Employee Login

Enter your login information to access the intranet

Enter your credentials to access your email

Reset employee password

Article

AI Is a Business Imperative, But It’s a People Challenge First

June 12, 2025
By Elana Sindelar

As AI continues to reshape industries, organizations must take proactive steps to engage their workforce in these emerging technologies or risk falling behind. In this series, we will share insights to help leaders ask the right questions, engage and empower their teams, and position their organizations for long-term success in an AI-driven world.

Driving a People-First Adoption Strategy

Whether you work in IT, finance, healthcare, manufacturing, retail, agriculture or any other space—you can no longer afford to view AI as a future consideration. The time to prioritize AI was yesterday. As we enter the second half of a century-defining decade, the gap between companies that empower their workforce for AI-driven change and those that resist it will only continue to widen.

Yet many face real tension—move too quickly, and risk confusion, backlash or missteps that expose the business to unnecessary risk; move too slowly and fall behind competitors or miss out on transformational opportunities. The right path isn’t at either extreme. It’s a disciplined, step-by-step journey rooted in clear communication and a people-first strategy that helps employees navigate disruption with clarity, support and agency. The more planful your organization is, the more equipped you will be to ride the tidal wave of AI innovation coming your way.

A multidimensional approach requires effective communication, cultural readiness, engaged leaders, a skilled workforce, robust infrastructure, and organization-wide AI alignment.

Embracing the Four Pillars of AI Readiness

Future-focused leaders must think critically about how their people, at every level, are thinking, feeling and acting in response to AI-driven change. True readiness goes beyond systems and strategies and is rooted in your people.

Culture

Cultural readiness is about how employees feel—whether they are curious, confident or concerned about AI’s impact on their work. Organizations should create space for conversations about the future of work, and how roles may change in the age of AI. Communication and training must address hesitations directly and intentionally to build belief, trust and understanding around AI’s potential.

Leadership

Leaders need to model behaviors that build trust, safety and resilience during AI transformation. Visible champions of change will reinforce the connection between AI initiatives and the broader business strategy, and create an environment where employees feel supported, empowered and motivated to engage with new technologies.

Knowledge

Bridging knowledge gaps calls for a focus on both skillsets and mindsets. Organizations must explain why AI matters, how it impacts roles and how employees can use it to thrive.

Infrastructure

While infrastructure decisions may reside within IT, communications play a critical role in translating what system changes mean for employees. Communicators are essential to clarify how tools and changes will support safer, better ways of working.

Building this foundation across culture, leadership, knowledge and infrastructure is essential, but understanding your organization’s starting point is just as critical. By asking the right questions, you can identify strengths to build on, vulnerabilities to address and opportunities to align your teams around a clear, honest path forward.

Assessing Your Employees’ AI Readiness

AI transformation is a cross-functional effort, requiring coordination across the executive team, operations, technology — and critically, communications. Communications teams play a pivotal role in assessing organizational readiness, shaping a corresponding narrative around AI adoption and building trust across the organization. Asking yourself these questions can help clarify where your organization stands and where to go next:

Culture

  • Are leaders and employees open to AI adoption?
  • Do employees perceive AI as a threat or an opportunity?
  • Is there a clear understanding of how AI can benefit the company?
  • Does our culture support innovation and experimentation?
  • Do employees feel safe raising concerns, questions or ideas about AI without fear of judgment?

Leadership

  • Is AI a strategic priority for company leaders?
  • Are leaders visibly modeling openness, curiosity and resilience around AI change?
  • Are leaders connecting AI initiatives to the company’s broader mission and purpose in a clear, human-centered way?
  • Are leaders actively listening to employees’ concerns and ideas about AI and incorporating that feedback into decision-making?
  • Are AI investments aligned with business strategy and long-term goals?
  • Do executives understand the risks and opportunities of AI?

Knowledge

  • Are employees clearly informed about how AI systems will impact their work?
  • Do employees have AI-related technical skills?
  • Are there AI literacy programs for nontechnical staff?
  • Is there a talent acquisition strategy for AI expertise?
  • Are employees given clear examples of how AI will make their jobs easier, more impactful or more strategic?

Infrastructure

  • Are AI policies, governance, ethics and security protocols communicated clearly to employees?
  • Are concerns about AI openly acknowledged and addressed in communications?
  • Does our organization have a dedicated function/team or clear points of contact for our AI efforts?
  • Are new AI tools introduced with practical training and ongoing support?

What’s Next?

Start with what you know. If your people seem unsure or skeptical, focus on building trust and curiosity. If your leaders lack engagement, explain why AI matters and provide a framework they can use to model the mindset you want to see. AI readiness is about steady, people-first progress — not perfection. Steps forward could look like any or all of the following:

  • Live AI demo during an upcoming meeting
  • Fireside chat with a leader exploring the why and how of your company’s AI strategy
  • AI checklist outlining ways your organization can use AI to increase efficiency and drive business outcomes

There is no one-size-fits-all path to making an organization AI-ready, but leaders who critically examine their current state and take decisive action will be better positioned to thrive. The success of any AI initiative hinges on how well people understand and adopt it. Clear communication and strategic alignment are essential, and that’s where we can assist — helping you navigate change, engage and align your workforce and ensure a smooth transition.

Elana Sindelar Elana Sindelar works in FleishmanHillard’s Talent + Transformation practice with experience in change management, employee experience and internal communications. She has supported clients through major IT transformations, corporate rebrands and M&A activity. Elana currently focuses on exploring AI’s effect on the future of work, including how the emerging technology is reshaping the employee experience.

