Employee Login

Enter your login information to access the intranet

Enter your credentials to access your email

Reset employee password

Article

Why Your AI Rollout Is Stalling (And What Actually Moves the Needle)

March 25, 2026
By Zack Kavanaugh

Most organizations are investing heavily in AI but seeing minimal return. The tools are rolling out. The impact isn’t landing. This article examines why adoption is stalling, what employees are really feeling and why a new model for change is essential to close the gap between investment and outcomes. 

There’s a paradox unfolding in organizations right now – and its quietly derailing AI initiatives at scale. 

Companies are pouring millions – in some cases, billions – into AI infrastructure. Platforms are deploying. Training programs are launching. And yet, most organizations report that their AI efforts aren’t delivering the results they expected.  

In fact, 95% of generative AI pilots fail to reach measurable business impact. Only 1% of organizations consider their deployments truly mature. And across the workforce, a third of employees are actively considering leaving over unclear AI expectations and lack of support. 

The investment is real. The adoption and impact is missing – and the disconnect is striking.  

So, what gives? 

What we’ve learned supporting organizations through AI transformation is this: they’re treating it like a technology problem when it’s actually a people problem. And until we acknowledge that difference, adoption – and business impact along with it – will continue to stall. 

The Emotions Nobody’s Talking About 

Walk into most organizations right now, and the conversation sounds logical. “Here’s the business case. Here’s the ROI. Here’s the productivity uplift.” But underneath that rational overlay is something messier – and infinitely more powerful: how people actually feel

The data points here are endless – and we could marshal dozens more to prove that adoption is stalling. But honestly? They don’t really matter. What does matter is whether you feel your organization is progressing at the rate you know it’s capable of.  

If not, or if you don’t know where to start to answer that question, it may be time to look closely at your adoption strategy.  

The AI Readiness Gap 

This is the mistake we see companies continuing to make: assuming a strong business case is enough to win people over. We’re treating AI adoption like a switch you flip, when it’s actually a continuous, messy, non-linear process that requires people to move through change at different speeds. 

Most organizations are still leaning on traditional change models – the kind that default to logic and expect a single launch moment to do the heavy lifting.  

But AI transformation isn’t a single moment. It’s not a product launch. It’s a fundamental shift in how people think about their work, what they value in their roles and whether they trust the organization to shepherd them through it. 

That gap – between what leaders expect and what employees experience – is the real barrier to adoption. 

A Different Path Forward 

What’s needed is a model designed for how people actually change. Not how we think they should change. How they actually do. 

The good news: that change management model exists; it features three phases and three layers of employees’ experience, and all three matter equally: 

Phase 1: Normalization – The Emotional Layer 

Normalization is about shifting mindsets – listening, building psychological safety and trust, de-weirding tools and making AI part of everyday conversation. Before anyone can adopt anything, they need to feel safe, seen and supported. This means listening before launching.  

It also means leaders modeling vulnerability, not just expertise. And it means identifying trusted voices –both champions and skeptics – and giving them visibility in shaping the journey. When you remove the mystique around AI and make it visible in how people actually talk and work, adoption becomes possible. Listening earns you permission to lead. 

Phase 2: Experimentation – The Personal Layer 

Experimentation is about shaping habits – encouraging participation and creating low-risk opportunities to try, learn, fail safely and reflect. Once people feel safe, they’re ready to connect AI to their own work and identity.  

This is where curiosity replaces skepticism. You can help replace skepticism with curiosity when you share stories from peers – not polished case studies, but real moments where someone figured something out or tried something that didn’t work. When people see themselves in the adoption story, they move from “this doesn’t apply to me” to “I see where this helps.” Experiments become personal. Habits begin to form. Failure becomes data, not judgment. 

Phase 3: Integration – The Operational Layer 

Integration is about scaling impact – building and validating use cases, measuring value, embedding AI into workflows and scaling solutions. When adoption becomes embedded in how work actually happens, impact becomes measurable and repeatable.  

Proven experiments turn into templates and workflows. Success stories become standard operating procedures. Recognition systems reward AI fluency. And AI stops feeling like the new initiative and starts feeling like “just how we work.”

The Continuum, Not the Launch 

The shift here is fundamental. Instead of treating adoption as a destination, we’re treating it as a progression.  

