Feb 24 2025 89 mins 4
“We are once again at a moment in time where things will not — and cannot — be the same again. However it unfolds, the only certainty is chaos will follow.”
So wrote global PR practitioner Catherine Arrow in a post on LinkedIn. In this monthly longform episode, Neville and Shel discuss Catherine’s observation that communicators are caught in the thick of conflict in which division is actively cultivated and truth is disputed and weaponized.
Also in this episode, YouTube viewing has shifted from mobile phones to television sets, with implications for the way communicators and marketers produce video for YouTube; there is much for communicators to consider when engaging on platforms that have shrugged off content moderation (part of the chaos Catherine Arrow referenced); Gallup’s Global Leadership Report is out and we’ll share what people want from their leaders; you can now create personas using AI — does that mean it’s a good idea to ask them questions instead of convening a panel of humans for your research? And LinkedIn is de-platforming the value of hashtags — does this spell the end of hashtags on LinkedIn?
In his Tech Report, Dan York discussed Mastodon Quote Posts, Apple’s ending of end-to-end encryption in the UK, and WikiTok, a TikTok alternative that delivers an endless scroll of Wikipedia.
The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, March 24.
We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email [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. Shel has started a metaverse-focused Flipboard magazine. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.
Links from this episode:
- CEO Says TV Overtakes Mobile as “Primary Device” for Viewing
- I was watching YouTube on my TV before it became more popular than phones – here are 3 reasons why it’s better on the big screen
- There’s a Good Reason Most People Prefer YouTube on TV
- Welcome to the Age of the Chaos Communicator
- The Global Alliance’s Melbourne Mandate
- What loosened restrictions on social media content moderation means for B2B communications leaders
- Perplexity search on impact of loosened content moderation on communication and marketing
- Global Leadership Report: What Followers Want
- The Case Against AI-Generated Users
- Synthetic Users: If, When, and How to Use AI-Generated “Research”
- User research. Without the headaches.
- FAQ: What Are Synthetic Panels?
- What is synthetic sample – and is it all it’s cracked up to be? And can GenAI be used off-the-shelf to create one?
Links from Dan York’s Report
Raw transcript:
Shel Holtz: [00:00:00] Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 452 of four immediate release, our long form episode for February, 2025. I’m She Holtz in Concord, California.
Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson in Somerset in Ingot.
Shel Holtz: And we have six really interesting topics to share with you today. Some serious implications for communicators that we’re going to help you navigate.
Before we get there, though, we have our usual monthly rundown of housekeeping to take care of, starting with a look at what we have reported in our short midweek episodes since the last monthly show in January. Neville. We’ve got quite a few episodes four we’ve had since the last episode.
Neville Hobson: And they’ve been great topics. I think we’ve we’ve covered some pretty interesting areas. The first one since the last monthly, that’s episode 4 48, we recorded on the 29th [00:01:00] of January was riffing on a couple of LinkedIn posts that looked at change management and enterprise social networks is at the end of the line for these things written by Caroline Keeley and Sharon O’Day respectively.
And they did a good job of setting out the case. So we talked about that. Worth a listen, we have a comment right on that one.
Shel Holtz: We do, we have two comments on that one. The first is from Natasha Gonzalez, who says, definitely agree that internal usage may be a reflection of a change in external social usage and that the Godspeed approach has never worked well.
And then Sharon O’Day, who was one of the people who. Was the source of the material that we riffed on in that episode said great discussion. Thanks. Shell and Neville. I agree with most of the points you bring up here. People need clarity on what channels are for and how they should use them, but that’s more of a challenge than you might expect.
Very many comms reviews. I do reach the conclusion that even the comms team don’t know what their ESN their, employee social network is really [00:02:00] for and with trust on the decline. As you discuss, it’s understandable that employees might be reluctant to share. Will people look through my past contributions to our employee social network and conclude my disagreement is disloyalty.
No wonder people are retreating to smaller forums or choosing to check out active discussions in a world where Elon and his ilk are in the ascendancy, having an opinion on your employee social network may be, may mean putting your neck on the line. I was tempted to title my piece. Did Elon Kill the Employee Social Network?
If leadership are active, authentic on social themselves, it creates psychological safety, which will encourage people to participate. But the reality is very few leaders really do this, and if comms are using employee social networks as another broadcast channel, then long term they contribute to their decline as they’re no longer positioned in audience’s minds as a place of listening, debating, or sharing.
Neville Hobson: Good comment. [00:03:00] So then episode 4 49 on the 5th of February. This is a topic we’ve talked about before. The title of our episode was Employees Use of Shadow AI Surges. We talked about shadow ai. I’ve forgotten the date show. It was about a year ago, I think quite a while ago. And this looked at an aspect of this that’s not decreasing.
If anything, it’s increasing. On the risk side people are using these tools still in organizations and not telling anyone that they are, particularly where there is prohibition in place. So as a stealth approach to using generative ai, we said, but there are plenty of risks. So we looked at the data.
There’s data now on this and discussed various approaches companies can take that will benefit both them and their employees in four 50 on the 13th of February. That was a really good topic where we discussed recent research that shows senior leaders in organizations have doubts about [00:04:00] communicators abilities.
And that’s a that’s a pretty bleak assessment. It talked about complexities in the worlds of business, medium politics, and where you’ve got that situation. The concern of senior executives. The confidence is not high. It decreases. Our people up to the task is what they’re asking.
And you and I outline the research results and discuss ways communicate, can reverse this troubling trend naturally. We had lots of suggestions in that area, and we have a comment on this one too, don’t we?
Shel Holtz: Two of them here, actually three here. First from Amy Santoro who says, this saddens me, but I’m not surprised still since I started in communications in the nineties, we’re not valued and struggled to get a seat at the table.
Patrick Edwardson says, great conversation. Think you’re absolutely right when it comes to communication professionals needing to be more proactive in offering solutions and perspectives to leaders, rather than ending up in a reactionary mode, which is easily done given [00:05:00] the current volatile external environment.
More on that to come in this episode. And finally, Steve Renzo sums it up pretty well, saying that’s depressing.
Neville Hobson: Good ending to that one. Then in episode 4 51 on the 17th of February we talked about return to office. Obsessed executives are minimizing the employee voice. This is the now infamous and widely known behavior of the CEO of JP Morgan Chase.
The bankers Jamie Diamond, who unfortunately for him had a severe rant during an employee meeting that was recorded. And of course, the recording leaked. It’s, the expletives are dreadful. It is seriously someone who really doesn’t care. What did employees want to do or think? They need to do what he tells ’em and just get into the office and be there.
So we talked about that. And I see that we’ve had on LinkedIn, certainly a lot of people who’ve who’ve who, who liked it and stuff like that. We provided mostly you shall evidence that productivity, morale [00:06:00] higher with remote workers. We did cite a lot of that research. But if it comes down to, or when it comes down to a leader who behaves like this, your work is cut out to to, to show the benefits of a hybrid approach to the workplace or any other method that splits the get into the office or work from home.
It’s a never ending debate, it seems to me. But I’ve seen others talking about this too since that episode. IE other behaviors not leaked recordings, but leaders of big organizations saying, I don’t care. You gotta get in the office. So this is an argument that has still got a long way to run, I’d say.
So that was yeah, sorry. We got comment two, haven’t we?
Shel Holtz: We have three. Starting with Stuart Bruce who says, if it’s a simplistic back to the office mantra I’m against it. Simply having people sitting behind a desk in an office is counterproductive. However, if it’s managed intelligently by rethinking office layouts, what people do when they do it and more, then there’s value.
The osmosis effect is [00:07:00] invaluable. Junior people, learning from senior people simply by being around them. The spontaneous sharing of ideas. The problem is that too often in offices, there isn’t a lot of those two things happening. If people are to be back in the office, it needs to be benefit, both the employer and the employee.
That means rethinking what being in the office really means. And I have to say, I, I really agree with Stewart. It’s why I favored the hybrid model over a fully remote model. Although there are cases where an employee, it makes sense for them to be fully remote, but not as a routine. Be at home, be remote when you’re gonna be nose down, doing.
Individual work and be in the office when there are things happening that are gonna put people together, interacting, engaging, collaborating, sharing. That’s what makes sense to me. Jesper Anderson also commented he asked, did you hear Richard Edelman on Provoke Media’s new PR agency leader podcast?
He’s very much in favor of mandatory returning to the office, saying people [00:08:00] are at their best when they are together. And finally, Steve Neruda says, having read a couple of discussion threads on LinkedIn on this subject, what stood out to me were the comments that one’s employees couldn’t be trusted, which read to me like a very Trumpian every accusation is a confession.
People projecting their own faults and failures externally.
Neville Hobson: Good comments. All of them. Great. Yeah. So that’s a hot topic. No doubt. We’ll be talking about it again in the future.
