FIR Podcast Network

One of many career paths in the field of professional communication leads to colleges and universities: It is not uncommon for communication practitioners to move from the conference room to the classroom, where they help mold the next generation of communicators. All of the panelists participating in episode 116 of “Circle of Fellows” have chosen that path and will discuss the various dimensions of teaching — including making the transition from the business world to the hallowed halls of academia.

The session was recorded on Thursday, May 22, 2025, with John Clemons, Cindy Schmieg, Marck Schumann, and Jennifer Wah. Shel Holtz moderated.

About the panel:

John G. Clemons, ABC, APR, IABC Fellow, an independent communications consultant based in North Carolina, has held senior executive and consultant roles over the course of his career in corporate and organizational communications. He has special expertise in providing strategic counsel and support for top executives and corporate offices of Fortune 500 companies. John has served as chair of IABC and holds accreditations from both IABC and PRSA. John has worked with Walmart, Raytheon, and Marriott (among others). John has been an adjunct instructor for six years at the University of North Carolina Charlotte and Loyola University in New Orleans.

Cindy Schmieg is an award-winning strategic communicator. Her 30+ years of corporate, agency, and consulting experience focuses on making the communications function strategic within an organization. Cindy now teaches online in the Communications Master Degree program at Southern New Hampshire. She has served in many IABC leadership roles and is today a member of the IABC Audit/Risk Committee and Pacific Plains Region Silver Quill Award Committee, as well as assisting on the IABC Minnesota Annual Convergence Summit.

Mark Schumann, PCC, ABC, IABC Fellow, is a certified executive coach who teaches in the NYU Master’s program in executive coaching and organizational consulting. He is the co-author of Brand from the Inside and Brand for Talent. Mark has served as VP Culture for Sabre, Director of Graduate Communication Studies at the Zicklin School of Business at Baruch College in New York City, and as a managing principal and global communication practice leader at Towers Perrin. He was IABC’s chair in 2009-2010 and won 17 Gold Quill awards.

Jennifer Wah, MC, ABC, has worked with clients to deliver ideas, plans, words and results since she founded her storytelling and communications firm, Forwords Communication Inc., in 1997. With more than two dozen awards for strategic communications, writing and consulting, Jennifer is recognized as a storyteller and strategist. She has worked in industries from healthcare and academia to financial services and the resource sector, and is passionate about the strategic use of storytelling to support business outcomes. Although she has delivered workshops and training throughout her career, Jennifer formally added teaching to her experience in 2013, first with Royal Roads University and more recently as an adjunct professor of business communications with the UBC Sauder School of Business, where she now works part-time to imprint crucial communication skills on the next generation of business leaders. When she is not working, Jennifer spends her time cooking, walking her dog Orion, or talking food, hockey, or music with her husband and two young adult children in North Vancouver, Canada.

The post Circle of Fellows #116: Molding Young Communicators — Teaching as a Communication Career Path appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

Seemingly unrelated trends paint a clear picture for PR practitioners accustomed to achieving their goals through press release distribution and media pitching. The trends: People trust each other less than ever; people define what news is based on its impact on them, becoming their own gatekeepers; and video podcasts have become so popular that media outlets are including them in their upfronts. In this short midweek FIR episode, Neville and Shel find the common thread among these trends and outline how communicators can adjust their efforts to make sure their news is received and believed.

Links from this episode:

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, May 26.

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

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. 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

@nevillehobson (00:01)

Shel Holtz (00:09)

Let’s start with the human glue that holds any message together, that being trust. Pew released a survey on May 8th that tells us only 34 % of Americans now believe that most people can be trusted. In the Watergate era, that number was 46%. In the mid-50s, it was closer to 70%. This is a crater, not a dip. Low social trust bleeds into institutional trust. So your brand news

starts with a skepticism handicap. Now, later on this, Pew’s other study also released in May that asked what is news, and the picture starts to come into sharper focus. Americans still want information that’s factual and important, but they apply those labels through a personal filter. Does it touch my wallet, my neighborhood, my values? If yes, it’s news. If not, it’s just clutter. That’s why an election gets an automatic news stamp and a blockbuster earnings release doesn’t.

The gatekeeping power has moved from editors to individual, and each individual is now effectively their own assignment editor. Enter into this mix the video podcast boom. CNBC’s upfronts coverage reads like a love letter to long-form host-driven shows. New Heights with the Kelsey brothers, Alex Cooper’s Call Her Daddy, LeBron and Steve Nash breaking down hoops for Amazon,

These aren’t side hustles, they’re front row inventory next to NFL rights. The numbers explain why. New Heights pulls 2.6 million YouTube subscribers. Joe Rogan’s sit down with Donald Trump chalked up 58 million views. Multiples of top 10 broadcast hits, but on demand clipped and reshared endlessly. So here’s the tripod we’re standing on. Low interpersonal trust.

a personalized definition of news, and an audience migration to host-driven video-forward channels. Shake those three together and the argument that will blast a release, cross our fingers, and call it a day feels about as modern as a fax machine. People trust people, and even though they trust people less than they used to, they do trust peers, subject matter experts, or charismatic hosts who are already populating their feeds.

That means the old CEO quote and boilerplate formula is just table stakes at best. Yes, there are still good reasons to send out a press release, but not in a vacuum. We have to surface frontline engineers, project superintendents, patient advocates, whoever the listener already sees as one of them. We also have to pitch the host and not the masthead. Video podcast bookers don’t really care about breaking the news. It’s more about a conversation that keeps their community engaged through

next week’s and the show’s next month. Study the arc of the show. Offer stories that fit that arc and bring props. If you can’t show it, demo it, or screen share it live, probably isn’t a great video podcast pitch. You need to build a video-first asset bundle. Think 16-9 aspect ratio and 9-16 b-roll. Cut down clips ready for shorts, lower third ready stats graphics,

even physical product the host can hold up. Give them the raw materials to create snackable moments. We need to consider fast-forward transparency, because low trust means listeners will Google literally while you’re talking. Make it painless. Publish the data set, the methodology, the impact dashboard the moment the podcast drops. When a host can say links in the show notes, check it yourself, you borrow their credibility instead of testing it.