Instead of betting everything on a single launch moment, latest tool or new corporate mandate, we’re developing constant feedback loops. Instead of assuming readiness, we’re building it – intentionally, measurably and with employees at the center.  

Whether you’re leading an organization, a department or a team, your people will never move cleanly through one phase alone. They will move at their own pace. Some people will be experimenting while others are just beginning to normalize. And as new information emerges, they will oscillate back and forth – revisiting earlier phases to deepen their foundation before moving forward again. 

The bottom line: AI adoption accelerates only when the environment is ready – when culture, clarity and context catch up to ambition. That’s when change starts to feel real. And when people decide it’s worth leaning in.  

More to come on all this. Stay tuned.  

Article

Get the Report: Inside China’s 2026 Two Sessions

March 24, 2026

China just locked in its economic roadmap for the next four years with a 4.5–5% growth target. Here’s what matters: The 2026 Two Sessions formally endorse a pivot toward innovation-driven growth, economic resilience and calibrated openness that reshapes how global companies operate, partner and communicate across markets.

Our latest analysis cuts through the noise to explain what actually matters for your organization in 2026. Based on observation and conversations with leaders across sectors and regions, it examines the strategic context, the trade-offs China is managing and what corporate communications professionals need to know to navigate influence and opportunity in this environment.

Article

The New Culture Gap Report: How Brands Stay Relevant for 100 Years

The lifespan is expanding. By 2050, the population aged 100 and older will reach 3.7 million. For brands, this changes everything about loyalty.

Your customer at 25 won’t be the same person at 75. The brands that win aren’t chasing quarterly engagement metrics. They’re building for something longer and deeper: relevance across a century-long life. Meanwhile, 73 percent of consumers feel the world is more unstable than ever, driving what we call Existential Consumerism. They’re optimizing their bodies, securing their futures, protecting their identities. The paradox: the systems designed to deliver control are quietly eroding it.

Our latest Culture Gap Report commissioned by FleishmanHilllard UK, The 100-Year Life Brand Opportunity, explores how brands can stay meaningful across decades of profound change. We reveal the consumer shifts redefining loyalty and the strategic moves that separate brands built to last from those built to trend. Get top findings here or dive into the full report below:

Click above to get the latest Culture Report.
Article

FleishmanHillard Named Among PRovoke Media’s Best Public Relations Agencies in the World

March 10, 2026

FleishmanHillard has been recognized by PRovoke Media as one of the Best Public Relations Agencies in the World, earning recognitions as a top agency in Consumer, Technology, Healthcare, Public Affairs and Corporate public relations.

The recognition comes from PRovoke Media’s comprehensive 12-month analysis of the global PR industry to compile they describe as “the most thorough assessment of the public relations agency landscape.”

Agencies were evaluated based on financial performance, quality of creative work, culture and employer brand, innovative products and services and contributions to industry thought leadership.

The recognition reflects FleishmanHillard’s position as a global communications consultancy redefining modern communications through the integration of AI, data and earned-first creativity as standard tools across its teams while ensuring counselors understand data to design solutions with clients rather than simply deploying them.

Article

The Tech Industry’s License to Lead Problem: How Tech Companies Made Themselves Vulnerable to the AI and SaaS Apocalypse Doubt

March 4, 2026
By Michelle Mulkey

Last week, a short-seller’s Substack moved markets. AI companies were drawing red lines with the U.S. government while also backing away from brand promises. And then rethinking after stakeholder backlash. Earnings reports reinforced an ever-widening gap between the strength of their outlook and the stock price. What is going on?

Tech companies have masterfully sold AI capabilities to their customer base. What they haven’t done is bring their other stakeholders—investors, employees, policymakers and the broader public—along on a coherent story about what it all means or why it matters to them.

The B2B Trap

For too long, the B2B technology industry has been plagued by a self-inflicted wound: the product-as-brand trap, an approach that fundamentally misunderstands the complexity of the modern B2B buying cycle. Driven by engineering-led cultures and the relentless pressure of quarterly product cycles, tech companies have overwhelmingly prioritized the “what” over the “why.” And, as a result, they built their entire communications infrastructure around a single audience: enterprise buyers. When AI emerged as a transformative technology with profound implications for jobs, the economy, regulation and society, tech companies simply applied the same playbook: speaking technical hype to those with purchase authority.