Shel Holtz: I also wanna let you know that the most recent episode of Circle of Fellows from January is up and available on the FIR Podcast Network.
Was a really good discussion on creativity, on how to get that creativity sparked, especially in the busy corporate environment. Zoa artists, Diane GSKi, Andrea Greenhouse, and Martha Mka joined me for that episode. And then coming up this Monday an unusual day to [00:09:00] record. Circle of Fellows. That’s usually the third Thursday of the month, but this month it worked out for Monday at noon Eastern time.
We’ll be talking ethics because it is communication ethics month at IABC. And that conversation will involve Diane GSKi again two months in a row. Todd Hattori Jane Mitchell and Carolyn Riel. Should be a great discussion on communication ethics, especially in light of some of the communication we’ve been seeing in the last few months.
Neville Hobson: Definitely. And also just to let you know, we have a new FIR interview that will be published next Wednesday, the 26th of February. Those of you who’ve been in this game for a long time in terms of digital and social will recognize this name. Steve Ruble. Steve has longevity in this. He is a hugely influential voice and kickstart a lot of the developments that happened from 2005 onwards.
He spent nearly 19, [00:10:00] 20 years at Edelman and he’s now looking at new pastures, new ideas, new ventures. New adventures. I would say we had a great conversation with Steve, just a week or so back. And we’ll be publishing that, as I mentioned on Wednesday. So that’ll come out in the morning, GMT, so you can catch it when you wake up.
And also that same day, we’re recording the next FIR interview, which we’ll publish sometime in March with Sam Michelson, who is the founder and CEO of a company called Five Blocks. That is a digital reputation management agency among other things. He’s involved with his company, which is how I came to know.
Sam also runs a server, offers a service called Wiki Alerts which lets you track. Pages to Wikipedia pages, and I’ve been using that service myself for probably five years. But Sam and I connected, we had a long chat. He’s based in Israel. The company’s based in New York. And looking [00:11:00] forward to exploring Sam’s thoughts on a topic.
Both you and I have talked about quite a bit the letters, AI feature in there in terms of digital reputation management. So we’ll get some insights from Sam on what he thinks about where this is going and in, in the context of organizational communication. So that’s all coming up. New interviewing published on Wednesday the 26th of February.
The following interview will come out in the first half of March, I reckon.
Shel Holtz: Looking forward to that interview on Wednesday. Sounds like it’ll be an illuminating session. And now it’s time for us to start reporting on our six topics of the month after this.
There is a major shift in video consumption Communicators need to pay attention to. YouTube is now watched more on TVs than on mobile devices. For years, YouTube has been synonymous with mobile viewing, but according to YouTube’s, CEO Neil Mohan TV screens have [00:12:00] overtaken smartphones as the primary way people watch YouTube.
In the US viewers now watch over a billion hours of YouTube daily on their TVs. This trend isn’t just happening in the us it’s in the UK too, where 34% of YouTube viewing already happens on TVs and among kids aged four to 15, that number jumps to 45% in the uk. Clearly, this is something that’s not slowing down.
So why is this happening? There are several factors driving this transformation, and it starts with the evolution of smart TVs and streaming devices because YouTube is now pre-installed on most of them on the Sony TVs and the Samsung TVs, those smart TVs they come with the YouTube already pre-installed.
Same with the Roku and the Apple TV box just makes it easier than ever to watch it. On your tv. It’s also not just for short clips anymore. YouTube is just teaming with documentaries in-depth, explainers and [00:13:00] episodic series. I think it’s interesting that Epi episodic series are thriving on YouTube and it’s turned into a shared viewing experience with more people watching YouTube together.
Just like traditional television. And I know I do most of my YouTube watching on the computer, but if I see something I think my wife would be interested in, I pull it up on the TV and we watch it together. So there’s that. For communicators using YouTube, this shift has some pretty big implications. If audiences are consuming YouTube like tv, then we need to adjust the way we create this content.
So what do we need to do differently? First you need to optimize for TV screens and most of the YouTube videos that are up there. Now were designed for mobile. And if your audience is watching on tv, you’re gonna need to adapt. First of all you need that 16 nine aspect ratio, the wide screen format, because vertical videos suck on tv.
And I can tell you that from personal experience, [00:14:00] you need to make your text and graphics bigger. What works on a phone that is a few inches from your eyes might be unreadable from across the room. And you also need to make sure your audio is high quality because poor sound is a lot more noticeable on your sound bar or your surround sound system, even your native TV audio than it is.
Listening to it on your phone. Next thing you need to do is think more like a TV producer. They’re watching YouTube more like tv, so you need to lean into longer content. Viewers on TV are a lot more likely to watch content that is 10 plus minutes. You need to invest in better production, quality lighting, sound and editing matter more on a large screen and consider episodic content because as I mentioned, recurring series and repetitive formats, episodic formats encourage you to come back and watch the next episode, so you get people hooked on your content.
It’s no longer just a one-off, oh, I saw this, I [00:15:00] watched it, it was interesting, and I’ll never see anything from you again. Third, it’s important to leverage the second screen experience because viewers may be watching YouTube on tv, but their phones are still in their hands. YouTube is expanding features in order to accommodate the fact that people are watching on their TV with their phone in their hands.
They’re doing QR codes and videos because it’s a simple way to drive viewers to take action, and they’re offering phone-based interactions. They’re making it easy to comment or engage with the video on your mobile phone while you’re watching the tv. If you want viewers to sign up, comment, share, you have to make it easy for them to do that from their phone.
Because they really aren’t gonna use their remote to do that on the tv. And if you are advertising on YouTube, you need to consider your ad strategy too. They are rolling out TV specific ad formats. Three of them are interesting. One are pause [00:16:00] ads. These are ads that will appear when you pause the video.
So what kind of ad would you like people to see when they pause a video? Next is non-intrusive overlays that are better suited for passive TV viewers. And finally, is high quality skippable ads. If you can skip the ad, you will, unless it draws you in. Viewers are a lot more willing to watch if it’s a well made, interesting, compelling ad.
Now, if you’re using YouTube ads, these formats could be more effective than traditional pre-rolls. The takeaway from all this is that YouTube isn’t just another social platform anymore. It’s the new television. If you’re using YouTube for communication, it’s time to start thinking like a broadcaster.
Neville Hobson: Listening to what you’re saying there, she I just said to her, my God, the manipulation is dreadful.
Truly. But I watch, more t more YouTube content on TV than any other device. In fact, the worst device to watch YouTube on is a mobile phone. Frankly I, in my experience, horrible not only is [00:17:00] it a small screens, it’s squeezed in, the vertical you mentioned, okay. But all the popups and all the ads and all the kind of and particularly the ads that break in the middle of something you’re watching.
So it’s a dreadful experience in my humble opinion. Maybe not so humble, but that’s my opinion. So I tend to watch YouTube on TV for stuff I’ve saved that I found elsewhere. I actually quite and this is not like I see something, I think, oh, my wife and I would like to watch it together.
We don’t do that with YouTube. We do that with Google movies. That’s a fact. Now that’s not YouTube. That’s a separate thing, but it’s the same company of course. But I like to watch things I’ve found elsewhere that I’ve saved. I can watch on a big screen, and it could be an ad, it could be something else, anything.
Even yet, that experience is not brilliant no matter what device you’re using, simply because of the int inclusivity of the advertising, other messaging that interferes with what you’re watching. So you could say. If you take the premium account, pay for it, you don’t get the ads. That’s actually not quite [00:18:00] true.
You do, but maybe not so badly as this. So I think your point is a key one that you mentioned towards the end of what you were saying, which is if an ad is done really well that draws you in, you wouldn’t object. Utterly agree with that. But I’ve yet to find any on YouTube in the uk. The worst ones are, the kind of over fifties life insurance plans.
Maybe that’s the algorithm looking at me and serving up that rubbish, wor, badly made, I mean everything. I better stop me now, shall I get you on a rant yet? So I think TV’s great. It’s a better medium to watch it, but you don’t always have time to do all of that. So the next option I think I would agree with you is a big screen monitor in your office attached to your desktop computer.
Definitely not a phone tablet. Okay. If it’s a large one, but I think. The rest of what you said makes sense from the, from the content writer’s perspective and the medium that people are shoving this content out there. I just don’t think anyone’s really doing that very well on YouTube. That’s my take.
The feeling I [00:19:00] get often is that you’re there and you will be interfered with intrusive advertising, whether you like it or not. And often there’s no skip. You gotta watch the damn things. In some cases not all. So I don’t have a very good perception of YouTube. So I’m not the target audience as much of this stuff and I’m totally fine with that.
Lemme tell you that
Shel Holtz: I don’t see any ads on YouTube ever because I pay the premium fee. Oh, I don’t to avoid the ads. Yeah. Oh yeah. It’s worth every penny as far as I’m concerned, to not see those ads. Sure,
Neville Hobson: I get that.
