For Immediate Release

FIR #456: Does AI Put Communication Expertise At Risk?


Episode Artwork
1.0x
0% played 00:00 00:00
Mar 24 2025 89 mins   4
Other Episodes

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



  • The publishing platform Ghost is enabling technology to embed it in the fediverse.

  • New studies reveal that bad communication is leading employees to leave their jobs.

  • A national UK newspaper has launched AI-curated news for “time-poor audiences.”

  • Unilever is stepping back from its purposeful activities, opting to invest heavily in influencer marketing.

  • Have fans of your brand given it a nickname? New research suggests you probably shouldn’t use it.

  • Dan York reports on the Internet Engineering Task Force’s work on a way for websites to signal what AI can collect and process.


Links from this episode:



Links from Dan York’s Tech Report




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


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


Raw Transcript:


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


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


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


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


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


Neville Hobson: That was a good comment from Sally.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Shel Holtz: I believe you did.


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


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


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


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


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


Anyway.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


One


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Neville Hobson: hear.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Neville Hobson: you’re defining corporate clients.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Shel Holtz: interesting


Neville Hobson: because


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


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


What do communicators need to do specifically?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


It,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


, therein lies, I think, interestingly with


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Some of this writing just needs to be good enough.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


That’s where the authenticity is required.


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


But before the


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


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


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


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


Neville Hobson: need the authenticity.


Exactly. Yeah.


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


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


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


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


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


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


Neville Hobson: There we go.


Such as the landscape. She,


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


, not, or just simply people need them


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


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


Neville Hobson: Okay. That’s a


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


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


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


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


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


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


Me. Thanks for listening. Bye for now.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


We’re gonna have to rethink this.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


So time will tell, shell won’t


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


Neville Hobson: ,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Yeah,


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


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


Shel Holtz: Kleen Hoovering.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Download episode Share
Copy URL



Listen on Podcast Addict
Subscribe on Podcast Addict