Employee Login

Enter your login information to access the intranet

Enter your credentials to access your email

Reset employee password

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.

Article

Three Ps to Future-Proofing Tech Integration in Communications: Takeaways from EDS’ CIO & CISOxNewYork Conference

April 11, 2025
By Caitlin Teahan

At this year’s EDS CIO & CISOxNewYork event, one theme cut through the jargon and hype: clarity. As CIOs and CISOs grapple with the expanding role of AI and emerging technologies, the conversation centered on how to bring structure and purpose to transformation, not just velocity.

The most memorable insight? A deceptively simple framework: Product, Processes, and Productivity. These “Three Ps” are fast becoming the go-to lens for evaluating tech investments—particularly in communications organizations navigating AI’s cross-functional impact.

The Three Ps

Product

This is what we deliver—internally and externally. CIOs emphasized the importance of co-creation with business units to ensure AI is both the experience and output. It’s not enough to automate the backend; AI must elevate the customer journey and stakeholder value.

Processes

This is how the work gets done. Fromcopilots in pitch developments to automation in compliance workflows, teams are ditching complexity for simplified, scalable systems. The guiding principle? If time is money, tech should buy you more of it. After all, in the world of billable standards, time is money.

Productivity

This is where tech meets talent. It zooms in on the human side of the conversation – how teams think, work, and evolve. AI won’t replace people, but it will amplify the difference between teams that know how to collaborate with it and those that don’t. Investing in mindset shifts and change enablement is just as important as training on new tools.

The Tech Debt Spectrum: Good vs. Bad

A standout moment: the reframing of tech debt—not as a red flag, but as a signal of smart risk-taking. In fact, good tech debt can be a sign of creativity, experimentation, and ambition. It’s the kind that arises from testing new ideas quickly, pushing boundaries, and iterating in real-time. As one speaker noted in our one-on-one conversation, “Good tech debt shows up when your team is trying things that might work. Sometimes we may not want to wait for perfect.”

But not all debt is created equal. Bad tech debt stems from misalignment, poor governance, or deferring decisions that ultimately undercut performance and trust. Smart CIOs and change management leaders are learning to differentiate the two and build cultures that reward progress over perfection while still managing risk.

Looking Ahead

As the roles of CIO, CISO and even Chief Work Officer converge, their mission is clear: create environments where innovation is safe, structured, and sustainable. AI isn’t just the next big thing.

It’s the next long game.

Article

Stability with an Edge: A Report on China’s 2025 Economic Priorities 

March 21, 2025

China has set a 5% GDP growth target for 2025, signaling a focus on measured expansion amid evolving global and domestic conditions. Backed by a 4% deficit-to-GDP ratio, policymakers are emphasizing investment in infrastructure, innovation and industrial modernization to drive sustainable progress. 

Every China’s Two Sessions meetings highlight a roadmap for the country’s priorities, and this year underscores a shift toward long-term resilience. Sectors like AI, 6G, advanced manufacturing and clean energy are receiving increased attention as China works to strengthen its competitive edge. 

What Does This Mean for Global Businesses? 

China remains a key market for international companies, with policies aimed at boosting domestic demand and fostering high-quality growth. While opportunities in trade and investment continue to expand, evolving regulatory frameworks and market shifts may require businesses to adapt their strategies. 

Explore our latest report from our FleishmanHIllard China Public Affairs Team, Two Sessions 2025: Maintaining Stability While Achieving Progress, for insights on China’s economic outlook and what it means for global industries. 

Click the image below to learn more.

Article

New Report: The Cultural Forces Shaping How Gen Z Shop Today

March 19, 2025

For Gen Z, shopping isn’t a straight path. It’s a dynamic, ever-shifting journey shaped by cultural trends, social influence and the digital landscape. Trend cycles accelerate, new brands emerge and iconic names strategize to stay culturally tuned-in. To convert passive interest into active purchasing, brands need more than visibility—they need cultural resonance.

Our latest report, Beyond the Basket, created in partnership with Omnicom’s Flywheel, explores how brands can navigate this complexity and turn cultural engagement into commerce. From seamless shopping experiences to authentic brand connections, we reveal how brands can strike the balance between love and lust and drive immediate conversions and long-term loyalty across the ecosystem.

Click below to dive straight into the report or find out more about Beyond the Basket from FleishmanHillard UK.

Download the full Beyond the Basket report here.

Article

Beauty Reckoning: Influence in an Unregulated Creator Hype Cycle

March 13, 2025
By Cameron Shields
For years, the skincare industry pushed ‘clean beauty’ as the gold standard, but consumers are catching on.

