The FIR Podcast Network Everything Feed

The FIR Podcast Network Everything Feed
  • 4.5 (24)
  • NEWS COMMENTARY
  • UPDATED SEMIWEEKLY

Subscribe to receive every episode of every show on the FIR Podcast Network

  1. 1D AGO

    Clarity or Chaos? Managers s As A Communication Channel

    Welcome to the first-ever episode of On the Same Page, the new employee communication podcast from communication veterans Shel Holtz and Steve Crescenzo. In this first episode, Shel and Steve tell their origin story, recount how this podcast came to be, what listeners can expect, and riff on how to tap into managers to help support communication to their team members. We hope you’ll participate in the show by sharing your comments, questions, experiences, and anecdotes by sending an email to fircomments@gmail.com (include an audio clip; we’ll play it), or commenting on this page or on the announcement posts on LinkedIn, Facebook, Threads, or BlueSky. As you can see below, you can also watch the YouTube video version of the show. Raw Transcript: Shel Holtz: If your managers are improvising messages, you don’t have a communication strategy, you have a rumor pipeline. Steve Crescenzo: Manager communications — one of the most misunderstood and ignored parts of employee communications, but one we need to pay attention to. But before we get there, welcome to the first-ever episode of On the Same Page. Shel Holtz: Now, factoring managers into communication is the kind of challenge, Steve, you and I are going to be talking about here on this brand spanking new internal comms podcast. Steve Crescenzo: I prefer to say employee comms podcast show, but we’ll be sure to be talking about that as we go. Yeah, we’ve obviously launched this podcast for communicators primarily, but we’re also hoping some managers listen in, some executives, some leaders, some CEOs — they could all benefit from what we’re going to be talking about, right? Shel Holtz: Absolutely. This is for anybody who’s engaged in communication inside the organization, whether it’s the formal communication that is the work of we employee communicators, or just people who know that they have to do it, whether that’s senior executives or department managers or whomever. But we’ll cover one dimension of employee comms, internal comms, whatever you want to call it — EC/IC — in each episode. Steve Crescenzo: Yep, exactly right. And yeah, you know, if you work in an organization, you have to communicate. You may not do it for a living, but you have to communicate. So why don’t we tell the gang where — you and I have known each other for 30 years, 32 years, something like that. And we’ve talked about this before, and we always say we’re going to do it. We never do it. You’re already doing podcasts, and I’m lazy. I’m like, this is extra work. I never give myself extra work. But this is the right time to do it. Why do you think I finally caved and you finally said, you know, we need to carve out time for this. Why now? Shel Holtz: Well, there’s a couple of reasons. Some are based on what’s going on in the world right now, and some are based on the fact that I’m working on a book that covers all this. And it has the same title as this podcast. The topics we’re going to cover come from the framework from this book. The book is a framework for internal comms — employee… I call it employee communications in the book, by the way. And I do that for a very specific reason. I got some pushback on that from one of the internal communications experts, thought leaders out there, whom I asked to review it. And he said, call it internal comms, don’t call it employee comms because there are other audiences that are internal besides employees. And I said, yeah, but this book is just for communicating with employees because they are, as Roger D’Aprix called them, informed insiders. Those other people, the contractors that come in and are embedded in the organization — yeah, they’re there, they’re getting a lot of that internal messaging, but they’re accountable to the values and the purpose of the company that they work for, the one that pays them. Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, they have their own mission and values and everything. Yeah, I’m glad you stuck to your guns on that, Shel. Shel Holtz: Yeah, and I do think internal communicators need to factor in those audiences, those stakeholders, but not for the purposes of the book that I wrote. That’s really aimed at employees. The framework came when I was an independent consultant. I haven’t been one of those for — it’ll be nine years in October. It really is. The older you get, the faster that time goes by. But when I was doing independent consulting, I found myself sort of reinventing this on every engagement, particularly on internal communication audits. And I said, this is ridiculous. If I just had the framework fleshed out, I could just pull it out and I could do the audit report much more quickly. So I sat down and I came up with it, and I worked with a few other people to get their thoughts. And finally I