 
Article

Protecting Relationships During a Cyber Crisis

June 3, 2025
By Cody Want

When a cyber incident hits, IT and legal are often the first to get the call—for good reason. IT teams must act swiftly to contain, remediate and investigate the breach, while legal teams must ensure compliance with regulatory and contractual obligations and manage legal exposure.

But a strictly technical or legal lens can narrow your field of vision. Without broader perspective, you risk overlooking the long-term impact on trust and reputation. In the critical early hours of a response, you need someone in the room to ask: “Now that we know what we’re required to do—what else should we do?”

How you manage the technical and procedural aspects of a cyber incident is essential—it’s foundational to restoring operational confidence. But reputation isn’t built on competence alone; it’s a true test of values. In a crisis, stakeholders are paying attention not only to what you do, but how you engage—and whether your actions reflect the commitments you’ve made in steadier times. The impressions formed in these moments of uncertainty can endure far beyond the incident itself.

Think of cyber incident response as a three-legged stool: IT, legal and communications. Without that third leg, your response may be technically compliant—but misaligned and disconnected from the broader reality of stakeholder expectations. That imbalance can compound risk.

Communicating through a cyber crisis is rarely straightforward. There’s significant pressure to provide clarity on the situation, but forensic investigations take time, threat actors cover their tracks and facts change. The difficulty of navigating these considerations—and the potential impact of a misstep—doesn’t mean you should downplay the need to communicate. It means it’s more important than ever to fill that space, especially when the demand for communications is highest.

That complexity isn’t a reason to step back from communication—it’s a signal to step in more thoughtfully. In moments of high uncertainty, demand for transparency rises.

The right communications strategy acknowledges these challenges while ensuring that trust and relationships aren’t casualties of the crisis. Here are three principles to guide your approach:

  • Be stakeholder-centric: Start with a clear understanding of who your stakeholders are and what they need to hear from you. Reputation is shaped in the details of how you communicate—how you time employee updates, brief partners and how you equip and support customer-facing teams.
  • Avoid media tunnel vision: The headlines matter, but they’re not the whole story. In most incidents, your long-term reputation is shaped more by internal and stakeholder communications than by a single news cycle. Media relations is just one part—often a small part—of a much broader response.
  • Think of future conversations: Imagine explaining your decisions months from now to a key stakeholder. They might not be fully satisfied, but will they understand and respect how you handled the situation given the constraints you were facing?

When and How to Communicate

Cyber incidents create uncertainty. If you don’t provide information to your stakeholders, others will do it for you—customers on social media, employees in break rooms, journalists on deadline.

More On Planning For Uncertainty: Meet the Global Executive Advisory

This doesn’t mean sharing everything, with everyone, all at once. It means thoughtfully assessing what your stakeholders likely know or assume, what you know and can responsibly say, and how best to bridge the gap. There’s no perfect answer. Often, it’s a day-by-day judgment call.

Understanding every stakeholder’s perspective and expectations in this level of detail takes work—but it’s work that always pays off. In a crisis, you’ll never regret having spent time preparing your communications strategy.

Some of the key questions to ask:

  • Clients & Partners: Should high-value relationships get a direct update or a 1:1 call? How are you supporting them through operational disruption?
  • Customers: Are they worried about incompetence—or their data? How are you addressing concerns, inquiries, and frustration?
  • Employees: Do they know what they can and can’t say? Are they prepared to respond to external questions or internal uncertainty?
  • Media & Digital: Should you respond to inquiries, or would that validate speculation? How do you monitor and address unverified rumors before they escalate? What should you do about blogs and anonymous accounts?
  • Board & Investors: How do you keep key stakeholders informed without escalating concern or overpromising outcomes?
  • Regulators & Authorities: Beyond mandated disclosures, what messaging aligns with your broader corporate values?
  • Other Key Audiences: Who else expects to hear from you? Have you considered suppliers, industry associations, or even competitors who might be affected?

More Than a Response—A Reputation Strategy

IT and legal are essential to resolving the technical and regulatory dimensions of a cyber incident. But stakeholders don’t measure your performance by minimum requirements—they measure it by how you made them feel. Ask yourself: are you communicating in a way that reassures and retains trust?

The best responses manage short-term pressures without compromising long-term relationships. Even within the constraints of investigation and legal risk, organizations that integrate communications expertise are better positioned to emerge with credibility intact—and often stronger.

Cyber incidents may be inevitable. Reputational damage doesn’t have to be. The real question isn’t just whether you responded— it’s whether you’re responding in a way that strengthens trust and credibility in the long run.

Cody Want Cody Want is FleishmanHillard’s U.S. Cyber Crisis Lead with extensive experience in cyber incident response and preparedness. He has helped clients through a wide range of crisis and issues situations, including undercover media investigations, major restructures, union disputes and many other regulatory and reputational challenges.

 
Article

FleishmanHillard Rolls Out a Virtual Audience Platform That Brings Real People in the Room

May 27, 2025

What if you could just turn to your audience and ask what they think or if they have other ideas—right when you need their input? 💡💡💡

Today, we’re proud to launch Sage, our virtual audience development platform and team of expert audience developers. Over the past year, we’ve been developing and testing virtual audiences with clients across consumer, corporate and B2B sectors, working “with” audiences to develop strategies, campaigns and content for clients across healthcare, consumer, and corporate communications.

What makes Sage Virtual Audiences different?

Far too often, once campaign research is complete, it gets filed away to gather dust. This service changes that. It’s a living, evolving model of audiences that keeps learning over time.