Let’s be honest—skincare today is a battlefield. Consumers are drowning in conflicting advice from TikTok influencers, AI-driven skin “diagnostics” that reinforce impossible standards, and beauty brands scrambling to keep up with the next big thing. We’re in a weird place where ‘clean’ beauty is losing credibility, retinol is being hailed as both the savior and destroyer of skin, and the latest celebrity-endorsed miracle serum seems to promise youth in a bottle. 

This played out firsthand at the recent American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) conference, March 7-11 in Orlando. One minute, a leading dermatologist was explaining the science behind skin barrier repair. The next, you open social media to a TikTok-famous influencer telling a crowd that washing your face with sparkling water is the secret to glass skin. The room was split among experts seeking ‘truth’ between claims, young attendees furiously taking notes, and both looking for ‘hauls’ of magic elixirs promising perfection.  

The problem: we live in a world where the viral hype cycle of opinions can drown out real dermatological advancements. If brands want to cut through, it’s time to rethink how we communicate skincare. Because right now, consumers aren’t just buying products—they’re buying into narratives. And those narratives are evolving fast. 

Nature: Clean Beauty Isn’t Enough Anymore 

For years, the industry pushed ‘clean beauty’ as the gold standard, but consumers are catching on. The reality? ‘Clean’ is a vague, unregulated term, and people are starting to demand proof, not marketing spin. TikTok’s #DermTok community (which has amassed over 3.5 billion views) is full of dermatologists debunking myths around “chemical-free” skincare and exposing how some ‘clean’ products are actually stripping the skin barrier. 

And yet, consumers still want natural ingredients. A 2023 McKinsey report found that 72% of consumers prioritize plant-based skincare, but 60% also demand clinically proven results. This is the gap brands need to bridge: science-backed nature, not just nature for the sake of marketing. 

The Fix: Brands need to avoid greenwashing and start showcasing real clinical research, in real meaningful ways. We should be treating skincare the way we treat medicine—proving efficacy through transparent, digestible education instead of vague ‘better for you’ claims.  

Nurture: Why Skincare Can’t Just Be About Products 

Here’s an uncomfortable truth: skincare isn’t just about what you put on your face. A recent Journal of Investigative Dermatology study found that 40% of visible skin aging is influenced by lifestyle factors like stress, diet, and sleep. But the industry has conditioned consumers to believe they can fix all their skin concerns with a single serum. That’s why TikTok trends like #SkinCycling (with over 3 billion views) and #GutHealth (with 5 billion views) are exploding—people are realizing that their skin is a reflection of their overall health. 

And yet, brands rarely talk about this. Why? Because it’s easier to sell a cream than to tell people to drink more water and get eight hours of sleep. 

The Fix: Brands need to own the full picture of skin health, and its emotionally roots. That means integrating lifestyle education into content strategies—partnering with nutritionists, sleep scientists, and even mental health experts to provide a holistic view. Optimizing for audience, search and relevance – while also being brave and honest in how we deliver authentic expertise. 

The Artificial: How AI and Perfection Culture Are Ruining Skincare 

We are living in an era where AI can analyze your skin and tell you everything that’s ‘wrong’ with it in seconds. While personalization should be a game-changer, the reality is that most AI tools are trained on flawless, filtered datasets, reinforcing unrealistic beauty standards. Especially among Gen Z, AI-driven beauty filters are distorting self perception of their own skin. 

As weight-loss advancements redefine celebrity aesthetics, we’re seeing a shift towards tighter, sharper, ‘snatched’ faces—perpetuating anxiety about aging and ‘volume loss.’ Suddenly, skincare isn’t just about hydration. It’s about preventing the hollowing-out effect. 

The Fix: Brands must push back against AI-driven beauty dysmorphia. That means showcasing real, unfiltered skin in campaigns and rejecting the idea that ‘fixing’ skin is the goal. Instead, messaging should shift toward long-term skin health and resilience, not flawlessness. And the creators who deliver those messages for your brand should go beyond mass reach influencers to identify the niche, credible voices who have real sway over the audience. 

The Role of Influencer Marketing: Part of the Problem, or the Solution? 

Let’s call it like it is: poorly executed influencer marketing helped give rise to the saturated social environment where anyone can claim expertise, and unfettered claims can go unchecked. We—brands, agencies, and marketers— spent years partnering with people who look perfect, and yet maybe know little about real skin health. We’ve rewarded viral trends over real education, leading to a landscape where the person shouting the loudest (not the one with the best information) wins. 

