Do not ask how AI can make your work faster. Do not ask AI to help you draft a better holding statement. Instead, ask yourself how you make a judgement call?

Allow me to explain…

A language model can draft a plausible statement in seconds. But crisis counsel begins well before the statement. It begins with deciding what happened, what remains unknown, who is affected, which risks are material, what the organization must do and whether speaking publicly will improve or worsen the situation.

Much of that reasoning has never been formally documented. Crisis communications remains an apprenticeship profession. Practitioners learn by watching experienced colleagues separate signal from noise, identify the real issue beneath a media inquiry, weigh legal and reputational concerns, and recognize when an organization should speak, prepare privately or act before communicating at all.

AI is forcing the profession to make that expertise visible through a defined operating system.

The real opportunity is not to ask technology to imitate the final output of an experienced counselor. It is to map the reasoning that precedes that output, then determine where AI can make the process faster, more rigorous and more consistent.

That work changes the role of the counselor. The AI-era crisis counselor must become an architect.

An architect does not simply produce an answer. An architect designs the system that produces better judgment. That means defining what information is required, which questions must be asked, where decision points sit, when escalation is necessary, what can be accelerated and where human accountability must remain.

We encountered this directly while building AI-enabled crisis and risk solutions at FleishmanHillard. Leveraging the technology was a challenge, but the harder work was documenting how experienced counselors think.

Before building an AI-supported risk assessment, we had to define how a counselor determines whether a potential risk is material. Volume alone is not enough. A widely shared social post may be inconsequential, while a low-visibility employee concern or regulatory inquiry may signal a much larger problem.

Before building an adaptive crisis simulation, we had to identify what makes an exercise useful. Realism matters, but the real test is whether leaders are forced to define the problem, prioritize stakeholders, make decisions with incomplete information and experience the consequences of those decisions.

Before using AI to support message development, we had to reinforce a basic principle: messages express the strategy, they aren’t the strategy.

An organization must first decide how it intends to respond, what action supports that position and what affected stakeholders need. Only then should it choose the words.

Experienced crisis counselors rarely begin by drafting. They begin by diagnosing.

What happened? What is confirmed? What remains unknown? Who is directly affected? Who can shape the consequences? What is the organization doing? What do employees need? What interpretation could take hold? What would make the situation materially worse?

They then assess severity, velocity and visibility. They consider human, operational, legal, regulatory and reputational implications. They determine the level of response required and what would trigger escalation.

Only then do they establish a response posture.

But it cannot own the consequences of a decision.

Should the organization monitor? Prepare privately? Engage a regulator? Correct misinformation? Acknowledge the issue? Apologize? Defend its position? Different stakeholders may require different approaches. A company may remain publicly quiet while briefing employees, engaging customers directly and preparing materials in case the situation changes.

Once that strategy is clear, communications can follow.

This is where AI can help. It can organize intake, identify missing questions, compare large volumes of information, surface inconsistencies, generate scenarios and develop first-pass materials. It can test assumptions and help teams prepare for pressure.

AI can classify a situation. A counselor determines whether that classification is right.

AI can generate response options. A counselor recommends how the organization should stand.

AI can draft language. Human reviewers confirm that it is accurate, operationally true, legally appropriate and responsive to stakeholder needs.

AI can simulate audience reactions. Counselors interpret those outputs, understand their limitations and decide how much weight they should carry.

AI can help prepare counsel. It cannot be counsel.

There is also a larger institutional opportunity.

When expert workflows are mapped, they become teachable. Junior practitioners can see that the work does not begin with a holding statement. It begins with intake, classification, stakeholder assessment and response posture.

Used well, AI can reinforce that learning by challenging unsupported assumptions, surfacing overlooked stakeholders and exposing practitioners to a wider range of scenarios.

It can also strengthen institutional memory. Too many organizations respond to each crisis as though it were the first. Lessons remain scattered across inboxes, outdated playbooks and the memories of people who eventually leave.

A mapped, AI-supported workflow can capture what happened, which decisions were made, how stakeholders reacted and what should change next time. Every response can make the next response smarter.

But there is a caution here. Codifying judgment can also codify blind spots. A poorly designed framework may create false confidence, reinforce narrow assumptions or turn a useful discipline into a rigid checklist.

The answer is better structure, with challenge mechanisms, quality controls and clear points of human accountability.

As AI tools become more powerful and more widely available, access to a particular model will not provide a durable advantage.