You need to measure the clip life, not just the hit. An episode premiere is only inning one. Track how quotes migrate to TikTok, how a product demo GIF surfaces on Reddit, and how snippets thread their way into your earned media that you didn’t pitch. That’s the long tail. That’s the ROI. And all of this, of course, spills inward. Employees are audience segments too, and they’re consuming in the same places.

Internal comms, the should-think podcast-style video for CEO AMAs, peer-to-peer explainers, even training modules. Why write a thousand-word intranet post when a five-minute host-driven conversation between the project manager and a site safety lead will get watched and maybe shared to LinkedIn by the very people that you need to reach? So if I had to condense this new rule set into one line, it’s this. Facts open the door.

Trusted humans carry them across the threshold, visuals bolted shut. Your news still has to meet the classic criteria, timely, significant, novel, but today it also has to pass an audience sniff test delivered by someone they feel they know in a format that lets them see more than they hear. So real quick, build a credible messenger bench inside and outside the organization, package every story visually, court video podcast hosts,

Ship transparency aids and track the afterlife of clips because momentum equals mindshare. Get this mix right and you’ll do more than play stories. You’ll earn a toehold in the very channels that are shaping public perception, channels the upfront buyers just anointed as prime time.

@nevillehobson (05:57)

listening to how you were setting all this out, it made me think that, you know, what’s actually changed over the years, other than the obvious declines here and there and different numbers. It’s, it’s the defining what is media, what is news has changed, I think, that may well have influenced some of these metrics that you’re you’re quoting. Looking at Pew, for instance,

Consistent views exist on what news isn’t rather than what it is. That’s interesting, I think. Hard news stories about politics and war continue to be what people most clearly think of as news. And I suspect that’s the same here too. But it’s difficult to see some of this through any other lens than…

the radical changes we’re experiencing and we’ve been going through over the past five years or so after two decades of, you know, golden years, you might say when, when we didn’t have the worries we have today. It’s easy to blame Trump for all this, by the way, and of course, it’s not really fair to do that. Not I’m not worried about being fair to him, but generally for understanding what’s happening and the changes that are happening. There’s a wider shift happening in society on which

I would suspect Mr. Trump is one of the catalyzers behind the changes that are going on. So I find it most interesting seeing the US picture as a benchmark, if you will, for what’s happening elsewhere, purely through the lens of the sheer volume of quality data that informs opinions. We don’t have that anywhere else. I was looking at a report here in the UK to get some perspective from this side of the Atlantic on this

broad topic. The regulator here, Ofcom, has produced some really useful data. There’s a big report that came out late last year that is to do with the picture in the UK, the broad picture on news consumption across generations. There’s an interesting metric set, nothing like the depth of what you’ve got.

For instance, comparing podcasts and the new media, if you will, that isn’t really in this report to a significant depth like that. But there are some parallels without any doubt, decline of traditional media, the decline of trust, for instance. But the generational gaps are not the same, it seems to me, although probably looking in depth at them may well be quite similar.

But one thing that seems to be clear is that how people trust who they do trust is not that different here as it is in the US. It’s not quite so granular, it’s a smaller country apart from the US. So it’s hard to look at it through the same eyes as you would in the US with the vast geography you’ve got over there. But you know, I find it quite interesting, you know, here’s a kind of a leaping out statement, we kind of think, yeah, we know that traditional platforms are declining in popularity.

Yeah, that’s a finding that’s universal, I would say in Western countries, certainly. But, you know, just looking through this to see what comparisons I can draw from from the US picture, there are some interesting topics. haven’t connected them with the Pew data, but I bet you they’re similar. For instance, how teens consume news.

Teen show a preference for lighter news topics in favor of social media platforms for news consumption rather than traditional media. No surprise with that at all, I don’t think. It is interesting seeing this decline in traditional news platforms for the top 10 news sources in the UK are now social media platforms. That’s again, that’s interesting. 70 % of respondents to Ofcom survey rate TV news is accurate, while only 44 % rate social media similarly.

So inaccurate is the word for social media, accurate for TV in terms of news reporting. Public service broadcasters, BBC is one, continue to be seen as vital for delivering trusted news, this report says, despite a decline in viewership. This survey I’m referencing indicates that audiences prioritize accurate news from public service broadcasters. And that sense of trust is big here because, you know, we don’t have

cities with their own TV networks in those cities or that state. It’s not the same geographically as one reason. But the other is that the state here defined television back in the 50s. In fact, prior to that, 1930s, even before Second World War, unlike the US where the soap opera emerged in those days, it had sponsors for content that didn’t exist here. was public service broadcasting, then commercial channels arose.

It’s well trusted, even though that trust is often dented by events. For instance, all over the news the last few days is a guy called Gary Lineker, who’s very well known in the UK. He was a professional footballer. He’s been the voice of BBC Sport for two decades, but he’s very outspoken. He’s got himself into trouble. Previously, over using social media for political comment, and he dropped a big clanger recently about Israel and Gaza. basically he’s…

quit, he’s resigned and he’s not getting the big golden handshake he would have got if he had been a good boy rather than naughty boy. I’m sure he’s going to pop up somewhere. he he’s dented his own reputation in terms of trust, but it’s rubbed off on the BBC a bit. So they’re going to have to weather that for a while, I would imagine. But, you know, the the the markets are have a lot of parallels in many ways, I think. Social media platforms increasingly use for news consumption.