Sage Virtual Audiences are built through a powerful combination of:

  • Omni-based data from Omnicom’s industry-leading audience insights platform.
  • The OPRG data stack.
  • FleishmanHillard’s audience profiling expertise.

And it doesn’t stop at demographics or dashboards. We pull together multiple information streams—how audiences behave online, what they’re saying, expert insights, social trends, and influencer content—to create virtual audiences that feel genuinely real.

We also focus on capturing the authentic “voice” of the audience, using transcripts, posts, and other audience content as data sources. It doesn’t just give you synthetic data; it helps you understand how your messages land with real people, using their actual language and thought patterns.

And it does so with a high level of accuracy.

Virtual audiences, real impact

Sage Virtual Audiences are continuously updated using proven research methodologies to ensure specific confidence levels and insights based on the most recent news, points of view, and behavioral changes. Primary research can be added quarterly to ensure virtual responses are the equivalent of real-world responses, for clients needing extra rigor.

In all cases, the virtual audiences provide the equivalent of a fresh survey for every topic, but at a fraction of the cost.

Choose the Sage that fits

Sage Virtual Audiences come in different flavors depending on what you need. Tailored formats include:

✅ **Sage Test**: Test strategy, ideas and messages before they go live

✅ **Sage Focus**: Focus groups that mimic real conversations

✅ **Sage Survey**: Develop personas and create synthetic survey result data

✅ **Sage Brainstorm**: Brainstorm with AI in both voice and text modes

✅ **Sage Measure**: Scoring results and measuring message pull-through

✅ **Sage Crisis**: Assess risk and get feedback in real-time during crises

✅ **Sage Personas**: Enrich audience segmentation insights and playbooks

We can model a wide range of audiences, too. Replications include audiences for:

  • Consumers
  • Business folks
  • Corporate stakeholders
  • Cultural groups
  • Political and policy audience

Want to learn more about virtual audiences and how they might help your next project? Drop us a line at [email protected].   

Article

Ready for What’s Next: Corporate Preparedness & Resilience in the Age of Permacrisis

May 23, 2025
By Vipan Gill

Crises are no longer episodic disruptions. Today, they form a continuous backdrop – an evolving dynamic that threatens organizational resilience and corporate reputation. Organizations that embed crisis preparedness as a core strategic capability – not simply an insurance policy – will be positioned not just to weather future challenges, but to lead through them.

That’s because risk today is faster, more complex and amplified across more dimensions than ever before. We are operating in a state of “permacrisis”. While crises are not necessarily new, it’s the speed, complexity, and amplification of risks across many different channels that have changed. Every organization faces compounding risks, whether they make headlines or not. Yet many companies remain underprepared. Insights from this month’s PRWeek Crisis Comms Conference 2025 revealed that nearly half of all companies still lack a formal crisis plan.

Readiness is Cultural, Not Just Tactical

In a world where every day feels like a crisis, many leaders mistake constant exposure for readiness. But resilience isn’t built in the moment. It’s embedded over time. Today’s risks demand deeper planning and perspective. Organizations must embed clarity of ownership, decision-making agility, and cross-functional coordination well before a disruption occurs.

At FleishmanHillard, this belief is core to how we guide clients. The conference reinforced what we see in our daily counsel; the absence of a crisis playbook isn’t the only risk. The bigger vulnerability is failing to operationalize crisis readiness as a living, evolving part of the business. In an era defined by disruption, resilience is the ultimate differentiator.

From Reactive to Resilient: Redefining Crisis Leadership

Historically, crisis management was shaped by high-profile, acute events. Today’s most damaging issues often simmer below the surface, emerging gradually, escalating quickly, and leaving little time for response.

World-class crisis outcomes now hinge on proactive, sustained investments in organizational preparedness, not just reactive action during a major event. Resilient brands do not just defend their reputation during crises; they proactively strengthen it through everyday actions.

To move from reactive to resilient, organizations need a modern readiness framework that embeds resilience into day-to-day operations. Core elements include:

  • Real-Time Risk Sensing: Implement tools to monitor traditional media, social platforms, fringe forums, and the dark web for emerging threats.
  • Reputation-First Scenario Planning: Develop scenarios that address both operational and reputational impacts, with predefined decision-making criteria.
  • Authentic Language Frameworks: Ensure communications reflect organizational values, particularly on sensitive or contentious topics to maintain credibility.
  • Strategic Spokesperson Planning: Prepare visible leaders who can act as credible, empathetic representatives under pressure.
  • Continuous Crisis Training: Treat readiness as a muscle to be exercised regularly, not a skill activated during emergencies alone.

In today’s attention economy, fringe narratives can move mainstream within hours. Resilient organizations sense what’s coming and shape the narrative before others do.

Proactive Narrative Management: Preparing for AI-driven Risk

AI is changing how reputations are shaped. Machine learning models, news algorithms, and social amplification systems serve as frontline interpreters of a brand’s behavior and its reputation. These systems don’t wait for formal updates, they ingest, index and amplify whatever narratives are most readily available.

That’s why prebunking– establishing credible narratives proactively–is essential. Organizations can no longer rely solely on reactive corrections during an active crisis. Instead, building trusted reputational foundations early on improves how audiences, and AI systems, interpret emerging narratives.

A strong crisis preparedness program ensures that communications strategies are not merely reactive after an incident, but active, strategic, and values-led well in advance.

Elevating the Role of Communications in Crisis Strategy

The role of communicators has evolved.  In a permacrisis environment, we are not just message managers, we are strategic stewards of corporate reputation—proactively guiding organizations through uncertainty, informed by data, technology, and human judgment.