That has to change. And not just for ethics—it’s a business necessity. A 2024 Nielsen report found that consumers are 46% more likely to trust influencers with professional expertise over those known for aesthetics alone. That means the future of beauty influence won’t be just about who looks the best on camera—it will be about who can teach consumers something real. 

The Fix: The influencer economy needs a reset. Brands should prioritize long-term partnerships with skin experts, credible educators, and everyday people with authentic skincare journeys—not just models with good lighting. The era of ‘perfect’ influencers is fading, and brands that embrace realness will be the ones that win both cultural relevance and commercial success. Even in the era of AI adoption, consumers still do and will always crave authenticity. 

So, How Do Brands Win? 

  1. Show receipts. Science-backed skincare isn’t optional—it’s necessary. Brands that transparently share clinical results will win trust in an era of misinformation. 
  1. Expand beyond the bottle. Skincare isn’t just about topicals anymore. Brands that educate on the full lifestyle equation—diet, stress, sleep—will create stronger consumer connections. 
  1. Call out the BS. Push back against harmful AI trends, influencer-fueled misinformation, and unrealistic beauty ideals. Be the brand that says, “Hey, your skin is supposed to have texture.” 
  1. Reframe anti-aging. Ditch the fear-based language around aging. Talk about healthy longevity, not ‘fixing’ wrinkles. 
  1. Redefine influence. The future isn’t about who has the most perfect skin—it’s about who has the most useful knowledge, and how we deliver it in a way that bridges the gap between highly-engaged creators and unexpected experts. 

The Bottom Line: Skin Health > Skin Perfection 

The brands that will lead the future of beauty won’t just sell products—they’ll sell truth. Skincare needs a reality check, and the companies bold enough to have that conversation will be the ones that rise above the noise. 

Because at the end of the day, the future of skincare isn’t about looking perfect. It’s about living well. And that’s the story worth telling. 

Cameron a Senior Vice President & Partner of Brand Impact.

Article

The Transatlantic Toll: U.S.-EU Pharma at Risk Under Trump’s Tariffs

March 11, 2025
By Emma Cracknell

Since taking office, President Trump has prioritized tariffs as a key element of his trade policy, aiming to protect domestic industries, address trade imbalances and enhance U.S. negotiating power. As his approach shifts from country-specific tariffs to broader industry targets, he has signaled plans to impose 25% tariffs on automobiles and similar duties on key sectors as early as April 2, creating potential economic uncertainty for industries like pharmaceuticals. These tariffs are designed to support reshoring with the aim of creating jobs, strengthening domestic industries and reducing reliance on foreign supply chains. As the administration states: “The goal is to ensure that American workers and companies are on a level playing field, and to bring critical industries back to the United States enhancing national security and economic stability.” However, while such efforts aim to boost U.S. industry, these policies could also have significant implications for the health and life sciences sector, potentially driving up costs, disrupting supply chains and altering pharmaceutical trade dynamics between the United States, Europe and China. The question remains: what impact will this have on the availability, affordability and innovation of medicines in both the United States and Europe?

The U.S. reliance on global pharmaceutical supply chains

The U.S. administration’s push to reshore manufacturing has raised questions about potential impacts on the health and life sciences industries, which rely on global supply chains. In 2023, the United States became the world’s largest pharmaceutical importer, bringing in $170 billion worth of products. This included sourcing 80% of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), primarily from China and India, as well as from the European Union (EU). In 2024, pharmaceuticals were the top U.S. import from the EU, including $127 billion worth of semaglutide, a key ingredient in widely used weight loss medications. The United States also led globally in medical instrument imports, bringing in $37.7 billion worth in 2023, reinforcing its position as the world’s largest importer in this category. Proposed tariffs on these essential imports could have significant implications for the U.S. healthcare system, potentially affecting costs, access and the broader supply chain. As a result, businesses across industries should assess how potential shifts in trade policy may impact their own supply chains and plan accordingly to mitigate risks and maintain stability.

The proposed tariffs are likely to raise domestic costs, forcing companies to either absorb import costs or pass them on to payers and consumers, potentially affecting the affordability of essential medications and healthcare services. This could place additional financial pressure on patients and providers, exacerbating access challenges.