Methodology will.

The organizations that benefit most will be those that define how good judgment operates, where technology can assist and where human responsibility cannot be delegated.

The future of communications will not be defined by who writes the cleverest prompt or generates the fastest draft.

It will belong to counselors who can make expert reasoning visible, turn it into systems others can use and improve, and remain accountable for the decisions those systems inform.

Alexander Lyall is a Senior Vice President and Partner, Americas Lead for Risk Management, AI and Innovation. A 2026 PR Week 40 Under 40 honoree, he brings more than 15 years of crisis communications and issues management experience across industries, with particular focus on AI integration, preparedness strategy, and talent development.

The integrated suite enables organizations to anticipate, navigate and communicate through modern crises and issues.

FleishmanHillard announced today the launch of its Crisis, Issues and Risk Solutions Suite, a set of AI-powered platforms designed to help organizations identify risks before they escalate, practice crisis response in realistic conditions and test messaging across audiences before going live.

Built on the industry’s leading data stack, the suite combines advanced AI intelligence with deep consultancy expertise and crisis management methodology, addressing critical market gaps identified through client feedback and real-world crisis response experience.

What’s Inside the Suite

Risk ID: Identify Risk Before It Becomes News

Risk ID is an expert-guided, AI-powered platform that helps organizations identify, prioritize and mitigate reputational, regulatory, cultural and operational risks in campaigns before launch. It combines rapid risk detection with intelligent prioritization and governance confidence, answering the critical question: “Should we do this?”

Risk ID is essential for organizations entering new markets, launching sensitive campaigns, or when marketing and legal teams need data-backed clarity on risk levels.

Dive into Risk ID »

Crisis Simulator: Practice Crisis Leadership in Real Conditions

Unlike traditional tabletop exercises with fixed scripts, Crisis Simulator creates adaptive, AI-enabled crisis environments where leadership teams practice decision-making under uncertainty. As participants make choices, the simulation evolves, introducing stakeholder pressure, emerging information and shifting expectations.

The platform develops better judgment and strategic alignment across teams, particularly valuable when leadership changes, crisis plans haven’t been tested, or executives need practice making decisions together under pressure.

Dive into Crisis Simulator »

Sage Audiences: Test Messages Before They Go Live

Sage Audiences is FleishmanHillard’s award-winning synthetic audience platform that tests how real audiences will react to messages, campaigns, crisis responses and scenarios before public deployment. Built from real audience signals, client context and industry expertise, it now offers three access points:

Audience Bundles: Curated, always-on audience sets (C-Suite, Healthcare, Media and more)

Crisis-Speed Builds: Directional audiences built rapidly for fast-moving situations

Custom Builds: Bespoke audiences tailored to a specific client, sector or issue

Dive into Sage Audiences »

The United States is entering a historic two-year window: hosting the FIFA World Cup 2026 with Canada and Mexico and the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Los Angeles in 2028. These are once-in-a-generation opportunities for organizations to shape culture, deepen stakeholder trust, and build reputational capital that extends far beyond the events themselves.

But therein lies the paradox: this unprecedented opportunity also represents unprecedented risk. The communications landscape surrounding these events has been fundamentally restructured. Fragmentation, trust erosion, geopolitical volatility, and AI acceleration are hitting sports with particular intensity. In this environment, credibility – the stakeholder latitude required to execute strategy under scrutiny, adapt when conditions change, and sustain legitimacy when the path forward is uncertain- can be an organization’s most valuable asset. And, like any valuable asset, few have built it, and those who have often squander it.

 The Corporate Reputation Opportunity

Sport remains the last great gathering place: the rare arena where live, shared experience still commands attention and generates tangible emotional resonance. The brands, organizations, and leaders that convert this attention into genuine stakeholder trust will benefit from reputational assets their competitors cannot replicate and visibility that lasts well beyond those events.

But this opportunity is not automatic. Our global research of 5,550 engaged consumers, executives, and policy stakeholders across 15 markets reveals the central challenge: only 19% of global consumers have ‘a lot’ of confidence in large companies. Only 15% believe companies align their words with actions. And 48% say inconsistent leadership messaging greatly decreases their confidence. In sports, where crises arrive without warning and play out under the most scrutinized conditions of any sector, this is not theoretical. It is operational.