While technology provides powerful tools, the true advantage lies in how organizations interpret those signals and act on them. Human insights remain essential. Context. Empathy. Judgement. These are the ingredients of trusted, decisive leadership in the moments that matter.

Our Approach  

Our global crisis and issues management team combines real-world, local market experience with global reach—guiding clients through uncertainty across time zones, sectors and cultures. We help organizations build and operationalize readiness, so that when it matters most, you’re not reacting—you’re leading.

FleishmanHillard Executive Advisory Board
Article

Marshall Manson Is Appointed CEO of FleishmanHillard UK

May 21, 2025

FleishmanHillard today announced the appointment of Marshall Manson as Chief Executive Officer of FleishmanHillard UK. Manson will assume the role effective immediately, overseeing the agency’s strategic direction, client service, growth, innovation and talent development across its UK operations.

An accomplished communications leader with deep expertise in corporate affairs, campaigning, and digital engagement, Manson most recently served as Chair of Corporate Affairs, Digital & Insight at FleishmanHillard UK. In that role, he guided multidisciplinary teams and global client relationships, championing integration and innovation across the agency’s most complex mandates.

“Marshall is a strategic force with a calm, incisive approach to leadership,” said J.J. Carter, President and CEO of FleishmanHillard. “Our clients are increasingly looking to us for our corporate advisory expertise in the face of navigating a complex, multi-stakeholder environment. Given his depth of experience as a seasoned advisor, Marshall is the perfect fit to lead our UK business into the future.”

Manson brings nearly three decades of experience advising C-suites and boards at the intersection of strategy, reputation, and technology. He has held senior leadership roles at Brunswick Group, Ogilvy Public Relations, and Edelman, both in the UK and the US. In 2015, he was named to PRovoke Media’s Innovator 25 list, which recognizes leaders redefining influence and engagement in communications.

“FleishmanHillard is well positioned to push boldly into a new communications landscape,” Manson said. “Leveraging data and AI, our team of first-rate advisors is helping clients navigate uncertainty and deliver communications and marketing with real impact.”

He added: “My whole career has been about applying the latest innovations in practical ways that help businesses and brands solve thorny problems and seize emerging opportunities. I’m excited to deliver that combination of innovation and impact in the months and years to come.”

Manson replaces Hugh Taggart, who will be leaving FleishmanHillard for a new opportunity.

Marshall Manson, CEO of FleishmanHIllard UK

Article

Why Patient Engagement is Your Competitive Edge in Healthcare

May 8, 2025
By Laura Musgrave and Barry Sudbeck

Much like everything else in 2025, the healthcare landscape is evolving — fast. Policymakers, payers and patients are reshaping how innovation is valued and how access is determined. Companies that stand still risk being left behind. Scientific breakthroughs are not enough.

And that’s why patient engagement — and the need for a renewed focus on communicating its value clearly — is no longer optional.

Strategic patient engagement and comms are the new business-critical advantage

We see patient engagement not as a compliance requirement, but as a catalyst for influence — shaping public affairs, market access, and brand credibility in a complex global environment.

But a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Yes, while the principles are the same, how you apply them needs to consider the unique differences and needs of each patient community, i.e., rare diseases are different from chronic diseases are different from cancers.

To break through policy, reimbursement, and public opinion barriers, companies must connect innovation to real-world patient priorities. And then, just as importantly, they need to communicate that value clearly and authentically.

For example, here are some actions companies can take:

  • Build communication strategies that embed patient insights from the start.
  • Elevate patient perspectives to shape stakeholder perceptions and policies.
  • Actively position innovation as human-centered, not just clinically superior.

Turning patient insights into market advantage

Winning in today’s healthcare market is all about action, not observation. Companies must move beyond surface-level engagement to operationalize patient input across every stage of the product lifecycle.

Patient engagement, when done right, can do a whole lot more than just communicate and advocate. Of course, first and foremost it creates a better patient experience and gives patients a voice in the process. But it can also create significant upside within the business too—from fueling regulatory success to accelerating access and even strengthening stakeholder loyalty.

Key actions to build strategic advantage

  • Engage early and often: Don’t wait for post-development feedback. Bring patients into R&D, policy shaping, and communications planning from the start.
  • Integrate insights into trial design: Improve recruitment, retention and real-world relevance by co-designing protocols and support strategies.
  • Amplify patient voices in evidence generation: Use real-world data and patient-reported outcomes to proactively strengthen regulatory and payer submissions.
  • Invest in digital communities: Build sustained engagement platforms that create loyalty, surface feedback and drive advocacy long-term.
  • Lead with transparency: Communicate clearly how patient input has influenced decisions — and keep patients and advocates informed and engaged.
  • Establish trust through vulnerability: Admit you don’t have all the answers and, together with the patient community, discover the best solutions.

Why is engagement so critical? Companies that fully activate patient engagement create a virtuous cycle of trust and credibility that leads to market advantage.

The future belongs to companies that partner with patients

The power dynamic in healthcare is shifting — permanently. Patients and patient organizations are shaping research priorities, influencing public policy and holding companies accountable in real time across digital channels.

Companies that recognize this shift — and build strategic communications strategies that treat patients as true partners — will lead. Those that don’t will struggle to keep up.

So how can companies transform? They can:

  • Empower patient organizations as co-creators in innovation.
  • Amplify patient-led evidence and advocacy to influence global health agendas.
  • Align corporate reputation with patient-centered impact stories.
  • Respond rapidly to policy and market shifts with credible, patient-driven narratives.