Tariffs could also disrupt clinical research by driving up costs for investigational drugs and medical equipment, prompting companies to shift trials to more cost-effective regions or alternative supply sources. This could lead to delays in drug development, slower innovation and setbacks in addressing unmet medical needs. Additionally, relocating trials to regions with differing regulatory standards may raise concerns about treatment quality and safety, potentially eroding patient trust in new therapies. To navigate these challenges, global operations must assess the impact on supply chains, research processes and market strategies while ensuring compliance across multiple regions.

The medtech industry, heavily reliant on international materials and assembly, faces similar risks. Industry groups like AdvaMed warn that tariffs could disrupt supply chains, drive up manufacturing costs, and slow R&D investment, delaying the development of critical technologies. Higher production costs could also be passed on to payers and patients, worsening affordability and creating potential shortages of essential products.

Ultimately, companies across all sectors may need to reduce staff or adjust operations to offset rising costs, potentially weakening global competitiveness. Industry leaders must proactively evaluate these risks and develop strategies to sustain innovation, manage supply chains and maintain operational efficiency.

While the BIOSECURE Act encourages a shift away from reliance on China, reshoring U.S. pharmaceutical production presents significant challenges due to limited domestic manufacturing capacity and the industry’s ongoing dependence on global supply chains. Such a shift could offer opportunities for economic growth, including job creation and increased investment in U.S.-based manufacturing. Still, the full impact of these changes remains uncertain, especially as businesses across sectors must carefully evaluate the implications of this potential shift on supply chains, costs and long-term innovation. These evaluations should be done through comprehensive risk assessments, considering factors such as market stability, geopolitical influences, cost-effectiveness and the availability of skilled labor, to ensure strategic decisions align with both short-term and long-term objectives.

The EU’s struggle for competitiveness and strategic autonomy

On the other side of the Atlantic, Europe is pursuing its own competitiveness and strategic autonomy agenda as it grapples with the economic fallout from the pandemic and geopolitical instability. Pharmaceuticals were designated as a strategic sector for EU economic growth in the hailed 2024 Mario Draghi report on the future of European competitiveness and key initiatives such as the Critical Medicines Act reflect efforts to strengthen the European pharmaceutical sector and its global standing.

Sweeping U.S. tariffs on the sector threaten to derail these ambitions, with Member States such as Belgium, Germany, Denmark and Ireland more vulnerable than others. In the first 10 months of 2024, Belgium exported over $73 billion of pharma products of which 25% went to the United States, and the pharma industry accounts for 15% of total Belgian exports. In Ireland, pharmaceuticals accounted for 55% of total exports in 2022, with 35% destined for the United States, making the sector one of the largest contributors to national GDP. Increased tariffs could force European manufacturers to absorb higher costs or cut margins and even question future investment decisions on the continent. While the EU prepares a potential response, the timing of this presents a major challenge for Europe’s pharmaceutical industry, already facing regulatory uncertainty under the EU’s General Pharmaceutical Legislation (GPL) revision. Proposed cuts to regulatory data protection (RDP), alongside tariff threats, further risk undermining Europe’s competitiveness and contradicting its life sciences ambitions. At a time of geopolitical instability, weakening RDP could make innovation models unsustainable, driving investment and R&D elsewhere. With GPL negotiations ongoing, there is still a window for industry to reframe the conversation highlighting how geopolitical shifts are further threatening its competitiveness and how Europe should be and how Europe should be pushing for policies that both strengthen Europe’s innovation ecosystem while reinforcing its commitment to strategic autonomy.

The transatlantic toll and considerations for sector response

The proposed tariffs on EU pharmaceuticals present significant challenges for the pharmaceutical industry, with far-reaching implications on both sides of the Atlantic. Effective communication will be crucial to mitigate risks, protect interests and maintain strong stakeholder relationships. As pharmaceutical companies navigate this evolving policy landscape, here are key recommendations for effective communications and government affairs engagement in this dynamic environment:

  • Proactively manage expectations on both costs and supply chain disruptions: Companies should transparently communicate the potential impacts of rising import costs, particularly in the United States, which could lead to higher medicine prices. Clearly communicate the factors driving these changes and how they might affect patients, payers and healthcare providers. Similarly, companies facing supply chain challenges should provide timely updates on delays, shortages, and potential risks while emphasizing efforts to minimize disruptions and maintain access to essential medicines, reinforcing the company’s dedication to affordability. This could include plans to diversify partnerships or adjusting strategies to minimize disruptions and continue serving the market effectively. A proactive and transparent communication strategy mitigates uncertainty, and fosters trust by showcasing accountability and a commitment to long-term resilience.
  • Engage key stakeholders with targeted and nuanced messaging: For both U.S. and European companies, it is essential to communicate directly with key stakeholders, including policymakers, to ensure clarity and consistency in messaging. Establish a clear, data-driven narrative about the impact of tariffs on the industry, focusing on the challenges and potential consequences for patients, payers and healthcare providers. By aligning to the political landscape and tailoring messages for specific audiences, alongside utilizing diverse communication channels, companies can ensure their concerns are heard and their position is clearly understood. A stakeholder audit can help to assess how tariffs impact different groups, their current beliefs, and which messages will resonate. Direct engagement, trade associations and public communications each carry different reputational risks and opportunities. A well-balanced approach ensures concerns are addressed while maintaining credibility and trust across diverse audiences.
  • Mitigate risk through the integration of external communications functions: To effectively mitigate risks, government affairs should be integrated into broader external communications strategy. A cohesive, cross-functional approach ensures that policy engagement aligns with the company’s public messaging, leveraging insights from corporate affairs, public relations, and legal teams. By unifying these efforts, companies can clearly communicate potential risks and impacts to external stakeholders, such as regulators, investors, customers, and the media. This integration allows for consistent, transparent messaging across all external channels, grounded in credible data, and reinforces the company’s position on key issues, helping to manage public perception and minimize reputational risks.
  • Embed government affairs insights into business strategy: Pharmaceutical companies should ensure government affairs teams are a core business function, and not just a regulatory or communications tool. Government Affairs teams provide critical intelligence on legislative developments, policy trends and economic shifts that directly impact market access, pricing, and supply chains. By embedding these insights into commercial strategy and risk planning, companies can anticipate disruptions, adapt business models, and stay ahead of regulatory challenges. Establishing early warning systems, including through tracking domestic and global legislative developments, trade barriers, and evolving public sentiment, allows the business to make informed decisions rather than reacting to crises. A proactive, government affairs-informed business strategy ensures resilience in an unpredictable policy environment and strengthens long-term growth.

By adopting a proactive, transparent and coordinated communications and government affairs strategy, companies can navigate the uncertainties of proposed tariffs, mitigate risks and maintain strong relationships with both internal and external stakeholders. These steps will help organizations remain agile, protect their interests and ensure long-term resilience in a rapidly changing global environment.

The supply chain could be effected by Trump administration tariffs.
Article

New Leadership & New Policies: Navigating Healthcare and Life Sciences in the Trump Administration

March 4, 2025
By Rebecca Hall and Heather Pierce

Overview

The new administration is moving quickly to appoint new leaders and policies across the public and private sector. The pace has been extraordinary, with President Trump signing more than 70 executive orders impacting broad swaths of public health, scientific research and healthcare delivery. And the recent confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) has already ushered in the formation of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission to combat the many challenges associated with chronic disease.

These developments bring many challenges, opportunities and implications for health and life sciences organizations, as well as for other industry sectors that support and rely on a strong public health foundation for their workforce and operating environments. A global and multisector lens is essential, as the ripple effects of public health policies and industry shifts extend beyond healthcare, impacting sectors such as technology, finance, manufacturing and beyond, all of which must navigate these changes to maintain operational resilience and sustainability.

The Current Landscape: Rapid Change on All Fronts

Following the November 2024 election, President Trump announced his healthcare cabinet selections, including RFK Jr., who has now been sworn in as HHS Secretary. On “Day One” of his second term, the president began issuing numerous executive actions, including many that directly impact health and science. While much remains to be seen, there are early indications of potential themes and priorities.

RFK Jr. has been critical of current U.S. healthcare policy, as well as pharmaceutical and food industries, and there is a high likelihood he may call for sweeping changes from infectious disease research to pharmaceutical marketing practices. A long-time critic of vaccinations, RFK Jr. has called for a review of all vaccination policies, including mandatory vaccinations for children. While Secretary Kennedy has vowed to support vaccines and not interfere with their availability, in his confirmation hearings he declined to walk back his claims that vaccines cause autism.

Secretary Kennedy has also stated that he wants to review advisory committee membership, which could include grantmaking NIH panels, CDC vaccine advisory committees, and panels for FDA, where many members have relationships with the pharmaceutical industry through past research efforts. Following Secretary Kennedy’s swearing-in, a meeting of key experts advising the CDC on immunization practices was postponed, with no new date set. This has raised global concerns about the intent behind the delay.