This worked when the only stakeholder that mattered was the customer signing the contract. But it no longer does. Today, a B2B product message isn’t the same thing as a corporate narrative that builds belief and drives competitive differentiation in the minds of investors, talent, regulators and society. While tech companies optimized sales messaging, they surrendered the authority to shape how stakeholders understand the broader implications of their innovations. Investors, employees and the public have filled that void with their own narratives. Most of them anxious.

The License to Lead Data

This vulnerability is directly rooted in abandoning what our License to Lead research, first released in January, reveals about how to create stakeholder confidence beyond the tech buyer. The data is unambiguous: stakeholders don’t extend confidence based on technical prowess alone. They extend it when companies demonstrate ethical behavior (24%), clear communication (21%), integrity (76%), and accountability (74%). Tech companies have leaned entirely into capability claims while neglecting the foundational work of stakeholder engagement and transparency.

Worse, they’ve created a credibility liability. When employees worry about job displacement and hear only technical defensiveness, confidence erodes. When investors question AI’s ROI or how SaaS fits into an AI future and get more hype and hyperbole, belief wanes. When society hears about AI’s economic impact and starts to experience its energy impact, skepticism hardens into doubt and resistance, which is exactly what we’re seeing in current market valuations.

The Path Forward

The good news: It’s not too late. The companies that shift from product-centric hype to an authentic corporate storytelling that own the “why,” engages honestly about implications and drives to clear takeaways about differentiation and impact will be the ones that regain and retain stakeholder confidence, investor trust and ultimately, their License to Lead in this critical moment.

The research on License to Lead presents an urgent corrective that demands a fundamental shift for the tech industry. Communications leaders have to reposition themselves as the builders of stakeholder confidence and the architects of strategic clarity.

Article

The Five Principles of Decision-Ready Intelligence: A Framework for Making Hard Calls in an AI-driven Environment

March 3, 2026

Powered by TRUE Global Intelligence

Organizations are generating more data than ever, and AI tools are now being woven into nearly every corner of decision-making. But the speed and volume of these new systems have created a new risk for leaders: intelligence that looks authoritative at first blush but falls apart under scrutiny.

When confidence is eroded, it doesn’t merely lead to bad decisions, it undermines leaders’ ability to act at all. As our recent License to Lead research shows, when stakeholders lose confidence in how decisions are made, leaders lose the permission to adapt and execute when strategies shift.

The gap between what technology can do and what leaders actually need has never been wider. We take a clear-eyed look at why that gap is widening, and how leaders can close it with decision-ready intelligence. At the center are five principles that set the standard for intelligence that is grounded in reality, driven by context, strengthened by human expertise and resilient under pressure.

The Challenge

Across boardrooms, a new tension is emerging: leaders are being asked to make faster, higher-stakes decisions with intelligence systems that haven’t kept pace with the speed or complexity of the market.

AI has changed the workflow, but not always for the better. It produces more information, more quickly, and with more confidence, even when the underlying signals are fragmented, distorted, or outright manufactured.

Executives are finding themselves in meetings where numbers look precise but fall apart under basic scrutiny. Social listening feeds inflate trends driven by bots. Tools and algorithms give weight to the loudest voices instead of the most relevant ones. AI-generated analyses confidently misread sarcasm, context, or policy detail. And teams don’t realize the flaws until the decision is made.

The hype is fueling the problem. Many teams now treat AI outputs as inherently superior to human interpretation, even when the model draws from noisy data or fills gaps with unsubstantiated guesses. As a result, leaders are making strategic decisions based on insights that feel authoritative but aren’t anchored in anything verifiable.

Why This Matters

In a moment when nearly every information stream is compromised by platform shifts, algorithmic changes, and generative noise, some of the most consequential choices inside organizations today are informed by dashboards and summaries that no one has fully interrogated.

Many organizations are starting to feel the consequences: strategy built on thin intelligence, misreads of sentiment leading to audience disconnects, delayed course corrections, and a growing sense that the tools meant to make decisions easier are, in reality, making them riskier.

As our License to Lead research shows, credibility is the gating factor for action. Ninety-two percent of engaged consumers say companies with strong reputations have greater permission to undertake major business transformations.

