FIR Podcast Network

FIR 21st Anniversary Celebration

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

FIR #495: Reddit, AI, and the New Rules of Communication

Reddit, the #2 social media site in the US, has surpassed TikTok to become the #4 site in the UK. It has no algorithm that forces you to see what’s most likely to keep you on the site; it just lets users upvote what they think is most interesting, valuable, or relevant. Every topic under the sun has a subreddit. Several organizations, from Starbucks to Uber, have taken advantage of it. So why is it absent from most communicators’ list of social media platforms to pay attention to? Neville and Shel look at Reddit’s growing influence in this episode. The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, January 26. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Shel Holtz: Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 495 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz. Neville Hobson: I’m Neville Hobson and let’s start by saying we wish you a happy new 2026. We’re recording this in the first week of January, so it’s a new year. Last week the Guardian reported something that might surprise people who still think of Reddit as a noisy corner of the internet best avoided. In a deep analysis, the paper noted that Reddit has now overtaken TikTok to become the fourth most visited social media site in the UK, with three in five UK internet users encountering it regularly, according to Ofcom, the industry regulator. Among 18 to 24-year-olds—the Gen Z cohort—it’s one of the most visited organizations of any kind. And the UK is now Reddit’s second largest market globally, behind only the US. That growth hasn’t happened because Reddit suddenly reinvented itself; it’s happened because the wider internet has changed around it. Google’s search algorithms now prioritize what it calls “helpful content,” particularly discussion forums. Reddit threads increasingly surface high in search results, and they’re also being cited heavily in AI-generated summaries. Reddit has licensing deals with both Google and OpenAI, which means its content is being used to train AI models and then redistributed back to users as part of search and discovery. At the same time, users, particularly Gen Z, are actively seeking out human-generated content—not polished brand messaging or single definitive answers, but lived experience, contradiction, debate, and advice that feels like it comes from real people dealing with real situations like parenting, money, housing, health, and sport. Jen Wong, Reddit’s chief operating officer, described this as an “antidote to AI slop.” Reddit, she says, isn’t clean; it’s messy. You have to sift through different points of view, and increasingly, that is the point. For communicators, this raises several important points. For a start, Reddit is no longer a niche platform you choose to engage with or ignore. It’s become part of the discovery layer of the internet. People may encounter your organization, your industry, or your issue there before they ever see your website or your carefully crafted statement. Search visibility is no longer just about content you own; it’s about conversations. Conversations at search engines and AI systems are now amplifying its scale. Many organizations are still quietly hoping Reddit will remain hostile, chaotic, or irrelevant enough to ignore. That stance is becoming harder to justify when government departments are hosting AMAs (“Ask Me Anything”) and major public narratives are forming in plain sight. Finally, lurking is no longer neutral. Silence can allow perceptions—accurate or not—to solidify without challenge, context, or correction. So the question for communicators isn’t whether Reddit is for them, it’s whether they’re prepared for a world where human conversation, amplified by algorithms and AI, shapes reputation just as much as official messaging does. Look at the Omnicom layoffs announced not long before Christmas and the significant role Reddit played as a communication channel parallel to official company communication. We discussed this in depth in FIR 492 just a few weeks ago. So, Shel, this feels like another signal that the ground is shifting under communicators’ feet. Where would you start unpacking what this means? Shel Holtz: Well, if the ground is shifting, it’s because communicators weren’t standing in the right place in the first place. Reddit has been a significant and important platform for a long time. I’ve been advocating for communicators to start taking advantage of it for many years. I’m glad to see it getting this kind of attention, and there are a lot of reasons to consider using this in multiple ways—including the fact that AI is now relying on Reddit for some of the content that it’s trained on. Let’s look at just a couple of things about Reddit. First of all, the people on Reddit are very committed to the communities that they are part of. This is not a “drop-in” community like we see on LinkedIn, nor is it tight, insular communities like you see on Facebook. These welcome new people, but they’re looking for people who are very committed to engaging, sharing, and contributing. Second, there’s no algorithm driving what rises to the top. It’s the community that upvotes the most valuable posts. That’s why you see the most valuable information at the top of any thread. It’s why in the early days, BuzzFeed relied on Reddit to determine what content it was going to publish. Reddit had the nickname “the front page of the internet,” and how you can ignore that eludes me. If you look at what happened with Omnicom, that’s just one thing it’s useful for: social listening and insight generation. It is also issues management and crisis communication. If these large communities are talking about your industry, company, or product, and you’re not listening, you’re missing what is being discussed more broadly via “sneakernet”—people just talking to each other voice-to-voice or over instant messages where you can’t hear it. This is where you gather that intelligence to help you come up with the next product iteration or address issues important to your stakeholder base. I use Reddit basically two ways. One, whenever I have a problem with a product, like my Nikon Z6 II camera, there is a community there more than happy to answer my question. While I’m there, I’ll scroll through and see if there’s something I can contribute, because it’s important to give as well as take. The other is monitoring construction subreddits for good intelligence that I can share up in the organization. There are so many other ways to take advantage of Reddit, and now is the time to invest. Neville Hobson: Yeah, I’ve been on Reddit for about 10 years with an account. In those early days, it was very much a geeky place—not really mainstream. But reality, as the Guardian’s analysis outlines, is that you can’t just treat it like that anymore if you’re wearing a business hat. It is showing up in places like Google AI overviews and is heavily surfaced in those search results because of the licensing deal that allows Google to train models on Reddit data. The UK government is active on Reddit, with departments hosting “Ask Me Anythings” to engage with people. That sort of activity is probably more appropriate for Reddit than LinkedIn, where I’ve seen government activities attract nothing but extreme, politically motivated negativity in the comments. On Reddit, you’re probably going to get a more balanced view. The Omnicom example was really intriguing. The depth of comment on Reddit told lived experience stories that contrasted sharply with the formal communication from corporate communicators. It was a subject lesson in how not to do this from a corporate point of view. Ignoring it is not an option anymore. Shel Holtz: You mentioned “Ask Me Anythings.” That is a great opportunity to present your CEO or subject matter experts to build reputation proactively or reactively during a crisis. Siemens did an AMA featuring their engineers and reported strong click-through rates. Novo Nordisk leaned into sensitive topics and reported an “astoundingly positive reception”. Oatly and IBM also reported strong engagement and brand lift through this format. Of course, there are disasters if executives are not well-prepared, as authenticity is highly valued. Community engagement is another missed opportunity. Wayfair uses discovery tools on Reddit to surface conversations about their service and pops in to answer questions and address issues. You can build relationships with customers, enthusiasts, and even critics. You can also use it for your employer brand to monitor interview processes and culture signals. The CEO of Starbucks explicitly treated a Reddit hiring thread as a signal that a culture shift was taking hold. Neville Hobson: I think one reason for past failures is that companies brought their old methods of communicating to a place where that just doesn’t work. The Guardian findings show that human experience now outranks polish. If you come to Reddit with all your corporate baggage and structured messaging, it’s not going to work. Users are actively seeking “signals of humanity,” and messiness is becoming a trust cue. It’s an “anti-automation” movement. Lurking is no longer neutral because you are being talked about whether you are present or not. Shel Holtz: There’s an illusion of control that you get from things like press releases, but get over it—you don’t control the conversation. To be credible in these spaces, you have to stop being polished. “Press release voice” is a trigger on Reddit; plain talk is valued. Make sure you have the right subject matter expert in the right subreddits who can talk in a plain voice. Don’t just do “drive-by” communication when you need something; be a regular contributor. Neville Hobson: So, human experience-led communications are regaining strategic value. You can’t ignore this. Shel Holtz: LinkedIn’s value seems to be diminishing as it turns into a combination of Facebook with non-business content and AI-generated posts. If you’re looking for a community to tap into people who care about what you do, Reddit is the best place. You can even use paid amplification—Uber and Oreo have reported brand lift from boosted posts. Don’t dismiss it as hostile; develop a strategy and start doing it. Neville Hobson: Keep an eye on the resurgence of other networks, too. The new “Digg” is coming, which was a fixture like Reddit in the early days. There is also “Tangle,” a new one from one of the Twitter founders focused on genuine conversation. Shel Holtz: I’d keep an eye on them, but Reddit already exists with millions of users and tens of thousands of subreddits. Use it. Don’t ignore it. And that’ll be a “30” for this episode of For Immediate Release. The post FIR #495: Reddit, AI, and the New Rules of Communication appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

FIR #494: Is News’s Future Error-Riddled AI-Generated Podcasts, or “Information Stewards”?