Additional health cabinet nominees who, once confirmed, will reshape U.S. health policy, include:

  • Dr. Mehmet Oz, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. A well-known TV host and lifestyle influencer, Oz has expressed support for Medicare Advantage, stating that he aims to expand the program, though he also has cited concerns about waste, fraud and abuse in the system. As the public sector payor in the United States, CMS coverage for programs like Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and CHIP plays a crucial role in shaping healthcare access, while collaborating with private sector payors to establish policies and reimbursement structures and this tone will impact international engagement and perception.
  • Dr. Marty Makary, Food and Drug Administration. A trained surgeon and cancer specialist currently practicing at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Makary is closely aligned with RFK Jr. on several topics. He has decried the overprescribing of drugs, the use of pesticides on foods and the influence of pharmaceutical and insurance companies over doctors and government regulators. He held contrarian views during the COVID-19 pandemic, criticizing vaccine policies and what he believed to be government misinformation. Under Kennedy, he has said he will work to “properly evaluate harmful chemicals poisoning our nation’s food supply and drugs and biologics.” The impact of the FDA on global healthcare is significant, as its regulatory standards for food, drugs and medical devices often set a benchmark for other countries, influencing international safety protocols, shaping pharmaceutical markets and driving innovation in medical treatments and technologies worldwide.
  • Dr. Dave Weldon, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. An internal medicine doctor and former representative of a central Florida congressional district, Weldon is a long-time vaccine skeptic, was a founding member of the Congressional Autism Caucus, and has been an outspoken critic of CDC and its vaccine program. In the past, he has proposed that vaccine safety responsibility move to an independent agency within HHS, which would mean removing that task from the purview of the CDC. The CDC plays a critical role globally by not only leading efforts in vaccine development and distribution but also by providing expertise in disease prevention, health surveillance and emergency response to health threats worldwide. Through collaboration with international health organizations, the CDC helps to strengthen public health systems, address global health disparities and respond to emerging infectious diseases.
  • Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, National Institutes of Health. A Professor of Medicine and health economist at Stanford University, Bhattacharya was one of three authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, an October 2020 letter that argued against lockdowns and promoted “herd immunity” to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Upon confirmation, Bhattacharya says he would “support reforming the U.S. public health and scientific institutions to ensure that they work for the American people.” The NIH plays a significant global role by funding over $40 billion in research annually, contributing to advancements in the understanding and treatment of diseases such as cancer, HIV/AIDS and infectious diseases, with global health implications. However, recent cuts to indirect research costs, including reductions in facilities and administrative rates, have impacted how research institutions manage their budgets, potentially affecting the scale and scope of over 1,000 global health research projects that the NIH supports to address challenges like infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases and emerging health threats. Top universities and research associations are foreshadowing that research cuts may threaten U.S. leadership in biomedical innovation. And some colleges and universities are pausing or reducing admissions to graduate programs amid uncertainty in federal funding.
  • Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, U.S. Surgeon General. A medical director for a New York City urgent care provider, Nesheiwat is said to envision her new role as leveraging her clinical practice to address public health challenges, including mental health, access to care and disease prevention. Throughout her career, Nesheiwat has been a strong advocate for vaccines and has been vocal about the detrimental effect of social media on the mental health of children. Historically, The U.S. Surgeon General plays an influential role globally by providing expert guidance on public health issues and advocating for health promotion, disease prevention and health equity. Through international collaborations with organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations, the Surgeon General helps shape global health policies, supports efforts to address health crises and promotes best practices in areas such as tobacco control, mental health and epidemic response.

The newly established Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission is an initiative formed in response to what is deemed America’s “chronic disease crisis” with rates among adults and children superseding those of comparable countries and total costs exceeding $3.7 trillion. With diabetes, obesity, mental health disorders and other chronic conditions as the focus, the administration seeks to enact federal policy that ensures federal research transparency; prioritizes research to understand why Americans are getting sicker; guarantees healthy and affordable food; and expands treatment and grows insurance benefits for lifestyle changes and prevention.

The initial mission of the Commission is to advise the President on how best to address childhood chronic disease, including studying contributing causes and providing the President with recommendations on policy and strategy to end it. Led by the HHS Secretary, the Commission also includes leaders from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health and other members of the administration, though notably does not include the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Despite widespread agreement that chronic disease must remain a national priority, the MAHA platform is not without critics. With the pharmaceutical industry in the crosshairs, some experts across various sectors believe that the language used in MAHA orders not only vilifies medication and implies that overmedicating has become the norm but also undercuts the expertise of healthcare practitioners and professionals in other fields charged with making the best decisions for their respective industries. Others argue that the initiative may reinforce distrust in medicine and its role in disease management, with potential ripple effects across global sectors that rely on public health systems. Additionally, the executive order does not address known chronic disease factors such as patterns of racial and ethnic bias, socioeconomic status, and other social determinants of health, which have wide-ranging implications both within the U.S. and internationally.