External benchmarks also show the stakes are real. Gitnux reports that poor underlying intelligence tied to bad data costs companies an average of $12.9M a year. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of companies report a direct impact on their bottom line due to poor data, eroding 15-25% of revenue. An estimated 40% of AI projects fail to deliver ROI due to poor data quality.

What’s missing is clarity, and the discipline to separate what is real from what merely appears to be. That gap is driving the need for decision-ready intelligence: insight that is accurate, contextual, and defensible under pressure.

The Five Principles of Decision-Ready Intelligence

TRUE Global Intelligence, FleishmanHillard’s intelligence consultancy, developed the Principles of Decision-Ready Intelligence to close that gap. These principles define the standards required to generate insight leaders can trust in an environment where speed, hype, and noise increasingly shape the inputs behind major strategic decisions.

1. Quality & Organization

Inputs must be right before outputs can be trusted, and there are two core tenets.

First, data must be accurate, verified, enriched, and reviewable. That means clear processes for validation and traceability so leaders know exactly where inputs came from and whether they meet the standard for decision-making. This also includes understanding how different file formats, structures, and metadata are interpreted by AI models so inputs aren’t distorted before analysis even begins.

Second, a wide net is not a wise net. Leaders need relevance, so part of our job is to guide clients toward the sources that reflect meaningful public or stakeholder signals and away from the noise masquerading as insight.

If this first foundation isn’t sound, nothing built on top of it is reliable.

2. Context & Focus

Decision-ready intelligence starts with alignment: What strategic, business, or communications question are we trying to answer?

When this question is clear, analysis becomes sharper. It prioritizes the variables that matter and starts relying on smaller, high-quality datasets. It favors focused methods that reveal why something is happening, not just what happened.

Too much analysis is disconnected from the decision it is meant to inform. Dashboards bloat, metrics add up, and models optimize for volume rather than clarity. The result is intelligence that reports activity without explaining meaning.

Insight is only useful when it answers the question at hand.

3. Guardrails and Expertise

AI accelerates the work. It does not replace judgment.

There is a misconception that automation reduces the need for experienced oversight. In reality, it magnifies the consequences of getting something wrong.

Decision-ready intelligence relies on experts who understand the limits of the data, the behavior of platforms, the context behind anomalies, and the boundaries of what any model can reasonably reveal. They bring the pattern recognition of AI lacks, set guardrails, validate assumptions, and challenge outputs. Most importantly, they recognize when something can’t be answered.

This is a form of discipline that ensures that speed never outruns accuracy or context.

4. Curiosity & Critical Thinking

AI delivers answers with certainty, even when the signals behind them are unstable. The risk is not just the error itself; it’s the false confidence attached to the error.

That’s why curiosity and critical thinking play an integral role in this framework. Curiosity triggers are the moments when something in the data doesn’t add up: a spike that doesn’t match the environment, a contradiction across sources, or a pattern that defies logic.

Through critical thinking, we can trace these anomalies back to their source, understand whether the data reflect a real-world signal or a model artifact, and, if something shouldn’t exist, adjust the process so it doesn’t reappear.

This human layer of understanding ensures conclusions can stand up to internal review, external challenges, and the decision itself.

5. Shared Literacy & Accountability

The ultimate purpose of intelligence is action, and most actions at the leadership level are strategic decisions: how to position, when to engage, what to say, where to invest, what risk to take.

That’s why shared literacy and accountability are part of the intelligence discipline as stakeholders work together to give the analysis strategic direction.

This principle connects directly back to Context & Focus. When the intelligence work is built around a specific strategic question, we must answer that question head-on.

It also creates shared understanding across teams. Without that shared literacy, strategy splinters. Not because the intelligence was wrong, but because it wasn’t communicated in a way that aligned the people responsible for acting on it.

This is the standard moving forward.

The pressure on leaders isn’t going to ease. AI will continue to accelerate workflows, expand access to data, and reshape how information moves across organizations. Without standards, speed simply amplifies whatever is already there, good or bad.

The organizations that will navigate this moment effectively are the ones building the discipline to question what their tools produce, align around shared interpretation, and hold the work to a standard that reflects the stakes.

The Principles of Decision-Ready Intelligence provide the structure to meet that responsibility. They help teams narrow the signal, apply context, challenge assumptions, and ensure intelligence is something leaders can act on. And as the information environment becomes more complex, that discipline becomes the differentiator.