Facebook being the most popular source. think that reflects the picture of the US too, doesn’t it, Joe? Probably? Yeah, yeah. So perception of news accuracy and trustworthiness is a relevant metric in the context of this conversation. Search engines, news aggregators are perceived as more trustworthy and accurate compared to social media platforms. Facebook in particular scores lower on attributes like quality and trustworthiness. Yet, as the other metric shows,

Shel Holtz (11:44)

@nevillehobson (12:06)

So it’s kind of interesting. you know, there’s lots of more lots of further metrics there that aren’t really relevant to this conversation. think Americans trust in one another. Would that be the same here? I’ve not found kind of direct directly comparable metrics that I could I could throw at you. So it’s hard to see the difference. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the over the general sentiment in that is not dissimilar here.

Yet there are definitely differences. Racial issues, the discrimination factors aren’t quite the same as in the US, but they exist here. They don’t tend to be skin color, if you see what I mean, it’s more origin like from the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East rather than, you know, black Americans who originated generations back coming from Africa. Those are not quite the same. Yet I would say the

the outcomes in terms of analyzing behaviors, look at the cystics aren’t that dissimilar. It just shows, I think, how similar and how different we all are wherever we are in the world. And the difference, one big one in America is you’ve got the metrics that helps you understand it all, that don’t exist into such a scale elsewhere. So I’m not sure this is going have gone off on a slight tangent to what you were talking about earlier, Shell, but I think it is useful to

contrast or compare really the data from one side Atlantic to another, not directly comparable for geographic geographies and simple sheer volume. But behaviors aren’t that different, it seems to me.

Shel Holtz (13:58)

that is conveyed by people that they do trust. So if you trust Joe Rogan, you’re going to watch Joe Rogan’s show. And that’s where you’re going to get a lot of your news, since he does tend to have newsmaker type guests on. This, think, is why we have to pay attention to these video podcasts as a possible outlet for the message that we’re trying to convey.

because there are people who are gravitating to these. see the numbers. The numbers are bigger than the numbers that are being drawn to your top 10 TV shows. And this is just this confluence of the definition of news, who we trust, where we get our news and how we define news and the growth of video podcasting, which we saw played out.

in the last presidential election because Trump and his spokespeople were hitting the bro circuit of video podcasts and the Harris campaign was by and large ignoring them and playing to traditional media. I haven’t seen any analysis that has definitively said that led to victory, certainly didn’t hurt. And it was a wise strategy given the data that we’re seeing now.

So I think the people who are talking about this and thinking about it are absolutely right. You have to start thinking about where your audience is, who they trust, what do they think news is, and how can we craft our news so that it conforms to that and gets delivered through a trusted third party that they’re actually paying attention to and find credible. It’s a big shift.

But the other thing that comes out of accommodating this shift of adopting these new practices in getting the story out for our organization or our clients is that it does accommodate AI search. The interview on that video podcast is going to end up in a training model somewhere. So this

aids that effort as well as fewer and fewer people click any links that they find in a Google search, just settling for the AI overview at the top of the page, which now Google is starting to emphasize anyway, which is a whole different topic of conversation that we have addressed before and no doubt will again. you want people to hear your news, at least you get the side benefit of appearing more in AI search results.

@nevillehobson (16:49)

focused on the Daily Mail, one of the tabloids here that is definitely right leaning in a big way, were talking at a conference on the dramatic fall in click throughs since the advent of Google’s AI overviews. And they said it was alarming and it was shocking. And the volumes, I don’t have the report in front of me, but the numbers were quite significant, the drops. So what are they doing about it? And this to me, I found most interesting.

which I think instead of complaining as some media are about these changes and we got to do something, we’re not, you this is wrong and blah, blah, is do what the mail is doing, which is off, which is starting up a newsletter that you subscribe to. So that I think is definitely a trend to keep keep eyes on. I the the niche newsletter is designed to relate directly to your own interests.

So if you want to get all your news from the mail to you directly, than suffer from, if you’re searching for something or whatever, your own behavior, you’ve searched for something, it pulls up the results from the daily mail, you read it there, and it’s enough to satisfy the reason why you were searching, so no click through. So I get the logic of what they’re doing, and I think others will follow them unquestionably. And I look at my own behavior.

in a very small way. This is just me. not I don’t know if it’s a trend or mirrors anyone else or not. I subscribe now to nearly 20 newsletters. And of course, I don’t get a chance to read half of them, to be honest, show but I read the ones that interest me early in the day when I’m not at my desktop machine or even my laptop, probably my phone or tablet that I wouldn’t otherwise do. And it tends to be glancing as almost snacking on the content. And I see that is a different way I used to what I used to do.

media consumption, which would have been sitting in a desktop computer, looking at the screen reading stuff for half an hour. Don’t do it like that anymore at all. So and some of the newsletters are from new media, if I described like that, not the old media. And they’re well written, they’re entertaining, they’re storytelling, but not just a bunch of dry, factual information, they entertain as well. And so, you know, to me, one of the measures of whether I like them is if I permit the

images to come through automatically rather than be blocked by my email program. others I leave blocked. So you get a sense of how they’re approaching this, whether designing for a desktop computer, or you’ve got tons of broken image links all over the screen, you’re not going to read that. So that’s part of the shift. And I think maybe that’s generational. I don’t know. I’ve not looked into it. Do younger audiences have similar behaviors with newsletters? Well, according to the mail,

demographic they’re interested in is definitely leaning young, not old, even though my understanding of the male, and this may be based just on people I know, they’re old who read the Daily Mail and the right wing. you know, things are changing. the Pew is probably best placed to provide data on the US picture. I wish they would look at international but of course, I guess the raw data is not there. But this is part of the shifting landscape.

generational shifts as well. You know, we got Gen Alpha on our heels at the moment. What is their news consumption like? I was looking at an ad the other day for a digital camera, which I bought one actually that when we’re out looking at things and my wife and I are visiting places, instead of fumbling with my phone, I’ve got this little digital camera hanging on the strap, I could just pick up take a picture. That’s that’s why I did this. But I found one that was like 30 pounds 64 megapixel.

with they call it a vlogging camera because it’s 4k video as well aimed at teens it’s very affordable and indeed the pitching it as a gift to your youngster who’s 10 get him started it’s very simple very safe very straightforward it’s not connected to anything although there are versions with built-in wi-fi so you look at how these things are shifting into one of the tools that are available to to kids these ages now so

We are at a time of significant change. We know this. This is another manifestation of it, seems to me.

