Journalists Use AI AI Doesn’t Reduce Work—It Intensifies It Is Writing with AI at Work Undermining Your Credibility? How We’re Using AI Review of ‘Using Artificial Intelligence in Academic Writing’ Best Practices for the Effective Use of AI in Business Writing AI Tools for Business Writing 5 Ways to Instantly Level Up Your Communication Using AI Tools Charlene Li and Katia Walsh demonstrate the right way to build a book with AI help – Josh Bernoff The Truth About Writing a Book on AI The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, April 27. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript Neville: Hi everyone and welcome to For Immediate Release episode 507. I’m Neville Hobson. Shel: And I’m Shel Holtz. And if you spend any time at all on LinkedIn, you’ll see the degree to which anti-AI sentiment is ramping up. A lot of it’s aimed at using AI for writing and how absolutely wrong that is. Yet just last week, on the same day, Wired Magazine and The Wall Street Journal both published articles on reporters using AI to help write and edit their stories. So today, let’s talk about using AI to write. Specifically, is it okay for employees to use AI to help them write for work? And my answer is not only is it okay for many employees, it might be one of the most genuinely useful things AI can do. Here’s the framing I would push back on. When we talk about AI writing assistants, we tend to picture a journalist or a marketer or a communications professional, someone whose craft is writing, it’s what they’re paid for, handing their keyboard over to a robot. And for those of us who are professional writers, that raises legitimate professional and ethical questions. But that’s not the population we’re talking about when we’re communicating AI adoption in most organizations. Think about who actually has to write at work. Engineers document processes. Product managers write status updates. Safety officers draft incident reports. Shel: Finance analysts compose budget justifications. Scientists write up findings for non-technical stakeholders. These are not people who chose their careers because they love writing. Writing is a tax they pay to do the work they actually care about. And many of them pay that tax really, really badly. The idea that a structural engineer should produce elegant prose unaided is the same logic as saying a communications director should coordinate the concrete mix for a construction project. We don’t expect that. So why do we expect every knowledge worker to be a competent writer? Muckrack’s 2026 State of Journalism report found that 82% of journalists, professional writers, people whose job this is, are now using at least one AI tool. That’s up from 77% the year before. If the people whose professional identity is tied to their writing are using AI tools, it shouldn’t surprise us that everyone else is too, or that they should. Now the research does tell us something important about how to use these tools. A University of Florida study of 1,100 professionals found that AI tools can make workplace writing more professional. But regular heavy use can undermine trust between managers and employees, particularly for relationship-oriented messages like praise, motivation, or personal feedback. The study found that employees are more skeptical when they perceive a supervisor is leaning heavily on

The days when a crisis communicator could simply reach for a dusty binder and follow a pre-scripted, linear checklist are gone — and they aren’t coming back. In the “good old days,” a crisis was often a contained event with a predictable lifecycle; crisis teams could address them by checking off items on a checklist. Today, we face the era of the polycrisis, where economic instability, geopolitical friction, and a 24/7 social media cycle collide, creating a torrent of simultaneous challenges. This new reality has effectively obliterated the traditional news cycle, replacing it with an always-on environment where a single viral post can tarnish a brand before leadership even knows there is a problem. Thriving in this volatile landscape requires a move away from rigid manuals toward a more fluid, strategic approach. Rather than a step-by-step rulebook, modern practitioners need logical scaffolding — a flexible framework of principles and values that provides a foundation for action while allowing for real-time adaptability. It is about preparation, not just prescription. As the boundaries between internal and external perception continue to erode, the ability to maintain transparency and connection through these multifaceted disruptions is no longer a luxury; it is table stakes for organizational survival. Four Fellows of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) shared their perspectives in this episode of IABC’s Circle of Fellows. About the Panel: Edward “Ned” Lundquist is a retired U.S. Navy captain with 43 years of professional public affairs and strategic communications experience. His company, Echo Bridge LLC, which provides outreach and advocacy support to government and commercial clients. He served on active duty for 24 years in the U.S. Navy as a surface warfare officer and public affairs specialist. Captain Lundquist was a Pentagon spokesman with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, Director of the Fleet Home Town News Center, and director of public affairs and corporate communications for the Navy Exchange Service Command. His last tour of duty was commanding the 450 men and women of the Naval Media Center. He is an accredited business communicator and award-winning communicator who served as president of IABC/Hampton Roads and IABC/Washington, director of U.S. District 3, and chair of the International Accreditation Council. He was named an IABC Fellow in 2016. Captain Lundquist received the Surface Navy Association’s Special Recognition Award in January of this year, for his service on SNA’s executive committee and chair of the SNA communications committee. He writes for numerous naval, maritime, and defense publications and chairs and presents at communications, naval, and maritime security conferences around the world. Robin McCasland, IABC Fellow, SCMP, is Senior Director of Corporate Communications for Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC). She leads the company’s communications team and the employee listening program, demonstrating to senior leaders how employee and executive communication add value to the business’s bottom line. Previously, Robin excelled in leadership roles in communication for Texas Instruments, Dell, Tenet Healthcare, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe. She has also worked for large and boutique HR consulting firms, leading major communication initiatives for various well-known companies. Robin is a past IABC chairman and has served in numerous association leadership roles for over 30 years. She was honored in 2023 and 2021 by Ragan/PR Daily as one of the Top Women Leaders in Communication. She’s also received IABC Southern Region and IABC Dallas Communicator of the Year honors. Robin is a graduate of The University of Texas at Austin and a Leadership Texas alumnus. Her own podcast, Torpid Liver (and Other Symptoms of Poor Communication), features guest speakers addressing timely topics to help communication professionals become more influential, strategic advisors and leaders. She resides in Dallas, Texas, with her husband, Mitch, and their canine kids, Tank and Petunia. George McGrath is founder and managing principal of McGrath Business Communications, which helps clients build winning corporate reputations, promote their products and services, and advance their views on key issues. George brings more than 25 years in PR and public affairs to his firm. Over the course of his career, he has held senior management positions at leading strategic communications and integrated marketing agencies including Hill and Knowlton, Carl Byoir & Associates, and Brouillard Communications. Caroline Sapriel, founder and Managing Partner of CS&A, brings over 30 years of specialized expertise in risk, crisis, and business continuity management to the table. A Fellow of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) and a recipient of the Gold Quill Award for her “10 Commandments of Crisis Management,” Sap

Most agency owners have read Built to Sell. But many have internalized the wrong lesson from it—fixating on that final chapter where the protagonist drives off into the sunset with a pile of cash, rather than the actual business-building advice throughout the book. The result is owners spending years building businesses optimized for a sale that may never happen, or that won’t deliver the outcome they’re imagining. In this episode, Chip and Gini discuss Chip’s “Build to Own” philosophy as a counterpoint to the built-to-sell mindset. The core principle: focus on creating a business that serves you today, not some hypothetical buyer tomorrow. This doesn’t mean you can’t or won’t sell—it means you stop treating the sale as the primary objective and start treating ownership as the thing you’re optimizing for right now. Chip breaks down the TMRW framework for thinking about what you want from your business: Time (how much you spend and what flexibility you have), Meaning (what gives you satisfaction—clients, team, impact), Rewards (financial outcomes that fund your life today and tomorrow), and Work (the actual role you’re crafting for yourself). Gini shares her decision to retire from speaking despite conventional wisdom saying agency owners should be out there raising their profile—because the anxiety wasn’t worth the marginal business benefit. The conversation tackles the uncomfortable reality that most agency owners counting on a sale to fund their retirement are likely building businesses that won’t command the multiple they’re hoping for. Meanwhile, owners who build businesses that throw off enough cash to fund retirement directly—while also being enjoyable to run—end up with something far more attractive to buyers when and if they do decide to sell. Gini tells the story of a friend who prepared five years in advance for a sale: removing himself from day-to-day operations, hiring a president to build culture, ensuring the business wasn’t founder-dependent. The result? An 18x multiple. But the episode’s point isn’t “here’s how to get a great sale”—it’s that you should make every decision through the lens of “would I still be happy with this if I never sold?” [read the transcript] The post ALP 298: Build the business you want to own, not the one you hope to sell appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

In this monthly long-form episode for March, Neville and Shel tackle a trio of interconnected themes reshaping the communications profession in the age of AI. The conversation opens with Anthropic’s top lawyer declaring that AI will destroy the billable hour. That thread leads naturally into JP Morgan’s controversial use of digital monitoring to verify junior bankers’ working hours, where Shel and Neville question whether surveillance technology can substitute for genuine managerial trust and engagement. The episode also examines Gartner’s widely circulated prediction that PR budgets will double by 2027 as AI search engines favor earned media. Shel delivers a detailed report on the escalating misinformation crisis, citing a 900% surge in global deepfake incidents and new research from the C2PA on content provenance standards. The episode closes with a discussion of Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince’s prediction that bot traffic will exceed human traffic by 2027, and a sobering peer-reviewed study on how social bots hijack organizational messaging — research reported by Bob Pickard, who has experienced bot-driven attacks firsthand. Dan York also contributes a tech report on the state of the Fediverse and Mastodon, as well as on AI developments for WordPress. Links from this episode: AI will destroy the billable hour, says Anthropic’s top lawyer Gartner predicts PR budgets will increase 2x by 2027 5 takes on Gartner’s new optimism for PR and earned media in the age of AI PR is back, baby — Gartner is predicting… [LinkedIn post by Lindsay Bennett] The Gartner claim that public relations and earned media budgets will double by 2027 JPMorgan starts programme to monitor junior banker hours [Financial Times] FT Exclusive: The US bank has started to… [Financial Times LinkedIn post] Senator Bernie Sanders Discusses the Impact of AI on Privacy and Democracy with Claude Let’s Talk Keyboard Jamming and Why It Might Suggest Bigger Problems at Work Telling Fact From Fiction With Online Misinformation Online bot traffic will exceed human traffic by 2027, Cloudflare CEO says Public Relations & Organizational Communication [LinkedIn post by Bob Pickard] Social Bots as Agenda-Builders: Evaluating the Impact of Algorithmic Amplification on Organizational Messaging Links from Dan York’s Tech Report: Mastodon post by Eugen Rochko (@Gargron) — mastodon.social Mastodon — Decentralized social media How to Generate a WordPress Theme with Telex Telex — AI-Assisted Authoring Environment for WordPress WordPress.com now lets AI agents write and publish posts, and more Your AI agent can now create, edit, and manage content on WordPress.com Enable MCP tool access for AI agents WordPress.com MCP prompt examples The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, April 27. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript Neville: Hi everyone, and welcome to the Forum Immediate Release podcast, long form episode for March, 2026. I’m Neville Hobson. Shel: And I’m Shel Holtz. Neville: As ever, we have six great stories to discuss and share with you, and we hope you’ll gain insight and enjoyment from our discussion. Perhaps you’ll want to share a comment with us once you’ve had a listen. We’d like that. Our topics this month range from AI in the end of the billable hour to Gartner’s predictions about PR budgets to monitoring work in the age of AI to newsrooms battling AI generated misinformation and more, including Dan York’s tech reports. Before we get into our discussion, let’s begin with a recap of the episodes we’ve published over the past month and some list of comments in the long form. In episode 502 for February, published on the 23rd of that month, we explored how rapidly accelerating technology is reshaping the communication profession from autonomous agents with attitudes to the evolving ROI of podcasting. We led with a chilling milestone moment, an autonomous AI coding agent that publicly shamed a human developer after he rejected its code contribution. A leader can build goodwill for days and lose it in seconds. In FIR 503 on the 2nd of March, we reported on the president of the IOC, that’s the International Olympic Committee, who had no answers to reporters’ questions and suggested on camera that someone on her communications team should be fired. We got comment on this, haven’t we, Sh