A clear call to action—engage

Patient engagement is not a one-time initiative — it must be a core, ongoing strategic capability. Companies that embed communications into their patient engagement strategies will unlock faster market access, improve the policy environment and fuel long-term growth.

Article

From Chaos to Clarity: Why AI is the Communications Industry’s Strategic Imperative

May 2, 2025
By Matt Groch and Caitlin Teahan

In a world where every headline seems louder than the last, communications professionals are being asked to do, and prove, more than ever. What was once a function centered on messaging and media relations has evolved into a high-stakes, high-visibility discipline responsible for protecting reputations, navigating cultural complexity, and driving business outcomes.

As technology further shapes the media landscape and economic pressures continue to mount, one thing has become clear: the role of communications is more complex and thus more critical than ever. But with challenge comes opportunity, and today, that opportunity is being fueled by the strategic integration of artificial intelligence (AI).

The Challenge: It’s Bonkers Out There

If you’re a communications leader, you’re likely feeling the pressure and for good reason. The landscape is chaotic.

Crises move at lightning speed, supercharged by social media and a disparate constellation of stakeholders with conflicting expectations. Add to that a hyper-polarized climate where nearly every issue becomes politicized, and it’s easy to see why navigating reputation risk has become exponentially more difficult.

Meanwhile, the media landscape is in flux. Traditional outlets are losing authority, misinformation spreads like wildfire, and trust is no longer centralized; it’s fragmented across a dizzying array of influencers, platforms, and niche communities. For brands, that means it’s harder than ever to shape consistent, credible narratives.

And that’s not all. Economic uncertainty continues to rattle both the public and private sectors. From rolling layoffs and market volatility to tariff threats and escalating trade tensions, the pressure is on, especially when it comes to protecting corporate revenues and justifying communications budgets.

The Opportunity: AI-Powered, Data-Driven Communications

Despite all the noise, there’s a bright spot — one that could help communications professionals not just survive but thrive.

For years, we’ve used tech tools like media monitoring platforms and databases. But until recently, they had only a marginal impact on how we worked or the business outcomes we could drive.

Enter large language models and generative AI.

These tools represent a true inflection point. They’re already enabling communications teams to move beyond reactive, manual approaches and toward more proactive, insight-led strategies that improve outcomes, not just optics.

With AI, we’re now equipped to analyze coverage, conversation, and cultural trends at scale — instantly and intelligently. That opens the door for more effective, real-time media intelligence, smarter issues management, and faster, more informed responses when a crisis hits.

FleishmanHillard’s Ephraim Cohen moderates a conversation with Business Insider CTO Harry Hope during The Briefing Room: Teams of the Future in NYC — a dynamic discussion on how curiosity, integrity, and quiet persistence can guide teams through constant transformation.

The Future Is Now: Comms, Collaboration, and Leadership

What once took days and armies of analysts, AI can do in minutes.

Teams can tap into virtual audiences (or synthetic personas) to test messages and develop campaign hypotheses quickly and affordably. These techniques are also changing the game behind the scenes, with agencies using them to streamline business development and accelerate RFP workflows. Of course, care must be taken, especially when targeting niche or harder-to-reach audiences, to avoid misleading outputs or poor strategy based on bad data.

Creative production is also getting a tech-powered boost. AI tools can now generate brand-aligned visuals, edit videos, draft headlines, and even create compelling campaign concepts — all faster, cheaper, and at scale.

But here’s the catch: all this potential only matters if teams are equipped and empowered to use it.

That’s where leadership comes in. Communications leaders must play an active role in fostering a culture of innovation. That means encouraging experimentation, offering training, and helping teams develop fluency with AI tools. In today’s environment, AI isn’t just a productivity enhancer, it’s a strategic lever.

And as communications teams are increasingly expected to demonstrate measurable impact, AI is enabling a new era of outcomes-focused storytelling. From real-time analytics to advanced attribution modeling, we’re more strongly positioned to tie comms efforts to business outcomes in a way that makes sense to the C-suite.

Bottom Line: A Strategic Imperative, Not Just a Tool

AI isn’t just here to optimize how we write press releases or track media hits. It’s reshaping the very foundation of the communications function.

The leaders who will thrive in this new landscape are the ones who see AI not as a threat, but as a strategic enabler. By embracing AI capabilities across insights, content, issues management, and measurement, communications professionals can elevate their strategic value and align more closely with business goals.

The challenge is real, but so is the opportunity.

Now’s the time to lead with clarity, act with urgency, and build teams that are ready for what’s next.

Article

Go Positive with Images; Go Negative with Words 

April 24, 2025
By Caitlin Teahan and Ephraim Cohen

Museums often inspire through beauty and wonder. News media? Not so much. Why do we associate one with hope and the other with dread—even when we say we want more good news? The answer lies in how our brains respond to words versus images.

Understanding the emotional mechanics of language and visuals helps communicators craft messages that resonate. Words and images both shape perception, influence behavior and drive engagement. But when it comes to emotional impact, they trigger opposite effects.

Words: The Power of Negativity 

In written and spoken language, negative words carry disproportionate weight due to the negativity bias—a psychological tendency to pay greater attention to threats and adverse stimuli as an evolutionary survival mechanism. Think, for example, how one stinging criticism sticks with you far longer and more intensely than a dozen compliments do. It’s just human nature.