In the long-form episode for December 2025, Neville and Shel explore the future of news from two perspectives, including The Washington Post‘s ill-advised launch of a personalized, AI-generated podcast that failed to meet the newsroom’s standards for accuracy, and the shift from journalists to “information stewards” as news sources. Also in this episode: WPP founder Sir Martin Sorrell argued that PR is dead and advertising rules all. Is AI about to empty Madison Avenue Should communicators do anything about AI slop? No, you can’t tell when something was written by AI In Dan York’s tech report: Mastodon’s founder steps back, and new leadership takes over; the UN reaffirms a model of Internet governance that involves everyone: and Dan talks about what he’ll be watching in 2026, including decentralized social media, agentic AI, and Internet technologies. Links from this episode: Sherilynne Starkie’s “Stark Raving Social” podcast Neville’s Strategic Magazine article: Your Value is Not Your Timesheet Questions of accuracy arise as Washington Post uses AI to create personalized podcasts ‘Iterate through’: Why The Washington Post launched an error-ridden AI product Washington Post Says It Will Continue AI-Generating Error Filled Podcasts as Its Own Editors Groan in Embarrassment The Washington Post Deployed Its Disastrous AI-Generated Podcasts Even After Internal Tests Showed It Was Failing Miserably Washington Post Stands Behind AI Podcast Plan Despite Staff Outcry Washington Post’s AI-generated podcasts rife with errors, fictional quotes Radio 4 Today segment featuring Martin Sorrell and Sarah Waddington Martin Sorrell: There’s No Such Thing as PR Anymore Martin Sorrell: The PR Industry is Over-Sensitive Chris Gilmour LinkedIn Post on Martin Sorrell Stephen Waddington’s Facebook Post on the Sorrell-Waddington segment Sir Martin Sorrell Declares PR is Dead. PR Pros Respond The Future of News is Happening Where No One is Looking This is Local News Now Social Media and News Fact Sheet The State of Local News AI is About to Empty Madison Avenue AI Slop: How Every Media Revolution Breeds Rubbish and Art Merriam-Webster’s word of the year delivers a dismissive verdict on junk AI content Pinterest Users Are Tired of All the AI Slop The Impact of Visual Generative AI on Advertising Effectiveness No, You Can’t Tell When Something Was Written by AI How Can You Tell if AI Wrote Something? Wikipedia: Signs of AI Writing Detecting AI-written text is challenging, even for AI. Here’s why FIR Interview: AI and the Writing Profession, with Josh Bernoff FIR #464: Research Finds Disclosing Use of AI Erodes Trust Neville’s Blog: When AI Lets Go of the Em Dash Links from Dan York’s Tech Report: Eugen Rochko on Mastodon’s blog: My Next Chapter with Mastodon Mastodon Blog: The Future is Ours to Build Tim Chambers: My Open Social Web Predictions Internet Society: WSIS 20 Reaffirms Multistakeholder Governance and a Lasting IGF Wikimedia Foundation: In the AI Era, Wikipedia Has Never Been More Valuable Landslide: A Ghost Story The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, January 26. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Neville Hobson Hi everyone, and welcome to the For Immediate Release long-form episode for December 2025. I’m Neville Hobson. Shel Holtz And I’m Shel Holtz. Neville Hobson And we have six great stories to discuss and share with you that we hope you’ll enjoy listening to during Twixtmas. What is that, you may ask? Well, Twixtmas is the informal name for the relaxed period between Christmas Day and New Year’s Eve, typically focusing on the 27th to the 30th of December. It’s a time for winding down, enjoying leftovers, watching TV, listening to podcasts, and simply existing without the usual hustle of holidays or work before the new year starts. The name comes from blending Twixt, an old English word for “between,” and Christmas. It’s a modern term for a timeless lull in the calendar, often called the “festive gap.” That’s probably more information than you wanted, but now you know what it means. So, without further ado, let’s begin the Twixtmas episode with a recap of previous shows since the November long-form one. Shel Holtz We’ll have to start using that over here. Recent Episodes & Listener Comments Neville Hobson That was FIR 489, published on the 17th of November. The story we led with in amplifying the long-form episode across social media was an explosion of “thought leadership slop,” where we riffed on a post by Robert Rose of the Content Marketing Institute. He identified idea inflation as a growing problem on multiple levels. Other stories in this 101-minute episode included quantum computing, vibe coding, “Is it OK to use an AI-generated photo in your LinkedIn profile?”, Dan York’s tech report, and more. And we have listener comments on this episode. Shel Holtz We do, starting with Sherilyn Starkey up in Canada: “I was just listening to the latest episode and you were commenting about a lack of female participation in podcasting. I thought I’d drop in a plug for my latest show, Stark Raving Social. I started it earlier this year and it delivers bite-sized episodes for marcomms pros. I do ‘how-to,’ ‘why you should,’ and ‘have you noticed’ type shows. I’m a hobbyist, so I publish when I have time and feel inspired, but it’s pretty regular. Last year I had a show where I interviewed 50 women over 50. And although the project’s complete, I still get about a thousand downloads monthly. I’ve been podcasting on and off since about 2007 and was—and still am—greatly inspired by FIR and your excellent work. Thank you.” Thank you for that, Sherilyn, and hope to see you soon. Sherilyn’s terrific. We have two comments on this episode from Darlene Wilson. She said: “Enjoyed all of your content in this episode. Wanted to share that my role shifted from a marketing and comms managerial title to ‘Senior Manager, Corporate Brand and Communications’ a few years ago. It combines communication and brand leadership in one portfolio under which are marketing, sponsorship and events, promo, and change management. It’s a great role for a raging generalist. Moving brand and comms together—or brand under the comms umbrella—does signify part of a shift from end-deliverer of the message to a focus on reputation, trust, judgment, and the ability to oversee and connect what a company says and what it does. Given today’s environment, organizations do seem to want leaders, as Neville said, who bring judgment, sensitivity, and crisis literacy. That’s the comms person bringing broad and strategic thinking. Thank you both for your long-term commitment to this valuable profession.” She added in another comment: “The ‘every media revolution has slop’ analogy is directionally useful, but it can underweight what is genuinely discontinuous here: 1. Near zero marginal cost at massive scale, 2. Algorithmic distribution optimizing for engagement, and 3. Slop feeding back into training and ranking systems (i.e., model collapse plus search quality). If you treat it as just another cycle, you may miss that the mechanism is now self-reinforcing in ways Gutenberg-era pamphlets were not. The sources above—Google spam policies plus model collapse plus platform case studies—give you the evidence to make the distinction without turning the argument into moral panic.” Neville Hobson Great comments. Thank you very much for that. FIR 490 on the 1st of December: We unpacked some AI studies that claim to show what large language models actually read. But the sources shift month to month, and many citations aren’t reliable at all. We have a comment on this episode. Shel Holtz From our friend, Niall Cook, who says: “I don’t think anyone should be surprised that different studies report different results. It’s the same in many other research domains, but especially so here when the prompts, the models, the model parameters, and the methods will always produce differences—in the same way that no two users of the same generative AI system will get exactly the same response for the same question. We shouldn’t conflate visibility and citation reliability, though; two different things.” Neville Hobson FIR 491 on the 8th of December shone a spotlight on big four consulting firm Deloitte, which created costly reports for two governments on opposite sides of the world, each containing fake resources generated by AI. Not only that, but a separate study published by the US Centers for Disease Control also included AI-hallucinated citations and the exact opposite conclusion from the real scientist’s research. We have a number of comments on this one. Shel Holtz We have four, starting with Monique Zitnik: “I’ve been nearly caught out with a source pointing to a website. After much digging, I discovered the website was AI-generated, and other websites had quoted this website. It was a myriad of AI-invented rubbish that sounded plausible.” Mike Klein threw some praise your way, Neville. He said: “It’s also a business model problem, as Neville pointed out in his excellent article for Strategic.” That’s the magazine that Mike edits and you contributed to. He provided a link which we will add to the show notes; your article was titled Your Value is Not Your Timesheet. Steve Lubetkin said: “AI can be a useful tool, but humans need to review and confirm its output. The fact that they don’t or won’t is troubling.” And Chris Lee wrote: “You have both done some great episodes this year around AI. Very useful. Thanks. Keep them coming.” Neville Hobson That was a great comment. Steve actually says it all: you’ve got to check up on all this stuff before you publish anything or rely on something. I see many more people now talking about it. You’ve got to verify everything all the time. You cannot trust it, whether it’s generated by AI or quoted by AI or linked to by the AI; you’ve got to verify all of that. Shel Holtz Yeah, and I think we mentioned in one episode that I believe—and I think you do too—that there is likely to be a verification role that will be a new job classification. I’ve seen a little bit more about that since we made that assertion. There are actually companies that are hiring people to verify AI. Neville Hobson That’s interesting, isn’t it? In FIR 492 on the 15th of December, we looked at how the story of the untimely Omnicom layoffs in the US unfolded with one official investor-focused narrative and another on LinkedIn and Reddit. We observed that when people have platforms, the press release isn’t the whole story. We have one comment on this? Shel Holtz Yes, from Roberto Capodici. Apologies if I pronounced that wrong. Roberto says: “I think what’s really interesting here is how the whole situation highlights the tension between curated corporate narratives and the unpredictability of human experience playing out in