In FIR #505, Neville and Shel dig into Hootsuite’s Social Media Trends 2026 report, which argues that social media is no longer just a communication channel — it’s morphing into a search engine, cultural radar, and real-time research tool. They explore what it means for communicators when younger audiences treat TikTok and Instagram as their primary discovery platforms, and when Google itself starts indexing social content. The conversation also tackles “fastvertising” — the growing pressure on brands to react to cultural moments within hours — and whether that speed actually translates to bottom-line results or just burnout. The discussion takes a provocative turn when Shel raises Ethan Mollick’s warning that public forums are being systematically overrun by machine-generated content, with research suggesting one in five accounts in public conversations may be automated. They weigh the AI paradox facing communicators: generative AI has become table stakes for social media production, yet 30% of consumers say they’re less likely to choose a brand whose ads they know were AI-created. Neville and Shel agree that social media can serve as both a publishing channel and a listening tool — but only if human-to-human communication can survive the rising tide of bot-generated noise. Links from this episode: Social Media Trends 2026 | Hootsuite The 18 social media trends to shape your 2026 strategy Sferra Design video on Social Media Trends report | Instagram World-first social media wargame reveals how AI bots can swing elections AI bot swarms threaten to undermine democracy B2B Social Media Trends and Predictions for 2026 The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, March 23. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Shel: Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 505 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz. Neville: And I’m Neville Hobson. Social media might be going through its biggest change since the rise of the news feed, and it’s happening quietly. Platforms that started as places to connect with friends are increasingly acting like search engines, cultural sensors, and even market research tools. It’s been a while since Shel and I talked about social media on the podcast, and frankly, that’s partly because the conversation often feels repetitive. New platforms appear, algorithms change, someone declares the death of Twitter again. That’s the kind of format that we seem to be following. But every now and then, a report comes along that suggests something deeper is happening. Hootsuite’s new Social Media Trends 2026 report published last month argues that social media is no longer just a communication channel. It’s becoming something much broader — part search engine, part cultural radar, and part market research lab. Take search, for example. Younger users increasingly treat platforms like TikTok or Instagram as search tools. Instead of Googling “best coffee shop in London,” they search TikTok and watch short videos from real people recommending places to go. And now Google itself has started indexing Instagram posts and surfacing short-form social video in search results. The line between social media and search is starting to blur. At the same time, we’re seeing a strange tension around artificial intelligence. According to the report, most social media managers now use generative AI tools every day to write captions, brainstorm ideas, edit images or video. But audiences are increasingly suspicious of content that feels automated or synthetic. More than 30% of consumers say they’re less likely to choose a brand if they know its ads were created by AI. So brands are in a curious position. AI is becoming essential behind the scenes, but the content that performs best often needs to feel unmistakably human. And culturally, social media itself is fragmenting. The report points to what it calls Gen Alpha Chaos Culture — absurd memes, distorted audio, and intentionally chaotic editing styles that dominate TikTok among younger audiences. Meanwhile, older audiences — that’s you and me, Shel — are gravitating towards almost the opposite aesthetic: nostalgic references to the ’80s and ’90s, calming, cozy content, and even posts about slow living and digital detox. I do some of that, but I also do the other stuff too. So it’s

S4 Capital has announced a revolutionary new pricing model that will transform how agencies charge for their services: instead of billable hours, they’re moving to… subscriptions. Fixed monthly fees. Annual contracts that auto-renew. All costs absorbed into the price rather than passed through as variables. You know, retainers. The pricing model most independent agencies have used for decades. In this episode (somewhat abbreviated due to Gini’s technical difficulties), Chip and Gini dissect the holding company’s “brilliant innovation” with the appropriate level of sarcasm, then pivot to the more interesting question buried in the announcement: how should agencies price around AI? The conversation moves from eye-rolling at repackaged retainer models to wrestling with legitimate uncertainty about how AI costs will evolve and what that means for agency pricing strategies. Chip points out that we only know what AI costs today, and it’s likely those costs will rise as platforms realize they’re replacing expensive labor and can charge accordingly. This creates a pricing puzzle—do you transparently pass through AI costs, absorb them into your general cost of doing business, or find some middle ground? Gini shares how she’s handling questions from college students about whether jobs will exist when they graduate, explaining that the work itself is shifting from doing to orchestrating, from creating to editing and refining AI outputs. The discussion highlights the difference between cosmetic changes (calling retainers “subscriptions”) and substantive challenges (figuring out sustainable pricing as AI capabilities and costs both increase). They land on the principle that AI costs should be factored into your total cost of doing business rather than line-itemized separately, giving you flexibility to adapt as the landscape shifts without locking yourself into specific cost structures that may not hold. The subtext throughout is that holding companies remain out of touch with how most agencies actually operate, still discovering “innovations” that the rest of the industry implemented years ago. [read the transcript] The post ALP 297: Holding companies discover retainers, call them “subscriptions” appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

Shel and Neville examine a troubling trend gaining momentum across corporate America: AI washing — the practice of attributing layoffs to artificial intelligence when the real reasons are more complex. The discussion centers on two high-profile cases. Block CEO Jack Dorsey announced a 40 percent workforce reduction, crediting AI tools, despite three prior rounds of cuts that had nothing to do with AI and pushback from former employees who say the moves look like standard cost management. Meanwhile, Oracle is cutting thousands of jobs, not because AI replaced those workers, but to fund a massive data center expansion that Wall Street projects won’t generate positive cash flow until 2030. Meanwhile, a new Anthropic labor market study adds context, finding limited evidence that AI has meaningfully displaced workers to date—though hiring of younger workers in exposed occupations may be slowing. Neville and Shel dig into what this means for communicators who may be asked to craft layoff messaging that overstates AI’s role. Links from this episode: Labor market impacts of AI: A new measure and early evidence | Anthropic What is AI Washing and Why Has It Been Linked to Layoffs? Block employees react to mass layoffs, impact of AI The US economy lost 92,000 jobs in February and the unemployment rate rose to 4.4% The Curious Case of the Block ‘AI Layoffs’ Jack Dorsey Is Ready to Explain the Block Layoffs Oracle Plans Thousands of Job Cuts in Face of AI Cash Crunch Is AI really driving an increase in layoffs? Why Today’s AI-Driven Layoffs Are Becoming Tomorrow’s Rehiring Crisis The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, March 23. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Neville: Hi everyone and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 504. I’m Neville Hobson. Shel: And I’m Shel Holtz. Let’s talk about something today that should be keeping every communication professional up at night. We’re in the middle of a wave of layoffs where AI is being cited as the cause and the data suggests that in many cases that explanation is somewhere between incomplete and pure fiction. That puts communicators in a genuinely difficult position. You may be asked to help craft messaging that you have good reason to believe is misleading. Shel: That’s a violation of codes of ethics. The stakes here are pretty high. We’ll explain all of this and what communicators should be doing about it right after this. Shel: Let’s start with the numbers. News of the Oracle layoffs broke just last week amid news that the U.S. economy lost 92,000 jobs in February. And into that bleak backdrop, two major stories landed almost simultaneously. First, Block. Jack Dorsey announced that the company is cutting its staff by 40 percent, more than 4,000 people. The reason, according to his letter to shareholders, intelligence tools. Dorsey framed this as inevitable and even proactive saying, and this is a quote, “I think most companies are late. Within the next year, I think the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion.” But here’s where it gets complicated. Block had already undergone three rounds of layoffs since 2024 before this one. And in a previous round, Dorsey claimed that they were being made for performance reasons. AI, as far as I can tell, wasn’t mentioned at all, despite the fact that the same tools he now credits were already available and being used by employees. Former employees and analysts pushed back pretty hard on Dorsey’s assertions. One former Block employee wrote that the cuts “read like standard prioritization and cost management, not AI-driven reinvention.” Shel: And another analyst was blunter, saying the vast majority of these cuts were probably not due to AI. Then, as I mentioned earlier, there’s Oracle, which is planning to axe thousands of jobs among its moves to handle a cash crunch. That cash crunch was created by a massive AI data center expansion effort. Now, this is a different kind of AI-related layoff. It’s not AI replacing these workers, but rather, we’re spending so much money building AI infrastructure that we can’t afford to keep paying these people. Wall Street projects Oracle’s cash flow will go negative for the coming years before all that spending starts to pay off in 2030. That’s workers losing their jobs not

The president of the International Olympic Committee didn’t have an answer to a question posed to her at a press conference on the final day of the 2026 Winter Olympics. Or to another question. Or to yet another. Ultimately, she suggested, on camera, that someone on her communications team should be fired. In this short midweek FIR episode, Shel and Neville look at the fallout, what both the president and the head of communications might have done differently, and the possible long-term consequences. Links from this episode IOC president condemned for public attack on comms team LinkedIn Post from Jasred Meade, MPS, APR, MPRCA Olympics boss Kirsty Coventry threatens to fire team mid-press conference in awkward moment | LinkedIn Post Olympics boss Kirsty Coventry threatens to fire team mid-press conference in awkward moment | Yahoo Sports DW News (@dwnews) on X Kirsty Conventry profile on LinkedIn Mark Adams profile on LinkedIn Sky News report on YouTube Kirsty Coventry earns praise following first Olympics as IOC president The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, March 23. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Shel Holtz: Hi, everybody, and welcome to episode number 503 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz. Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson. Something happened at the Winter Olympics last month that set off a fierce reaction across the communication profession and it wasn’t about sport. During the final daily press conference on the 20th of February, IOC president Kirsty Coventry was asked a series of geopolitical questions. Questions about Russia and doping. Comments linked to Germany and 2036, questions about senior sporting figures engaging in wider political activity. On more than one occasion, she said she wasn’t aware of the issue and visibly looked towards her communication team. At one point, she went further and suggested that perhaps someone should be dismissed. That’s the moment that shifted this from a routine press conference stumble into something much bigger. We’ll explore it right after this. What makes this especially interesting is the context. A few days after the press conference, Coventry had been widely praised for her leadership at the Milan Cortina Games. Reporting from the AP on the 23rd of February described her first Olympics as IOC president as having good overall success, noting the intense political pressure she faced and the way she engaged directly with athletes during the Ukraine controversy. That controversy centered on Ukraine’s skeleton racer, Wladyslaw Hraskiewicz, who competed wearing a helmet memorializing athletes and coaches killed in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The gesture drew scrutiny and diplomatic tension around whether it breached Olympic neutrality rules. Coventry chose to meet him face to face at the track and later became visibly emotional when discussing the issue with international media. That moment was widely interpreted as defining her emerging leadership style: empathetic, athlete-facing, and willing to engage directly. The games were even described as giving a taste of tougher challenges ahead as the IOC looks towards Los Angeles 2028. In other words, this wasn’t a presidency in crisis. There was goodwill, momentum, a sense of forward motion. And then one live moment reframed the entire narrative. Being caught off guard isn’t unusual. No leader can know everything. No briefing pack can anticipate every question. But that’s not the story. The story is what you do in that moment. Do you acknowledge the gap and commit to follow up? Do you bridge to principle? Do you calmly say, I’ll get back to you once I’ve reviewed the details? Or do you turn publicly and imply that your team has failed you? The communication reaction was swift and pointed. LinkedIn filled up with variations of the same message. Accountability sits with the principal. Praise in public, criticize in private. You can’t outsource responsibility. But I think there’s a deeper discussion here. Yes, leaders must own the podium. Yes, public blame undermines trust. But this also raises questions about executive readiness, about the contract between leadership and communication, and about how fragile reputational capital really is. Those geopolitical questions were not obscure. They were predictable fault lines around an organi