  • Negative News Headlines: Research from the University of Pennsylvania indicates that news articles with negative headlines generate 30% higher click-through rates than neutral or positive ones. Fear and urgency remain powerful motivators. 
  • Lasting Impact in Conversations: Critical remarks or alarming statements tend to linger longer in memory than positive discussions, often overshadowing constructive dialogue. 
  • Social Media Amplification: A 2021 study from NYU found that tweets with negative sentiments are 20% more likely to be shared, reinforcing the viral spread of outrage and conflict. 

Images: The Pull of Positivity 

Visual content, on the other hand, has a different impact. Whether paintings, photographs or digital images, positive visuals evoke instant emotional responses, often bypassing analytical thought and fostering a sense of optimism. 

  • Color and Expression: Bright colors, serene landscapes and smiling faces consistently generate feelings of joy and relaxation. A study in The Journal of Positive Psychology found that viewing uplifting artwork can increase happiness levels by 30%
  • Art as a Source of Hope: Historically, art has served as a medium for resilience and solace. From Renaissance paintings depicting harmony to contemporary visuals that counter societal anxieties, positive imagery offers a counterbalance to distressing narratives. 
  • Viral Visual Content: On platforms like Instagram and Pinterest, uplifting imagery—such as acts of kindness or vibrant nature scenes—is 40% more likely to be shared, demonstrating the innate appeal of positivity. 

Why the Difference? 

The fundamental disparity between our reactions to words and images stems from how our brains process them

  • Analytical vs. Emotional Processing: Words require cognitive effort to interpret, often triggering deeper emotional responses, particularly when negative. Images, however, activate the brain’s emotional centers instantly, fostering quicker, more positive engagement. 
  • Context vs. Universality: Word receptivity is driven by context, meaning their impact varies based on language and interpretation. Images, by contrast, are largely universal, making their positive effects more consistent across audiences. 
  • Speed of Processing: Research from MIT shows that the brain processes images 60,000 times faster than text. A powerful image can evoke emotion in milliseconds, while words take longer to register and influence perception. 

Implications for Media and Communication 

These insights present opportunities for content creators, marketers and journalists to balance emotional engagement with constructive messaging. Communicators must play to each medium’s strength:

  • In Journalism: Reporting will always involve critique—but pairing solution-based reporting with compelling visuals can temper doomscrolling with hope. Consider how photojournalism, infographics, and video clips can reframe stories through action, not just alarm.
  • In Brand Marketing: Language can create urgency, but visuals build trust. Strategic use of emotionally rich imagery (not just stock photos) can help brands feel more human, especially when the message is complex or controversial.
  • On Social Platforms: Leverage the algorithmic lift of visual content to reframe critical narratives. For instance, pair a provocative claim with an image that signals empathy or optimism to shift engagement from outrage to curiosity.
  • In Internal Comms & Leadership Visibility: Executives communicating change or challenges can soften negative language by accompanying it with clear, calming visual design—think tone-matching slide decks or video messages filmed in relaxed settings.

Conclusion 

The key takeaway? The medium shapes emotional impact as much as the message itself. 

Words and images wield distinct emotional power. While negative language commands attention and shapes discourse, positive imagery offers a pathway to optimism and connection. By recognizing these dynamics, communicators can design content that not only informs but also inspires, fostering a more conscious and balanced media landscape. 

(Disclosure: we wrote this article with the research and editing assistance of a custom GPT. The article is opinion only and we take responsibility for its content). 

Article

Is the U.S. Approval Process for New Medicines Fundamentally Changing?

April 17, 2025
By Mary Kosinski

The sweeping changes seen since January 2025 represent tectonic shifts in the foundations of healthcare in the U.S.–transformations that are likely to have targeted impacts on how new medicines are discovered, regulated and potentially even promoted. Furthermore, as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets global standards in many ways, any disruptions or shifts in its operations could create a ripple effect in other regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency (EMA).  

Some of these impacts will be felt long-term, and others may become apparent much sooner. Recent media stories have spotlighted staffing shortages as a cause for potential delays in medicine approvals, but the implications may run deeper. Beyond timing, we could see fundamental shifts in how drugs are evaluated and approved, as evolving administrative priorities reshape the regulatory pathway itself.

The Reduction in Workforce as a Factor in Potential Delay

The reduction in federal workforce policies are far reaching. With respect to FDA, the impact is complex and needs to be viewed from multiple perspectives to assess the potential full implications on the approval process for medicines.

While mid-February saw an initial wave of terminations across the entire agency, it was followed by a broader reduction of 10,000 staffers across the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). And in the wake of each, there were subsequent modifications to the actions taken. For example, medical device and drug reviewers were deemed exempt from the terminations. Following the April layoffs, media outlets reported that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. stated that approximately 20% of the staffers who were discharged in the latest round may be erroneous and could be reinstated. However, no plan has yet been announced for effecting that correction.  

The attrition of staff through layoffs is further compounded by those leaving the agency for other reasons. In January, the federal government offered employees an option to resign by February 6, 2025, and retain salary and benefits through September 2025. In March, HHS extended another offer to buy out employees. While it has been estimated that tens of thousands of employees accepted, the specific number of FDA employees who have left is not currently publicly available.

What is known is that many key personnel who would be involved in new medicine approvals have also voluntarily left the agency, including the Director of the Office of New Drugs within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), the Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and the Deputy Director of CBER. In addition, prior to the start of the new administration, the head of CDER also resigned.

Some of the vacated positions have been replaced from within. However, due to the hiring freeze that was put into effect by executive order on January 20, 2025, the agency is losing key staff without an ability to recruit and replace them. Clouding the situation further, the HHS reductions in personnel may face legal challenges.