Shel Holtz (21:09)

have people see you as transparent. Make it very easy for people to confirm the information that you have shared. You also want to make it available online. But if you have people who are paying attention to what’s coming out of your organization and you deliver some remarks or make an announcement, get the backup material out there. Use whatever means are available to you. lots of new approaches in

@nevillehobson (21:58)

Shel Holtz (21:59)

for people to consider in order to succeed. But again, know, the press release with the CEO quote, you still need it for a variety of reasons. I mean, here in the US, compliance, you know, with SEC rules, but it won’t cut it ⁓ in getting the word out to the people you’re trying to reach.

@nevillehobson (22:10)

No,

it wasn’t. And I suspect that’s a similar reason here in the UK. I’ve not looked into that, listed companies have to communicate certain things. I’m just thinking, funny you mentioned that because today I got a press release from an agency that I read it. I thought, my God, this is dreadful, truly, particularly when they use the old fashioned language that we used to use back in the 70s and 80s, I think, it was so and so commented. He commented.

Shel Holtz (22:32)

@nevillehobson (22:42)

Shel Holtz (22:45)

@nevillehobson (23:07)

I used to enjoy them, but they’re all the same now. They’re reporting on the same news, just different presentation. So I’ve got to be selective in what I look at. And the ones I’ve not looked at for a couple of weeks, I’ll unsubscribe. But they are useful. And does it make me click through? No, it doesn’t actually, very, very rarely. The new media ones do, though. Some of my favorite newsletters from the tech area and in politics are well-written. They are entertaining, more so than these. These are…

kind of a shinier approach from the old media, whereas the new media tell real stories in their news and they make it something you look forward to reading and you then engage more with those. So what impact will that have on reporting by Pew, for instance, next year? I wonder. People are popping up all over the place with companies, rather, should say, offering newsletter services. So, for instance, Beehive, see a lot, you know.

Shel Holtz (24:23)

@nevillehobson (24:25)

Shel Holtz (24:50)

the other thing to consider is that if people don’t trust Entity X, they’re not going to trust Entity X’s newsletter just because they’re cranking one out. You have to build that trust through other means or get into somebody else’s newsletter. But I’m sure this is a conversation that will continue as these changes continue. But for now, that’ll be a 30 for for immediate release.

@nevillehobson (24:58)

The post FIR #465: The Trust-News-Video Podcast PR Trifecta appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

In this episode, Chip speaks with agency advisor Tim Kilroy about the challenges and strategies for running a small agency. Tim shares his extensive experience in digital marketing and agency coaching, highlighting the importance of flexibility and adaptability in leadership.

They discuss the notion of many agency owners being ‘accidental’ and the necessity of creative problem-solving and rigorous operational procedures in today’s tough economic and technological landscapes. The conversation emphasizes fostering a supportive and clear environment for agency teams, allowing for autonomy and decentralized decision-making to drive success. [read the transcript]

The post CWC 110: Embracing change as an agency owner (featuring Tim Kilroy) appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

In this FIR Interview, Neville and Shel talk with author, investigative journalist, and New York SEO, Eric Schwartzman, about his Fast Company article, “Bot farms invade social media to hijack popular sentiment.” A consultant who specialises in SEO for financial services companies, Eric explains how coordinated networks of smartphones and AI-generated content are distorting public perception, manipulating virality, and reshaping what we trust online.

Eric, a long-time friend of FIR and a former entertainment public relations correspondent for FIR, discusses how bot farms now outnumber real users on social networks, how profits drive PR ethics, and why Meta, TikTok, X, and even LinkedIn are complicit in enabling synthetic engagement at scale.

Eric also previews his forthcoming book, Invasion of the Bot Farms, which explores this escalating threat through insider stories and case studies.

Discussion Highlights

Eric Schwartzman is a digital PR and content marketing strategist, author, and award-winning podcaster specialising in organic media, SEO, and content marketing. With deep experience in both agency and client-side roles, he helps organisations boost visibility, web traffic, and conversions through strategic digital campaigns.

As a freelance journalist, Eric has written for Fast Company, TechCrunch, VentureBeat, AdWeek, and others, and is the author of two best-selling books on SEO. His work bridges technical expertise and clear communication, making him a trusted voice in the evolving digital landscape.

Follow Eric Schwartzman on LinkedIn

Mentioned in this Interview:

The post Eric Schwartzman on Bot Farms and Digital Deception appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

In this episode, Chip and Gini discuss whether or not employees can be encouraged to be “more strategic”. They explore the definition of being strategic, frequently misunderstood expectations, and the challenges of fostering strategic thinking among team members. Gini shares her personal experiences and frustrations from her early career, emphasizing the importance of proper coaching and mentoring.

Chip and Gini conclude that agency owners should define their expectations clearly, consider the individual capabilities of their employees, and re-evaluate their own workload to potentially take on more strategic responsibilities themselves. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 271: Can agency team members be more strategic? appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

In this episode, Chip talks with Melissa Vela-Williamson of MVW Communications about her unique journey in public relations and the importance of content creation. Melissa shares her background, highlighting her non-traditional path into PR and her passion for using public relations for social good.

They discuss her focus on helping nonprofits and education clients, her role as a content creator, and her work as a columnist for the Public Relations Society of America. Melissa also delves into the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on her business and the strategic approaches she took to maintain client relationships and grow her firm.