public forums like LinkedIn.” Neville Hobson In FIR 493 on the 22nd of December, we discussed how artificial early engagement can manufacture visibility that algorithms and media treat as significant. The tactics aren’t political; they’re portable and already familiar to communicators. It’s alarmingly easy to do. And finally, we published an FIR interview on the 10th of December where we enjoyed a great discussion with Josh Bernhoff about his major survey of writers and AI. The deep divide between users and non-users, productivity gains, AI slop, trust, and the real story isn’t replacing people but resorting them. We have a comment or two, think, Shel? Shel Holtz We have one. There are more on Josh’s repost of this. This one is from Susan Mangiero, PhD: “I enjoyed your lively discussion about AI. In fact, I stopped the video and repeated several sections. I don’t think you addressed the use of AI for purposes of author marketing, unless I missed it: What are your thoughts about using AI to help authors and their collaborating ghostwriters market their books? Given Shel’s work in the area of employee communications, what are your thoughts about using AI for research? (Note: I do a lot of work with financial clients.) Josh, keep up the great work. I enjoy your blog. And the book survey was fascinating.” Do you want to tackle these? I’m wrapping up work on a book right now. I have a proposal consultant helping me prepare the proposal, and I am thinking heavily about marketing these days. There’s no question that I will use AI as an aid to this in identifying targets to approach and testing language with different stakeholders. Every opportunity I have to use it to improve the marketing output, I will. I’m not going to outsource this to AI, but if AI can play devil’s advocate for me and help me brainstorm and ideate, I will take advantage of that all day long. What do you think? Neville Hobson Absolutely, it is a natural tool to use. One of the biggest benefits of AI is its ability to literally be your right-hand person, your assistant who will work with you—not just respond to things you ask it, but challenge you on things. It’s the same as having a human being by your side, except this one doesn’t need to eat lunch. It allows you to identify audiences, figure out what messaging is appropriate for which audience and when and where. It helps you concentrate on the next steps you’re to take. Shel Holtz In terms of research for internal communication, I don’t see it as any different from research for external communication. It comes back down to the need to verify everything that you get. I wrapped up a white paper for my company not too long ago on adaptive reuse of buildings. Since COVID, office occupancy has declined, and some large office buildings have defaulted on leases. The immediate thought is converting them to residences, but it’s harder than you think because of plumbing and natural light issues. The white paper explores other opportunities. This is way outside my expertise, so I relied heavily on internal experts but also did a lot of research using Google’s Gemini Deep Research. I got a lot of great information, but some sources it found didn’t exist. I would have been humiliated if I had put out a white paper with that kind of information. I spent a lot of time verifying every source and every fact. It took less time than doing the research myself, but it was still time-consuming. As Steve Lubetkin noted, it’s disheartening that there are people who are not doing that. Circle of Fellows Update Shel Holtz I want to let everybody know about the most recent Circle of Fellows, which is now available for you to listen to or watch. It was a great conversation about the future of communication in 2026 and beyond. Zora Artis, Bonnie Caver, Adrian Cropley, and Mary Hills were the panelists. The next Circle of Fellows is coming up on Thursday, January 22, at noon Eastern time. The topic is the impact of mentoring. We have a great panel: Amanda Hamilton-Attwell, Brent Carey, Andrea Greenhous, and Russell Grossman. You can tune in live or watch the replay on the FIR Podcast Network. 1. The Washington Post’s AI Podcast Debacle Shel Holtz The core currency of a news organization isn’t its reporting; it’s trust. In mid-December, The Washington Post decided to trade that currency for a tech demo when it launched “Your Personal Podcast,” an AI-driven feature that generates audio summaries of the day’s news. At its core, this doesn’t sound like a bad idea. Nicholas Negroponte suggested this in the 90s with the “Daily Me.” But at the Post, cracks appeared immediately. The AI mispronounced names, invented quotes, and editorialized. In one egregious example, AI announced a discussion on whether people with intellectual disabilities should be executed, stripping away the crucial context regarding a specific legal case. According to internal documents obtained by Semafor, the product team knew exactly what they were releasing. During testing, between 68% and 84% of the AI-generated scripts failed to meet the newsroom’s own standards. In any other industry, a failure rate approaching 85% would trigger a recall, not a launch. The Post is chasing a younger demographic that consumes audio, which is a valid goal. But serving them hallucinations doesn’t build a future audience; it alienates them. The Post needs to pull this tool, fix it, and apologize—not just for the errors, but for the decision to treat their subscribers as beta testers for a broken product. Neville Hobson Extraordinary, truly. I was reading the NPR article you shared. It asks: “Will listeners embrace an AI news podcast?” The podcast is tailored to listeners based on what they’ve read in the Washington Post. That implies the likely listener is someone who spends a lot of time reading the Post, not a casual user. It’s an intriguing step, but unfortunately, a misstep in terms of how they’ve dealt with it. Shel Holtz Podcasting has become a staple for newspapers. The New York Times has The Daily and Hard Fork. Nothing is wrong with embracing podcasting. I just have a problem with the decision to launch it the way it was. The Washington Post is a storied institution—Katherine Graham, Ben Bradlee, Watergate, the Pentagon Papers. With this one decision, they have undermined that legacy. Neville Hobson It symbolizes much of what is not right in the United States at the moment regarding freedom of speech and truth-telling. You mentioned Jeff Bezos owns the Post; where is the independence of journalists? Shel Holtz We’re rapidly seeing this converted into state media, which is terrifying. 2. Martin Sorrell and the “Death of PR” Neville Hobson Let’s talk about Martin Sorrell, the founder of WPP. On December 17th, in a debate on BBC Radio 4’s Today program, he declared the death of PR. Appearing with him was Sarah Waddington, the Chief Executive of the PRCA. Sorrell made the blunt assertion that public relations is effectively dead and that the world has moved on to scale, reach, and speed—flooding the internet with content. Sarah Waddington pushed back firmly, anchoring PR in enduring purpose: helping organizations explain who they are and building trust. The exchange was combustible, with Sorrell frequently talking over Waddington. Many felt Waddington was defending a way of thinking about communication that resists reduction to metrics alone. Shel Holtz Every time Martin Sorrell opens his mouth, I roll my eyes. He once said WPP was more critical than human mortality. Advertising and public relations are not interchangeable. Advertising is about selling stuff; PR is about building relationships. I always come back to the tuna boycott example. When StarKist addressed dolphin safety in their nets, PR agency Burson-Marsteller brought the parties to the table. The boycott organizers came out saying, “StarKist are the good guys.” Advertising could never have achieved that credibility. Neville Hobson It feels like he was being provocative to generate headlines. But he seems to genuinely believe that scale, reach, and speed are what matter. If Sorrell thinks flooding the internet with detergent ads is the future, I think he’s crazy. I applaud Sarah Waddington for her calmness in the face of his bullying behavior. Shel Holtz I challenge Sir Martin to find a client that will outsource their next existential crisis to WPP to handle with advertising. Let’s see how that goes. 3. The Future of Local News & Information Stewards Shel Holtz The death of local news has been a consistent drumbeat. A new report from Northwestern University confirms news deserts have hit a record high. But a piece from the Nieman Journalism Lab argues the news hasn’t died; it just relocated to barbershops, church halls, and Facebook groups. The Press Forward report suggests we look for “Information Stewards”—librarians, civic leaders, admins of neighborhood groups. If you’re a communicator, you can’t pitch a press release to a group chat, but you can provide clarity. Supply these stewards with fact sheets and FAQs. Trust has migrated from institutions to individuals. Neville Hobson In the UK, local news is declining, though where I live in Somerset, there are three lively local papers. But generally, the commercial scale for local news is difficult. The idea of “Information Stewards” reminds me of the Epic 2015 flash video from years ago, which predicted a similar future. Shel Holtz Local news is vital for accountability—school boards, zoning commissions. If no one reports on them, officials can do whatever they want. We need to reach these information stewards. Dan York’s Tech Report: Greetings, Shel and Neville, and all our listeners all around the world. Is Dan York coming at you from a snowy Shelburne, Vermont? And I want to begin this final episode of twenty twenty five, reflecting back on some of the topics and then upcoming changes with some of the things I’ve been talking about over these many episodes. A big one, of course, has been Mastodon and decentralized social media in general, and that had some big changes that have been happening in the past month. Right around the time where we were recording the November show, there was a change at the the head of Mastodon. Now Mastodon is open source software, been around for ten years. That was created by a gentleman named Eugen Rochko, and he is the founder of this uh, has been based in Germany. And over time the organization evolved to be a German. Well, it tried to be a nonprofit, but then they’re a for profit entity. It’s they’re now in the scope of twenty twenty five. They have been looking to transfer to a, um, to a full non-profit, European based non-profit entity, most likely based in Belgium, according to the latest plans and all that, and they’re going through that process. But in the meantime, in late November