Shel Holtz: Yeah. But the fact that more people are watching on TV now than mobile doesn’t mean people aren’t watching on mobile.
So you have to know who your audience is and where are they more likely to be watching. I didn’t see any demographic breakout except that number for kids four to 15 in the uk watching more than the overall population on their TVs. So yeah, I think it’s partly recognizing where [00:20:00] you’re.
Audience demographically is likely to be watching, but it’s also what kind of content are you thinking of producing? If, if you’re looking for a TikTok like video if you’ve made it for TikTok, I, there’s no reason not to repurpose it for YouTube. The more places it, it is, the better, as long as you’ve made whatever adjustments need to be made for the differences in the formats.
But on the other hand, and I know I’ve talked about this on the show before, there are businesses now companies that are making documentaries and YouTube is now a good place to host those because people will sit and watch a documentary. I’ll tell you the truth, Neville, michelle and I wanted to watch a movie. There was a remake of the movie that was about to come out, and the original starred one of Michelle’s favorite old time actors, Tyrone Power and we wanted to watch the original before we saw the new one and checked every streaming service and nobody had it.
I was, oh my God, this movie has to be somewhere. Where it ended up being, it [00:21:00] was YouTube. So that’s what we did. We pulled up YouTube because it’s on both our Apple TV box and our Samsung tv. So we just pulled up YouTube, did a search for the movie, and sat there for an hour and 40 minutes and watched a movie.
So that’s a new behavior and I think people, who produce content have gotta get accustomed to that and start factoring that into your thinking about what kind of content are you gonna produce.
Neville Hobson: I would agree with you. I would, the only thing I’d say to what you, the kind of pace you outline, I don’t do any of that with YouTube other places I do that.
Not a place I naturally look to, to spend time on except, as I mentioned, as I saved, I wanna catch up with a concert a clip of an ad that I really thought was impressive, things like that. I don’t watch movies, I don’t watch documentaries. There, there are other places I go for that kind of content, but we’re all different and that’s why there’s so much choice out there.
I just get, find so much choice. I gotta limit it to something. So I don’t pay [00:22:00] for that. I pay for other servers, but not pay YouTube. So I tend not to use it. That much in that regard. But it the point though, you are making, I think I would agree with that. You’ve gotta get your aunt together, offer content in a way that’s compelling to the viewer that keeps them around.
And they might then look at other stuff. And that’s why I’m reading the Gizmo article that you shared on this, talking about the revenue that has been steadily increasing. The writer of this piece, by the way, has a a scathing review of YouTube’s mobile app, . I agree with him. He talks about the brain brot of the YouTube mobile app turns me off more than it turns me on.
If I truly wanted dumb quick hits to shock my brain with numbing dopamine, I would turn to TikTok . But and he also makes a comment too which was in my mind, strange to consider YouTube’s popularity on TV when the company keeps raising the price. Obviously YouTube TV service. That’s an interesting point.
So in the US he says YouTube TV now costs [00:23:00] $83 a month. That’s a lot of money. Wow.
Shel Holtz: Might as well just pay for cable.
Neville Hobson: Gosh. Yeah. That’s crazy. He says, if I’m gonna be forced to watch ads because I can’t afford a premium subscription, I wouldn’t wanna do it on my TV or phone.
Okay. That’s his take. But it’s an interesting topic. Shell and I think content creators really should think this through better than they do to make it a more compelling experience for the viewer.
Shel Holtz: Yeah. And by the way, one of the reasons I watch a lot of YouTube is because jam bands tend to upload their concert videos, to YouTube, and I am a jam band fan and one reason I can watch them on my phone is that I did get the pixel fold okay.
My phone is now it unfolds into a mini tablet and it makes that experience a whole lot better.
Neville Hobson: Is it any good?
Shel Holtz: I love it. Yeah, it’s great. It’s a little heavy a little heavier than I’m used to for a phone, but I got used to that pretty quickly. I like it. I like it a lot.
Neville Hobson: Cool. Okay next we’re going to talk about a different world in an age of chaos.
And this [00:24:00] stems from a post on LinkedIn. LinkedIn’s coming up a lot in my research when I look for topics these days. And that’s a good thing. There’s some great content there. I’ll tell
Shel Holtz: you, I’ll tell you, I’m saving more and more LinkedIn articles to my Tumblr feed which is what I use to look for articles to write about or to talk about on the show.
So I agree with you.
Neville Hobson: Sure. I use pocket for that, and it’s chock full of LinkedIn content, but I also save on LinkedIn as well. But now picture this. Imagine a world where reality itself is contested, where facts are no longer agreed upon, and truth bends under the weight of disinformation. Does that sound familiar to what’s happening right now?
It could be some familiarity there. This is the world we find ourselves in today, and as communicators, our role has never been more crucial or more complex. Five years ago at the dawn of the COVID-19 pandemic communication had some semblance of order governments held daily briefing scientists stood alongside officials, and even as chaos unfolded, there were still structures in place to [00:25:00] make sense of it all.
Fast forward to 2025, and that coherence has all but vanished now. We find ourselves in an era that Catherine Arrow calls chaos communication. A time when public relations professionals, journalists, and communicators, are no longer just sense makers, but active participants in an information war, in a thought provoking post on LinkedIn.
Welcome to the Age of the Chaos Communicator. Arrow. Arrow warns that we’ve entered a new phase of public discourse, one where truth is deliberately distorted. Polarization is a strategy, and neutrality is no longer an option. We face a world shaped not just by geopolitical tensions and economic upheavals, but by deliberate attempts to reshape reality.
She critiques the role of public relations and communication professionals pointing out that they are no longer just mediators, but often find themselves entangled in battles over truth itself. Some uphold ethical standards while others willingly participate in disinformation [00:26:00] for personal or political gain.
Arrow warns at the stakes are now higher than ever. . As those in power actively work to reshape narratives for their own benefit in this environment, neutrality is no longer an option. Communicators must take a stand, push back against misinformation and act as defenders of truth, even at personal or professional risk.
As communicators, what role should we play? Do we amplify messages regardless of the truthfulness, or do we take a stand knowing that speaking up could come at a cost? Arrow argues that we are now one step beyond traditional crisis communication, and we must embrace the uncomfortable reality of chaos communication, where defending the truth is not just an ethical responsibility, but a battle in its own right.
Ultimately Arrow calls for a redefinition of the communicator’s role in this new era, urging professionals to move beyond traditional PR functions and embrace the responsibility of countering manipulation, upholding integrity, [00:27:00] and ensuring that history is not dictated solely by those with loudest megaphones.
This age of chaos raises important questions for communicators. How do we ensure that ethical communication remains at the forefront? How do we counter disinformation without adding to the noise? And most critically, if we don’t take a stand for truth, who will?
Shel Holtz: Well, the question I have is, are we doing this on our own using platforms like LinkedIn or are we doing this on behalf of our organizations? Because if we’re doing this on behalf of our organizations, we certainly can’t just go off and do it on our own. A lot of organizations are grappling with the chaos that is coming out of Washington, DC right now and making some tough decisions about what they’re going to say and what they’re not going to say in order to protect their business.
Good god look at Elon Musk right now and specifically thinking of Twitter or [00:28:00] X where he is suggesting not in so many words, but everybody is . On top of this interpretation that if you advertise on X and you don’t increase your ad spend, you could end up being the target of a government investigation, your organization.
You talk about the weaponization of government and the administration is doing that. If you don’t tow the line on DEI policies, you’re, you could end up being the target of an investigation by the Department of Justice. These are pretty serious threats. And I think organizations that have employees they need to pay so that they can feed their families and, keep a roof over their heads.
They need to keep their vendors working. They need to keep their investors happy. That’s a tough call to take a stand. I think there are fewer and fewer organizations, frankly, that are doing that be because of the threat. Now I. Absolutely agree. And I am taking a stand [00:29:00] individually, online, wherever I can as, as well as through other community activities.
But I think it’s interesting if she’s talking about, as an official spokesperson of your organization, you are speaking for your organization. You can’t make that up as you go. .
Neville Hobson: I’m not sure she’s talking about that. Although that may be part of what she’s saying. She doesn’t state it, but it is more of a general thing, it seems to me.
And I think it makes sense. Like you I could see the risk element of this but perhaps more significantly to your prime point, which is you can’t just go out and do this if you are talking on behalf of the organization. Of course not. I don’t think she’s suggesting that.
It does make you think when I read her article, this was before the news rapidly emerged about the thousands of people that Trump and his psycho fence are firing in public sector or the federal employees. I read today, I think the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta is letting go some thousands of employees.
The big [00:30:00] one is the 10,000 or so that have been let go in. I’ve forgotten which government department shell, do you remember? It was in the news? Yeah,
Shel Holtz: it was the US agency for international development.
Neville Hobson: Is it that one? Okay. Because I think Department of Defense is coming up next. So I was reading Generals this morning.