The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer reveals a troubling shift from polarization to grievance to insularity—a progression in which stakeholders aren’t only divided or angry but also withdrawing into tight circles of “people like us” while viewing outsiders with suspicion. In this Circle of Fellows conversation, our panel will examine the strategic and practical implications of a world in which employees trust their CEO and neighbors more than external sources, domestic companies enjoy trust advantages over foreign competitors, and income divides deepen distrust across organizational hierarchies. The Fellows will explore how communication professionals can position themselves as trust brokers within their organizations, helping bridge the executive suite, front-line employees, and diverse stakeholder groups while navigating generational differences in how people experience and express grievances. From Gen Alpha’s focus on external blame and politicized “whataboutism” to the role of AI governance in building institutional credibility, this fast-paced discussion will provide frameworks for communicators to remain centered and effective even as insularity and grievance reshape the landscape we navigate daily. Episode #125 of “Circle of Fellows” was recorded on Thursday, February 26. The next episode of Circle of Fellows, which will focus on the new realities of crisis communication, is scheduled for noon ET on Thursday, March 26. Mark your calendar and watch for details! About the panel: Priya Bates is a senior communications executive who provides strategic internal communication counsel to ensure leaders, managers, and employees understand the strategy, believe in the vision, act in accordance with the values, and contribute to business results. She is president of Inner Strength Communications in Toronto and previously served as senior director of Internal Communications at Loblaw Companies Limited. Alice Brink is an internationally recognized communications consultant. Her firm, A Brink & Co., works with businesses and non-profits to clarify their messages and communicate them in ways that change people’s minds. Her clients have included Shell Oil Company, Sysco Foods, and Noble Energy. Before launching A Brink & Co. in Houston in 2004, Alice honed her craft in corporate settings (including The Coca-Cola Company, Conoco, and First Interstate Bank) and in one of Texas’s largest public relations firms, where she led the agency’s energy and financial practices. Alice has been active in IABC for over 30 years, including as chapter president, district director, and Gold Quill chair. Jane Mitchell’s career began at the BBC in London on live TV programs. She moved on to producing award-winning films and videos for public- and private-sector organizations and to developing groundbreaking employee engagement programs. Since 2006, when she formed her own consultancy, she has guided organizations (some of which have experienced cultural trauma) in embedding values and ethics by understanding culture and leadership, and their link to high-performing, sustainable organizations. She has worked with Top 100 companies worldwide and is a regular conference speaker. Jane has been a member of IABC since 2008 and has served on local, regional, and International IABC Boards. In 2021, she was Chair of the (virtual) World Conference and became an IABC fellow in 2022. She is based in the UK and now spends the majority of her professional time as a Non-Exec on company boards and Employee-Owned Trusts. Jennifer Wah, MC, ABC, has worked with clients to deliver ideas, plans, words and results since she founded her storytelling and communications firm, Forwords Communication Inc., in 1997. With more than two dozen awards for strategic communications, writing, and consulting, Jennifer is recognized as a storyteller and strategist. She has worked in industries from healthcare and academia to financial services and the resource sector, and is passionate about the strategic use of storytelling to support business outcomes. Although she has delivered workshops and training throughout her career, Jennifer formally added teaching to her experience in 2013, first with Royal Roads University and more recently as an adjunct professor of business communications with the UBC Sauder School of Business, where she now works part-time to impart crucial communication skills on the next generation of business leaders. When she is not working, Jennifer spends her time cooking, walking her dog, Orion, or discussing food, hockey, or music with her husband and two young adult children in North Vancouver, Canada. The post Circle of Fellows #125: Communicating in the Age of Grievance appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

The PESO Model has been guiding smart communications strategies for over a decade, but the tactical landscape underneath it keeps shifting. In the latest evolution, Gini and her team have completely revamped the PESO Model Certification to address how AI and large language models are fundamentally changing visibility in 2026. In this episode, Chip interviews Gini about the newly updated certification and what’s changed in how organizations should think about paid, earned, shared, and owned media. The conversation centers on “visibility engineering”—the intersection of owned and earned media where LLMs are scraping information and making decisions about who appears in AI-generated answers. Gini explains why owned media remains the foundation (without content on your own properties, there’s nothing to demonstrate to journalists, creators, or LLMs what you’re about), but the recommended path has shifted from owned-then-earned-or-shared to a more deliberate owned-then-earned-then-shared-then-paid sequence. This evolution reflects how AI systems verify information by comparing what’s on your website against what credible third parties say about you. They also tackle the persistent “X is dead” headlines that plague the industry—whether it’s websites, PR, or press releases. Chip and Gini push back hard on the notion that websites are becoming irrelevant, pointing out that your owned content hub becomes more valuable in an AI-driven world, not less. It’s your source of truth, the fuel for custom AI assistants, and the foundation that persists even as social platforms come and go. The conversation covers practical questions about implementing PESO in smaller agencies, whether you need to be full-service to deliver on all four pillars, and how the certification meets communicators at different experience levels—from college students to seasoned professionals. If you’ve been treating PESO as just four columns of tactics rather than an operating system for communications, this episode clarifies what you’re missing. [read the transcript] The post ALP 296: The PESO Model evolves for the AI era (and why your website isn’t dead) appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

In the February long-form episode of FIR, Shel and Neville dive deep into an AI-heavy landscape, exploring how rapidly accelerating technology is reshaping the communications profession—from autonomous agents with “attitudes” to the evolving ROI of podcasting. The show kicks off with a chilling “milestone” moment: an autonomous AI coding agent that publicly shamed a human developer after its code contribution was rejected. Also in this episode: Accenture’s move to monitor how often senior employees log into internal AI systems, making “regular adoption” a factor in promotion to managing director. The “2026 Change Communication X-ray” study reveals a record 30-point gap between management satisfaction and employee satisfaction with change comms. The PRCA has proposed a new definition of PR, positioning it as a strategic management discipline focused on trust and complexity. However, Neville notes the industry reaction has been muted, with critics arguing the definition doesn’t reflect the majority of agency work. Shel expresses skepticism that any single definition will be adopted without a global consensus. Addressing a provocative claim that corporate podcast ROI is impossible to prove, Shel and Neville argue that the problem lies in measuring the wrong things. They advocate for moving beyond “vanity metrics” like downloads and instead tying podcasts to concrete business goals like lead generation, recruitment, and brand trust. As consumers increasingly turn to LLMs for product recommendations, brands are “wooing the robots” to ensure they are cited accurately in AI responses. Neville asks if we are witnessing a structural shift in reputation or just another optimization cycle. In his Tech Report, Dan York explains why Bluesky is having trouble adding an edit feature, Russia’s blocking of Meta properties, criticism of Australia’s teen social media ban from Snapchat’s CEO, YouTube’s protections for teen users, and more on teen social media bans. Links from this episode: An AI agent just tried to shame a software engineer after he rejected its code OpenClaw Conducts Character Assassination of Real Developers or Code Rejection Developer targeted by AI hit piece warns society cannot handle AI agents that decouple actions from consequences Open Source World Sees First AI Autonomous Attack: OpenClaw Agent Writes Article to Retaliate Against Human Maintainer After Rejection When the Robot Threw a Tantrum: The Day an AI Agent Publicly Attacked a Human Developer — And Why It Should Terrify You Accenture ties staff promotions to use of AI tools Accenture to use AI data to decide on staff promotions Accenture ties promotions to AI tool usage, while some employees call the tools ‘broken slop generators’ James Ransome: Accenture combats ‘AI refuseniks’ by linking promotion to AI activity How AI is changing the way we communicate Re—writing change: How AI is changing the way we communicate How is AI changing workplace communication? We asked ChatGPT The Future Of Work Has Arrived: How AI Is Rebuilding Workplace Culture A New Definition for Public Relations | PRCA Global FIR #496: A Proposed New Definition of Public Relations Sparks Debate A new definition of public relations is welcome – but can it ever be universal? Search: Responses to the PRCA draft new definition of public relations I bet you couldn’t show the ROI of your corporate podcast if your job depended upon The Ultimate Guide To Measuring B2B Podcast ROI: From Downloads To Pipeline Attribution The ROI of B2B Podcasting: Metrics That Matter for Business Growth Maximizing Podcast ROI: Understanding the Benefits and Measuring Success Measuring ROI of Branded Podcasts: Insights from the Industry Chatbots Are the New Influencers Brands Must Woo Links from Dan York’s Tech Report Bluesky adds drafts… but users want editing… which turns out to be hard Bluesky Official: Drafting and Welcome Screen Updates Russia Blocks WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram Access | Social Media Today Snapchat CEO Criticizes Australia’s Teen Social Media Ban | Social Media Today YouTube Adds More Protections for Teen Users | Social Media Today Meta Says the Science Does Not Support Teen Social Media Bans | Social Media Today Two Major Studies, 125,000 Kids: The Social Media Panic Doesn’t Hold Up | Techdirt The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, March 23. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed

AI isn’t replacing communicators — it’s amplifying the value of communication, especially storytelling and strategic writing. In this short, midweek FIR episode, Neville and Shel explore how the hottest jobs in tech are increasingly about telling stories, not writing code, with Netflix, Microsoft, Adobe, Anthropic, and OpenAI all hiring communications and storytelling teams at salaries ranging from six figures up to $775,000 per year. Even AI labs themselves are posting compensation packages around $400K for storytelling and communications roles, signaling that they understand the irreplaceable human value of meaning-making in an age of automated content generation. The distinction Neville and Shel highlight between traditional messaging and true storytelling proves critical: conventional communications start with what the brand wants to say, while storytelling starts with what audiences actually care about. The strongest communicators will be those who move beyond prescriptive messaging to tell genuine human stories. Links from this episode: The unexpected winners of the AI slop boom: Word nerds Why OpenAI Is Offering $400K for Storytelling Roles The Great Communicators Are Human Human Storytellers Worth $400k+ Amidst AI Boom The Great Communicators Are Human Storytelling Wins In The Age Of AI: 3 Valuable Communication Tools How Storytelling Unlocks Career Pathways In The Age Of AI The Bionic Storyteller: How AI can amplify HR’s human voice Businesses hiring storytellers to ‘cut through the AI slop’ Storybrand Building a Story Brand 2.0 (Book) The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, February 23. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Neville Hobson: Hi everyone and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 501. I’m Neville Hobson. Shel Holtz: I’m Shel Holtz. And here’s some good news for communicators. Artificial intelligence isn’t replacing us, it’s amplifying the value of communication itself, especially storytelling and strategic writing. If you’ve been feeling that AI spells doom for writers and communicators, the labor market is telling a very different story. We’ll tell you that story right after this. Let’s start with something concrete. The hottest jobs in tech right now aren’t about writing code or managing data. They’re about telling clear, compelling human stories. Recent hiring trends show that giants like Netflix, Microsoft, Adobe, Anthropic, and OpenAI are aggressively expanding communications and storytelling teams with roles offering from six figures up to as much as $775,000 a year for senior leadership positions without any requirement to write a line of code. Why? Because AI has flooded the internet with cheap automated output, what some observers are calling slopaganda. I love this word, slopaganda. Hadn’t heard it before I read that article, but millions of words get generated every minute. Most of it lacks clarity, insight, context, and meaning, exactly the things that real communicators deliver. Companies are recognizing that the ability to cut through that noise with strategic narrative creates trust, authority, and differentiation in the market. Even the AI labs themselves, including OpenAI and Anthropic, are willing to pay top dollar for storytellers. One analysis said that nearly $400,000 compensation packages are being posted specifically for storytelling and communications roles at these firms. exactly because humans excel at crafting nuanced messages that machines simply can’t. So here’s the underlying shift communicators need to understand. AI automates… AI automates tasks, but meaning making remains deeply human. Machines can generate text, but they don’t know which stories matter to whom or why. And we keep hearing communicators and writers venting on LinkedIn about machines lacking judgment, empathy, context, and strategic framing, all those hallmarks of great communication. That’s exactly what they’re looking for. And in an age of automated noise, those abilities create value. That’s a theme echoed across industry thinking. Shel Holtz: That’s a theme echoed across industry thinking. A Forbes piece on storytelling in the age of AI highlights that storytelling is one of the most powerful tools we have and one of the most powerful tools leaders have. It helps audiences r