They explore the significance of writing books and producing various types of content, emphasizing the value of building relationships and demonstrating thought leadership in the communications industry. [read the transcript]

The post CWC 109: Thought leadership for agency growth (featuring Melissa Vela-Williamson) appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

Debate continues about when to disclose that you have used AI to create an output. Do you disclose any use at all? Do you confine disclosure to uses of AI that could lead people to feel deceived? Wherever you land on this question, it may not matter when it comes to building trust with your audience. According to a new study, audiences lose trust as soon as they see an AI disclosure. This doesn’t mean you should not disclose, however, since finding out that you used AI and didn’t disclose is even worse. That leaves little wiggle room for communicators taking advantage of AI and seeking to be as transparent as possible. In this short midweek FIR episode, Neville and Shel examine the research along with recommendations about how to be transparent while remaining trusted.

Links from this episode:

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, May 26.

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

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. Shel has started a metaverse-focused Flipboard magazine. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients.

Raw Transcript

Shel Holtz (00:05)

@nevillehobson (00:13)

13 experiments over 5,000 participants from students and hiring managers to legal analysts and investors. And the results are consistent across all groups, across all scenarios. People trust others less when they’re told that AI played a role in getting the work done. We’ll get into this right after this.

So imagine this, you’re a job applicant who says you used AI to polish a CV, or a manager who mentions AI helped write performance reviews, or a professor who says grades were assessed using AI. In each case, just admitting you used AI is enough to make people view you as less trustworthy. Now this isn’t about AI doing the work alone. In fact, the study found that people trusted a fully autonomous AI more than they trusted a human.

who disclosed they had help from an AI. That’s the paradox. So why does this happen? Well, the researchers say it comes down to legitimacy. We still operate with deep seated norms that say proper work should come from human judgment, effort and expertise. So when someone reveals they used AI, it triggers a reaction, a kind of social red flag. Even if AI helped only a little, even if the work is just a good.

Changing how the disclosure is worded doesn’t help much. Whether you say, AI assisted me lightly, or I proofread the AI output, or I’m just being transparent, trust still drops. There’s one twist. If someone hides their AI use, and it’s later discovered by a third party, the trust hit is even worse. So you’re damned if you do, but potentially more damned if you don’t. Now here’s where it gets interesting.

Just nine months earlier in July, 2024, Elsevier published a different report, Insights 2024 Attitudes Towards AI, based on a global survey of nearly 3,000 researchers and clinicians. That survey found most professionals are enthusiastic about AI’s potential, but they demand transparency to trust the tools. So on the one hand, we want transparency from AI systems. On the other hand, we penalize people who are transparent about using AI.

It’s not a contradiction. It’s about who we’re trusting. In the 2024 study, trust is directed at the AI tool. In the 2025 study, trust is directed at the human disclosure. And that’s a key distinction. It shows just how complex and fragile trust is in the age of AI. So where does this leave us? It leaves us in a space where the social norms around AI use still lag behind the technology itself.

And that has implications for how we communicate, lead teams and build credibility. As generative AI becomes ever more part of everyday workflows, we’ll need to navigate this carefully. Being open about AI use is the right thing to do, but we also need to prepare for how people will respond to that honesty. It’s not a tech issue, it’s a trust issue. And as communicators, we’re right at the heart of it. So how do you see it, Shail?

Shel Holtz (03:53)

@nevillehobson (03:56)

Shel Holtz (04:18)

false information. There was a study that was conducted, actually I don’t know who actually did the study, but it was published in the Strategic Management Journal. This was related specifically to the issue that you mentioned with writing performance reviews or automating performance evaluations or recommending performance improvements for somebody who’s not doing that well on the job.

So on the one hand, know, powerful AI data analytics increase the quality of feedback, which may enhance employee productivity, according to this research. They call that the deployment effect. But on the other hand, employees may develop a negative perception of AI feedback once it’s disclosed to them, harming productivity. And that’s referred to as the disclosure effect. And there was one other bit of research that I found.

And this was from Trusting News. This was research conducted with a grant that says what audiences really need in order for a disclosure to be of any use to them is specificity. They respond better to detailed disclosures about how AI is being used as opposed to generic disclaimers, which are viewed less favorably and produced.

less trust. Word choice matters less. Audiences wanted to know specifically what AI was used to do with the words that the disclosers used to present that information mattering less. And finally, Epic has, that’s the Electronic Privacy and Information Center, had some recommendations. They said that

both direct and indirect disclosures, direct being a disclosure that says, hey, before you read or listen or watch this or view it, you should know that we used AI on it. And an indirect disclosure is where it’s somehow baked into the content itself. But they said, regardless of whether it’s direct or indirect, to ensure persistence and to meaningfully notify viewers that the content is synthetic, disclosures cannot be the only tool used to address the harms that stem from generative AI.

And they recommended specificity, just as you did see from the other research that I cited. says disclosure should be specific about what the components of the content are, which components are actually synthetic. Direct disclosures must be clear and conspicuous such that a reasonable person would not mistake a piece of content as being authentic.

Robustness, disclosures must be technically shielded from attempts to remove or otherwise tamper with them. Persistence, disclosures must stay attached to a piece of content even when reshared. There’s an interesting one. And format neutral, the disclosure must stay attached to the content even if it is transformed, such as from a JPEG to a .PNG or a .TXT to a .doc file.

@nevillehobson (07:34)

Shel Holtz (07:40)

@nevillehobson (07:50)

of mistrust will fade over time. They say as AI becomes more widespread and potentially more reliable, disclosing its use may eventually seem less suspect. They also mentioned that there is absolutely no consensus on how organizations should handle AI disclosure from the research that they carried out. One option they talk about is making transparency voluntary, which leads a decision to disclose the individual. Another is a mandatory disclosure policy.