They had about
Shel Holtz: yeah, chairman of the
Neville Hobson: so I guess in the context of that without this conversation just focusing on all this stuff going on in America, I think. In my mind it’s been why aren’t we seeing more people pushing back on, on stuff like this? But the wider picture would be generally what the US is, the current administration in the White House is doing, broadly speaking across the board, the threat of tariffs and this kind of deal making in Ukraine.
It’s all about mining these precious metals that’s all Trump wants. He wants a deal, and he’s talking about how much money everyone can make on this. Good grief. He’s all about the transaction. And, uh, cozy up to Putin and so forth. No one’s really saying a lot about that.
And I [00:31:00] can understand that. Part of me understands that, the high risk element of that. But I think it’s more why do that? No one has a clue how to respond to this yet. That’s what it looks like to me. Whether you are in a European government, whether you are in a global multinational corporation, let’s wait for.
Someone some company that’s a big global enterprise is gonna get in the cross hairs of either Musk or Trump and have to go through some kind of serious accusation. So what are we gonna do about that? So I would imagine what Catherine Arrow is pointing out is already on the discussion tables of large organizations.
I would think the what if, and this is what would you call it? Chief says, we’re beyond crisis communication. This is chaos, communication planning. So that is already going on, and maybe we’re in the, to use a second World War analogy, this is the phony war. There’s not real war broken out yet.
These are little skirmishes. These are the . Probing and the pushing. That’s what it seems to me. And yet the consequences of these actions are dreadful and dreadful. They’re dire, [00:32:00] they are gonna affect all of us. So you mentioned about, in a company people have gotta, look after their employees, they can feed their families or totally.
Right. Maybe that’s what’s influencing the lack of things as well. So we’ve got all that. This then is the, almost like the game plan for this is what you’ve gotta decide as a communicator in the organization. And by the way, thinking about that, the communicators.
What about those folks who are in those organizations that have fired all those federal employees, the communicators, assuming they aren’t amongst the fires. I’ve seen a couple of people talking on threats who are communicators who’ve been let go in, I’ve forgotten which agency? So it’s across the board.
And we are gonna see some dreadful consequences of all of this. In the meantime, we’ve got what c Catherine Arrow is pointing out to us that we need to decide ourselves. How do we ensure that ethical communications at the forefront how do we counter disinformation? Listen to everything Trump says, and the fact checking [00:33:00] guys are hard at work on everything he says and almost.
The majority of everything he says is not true most of the time. So how do you counter that? Because it’s like we’ve often talked, if you don’t respond to stuff like that after a short period of time, it becomes the truth to most people. ’cause no one is saying different and there’s a big risk. If we don’t stand for truth, who will is her concluding point. That’s a very good statement. But we should adapt that to the real world, to the reality of the circumstances in our own situations. There is risk doing this without doubt. I don’t have the answers to these questions I’m asking too.
I’ve been thinking about this as I read Katherine’s post and just observing what’s going on as Musk with his chainsaw at a conference. Goodness me Trump, who. I just wonder, is he, does he think this is all a joke? Do you think so? Is he just letting Musk have his way until something goes wrong and then he fires him and then we see a conflagration?
Who knows? But this is a dangerous time. This, I, [00:34:00] in my view, is a good clarion call for us to think about some of these things and indeed this kind of conversation you and I are having, others should be having these conversations too, because we are at a time of grave peril. It seems to me, in this age of chaos.
And chaos is right.
Shel Holtz: Absolutely. And when Catherine Aero says that we need to take on a new role, I would argue it’s not a new role. It is something that was suggested maybe 10 or 12 years ago by the Global Alliance for Communications and Public Relations. Yeah. This is the organization whose membership is made up of communication associations.
I-E-B-C-P-R-S-A CPRS. They’re all members of the Global Alliance, and they met in Melbourne way back when and drafted what they called the Melbourne mandate. I don’t even know if you can still find that online. But at the center of the mandate was that the communicator’s role at the center is to be the conscience of the organization and to help guide.
The [00:35:00] doing of what’s right and the rejection of what’s wrong. And that’s exactly, I think what she’s talking about here. Just more speaking up than providing counsel. But as communicators I think that they were right in the Melbourne mandate that because we have that view, not only of all of the organization’s operations, but everything that’s going on externally, we’re in the best position to say, look, this is how people are going to react to our taking this position. I look at Target the gr the department store chain as an example. They dialed back their DEI, they dialed back the pride month celebrations. They used to have a lot of product from gay L-G-B-T-Q designers and the like in the store.
And they’ve dialed that back because of the pushback they were getting. But now there’s been a suit filed against them customers who supported their DEI initiatives and their supportive Pride month are boycotting and making a lot of noise. They’re being torn apart by both ends.
And [00:36:00] you have to wonder how an organization is going to deal with that when half of the people want you to do one thing and half of your customers want you to do another. And they you can’t have it both ways. So I’m, these are difficult times.
Neville Hobson: They are. And I’m thinking something you mentioned about the Melbourne mandate is a good point.
But I think we’ve got, we’re at a time now where nothing at all is black or white, is very nuance’s. Lots of dreadful shades of gray. Much more than that movie talked about. Lemme tell you that. And you’ve also got something we can observe which she references that some people uphold ethical standards.
And I would like to think the majority of communicators do, while others willingly participate in disinformation for personal or political gain. That’s not a new thing, of course, but at a time when things are not what they appear, particularly when. In the kind of good old days, an authority figure, like the [00:37:00] president of the United States, you could almost literally say, if he says it’s it is.
So, now you’ve got Trump doing that kind of stuff. If he says it’s it ain’t, that’s a fact, but what are you gonna do about it? And it gets worse every time he talks. I think this presents a, this kind of adds to the dilemma confronting communicators because it is not black and white, the old rule book that you may not apply the way it was intended back then.
So you’ve gotta think fast on your faith, be pretty agile as the word goes and look at how do you convince your leaders, your colleagues and others that of a certain course of action when evidence, quote unquote out there suggests it’s not that, it’s this, how do you deal with that? So it’s, it is a time of chaos.
Shel Holtz: We’re gonna stick with this topic. We’re just gonna zero in on one element of the chaos, and that’s the upheaval we find ourselves in. Thanks to this trend of loosening content moderation policies [00:38:00] on major platforms, notably X and Metis platforms this shift has profound implications for communicators, especially in the B2B sector.
So if you’re working the B2B sector, pay attention MET is transitioning from third party fact checking to a community note system that’s similar to the approach that X formerly Twitter took under Elon Musk’s leadership. If you care to call it that Zuckerberg is framing this move as a commitment to free expression, aiming to address concerns about over enforcement and perceived biases and content regulation.
But this relaxation of content controls has really sparked a lot of debate. Critics argue that reducing moderation can lead to increases in misinformation and harmful content, posing risks to public disclosure and brand safety. Really interesting to be having this discussion. Right now. I’m reading the book, the Sirens call by Chris Hayes, which is about the attention economy.
And we only have so much attention to give. It’s being commoditized, [00:39:00] but there is an endless supply of information out there and people are working hard to draw your attention. To their content. And if you spend your time with disinformation and misinformation, that means there’s less time for you to hear the countervailing opinion on all of this.
So what are the implications for communicators for those of us in communications, these changes require a strategic reassessment. Here’s what to think about. First, brand reputation management With fewer moderation controls, there is a greater risk of misleading or harmful content proliferating. You may find that your brand’s messages is right up against something that’s controversial or offensive, and that can damage your brand’s reputation and ERO trust.
So it’s really important to monitor social channels vigilantly, and respond quickly to any content that could negatively impact your brand. Then there’s navigating misinformation. The [00:40:00] potential rise in unchecked information means communicators have to be proactive in combating false narratives, developing clear factual content and engaging directly with your audience to correct misperceptions, misconceptions, and disinformation can help maintain your brand’s credibility.
Also, educating your audience on how to identify reliable information and information sources can empower them to navigate the digital landscape more effectively, and they may even be grateful to you for that. Next is evaluating platform strategies. As platforms change their moderation policies, we may need to go so far as reassessing where and how we engage our audiences.
There are already people pulling their X accounts and telling people you, and you’ll now find us on Blue Sky. That’s because X is among those platforms that have become less conducive to your brand’s values and messaging. Due to an increase in harmful content, diversifying your digital presence and considering alternative [00:41:00] platforms with moderation policies that align with your brand standards can mitigate potential risks.
Finally there’s enhancing internal policies that we need to consider internally. Revisiting your social media guidelines is imperative. Ensure that your team understands the importance of responsible content sharing and the potential implications of engaging with unmoderated content.
Providing training on best practices can help maintain a consistent and positive brand image across all channels. So by staying informed and being proactive, we can navigate this complex environment effectively, safeguard our brands, and continue to engage our audiences in a meaningful way.