Decision-ready intelligence is one of the few levers leaders fully control to strengthen their License to Lead, building confidence before decisions are tested rather than trying to recover it afterward.

Decision-ready intelligence isn’t optional. AI can support strategic judgment, but it cannot take responsibility for it. We remain accountable for the decisions we make.

That accountability extends to the partners we choose. Communications leaders should expect and demand more rigor from the tools, vendors, and agencies they engage. At a minimum, they should ask:

  • Where does the data come from?
  • How is it validated?
  • Who is interpreting the data, and how?
  • What guardrails are in place when the model gets it wrong?
  • What standard does this intelligence have to meet before it reaches a decision-maker?

If a partner can’t answer those questions clearly, they’re not providing intelligence; they’re providing risk. You should demand insight that is real, relevant, and ready for decisions that carry real consequences.

Lead Authors: Ben Levine, Ines Schumacher, Eric Rydell

Article

The Patient Engagement Gap Your Competitors Are Closing

February 26, 2026
By Barry Sudbeck

Here’s a question more pharma executives are asking: Does patient engagement move the needle, or is it just good optics?

It’s a fair question.

In an era where pharmaceutical innovation must prove its value not only through clinical efficacy but also through demonstrated patient relevance, the question is no longer ‘whether’ to engage patients—it’s whether that engagement translates into an advantage.

New research from FleishmanHillard’s Global Health & Life Sciences group found it might. Released in recognition of Rare Disease Day, The Patient Engagement Premium: Defining the Strategic Value of Patient Input in Drug Development examines FDA submissions for rare disease therapies approved between 2018 and 2024 and finds directional associations between documented patient input and regulatory outcomes.

From Philosophy to Evidence

The shift from transactional patient engagement to embedded patient evidence isn’t new thinking though, but it is accelerating practice. And as regulatory scrutiny of traditional DTC channels intensifies and Health Technology Assessment bodies increasingly consult patient advocacy organizations, companies face a choice: embed patient evidence directly into development processes, or risk losing ground to those who do.

But let’s be honest, executive decision-makers demand more than anecdote. This research represents a crucial step toward establishing a measurable evidence base for patient engagement as a strategic investment, not just a values statement.

A Rigorous Approach to a Complex Question

The analysis examined 179 rare disease drug approvals that included Patient Experience Data (PED) tables, a requirement formalized following the 21st Century Cures Act. Each product was assigned a ‘Patient Engagement Score’ based on six distinct engagement activities, from patient advisory committee insights to patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinical outcome assessments (COAs).

Here’s what we found:

  • Patient input is increasingly embedded in regulatory submissions. Nearly nine in ten submissions in 2023-2024 explicitly cited at least one patient engagement activity, up markedly from earlier in the study period. PRO and COA data have become the most common form of patient input, signaling that companies may be integrating patient insights systematically and earlier in development.
  • Higher engagement scores trended with patient-centered labeling. Products with label claims tied to patient input averaged 1.4 documented engagement categories versus 1.0 for those without, a modest but directional association that could confer commercial advantage.
  • Company size isn’t a barrier. Mid-cap sponsors engaged in patient-centered activities nearly as frequently as large pharmaceutical companies. Translation? The potential benefits of patient engagement appear accessible across the competitive landscape.

What Happens to Companies That Don’t Move?

Let’s be clear: the evidence base is still developing, and these associations are directional rather than conclusive. But the implications are hard to ignore.

Patient engagement is evolving from ethical consideration to strategic necessity. Companies are prioritizing structured, quantifiable patient data, particularly PROs and COAs, for FDA submissions. Yet many underutilize other pathways, including patient organization partnerships and patient preference studies. That suggests that comprehensive investment in the full spectrum of patient evidence could be an untapped competitive edge.

For smaller companies not yet systematically integrating patient perspectives, the takeaway is encouraging, structured engagement may level the playing field. For larger companies that under-invest in patient input, the risk is equally clear, patient-centered rivals may be building advantages that compound over time.