And they say their research suggests that the threat of being exposed by a third party can motivate compliance if the policy is stringently enforced through tools such as AI detectors. And finally, they mentioned a third approach is cultural, building a workplace where AI use is seen as normal, accepted and legitimate. And they say that we think this kind of environment could soften the trust penalty and support both transparency and credibility. they…

In my view, certainly, I would continue disclosing my AI use in the way I have been, which is not blowing trumpets about it or making a huge deal out of it. Just saying as it’s appropriate, I have an AI use thing on my website. Been there now for a year and a bit. And I’ve not yet had anyone ask me, so what are you telling us about your AI use? It’s very open. The one thing I have found that I think helps

in this situation where you might get negative feedback on AI use is if you’ve written something, for instance, that you published that AI has helped you in the construction of that document, primarily through researching the topic. So it could be summarizing a lengthy article or report. I did that not long ago on a 50 page PDF and it produced the summary in like four paragraphs, a little too concise. So that comes down to the prompt. What do you ask it to do?

But I found that if you share clearly the citations, i.e. the links to sources that often are referenced, or rather they’re not referenced, let’s say, or you add a reference because you think it’s relevant, that suggests you have taken extra steps to verify that content and that therefore means you have not just, you

shares something an AI has created. And I think that’s probably helpful. That said, I think the report though, the basis of it is quite clear. There is no solution to this currently at hand. And I think the worst thing anyone can do, and that’s to the conversation’s first point, leaving it a voluntary disclosure option, is probably not a good idea because some people aren’t going to do it. Others won’t be clear on how to do it. And so they won’t do it.

And then if they found out the penalty is severe, not only what you’ve done, but your own reputation, and that’s not good. you’re kind of between the devil and the deep blue sea here, but bottom line, you should still disclose, but you need to do it the right way. And there ought to be some guidance in organizations in particular on how to disclose, what to disclose, when to disclose. I’ve not seen a lot of discussion about that though.

Shel Holtz (11:10)

@nevillehobson (11:15)

Right.

Shel Holtz (11:36)

@nevillehobson (11:49)

Shel Holtz (12:03)

@nevillehobson (12:18)

Shel Holtz (12:30)

that it is accurate and to disclose where AI was specifically employed in producing that content.

@nevillehobson (13:08)

So you could follow any regulatory pathway you want and do all the guidance you want. You’re still gonna get this until as the conversation reports, as as ever his research, it dies away and no one has any idea when that might be. So this is a minefield without doubt.

Shel Holtz (13:36)

Yeah, but I think what they’re getting at is that if the disclosure being applied was consistent and specific so that when you looked at a disclosure, it was the same nature of a disclosure that you were getting from some other content producer, some other organization, you would begin to develop some sense of reliability or consistency that, okay, this is one of these. I know now what I’m going to be looking at here and can…

consume it through that lens. So I think it would be helpful, you know, not that I’m always a big fan of excess regulation, but this is a minefield. And I think even if it’s voluntary compliance to a consistent set of standards, although we know that how that’s played out when it’s been proposed in other places online over the last 20, 25 years. But I think, think consistency and specificity

are what’s required here. And I don’t know how we get to that without regulation.

@nevillehobson (14:50)

I’d go the route of, we need something, and this is where professional bodies could come in to help, I think, in proposing this kind of thing. Others who do it share what they’re doing. So we need something like that, in my view, where there may well be lots of this in place, but I don’t see people talking too much about it. I do see people talking much about the worry about getting accused of whatever it is that people accuse you of, of using AI.

That’s not pleasant at all. And you need to have thick skin and also be pretty confident. I mean, I’d like to say in my case, I am pretty confident that if I say I’ve done this with AI, I can weather any accusations even if they are well meant, some are not. And they’re based not on informed opinion, really, it’s uninformed, I suppose you could argue.

Anyway, it is a minefield and there’s no easy solution on the horizons. But in the meantime, disclose, do not hide it.

Shel Holtz (16:10)

@nevillehobson (16:27)

Shel Holtz (16:28)

That’s it. need a creative commons-like solution to the disclosure issue. And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of Four Immediate Release.

The post FIR #464: Research Finds Disclosing Use of AI Erodes Trust appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

In this episode, Chip and Gini delve into the topic of scope creep in agencies. They discuss the bell curve of profitability and the importance of setting clear expectations from the first client conversation.

They highlight strategies like dividing projects into 90-day scopes to regularly reassess goals and deliverables. The duo emphasizes the significance of internal communication, developing a culture of transparency, and ensuring team members understand project scope and costs.

They also stress the need to build flexibility and cushion into initial pricing to manage minor scope changes and avoid financial strain. Finally, they agree on mastering financial understanding and regular one-on-one meetings for smoother agency operation. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 270: Limiting scope creep from the start appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

Google’s first Chief Decision Scientist, Cassie Kozyrkov, wrote recently that “The biggest challenge of the generative AI age is leaders defining value for their organization.” Among leadership considerations, she says, is a mindset shift, one in which there are “endless right answers”.  (“When I ask an AI assistant to generate an image for me, I get a fairly solid result. When I repeat the same prompt, I get a different perfectly adequate image. Both are right answers… but which one is right-er?”)

Kozyrkov’s overarching conclusion is that confirming the business value of your genAI decisions will keep you on track.

In this episode, Neville and Shel review Kozyrkov’s position, then look at several communication teams that have evolved their departmental use of AI based on the principles she promotes.

Links from this episode:

The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, May 26.

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

Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music.

You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. 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

Hello everyone and welcome to four immediate release episode number 4 63. I’m Neville Hobson. And I’m Shell Holtz reports on how communication departments are moving from AI experiments to serious strategy driven deployment of Gen AI are proliferating. Although I’m still mostly hearing communicators talk about tactical uses of these tools.

The fact is you need to start with strategy or don’t start at all. That’s the conclusion of Cassie. Kako, Google’s former chief decision scientist who warns leaders that Gen AI only pays off when you define why you’re using it and how you’ll measure value. She calls Gen AI automation for problems that have endless right answers.