David C. Baker recently published a fascinating thought experiment about what he’d do if starting an agency from scratch today—and it’s packed with provocative ideas worth serious consideration. His article offers a comprehensive blueprint covering everything from organizational structure to compensation philosophy, and much of it aligns with how Chip and Gini think about building sustainable agencies. But the most interesting conversations happen when smart people disagree, which is why this episode focuses on the handful of points where Chip and Gini see things differently. Not because Baker’s ideas are bad, but because they expose the tension between aspirational agency management and the messy realities of running a business with real budgets, real people, and real client demands. In this episode, Chip and Gini tackle mandatory one-month sabbaticals for every employee, open-book finances published on your website, 360-degree reviews, and incentive compensation structures. They dig into why ideas that sound compelling in theory often create unintended consequences in practice—like how retention-based bonuses can fuel scope creep, or why forced sabbaticals don’t actually solve the single-point-of-failure problem they’re designed to address. The conversation reveals thoughtful nuance on both sides. Gini shares her brutal experience with anonymous feedback that backfired when presented poorly. Chip explains why he sees most performance measurement systems as “performance theater” while still advocating for more financial transparency with teams. They discuss the logistical nightmares of scheduling multiple month-long absences and why backup systems for unexpected departures matter more than planned time off. Throughout, they return to a central theme: what works brilliantly at one stage of growth can be completely wrong at another. The goal isn’t to declare Baker’s ideas right or wrong, but to test assumptions and recognize that even the most well-intentioned frameworks deserve scrutiny before implementation. [read the transcript] The post ALP 295: Building the ideal agency: wrestling with the tough decisions appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

We are back with this episode after the recent events of the massive layoffs at the Washington Post and the LA Times, the shuttering of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and funding cuts at NPR. Paul and David describe the continuing train wreck of daily news there and contrast the Post’s approach with what has been going on at the New York Times digital property. The Times diversified its revenue stream beyond its core newsgathering with purchasing gaming, cooking, and sports-related content. Post’s owner Jeff Bezos didn’t diversify or even keep the news core. Part of the digital newspaper problem is that its ad revenue model is gone, as search traffic has dried up thanks to AI chatbots. Compounding this is that overall monthly visits to the Post’s website is down from 60M (in 2022) to 40M visits last year, and subscriptions are dropping too. We contrast the Post and the Times business models We talk about some signs of success with subscriptions for smaller, more targeted sites, such as 404Media, which shows that a small group of independent journalists can keep quality high and report on significant stories. Also, individual creators (such as Mr. Beast and Mark Rober) can build a brand and attract significant audiences (Rober has more than 70M subscribers, for example) on YouTube and TikTok. Well worthwhile to listen to Marty Baron, former editorial director of the Post, talk to Tim Miller about his thoughts on the decline of his former employer. The post FIR B2B episode #159: A tale of two newspapers appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

AI has shifted from being purely a productivity story to something far more uncomfortable. Not because the technology became malicious, but because it’s now being used in ways that expose old behaviors through entirely new mechanics. An article in HR Director Magazine argues that AI-enabled workplace abuse — particularly deepfakes — should be treated as workplace harm, not dismissed as gossip, humor, or something that happens outside of work. When anyone can generate realistic images or audio of a colleague in minutes and circulate them instantly, the targeted person is left trying to disprove something that never happened, even though it feels documented. That flips the burden of proof in ways most organizations aren’t prepared to handle. What makes this a communication issue — not just an HR or IT issue — is that the harm doesn’t stop with the creator. It spreads through sharing, commentary, laughter, and silence. People watch closely how leaders respond, and what they don’t say can signal tolerance just as loudly as what they do. In this episode, Neville and Shel explore what communicators can do before something happens: helping organizations explicitly name AI-enabled abuse, preparing leaders for that critical first conversation, and reinforcing standards so that, when trust is tested, people already know where the organization stands. Links from this episode: The Emerging Threat of Workplace AI Abuse The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, February 23. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Shel Holtz: Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 500 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz. Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson. Shel Holtz: And this is episode 500. You would think that that would be some kind of milestone that we would celebrate. For those of you who are relatively new to FIR, this show has been around since 2005. We have not recorded only 500 episodes in that time. We started renumbering the shows when we rebranded it. We started as FIR, then we rebranded to the Hobson and Holtz Report because there were so many other FIR shows. Then, for various reasons, we decided to go back to FIR and we started at zero. But I haven’t checked — if I were to put the episodes we did before that rebranding together with the episodes since then, we’re probably at episode 2020, 2025, something like that. Neville Hobson: I would say that’s about right. We also have interviews in there and we used to do things like book reviews. What else did we do? Book reviews, speeches, speeches. Shel Holtz: Speeches — when you and I were out giving talks, we’d record them and make them available. Neville Hobson: Yeah, boy, those were the days. And we did lives, clip times, you know, so we had quite a little network going there. But 500 is good. So we’re not going to change the numbering, are we? It’s going to confuse people even more, I think. Shel Holtz: No, I think we’re going to stick with it the way it is. So what are we talking about on episode 500? Neville Hobson: Well, this episode has got a topic in line with our themes and it’s about AI. We can’t escape it, but this is definitely a thought-provoking topic. It’s about AI abuse in the workplace. So over the past year, AI has shifted from being a productivity story to something that’s sometimes much more uncomfortable. Not because the technology itself suddenly became malicious, but because it’s now being used in ways that expose old behaviors through entirely new mechanics. An article in HR Director Magazine here in the UK published earlier this month makes the case that AI-enabled abuse, particularly deepfakes, should be treated as workplace harm, not as gossip, humor, or something that happens outside work. And that distinction really matters. We’ll explore this theme right after this message. What’s different here isn’t intent. Harassment, coercion, and humiliation aren’t new. What is new is speed, scaling, credibility. Anyone can use AI to generate realistic images or audio in minutes, circulate them instantly, and leave the person targeted trying to disprove something that never happened but feels documented. The article argues that when this happens, organizations need to respond quickly, contain harm, investigate fairly, and set a c

No more excuses. No more waiting to see how things play out. AI has moved past the experimental phase, and if you’re still treating it like a nice-to-have rather than a fundamental shift in how your agency operates, you’re already falling behind. In this episode, Chip comes out swinging with a wake-up call for the agency community: the ground is shifting faster than most are willing to admit, and the window for meaningful adaptation is closing. Gini backs him up with examples of how AI has progressed from an intern-level tool to something that can genuinely replace mid-level work—if agencies don’t evolve what they’re selling. They dig into the practical reality of training AI tools to work like team members, not just one-off prompt machines. Chip explains how he uses different platforms for different strengths—Claude for writing, Gemini for competitive intelligence, Perplexity for research, and ChatGPT as his strategic baseline. Gini shares how her 12-year-old daughter creates entire anime worlds through conversation with AI, demonstrating the power of treating these tools as collaborators rather than search engines. The conversation covers what clients actually want to pay for in 2026 (hint: it’s not social posts and press releases), how to build AI agents trained on your specific expertise, and why the process of training AI forces valuable clarity about your business. They emphasize that this isn’t about slapping the “AI-powered” label on your services—it’s about fundamentally rethinking what value you deliver and how you deliver it. If you’ve been sitting on the sidelines waiting for the AI dust to settle, this episode is your warning: there is no settling. There’s only evolution or extinction. [read the transcript] The post ALP 294: Wake up or get left behind: AI is forcing your hand appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) responded to member requests for a statement about the federal immigration crackdown in Minnesota with a letter explaining why the organization would remain silent. In this short midweek episode, Neville and Shel outline the key points in the letter, where they disagree, and how they might have responded. Links from this episode: An Open Letter to the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, February 23. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Neville Hobson Hi everyone and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 499. I’m Neville Hobson. Shel Holtz And I’m Shel Holtz. At its core, this podcast is about organizational communication, which leads us to occasionally talk about the associations that aim to represent the profession. So today, let’s talk about PRSA (the Public Relations Society of America), which recently signaled a move to remain apolitical—retreating into a shell of neutrality when members were clamoring for them to speak up on controversial issues. Specifically, I’m talking about the silence from PRSA regarding ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) operations in Minneapolis. Now, before you roll your eyes and think this is just another partisan squabble, stop right there. This isn’t about immigration policy; it is about the integrity of public information—the very foundation of our profession. We’ll dive into what PRSA said and how I responded after this. PRSA leadership, including Chair Heidi Harrell and CEO Matt Marcial, sent a message to members claiming that remaining apolitical protects the organization’s credibility. The letter framed this stance as a means to focus on its core mission. Leadership asserts that while they have commented on sensitive issues in the past, the current “complex environment” demands greater diligence, effectively reserving public advocacy only for matters that directly and significantly impact the technical practice of public relations or its ethical standards. By shifting the burden of advocacy to individual members and requiring chapters to vet local statements through national leadership, the society is attempting to build a “firewall against unintended risks.” In other words, they’re betting that professional neutrality is the best way to maintain trust across a diverse membership, even if it means stepping back from the broader social fray. Now, I have a different perspective. In fact, I’ve published an open letter to PRSA leadership on LinkedIn, arguing that their own Code of Ethics doesn’t just permit them to speak out—it actually demands it. Consider the “Free Flow of Information” provision in the PRSA Code of Ethics. It states that protecting the flow of accurate and truthful information is essential for a democratic society. In Minneapolis, we have federal officials making public statements about the killings of U.S. citizens—statements that are being credibly disputed by video evidence and eyewitness accounts. When government officials systematically misrepresent facts, that is a professional standards issue. It is not political to distinguish a truth from a lie. It is, quite literally, our job. PRSA argues that they want to maintain trust across a diverse membership, but let’s be clear: silence is a statement. It’s a message that says our ethical commitments are only applicable when there’s nothing controversial to address. Don’t believe for a minute that neutrality will save your reputation. Silence in the face of documented misinformation erodes trust among the very members who look to the Society to model the courage we’re expected to show our clients every day. The PRSA Ethics Code mandates a dual obligation: loyalty to clients and service to the public interest. It doesn’t say “serve the public interest only when it’s convenient or not controversial.” When federal agents are accused of violating nearly a hundred court orders and detaining citizens unlawfully, truth in the public interest is eroding fast under the weight of official silence. If PRSA won’t defend the standard of truth when it’s being trampled by powerful federal agencies, who will? I am not suggesting that PRSA needs to become an immigration advocacy grou