Looking Ahead

As the evidence base expands and sponsors document patient engagement more comprehensively, clearer patterns will likely emerge. But the direction of travel is already obvious: regulators, payers, and patients themselves are reshaping how innovation is valued. Companies that embed patient engagement as foundational, not peripheral, will compound advantage across regulatory, payer and reputation landscapes. The infrastructure to do it exists. The question is in the execution.

Our approach combines regulatory expertise with data science and AI tools to help clients operationalize patient input across the product lifecycle, ensuring innovation is positioned as both evidence-driven and human-centered.

The pharmaceutical industry is at an inflection point. The companies that treat patient engagement as foundational—not peripheral—will define what comes next.

To access the full report or discuss how strategic patient engagement can create value for your organization, visit fleishmanhillard.com or contact Barry Sudbeck and Laura Musgrave, Patient Engagement Specialists with FleishmanHillard’s Global Health & Life Sciences group.

Click the image to download our Global Health & Life Sciences patient engagement analysis

Article

AI is Reshaping Communications: Inside FleishmanHillard’s Enterprise-Wide Approach

February 19, 2026

In his new Forbes piece, Bernard Marr explores the breakneck pace of AI transformation in the communications landscape with Ephraim Cohen, FleishmanHillard’s global head of data and digital. Cohen reveals that unlike past technological shifts that took decades to prepare for, today’s AI evolution is happening so rapidly that even full-time experts are struggling to keep pace.

Watch Their Full Conversation Here:

Three Key Takeaways:

1. Democratizing AI Across the Organization Rather than creating an elite “AI team,” Cohen outlines empowering every employee with hands-on access to frontier models and training. This bottom-up approach has yielded more powerful, bespoke solutions because they’re built by people who intimately understand client challenges, rather than strictly technical specialists.

2. The Power of Curated Knowledge Libraries Building digitized libraries of proven case studies and best practices that feed AI agents creates more relevant, accurate outputs than relying on open internet training data. For crisis simulations and campaign work, this approach delivers precision over generic AI-generated content.

3. Keeping Humans in the Driver’s Seat Cohen emphasizes that human creativity remains paramount. AI works best as a talented assistant—helping test, refine, and optimize human ideas, not replacing them. The result: less “AI slop,” more polished, high-impact work.

Article

A Rubber Stamp or Chaotic Exit? A Strategic Approach to USMCA Uncertainty

February 12, 2026
By Donna Fontana

With the approaching July 1, 2026, mandatory review of the USMCA trade deal, business leaders need to be on their front foot to keep stakeholders assured of their ability to operate, no matter the outcome. Negotiated during the first Trump administration in 2019, this administration has already stated it will not rubber-stamp the next iteration and is negotiating for concessions, while it also continues separate talks with Mexico and Canada for potential new bi-lateral agreements. Most recently, media reports that Trump is considering withdrawal as a nuclear option as well.

Yet the context for this negotiation has shifted beyond bilateral U.S.-Canada-Mexico dynamics. Mark Carney’s Davos speech signaling that alternative trade architectures are possible has empowered countries to consider diversification beyond U.S.-centric arrangements. For companies, this creates a more complex calculation: the outcome of USMCA renegotiation now intersects with broader geopolitical realignment that will affect market access and positioning beyond North America.

As we’ve seen over the past 12 months, trade and tariff negotiations come with a genuine, but unclear risk with a spectrum of possible outcomes:

  • The deal gets renewed with modest concessions (labor provisions tightened, critical minerals collaboration added, Rule of Origin adjusted).
  • On the other end: Trump follows through on exit threats, tariffs spike, supply chains scramble.
  • Or we end up in the somewhere in the middle with a period of extended ambiguity where the deal’s fate is unclear, decisions get delayed, and market uncertainty persists for months or longer.

Do you try to influence that outcome through strategic communications or stay silent and potentially face greater risk if the worst-case emerges?

Three Potential Reputation Risks

Risk 1: Being Seen as Unprepared if your company hasn’t communicated USMCA’s impact on your business to stakeholders with proactive plans for managing the potential risk to your supply chain.  The situation demands clarity. Can you articulate in 30 seconds why USMCA matters (or doesn’t matter) to your business?

Risk 2: Being Blindsided by Your Own Stakeholders Your trade association is mobilizing. Your competitors are taking positions. Your suppliers are making contingency plans. If you’re silent while everyone else acts, you’ll look reactive when you eventually have to respond.