The organizations that will lead through these events have already begun building what we call License to Lead – deliberate, disciplined reputational credibility, backed by durable infrastructure. Our research is clear: 92% of engaged consumers say a strong, positive reputation gives a company more permission to undertake major transformation. 85% give respected companies the benefit of the doubt in a crisis. The brands that emerge from the FIFA World Cup 2026 and LA28 stronger than they entered will be the ones that invested in building this credibility now.

The Six Forces That Demand Readiness 

To navigate what’s ahead, organizations must confront the macro forces reshaping corporate communications – forces that are accelerated in sports environments.

1. Media fragmentation means no single channel carries the narrative anymore. 90%+ of Gen Z and millennials consume sports content via social and digital platforms. Your message will be clipped, recontextualized, and algorithmically amplified before your communications team sees it. This demands always-on intelligence infrastructure and real-time narrative monitoring.

2. Trust has migrated from institutions to individuals. Consumers lack confidence in large companies. Athletes carry far more credibility, making them powerful communication partners and equally powerful liabilities. This requires strategic athlete partnership architecture – from identification to execution.

3. Global sport is inescapably geopolitical. FIFA World Cup 2026 spans three nations with distinct political pressures and bilateral tensions. LA28 will unfold ahead of a U.S. presidential election cycle. Organizations must navigate this complexity with the sophistication of corporate diplomats, not just communicators.

4. The say-do gap is widening – and audiences notice. Fanbases hold organizations to a standard of loyalty more personal than any other sector. When stated values diverge from actual behavior, that gap isn’t a communications failure. It’s a betrayal. Closing it requires corporate affairs rigor, not marketing messaging.

5. Every moment is AI-amplified and instantly escalated. The speed of escalation from incident to institutional threat has compressed dramatically. The difference between surfacing a vulnerability during strategy development and discovering it when the crisis is trending can be weeks of reputational damage.

6. Adjacency is a risk category. In global sport, organizations are implicated by everything around their brand: the athlete who wears their logo, the geopolitical moment their activation lands inside, the artist performing during their event. This demands systems-level thinking about reputation.

The Difference: An Integrated Operating System 

Based on our experience counseling some of the world’s most iconic and recognizable brands through Olympic Games, FIFA World Cups, Super Bowls, and major international sporting events, organizations that emerge with their reputations intact – and often enhanced – treat reputation as strategic infrastructure. They integrate corporate affairs, brand impact, and crisis into one operating system with clear decision frameworks, defined escalation paths, and real-time action protocols. The difference between those who thrive through major sports moments and those who merely survive comes down to one thing: deliberate preparation. These are the hard questions to ask now.

On Readiness:

Have we mapped the full stakeholder ecosystem surrounding our World Cup or LA28 investment – not just fans, but athletes, NGOs, regulators, geopolitical actors, and media partners? 

Do we have a risk intelligence function operating right now, tracking the issues that are already gaining momentum in the LA28 and FIFA World Cup narratives? 

Have we scenario-planned the specific risks most relevant to our brand  – athlete activism, ESG scrutiny, geopolitical adjacency, media hijacking? 

Has our leadership team practiced its decision-making under live-event pressure, or only documented its playbooks? 

On Permission:

Have we invested in building stakeholder trust proactively – so that when we need to make a difficult decision or respond to an unexpected moment, we have credibility reserves to draw on? 

Is our corporate affairs function integrated with marketing and brand activation — or are they working from separate playbooks that will diverge under pressure? 

Do we have the intelligence infrastructure to detect narrative shifts early, when there is still time to adapt, rather than late, when management has become the only option? 

Are we prepared to operate as a corporate diplomat – navigating the sovereign complexity of a three-nation tournament and a politically exposed U.S.-hosted Games? 

The Time to Build Permission Is Now 

The organizations and brands that convert the world’s attention to sport into a License to Lead will not just protect their reputations. They will build permission to execute every strategy that follows. That infrastructure is built right now, before these events begin.

Rebecca Rausch is FleishmanHillard’s Americas Crisis Lead and a trusted expert in reputation management and crisis communications. She has led crisis and issues planning for global sporting events including the FIFA World Cup, Olympic Games, Super Bowl and major international tennis and golf tournaments. 

Leela Stake is a Senior Partner in FleishmanHillard’s Corporate Affairs practice, where she advises organizations navigating geopolitical complexity, multi-stakeholder risk and high-stakes reputational challenges at the intersection of sport, impact, and business.