Finally, the drug approval process is long and complex and not solely left to the reviewers whose jobs have been exempted from the workforce reduction. Reductions in communications and legal staff may also disrupt key processes, while cuts to FDA inspection personnel, particularly those responsible for overseeing foreign manufacturing facilities, could delay new approvals if inspection capacity is diminished.

Has all this disruption negatively impacted the new approval of drugs?

At this stage, the answer is not clear. One way to assess it is by examining the timeliness of the agency in meeting its approval commitments. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), first enacted in 1992 and periodically reauthorized by Congress, FDA accepts user fees from pharmaceutical companies allowing expansion of resources to review new medicines, and in return, agrees to review a new drug application in a set time frame. These are referred to as “action dates” or “PDUFA dates.”  While these dates are proprietary information, companies do often reveal the timing of when a decision is expected by FDA.

In reviewing publicly known action dates for 2025, while some have been altered or missed, there does not seem to be a pattern to indicate that FDA is proceeding at any interrupted pace.

Another resource to consider is the approval of novel drug applications, also known as new molecular entities (NMEs), which are reported by FDA on its website. The number of NMEs approved for 2025 is lower than in any year since 2021, but this dip could stem from a range of factors. Only over time will it become clear whether this reflects a true slowdown or normal variation.

The Potential for Change in the Process for Approving Drugs

When a new application is submitted to FDA, it is likely there has been consultation with the agency prior to submission. The depth and scope of exchanges between agency and sponsor will vary depending on the drug, the treatment area and the status that is accorded the application.

Once submitted, FDA decisions regarding that new application have traditionally happened in one of two ways. The most common involves an in-depth analysis of every aspect of the application and assessment by qualified review staff at FDA. Once review staff have completed that task, barring any outstanding questions regarding clinical studies showing efficacy and safety, and following inspection of manufacturing facilities, the agency will issue a decision. This comes in the form of an approval or a Complete Response Letter (CRL) outlining what the agency would like to see to approve the application. This decision usually arrives on or before the PDUFA date.

An alternative path for a new drug application arises when the FDA has unresolved questions and seeks input from both external experts and the public. In that case, FDA calls an advisory committee meeting and embarks on a more transparent process. There are 17 different panels of advisors across various therapeutic categories, each one staffed by an FDA employee.

If an advisory committee is called, historically a public meeting is announced in the Federal Register and a public docket is opened for written input from the public, which is then distributed to the panel of advisory experts. Prior to the meeting date, the FDA publishes on its website all relevant aspects of the drug application, enunciates questions for discussion and proposes a vote on one or more of them, usually ultimately voting to recommend or not the approval of the application – advice that FDA may or may not follow. The meeting is held to discuss the application, and the public – often involving clinical investigators and patients – is invited to give in-person comments during a portion of the meeting.

The reductions in workforce affect both of these approval pathways. In addition to FDA review staff, legal and communications support – both impacted by staffing cuts – help facilitate the application assessment process.

Additional Factors Adding to Approval Process Uncertainty

An early action by the administration was to put into place a communications freeze for federal agencies. The impact on FDA has been notable, with few press releases issued since the beginning of the new administration. The FDA Roundup, typically containing multiple news items published several times a week is now at a near standstill. There have been scant notices about agency activities published in the Federal Register, none of which have been for the purpose of announcing a meeting. FDA Advisory Committee meetings that had been scheduled were postponed. In short, the process for Advisory Committee meetings described above is in limbo. It is not clear whether FDA has the staff that would be necessary to conduct such a meeting and, if so, how key stakeholder perspectives, like those of patients, would have the ability to contribute.

Other factors also raise concerns about the current process.

  • HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has expressed discomfort with the relationship between FDA and industry. One area of concern is the existence of potential conflicts of interest of members of committees advising NIH and specifically CDC and FDA committees related to vaccines. It is not clear if that view encompasses all advisory committees.  
  • As a part of that concern, the Secretary has also expressed criticism of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which supplies a substantial portion of the FDA budget to shorten the review times of applications. While negotiations for the next round of PDUFA reauthorization are not scheduled until 2027, media reports that existing staff who facilitate activities in support of the PDUFA fee structure have been largely eliminated, calling into question the more immediate impact on the PDUFA system.
  • Secretary Kennedy has also expressed reservation about the need for public input into HHS decisions. It is unclear at this time if this will extend to the role of public comment in the FDA review process.

In short, the existing process for the review of drugs appears to be in stasis, with many aspects potentially coming under scrutiny and facing the possibility of change or elimination. Currently, there are many compounds in the pipeline awaiting FDA process for decision-making. Between the staff changes and the potential for new policy developments in relation to the process, delay is a distinct possibility.

Worldwide implications?

It would be remiss to not also recognize the far-reaching impact that changes at the FDA may have on regulatory bodies worldwide. These changes are likely to have significant global implications, particularly for the EMA, which often relies on FDA data and early approvals to expedite its own drug review processes. Disruptions at FDA, whether due to staffing reductions or policy shifts, could lead to delays not only in the U.S. approval process but also in other key global markets.

The EMA, which frequently aligns its review processes with the FDA’s, could face challenges in synchronizing approval timelines, potentially slowing access to critical medicines in Europe. Similarly, regulatory bodies in other regions – such as Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) and Health Canada – may also be affected. These agencies often monitor and adapt to FDA decisions, so delays or changes in FDA operations could trigger a cascade effect, potentially slowing the global approval process for new therapies.