had it in front of me and I said, it looks like there’s about 28 elements of this. I ought to flesh these out. So I did a blog post for each of them. And about halfway through, somebody said, you are going to turn this into a book, aren’t you? And I said, well, I hadn’t thought about that. But now that I have, yeah, I will. So that took — yeah, all of this has taken 15, 16 years since I first sat down and hammered out the framework. And I mean, I had some great help. Brian O’Mara-Croft actually did the visuals to take my terrible graphic and turn it into something that looked nice. Steve Crescenzo: Hello, Brian. Hello, Brian. Well, I’m very lucky in that I’m one of the rare people who’ve read the book and really, really love the book. And when you said you wanted to start a podcast to further explore the topics in that book, I was all over it. Now, there’s so much to cover, but we’ve got the rest of our lives, Shel, right? Well, I’m not going anywhere. You got at least five years left, right? Shel Holtz: My dog has at least five years left and I don’t want to leave her alone. Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, when he goes, you go, probably. But we’re gonna try to stick to, what, about 20 minutes? I mean, that’s hard for me and you. I think that’s gonna be hard. That’s gonna be our biggest challenge. I’ll tell you that right now. I got a lot to say, and I want a lot to learn from you, and I got a lot of opinions, so it’ll be tough to stick to 20 minutes, but we can. Shel Holtz: It will. We’ll try. My view on the length of podcasts — and anybody who’s listened to FIR already knows this — is that they should be as long as it takes to say what you wanted to say, as long as it remains interesting for the people who are listening. If people are going, my God, they’re just droning on and on, I’m going to go listen to something else, then… Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, I always get the question in my writing workshops about how long can an online article be? And I said, as short as humanly possible without leaving anything important out. That’s it. Not an extra word after that. Shel Holtz: I think that’s a great answer. So we’re going to shoot for 20 minutes. If we go over, we’ll go over. If during the editing process I think I can make it shorter without leaving out anything that needed to be said, I’ll edit mercilessly. But the point here is to be entertaining and informative at the same time. And that’s why I wanted to do this with you, Steve — besides your experience with employee communications, all the various companies you’ve worked with, everything you’ve learned. I figure you and I are gonna host an entertaining show. Steve Crescenzo: Have some fun. We’ll have fun. These things aren’t worth it. We’re not getting paid, Shel. I don’t know if you realize that, but we’re not getting paid. Well, you gotta have fun. We’re love. So we’re gonna do one every other week, right? Shel Holtz: No, this is a labor of love. And speaking of that, we’re going to bring your wife into this every now and then. Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, we’re gonna — that sounds kind of weird. All right, let’s just take… but yeah. We’re gonna bring Cindy in once in a while. We’re not gonna have a lot of guests though, right? Do we agree to that? Shel Holtz: Now, the goal here is not to do another interview podcast. This is two people who have been doing internal comms for their entire careers and sharing what we have learned and what we know around each of these topics that we will introduce. And these topics — we’re not going to do a topic just once. We’ll come back to them as there are new things to talk about. But when we get to measurement, that’s Cindy’s area of expertise. She works with you at Crescenzo Communications. Steve Crescenzo: Yeah, she runs our audits. She’s a measurement queen — dashboards, measuring behavior, not outcomes, outputs. I mean, she lives and breathes that stuff. So yeah, you know, there’s open marriages where they introduce somebody else into the marriage. And this is an open podcast. Once in a while, we’ll bring Cindy in. Shel Holtz: And once in a while, we’ll bring in another communicator, presumably somebody who is doing this in an organization, but not to interview them — just to have the conversation with them because they have expertise or experience around the topic that we’re discussing. Steve Crescenzo: So, you know, people know you and people know me, but they may not know us and how long we’ve known each other. So I remember the first time I met you. It was in New Orleans, and I had just almost pretty much just started at Ragan Communications. I was a nobody, you were already well known. And it was the days of CompuServe. And I went out to CompuServe and I met you and Pete Shinbach and Charles Pizzo and Craig Jolly. And you guys were doing like a barnstorming tour all over the place. And Charles Pizzo invited me down to New Orleans, which is where he lives, to be the lunch speaker. So you guys are going to handle all the hea