twenty twenty five, Eugen announced that he will be stepping down as CEO and taking on a role as an advisor. Now, this is critical because anybody who’s watched startups, whether they’re companies or whether they’re projects, knows that there’s a critical point when the founder needs to step away and let another management team come in and run the organization and grow. I have seen too many projects, including ones that I’ve led myself, where the founder, including myself, has stayed on too long and it just it dies at some point. Sometimes there are there are certainly cases where it has not, but there’s other times when it needs to move from the founder to others. So huge props to to Eugen and all the masks on folks for taking this step. And so there is a new leadership team. There’s a new executive director, a technical director, a community director, and there’s a team of employees and people who are continuing to evolve. Mastodon as one of the leading properties within the broader Activitypub based space that we call the Fediverse. So look for more to happen. There’s a greater evolution going on over the scope of twenty twenty six. So cool things happening. I’ll note that this year, too many Mastodon servers just played on this whole wrapped thing, right? So you could get a wrap Staddon for twenty twenty five that wrapped up your most popular posts. Some of the things you did, the most used hashtags, your archetype, all these different kinds of things. A little bit of fun just in the theme of all of the various different wrap things that are out there, but the fediverse will, I think, see a lot of activity and decentralised activity in general, because you’re seeing that through Mastodon and the other parts of the Fediverse. You’re seeing that with blue Sky and some tremendous work happening within the at, at protocol and some pieces that were there. Tim Chambers, somebody I come to really enjoy his writing over the time around open social items had a whole series of of predictions. I’ll have the link for the show notes. He included some that were what he considered safe bets like blue Sky will cross sixty million registered users in twenty twenty six. He thinks he thinks the overall Activitypub fediverse outside of threads will cross fifteen million registered users, monthly active users, etc.. Uh, he’ll look at he had some ideas around threads. We’ll pass five hundred million. There’ll be continued federation. Anyway, if you’re looking for quick takes, it’s a good read. It’s some kind of interesting, fun stuff to think about and see where it will go around that. Now, another story that I’ve been following this whole year has been internet governance kind of issues. And that culminated this month with a meeting at the United Nations called the World Summit on the Information Society. The twenty year review shortcut it has with this plus twenty. The good news coming out of all of that was that the governments of the world continued the path that we’re on, where everybody can be involved in some fashion in shaping the future of the internet, what was called in policy circles, the multi-stakeholder process. But basically it means everybody has the potential to be involved in some way. It’s how the internet has worked since its origins. But there were some governments that wanted to put a different spin on it, where only governments would be involved and not businesses such as many of those of us listening to this, or universities or Or individual users. Anybody else like that? So there were some good things that happened here. And something called the Internet Governance Forum, or IGF, has been made permanent rather than being renewed every ten years. It also had some other elements that recognize the the global network of national, regional and youth igfs that are happening all around the world. This is a venue, a way in which people, all of us listening, can be involved in internet governance. So it’s a great move, good step, lots of things. What am I looking at in twenty twenty six? You know, this whole episode is going to be about AI in different forms. I’ll be watching that too, specifically around the AI Agentic platform agents, the different pieces that were there and the different parts. There’s a good article written by somebody over at the Open Future Foundation around why Wikimedia needs a seat at the Agentic AI Foundation, pointing out the work that happened in December that OpenAI and Anthropic and Block announced the creation of the Agentic AI Foundation, which also had Google, Microsoft, AWS, Bloomberg and Cloudflare joining into it. A lot of the commercial players all doing this. The point of this article was that it needs to have folks like Wikimedia involved and others. But in general, I personally will continue to be watching what’s happening at this agent level. Agent to agent. Because that’s so much, I think, of what we’re going to be seeing as we increasingly look at AI driven tools and things. You know, that I’ll continue to be talking about decentralized social media, Mastodon, everything else. I’ll continue to be looking at, uh, internet and internet access. You’ll hear me talk about low Earth orbit satellites, I’m sure, because we’re actually getting into a competitive situation where it’s more than just Starlink out there and also internet and information resilience. And so I want to leave you to a pointer, actually to a long read called landslide semicolon. A ghost story from Aaron Cassin, and I’ll have a link for the notes. But she writes a very long article piece around starting out about earthquakes, but getting into our information ecosystem and where we are, what’s out there, how it’s jumbled. It’s worth reading and thinking about. Because really, the point is we need to think about how we have stories, how we work with things, how we have resilience in the information that we receive in some different forms. I encourage you to take a read about that. Think about it. Think what we will do in twenty twenty six. And with that, I wish you all a Happy New Year. I look forward to coming back at you in January. That’s all. You can find more of my audio writing at Dan York. Bye for now and back to you. Shel and Neville, Happy New Year. 5. AI Emptying Madison Avenue Neville Hobson In a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “AI is About to Empty Madison Avenue,” Rajiv Kohli of Columbia Business School argues that AI is quietly dismantling the agency model. Google, Meta, and Amazon are using AI to automate the advertising value chain. While advertisers see efficiency, agencies see an existential threat. Madison Avenue isn’t being disrupted by better ideas, but by better systems. Kohli warns that unless things change, advertising may become a clear example of AI-driven creative hollowing out. Shel Holtz I recently joined the advisory board for an AI certificate program at the University of San Francisco. The faculty stated they don’t believe AI will take jobs, which made me want to bang my head on the table. It already is. Organizations need to strategize: what are the risks of outsourcing everything to AI? You can be efficient, but what do you lose? If you outsource everything, you’re going to see advertising overwhelmed with “slop.” Neville Hobson The focus on speed and efficiency misses the important part: the people. We need to help educate leaders that AI should augment people, not replace them. Shel Holtz In a capitalist society, leaders feel compelled to maximize ROI. If they can run a company with no employees and produce larger returns, they will. That’s why strategic analysis is vital to show where humans add value. 6. “Slop” is the Word of the Year Shel Holtz Merriam-Webster has crowned “slop” as its Word of the Year for 2025. It defines it as digital content of low quality produced by AI. But a Scientific American article reminds us that every media revolution produces rubbish. The printing press produced libelous pamphlets; desktop publishing produced ransom-note newsletters. The backlash isn’t a rejection of AI, but of low quality. To stand out in a sea of slop, your content needs to be exceptional. Neville Hobson That Scientific American piece was great—calling Gutenberg the “ChatGPT of the 1450s.” It isn’t anti-AI; it’s about the sheer volume. If you automate production at scale, that’s flooding the internet, and much of it will be slop. Shel Holtz You have to stay on top of the research. A study found people liked AI-generated ads more than human ones—until they were told it was AI. That shows an anti-AI bias, but also that the “human in the loop” matters for trust. 7. Detecting AI Writing Neville Hobson There is a growing confidence that we can tell when something is written by AI. But in the Financial Times, Elaine Moore argues that most “AI tells”—like the use of dashes or words like “delve”—are just normal writing habits. Large Language Models sound human because they are trained on us. However, Wikipedia has a field guide to spotting AI writing, looking for clusters of signals like vague abstractions. The debate is shifting from “Can we detect AI?” to “How much certainty do we really need?” Shel Holtz If the writing meets our needs and is accurate, do I care if it was written by a human or a machine? Disclosure is going to be important for trust purposes. Neville Hobson Trust is becoming ever more important. Finding a source you can trust—someone who verifies and doesn’t hoodwink you—is the key. Shel Holtz I used Google Gemini to help find sources for my book, but I checked every single one. I saved time, but I kept the human in the loop. Outro Shel Holtz We hope you enjoy your Twixtmas. Please leave us a comment on LinkedIn, Facebook, Threads, or Blue Sky. You can email us at fircomments [at] gmail [dot] com or leave a voicemail on the FIR Podcast Network website. Our next long-form episode will drop on Monday, January 26th. We will resume our short mid-week 30 for This episodes starting next week. The post FIR #494: Is News’s Future Error-Riddled AI-Generated Podcasts, or “Information Stewards”? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

FIR #493: How to (Unethically) Manufacture Significance and Influence