In this FIR Interview, Neville Hobson and Shel Holtz speak with crisis and risk communication specialist Philippe Borremans about his new Crisis Communication 2026 Trend Report, based on a survey of senior crisis and communication leaders. The conversation explores how crisis communication is evolving in an era defined by polycrisis, declining trust, and accelerating AI-driven risk – and why many organisations remain dangerously underprepared despite growing awareness of these threats. Drawing on real-world examples, including recent AI-amplified reputation crises, Philippe outlines where organisations are falling short and what communicators can do now to close the gap between awareness and action. Highlights AI is changing crisis dynamics: Organisations recognise risks like AI-driven misinformation and deepfakes, yet few have tested response plans or governance frameworks. Most crises are issues gone wrong: Crises often emerge from internal behaviours and poor issue management rather than sudden external shocks. Trust isn’t a luxury; it’s measurable: “Building trust” sounds good, but most organisations lack meaningful metrics or strategies to manage it. Silos break under stress: Crisis readiness still lives in functional silos — legal, HR, comms, operations — making compound crises harder to handle. Testing beats plans alone: Having a crisis plan helps, but regular, realistic testing and muscle memory are what make teams resilient. Agility matters more than perfect data: Waiting for complete information can stall responses; communicators must be comfortable acting in the face of uncertainty. About our Conversation Partner Philippe Borremans is a leading authority on AI-driven crisis, risk, and emergency communication with over 25 years of experience spanning 30+ countries. As the author of Mastering Crisis Communication with ChatGPT: A Practical Guide, he bridges the critical gap between emerging technologies and high-stakes communication management. A trusted advisor to global organisations including the World Health Organisation, the European Council, and multinational corporations, Philippe brings deep expertise in public health emergencies, corporate crisis communication, and AI-enhanced communication strategies. He is the creator of the Universal Adaptive Crisis Communication framework (UACC), designed to manage complex, overlapping crises. He publishes Wag The Dog, a weekly newsletter tracking industry innovations and trends. Follow Philippe on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/philippeborremans/ Relevant links https://www.riskcomms.com/ https://www.wagthedog.io/ https://www.riskcomms.com/f/the-2026-crisis-emergency-and-risk-communication-trends-report Transcript Shel Holtz Hi everybody and welcome to a For Immediate Release interview. I’m Shel Holtz. Neville Hobson I’m Neville Hobson. Shel Holtz And we are here today with Philippe Borremans. We have known Philippe for at least 20 years, going back to the days where he was managing blogging at IBM out of Brussels, located today in Portugal. And an independent consultant addressing crisis, risk, and emergency communications. Welcome, Philippe. Delighted to have you with us. Philippe Borremans No, thanks for having me and it’s good to see you both. Shel Holtz And before we jump into our questions, could you tell listeners a little bit about yourself, a little more background than I just offered up? Philippe Borremans Sure. Yeah, as you said, I mean, I started out in PR with Porter Novelli in Brussels, that’s ages ago, and then moved in-house at IBM for 10 years. So that was from 99 to, I think 2009, must be, working on, as you said, the first blogging guidelines, which then became the social media guidelines. It was a great project, I was responsible for all external comms there. And then… In fact, moved away from Belgium, lived four years in Morocco, working in public relations on a more, a bit more strategic level. And since then I’ve been specializing in risk, crisis and emergency comms. So that’s actually the only thing I do. It’s mainly around all the things that could happen to either a private sector organization, a government or a public organization. Shel Holtz And you also produce and distribute a terrific newsletter on all of this. So we’ll ask you later to let people know how to subscribe to that. We thought we would start with a case study, although we are going to get into a survey that you recently wrapped up and released. there was an incident in which an executive at Campbell’s, the company that makes Campbell’s soup, claimed that the company’s products were highly processed food for poor people and that the company used bioengineered meat. He also made some derogatory remarks about employees and this surfaced and spread around. An analysis found that negative sentiment around the company surged to 70 % and page one search results were flooded with these negat

You built an agency you’re proud of. So why does your website still feature that glowing tribute to someone you wouldn’t recommend today, or explain services you stopped offering three years ago? In this episode, Chip and Gini tackle the unsexy but critical task of auditing your agency’s website content. They share practical approaches for identifying what needs updating, what deserves deletion, and how to prioritize your efforts when you’re staring down hundreds (or thousands) of outdated pages. The conversation covers everything from quick wins—like updating your homepage and key pages—to strategic decisions about high-traffic content that no longer serves your business. Gini shares her process for using tools like Screaming Frog to audit content systematically, while Chip emphasizes the importance of focusing on human users rather than chasing every algorithm change. They also dive into the balance between refreshing old content and creating new material, with specific guidance on when each approach makes sense. The episode wraps with a reminder that consistency matters more than perfection—especially when AI is increasingly using your bio and content to determine whether to recommend you. If your website is starting to feel like a liability rather than an asset, this episode offers a manageable roadmap to get it back on track without turning it into a year-long project. [read the transcript] The post ALP 293: Stop letting your website embarrass you appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer focuses squarely on “a crisis of insularity.” The world’s largest independent PR agency suggests only business is in a position to be a trust broker in this environment. While the Trust Barometer’s data offers valuable insights, Neville and Shel suggest it be viewed through the lens of critical thinking. After all, who is better positioned to counsel businesses on how to be a trust broker than a PR agency? Also in this episode: Research shows employee adoption of AI is low, especially in non-tech organizations like retail and manufacturing, and among lower-level employees. CEOs insist that AI is making work more efficient. Do employees agree? Organizations believe deeply in the importance of alignment. So why aren’t employees aligned any more today than they were eight years ago? Mark Zuckerberg changed the name of his company to reflect its commitment to the metaverse. These days, the metaverse doesn’t figure much in Zuckerberg’s thinking In his Tech Report, Dan York reflects on Wikipedia’s 25th anniversary. Links from this episode: 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Society Is Becoming More Insular Exclusive: Global trust data finds our shared reality is collapsing Insularity is next trust crisis, according to the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Employers are the most trusted institution. That should worry you – Strategic The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer has landed, and everyone in comms is about to spend the next six months quoting the same statistic HIS THEORY IS LITERALLY: The human beings of the earth don’t like each other, don’t trust each other, won’t talk to each other, won’t listen to each other. Richard Edelman Has No Clothes. (Nobody Does.) Trust amid insularity: the leadership challenge hiding in plain sight Employees say they’re fuzzy on their employers’ AI strategy JP Morgan’s AI adoption hit 50% of employees. The secret? A connectivity-first architecture How Americans View AI and Its Impact on People and Society Only 14% of workers use GenAI daily despite rising AI optimism: Survey Offering more AI tools can’t guarantee better adoption — so what can? Only 10 Percent of Workers Use AI Daily. Getting Higher Adoption Depends on Leaders Leaders Assume Employees Are Excited About AI. They’re Wrong. Meta is about to start grading workers on their AI skills CEOs are delusional about AI adoption CEOs Say AI Is Making Work More Efficient. Employees Tell a Different Story. The Productivity Gap Nobody Measured. FIR #497: CEOs Wrest Control of AI The Alignment Paradox What Mark Zuckerberg’s metaverse U-turn means for the future of virtual reality Meta Lays Off Thousands of VR Workers as Zuckerberg’s Vision Fails Meta Lays Off 1,500 People in Metaverse Division FIR episodes that featured metaverse discussions Links from Dan York’s Tech Report Celebrating Wikipedia’s 25th Birthday and Reflecting on Being a wikipedia for 21 Years At 25, Wikipedia faces its biggest threat yet: AI Wikipedia at 25: A Wake-Up Call The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, February 23. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Shel Holtz: Hi everybody and welcome to episode number 498 of For Immediate Release. This is our long-form episode for January 2026. I’m Shel Holtz in Concord, California. Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson, Somerset in the UK. Shel Holtz: And we have a great episode for you today, lots to talk about. I’m sure you’ll be shocked, completely shocked that much of it has a focus on artificial intelligence and its place in communication, but some other juicy topics as well. We’re going to start with the Edelman Trust Barometer, but we do have some housekeeping to take care of first and we will start with a rundown of the short midweek episodes that we have shared with you since our December 2025 long form monthly episode. Neville? Neville Hobson: Indeed. And starting with that episode that we published on the 29th of December, we led with exploring the future of news, including the Washington Post’s ill-advised launch of a personalized AI-generated podcast that failed to meet the newsroom standard for accuracy and the shift from journalist to information stewards as news sources. Other stories included Martin Sorrell’s belief that PR is dead and Sarah Waddington’s rebuttal

The communication profession is currently weathering a perfect storm of tectonic shifts, from the promises of AI to the messy realities of hybrid work, and we are languishing in denial if we think traditional, one-way “career advice” will save us. In the January 2026 Circle of Fellows, our panel will move beyond the clichés to examine mentoring as a pragmatic, strategic tool for institutional knowledge transfer and professional resilience. High-impact mentoring fosters the “trusted advisor” mindset, helping practitioners navigate the minefield of ethical leadership while bridging the gap between academic theory and high-stakes business execution. Whether you’re a senior leader looking to cultivate the next generation of strategic thinkers or a rising professional seeking to future-proof your career, this episode provides actionable frameworks for building the kind of meaningful, two-way developmental relationships that drive both individual growth and organizational success. The panel was recorded on Thursday, January 22, 2026. About the panel: Dr. Amanda Hamilton-Attwell, accredited by both IABC and PRSA. She is Managing Director of Business DNA, based in South Africa, which provides strategic research and consulting, including communication audits, customer service, and women’s leadership topics. She is licensed in Adobe Connect and WebEx, using these to conduct virtual professional learning and education sessions. and other focused research and training in communication skills. Her career has also included a 15-year stint as a research manager for the National Productivity Institute. Brent Carey is an award-winning communications executive and corporate storyteller who has been helping organizations connect with their stakeholders and achieve successful business outcomes for more than 30 years. During his career in corporate communications, he has practiced the complete range of the profession’s disciplines, including internal/HR communications and employee engagement, recruitment marketing, issues management and crisis communications, public and media relations, marketing communications and government relations. Brent is currently Vice President, Communications, at Mattamy Asset Management (the parent company of Mattamy Homes), based in Toronto, where he leads the corporate communications function and a small, impactful team that provides strategic planning and execution across Mattamy’s operations in Canada and the US. Brent has also held communication leadership roles with KPMG International, Deloitte Canada, CIBC, TD Bank and Imperial Oil. In 2004 he earned the Accredited Business Communicator (ABC) designation from IABC and in 2024 was recognized with the prestigious IABC Canada Master Communicator Award, an accolade bestowed upon select professionals who have demonstrated exemplary contributions to the field of communication. Brent graduated from York University in Toronto with a double honours degree in Communications and English. Andrea Greenhous’s life’s purpose is to improve the world of work. For over 30 years, she has helped organizations improve the employee experience and build workplaces where people thrive. As founder and president of Vision2Voice, an internal communications agency, Andrea and her dedicated team help organizations adopt a strategic approach to employee communications to achieve results. Andrea has led initiatives and transformation projects for Fortune 500 technology companies, large government departments, and organizations as diverse as construction, biotech, finance, and higher education. This has led to a signature approach emphasizing harnessing employee voices and amplifying their insights and ideas. Andrea is a storyteller, a PROSCI-certified change leader, and Dare to Lead trained based on the work and research of Brené Brown. She is also a certified Fearless Organization Practitioner. She uses the tools and processes developed by Amy C. Edmondson, the Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School, to build psychological safety in teams. Andrea has been named one of the top 10 influencers in internal communications and is a frequent guest blogger and speaker at industry events. Russell Grossman, DipPR, ABC, FRSA, FCIPR, FCIM, IABC Fellow, has been a communications practitioner for 40 years and a UK Senior Civil Servant since 2006. He is Director of Communications at the UK Rail Regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, and recently stepped down after 13 years from his additional position as the head of the Government Communication Service (GCS) internal communications profession. He’s a non-executive director of the “Engage for Success ” movement, which aims to advance employee engagement, and a sponsor for both the GCS Fast Stream and GCS Talent. He is a past International Chair of IABC. Russell and his long-suffering wife of 40 years are blessed with four children (one of whom also works within GCS) and five grandchildren. Raw Transcri