    27 min

  2. 4D AGO

    FIR #513: Why Communications Must Build the Narrative Code for the Agentic Age

    Neville and Shel dig into a provocative Harvard Business Review article that argues most marketing teams are structurally unprepared for the speed and scale that agentic AI now enables. The bottleneck, the authors contend, isn’t the technology; it’s the operating model. Neville and Shel connect the piece to conversations FIR has been having for the past year: AI as orchestration rather than automation, professionals shifting from supervisors of tasks to directors of systems, and 2026 increasingly framed as “the year of the agent.” At the center of the Harvard piece is the idea of a “brand code” — a machine-readable knowledge system that lets specialized AI agents continuously create, adapt, test, and optimize marketing in real time. Communications urgently needs its own equivalent: a “narrative code” containing executive voice profiles, message hierarchies, sensitive-topic guardrails, and escalation rules. Whoever builds it first, he warns, will inherit the agentic stack, and if marketing gets there first, comms will be stuck with a system never designed for crisis, controversy, or stakeholder complexity. The episode also includes some concrete examples and early thoughts on Hermes, Wispr Flow, and where human judgment still has to win. Links from this episode: Redesigning Your Marketing Organization for the Agentic Age The Year of the Agent: What it means for the future of communications Google Summary: The Year of the Agent: What it means for the future of communications If you work in PR and you’re unsure how AI agents will help you, this should help. The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, May 25. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript Shel: Hi, everybody, and welcome to episode number 513 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz. Neville: I’m Neville Hobson. Over the past couple of years, we’ve heard countless conversations about how AI is changing marketing and communication. Most of those discussions tend to focus on tools — faster content creation, better personalization, workflow automation, synthetic media, analytics — all the things AI can supposedly do more quickly and at greater scale than humans. A new article in Harvard Business Review published last week takes the discussion somewhere much bigger. Its argument is not simply that AI will improve marketing productivity. Its argument is that AI may fundamentally redesign how marketing organizations themselves operate. The article is called “Redesigning Your Marketing Organization for the Agentic Age,” and the authors argue that most marketing teams are structurally unprepared for the speed and scale AI now enables. The reasoning is interesting; we’ll look into this in a minute. AI has already accelerated software engineering and product development dramatically. Products, updates, campaigns, and features are being developed and shipped much faster than before. But marketing organizations, they argue, are still largely built around sequential workflows, siloed teams, approval chains, meetings, handoffs, and coordination-heavy processes. So even when AI speeds up individual tasks, the organization itself still moves slowly. In other words, the bottleneck isn’t necessarily the technology, it’s the operating model. What struck me reading this article is that in many ways it feels like the continuation of conversations we’ve already been having on FIR over the past year. About a year ago, Shel demonstrated some of the early agentic AI capabilities we were beginning to see emerge — systems that could move beyond simple chatbot interactions and actually take actions across workflows, tools, and platforms. At the time, it felt experimental, slightly futuristic, and maybe just a glimpse of where things might be heading. Since then, we’ve repeatedly returned to related themes on the podcast: AI as orchestration rather than just automation, and managers becoming directors of systems rather than supervisors of tasks, to name but two. Recently, the wider communications industry has been framing 2026 as the year of the agent, a fundamental shift from generative AI, which creates content based on prompts, to agentic AI, which acts autonomously to achieve long-term goals. The rise of such autonomous agents requires a focus on agentic orchestration, with professionals acting as AI engineers who guide, manage, and audit these digital employees. As we discussed on this podcast last year, communication departments will adopt a hybrid structure where humans focus on high-level strategy and creativity while AI agents handle high-volume procedural communication tasks at machine speed. We’re already seeing a marked impact on marketing and public relations. The Harvard piece explains how companies such as HubSpot and AWS have begun putting this model into practice. They say organizations are achieving measurable gains, with marketing materials adapted up to 98 times faster, unit costs reduced by 80%, and click-through rates increased up to 17 times. Research from BCG has demonstrated these benefits at scale. Organizations embedding agentic AI into marketing workflows, the research has found, can achieve up to a threefold increase in ROI, campaign speed, and content volume. That’s why this Harvard article feels so interesting to me. It doesn’t contradict any earlier conversations; it complements them. It takes many of the ideas we’ve been discussing conceptually and places them inside a concrete organizational model. The authors propose something they call an agentic marketing organization — essentially a system where humans and AI agents work together continuously across multiple layers of activity. At the center of this idea is what they describe as a brand code: a machine-readable knowledge system containing brand strategy, customer insights, messaging frameworks, business rules, governance structures, and operational guidance that both people and AI systems can understand and act upon. Once that foundation exists, specialized AI agents can continuously create, adapt, test, distribute, optimize, and report on marketing activity in real time. It’s a vision of marketing that starts to look less like a department and more like an operating system. But what really caught my attention wasn’t the technology itself so much; it was the shift in the role of the marketer. Because beneath all the platform architecture and workflow diagrams is a much deeper question: if AI increasingly handles execution, what becomes the real value of marketers and communicators? The article argues that value shifts away from production and toward judgment — setting intent, evaluating outputs, interpreting signals, shaping governance, and guiding how the system evolves. And that raises some fascinating questions for communicators. But first, Shel, your demo of those early agentic capabilities was about a year ago now. As I mentioned earlier, it felt experimental and slightly futuristic then. So what’s changed since then? Shel: It feels like ancient history now. If I were to look at that, I’d probably shake my head and say, “my God, that’s pretty primitive.” The way it worked was, it took a screenshot of every site it visited and then acted on the screenshot. So it was a very slow and tedious process. The video that I shared, I edited out all of the waiting time for it to go through all of this, because it showed you everything. And those days are long gone. That was clearly a demo. I don’t remember which of the AI models offered that — I think it was Anthropic — but it was just tedious and not all that functional. It did what it was supposed to do in the end, which was to create a spreadsheet with the information I’d asked for. It was some open-source spreadsheet that it used. I ran a similar exercise just last week using Claude Cowork. And this was for a piece somebody in our sustainability department wrote. It was about two projects that had achieved world-first certifications for zero waste, which is kind of a big deal in the construction industry. It’s one of the biggest contributors to landfills and the like, the industry is. So I’m looking to place this article. And what I did was, I told Claude Cowork that I wanted four subagents working: one to look at construction and AEC publications — that’s architecture, engineering, and construction; AEC is the category for the industry. Another one was going to look at sustainability publications. And there was one other, but I also had it look for podcasts where the authors of this report might be invited for an interview. I said, what I want you to do is find the publications and podcasts based on their previous content that are most likely to be interested in something like this, and then create a spreadsheet with the name of the outlet. And of course, divide it into these categories — right? AEC, podcasts, sustainability-focused publications, and the like. Mainstream media was the other category. But I also wanted the URL, I wanted the name of the appropriate person to pitch the article to. And then, based on what that person has written — that particular reporter or editor — I wanted a pitch that was personalized to that person. And I came back in about half an hour, and there was a spreadsheet ready to go. And I had started acting on it