For somebody who posts on X or other social media platforms to become recognized by the media and other offline institutions as a significant, influential voice worth quoting, it usually takes patience and hard work to build an audience that respects and identifies with them. There is another way to achieve the same kind of reputation with far less work. According to a research report from the Network Contagion Research Institute, American political influencer Nick Fuentes opted for the second approach, a collection of tactics that made it appear like a huge number of people were amplifying his tweets within half an hour of posting them. While Fuentes wields his influence in the political realm, the tactics he employed are portable and available to people looking for the same quick solution in the business world. In this short midweek episode, we’ll break down the steps involved and the warning signs communicators should be on the alert for. Links from this episode: “America Last: How Fuentes’s Coordinated Raids and Foreign Fake Speech Inflate His Influence,” research report from the Network Contagion Research Institute Eric Schwartzman’s LinkedIn post and analysis of the NCRI’s report Raw Transcript: Neville Hobson: Hi everybody and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 493. I’m Neville Hobson. Shel Holtz: And I’m Shel Holtz, and today I’m going to wade deep into America’s culture and political wars. I swear to you, I’m not doing this because of any political or social agenda on my part. What I’m going to share with you is not a social or political problem, it’s an influence problem. And in communications, influence and influencers have become top of mind. We’re going to look at the rise of Nick Fuentes’s significance on the social and political stage. For listeners outside the US, you may not know who Fuentes is. He’s a US-based online political influencer and live stream personality who’s built a following around the “America First” ecosystem and has sought influence within right-of-center audiences, including by positioning himself in opposition to mainstream conservative organizations like Turning Point USA and encouraging supporters to disrupt their events. Tucker Carlson has had him on his show as a guest. President Donald Trump has hosted him at the White House for a dinner. In a recent report that our friend Eric Schwartzman highlighted on LinkedIn—that’s how I found it—the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) asserts that Fuentes is a fringe figure whose public profile rose to a level of significance by manipulating online systems. The NCRI, by the way, is an advocacy group focusing on hate groups, disinformation, misinformation, and speech across social media platforms. It’s been around since, I think, 2008. And they’ve taken their own fair share of criticism for bias, but this report looked pretty well researched, and there will be a link to it in the show notes. The techniques that Fuentes used to rise to significance are, and this is the key here: If bad actors can inflate the perceived importance of a fringe political figure, the same mechanics can inflate the perceived importance of a product, a brand, a CEO, a labor dispute, or a crisis narrative. I’ll share the details right after this. In modern media ecosystems, visibility is often treated as evidence of significance. Of course, when the system can be tricked into manufacturing visibility, it can be tricked into manufacturing significance. Here’s the playbook. The report focuses heavily on what happens immediately after a post is published, specifically the first 30 minutes. That window matters because platforms like X use early engagement as a signal of relevance. If a post seems to be spreading fast, the algorithm acts like a town crier, showing it to more people. The researchers compared 20 recent posts from several online figures. Their finding was that Fuentes’s posts regularly generated unusually high retweet velocity in the first 30 minutes, enough to outpace accounts with vastly larger follower bases. It outpaced the account of Elon Musk, for example. The key detail here isn’t just the volume of retweets, it’s the timing. Rapid, concentrated engagement right after posting creates the illusion that the content is taking off, kicking it into recommendation streams. This is the same basic mechanic behind launch day boosting. You’ve seen this for people who have a new book out and they go out to friends and ask them to boost that new book the day it’s released. If you can create the appearance of immediate traction, you can trigger algorithm distribution that you didn’t earn. In commerce, this shows up as engagement pods, coordinated employee advocacy swarms, and community groups that behave like a click farm. If your measurement system rewards velocity, someone can and will manufacture velocity. So who’s responsible for those early retweet bursts? Across the 20 posts studied, 61% of Fuentes’s early tweets came from accounts that repeatedly retweeted multiple posts in the same window. In other words, this wasn’t a crowd. It was a repeatable mechanism, the same actors over and over, hitting the algorithm where it’s most sensitive. In business, you don’t need millions of genuine fans to create the signal of traction. You need a reliable, repeatable set of accounts that behave predictably at the right moment. This is why a relatively small number of coordinated actors can distort what public response appears to be, especially early in a narrative when journalists and internal leaders are trying to interpret what’s happening. The report describes the amplification network as dominated by accounts that aren’t meaningfully identity-bearing. Among the repeat early retweeters, 92% were anonymous. Furthermore, many of these accounts were essentially single-purpose. They existed solely to boost specific messaging. Now, anonymity is a feature, not a bug in manufactured influence. In a corporate context, we see this as sock puppet commenters flooding a CEO’s LinkedIn post with applause or fake grassroots accounts inflating outrage against a policy change. If you’ve ever seen a comment section where the voices feel oddly similar and oddly committed, you’ve seen the symptom. Perhaps the most operationally important finding involves outsourced capacity. Before a major inflection point in September, about half of the retweets on Fuentes’s most viral posts came from foreign, non-U.S. accounts. The report highlights concentrations in countries like India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Indonesia. There’s no organic reason for these regions to be driving a U.S.-centric fringe political account. These geographies match known patterns associated with low-cost engagement farms. If you’ve ever dealt with fake reviews or fake webinar attendees, you understand the market for outsourced attention. It’s snake oil. The same infrastructure used to inflate a political persona can inflate a brand narrative, especially when the goal is to trigger secondary effects like investor interest or the internal belief that everyone’s talking about this. In the report, Fuentes isn’t presented as a passive beneficiary of an algorithm. The report states that he repeatedly issues direct instructions to followers: “Retweet this. Everybody retweet.” Turning amplification into a synchronized act. If you run employee advocacy programs or franchise networks, you’re already sitting on “raid capability.” The ethical version is mobilizing real stakeholders transparently. The unethical version is instructing coordinated networks to simulate stakeholder response specifically to game recommendation systems. This is where communicators need to be brutally honest. The distance between campaign mobilization and manufactured consensus can be uncomfortably short. Fuentes’s final move is the flywheel. Once you’ve manufactured signals that look like relevance, institutions treat those signals as real. The report argues that mainstream media coverage increased sharply after major news shocks, while the persistent manufactured engagement helped keep the subject elevated between those shocks. It also reports a 60% increase in high-status framing of the subject in mainstream articles after that inflection point. This is classic social proof laundering. Once a narrative appears prominent on-platform, it becomes easier to place it off-platform: press mentions, analyst notes, investor chatter. At that point, people stop asking, “Is this real?” And start asking, “How big is this?” For business communicators, here are three practical takeaways. First, treat attention as an attack surface. If a narrative is unusually fast, unusually concentrated, or driven by accounts that don’t look like real stakeholders, assume you’re looking at influence operations. Second, build signal hygiene into your intelligence process. If your team reports on social activity, incorporate basic credibility checks, like repeat actors, anonymity patterns, and geographic anomalies. And third, audit your own incentives. If your organization celebrates reach metrics without interrogating provenance, you’re teaching everyone—agencies, vendors, and bad actors—that synthetic engagement is rewarded. This isn’t just a problem that’s “out there.” The PR and marketing industries have plenty of muscle memory around manufacturing perception. The difference is whether we keep that muscle under ethical control or let the algorithm decide what we’re willing to do. Just because you can manufacture influence doesn’t mean you should. Neville Hobson: That’s quite a story, Shel. I’m wondering how many people in our profession truly understand how this actually works. Your call to action, as it were, was to pay attention to this and pay attention to that. But I think people need to understand why and the deeper picture surrounding it. So, for instance, the report—some of which you summarized in your narrative—struck me. And indeed, from the summary I asked ChatGPT to create (that saved me reading the whole damn thing), it was very helpful. According to the report, the researchers said that Fuentes consistently generates extraordinary engagement in the first 30 minutes after posting on X. Early retweet velocity outperforms accounts with 10 to 100 times more followers than he’s got. You mentioned Elon Musk; he’s one of them. When normalized by follower count, his engagement is orders of magnitude higher than comparative political influencers. Why does this matter? This to me is significant to try and get a handle on this. Platform algorithms heavily weight early velocity as a sign of relevance. So once triggered, content is promoted regardless of whether engagement is authentic. Speed, not scale, is a manipulation lever. This is a critical insight for communicators. Algorithms cannot distinguish motivation, only momentum. So when people talk about—as they do, and I remember using this 10 years ago as a sign that something is working—”Look at how this thing’s taken off!” This is seriously significant: understanding how this works. Another part of that is, as you mentioned, the foreign origin engagement—the synthetic catalyst, if you like. Half the retweets on Fuentes’s most viral posts came from non-US accounts, and you ran off a list of countries that are the prime originators of large volume. It says there is no plausible ideological or cultural reason for these regions