The latest BCG AI Radar survey signals a definitive turning point: AI has graduated from a tech-driven experiment to a CEO-owned strategic mandate. As corporate investments double, a striking “confidence gap” is emerging between optimistic leaders in the corner office and the more skeptical teams tasked with implementation. With the rapid rise of Agentic AI — autonomous systems that execute complex workflows rather than just generating text — the focus is shifting from simple productivity gains to a total overhaul of culture and operating models. In this episode, Neville and Shel examine this evolution that places communicators at the center of a high-stakes transition as AI moves from a pilot phase into end-to-end organizational transformation. Links from this episode: As AI Investments Surge, CEOs Take the Lead Complete BCG Report The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, January 26. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Shel Holtz: Hi everybody and welcome to episode number 497 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz. Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson. For the past couple of years, AI in organizations has mostly been talked about as a technology story—a set of tools to deploy, experiments to run, and efficiencies to unlock. It was often led by IT, digital, or data teams, with the CEO interested but not always directly involved. The latest AI Radar survey from BCG suggests that phase is now over. For the third year running, BCG has surveyed senior executives across global markets—nearly 2,400 leaders in 16 markets, including more than 600 CEOs. The standout finding isn’t just how much money organizations are spending on AI, or even how optimistic leaders are about returns. It’s something more structural. Nearly three-quarters of CEOs now say they are the main decision-maker on AI in their organization. That’s double the share from last year. This is not a minor shift; it’s a transfer of ownership. AI is no longer being treated as another digital initiative that can be delegated at arm’s length. CEOs recognize that AI cuts across strategy, operating models, culture, risk, governance, and talent. In other words, AI isn’t just changing what organizations do, it’s changing how they run. Half of the CEOs surveyed even believe their job stability depends on getting AI right. We’re also seeing a striking “confidence gap.” CEOs are significantly more optimistic about AI’s ability to deliver returns than their executive colleagues. BCG describes this as “change distance.” People closest to the decisions feel more positive than those who have to live with the consequences. The survey identifies three types of AI leadership: Followers (cautious and stuck in pilots), Pragmatists (the 70% majority moving with the market), and Trailblazers. Trailblazers treat AI as an end-to-end transformation and are already seeing gains. What’s accelerating this is the rise of Agentic AI. Unlike earlier tools, agents run multi-step workflows with limited human involvement. This raises the stakes for governance and accountability. This is where communicators come in. If AI is now a CEO-led transformation, communication can’t just sit at the edges. It’s not just about writing rollout messages; it’s about helping leaders articulate why AI is being adopted and what it means for people’s roles and sense of agency. Is this the shift that turns ambition into transformation, or does CEO confidence risk becoming a blind spot? Shel Holtz: Excellent analysis, Neville. I think there’s data in this report that is incredibly heartening. One of the characteristics of the “Pragmatist” CEOs—who represent 70% of the responses—is that they are spending an average of seven hours a week personally working with or learning about AI. I’ve never seen that before. When we introduced the web or social media, CEOs weren’t using it personally. This immersion is very helpful for the communicators who need to tell this story. What’s troubling, though, is that 14-point confidence gap between CEOs and their managers. I don’t think this is just “resistance to change.” If the people implementing the systems are less confident than the person funding them, are we headed for an “AI winter” of unmet expectations? Communic

In this episode, Chip and Gini discuss the importance of agency owners reflecting on the reasons they started their businesses and how those motivations can inform current strategies. They share personal anecdotes about the challenges and growth experiences in their early days of agency ownership. They emphasize the value of going back to basics, understanding what initially led to success, and aligning business strategies with personal passions and strengths. The duo also highlights the importance of avoiding pitfalls such as micromanagement and burnout. Finally, they encourage agency owners to use these insights to stay motivated, drive growth, and make informed strategic decisions in 2026. [read the transcript] The post ALP 292: Rediscovering your agency’s founding spark appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

Neville and Shel dive into the ambitious new definition of public relations proposed by the Public Relations and Communications Association (PRCA). Sparked by a two-and-a-half-page draft that reframes the discipline as a senior strategic management function, Shel and Neville debate whether this comprehensive document serves as a vital “PR for PR” or if its length and academic tone move it closer to a manifesto than a practical, portable definition. The conversation explores the proposal’s emphasis on organizational legitimacy, its explicit inclusion of AI’s role in the information ecosystem, and the ongoing challenge of establishing a unified professional standard that resonates across the global communications industry. Links from this episode: The PRCA’s proposed definition (PDF) Some Reflections on PRCA’s Proposed Definition of Public Relations (PRCA CEO Sarah Waddington’s LinkedIn post) The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, January 26. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Neville Hobson Welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 496. I’m Neville Hobson. Shel Holtz And I’m Shel Holtz. Neville, how would you define public relations? Neville Hobson The very short way I would define it—and this is a very old definition I seem to remember from the CIPR before it was called the CIPR—is the custodianship or the stewardship of the relationships between a brand or a company and its publics. That’s how I define it. Shel Holtz I like it. PRSA defines it as a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics. Neville Hobson I could have said that, but I just wanted to give you the quick version. Shel Holtz Yeah, well, that works. But now we have the Public Relations and Communications Association (PRCA) proposing a definition that positions public relations as a senior strategic management discipline focused on reputation, trust, legitimacy, and long-term value. In this framing, PR exists to help organizations and individuals navigate complexity, reduce uncertainty, manage risk, and build durable relationships with the people and institutions that affect their ability to operate and succeed. It emphasizes two-way engagement, board-level counsel, data and insight, crisis preparedness, and societal impact. It explicitly extends PR’s remit into shaping the information ecosystem in an AI-driven world. Now, that’s a summary of the definition; the definition itself consumes two and a half pages of text. It’s available as a PDF and open to comment by PRCA members, according to the organization’s CEO, Sarah Waddington. In a LinkedIn post, she said the draft definition draws on academic research and a thematic analysis of recent sector commentary following her Radio 4 Today debate with Sir Martin Sorrell, which we talked about here a couple of weeks ago. A two-and-a-half-page definition is a lot, and that’s kind of the point. The definition is designed for the environment in which many senior practitioners find themselves right now. The language of foresight, volatility, legitimacy, and uncertainty isn’t an accident; it’s meant to reflect how closely public relations work is increasingly tied to leadership decision-making. In that sense, this definition does something a lot of us have argued for over the years: it situates PR at the strategic heart of the organization rather than treating it as a delivery function. It also aligns with a broader international view that PR is fundamentally about relationships and long-term organizational health, not about outputs like press releases or media placements. As you might expect, there have been reactions. Philippe Boromans, a former president of the International Public Relations Association and an upcoming guest on FIR Interviews, shared on LinkedIn that the definition reads less like a definition and more like a manifesto—ambitious and comprehensive, but maybe trying to do too much. Historically, definitions that have endured tend to revolve around a single unifying idea. Think about the emphasis on mutually beneficial relationships in PRSA’s definition, which they adopted in 2012. That kind of conceptual anchor makes a definition portable—it’s easy to explain, teach, and remember. By contrast, the PRCA proposal advances a lot of important

In which Neville and Shel take a few minutes to acknowledge FIR’s 21st birthday. The post FIR 21st Anniversary Celebration appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

Reddit, the #2 social media site in the US, has surpassed TikTok to become the #4 site in the UK. It has no algorithm that forces you to see what’s most likely to keep you on the site; it just lets users upvote what they think is most interesting, valuable, or relevant. Every topic under the sun has a subreddit. Several organizations, from Starbucks to Uber, have taken advantage of it. So why is it absent from most communicators’ list of social media platforms to pay attention to? Neville and Shel look at Reddit’s growing influence in this episode. Links from This Episode: Reddit overtakes TikTok in UK thanks to search algorithms and gen Z Brian Niccol said a Reddit thread of people interviewing for his company showed him that his ‘Back to Starbucks’ plan was working Playing Defense: How (and When) Big Brands Respond to Negativity on Reddit Wayfair uses Reddit Pro to help redditors get answers, and grow traffic as a result Uber puts Reddit Ads in the Driver’s Seat and cruises to significant lifts Reddit category takeover contributes to 5X higher Ad Awareness for OREO x STAR WARS™ collaboration The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, January 26. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Shel Holtz: Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 495 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz. Neville Hobson: I’m Neville Hobson and let’s start by saying we wish you a happy new 2026. We’re recording this in the first week of January, so it’s a new year. Last week the Guardian reported something that might surprise people who still think of Reddit as a noisy corner of the internet best avoided. In a deep analysis, the paper noted that Reddit has now overtaken TikTok to become the fourth most visited social media site in the UK, with three in five UK internet users encountering it regularly, according to Ofcom, the industry regulator. Among 18 to 24-year-olds—the Gen Z cohort—it’s one of the most visited organizations of any kind. And the UK is now Reddit’s second largest market globally, behind only the US. That growth hasn’t happened because Reddit suddenly reinvented itself; it’s happened because the wider internet has changed around it. Google’s search algorithms now prioritize what it calls “helpful content,” particularly discussion forums. Reddit threads increasingly surface high in search results, and they’re also being cited heavily in AI-generated summaries. Reddit has licensing deals with both Google and OpenAI, which means its content is being used to train AI models and then redistributed back to users as part of search and discovery. At the same time, users, particularly Gen Z, are actively seeking out human-generated content—not polished brand messaging or single definitive answers, but lived experience, contradiction, debate, and advice that feels like it comes from real people dealing with real situations like parenting, money, housing, health, and sport. Jen Wong, Reddit’s chief operating officer, described this as an “antidote to AI slop.” Reddit, she says, isn’t clean; it’s messy. You have to sift through different points of view, and increasingly, that is the point. For communicators, this raises several important points. For a start, Reddit is no longer a niche platform you choose to engage with or ignore. It’s become part of the discovery layer of the internet. People may encounter your organization, your industry, or your issue there before they ever see your website or your carefully crafted statement. Search visibility is no longer just about content you own; it’s about conversations. Conversations at search engines and AI systems are now amplifying its scale. Many organizations are still quietly hoping Reddit will remain hostile, chaotic, or irrelevant enough to ignore. That stance is becoming harder to justify when government departments are hosting AMAs (“Ask Me Anything”) and major public narratives are forming in plain sight. Finally, lurking is no longer neutral. Silence can allow perceptions—accurate or not—to solidify without challenge, context, or correction. So the question for communicators isn’t whether Reddit is for them, it’s whether they’re prepared for a world where human conversation, amplified by algorithms and AI, shapes

In the long-form episode for December 2025, Neville and Shel explore the future of news from two perspectives, including The Washington Post‘s ill-advised launch of a personalized, AI-generated podcast that failed to meet the newsroom’s standards for accuracy, and the shift from journalists to “information stewards” as news sources. Also in this episode: WPP founder Sir Martin Sorrell argued that PR is dead and advertising rules all. Is AI about to empty Madison Avenue Should communicators do anything about AI slop? No, you can’t tell when something was written by AI In Dan York’s tech report: Mastodon’s founder steps back, and new leadership takes over; the UN reaffirms a model of Internet governance that involves everyone: and Dan talks about what he’ll be watching in 2026, including decentralized social media, agentic AI, and Internet technologies. Links from this episode: Sherilynne Starkie’s “Stark Raving Social” podcast Neville’s Strategic Magazine article: Your Value is Not Your Timesheet Questions of accuracy arise as Washington Post uses AI to create personalized podcasts ‘Iterate through’: Why The Washington Post launched an error-ridden AI product Washington Post Says It Will Continue AI-Generating Error Filled Podcasts as Its Own Editors Groan in Embarrassment The Washington Post Deployed Its Disastrous AI-Generated Podcasts Even After Internal Tests Showed It Was Failing Miserably Washington Post Stands Behind AI Podcast Plan Despite Staff Outcry Washington Post’s AI-generated podcasts rife with errors, fictional quotes Radio 4 Today segment featuring Martin Sorrell and Sarah Waddington Martin Sorrell: There’s No Such Thing as PR Anymore Martin Sorrell: The PR Industry is Over-Sensitive Chris Gilmour LinkedIn Post on Martin Sorrell Stephen Waddington’s Facebook Post on the Sorrell-Waddington segment Sir Martin Sorrell Declares PR is Dead. PR Pros Respond The Future of News is Happening Where No One is Looking This is Local News Now Social Media and News Fact Sheet The State of Local News AI is About to Empty Madison Avenue AI Slop: How Every Media Revolution Breeds Rubbish and Art Merriam-Webster’s word of the year delivers a dismissive verdict on junk AI content Pinterest Users Are Tired of All the AI Slop The Impact of Visual Generative AI on Advertising Effectiveness No, You Can’t Tell When Something Was Written by AI How Can You Tell if AI Wrote Something? Wikipedia: Signs of AI Writing Detecting AI-written text is challenging, even for AI. Here’s why FIR Interview: AI and the Writing Profession, with Josh Bernoff FIR #464: Research Finds Disclosing Use of AI Erodes Trust Neville’s Blog: When AI Lets Go of the Em Dash Links from Dan York’s Tech Report: Eugen Rochko on Mastodon’s blog: My Next Chapter with Mastodon Mastodon Blog: The Future is Ours to Build Tim Chambers: My Open Social Web Predictions Internet Society: WSIS 20 Reaffirms Multistakeholder Governance and a Lasting IGF Wikimedia Foundation: In the AI Era, Wikipedia Has Never Been More Valuable Landslide: A Ghost Story The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, January 26. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Neville Hobson Hi everyone, and welcome to the For Immediate Release long-form episode for December 2025. I’m Neville Hobson. Shel Holtz And I’m Shel Holtz. Neville Hobson And we have six great stories to discuss and share with you that we hope you’ll enjoy listening to during Twixtmas. What is that, you may ask? Well, Twixtmas is the informal name for the relaxed period between Christmas Day and New Year’s Eve, typically focusing on the 27th to the 30th of December. It’s a time for winding down, enjoying leftovers, watching TV, listening to podcasts, and simply existing without the usual hustle of holidays or work before the new year starts. The name comes from blending Twixt, an old English word for “between,” and Christmas. It’s a modern term for a timeless lull in the calendar, often called the “festive gap.” That’s probably more information than you wanted, but now you know what it means. So, without further ado, let’s begin the Twixtmas episode with a recap of previous shows since the November long-form one. Shel Holtz We’ll have to start using that over here. Recent Episodes & Listener Comments Neville Hobson Tha