    34 min

  3. 4D AGO

    ALP 304: Stop making sacrifices your agency doesn’t need you to make

    Most agency owners think they’re doing their team a favor when they quietly absorb the painful, tedious, or time-consuming work. They’re likely not. In this episode, Chip Griffin and Gini Dietrich look at the sacrifices owners make on behalf of their teams and why those sacrifices often create more problems than they solve. This isn’t about the occasional tactical sacrifice, it’s about the systemic ones: the conscious decisions to absorb entire categories of work because you’ve decided your team would find them too difficult, too unpleasant, or too much of a burden. Gini admits she’s guilty of it herself, sharing that a new COO sat her down with a list of tasks she’d been handling and told her she shouldn’t be doing any of them. The jobs weren’t glamorous, but they weren’t the owner’s job either. Chip extends this into two areas where owner sacrifice tends to do the most damage: new business development, where owners keep proposals and pitches entirely to themselves thinking they’re protecting team time, and org chart design, where flat structures are usually not a deliberate choice but the result of owners absorbing management responsibilities no one else wanted. Both patterns block team growth and overload the owner at the same time. Gini describes a practice she returns to every quarter, sorting her task list into three buckets — things only she can do, things she enjoys but probably doesn’t need to do, and things she absolutely should not be doing. The third list gets delegated immediately. Chip puts it like this: for everything on your plate, ask yourself why you are the one doing it. If there isn’t a good answer, stop doing it. [read the transcript] The post ALP 304: Stop making sacrifices your agency doesn’t need you to make appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

    19 min

  4. MAY 6

    CWC 113: How AI impacts PR agencies and solos (featuring Karen Swim and Michelle Kane)

    In this episode, Chip is joined by Karen Swim and Michelle Kane of the That Solo Life Podcast for part one of a special crossover episode exploring the practical effects of AI on agencies, solos, and the communications industry. Karen and Michelle share their view that AI is no longer optional. Practitioners who resist it risk falling behind, while those who embrace it can dramatically expand their capabilities. The conversation goes beyond basic content creation, exploring how AI can elevate strategy, reinvigorate professional skills, and free up time for deeper, more creative thinking. Chip, Karen, and Michelle also discuss the importance of treating AI like a new employee — providing context, voice, and guidance to get the best results — and address common concerns around ethics, privacy, and copyright. They encourage communicators who haven’t revisited these tools recently to dive back in, as the technology has advanced rapidly and shows no signs of slowing down. [read the transcript] The post CWC 113: How AI impacts PR agencies and solos (featuring Karen Swim and Michelle Kane) appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