to be organically amplifying a US-centric white nationalist figure. Makes sense, doesn’t it? So why does that matter? Well, these geographies closely match known low-cost engagement farm infrastructures. So foreign engagement appears to act as a spark, creating the illusion of virality. And it uses phrases that most people won’t know about—I’m only just getting familiar with it myself—like classic “signal laundering.” You’ve heard of money laundering, right? But now signal laundering. It highlights this coordinated amplification, which is not spontaneous engagement. It’s not enthusiasm spreading naturally, it’s coordination masquerading as popularity. So I think all of us, as communicators trying to grasp something like this to understand the significance of it, are going to have to spend a little extra time understanding how it all works. There’s one element that came out that I thought, “Wow, yes, you see this.” I can think of two people I follow on LinkedIn who do this. Illustrating Fuentes in this example is not a passive beneficiary; he actively runs it. The evidence includes hundreds of documented instances where he issues real-time commands on live streams like “Retweet this,” “Everyone retweet,” “Quote tweet it now.” I see people doing that even on LinkedIn. There’s one individual I’m not going to mention—because it wouldn’t be right to do that in this way—who has got thousands and thousands of followers. I was looking back through some of his recent posts and they are full of stuff like that. His email newsletter is nothing but that, actually. These directives align precisely with the early velocity spikes observed in the data, according to the report. Interestingly, X’s own policies say that this behavior qualifies as coordinated inauthentic activity, platform manipulation, and spam amplification, yet the activity persists on X. So to me, the question for everyone listening is: surely you cannot trust a platform like X with your brand messaging, right? So why are you still there in that case? It means loads more we could dissect in that context, but I think it’s necessary for people to truly understand how this works before you can understand what to do about it. Shel Holtz: Yeah, and you asked how many people in our business might actually understand this. I think if you look at a department like mine where there’s two of us and we’re mostly focused on internal communications, this doesn’t hit our radar. But if you’re a marketing agency and you are tasked with elevating a brand, you got to figure that if a 25-year-old white nationalist fringe character on the social-political scene can figure this out, the people running digital media for a mid-sized agency can easily figure this out. I suspect there are probably YouTube videos telling you how to do this. You sign up with one of those farms in one of those countries that has the instruction to amplify every time you tweet, and you’re off to the races. And as you mentioned from the report, the algorithm can’t really tell the difference. Now, this is something that I think is in large part on the platforms—whether it’s X or any of the others—to improve their processes so they can identify and block this sort of thing. The idea that you can start to get media coverage, that people will start including you in their reporting because you appear significant as a result of this blatant manipulation—when you really wield no influence, when the people retweeting you have accounts that have been set up just to retweet you—that’s on them, I think. But they’re clearly not doing anything about it. Musk wouldn’t do anything about it. I wouldn’t expect him to. Zuckerberg’s not going to do anything about it. I wouldn’t expect him to. I wish he would, but knowing what I know about these people, I wouldn’t expect them to spend time and money becoming more ethical. It’s just not in their DNA. So it’s on us. And where I can see this being used in the business context most blatantly is by advocacy groups when an organization is having a crisis. Because who speaks first is the one who gets the traction. Everything else is reacting and responding to that. And if you could get that kind of momentum, that kind of velocity, that kind of visibility for your point of view in opposition to the perspective of the organization experiencing the crisis, then you’re going to win in that crisis. It’s going to be very difficult for the organization, even employing the best digital crisis communication practices, to overcome that kind of a process. So this is why I think we need to be aware of this. From my perspective, I have my own personal views about Fuentes and the fact that he’s doing this, but that’s not what this is about. This is about the fact that if Fuentes can do it, your opposition can. It might be, let’s say, a union if you’re a non-union company and they’re trying to get a foot in the door. It could be a competitor trying to make you look bad and elevate their own organization as an investment or as a provider of goods or services. All of them can take advantage of this process because it’s possible. And frankly, once you dig into it, while it seems complicated, it really isn’t. It’s just subscribing to these services, getting everything set up, and then you just start tweeting or posting on LinkedIn or wherever it is, and everything just follows. Neville Hobson:: Yeah, I think I mentioned LinkedIn the way I did, but X is the serious negative platform, right? But I would imagine most other platforms that are used for business purposes are subject to this manipulation. And it makes you think you need to know more about the places that you spend time and populate and share information about your business. The report goes into—or rather the interpretation I’ve made certainly—implications for communicators and organizations, or the key takeaways, I suppose, to summarize it all. I mean, you’re right, the report is long, and it would benefit from a simplified executive summary. Maybe what we’ve prepared might help people get a better handle on what to look at. But some of the interesting things that summarize it: “Algorithms amplify speed, not authenticity.” And that’s what I think most people—and I’ve been guilty of this too—where speed is really the important thing here. The velocity of your message getting out there and going viral, as people still use that term, is what it’s all about. Absolutely, that’s not what it’s all about. And in this particular age we’re in now with artificial intelligence, I’m arguing very strongly that it is not about speed at all. It’s about being in the right place at the right time with the right message, not necessarily being the first or the fastest with that message. Another point: “Anonymous and foreign networks can manufacture legitimacy.” How do you figure that out? Interestingly, and I agree with this very much so, “Mainstream media mistakes visibility for importance.” Absolutely true in my view. So all these tactics are portable. And the final point, I suppose—there’s like 20 more I’ve got for now anyway—the real issue is not who used the playbook to do this. It’s how easy the playbook is to use. I think it’s absolutely right. And I think many people would succumb to kind of increased pressure to play the game because that’s what everyone else seems to be doing. But also it throws up, I think, a bigger concern. It’s become harder to measure engagement if what you’re measuring is suspect. So that adds some big questions on how are you going to proceed from this point on. So: What signals do you treat as evidence of relevance? How easily could those signals be fabricated? Are we rewarding momentum over substance? You need to know the difference. And where does responsibility sit? Platform, media, or practitioner? Or all of the above? Those are four questions—there’s probably lots more—but that might not be a bad starting point. Shel Holtz: I don’t think it would. And I think the more practitioners who become aware of this, those that abide by an ethical code, need to raise their voices because I think the more pressure there is on the platforms, the more they will look to change the infrastructure to address this. If nobody complains or if it’s just people on the fringe like us, then nothing’s going to change. And you’re right, Fuentes started all of this before the AI revolution. And AI is just going to make this worse with the ability to create those posts that get amplified because you have manipulated the system the way Fuentes has. So I’d like to see people kind of raise their voices. Maybe professional associations need to start advocating on behalf of fixing this. You know, AI has led a lot of people to talk about authenticity more than we already were, and we already were a lot. And if authenticity matters, then I really do think we need to raise our voices and demand change from the platforms so that people can’t do this. Neville Hobson: I agree. Shel Holtz: And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of For Immediate Release. The post FIR #493: How to (Unethically) Manufacture Significance and Influence appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

Circle of Fellows #123: The Future of Communication — 2026 and Beyond