Neville Hobson: Yeah, it sounds so wonderfully.
Let’s do this the way you say it, shell, um, it’s good to link it to Catherine Arrow’s assessment of the Age of Chaos, because this is part of that. I agree. I find it almost incomprehensible to, to understand why [00:42:00] anyone would want to, um, eliminate content moderation in this day and age notwithstanding Trump and Musk even, and Zuckerberg for that matter talking about, because moderation restricts freedom of speech.
That’s the kind of overriding argument that I understand they’re saying is that’s why they’ve done this, because they want to give. Better freedom of speech without these impediments of government censorship, which is really what it amounts to. So all this pushback in Trump’s style against the the European Union and their efforts to provide safeguards for people online and so forth, all that’s gone by the wayside basically.
So brands generally the people running those brands have serious difficulties. Now with this in being present on any platform that doesn’t have moderation, which is where ones like Blue Sky really do stand out with what they have, and they’ve ramped up their their safeguarding teams significantly.
Trouble is. The likes of X in [00:43:00] particular with what, 600 million users and Facebook with what are they got 3 billion users. The numbers are staggering that, that’s like a drop in the buckets. But maybe this, again, the extension of the conversations that we’ve had in prior episodes, which is that maybe this is something that brands who.
Do not wish to literally give up on their content and their messaging being overwhelmed by stuff that they abhor and does not represent their brand values at all. Being associated with a place that has stuff like that. Maybe this is another nudge to get going with, considering other platforms, which comparatively, in terms of user numbers are niche right now.
But that’s more honest it seems to me. And it’s not saying that, oh, great, we can have them to moderate all the content that, that’s one we can say, but we want not at all. This then becomes a far more strategic approach to this, and it actually sets in place, I think. [00:44:00] The beginnings of a framework for this is how it’s going to be in the future.
That these monolithic networks that are controlled by a single corporation or one crazy individual who changes things on a whim now and again, and it is more like again and now would not matter. It takes power away from those people and you then are more honest and truthful to yourself and your audience.
So that is the future though. ’cause what we got now is the age of chaos and it ain’t pretty.
Shel Holtz: Yeah. And I find the argument that this is all about free speech to be a little disingenuous. , honestly, if you’re looking for unfettered free speech there’s always four chan. It’s still there.
Last I heard. And anything goes on four chan. There are places that do that. But yeah it’s getting uglier and uglier. I am seeing stuff in my Facebook feed that I have never seen before. People I have not followed, I have not commented on, I haven’t even lingered on these posts.
And I [00:45:00] find them objectionable and offensive. And why are they in my feed? What is it about the algorithm that is injecting this stuff into my feed? You, I think what makes TikTok so addictive is that it. Figures out pretty quickly what you like and just automatically starts giving you more of that.
In fact, in his book, Chris Hayes says he had a, an evening at home one night. So he he was alone which is rare. So he decided to have a half a gummy an edible and play with TikTok. And he said after an hour he realized he had just been scrolling through videos of people making sandwiches lovingly and carefully and cutting them in half, one after another.
And he said, oh my God TikTok knows I’m stoned , so, why can’t Facebook do something a little more like that? Why is it loading me up with this content? And it is, I think this shift toward a more . Conservative approach to [00:46:00] what we see. And I’m actually blocking a lot more on Facebook these days than I ever have.
And I think it’s all because of this accommodation of the new administration and a desire to stay outta their crosshairs. That could be. I also think it’s the algorithm responds to what you post yourself, the content you post, and the volume of your posting. So I don’t do much on, on Facebook. I hardly ever maybe it’s probably less than 1% of my time there, less of that even engage with anyone who’s not a friend at all.
Neville Hobson: I spend all my time purely in my friends. The equivalent of the timeline. I don’t engage much now and again, I’ll have a look at what’s going on and I quickly go away because I don’t see anything there that interests me at all. But that’s just me. I know others who are completely the opposite to that.
TikTok I gave up on TikTok about six months ago. It’s just full of utter bilch. That’s how I see it. I have no interest in that at all. It’s a shame. But I think, [00:47:00] this is the landscape we have and it is not gonna improve. I shell I’m certain it won’t ever improve be, it’s getting worse, if anything.
And now with what’s happening it’s I despair that this is ever gonna be a pleasant place. So I’m still on Facebook. I’m still not a hundred percent decided whether I’m gonna completely shut it down, but I’m leaning that way. And that doesn’t sound like ridiculous fence setting. I dunno what does, but that’s where I’m at still right now.
Shel Holtz: I just finished reading a book. I can’t remember the author’s name. There are people listening, I’m sure, who would are shouting it at me. As soon as I tell you the title of the book it, it is called Nexus. And it is a history of information networks from the Stone Age to ai. And one of the points the author makes he’s a historian something of a philosopher an Israeli he wrote a book called Sapiens that I think was a bestseller.
But he says, what enables democracy is information networks that allow people to engage in [00:48:00] discussion about the issues that affect. The society and to arrive at some kind of consensus. And we’re losing the ability to have those conversations because of this chaos and because of this flooding of the zone with misinformation and disinformation and people latching onto conspiracy theories and whatever suits the tribe that they belong to.
And that’s worrisome. That is the conversation the authentic conversation seems to be drying up in favor of commenting on and sharing of misinformation and disinformation and, the spread of this stuff. I think, you’re paying attention to what is being shared about how to address all of this in unmoderated communities where your organization, your brand may be active.
Listening to Catherine Arrow’s advice all of this is important because, yeah, we gotta do what we can.
Dan York: Greeting she and Neville and FR listeners all around the world. It, Stan, you are coming at you from a [00:49:00] snowy Vermont USA, where we have about 20 inches or 50 centimeters for you, Neville, of that white stuff on the ground.
It’s beautiful out here. Cold, but beautiful. So this month I wanna mention first something that people have long requested for the Mastodon platform, which is the ability to have quote posts. If you think about that, we used to call them retweets back in the day of Twitter, but they have since been called many other things in different platforms.
But quote posts is certainly one topic, or quote, tweets, we used to say different ways, but a lot of platforms have them, and this is of course, the ability to go and take somebody else’s content and share it in your content, in your stream with your own feedback and comments and things. When Mastodon was first being created back in the mid 2010s, it was around 20 16, 20 17 that it first got started.
They, the developers chose very specifically not to [00:50:00] include quote posts. I. And one of the rationales they had at the time was really that one of the ways in which quote posts can be used is to be negative about somebody, process often referred to as dunking or something where you are going and
Taking somebody’s quote and saying, oh, look at what an idiot they are, or something like that. In much , much more profane words perhaps, but really, trashing somebody and doing it so in the wrong usage it can be a very unsafe kind of thing. And so the developers of Mastodon, when they were first creating it were against this.
And so they didn’t implement it. But over the years, they have of course noticed that a lot of people like quote post, and there are very many other very positive uses of how it can be used to share something, amplify it, work with that. And many communities like using quote posts in different ways, and also that people coming to Mastodon from other platforms, were finding, [00:51:00] wait a minute I can’t do quote posts.
Then, I don’t wanna be here and trying other things now because Macedon and the broader Fedi verse is an open environment, there have been a number of clients, including one that I use called Ice Cubes that have implemented a form of quote posts where it is basically taking the original post and forwarding and it sharing it very much like we used to do before the retweet mechanism was something that was created in Twitter.
There’s been a need for a better way. So Mastodon, the team there at the developers of it, the Mastodon team put up a post earlier this month that talked about how this could be potentially implemented and what they looked at was basically creating a quote post mechanism, but providing additional controls.
So what will happen as they implement this is that you will be able to choose whether your posts can be quoted. So [00:52:00] you’ll have a configuration if you don’t want people doing that, if it’s something you’ve seen abused for you or something, you can just not enable that. You will also be notified when someone quotes you, which other platforms allow as well.
And then interestingly, you’ll be able to withdraw your post from the quoted context. So if somebody were to go and take your post and forward it and say, you know what an idiot you could choose to have it withdrawn from that quote. Interesting idea about how to go and do it. They rightly point out in their post that there is no standard for this.
And so that’s one of the pieces of work that they’ll be doing is to bring it through the W three C or the process, a standards process. There’s now a fedi verse enhancement proposals kind of process that will go and write an extension to activity pub that will allow this to happen. So if you’re interested in the fedi verse and Mastodon, this is something that is working its way through and and we’ll see where this goes.
I’m looking forward to having that capability as I spend more and more of my time [00:53:00] in the fedi verse these days. Second topic this month, I wanna just comment on the fact that, in your world, Neville, the the UK government was being very assertive to Apple, that they wanted the ability to go and have a backdoor to be able to get into any and all encrypted backups of UK citizens in Apple’s iCloud.