For somebody who posts on X or other social media platforms to become recognized by the media and other offline institutions as a significant, influential voice worth quoting, it usually takes patience and hard work to build an audience that respects and identifies with them. There is another way to achieve the same kind of reputation with far less work. According to a research report from the Network Contagion Research Institute, American political influencer Nick Fuentes opted for the second approach, a collection of tactics that made it appear like a huge number of people were amplifying his tweets within half an hour of posting them. While Fuentes wields his influence in the political realm, the tactics he employed are portable and available to people looking for the same quick solution in the business world. In this short midweek episode, we’ll break down the steps involved and the warning signs communicators should be on the alert for. Links from this episode: “America Last: How Fuentes’s Coordinated Raids and Foreign Fake Speech Inflate His Influence,” research report from the Network Contagion Research Institute Eric Schwartzman’s LinkedIn post and analysis of the NCRI’s report Raw Transcript: Neville Hobson: Hi everybody and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 493. I’m Neville Hobson. Shel Holtz: And I’m Shel Holtz, and today I’m going to wade deep into America’s culture and political wars. I swear to you, I’m not doing this because of any political or social agenda on my part. What I’m going to share with you is not a social or political problem, it’s an influence problem. And in communications, influence and influencers have become top of mind. We’re going to look at the rise of Nick Fuentes’s significance on the social and political stage. For listeners outside the US, you may not know who Fuentes is. He’s a US-based online political influencer and live stream personality who’s built a following around the “America First” ecosystem and has sought influence within right-of-center audiences, including by positioning himself in opposition to mainstream conservative organizations like Turning Point USA and encouraging supporters to disrupt their events. Tucker Carlson has had him on his show as a guest. President Donald Trump has hosted him at the White House for a dinner. In a recent report that our friend Eric Schwartzman highlighted on LinkedIn—that’s how I found it—the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) asserts that Fuentes is a fringe figure whose public profile rose to a level of significance by manipulating online systems. The NCRI, by the way, is an advocacy group focusing on hate groups, disinformation, misinformation, and speech across social media platforms. It’s been around since, I think, 2008. And they’ve taken their own fair share of criticism for bias, but this report looked pretty well researched, and there will be a link to it in the show notes. The techniques that Fuentes used to rise to significance are, and this is the key here: If bad actors can inflate the perceived importance of a fringe political figure, the same mechanics can inflate the perceived importance of a product, a brand, a CEO, a labor dispute, or a crisis narrative. I’ll share the details right after this. In modern media ecosystems, visibility is often treated as evidence of significance. Of course, when the system can be tricked into manufacturing visibility, it can be tricked into manufacturing significance. Here’s the playbook. The report focuses heavily on what happens immediately after a post is published, specifically the first 30 minutes. That window matters because platforms like X use early engagement as a signal of relevance. If a post seems to be spreading fast, the algorithm acts like a town crier, showing it to more people. The researchers compared 20 recent posts from several online figures. Their finding was that Fuentes’s posts regularly generated unusually high retweet velocity in the first 30 minutes, enough to outpace accounts with vastly larger follower bases. It outpaced the account of Elon Musk, for example. The key detail here isn’t just the volume of retweets, it’s the timing. Rapid, concentrated engagement right after posting creates the illusion that the content is taking off, kicking it into recommendation streams. This is the same basic mechanic behind launch day boosting. You’ve seen this for people who have a new book out and they go out to friends and ask them to boost that new book the day it’s released. If you can create the appearance of immediate traction, you can trigger algorithm distribution that you didn’t earn. In commerce, this shows up as engagement pods, coordinated employee advocacy swarms, and community groups that behave like a click farm. If your measurement system rewards velocity, someone can and will manufacture velocity. So who’s responsible for those early retweet bursts? Across the 20 posts studied, 61

The communication profession stands at a pivotal moment. Artificial intelligence is transforming how we create and distribute content. Trust in institutions continues to erode while employees demand authenticity and transparency. The hybrid workplace has permanently altered how we reach our audiences. And the pace of change shows no signs of slowing. In this environment, what does it mean to be a communication professional? More specifically, what will it mean in 2026 and the years that follow? The December Circle of Fellows panel tackled these questions head-on, bringing together four IABC Fellows to share their perspectives on where our profession is headed and what opportunities await those prepared to seize them. The conversation explored several interconnected themes, including the evolving role of the communication professional as a trusted adviso,; the new capabilities and mindsets that will distinguish the communication leaders who thrive from those who struggle to keep pace, the skills the next generation of communicators should be developing now; and how we can maintain professional standards and ethical practice when the tools and channels keep shifting beneath our feet. About the panel: Zora Artis, GAICD, SCMP, ACC, FAMI, CPM, is CEO of Artis Advisory and co-founder of The Alignment People. She helps leaders and teams tackle tough challenges, find clarity, and take action, particularly when the stakes are high and the path isn’t obvious. Her superpower is being comfortable with the uncomfortable: aligning people, solving problems, and navigating change so leaders can focus on what matters most and teams can do their best work. With more than three decades of experience across consulting, executive leadership, and strategic communication, Zora has guided major brands, government, for-purpose and for-profit organisations in aligning purpose, culture, strategy, and performance. A leading thinker, researcher, and expert in strategic and team alignment, leadership, brand, and communication, she is co-authoring a global study on Strategic Alignment & Leadership. She is a Research Fellow with the Team Flow Institute. Zora has served as Chair of the IABC Asia Pacific region, as a Director on the IABC International Executive Board, and on multiple committees and task forces. She holds multiple IABC Gold Quill Awards and Chairs the IABC SIG Change Management. Based in Melbourne, she works globally. Bonnie Caver, SCMP, is the Founder and CEO of Reputation Lighthouse, a global change management and reputation consultancy with offices in Denver, Colorado, and Austin, Texas. The firm, which is 20 years old, focuses on leading companies to create, accelerate, and protect their corporate value. She has achieved the highest professional certification for a communication professional, the Strategic Communication Management Professional (SCMP), a distinction at the ANSI/ISO level. She is also a certified strategic change management professional (Kellogg School of Management), a certified crisis manager (Institute of Crisis Management). She holds an advanced certification for reputation through the Reputation Institute (now the RepTrak Company). She is a past chair of the global executive board for the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC). She currently serves on the board of directors for the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management, where she leads the North American Regional Council and is the New Technology Responsibility/AI Director. Caver is the Vice Chair for the Global Communication Certification Council (GCCC) and leads the IABC Change Management Special Interest Group, which has more than 1,300 members. In addition, she is heavily involved in the global conversation around ethical and responsible AI implementation and led the Global Alliance’s efforts in creating Ethical and Responsible AI Guidelines for the global profession. Adrian Cropley is the founder and director of the Centre for Strategic Communication Excellence, a global training and development organization. For over thirty years, Adrian has worked with clients worldwide, including Fortune 500 companies, on major change communication initiatives, internal communication reviews and strategies, professional development programs, and executive leadership and coaching. He is a non-executive director on several boards and advises some of the top CEOs and executives globally. Adrian is a past global chair of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC), where he implemented the IABC Career Road Map, kick-started a global ISO certification for the profession, and developed the IABC Academy. Adrian pioneered the Melcrum Internal Communication Black Belt program in Asia Pacific and is a sought-after facilitator, speaker, and thought leader. He has been a keynote speaker and workshop leader on strategic and change communication at international conferences in Canada, the U.S., Europe, t

In this short midweek episode, Shel and Neville dissect the communication fallout from the $13.5 billion Omnicom-IPG merger and the controversial pre-holiday layoff of 4,000 employees. Among the themes they discuss: the stark contrast between the polished corporate narrative aimed at investors and the raw, real-time reality shared by staff on LinkedIn and Reddit, illustrating how organizations have lost control of the narrative. Against the backdrop of a corporate surge in hiring “storytellers,” Neville and Shel discuss the irony of failing to empower the workforce — the brand’s most authentic narrators — and analyze the long-term reputational damage caused by tone-deaf leadership during a crisis. Links from this episode: Another NOT SO HOT TAKE: Omnicom is a communications company. They didn’t forget how to communicate. They chose who to communicate to. Omnicom layoffs—how a communications company created its own crisis The Omnicom-IPG merger was confirmed this week. 4,000 jobs will be cut by Christmas. The announcement came the week after Thanksgiving. I’ve been here before. Inside Omnicom’s Town Hall: Adamski confronts criticism, outlines new power structure after IPG acquisition Companies Are Desperately Seeking ‘Storytellers’ The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, December 29. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Shel Holtz Hi everybody and welcome to episode number 492 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz. Neville Hobson And I’m Neville Hobson. In this episode, we’re going to talk about something that’s been playing out very publicly over the past few weeks in our own industry, i.e. communication. It’s about Omnicom, its merger with IPG, and the layoffs that followed. Following confirmation of the $13.5 billion merger, the company announced that around 4,000 roles would be cut, with many of those job losses happening before Christmas. On the face of it, this is not unusual. Mergers of this scale inevitably create overlap, and redundancies are part of that reality. What makes this different was not simply the decision, but how the story unfolded and where. On one level, there was the official corporate narrative. Omnicom’s public messaging focused on growth, integration, and future capability. It was language clearly written with investors, analysts, and the financial press in mind—not to mention clients. Polished, strategic, and familiar to anyone who has worked around holding companies. At the same time, a very different narrative was emerging elsewhere, particularly on LinkedIn and Reddit, driven by people inside the organization—people who had lost their jobs and people watching colleagues lose theirs. That contrast became the focus of an Ad Age opinion piece by Elizabeth Rosenberg, a communications advisor who had handled large-scale change and layoffs herself. In the piece—which, by the way, Ad Age unlocked so it’s openly available—and later in her own LinkedIn posts, Rosenberg described watching two stories unfold in real time. One told to shareholders and external stakeholders, the other taking shape in comment threads written by the people most directly affected. Her point was not that Omnicom failed to communicate, but that it chose who to communicate to. That observation resonated widely inside the industry. Rosenberg’s LinkedIn post made clear that she was less interested in being provocative than in naming something that many people were already seeing and feeling. She also noted the response she received privately—messages describing her comments as brave—and questioned what it says about our profession if plain speaking about human impact is now treated as courage. As that conversation gathered momentum, another LinkedIn post took the discussion in a slightly different direction. Stephanie Brown, a marketing career coach, wrote about the timing of the layoffs. Her post was grounded in personal experience; she describes being laid off herself in December 2013 and what it meant to lose a job during a period associated with family, financial pressure, and emotional strain. She acknowledged that layoffs are part of corporate life but argued that timing is a choice and that announcing thousands of job losses immediately after Thanksgiving, with cuts landing for Christmas, intensified the impact. That post triggered a large and emotionally charged response—thousands of reactions, hundreds o