Numerous executive orders, policy changes and actions are intended to impact the healthcare system and may have intended, as well as unintended, consequences on health outcomes. These include the U.S. exit from the WHO, the reversal of Biden drug pricing policies, downstream effects of regulatory freezes, NIH funding cuts and extensive federal health workforce reductions. And more actions are expected.

Strategic Communications Considerations

As organizations aim to stay abreast of rapid changes and understand what they may mean, ensuring a thoughtful, strategic approach to communications and stakeholder engagement can provide a steadying force in what can feel like an uncertain and chaotic environment. Where there is common ground or interests align (e.g., chronic disease), there also may be opportunities for healthcare organizations to educate, engage and inform with subject matter expertise and perspectives.

Communications teams should collaborate with corporate and public affairs, government and investor relations, and other key functions to assess the organization’s unique principles and policies, priority stakeholder mix, opportunities, vulnerabilities and levels of risk tolerance. Legal counsel can help assess how executive or agency actions may apply to an organization, the likelihood of successful legal challenges and whether proposed responses are likely to comply with the order or other contractual, state or local legal considerations.

Know thyself. In times of volatility, it may be tempting to follow the crowd or react quickly, but authenticity is key. Sometimes, choosing to take no action can be a thoughtful and intentional response, especially when it aligns with an organization’s mission, values and commitment to transparency. Likewise, when the business risks of speaking out are outweighed by the risks of silence, taking a stand can be the right choice. Internal and external stakeholders—including employees, healthcare professionals, patients, community organizations, business partners, investors and policymakers—will evaluate an organization based on its consistent approach and integrity, regardless of whether it acts or waits. Staying true to your principles fosters trust, cultivates credibility and strengthens long-term relationships.

Engage thoughtfully. Because health is inherently personal (and therefore emotional), the desire or pressure to respond to perceived threats posed by administration policies may be heightened. Aim to be grounded in facts and information, as best as they are available. Organizations should establish clear communications processes that weigh the risks and benefits of public statements, assess potential stakeholder reactions and prepare both proactive and reactive messaging (and Q&As) with clear-eyed rationale and substantiation.

Organizations must consider when they are the right one to take the lead vs. joining forces with other voices, such as community groups, partners, industry or trade associations.

Monitor for misinformation. The spread of misinformation and disinformation remains a significant challenge for those striving to advance sensible healthcare policy. Healthcare organizations must be more vigilant than ever in combatting these efforts and promoting sound science. Combating misinformation and disinformation in the current context requires new methods—one can’t necessarily fight it with facts alone. It’s about understanding the emotional and psychological drivers behind misinformation and engaging with stakeholders in a way that builds trust and offers clarity. By addressing inaccuracies thoughtfully and authentically, organizations can maintain their credibility, reinforce their values and uphold their commitment to transparency and public trust.

Evaluate crisis plans. The healthcare industry is likely to face increased scrutiny from the administration, policymakers and various stakeholders on critical issues ranging from conflicts of interest in research and marketing practices to DEI, addressing health disparities and supporting LGBTQ+ populations. Organizations must proactively assess and strengthen their crisis communications plans to ensure they are prepared for potential challenges in this evolving landscape. This involves identifying areas of vulnerability—whether in governance, policy adherence, public perception or employee sentiment—and building strategic, adaptive responses. Additionally, the global implications of new policy initiatives must be proactively considered in any crisis or vulnerability risk assessment. As healthcare policies evolve internationally, their ripple effects may create unforeseen risks that organizations need to be prepared for, especially when it comes to cross-border operations or international partnerships. By staying ahead of these issues and aligning their actions with core values, companies can demonstrate leadership, protect their reputation and effectively navigate any emerging concerns. It’s important to leverage expert counsel to craft tailored strategies that ensure your organization can respond decisively and authentically when faced with challenges.

Stay nimble. Administration pronouncements and policies may be challenged, changed or rescinded. Craft communications strategies that are mindful of the rapidly changing environment. Messaging should acknowledge that situations may evolve and that the organization will continue to monitor and evaluate developments as they arise.