They were demanding this under the UK’s Investig Investigatory Powers Act or the Snoopers Charter, as some people call it. They wanted to be able to go and get access to end-to-end encrypted files everywhere. So they were demanding that Apple put a back door in its system. I. If anybody has been watching the news, security news over here in the United States back doors, they never just stay for the government.
We’ve watched here in the United States where a group of Chinese hackers apparently have been able to use back doors in a telecom system to be able to go and get in into [00:54:00] all sorts of conversations and things all over the world. Back doors are an incredibly bad idea. So there’s a lot of concern about what would Apple do.
And what they chose to do is that they’re gonna stop offering their encrypted cloud storage offering something called advanced data protection to users in the uk. So now, as of this time or when this is happening here, UK users will have a less safe experience than anyone else in the rest of the world because they will not be able to have their data protected.
So any of the data, the photos they store, the family photos, the documents, anything else they put in the iCloud. Will not be protected anymore because the UK government wants to go and be able to hack into it or look at it. So, let’s be careful here a little bit about what’s going on.
FaceTime, some of the messaging will still be end-to-end encrypted, but the difference will be that the backups will not be, and so you will not have that protection with, if you turn on the advanced data [00:55:00] protection, your data is end-to-end encrypted. And so Apple can’t see it. A government can’t see it, nobody can see it.
It’s protected with it turned off the government or others could see it. So UK users will be less secure than the rest of the world. We’ll see what happens, whether the UK government relents and agrees with everyone else that back doors are bad or or what will happen. Stay tuned. I wanna end with kind of something a little bit more fun if we’ve been doom scrolling through whatever your service may be, threads, blue Sky, Mastodon, or even those other ones out there.
If you want an alternative, a developer Del Deliver, develop something called Wiki Talk. Yes, it’s a play on TikTok and if you go to their website, which is wiki to W-I-K-I-T-O-C-T-O-K, just search on that with your search engine, you’ll find it quickly. It is something where you can just go and do vertical swipes and like you would in TikTok or something, and [00:56:00] you’ll swipe through random Wikipedia articles.
It sounds hokey, but you know what, it’s . Fun, just looping through and seeing whatever different things are. It doesn’t have videos. It’s not like TikTok in that way. It’s just random articles, which then you can go and be able to click a button and read more. But it’s just something fun.
If you want an alternative to doom scrolling through all the news these days. With that, I’ll turn it back to you guys, shall Neville. Thanks for including me here and I look forward to this listening to the show. The outline you’ve got looks fantastic. So that’s all for me. You can find more in my audio in writing at Dan York.
Me. Thanks for listening back to you guys. Bye for now.
Shel Holtz: Thanks very much, Dan, as always a great report and I cannot wait to go take a look at Wiki talk . It sounds like so much fun. The idea of doom scrolling through Wiki the endless scroll of Wiki articles just sounds wonderful. I gotta give that a try.
Neville Hobson: Leadership is at the heart of everything. I think most of us listening to [00:57:00] this would agree from the highest levels of government to the smallest of communities, but what do people truly want from their leaders? What makes someone worth following? Gallup’s latest global leadership report offers some fascinating insights into this question.
Based on an extensive survey of more than 30,000 people across 52 countries, the research identifies four essential needs that followers expect from those in charge, hope, trust, compassion, and stability. Hope is the most crucial element, said 56% of survey respondents, leaders whose visions for the future inspire confidence and optimism are the ones who leave the most significant impact.
Trust is not far behind. It’s 33% ensuring that people believe in the integrity, honesty, and reliability of those who lead them. Compassion and stability round out the equation, reinforcing the importance of care, empathy, and consistency in leadership by focusing on what leaders contribute to people’s lives.
[00:58:00] Gallup’s study highlights the evolving dynamics of leadership and the critical role of understanding people’s expectations, but here’s where it gets even more interesting. 57% of survey respondents said they’re more likely to name family members as their biggest daily influences, followed by their managers or workplace leaders.
At 18% political and religious lead leaders came in at 7% each with celebrities trailing at just 2%. Leaders in the workplace have significant potential to improve lives with 34% of employed individuals, citing a manager, workplace leader or colleague, as having the most positive impact. And while hope is the primary need in every region, its emphasis varies.
For example, in Europe, people place relatively more importance on trust. While Latin America shows a greater need for compassion, younger people aged 18 to 29 are more likely to seek hope from their leaders compared to older individuals. [00:59:00] The report highlights that when leaders fail to provide hope, trust and stability followers experience higher levels of stress and dissatisfaction, which impacts overall societal wellbeing.
It also suggests that leaders who recognize and act on these needs will foster greater engagement, productivity, and resilience in their communities and organizations. It all means that leadership isn’t just about politics or public figures. It’s about the everyday decisions made in homes, workplaces, businesses, and communities.
Gallup concludes that modern leadership requires self-awareness and understanding of the expectations of followers and the ability to provide clear vision and guidance. Above all, hope is the defining trait that separates influential leaders from the rest. In an era of uncertainty, and dare I say an age of chaos, how can leaders better serve those who look to them for guidance?
How can they cultivate hope and trust in an age of skepticism? And what role do [01:00:00] communicators play in helping leaders connect with their audiences effectively? These are big questions. She .
Shel Holtz: These are huge questions. And how do you convey hope when people are feeling hopeless? That is a skill that is not something that you can just tell your leader they need to do if they don’t.
Already have the character or the experience or just the foundation to, to be able to do that? This is why I think having a leadership coach can be so useful to a lot of leaders. There are people out there who are certified executive coaches. I know a few. In fact I also think it’s worth reexamining the key styles of leadership.
There are, I, you can get master’s degrees in just servant leadership for example. And that’s one of the styles of leadership. It’s the style where you are humble and protective of your people, but you’re also there to serve them. What do you need from me to help you get your job done?
So [01:01:00] the organization can achieve its goals, but there’s also coach. Leadership style, visionary leadership style? Certainly autocratic. Think about Jamie Diamond. If you wanna peg his leadership style, it would be autocratic. There’s laissez-faire, which is hands off, just I’m gonna let people do what they do.
Democratic transformational, transactional, bureaucratic, there’s all these styles and the idea that you can latch onto one of these and beat just that these days, especially in light of the Gallup survey results. I think it’s absurd. If you are primarily a coach, that’s great, but you also need to be
Visionary, and you also need to be a servant to your people. Yeah. So which one of these is your foundational style, and then which other ones do you integrate into your leadership style? And as communicators, especially executive communicators, the communicators who work with. The leaders of the organization.
I think it’s important to work with them on this so that they are able to [01:02:00] pull out the type of leader that is needed in the moment. And, that progressive progress focused inspirational leader, that, that visionary style needs to come out in these days because people need to see that you have a clear vision of where we are headed and how we’re going to navigate through these chaotic times.
And if a leader’s not doing that and it’s certainly not what I’m seeing from the Jamie Diamonds of the world then your employees are going to feel disengaged and nervous. And you’re going to see. Productivity drop, you’re going to see client relations erode. All kinds of bad things happen when your employees don’t feel that they’re being led by people who are in a position to, to get us through this.
Neville Hobson: Yeah. Yeah. That’s about, it’s very valid. I think when I was reading the the global leadership report when I first got a copy last week popped into my mind quite early on that what I thought of hope as the most crucial element, [01:03:00] according to what the survey respondent said I thought of Barack Obama who actually introduced this.
In a memorable way to people globally, not just in America. Do you probably remember back in the first, when he was first elected we had people creating these kind of bits of code. You could get a badge with Obama’s face, you create your own, with your own. They proliferated everywhere across social media back at, back in the time, or blogs mostly as they were then.
But that is enduring what he did. No matter what’s happened since then or since he left politics effectively it, it resonates still with people. And that’s born out in this survey. And there we’re talking about leadership from a national figure in a country, not just a boss at work. This is embracing society as a whole and that element I think is key to ensure we don’t.
Lose sight of that big picture when we talk about, in the workplace and so forth. Yes, that’s important of course, but this is the bigger picture overall. And I think at a time, like where [01:04:00] we’re at now and this has been the thread of this entire episode we’re discussing, is that this is the age of chaos without any question.
And this, we add this then to the list of questions we are asking of communicators. How are you going to help your organization, your leader or boss, your CEO, whoever it might be, navigate this. The rest, the landscape that we’re currently strolling along. And you apply that then to your family.
The pressures I think are immense, particularly on communicators who’ve never really had to really stand out in areas outside their own niche areas. And this, ’cause this is definitely that. There’s no easy answers here, there, there aren’t. There’s just simply this is something to think about and that too take into account and so forth, which is really what we’re doing.
But it is a difficult time. And I think our role. It is precisely as communicators to help leaders be better be the best they can be. Oh God, that’s a [01:05:00] Gillette slogan. I saw an ad for that the other day. the best, best demand can be. That’s the one. Yes. That’s the role basically. And you gotta add all this to everything else we’ve discussed here.