This happens because urgency compounds. In February, speaking up is a thoughtful choice. In May, it looks defensive. In July, it looks panicked.

Risk 3: Having Your Position Misunderstood If you don’t clarify your view on USMCA early, people will infer one. That inference is often wrong. A company that’s genuinely exposed to Mexico tariffs but stays silent gets read as either indifferent or politically opposed to Trump. Neither is probably true, but silence creates a vacuum that gets filled by assumption.

Critical Context: Distinguishing Negotiating Theater from Genuine Threats

One overlooked dimension of USMCA risk is distinguishing genuine policy shifts from negotiating theater. Some observers say that President Trump’s documented pattern with major trade decisions is to escalate to the “cliff edge” through public threats, then either negotiate a compromise or implement partial measures. Understanding which scenario you’re in will determine your response intensity.

Companies that respond to every statement as existential crisis will exhaust stakeholders and damage credibility. Those that can distinguish signal from noise will preserve organizational energy for when real decisions are being made. Monitor not just the rhetoric, but whether it’s accompanied by institutional action that suggests implementation.

Next Steps for Communicators

1. Get a realistic view of your company’s exposure:

Stakeholder interest: How much do your investors care about this? How much do your employees in Mexico/Canada care about this? (Will they worry if you’re silent?) How much do your customers care about this? (Would tariff increases affect pricing you can offer them?) How much do policymakers care about your view? (Do you have any actual influence?)

Additionally, map your non-North American stakeholder exposure: How important are European or Asian markets to your business? Do you have significant operations or customers in markets signaling openness to alternative trade relationships (per Mark Carney’s Davos call for countries to resist U.S. economic coercion)? Could public positioning that strongly aligns with Trump’s approach to USMCA alienate stakeholders in other markets? This matters because the geopolitical context is shifting. Countries are actively building alternatives to U.S.-centric trade architecture.

Supply chain: What percentage of your inputs come from Mexico or Canada? Which of your products would be most affected by tariffs on those inputs? How much pricing power do you have to pass through tariff increases? What’s your realistic mitigation (inventory, alternative suppliers, nearshoring, product shifts)?

Tariff options: Do you actually need USMCA continuity, or could you adapt to tariffs? Are there specific terms (labor, environment, digital trade, Rule of Origin) that matter to you beyond just the deal existing? Would your business be better served by bilateral deals with Mexico/Canada rather than tri-lateral? Do you have competitive exposure? (Would tariffs on inputs hurt you more or less than competitors?)

If the answer to most of these is “not much,” maybe your communications strategy is to stay informed but quiet. If the answer is “a lot,” you have to engage more visibly.

2. Prepare a messaging framework and response plan that allows you to be strategically engaged without being operationally alarmist. While you should be honest about uncertainty, emphasize continuity in messaging. Connect to broader business interest—jobs, innovation, community—not just tariffs. Importantly, frame your USMCA position as aligned with business growth and market access broadly, not as opposition to or appeasement of any particular administration or policy approach. This positioning gives you flexibility as political winds shift (e.g., if Congress exerts pressure to preserve USMCA, or if alternative trade relationships emerge) while maintaining credibility with diverse stakeholders. Avoid language that boxes you into a corner if the geopolitical or political context changes.

In addition, check in with your trade association(s). You may have the option to publicly align with their position and provide quiet support.

As you develop a response plan with messaging aligned with each potential outcome, be inclusive of direct communications to key stakeholders including briefings to analysts/investors, employees, suppliers and customer briefings if you have a very high exposure.

3. Monitoring seems obvious, but things change fast these days. Watch the news and trade publications, but also USTR announcements and congressional activity. Keep an eye on the signposts that indicate whether outcomes are moving toward your scenario or away from it: is the administration signaling progress, are either Mexico and/or Canada making public concessions (even symbolic ones) on key terms, is public pressure coming from business leaders, does Trump publicly or repeatedly threaten withdrawal or shifts statements to bi-lateral rather than tri-lateral? All of these require adjustment to your communication plans.

USMCA is genuinely in flux. How much flux is the guess. As most communicators understand, you plan for the most possible flux, and hope for the least. Understand your exposure. Clarify your interests. Communicate your position clearly. Monitor signposts that tell you whether things are moving toward deal renewal, extended ambiguity, or collapse.