What Next? An Era of Uncertainty

There is still a great deal of uncertainty as to the impact of administration decisions and policy on science and healthcare, and many developments will unfold over the next few months, including confirmation hearings and legal rulings, that will lend greater clarity. As the Trump administration’s MAHA agenda and other health policies move forward, additional actions may impact programs and priorities across the federal landscape, including FDA, CMS, NIH and CDC, with follow-on effects for industry, providers, patients, payers, researchers and the public at large.

Organizations across all sectors should continue to monitor developments, industry responses and corresponding stakeholder sentiment and reactions to continually reassess and update communications strategies as situations warrant. As critical counselors to C-suite executives, communications professionals will need to assimilate new processes and protocols to provide real-time updates and counsel, in collaboration with cross-functional partners, to advise on messaging considerations as new information emerges and situations develop. In particular, communications strategies should account for the global implications of U.S. policy actions, especially as international stakeholders may have a significant interest in these policies. It is essential to proactively assess how U.S. policy shifts may affect global markets, partnerships and regulatory environments, and to adjust messaging accordingly. This includes preparing for the potential impact of U.S. healthcare policies on international operations, while clearly articulating the organization’s position in a way that resonates with both domestic and global audiences. Moreover, these global considerations extend beyond the health and life sciences sector; industries such as technology, finance and manufacturing must also evaluate how U.S. policy actions may influence global trade, supply chains and international regulatory frameworks. By staying agile and responsive, organizations can maintain credibility and ensure that their messaging remains aligned with both domestic values and global realities.

Article

It’s official: AI has transcended hype 

February 27, 2025
By Seth Bloom and Caitlin Teahan

From tech trend to essential tool—AI is reshaping industries and the entire communications landscape. 

Last February, we published research analyzing how three technologies—AI, the Metaverse and NFTs—took different paths in public conversation. In their early months, all three rocketed out of the gate… but only AI had staying power. 

One year later, our team re-ran the numbers and guess what? The AI hype train didn’t just keep going—it firewalled the throttle. Just look above at what happened to the right of the dashed line, which was the graph one year ago! 

The latest data on Google Search trends shows AI interest has completely eclipsed other major tech buzzwords and the gap has only widened.  

Why? Because AI isn’t just hype—it’s transforming industries in real-time. Unlike NFTs, which had their speculative boom-and-bust, or the Metaverse, which still struggles to find its mainstream purpose, AI is delivering tangible, world-changing results that transcend not only industry but the gap between B2B and B2C communications.  

Consider:  

  • GenAI: Tools like ChatGPT, Midjourney and Claude are reinventing content creation—from writing to art to code. 
  • Enterprise Adoption: Businesses are integrating AI to automate workflows, boost productivity and make better decisions. 
  • AI in Daily Life: From customer service chatbots to AI-powered search, AI is fast on its way to becoming an everyday utility, not just a novelty. 

The real question now isn’t whether AI interest will level off before the next time we run the numbers (because it won’t). It’s how much bigger can it get? 

What This Means for Communicators 

We can’t help but apply this AI momentum to the thing we do – help brands and organizations communicate, so here are a few trends we’re following closer to home: 

  • Transforming Storytelling: AI is enabling hyper-personalized content (both in creation and delivery) and data-driven messaging, allowing brands to connect with audiences in more meaningful ways. 
  • Shaping Media Strategies: AI-powered analytics are refining how communicators measure impact, predict trends and optimize outreach efforts. 
  • Enhancing Crisis Communications: With real-time monitoring and sentiment analysis, AI helps communicators anticipate and manage brand reputation more effectively. 
  • Redefining Audience Engagement: From AI-generated content to chatbots handling real-time interactions, AI is changing how brands interact with stakeholders. 

For communication professionals navigating this AI-driven landscape, the data presents a clear directive: AI is no longer optional—it is essential. Here are three ways that communicators can stay ahead: 

  1. Integrate AI Tools: Leverage AI-driven analytics, sentiment analysis and automation to enhance strategy and execution. 
  1. Experiment with AI-Generated Content: Test AI-driven copywriting, video generation and personalization to refine messaging and engagement. 
  1. Invent, then invent again: AI’s evolution is rapid. Communicators must remain agile, continuously learning and experimenting with new capabilities. 

While other tech fads come and go, AI will continue to reshape how brands tell their stories, connect with audiences and measure success. 

AI isn’t just a tool for efficiency—it’s a strategic imperative. Communicators who embrace AI today will be the ones shaping the conversations of tomorrow. 

(Rita Herbstman and Maddie Blanz from our TRUE Global Intelligence practice contributed to this article, as did designer Josh Kirk.)