    24 min

  5. MAY 4

    ALP 303: Preparing for your agency’s group presentations and pitches

    In this episode, Chip and Gini open with the analogy of Canadian doubles, the tennis format where two players face one. If your team outnumbers the prospect, you don’t project strength, you project awkwardness. But the conversation goes well beyond headcount. A little preparation goes a long way in making sure every seat on your side is justified. You’ll want to match expertise to whoever the prospect brought, which requires actually knowing who’s coming. Gini described a recent pitch where she reverse-engineered her attendee list based entirely on who was showing up from the prospect’s side. That’s not logistics, it’s strategy. And whoever is in the room during the pitch needs to be the person doing the work after the contract is signed — not a handoff to a team with no context and no ownership. Both Chip and Gini are emphatic that the meeting itself should not feel rehearsed like a school play. Agency owners who show up prepared to have a real conversation before pitching solutions will stand out. Harder for many owners is knowing when to keep quiet. Interjecting while a team member gives an imperfect answer undermines their confidence, signals to the prospect they can’t be trusted, and makes them rely on you. The debrief after the meeting is where the coaching happens. [read the transcript] The post ALP 303: Preparing for your agency’s group presentations and pitches appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

    23 min

  6. MAY 4

    FIR #512: The AI Shift in Executive Decision-Making

    While there’s no evidence that business leaders are outsourcing the most important decisions to AI, there are reports that many executives are relying on AI to make many — in fact, most — of their decisions. The implications for communications could be huge. Links from this episode: AI Is Changing More Than Work, It’s Rewiring Executive Decision-Making Inside the C-suite: How AI is quietly reshaping executive decisions AI and the future of human decision making C-Suite Executives Dominate AI Decision-Making as Strategy Becomes Priority Decision-Making by Consensus Doesn’t Work in the AI Era How AI Is Transforming the Way Executives Lead Leadership at a Turning Point: How AI Is Shaping Executive Decision-Making Can AI Make Executive Decisions? The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, May 25. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript Neville: Hi everybody, and welcome to episode 512 of For Immediate Release. I’m Neville Hobson. Shel: And I’m Shel Holtz. The inspiration for this week’s report came from a post Brian Solis wrote recently. In it, he argued that AI isn’t just changing work — it’s rewiring how executives make decisions. Once Brian put that in my head, the trend started standing out in other things I was seeing. I’ll summarize the numbers and what they mean for communicators right after this. The numbers Brian pulled together are honestly alarming. A Confluent study of UK private sector leaders found that 62% of executives now use AI to make the majority of their decisions. That’s not some — it’s the majority. 70% say they second-guess themselves when AI disagrees with them, and 46% say they rely on AI more than their own colleagues. On the U.S. side, SAP’s research found that 44% of C-suite executives would reverse a decision they had already planned to make based on AI input. 74% place more confidence in AI advice than in the advice they get from family and friends. Meanwhile, McKinsey reports that 92% of companies plan to increase their AI investment over the next three years, but only 1% — 1 percent — describe themselves as mature in deployment. The money to pay for AI and a sort of blind trust in its abilities are racing ahead of the internal competence to use it. Now, I want to be clear before I go on. I’m not anti-AI, Neville — you know this. Anyone who listens to the show knows I’ve been beating the drum for AI as a tool for communicators and for business in general for a long time. AI as a thinking partner, a research assistant, a stress-tester for ideas — that’s enormously valuable. But there’s a meaningful difference between using AI to inform a decision and using AI to make the decision. And Brian puts this well: AI is becoming the new executive influencer. The problem is that it hasn’t earned that role, at least not yet. So let’s talk about what this means for those of us in communication, because the implications are everywhere. Start with employee trust. The implicit deal between an organization and its workforce is that the people at the top got there because they have judgment and experience and pattern recognition that the rest of us don’t have — or at least they’ve been able to employ it really well and get noticed by the people who promote you into those leadership decisions. That’s the story leadership tells, and it’s the story employees buy into. Now imagine the all-hands where the CEO announces a major restructuring, and somewhere in the Q&A, or worse, on Blind or Reddit a week later, it comes out that the decision was essentially handed to a chatbot. What happens to confidence in leadership? What happens to engagement? What happens to the social contract that says, follow me because I know where we’re going? You can’t credibly ask people to bring their full selves