Reputations can be cemented in challenging times. Companies that understand both the genuine risks and the political constraints, that map their exposure accurately, that clarify their position early, and that avoid alienating stakeholders in markets beyond North America will emerge from this stronger. Those that simply react, or that optimize for one narrow audience at the expense of others, will find themselves disadvantaged regardless of which USMCA outcome materializes. Preparation and positioning are not just defensive; they’re competitive differentiators in a shifting landscape.

Donna Fontana width= With 35 years of experience in the B2B and industrial sectors, Donna Fontana is the global lead for the firm’s manufacturing and energy practice and serves as the general manager of FleishmanHillard’s Detroit office.

 
Click above to download our Leadership Playbook ‘License To Lead’
Article

From the Super Bowl to the World Stage: What Health’s Cultural Moment Means Now

February 11, 2026
By Jacob Porpossian

Super Bowl LX offered more than a strong showing for health and pharma brands. It signaled something more durable: health is no longer a category that waits for cultural permission. It’s actively shaping culture on the world’s biggest stages. That shift matters.

Roughly seven major health and pharma campaigns aired during the big game. But what stood out wasn’t volume. It was confidence. These brands claimed space alongside beer, cars, and tech.

More importantly, this moment shouldn’t be viewed in isolation. As we look ahead to the Olympics and the World Cup, we’re entering an extraordinary run of global tentpole moments where health, science, performance, access, and equity will increasingly intersect with culture at scale. Super Bowl LX was an early proof point.

What the strongest work got right

Across categories and geographies, the most effective campaigns shared three defining moves.

1. Stigma reduction through entertainment
Novartis used NFL tight ends to make prostate screening feel approachable, even funny, rather than fearful. Boehringer Ingelheim reframed early-detection testing as a “mission,” turning anxiety into agency. Humor and storytelling didn’t trivialize health; they unlocked attention, relatability, and permission.

2. Normalizing everyday health decisions
GLP-1 related ads put the focus on being human and positioned their treatment options as support and empowerment for patients, not intervention. These brands met people where they are. Not where the healthcare system wishes they were.

3. Cultural clarity
Simple metaphors. Human voices. Ideas that survived the post-game social conversation and shaped Monday-morning dialogue. The work that traveled didn’t over-explain science; it translated it.

The bigger signal

Industry and media reaction underscored a structural shift playing out globally: health is no longer purely clinical. It’s lifestyle-adjacent, values-driven, and culturally expressive. The brands that resonated weren’t just marketing products. They functioned as cultural facilitators, translating science into relevance, credibility, and permission. For trust-based, highly regulated categories, this is the difference between building confidence and eroding it.

Why this matters now

As health brands look ahead to the world’s next major cultural moments, the opportunity (and responsibility) is clear.

Cultural strategy and creative as core health capabilities
Brands need to enter culture without trivializing health, balancing regulatory rigor with entertainment and emotion. This requires earned-first thinking that travels across markets and moments.

Integrated moment marketing
Impact now lives across broadcast, social, earned media, influencers, and executive voice working together. The most effective programs build always-on platforms that culminate in tentpole moments, rather than relying on one-off activations.

Prevention and behavior-change storytelling
As healthcare moves upstream toward screening, early detection, and access, brands must reduce fear and inertia. That demands new creative frameworks that motivate action without alarm.

Corporate narrative alignment
Many of these campaigns carried implicit corporate messages around innovation, access, and equity. As scrutiny around healthcare ethics and pricing intensifies, alignment between brand, corporate, and leadership narratives becomes essential; not optional.

Looking ahead

Health is moving faster than many organizations are prepared to follow. The brands that succeed will be those that show up credibly, responsibly, and creatively. Not just during one event, but consistently across the world’s biggest cultural stages.

With the next Super Bowl less than a year away and the Olympics and World Cup on the horizon the window to plan thoughtfully is already open.

Jacob Popossian width= Jacob Porpossian is the Global Executive Creative Director for FleishmanHillard’s Health & Life Sciences practice, where he builds and leads creative and storytelling capabilities for major health brands. With a background spanning creative strategy, digital marketing, communications, and production, he advises integrated teams across healthcare, CPG, corporate, and technology sectors, while also championing diversity and inclusion initiatives across the agency and industry.