The communication profession stands at a pivotal moment. Artificial intelligence is transforming how we create and distribute content. Trust in institutions continues to erode while employees demand authenticity and transparency. The hybrid workplace has permanently altered how we reach our audiences. And the pace of change shows no signs of slowing. In this environment, what does it mean to be a communication professional? More specifically, what will it mean in 2026 and the years that follow? The December Circle of Fellows panel tackled these questions head-on, bringing together four IABC Fellows to share their perspectives on where our profession is headed and what opportunities await those prepared to seize them. The conversation explored several interconnected themes, including the evolving role of the communication professional as a trusted adviso,; the new capabilities and mindsets that will distinguish the communication leaders who thrive from those who struggle to keep pace, the skills the next generation of communicators should be developing now;  and how we can maintain professional standards and ethical practice when the tools and channels keep shifting beneath our feet. About the panel: Zora Artis, GAICD, SCMP, ACC, FAMI, CPM, is CEO of Artis Advisory and co-founder of The Alignment People. She helps leaders and teams tackle tough challenges, find clarity, and take action, particularly when the stakes are high and the path isn’t obvious. Her superpower is being comfortable with the uncomfortable: aligning people, solving problems, and navigating change so leaders can focus on what matters most and teams can do their best work. With more than three decades of experience across consulting, executive leadership, and strategic communication, Zora has guided major brands, government, for-purpose and for-profit organisations in aligning purpose, culture, strategy, and performance. A leading thinker, researcher, and expert in strategic and team alignment, leadership, brand, and communication, she is co-authoring a global study on Strategic Alignment & Leadership. She is a Research Fellow with the Team Flow Institute. Zora has served as Chair of the IABC Asia Pacific region, as a Director on the IABC International Executive Board, and on multiple committees and task forces. She holds multiple IABC Gold Quill Awards and Chairs the IABC SIG Change Management. Based in Melbourne, she works globally. Bonnie Caver, SCMP, is the Founder and CEO of Reputation Lighthouse, a global change management and reputation consultancy with offices in Denver, Colorado, and Austin, Texas. The firm, which is 20 years old, focuses on leading companies to create, accelerate, and protect their corporate value. She has achieved the highest professional certification for a communication professional, the Strategic Communication Management Professional (SCMP), a distinction at the ANSI/ISO level. She is also a certified strategic change management professional (Kellogg School of Management), a certified crisis manager (Institute of Crisis Management). She holds an advanced certification for reputation through the Reputation Institute (now the RepTrak Company). She is a past chair of the global executive board for the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC). She currently serves on the board of directors for the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management, where she leads the North American Regional Council and is the New Technology Responsibility/AI Director. Caver is the Vice Chair for the Global Communication Certification Council (GCCC) and leads the IABC Change Management Special Interest Group, which has more than 1,300 members. In addition, she is heavily involved in the global conversation around ethical and responsible AI implementation and led the Global Alliance’s efforts in creating Ethical and Responsible AI Guidelines for the global profession. Adrian Cropley is the founder and director of the Centre for Strategic Communication Excellence, a global training and development organization. For over thirty years, Adrian has worked with clients worldwide, including Fortune 500 companies, on major change communication initiatives, internal communication reviews and strategies, professional development programs, and executive leadership and coaching. He is a non-executive director on several boards and advises some of the top CEOs and executives globally. Adrian is a past global chair of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC), where he implemented the IABC Career Road Map, kick-started a global ISO certification for the profession, and developed the IABC Academy. Adrian pioneered the Melcrum Internal Communication Black Belt program in Asia Pacific and is a sought-after facilitator, speaker, and thought leader. He has been a keynote speaker and workshop leader on strategic and change communication at international conferences in Canada, the U.S., Europe, the Middle East, Malaysia, Singapore, China, India, Hong Kong, Thailand, New Zealand, and Australia. He has received numerous awards, including IABC Gold Quill Awards for communication excellence, and his Agency received Boutique Agency of the Year 6 years running. Adrian is the Chair of the Industry Advisory Committee for the RMIT School of Media and Communication and a Fellow of the IABC and RSA. In 2017, he was awarded the Medal of Order of Australia for his contribution to the field of communication. Mary Hills, ABC, IABC Fellow, Six Sigma, FCSCE serves as MBA Faculty in Benedictine University’s Goodwin College of Business. Her work in marketing, finance and organizational communication and management brings an interdisciplinary perspective to her students. Mary’s professional career includes serving large corporations such as First Wisconsin National Bank – Milwaukee, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Whiteco Advertising, NiSource, Northern Trust, Unilever and Zebra Technologies. She supported starts-ups through Purdue Technology Center and Research Park of NWI. As a member of senior management, her work includes research, risk analysis and strategic planning for product launches, market expansion, and change and crisis management. In 2009, she co-founded HeimannHills Marketing Group, Chicago and Phoenix, serving as business principal until 2021. Most recently, Mary’s work involves AI’s impact on the role of the communication professional. Her work has been recognized nationally and internationally. Raw Transcript: Circle of Fellows Episode 123: The Future of Communications in 2026 and Beyond Shel Holtz: Hi everybody, and welcome to episode 123 of Circle of Fellows. I’m Shel Holtz, the Senior Director of Communications at Webcor, a commercial general contractor and builder headquartered here in the Bay Area. We have a great panel today to talk about a really fascinating topic: the future of communications in 2026 and beyond. I want to emphasize that this is not one of those “lists of trends for next year” that you see flooding social media. I think that has gotten worse since AI made it easier for people to come up with these trends rather than thinking it through for themselves. We will explore where we think communication is headed based on everything going on in the world, including AI. I’m going to ask the panel to introduce themselves, but before that, I want to take a moment to note the passing of one of our community of IABC Fellows. This happened on April 15th, but we all just learned about it yesterday. The Fellow who passed is Les Potter. Les was hugely influential to more than one generation of communicators. There are likely hundreds, if not thousands, of communicators out there practicing sound strategic communication because of what they learned from Les. He was a great friend of mine; we spent time together socially, and he will be sorely missed. He was a past chair of IABC, and his passing is a tremendous loss to the community. After leaving the corporate world, he became a beloved professor of communication at Towson University in Maryland. I just wanted to share that for people who may not have heard. I hope he is resting in peace. With that, let’s find out who is on the panel today. Adrian, starting with you. Adrian Cropley: It’s great to be with everyone. Thank you, Shel. I am Adrian Cropley in Melbourne, Australia. It is hot today. I am an IABC Fellow and the co-founder of the Centre for Strategic Communication Excellence. Shel Holtz: Great to have you with us, Adrian. Bonnie, you’re up next. Bonnie Caver: Hi, I’m Bonnie Caver. I’m in Austin, Texas, and I run a company called Reputation Lighthouse, where we do brand and reputation change management for mid-sized companies. Shel Holtz: Thanks for joining us, Bonnie. Mary? Mary Hills: Mary Hills in lovely Scottsdale, Arizona. Our temperature is perfect, as it always is in Scottsdale. I am graduate faculty for Benedictine University, teaching out of their business school, and also on the faculty at the Centre for Strategic Communication Excellence. I am glad to dive into the topic. Shel Holtz: I have to ask, is the weather going to be perfect in Scottsdale in August? Mary Hills: It’ll be a little wet and a little hot. Shel Holtz: Okay. And Zora. Zora Artis: Hello, everyone. I’m coming to you from Melbourne, Australia, not too far from Adrian. I’m the CEO of Artis Advisory and co-founder of The Alignment People. I work with leaders and executives on tackling tough problems, finding clarity, and taking action. I’m really excited to be here today closing off the year. Shel Holtz: Thanks, Zora. I also want to shout out Anna Wyllie, our executive producer behind the scenes. In the document she sent to prepare for this, she suggested a potential opening question: What is your one headline for the future of the communication profession in 2026? Let’s go in reverse order, starting with Zora. Zora Artis: I think as we head into 2026, communication leadership is entering a much more pressured time. This isn’t just because of AI, but because the pace of change is relentless and outstripping people’s ability to make sense of everything. We need to help them move fast and bring them along with us, which is quite daunting, but it puts us in a position where we’re indispensable. Mary Hills: I would say that so much of the future is not new; it involves things that are maturing and evolving. I don’t think there will be any grand flashes. We have made progress, and we are just going to keep going. Bonnie Caver: Transformative. We must, as communication professionals, transform ourselves, and we must lead transformation within our organizations and with our stakeholders. Adrian Cropley: I was scared Bonnie was going to be before me on this one because we think the same here. It’s absolutely about change and transition. But let me add that it will be an exciting time if communication professionals seize the opportunity to grow their value in organizations because the moment is now. Shel Holtz: I will add mine: I think we are going to have to be laser-focused on building trust. Trust is eroding, and AI is contributing to this. I don’t know if you heard that The Washington Post created AI-generated podcasts that were loaded with factual inaccuracies. If that’s coming from The Washington Post, we’re in trouble. I don’t know who is going to want to be aligned with or engaged with an organization they don’t trust. Let’s dive into it. What are the leaders of organizations looking for from communicators, and how prepared are we to deliver on those things? Bonnie Caver: I’ve done quite a bit of research on what leaders are focused on. Profitable growth is on their mind, alongside transformation with AI technology, transforming talent, and the future of work. They also have to protect and govern. As communication professionals, we have to plug in there. We are part of growth, but we must also help lead transformation and address risk, trust, and sustainability. Stakeholders are going to have very different expectations of us going forward. Adrian Cropley: Shel, you talked about the state of trust, and I think this is critical. Leaders have this opportunity to lead their organizations and employees to buy into what the organization stands for. The reality today, with the amount of misinformation and mal-information on steroids due to AI, is that people gravitate toward what is