It sounds a horrible laundry list of dreadful things you’ve gotta be aware of. That I am afraid is the landscape. So you don’t need to sit and look at it. Oh my God, having a deal with this. You just need to deal with it. And that’s very easy for me to say. But look at them individually. Don’t think of everything all at once.
That’s the old trick where you wake up at three in the morning and your brain says, okay, here comes everything that you’ve got locked away you are worried about or concerned about. It’s all coming out right now. Don’t do that. I. You need a plan. Coaching is great. That’s a good one.
But there’s so many things to think about that you, you need help. And that’s what professional associations can can really play a big role in that kind of thing. So it’s a bad time we’re in. That’s effect.
Shel Holtz: Yeah. And when Catherine Aero talks about this new role for the communicator, I think this is an, just a perfect [01:06:00] example because first of all, if you’re doing internal communications, presumably you’re listening to employees have a voice and you’re able to distill what you hear into some core messages that you can take to your leaders and say, look it’s fine to say employees need hope, but what do they mean by that?
And how can we craft your messaging and your interactions so that they feel that sense of hope and work with the leaders to project that that’s an ideal role for a communicator in the organization.
Neville Hobson: So bottom line is as the survey points out, hope is the key attribute, let’s say that people look for in leaders to give them hope.
And so our job is to enable the help our leaders do exactly that.
Shel Holtz: Let’s get off of these depressing topics and talk about something that we enjoy talking about, and that’s ai. A relatively new use of AI is con generating considerable buzz in the research community.
And this is [01:07:00] the use of AI generated users or synthetic users as research panelists. As more companies offer these AI driven solutions, we need to weigh their advantages and limitations, especially for communicators and user experience. That’s UX engineers. Synthetic users are AI generated profiles that are designed to simulate real user behaviors, thoughts, and experiences, leveraging large language models.
These artificial . Personas can participate in interviews, surveys, usability tests, panels, providing immediate feedback without it having to engage actual human participants. There are platforms like synthetic users that’s the name of an organization that offers tools to create these AI driven personalities profiles with the goal of streamlining the research process.
Now, there are benefits to doing this that start with speed and efficiency. Synthetic users can be generated and [01:08:00] deployed quickly, accelerating the research timeline. This immediacy is particularly beneficial in fast-paced environments where timely insights are crucial. You don’t have time to go out and recruit a panel and schedule a time for them all to be together, right?
Then there’s cost reduction. Traditional user research. Usually involves considerable expenses related to recruiting participants incentives for them to participate and logistics, especially if you’re gonna pull a focus group together face to face, getting them all into town. At the same time, AI generated users eliminate these costs, making research more accessible, especially for organizations with limited budgets.
Then there’s accessibility to hard to reach demographics. And this is I think one of the more compelling uses of synthetic users, because you can tailor them to represent a specific demographic that can be challenging to recruit. This could be a niche market sensitive population. And now these synthetic users can provide insights that might be harder to [01:09:00] obtain otherwise.
And there’s also, and I’m not sure this is necessarily a good thing, but I guess some researchers like consistency in responses. AI driven personas offer standardized feedback, reducing variability, and enabling clear comparisons across different studies or product inter iterations. But don’t, kick back and think, wow, this is great,
I’m gonna start using synthetic users for my research. Because there are downsides and limitations that start with the lack of genuine human emotion and behavior. As human behavior is complex and context to dependent, synthetic users are data-driven, so they may not capture the depth of real human emotions, spontaneous reactions, or the nuanced decision-making processes that genuine users exhibit.
Then there’s the potential for inaccurate or overly positive feedback. Studies have shown that AI generated responses can sometimes be overly positive or fail to reflect the critical perspectives that real users [01:10:00] might provide. That’ll skew your data. Relying solely on synthetic users raises questions about the authenticity of the data and the ethical impli implications of making decisions based on artificial feedback.
There’s a risk of missing out on genuine user voices, which are crucial and empathetic and user-centered design. And then, AI generated users may lack the ability to provide context rich insights that come from personal experiences, environmental factors and cultural backgrounds. And these often are critical in understanding user needs and behaviors.
I. We don’t come to you with problems and no solutions. So here’s the advice for communicators and UX engineers first. And this makes me think immediately of Mitch Joel who said it’s not, instead of, it’s a long with use synthetic users as a supplement, not a replacement.
While AI generated users can provide quick and cost effective insights, they should compliment, not replace research involving real users. [01:11:00] Balancing both approaches makes sure that the depth and authenticity of human feedback are preserved. You need to validate your AI generated insights with real user data before making significant decisions based on synthetic user feedback.
Cross-reference the findings with any data that you can find from actual users to make sure that it’s accurate and relevant. Be transparent about the methodologies that you used. This is really important from an ethical perspective. When you’re presenting your research findings, be very clear that you use synthetic users in your methodology.
Transparency builds trust and allows stakeholders to understand the context and potential limitations of the data and stay informed about the ethical I implications of synthetic users. Keep yourself educated, keep your team educated about the ethical considerations surrounding AI and research, and come up with some guidelines to ensure that your use of synthetic users aligns with your organization’s values [01:12:00] and respects user dignity For communicators and UX designer, the key lies in integrating synthetic users thoughtfully into a broader research strategy, ensuring the technology enhances rather than replaces the individual perspectives of real users.
Neville Hobson: That’s a lot to digest in that shell, I think starting with how much, I hate the phrase synthetic user, but it’s part of the lexicon. I get it. I. The main thing I would say is really to, what kind of echo what you said there, that to don’t use just this should compliment what you’re doing, which is how I have always approached using generative ai.
Generally speaking, it doesn’t replace, it compliments things that I’m doing. It enhances what I’m doing. This is surely how we should be looking at this. I think though, that there are big alarm bells. I’ve read a couple of articles that all they talk about are the cons. And I agree there are definite pros to doing this speed.
Ideally accuracy, [01:13:00] but assuming that it’s been fed accurate. Input to give the accurate output. It’s is part of the landscape and it is likely to increase in that way. But there should be big guardrails on this. And I think the ethical question is one that comes in there that it is really important to, to behave ethically and transparently.
And there we come against the age old human element. ’cause a lot of people don’t do that. It is part of the landscape and responsible people responsible communicators and others will do, use it wisely. We’ll take advantage of the benefits of this that will enhance and improve perhaps what they’re doing without using a tool like this.
And those who don’t, aren’t going to benefit and they just muddy the overall landscapes. You’ve gotta be aware of that, but this is part of what is evolving. And you just gotta be. Sure. Really sure of what you’re doing and how you’re going about it. That doesn’t leave any doubt in anyone’s mind about your own honesty and transparency.[01:14:00]
Shel Holtz: Yeah. What worries me is that there are going to be research reports released that are based on. What was gleaned from a panel of synthetic users. And you won’t know that, and we’ll be making decisions based on this when the data could be really flawed. Now I’ve been aware of synthetic users for a while.
It’s not a new idea relatively speaking because, I’ve talked to people. Yeah, the idea of employee personas is certainly not new that’s been around for, 30 or 40 years at least, maybe even longer. The idea that we have created a persona to represent this cohort of employees in the organization that helps us craft our communication if we know it’s largely meant for that portion of the audience.
And I have been aware that people have been translating their employee personas that they may have had around for years to ai, because now you can query. The persona, which is nice, [01:15:00] right? Yeah. And I think I’ve mentioned on the show once before, I was talking to an executive communicator. His team has trouble getting to the CEO just because of his schedule and unavailability.
So they’ve created a persona, an AI persona of their CEO based on all his speeches and all of his writing and everything that they could throw in there about him. And now if he’s not available and they’re writing a speech and they need to know what he would think about this they’ll query the AI version.
Now, that’s not the final say. Obviously the CEO’s gonna review the speech before he delivers it. But it’s an interesting approach. What I hadn’t thought about was assembling a group of these as a focus group or using them for something as. Seriously research focus as testing this user interface and telling us if it works for you based on the fact that you are from this region or are in this age group.
So that [01:16:00] worries me. That, I think the advice that was here about blending real humans with this research, using it as a supplement, as good advice, there are people who won’t take that advice. They’re just gonna take the cheap and easy way out.
Neville Hobson: Yeah I’m just reminded of one of the concluding points I read in one of the articles you shared from a company called IDO id o.com the case against AI generated users, and you’ll love this or not maybe, but one of their researchers says, using synthetic humans for direct research is like naval gazing, but not at our own navels , but into the great, messy, cluttered, and often disgusting naval of the internet with a capital I, Dan will like that.
The capital I, the solution isn’t to make up fake people. It’s getting better access to real people. I’ve been toying with that in my mind because I’m not sure I agree. The solution isn’t to make up fake people. It’s getting better access to three people. That’s actually not what’s happening. So that’s not, I don’t believe [01:17:00] a valid criticism, but it’s a, it’s like what I have heard from other people.