to work, as they say, while you’re outsourcing your own judgment to a language model. Now extend that to external stakeholders — investors, customers, regulators, the board. They’re paying, and in a lot of cases they’re paying a lot, for executive judgment. If a strategic call goes sideways — and you know that happens — the explanation that the AI suggested it isn’t going to land well. It’s going to sound like an abdication, because it is an abdication. And from a crisis communication standpoint, “we trusted the algorithm” is one of the worst defenses I can imagine. I don’t expect that anybody’s going to say that, but it doesn’t mean it’s not going to come out. Just ask anyone who’s worked an aviation incident, a financial services failure, or a healthcare AI misfire. Imagine the reaction when either the leader tells people, or they learn through a third party, that the afflicted stakeholder hears, “Well, that’s the decision the AI told me to make.” And there’s a third implication that I think communicators need to surface inside our organizations: the erosion of dissent. I find this particularly interesting and disturbing. Confluent found that 65% of leaders say decision-making has become less collaborative since adopting AI. The Harvard Business Review just ran a piece arguing that consensus is dead in the AI era. That may be — but debate isn’t consensus. Debate is the friction that exposes bad assumptions. It’s what didn’t happen at that auto manufacturer — I think it was Volkswagen with their emissions standards. They didn’t have the psychological safety to feel safe in dissenting against the decisions being made. In this case, we’re not even looking forward at the leadership level in some cases. If AI is pushing aside the colleague who would have pushed back, whatever process your organization had for dissent just stops functioning. And when dissent dies, so does the early warning system communicators rely on to spot reputational risks before they get out of control. So what do we do? A few things. We push for governance — and if you already have a governance model, push to revisit it. Your governance needs clear declarations of which decisions AI informs versus which ones it actually makes. We coach our executives to talk publicly about how they actually use AI, with appropriate humility, before the question gets asked for them. We build the internal narrative that human accountability is non-negotiable, no matter how good the model gets. And we keep reminding leadership that machine confidence isn’t the same as strategic clarity. Brian’s right: AI is a test of leadership. It’s also, increasingly, a test of communication. Neville? Neville: Well, just to set my position clear on this, too — I’ve been a drum-beater for AI as a research assistant, as a useful tool, since GPT first came out. The initial kind of hysterical enthusiasm was tempered over time, but I use the tool every single day in what I do for work, or for pleasure for that matter. So it’s something I believe strongly in. But I’ve got this, how could you say, in the back of my mind always — this thought that I don’t accept blindly anything the AI assistant tells me. If I’m researching something, for instance, I’m going to make a recommendation about something, let’s say, or I’m writing a report or even something relatively simple like an article for the blog. If I felt I wanted to say this and it’s telling me that, that’s a simple decision: I’m either going to follow it or not. Typically when that happens, I’ll ask it questions to further that angle. But this is something else, what Brian writes about. And The Register — I’ve read their piece — tempered with a bit of hysteria, it seems. I mean, this is a very alarmist piece, or argument, you could say. If it’s saying, as it is — the survey that The Register reports on — 62% of leaders of private sector companies, and according to The Register that’s owners, founders, CEOs, managing directors, the C-level leaders of various types of companies. They didn’t say sizes. But they use AI to make the majority of the decisions, which leads to some of the alarm bells ringing that you outlined. What if it gets out that the AI made a decision when something goes south? You could flip that. What happens if it gets out that an amazing decision that led to the company being massively successful was actually made by an AI? I think it’s inevitable you’d have that sort of focus on it alongside more sane arguments, perhaps. You could argue, well, that CEO is pretty smart that he used an AI to help him do that — as opposed to the other side, which is, gee, we’ve got to fire this guy, he used an AI and it went wrong. So you’ve got to put some balance there. Also, I think you mentioned this earlier, and I agree with you, that there are two angles to every question we might ask about this. One is internal, within an organization, and the other is external. So it is an interesting point. And one thought I had in my mind, the pragmatic question: if a leader changes a decision he or she has made because the AI assistant suggests something different, who actually owns that decision in the end? In fact, whether he changes his mind or not, if the AI said, “I recommend you should do this, and here are the 10 reasons to support that idea,” that are different from what the leader was going to do, and he or she made the changed decision based on