Now that. Warrants a little explanation. Traditional ai, she says, is for automating tasks where there’s one right answer using patterns and data. It’s gen AI that automates tasks where there are endless right [00:01:00] answers and each answer is right in its own way. This means old ROI, yardsticks won’t work.

Leaders have to craft new metrics that link every Gen AI project to. Not just a cool demo. This framing is useful because it separates flashy outputs from real, genuine impact. With that in mind, we’re gonna look at a few comms teams that are building gen AI programs around a clear, measurable strategy right after this.

Well, let’s start with Lockheed Martin’s Communications organizations, which set a top down mandate. Every team member is required to learn enough gen AI to be a strategic partner to the business. They hit a hundred percent training compliance early this year. They published an internal. AI Communications Playbook filled with do and don’t guidance Prompt templates, a shared prompt library, and monthly newsletters that surface new [00:02:00] wins.

There are a few reasons that this is a worthy case study. First, the team generated savings. You can count, for example, a recent video storyboard project ran 30% under budget and cut 180 staff hours. The team has fostered a culture of experimentation. Uh, there’s a monthly AI art contest that they. Host inviting communicators to practice prompting in a low risk environment, helping them learn prompt craft before they touch billable projects.

And the human in the loop discipline is built into the team’s processes. Gen AI delivers the first draft or first visual. Humans still own the final story. The takeaway, Lockheed shows that enterprise rollouts scale when you train first, codify governance. Next, then celebrate quick wins. Qualcomm corporate comms manager, Kristen Cochran Styles said Gen A is now in our DNA.

Qualcomm’s comms team is leaning on edge based gen AI, running models on phones, [00:03:00] PCs, and even smart glasses to lighten workflows while respecting privacy and energy constraints. Uh, they have a device centric narrative. They don’t just talk about on debate on. Its comms group uses the same edge pipeline that it promotes publicly.

They have faster iterations occurring in their processes, drafting reactive statements, tailoring, outreach to niche reporters and summarizing dense technical research all happen at the edge, shaving hours off typical cycles, and there’s alignment of their reputation because they’re eating their own dog food from their own silicon powered AI stack.

Qualcomm’s comms team reinforces the brand promise every time it ships content. Let’s. Take a look next at VCA, uh, chain of veterinary clinics. One of them was the one that I take my dog to. Joseph Campbell’s, a comms leader at VCA and he’s echoed the strategy first mantra. He noted that 75% of comms pros now use gen [00:04:00] ai, but more than half of their employers still lack firm policies.

A gap he finds alarming. Campbell’s rule of thumb. AI can brainstorm and polish, but final messaging must. Obtain human creativity strategy and relationship building. VCAs approach involves sandboxing with teams practicing in non-public pilots before committing anything to external channels. Crafting guardrails is treated as urgent change management work, not paperwork.

So they’re developing their policies in a very deliberate way, and they have an ethics checklist. Outputs go through fact checking and hallucination screen steps just like any other high stakes content. Now these individual stories of teams employing gen gen AI strategically sit against an industry backdrop that’s moving fast with tripling of adoption.

Three out of four PR pros now use gen ai. That’s nearly three times the level from March of last year. Uh, and [00:05:00] efficiency gains are clear. 93% say AI speeds their work. 78% says it improves their quality, but speed. By itself isn’t value. Cassie Coser Cove’s Endless right Answers framework reminds us Comms leaders still have to specify which right answers matter to the business.

So let’s wrap this up with six quick takeaways for your team from these case studies. First, tie every Gen AI experiment to a business result. Whether it’s fast or first drafts, budget savings, or higher engagement, write the metric before you. Invest in universal literacy. Lockheed’s a hundred percent training.

Target created a shared language, a shared context, and without that, AI initiatives are gonna stall, codify, and update guardrails. VCAs governance, sprint shows policies can be an after, can’t be an afterthought. They’re the trust layer that lets teams scale gen AI responsibly. [00:06:00] Prototype publicly when it reinforces brand stories.

Qualcomm’s on device PR work doubles as product proof and keep humans critical in every example. Communicators use AI for liftoff, then rely on human judgment. For nuance, ethics and style communicators have next desktop publishing social. Gen AI is bigger than these. It won’t just make us faster. It will change how we define good work.

That’s why the strategic questions upfront, what does value look like and how will we prove it matter more than which model or plugin you pick. Good insights in all of that. Uh, shell, I guess the first thought in my mind, it makes me wonder how do those who argue against using AI and, uh, what, what’s prompted that thought as an article?

I was reading, uh, just this morning about, uh, an organization where the leadership don’t prohibit it. No one uses AI [00:07:00] on the belief that, uh, it doesn’t deliver value, and it minimizes the human excellence that they bring to their client’s work. I wonder what, uh, they would say to things like this, because there are examples everywhere you look and you’ve just recounted a load of the advantages of using artificial intelligence in business.

I was reading one of the other articles that you shared, which you didn’t talk about on the examples that Mons, uh, which is really quite interesting, itemizes, how they, how AI plays a large role in their marketing, uh, for instance, to create digital advertising content. Product display pages, uh, towards high level creative assets including social media content and video ads.

They talk about though the 40 ai augmented campaigns that they have implemented, which they say have led to measurable improvements in brand awareness, market share, and revenue. And that compliments all the examples you were saying. They also say, rather than replacing humans, AI assist the, in refining their ideas and generating content.

The key role of humans is to ensure brand distinctiveness and [00:08:00] originality. That simple. Those two simple phrases really resonated with me because AI assists the humans, and the key job of the humans is to ensure brand distinctiveness and originality. And that to me is, makes complete sense. So, uh, AI delivers significant value and they talk about the, uh, the metrics they have.

Uh, here’s a one, uh, they say when start delivering two.

And if you can do that 1% better, that adds up to significant volume gains and significant growth in terms of net revenue. Then, then it’s just the beginning and AI is delivering that according to, so these, these add to the, to the, uh, collection. Of, uh, what I call validation points for the benefits of using a particular tool, particularly when you focus on the human element in it.