Implications for Communications

For communicators supporting this process, either from inside the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, or the agencies that support them, there are an array of implications. Policies enacted are broad, sometimes vague in scope and can be unclear in their application. Therefore, in planning around new approvals and pipeline medicines, a new level of uncertainty must be built into the equation by communications teams.

Navigating uncharted waters demands close monitoring of the evolving landscape, regular assessments of potential scenarios and an understanding of vulnerabilities to those changes. It also requires strategic planning, both operationally and communicatively, to reinforce preparedness and mitigate risks.

Communications planning must be both broad enough to reflect the landscape and specific enough to address the circumstances of a particular drug or therapeutic category. It also must encompass the ability to anticipate and respond quickly to unfolding developments. Moreover, it needs to consider scenarios that accompany not just a single delay, but multiple delays.

Ultimately, applying the traditional model of communications around approvals for the future may be a thing of the past. Communications teams will have to build a new model built around greater uncertainties in the process moving forward.

Article

Tariffs: No Pause for the Weary but Potential for the Wise

April 16, 2025
By Donna Fontana and Tim Streeb

Last week’s news of the 90-day pause on many of President Trump’s tariffs should not be interpreted as a chance for U.S. corporate leaders to rest, whether you are one of the many who have been riding the tariff roller coaster since Inauguration Day, or part of a cohort who was caught off guard by the breadth and depth of the policies announced on April 2. 

We are now in a phase where both risk and opportunity must be tracked and evaluated with extra vigilance. The escalation of penalties imposed by the Trump administration on China, and the retaliation from Beijing on US imports, will affect companies and critical supply chain materials and have a major impact on nearly every segment of our economy. As of April 15, Industry-specific Section 232 tariffs persist on steel and aluminum and automobiles, investigations have been announced on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals and a sectoral threat continues against lumber. And more sectors and companies will be lifted or rattled by the regular information coming out about the state of tariff negotiations with critical trading partners.

“Liberation day” and the following news and market activity provided every industry with a window into the potential business, media and reputation impact of tariff policies and the economic reaction. It’s increasingly clear that tariffs are not the end of this story, and whether the impact of tariffs is seen as a worthwhile disruption or a threat to economic stability, all companies will need to address the likely impact on supply chain cost increases, pricing increases, changes and decline in consumer demand and other impacts. From a communications perspective, these 90 days are not a pause but rather a prompt to prepare for ongoing tariff news cycles that will need deeper and different strategic approaches.

What are three things all companies should do?

  • Partner with policy, investor relations, supply chain and marketing teams to frame your exposure and the fundamentals to manage it. Consider not just what works right now, but what may be needed in the context of concurrent economic contraction. To instill investor confidence, what must be clear is your company’s unique ability to manage volatility and long-term uncertainty. A key outcome is a succinct point of view that differentiates you from competitors, allowing you to frame future conversations around your strengths versus reacting to the media spin cycle of new developments and analysis
  • Align on the executive team’s risk tolerance. Knowing where key lines are will enable quick decision making and clear communications of those decisions.
  • Remember that perception is fact. The cadence, tone of voice and channel of any proactive communication—or lack thereof—is what stakeholders will remember than any one fact or metric. And perception of who is best prepared can change in an instant—so be vigilant about tracking not just tariffs, but your competitive set’s response and positioning.

What mistakes could be made by companies?

  • Misinterpreting silence from supply chain partners as preparedness. Value chain partners are also reacting to real-time changes and may lack the clarity needed to make significant go-forward decisions. Every organization needs to scenario plan around what may happen to their partners up and down their value chain and be prepared for how partners’ actions may impact your business.
  • Ignoring key stakeholder groups. While shareholders, suppliers and customers are top of mind, employees are experiencing this pause as part of the company and as consumers and need to hear from the organization. Don’t neglect internal communications over the next 90 days but remember that anything shared with employees is likely to leak, so keep your messaging transparent, yet tight.
  • Rely solely on an outside organization. Trade organizations galvanize industries in turbulent situations, but to leverage their influence, your company first needs to determine and then communicate the specific positions that are best for you.
  • Viewing communications through a US or market-specific lens: Remember that anything communicated in U.S. media will quickly reach your international markets and employees – and vice versa. Any messages about potential onshoring or other supply chain changes will be received differently overseas and must be approached with sensitivity to local stakeholder concerns. Similarly, any comments made by international leadership will be cited by domestic outlets, dictating the need for careful coordination and tight spokesperson control.

What else should we be watching for?

  • Retaliatory actions from trade partners. The landscape of both tariff and non-tariff retaliatory action continues to evolve with every new U.S. action. In the shortest term, staying apprised of developments from China matters for nearly every company and sector.
  • Supply Chain Shocks. From potentially empty shelves to financially challenged suppliers, media will be eager to highlight signals of greater impact.
  • Earnings reports—both in and outside your sector. The expectation is these now increasingly closely watched presentations will not share nitty gritty details—leading global companies have already noted it is not possible to share full details of go-forward plans and many have pulled guidance. But questions from your suppliers and customers about the projected strength of their business will be key to framing your company’s report.
  • Broader Administration actions. With the Trump Cabinet fully in place, broader policy agendas will be taking shape during this window and could culminate in a period of even greater change and communications challenges.
  • Pro- and Anti-American sentiments. Brands and businesses have the potential to be pulled into conversations, “Buy American” promotions and/or boycotts.

Your company’s best response sits at the intersection of your operational insulation, current public profile and the tariff world order at that exact moment. Internal—but also external—decisions will impact your organization far beyond 2025.

Using these 90 days for readiness instead of rest will prepare you for these next three months and beyond.