    31 min

  7. APR 27

    ALP 302: Rethink entry-level hiring to succeed in the AI era

    The entry-level talent pipeline is being entirely restructured. If agency owners don’t figure out what role a young professional actually plays in an AI-assisted agency, they won’t just struggle to hire today. They’ll have no one to promote in five years. In this episode, Chip and Gini dig into what’s happening with entry-level hiring right now, and why the answer can’t be to stop hiring junior staff altogether. The conversation covers why the old model of routine work is gone, what needs to replace it, and why agencies that don’t solve this problem soon are setting themselves up for failure. The episode opens with an observation from Gini: every presentation she gives to college classes lately surfaces the same anxiety from students. Nobody’s hiring at the entry level because AI can handle the work those roles used to cover — news releases, media lists, social drafts, basic research. How can they find jobs today, and get the on-the-job training they need to move forward in their careers? Chip frames the problem as a junction of circumstances: the rise of AI, economic uncertainty, and a higher education system that hasn’t evolved with the workforce reality. Colleges discouraging AI use while their graduates are about to enter workplaces built around it is, as he puts it, the same mistake as banning calculators in math class. The students coming in aren’t unprepared because they’re less capable, they’re underprepared because the institutions that trained them weren’t keeping up with the times. Chip and Gini agree that entry-level hires aren’t obsolete, but the role must change. Instead of being the lowest rung of the ladder, new professionals need to come in already functioning like managers — just managing AI tools and processes instead of people. That requires more on-the-job training, better-documented processes and SOPs, and a genuine commitment to learning and development that most agencies still don’t have. There’s more than one upside, though. Better documentation and SOPs don’t just help entry-level hires do their jobs — they make your agency more efficient, reduce owner dependency, and, for those who want to sell someday, significantly improve the value of the business. Their closing argument is not to avoid entry-level hiring because the old version of the role is antiquated. Rethink what the role is, invest in the systems that support it, and get comfortable assigning junior people with responsibilities that would have felt premature five years ago. The alternative is a mid-level talent shortage that will be very hard to fix. [read the transcript] The post ALP 302: Rethink entry-level hiring to succeed in the AI era appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