So they’re all great examples. Uh, and I think you, you mentioned at the start that too much of the, uh, activity we hear about is focused on tactics, [00:09:00] and this is full of it. It links it all to strategic aspects. Uh, it’s not just the, uh, the improvement in this and the 250 trillion impressions, although that’s pretty extraordinary.

It seems to me these are real learning insights that you can get from all this kind of stuff. And, you know, I love reading all this stuff, so it’s good to see it. I have to say. I, you know, in communication we talk about strategic planning as a core competency in the profession and IABC conferences and in textbooks, the strategic planning process is outlined repeatedly.

I mean, there are, are are different models and different approaches, but it’s always based on what is it that you’re trying to accomplish. At the end of the day, you’re not trying to accomplish writing a good headline. Right. You’re trying to accomplish, uh, having somebody read the article because it had a good headline and walk away ready to buy your product or ready to vote for your candidate, or [00:10:00] whatever it it may be.

And it seems like. Even though we have embraced this as a profession in general, we have by and large forgotten it when it comes to Gen ai just because we get so excited by the immediately evident capabilities, the ability to gimme five headlines in different styles. So I can. Pick one or, or adapt one to, uh, to, to, to what I wanted to say, create this image.

I mean, there’s nothing wrong with that. These are all great uses of the tool, but ultimately we have to look at where it delivers value that aligns with the goals that we’re trying to achieve on behalf of the organization. And you talk about those organizations that say there is no value. I, I would suggest either they’re not looking, they have a, a bias against it at the leadership level.

Or they have people at lower levels who haven’t figured out how to demonstrate that value, and therefore leaders are convinced that there isn’t any. But if you look at the examples we’ve shared here today, it, [00:11:00] it’s clear that you can align what you’re doing with Gen ai. To your organization’s business goals and your strategic plan and your business plan and the like, there’s, there’s, there’s no question that you, you can, uh, the question is why aren’t more people doing it?

I completely agree with the decision scientists from Google’s belief that if you’re not being strategic about it, why are you doing it at all? Yeah. I mean, I think to me the, the key thing to keep remembering, and this could well be the kind of circling point you come around to, to repeat together again, as Mondelez says, while AI has been a game changer for them, it takes human ingenuity to get the most out of a technology that is available to everyone.

And that, uh, is a point you mentioned from one of the examples that you gave that, um, how AI. Augments as opposed to replace or instead of that people talk about. Sure. But this needs emphasizing, I think, in a much, much bigger way. So Mondelez says, uh, again, a real simple point, but it’s, it’s good to say it.

They [00:12:00] think AI is gonna help you do everything from creation of the brief all the way to actual actually trafficking the effort and putting it out into market. It’ll help you. So, um, that bears repeating, it’s not gonna do any of, all of that or any of that. It’s gonna help you do all of that. Hence, you know, AI augmenting intelligence.

And I saw another different use of that phrase the other day, which has escaped my memories. Obviously wasn’t very memorable, but it was another example of it’s the human, that’s the key thing. Uh, not the technology, the technology tool that enables these things. So people’s eyes roll my view, leadership.

No. And I think if leadership is going to pay attention to this in a way that is meaningful to the organization, there has to be an effort to bring managers into the loop to, so that managers can help their employees feel good about this. Understand, and we’ve talked about the role of the manager here before.

Yep. But this, this is a critical one, is the emotional [00:13:00] side of managing. When you have a team of people who are confused and distressed and, and maybe worried about their futures with ai to be able to assuage those concerns and pull people together into a team that works with these things so that they do deliver that value, that’s going to increase the value of that team and of those individuals.

So there’s a lot of work to be done here, and it’s heartening to see organizations like VCA and Qualcomm and Mondelez doing it. Well and doing it right and, and the more these case studies we can see, the easier it’s gonna be for other organizations to basically adapt those concepts. Yeah, I agree. And on the case of, on the part of Mondelez, the article was published in a publication called Knowledge at Wharton from, uh, the Wharton School University of Pennsylvania.

I was quite at the end of April. Uh, I was actually quite amused to see the final text at the end saying that this article was partially generated by AI and edited with additional writing by knowledge at Wharton [00:14:00] staff. Curious about what the additional writing is. Uh, but that there, I would argue that’s a simple but good example that’s fully disclosed of the role AI played in them.

Being able to tell that particular story. I don’t think that diminishes anything. If anything, it’s additional to it, hence the additional. Uh, in the, in the, I was gonna ask, did you, did you find the article less readable because it was partly written by ai? Well, now I know that. How could I tell? That’s the thing.

They disclosed it and, uh, it’s good for them. I don’t think they needed to do that. Again, it depends on how they felt. They don’t say what percentage of the additional was AI generated, but I would imagine, again, a good example. To me, it seems that you’ve got something that you wrote and you running it by your AI assistant to check for.

The flow tone, all those things you kind of do. With Grammarly a bit, I think at the very least, if you’re using Word, you can use the grammar checker and all those tools in there. Not very good. Nothing nearly as [00:15:00] good as an AI tool to do these things. So that’s already with us and has been for quite a while.

It’s getting better, but the human element is absolutely critical. So it would be interesting to know what that additional writing was said, but it’s a good example. It is. And that’ll be a 30 for this episode of four immediate release.

The post FIR #463: Delivering Value with Generative AI’s “Endless Right Answers” appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

In this episode, Chip and Gini discuss the psychology of pricing within agencies. They cover topics such as the importance of being confident in your pricing, avoiding negotiating against oneself, and the benefits of premium pricing.

Gini highlights her experiences with male and female negotiators, emphasizing how women often undervalue themselves. The duo debates the effectiveness of the ‘three pricing options’ strategy and its pitfalls. They also offer practical advice for owners to ensure their pricing sends the right message to clients and reflects the true value of their services. [read the transcript]

The post ALP 269: Pricing psychology for agency clients appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.