comfortable. The role for a communication professional is to give leaders the information, insight, and advice they need. We have to be the “sense maker” more than ever before. There is also a morality role coming into play. When Bonnie and I were working on the Venice Pledge for the Global Alliance, a theme popped up that it is more than ethics; it is about how we engage our world. It’s about home and security. Zora Artis: I’ve been talking to a lot of leaders this year, and while there is a lot of talk, things are happening in real-time. Strategic horizons have shrunk. We’re constantly trying to outmaneuver the competition to grow and win. Comms professionals need to look at how to make sense of that complexity. We need to look at the system overall—actions taken, decisions made, money invested—and ask: Is this going to reinforce trust or erode it? There is often a gap between what leaders say and how they behave versus what employees and stakeholders see. Communication professionals have a role in making sense of that and bringing it back to leaders to help them make better decisions. Mary Hills: I may have a few data points worth considering. Communication professionals must finally become interdisciplinary. They can’t stay in the silo of comms; they have to understand the business, economics, and the value and risk model of the organization. In communication, we balance the vision and mission of the organization. We represent both the short term and the long term. We have to find that harmonious balance. We also need to apply a rigorous professionalism, including emotional intelligence and behavioral economics, to foster discussion within organizations. Use the PESTLE analysis and attach ethics right to it. Shel Holtz: Shel, you’re working in-house now. What are you hearing from your organization regarding their expectations? Shel Holtz: I think they are expecting me to tell them. We are not a massive organization, and most of the leadership team has a construction or engineering background. They expect me to help them figure this out. Even if they don’t articulate it, that is the expectation. Based on Adrian’s thoughts, the first thing that leaped to mind was that we had better get a lot better at listening. Adrian Cropley: Absolutely. We don’t have the excuse not to listen or measure anymore. This is where I think AI has really helped us. We need to be better at listening and helping our leaders listen to get the insight that informs true connection. Listening has become critical. Zora Artis: I wrote a piece about this last month. It became obvious that true listening was missing in organizations, as well as the capability among leaders to listen to understand rather than to respond. I know a Chief Comms Officer in professional services who spends time listening on platforms like Fishbowl, where people talk outside the business. She gathers that information and takes it back to the executive team to explain why it matters. We’re often seeing people skip the listening. If we don’t listen, we can’t counter misinformation or AI bots controlling the narrative because we don’t actually know what our stakeholders believe. Bonnie Caver: We have challenges today with fake surveys. If you think you’re going to survey your customer base to make critical decisions, but AI bots are participating, it changes your playing field. True listening—picking up the phone and talking to your customers and stakeholders—is more important than ever. Mary Hills: The one caution I would throw out is that the stakeholder network is tired of irrelevant questions. If we are going to have a conversation, we better have our background research done. They are tired of giving feedback. We need to look at discursive leadership skills: open-ended discussions rather than closed-ended five-question surveys. Bonnie Caver: The reason people are tired of us asking questions is that communication is not coming back to them regarding how we are acting upon it. We never close the loop. Shel Holtz: Exactly. There is no such thing as survey fatigue, but there is certainly “bullshit fatigue.” If they see the survey leads to change, they will take surveys all day long. We have a question from our live audience. Bill Spaniel asks: Regarding the emotional factor of communication and the need for listening, how can communication schools build those requirements into their curriculum? Mary Hills: We have been doing that for a good eight to nine years. It requires active experience of learning in the classroom. It’s exhausting because you are “on” for three hours, but it reinforces that it’s not just about hearing what was said, but agreeing on the next action item. Adrian Cropley: We’ve built relationship-building skills and emotional intelligence into the Centre for Strategic Communication Excellence programs. You have to be able to build relationships with stakeholders, not just rely on data. You get data on where people navigate, but you must overlay it with the right context—that is the true listening stuff. Shel Holtz: Years ago, I read a book called Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, and I learned the term “boundary spanning.” It’s almost like surveillance—lurking in the conversations stakeholders are having to glean intelligence. Listening isn’t just asking questions; sometimes it’s just listening. Adrian Cropley: There is a social awareness aspect, too. If you can’t even connect with people as humans—like saying thank you in a shop—how are you supposed to get context? We need to go back to some of those old skills. Zora Artis: It’s also about being observant. Observing the people in the room and observing what is left unsaid. Shel Holtz: Listening strikes me as one of those uncomfortable truths we need to face if we are going to stay relevant. What other uncomfortable truths are there? Zora Artis: We confuse activity with impact. We are good at producing stuff, but not always good at understanding if it changes behavior or decisions. We need to be relevant rather than busy. Mary Hills: The Communication Value Circle came out around 2016. It helps us understand how to provide value and assess risk. We have to understand the value and risk model every organization is on. Marketing has a value circle, too. We need to understand where we bring present value and how we protect future value. Adrian Cropley: Often, the perceived value from leaders drives the behavior of the communication professional—churning out content or tidying up PowerPoints. That value has disappeared because AI can do those things now. We have to educate organizations on what real value for communication is: providing insight and context. Zora Artis: It comes back to the business side. I remember learning Net Present Value and risk calculations. Comms often skirts around the edges of finance. We need to talk about revenue, productivity, trust capital, and risk exposure in language that matters to the business. Bonnie Caver: Reputation is huge right now. CEOs say it’s important, but they don’t know how to do it. We haven’t positioned ourselves as being in the business of building and protecting reputation; we often treat it as a byproduct of crisis management. It’s not reputation management anymore; it’s reputation design. And let’s not forget, AI is now a stakeholder. AI controls the narrative and answers questions about your organization. Shel Holtz: What else are communicators not focused on that they should be? Adrian Cropley: Understanding and interacting with AI. I am surprised how many people have not dipped their feet into the water. If we aren’t exploring AI to make our roles more efficient and gain insight, we are missing a huge opportunity. We recently published a playbook for AI into 2026, and a key play is using AI to carve out time to do the higher-value work. Mary Hills: We treat AI as an agent. You are the owner of what AI brings back to you. It is merely the agent acting for you to get information. We must manage what it gives us back. Bonnie Caver: We shouldn’t look at AI just to solve problems, but for efficiencies. I was on a panel with an organization that saved almost a thousand hours using AI. They used that efficiency to free themselves up to do transformative things. Zora Artis: AI creates incredible speed. The problem is alignment. People are moving at speed with decisions, but they aren’t creating clarity around what stays the same and what shifts. Communication professionals need to enable the alignment needed across the organization so they can work at pace sustainably. Shel Holtz: We have talked about the need to be transformative. However, there are things like professional standards and ethical behavior we don’t want to transform. But now, the people doing the communicating are often not journalists or professionals—they are pastors, barbers, or WhatsApp moderators. How do we maintain professional standards when we have lost the traditional gatekeepers? Adrian Cropley: We aren’t short of standards; we just don’t publish them well enough. The Global Standard for the Communication Profession is critical. We have to build those standards out to everyone communicating. The work Bonnie did with the Venice Pledge regarding AI usage is a great example. We need to work with governments and agencies to enforce requirements. Mary Hills: The professional associations are the keepers of the standard. Academia builds the body of knowledge, but associations like IABC bring it to the marketplace through certification. Zora Artis: I don’t think we ever had control; that’s an illusion. We had influence. We need to double down on the “Do, Say, Be” alignment—making sure that what we do, what we say, and the lived experience are true. Shel Holtz: We are almost out of time. Let’s do a closing round. In one sentence, what is your boldest prediction for communication by 2030? Adrian Cropley: Absolutely radical change. We are going to find out we are changing completely. Bonnie Caver: We’re going to become advocates for ourselves, or we’re going to disappear. Mary Hills: The natural inclination for communicators to bring human-centric abilities to the forefront will protect our space. We have to be the ones keeping our heads when everyone else is losing theirs. Zora Artis: Communication should be the essential organizational infrastructure that creates shared understanding to keep strategy, trust, and performance from falling apart. Shel Holtz: My thanks to all of you for a sparkling conversation. The next Circle of Fellows is scheduled for noon Eastern Time on Thursday, January 22nd. The subject is the impact of mentoring. Thank you all for your participation. Panel: Thank you. Happy holidays. The post Circle of Fellows #123: The Future of Communication — 2026 and Beyond appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.