In this episode, Chip and Gini discuss the importance of strategic planning for 2026. As they near the end of 2025, they emphasize the need for agencies to set themselves apart and adapt to the evolving landscape, particularly through the effective use of AI. Despite ongoing economic challenges, they highlight the potential for AI to enhance both efficiency and strategic thinking. Chip and Gini also stress the importance of refining the ideal client profile and taking calculated risks. They share their personal experiences with using AI to assist in planning and decision-making processes, pointing out both the benefits and limitations of current AI technology. [read the transcript] The post ALP 291: Embracing innovation to survive and thrive in 2026 appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

Josh Bernoff has just completed the largest survey yet of writers and AI – nearly 1,500 respondents across journalism, communication, publishing, and fiction. We interviewed Josh for this podcast in early December 2025. What emerges from both the data and our conversation is not a single, simple story, but a deep divide. Writers who actively use AI increasingly see it as a powerful productivity tool. They research faster, brainstorm more effectively, build outlines more quickly, and free themselves up to focus on the work only humans can do well – judgement, originality, voice, and storytelling. The most advanced users report not only higher output, but improvements in quality and, in many cases, higher income. Non-users experience something very different. For many non-users, AI feels unethical, environmentally harmful, creatively hollow, and a direct threat to their livelihoods. The emotional language used by some respondents in Josh’s survey reflects just how personal and existential these fears have become. And yet, across both camps, there is striking agreement on key risks. Writers on all sides are concerned about hallucinations and factual errors, copyright and training data, and the growing volume of bland, generic “AI slop” that now floods digital channels. In our conversation, Josh argues that the real story is not one of wholesale replacement, but of re-sorting. AI is not eliminating writers outright. It is separating those who adapt from those who resist – and in the process reshaping what it now means to be a trusted communicator, editor, and storyteller. Key Highlights Why hands-on AI users report higher productivity and quality, while non-users feel an existential threat How AI is now embedded in research, brainstorming, outlining, and verification – not just text generation Why PR and communications teams are adopting faster than journalists What the rise of “AI slop” means for trust, originality, and attention Why the future of writing is not replacement – but re-sorting About our Conversation Partner Josh Bernoff is an expert on business books and how they can propel thinkers to prominence. Books he has written or collaborated on have generated over $20 million for their authors. More than 50 authors have endorsed Josh’s Build a Better Business Book: How to Plan, Write, and Promote a Book That Matters, a comprehensive guide for business authors. His other books include Writing Without Bullshit: Boost Your Career by Saying What You Mean and the Business Week bestseller Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies. He has contributed to 50 nonfiction book projects. Josh’s mathematical and statistical background includes three years of study in the Ph.D. program in mathematics at MIT. As a Senior Vice President at Forrester Research, he created Technographics, a consumer survey methodology, which is still in use more than 20 years later. Josh has advised, consulted on, and written about more than 20 large-scale consumer surveys. Josh writes and posts daily at Bernoff.com, a blog that has attracted more than 4 million views. He lives in Portland, Maine, with his wife, an artist. Follow Josh on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshbernoff/ Relevant Links https://bernoff.com/ https://bernoff.com/blog/ai-writer-survey-results-analyzing-royalties-neuroscientific-sneakers-newsletter-5-november-2025 https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyright/article/99019-new-report-examines-writers-attitudes-toward-ai.html https://gothamghostwriters.com/AI-writer Audio Transcript Shel Holtz Hi everybody, and welcome to a For Immediate Release interview. I’m Shel Holtz. Neville Hobson And I’m Neville Hobson. Shel Holtz And we are here today with Josh Bernoff. I’ve known Josh since the early SNCR days. Josh is a prolific author, professional writer, mostly of business material. But Josh, I’m gonna ask you to share some background on yourself. Josh Bernoff Okay, thanks. What people need to know about me, I spent four years in the startup business and 20 years as an analyst at Forrester Research. Since that time, which was in 2015, I have been focused almost exclusively on the needs of authors, professional business authors. So I work with them as a coach, writer, ghostwriter, an editor, and basically anything they need to do to get business books published. The other thing that’s sort of relevant in this case is that while I was at Forrester, I originated their survey methodology, which is called Technographics. And I have a statistics background, a math background, so fielding surveys and analysing them and writing reports about them is a very comfortable and familiar place for me to be. So when the opportunity arose to write about a survey of authors in AI, said, all right, I’m in, let’s do this. Shel Holtz And you’ve also published your own books. I’ve read your most recent one, How to Write a Better Business Book.

Big Four consulting firm Deloitte submitted two costly reports to two governments on opposite sides of the globe, each containing fake resources generated by AI. Deloitte isn’t alone. A study published on the website of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) not only included AI-hallucinated citations but also purported to reach the exact opposite conclusion from the real scientists’ research. In this short midweek episode, Neville and Shel reiterate the importance of a competent human in the loop to verify every fact produced in any output that leverages generative AI. Links from this episode: Deloitte was caught using AI in $290,000 report to help the Australian government crack down on welfare after a researcher flagged hallucinations Deloitte allegedly cited AI-generated research in a million-dollar report for a Canadian provincial government Deloitte breaks silence on N.L. healthcare report Deloitte Detected Using Fake AI Citations in $1 Million Report Deloitte makes ‘AI mistake’ again, this time in report for Canadian government; here’s what went wrong CDC Report on Vaccines and Autism Caught Citing Hallucinated Study That Does Not Exist The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, December 29. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Neville Hobson: Hi everybody and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 491. I’m Neville Hobson. Shel Holtz: And I’m Shel Holtz, and I want to return to a theme we addressed some time ago: the need for organizations, and in particular communication functions, to add professional fact verification to their workflows—even if it means hiring somebody specifically to fill that role. We’ve spent the better part of three years extolling the transformative power of generative AI. We know it can streamline workflows, spark creativity, and summarize mountains of data. But if recent events have taught us anything, it’s that this technology has a dangerous alter ego. For all that AI can do that we value, it is also a very confident liar. When communications professionals, consultants, and government officials hand over the reins to AI without checking its work, the result is embarrassing, sure, but it’s also a direct hit to credibility and, increasingly, the bottom line. Nowhere is this clearer than in the recent stumbles by one of the world’s most prestigious consulting firms. The Big Four accounting firms are often held up as the gold standard for diligence. Yet just a few days ago, news broke that Deloitte Canada delivered a report to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador that was riddled with errors that are characteristic of generative AI. This report, a massive 526-page document advising on the province’s healthcare system, came with a price tag of nearly $1.6 million. It was meant to guide critical decisions on virtual care and nurse retention during a staffing crisis. But when an investigation by The Independent, a progressive news outlet in the province, dug into the footnotes, the veneer of expertise crumbled. The report contained false citations pulled from made-up academic papers. It cited real research on papers they hadn’t worked on. It even listed fictional papers co-authored by researchers who said they had never actually worked together. One adjunct professor, Gail Tomlin Murphy, found herself cited in a paper that doesn’t exist. Her assessment was blunt: “It sounds like if you’re coming up with things like this, they may be pretty heavily using AI to generate work.”Deloitte’s response was to claim that AI wasn’t used to write the report, but was—and this is a quote—”selectively used to support a small number of research citations.” In other words, they let AI do the fact-checking and the AI failed. Amazingly, Deloitte was caught doing something just like this earlier in a government audit for the Australian government. Only months before the Canadian revelation, Deloitte Australia had to issue a humiliating correction to a report on welfare compliance. That report cited court cases that didn’t exist and contained quotes from a federal court judge that had never been spoken. In that instance, Deloitte admitted to using the Azure OpenAI tool to help draft the report. The firm agreed to refund the Australian government nearly $290,000 Australian dollars. Th

In this episode, Chip and Gini discuss the complexities of hiring in growing agencies. They highlight the challenges of finding skilled, reliable employees who align with agency values. Sharing personal experiences, Gini explains the pitfalls of hasty hiring and the benefits of thorough vetting and cultural fit. They stress the importance of a structured hiring process, including clear job roles, career paths, and appropriate compensation. They also underscore the value of meaningful interviews, proper candidate evaluations, and treating the hiring process as the start of a long-term relationship. Lastly, Chip and Gini emphasize learning from past mistakes to improve hiring effectiveness and employee retention. [read the transcript] The post ALP 290: Balancing skills and personality when hiring a new team member appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

Studies purport to identify the sources of information that generative AI models like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude draw on to provide overviews in response to search prompts. The information seems compelling, but different studies produce different results. Complicating matters is the fact that the kinds of sources AI uses one month aren’t necessarily the same the next month. In this short midweek episode, Neville and Shel look at a couple of these reports and the challenges communicators face relying on them to help guide their content marketing placements. Links from this episode: Webinar: What is AI Reading? (Muck Rack) AI Search Volatility: Why AI Search Results Keep Changing Study finds nearly two-thirds of AI-generated citations are fabricated or contain errors Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written fully by AI The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, December 29. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [email protected]. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Shel Holtz Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 490 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz. Neville Hobson And I’m Neville Hobson. One of the big questions behind generative AI is also one of the simplest: What is it actually reading? What are these systems drawing on when they answer our questions, summarize a story, or tell us something about our own industry? A new report from Muckrec in October offers one of the clearest snapshots we’ve seen so far. They analyzed more than a million links cited by leading AI tools and discovered something striking. When you switch citations on, the model doesn’t just add footnotes, it changes the answer itself. The sources it chooses shape the narrative, the tone, and even the conclusion. We’ll dive into this next. Those sources are overwhelmingly from earned media. Almost all the links AI sites come from non-paid content, and journalism plays a huge role, especially when the query suggests something recent. In fact, the most commonly cited day for an article is yesterday. It’s a very different ecosystem from SEO, where you can sometimes pay your way to the top. Here, visibility depends much more on what is credible, current, and genuinely covered. So that gives us one part of the picture. AI relies heavily on what is most available and most visible in the public domain. But that leads to another question, a more unsettling one raised by a separate study published in the JMIR Mental Health in November. Researchers examined how well GPT-4.0 performs when asked to generate proper academic citations. And the answer is not well at all. Nearly two thirds of the citations were either wrong or entirely made up. The less familiar the topic, the worse the accuracy became. In other words, when AI doesn’t have enough real sources to draw from, it fills the gaps confidently. When you put these two pieces of research side by side, a bigger story emerges. On the one hand, AI tools are clearly drawing on a recognizable media ecosystem: journalism, corporate blogs, and earned content. On the other hand, when those sources are thin, or when the task shifts from conversational answers to something more formal, like scientific referencing, the system becomes much less reliable. It starts inventing the citations it thinks should exist. We end up with a very modern paradox. AI is reading more than any of us ever could, but not always reliably. It’s influenced by what is published, recent, and visible, yet still perfectly capable of fabricating material when the trail runs cold. There’s another angle to this that’s worth noting. Nature reported last week that more than 20% of peer reviews for a major AI conference were entirely written by AI, many containing hallucinated citations and vague or irrelevant analysis. So if you think about that in the context of the Muckrec findings in particular, it becomes part of a much bigger story. AI tools are reading the public record, but increasing parts of that public record are now being generated by AI itself. The oversight layer that you use to catch errors is starting to automate as well. And that creates a feedback loop where flawed material can slip into the system and later be treated as legitimate source material. For communicators, that’s a reminder that the integrity of what AI reads is just as important as the visibility of what we publish. All this raises fundamental questions.