So again, that’s what you’ve gotta deal with when you’re trying to sell this idea internally.
Shel Holtz: Absolutely. I remember going out to Dell in Round Rock, Texas, and I was there with a group of social media folks in the early days. And I learned while I was there that they found the people who were making the most negative comments in the Dell forums online and convened basically a panel of them brought them, actually flew them out to Round Rock and had meetings with them.
What is it that drives you crazy about us? Because they figured that if they could solve some of these problems, they’d make a lot more people happy than just them. If you tried to. Encapsulate them in a synthetic persona, are you going to get the same level of information as you would from these people who are really pissed off at you?
And I have to say, I doubt it. It, you might get the basics, but it’s gonna be [01:18:00] sanitized. And as the research shows probably a little more positive than your real critics would be.
Neville Hobson: That’s a good point. So that was probably not long after Del Hell. I would’ve thought that in those earlier days where Jeff Jarvis was the star of that saga is great Wikipedia page if you’re interested in knowing what that was all about.
Because that’s 20 years ago now.
Shel Holtz: Yeah, I remember that.
Neville Hobson: Me too.
Shel Holtz: Tell hell .
Neville Hobson: Goodness me. That was a nice little diversion in, into a cul-de-sac away from all the terrible stuff we’ve been talking about. Le let’s get back to the terrible stuff. , look at our final story, which is at least it’s not politics.
No, this one is definitely not politics. Is it the end of the road for LinkedIn hashtags? Great question. For years social media managers, marketers, and content creators have relied on hashtags to increase reach, improve discoverability, and categorize their posts. But what happens when a platform like LinkedIn starts pulling back on their importance?
Luke, [01:19:00] Brendan Jones raises this very question in his LinkedIn post the end of the road for LinkedIn hashtags where he explores LinkedIn’s shifting stance on this once powerful tool previously using three to 10 hashtags in the LinkedIn post would significantly increase reach as the platform relied on them for categorization and discoverability.
However, LinkedIn’s improved natural language processing now allows it to determine a posts topic without the need for hashtags. Some reports suggest that LinkedIn is gradually making hashtags irrelevant with some even predicting they’ll become unclickable within the next year. It is a significant reversal considering that LinkedIn only introduced hashtag support in 2018.
So what does this mean for communicators and marketers? Are hashtags officially dead on LinkedIn, or do they still hold value? Bernie Jones argues that while hashtags may no longer be a discovery tool, they still serve as visual markers helping readers quickly understand a post’s theme. They [01:20:00] also remain valuable for branding, categorization, and campaign tracking.
The shift also reflects a broader trend across platforms. Instagram, for example, has recently imposed limits on hashtag use while X, formerly Twitter and TikTok continue to rely on them. Blue Sky supports them as does threats, although in the latter case, a thread message will only enable one hashtag out menu if you include more than one.
There is real value in using them strategically said one reader on LinkedIn to Brin Jones’ Post, there’s still a useful tool for our B2B client. She says to ensure primary keywords are covered, especially in a thought leadership strategy, when you may have a post that focuses on a secondary topic rather than thinking of them as a way to be found.
It’s more about reinforcing relevance within a niche. Another reader said, I think unless LinkedIn is actually starting to penalize hashtag use this key point in your article will remain very true. Even denuded of their discoverability power [01:21:00] hashtags provide strong visual labels for your content to flag it as to flag it to relevant readers at a glance.
So should we abandon hashtags on LinkedIn altogether or simply rethink how we use them? Bri Jones says, in my view, the LinkedIn hashtag hasn’t reached the end of the road. Just a consequential fork. What do you think she.
Shel Holtz: I think it’s sad that we’re not gonna be able to use ’em for discovery anymore. And I agree that they are visual cues, but it’s important to remember that hashtags like the at symbol to designate a, an individual were user generated tools.
These were not innovations from the social networks themselves. It was users going, Hey I think this would be a great way for people to be able to find posts, comments that deal with this topic. I gotta tell you I am currently at work. Going through the transition from one intranet provider to a provider [01:22:00] of an integrated internal communications platform.
Our current intranet, I won’t name the vendor because I don’t wanna say anything bad about them, but I don’t like the platform. If we wanna tag an article so people can search for the article, we have to go into SharePoint and go through this rigmarole to establish a tag that now shows up on the intranet.
And when I want to tag the article, I have to go to the tag page and find the tag and click it. It’s a process. The one we’re switching to, the tags are all based on hashtags. Anybody who creates a hashtag, that now becomes a searchable term and. The reason this user generated approach to coming up with the searchable label for this kind of content is that the people who are in charge don’t necessarily know what’s important to a group of users.
I. I am not a construction superintendent. I don’t know what the issues are that they are grappling with, but if there is something that has emerged and over the course of [01:23:00] the next month or so, they need to have a conversation about this and it’s going to be intermingled on teams or down the road in a community on the intranet.
Once we get this thing launched all they need to do is establish that hashtag and now the system will be able to group all that content together. We could even put it all in one widget if we want to, and it’s in their control. And that’s what I like about this. If this is a user focused environment in the social space losing that control I think is not a good thing.
But even with LinkedIn making this decision I do agree just being able to see that pound symbol at a glance, I can say, oh, this is of interest to me. I’m gonna go ahead and read the rest of this post.
Neville Hobson: Yeah. By the way, we never call that a pound symbol. Here in the UK we call it a hashtag. A hashtag Hash symbol.
Yeah, hash symbol. Hashtag you call it pound symbol because it means pound weight, right? Is that why you call it that? Because here, I have no idea. I just know that
Shel Holtz: it’s no pound time. [01:24:00] Sound sign and we quote the hashtag design too, but
Neville Hobson: yeah, you do. I know, I was just teasing. It reminds me this does of Chris Messina, who is the guy who invented the hashtag this was about gosh, getting onto 18 or so more years ago now.
And I interviewed him actually on an episode when you were traveling and I was doing one, one solo and I interviewed him. This was September, 2023 in episode 3 55, as the numbering was then. And he was talking about that it’s time for an upgrade to the hashtag that was his big argument at a time when it was under threat from being hijacked for nefarious purposes on the negative side, but it wasn’t delivering what he thought it ought to have been doing.
And I’m wondering what he would think of this idea on just one platform, but it could spread to others. This discoverability element is not is not so strong. If that vantage is linked in, I think that would be a shame. Um. I think Luke Briney Jones was, had a good post and the people who [01:25:00] left comments there had good points to make.
So there’s no kind of solution of answer to the question. Are hashtags done and over with on LinkedIn? I don’t think the other commenters made that play in their view. So maybe it largely comes down to usability by users to keep it going. Maybe
Shel Holtz: would be if users adopt something it tends to find its way into the mix from the social network owners.
We’ll see. Also I do see them on blue sky, so
Neville Hobson: yeah, they’re alive somewhere. blue sky is Twitter was back in the day where you could actually pepper your posts with hashtags. Sensible use doesn’t suggest that. But that’s still embryonic, relatively speaking. It’s still small, but I search for hashtags like I used to on Twitter, and that’s one way of surfacing content.
So there’s no sign or signal that, as far as I know from Blue Sky, this is gonna stop. So I hope it doesn’t I hope LinkedIn doesn’t abandon support for it the way it seems that it seems [01:26:00] to be going, and that’ll be a shame if they do.
Shel Holtz: Yeah. And the other thing is, so you remember, they haven’t been as, as prevalent lately as they once were, but hashtag campaigns and on LinkedIn for B2B organizations to run a hashtag campaign I think people are gonna miss being able to do that.
Neville Hobson: I agree.
Shel Holtz: And that’ll wrap up this episode of four immediate release, episode number 452 for February, 2025. Hope you’ve enjoyed it. Our next episode is scheduled to drop on Monday, March 24th. That’s our. Long form monthly episode. We’ll be back with midweek episodes here in a little bit. Until then, we hope that you will comment as so many people did.
And I have to say, all of the comments that we shared in today’s episode came from LinkedIn. They were comments left to the posts announcing the availability of an episode on LinkedIn. That’s not the only way to comment. You can comment by sending an email to fir [01:27:00] [email protected]. I scroll scrolled through 227 emails in that account and not one of them was a legitimate comment.
Most of it was spam . But you could do that. You can attach an audio file up to three minutes. We would love to play a clip of your comment. We haven’t had one of those in a long time. It would be great. You can leave a comment directly on the show notes at FIR. Podcast network.com. You can leave a comment in the FIR community on Facebook.
There are lots of ways that you can get your comments to us wherever we share an announcement, we do it on Facebook, we do it on threads, we do it on Blue Sky. Wherever you’re following us, leave a comment. We’ll find it and share it here on the show. And we also appreciate your ratings and reviews wherever you’re inclined to do that.
And until our next episode, that’ll be a 30 for immediate release.
The post FIR #452: Communicating in Chaos appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.