    19 min

  8. APR 27

    Doing AI Governance Right and Still Getting it Wrong

    The policies are clear and well communicated. The guardrails are firmly established. Every last employee has been trained. And someone in your organization still releases a public document riddled with AI-generated errors. What went wrong has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with internal culture and accountability. In this long-form April episode, Neville and Shel examine a company that seemingly took all the right steps yet still had to apologize publicly for a court filing riddled with hallucinated citations. Also in this episode: Gartner predicts that, by 2028, 75% of employees will rely on an internal chatbot to get the news that matters to them. How will internal communicators need to rethink their role to ensure everyone knows and understands what they should in order to achieve strategic alignment? One of the promises AI executives have made is a leveling of the playing field, giving lower-level employees the opportunity to excel and rise through the ranks. According to one new study, exactly the opposite has been happening. PR hacks have been accelerating the pace at which they churn out press releases and pitches. That has raised the bar for what it takes to earn a journalist’s trust (and journalists do still rely on press releases, according to a survey of reporters). Apple’s announcement of its CEO transition offers communicators a clinic on how to announce a new top executive. “Slopaganda” from Iran has proven remarkably effective, which means it is undoubtedly coming for your company or clients soon. In his Tech Report, Dan York outlines big changes coming with WordPress’s next update. Links from this episode: Elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell admits to AI ‘hallucinations’ Sullivan & Cromwell law firm apologizes for AI ‘hallucinations’ in court filing Letter re: In re Prince Global Holdings Limited, et al., No. 26-10769 Sullivan & Cromwell Just Put Every Firm on Notice. And S&C Advises OpenAI on Safe AI Use. An AI Screw-Up By… Sullivan & Cromwell? LinkedIn search results for Sullivan & Cromwell AI AI, Trust, and the Reinvention of Corporate Communications: Inside Gartner’s 2026 Playbook Does your intranet still matter in an AI-first workplace? Chatbots in Internal Communications: Game-Changing Wins How AI Chatbots Are Redefining Internal Communications? The future of internal communication: How AI is changing the workplace High earners race ahead on AI as workplace divide widens Sarah O’Connor: One early view about AI was that it would share… How AI is forcing journalists and PR to work smarter, not louder What journalists want from AI-assisted PR pitches Journalists Trust Human-Written Pitches Over AI Journalists Reject AI-Generated Press Releases As Untrustworthy What communicators can learn from Apple’s CEO transition announcement Tim Cook to become Apple Executive Chairman; John Ternus to become Apple CEO Iran’s Meme War Against Trump Ushers In a Future of ‘Slopaganda’ Iran’s ‘slopaganda’ team uses AI Legos to flood social media Slopaganda wars: how and why the US and Iran are flooding the zone with viral AI-generated noise Slopaganda Comes of Age Alberta separatist leader unconcerned about influence of YouTube ‘slopaganda’ videos Links from Dan York’s Tech Report WordPress 7.0 Source of Truth – Gutenberg Times WordPress 7.0: Real-Time Collaboration Arrives in Core WordPress 7.0 Release Party Updated Schedule The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, May 25. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript Shel: Hi everybody and welcome to episode number 511 of For Immediate Release. This is our long-form episode for April 2026. I’m Shel Holtz in Concord, California. Neville: And I’m Neville Hobson, Somerset in England. We have six great stories to discuss and share with you this month and to delight and entertain you, we hope. Topics range from the consequences of not following company guidance on AI use, chat bots, employee use, and the workplace divide, using AI to work smarter, what we learned from Apple’s CEO transition announcement, and the future of slopaganda. Lovely word, that one, show. Plus, Dan York’s tech report. But first, let’s begin with a recap of the episodes we’ve published over the past month and some listening comments. In the long form episode 506 for March, published on the 23rd of March, our lead story was on Anthropic’s view that AI will destroy the billable hour, a topic we’ve talked about before on FIR. We also explored digital monitoring of employee work, Gartner’s prediction that PR budgets will double next year, the escalating misinformation crisis, and Cloudflare’s prediction that bot traffic will exceed human traffic by 2027. That’s next year, by the way. On LinkedIn, you’ll find no shortage of posts stridently deriding the notion that anyone should ever use AI to write them. In FIR 507 on the 30th of March, we rejected roundly that idea and looked at the actual trends in using AI for writing. And that prompted some comments from listeners, right? Shel: Yes, it did. Starting with Susan Gosselin, who’s actually with a client of mine back in my consulting days. She writes, there are many types of writing that I think AI is great for interpersonal communications, summaries, et cetera. But for marketing writing, that’s another thing. There are issues of copyright to consider and what you’re feeding into the channel. This article from Jane Friedman, and she’s linked to it, and we’ll include that link in the show notes, is aimed at authors, but it does have implications for marketing writers too. For instance, I work for an American IT MSP, that’s a managed service provider. Let’s say that an MSP in Spain that does our line of work sees our website and our authoritative blogs and e-books and likes it. They decide to run our whole English website into Spanish using an AI translator. then make a few tweaks and publish. There’s not a lot to stop them. There’s also the issue of being able to defend your copyright overall. The law is not yet fixed and the risks are real. Then Steve Lubetkin writes, I find AI particularly helpful for rote tasks like organizing lists, transforming Excel spreadsheet columns, and summarizing interview transcripts. It’s also great for brainstorming ideas when it suggests perspectives I hadn’t thought of. but ultimately it comes down to using it as a tool for further human intervention, not less. Neville, you responded to that saying that’s a great way of putting it, Steve. Those rote tasks are exactly where AI seems to shine, the kind of work that takes time but doesn’t really benefit from deep human creativity. And I agree on brainstorming too. It could be surprisingly good at surfacing angles you might not have considered. I do this a lot. Your last point really nails it though. It’s not about removing human input. It’s about focusing it where it matters most. Used that way, AI doesn’t diminish the work. It can actually elevate it. And finally, we have a comment from Yorma Mananan who writes, AI can help people escape from the writer’s block. So why not use it to get started? However, writers must own all content created with or without AI so the content doesn’t sound like you, you shouldn’t publish it. The challenge is to learn to speak machine English with AI. Define clearly why you were writing, what you want to say, and what you want your readers to do after reading your content. Without your strategy, AI can’t produce quality content that sounds like you. Strategy first, AI second. And Neville, responded to Yorma. You said, I like how you framed this using AI to get past the blank page is a very practical use case. That starting friction is real for a lot of people, and AI can lower the barrier quite effectively. Your point about ownership is key too. If it doesn’t sound like you, it isn’t really yours, regardless of how it was produced. Where I’d add a layer is around your machine English idea. I see it slightly differently. Rather than learning to speak machine, I think the real shift is learning how to think with the machine, using it to clarify intent, test structure, and challenge assumptions. But I agree with your conclusion. Strategy first, AI second. Without that, you’re just generating words, not communicating. And Yorma responded to you saying, agree. Machine thinking is a better way of describing the conversation relationship with AI. Neville: Good comment! Great. It’s excellent to have that. interesting, Shell, that it illustrates to me something. It’s not a trend at all, but I’ve noticed recently in other posts I see on LinkedIn that address this kind of topic. Increasingly, there’s people leaving comments that are basically saying that you own it, not the AI. And AI assists you in communicating, not creating the final stuff, essentially, which is what some of these comments are alluded to. Maybe people are waking up to that more than they have been in the past. It won’t silence the big critics. We’ve already seen that because, you know, it’s going to be criticized no matter what. But the more people who talk up the reality of what we all talk about, which is this is an assistant. It’s a tool to help you and communicate more effectively. It enhances your ability in

    1h 33m
See All (111)

4.5
out of 5
24 Ratings

About

Subscribe to receive every episode of every show on the FIR Podcast Network

Information