Some campaigns fail because they fail to find the right message. Some campaigns succeed because they get the tone, the timing and the right approach just right. And then there are campaigns that fail for a reason that is harder to pinpoint: what they choose not to say.

At comma, we are convinced that communicating is power. The power to construct narratives, to raise awareness, to preserve memory and to decide who takes centre stage in a public conversation.

The latest campaign by Madrid City Council to mark Pride 2026 is based on a slogan that appears to be friendly. “Diversity is lived in Madrid”. It sounds positive, inclusive and easy to accept. Perhaps that’s why it’s worth looking at it with a bit more attention. Who experiences that diversity. Who represents it. Who appears in the story.

Because on the posters we don’t see any LGTBIQ+ people from Madrid. We see balconies, flowers, shops, terraces, colours and scenes from everyday life in the city. We see Madrid. But we don’t see those who have made Pride a collective achievement, a public presence and a shared memory.

This shift and this absence are no small matter. The campaign positions Madrid as the centrepiece of Pride, whilst LGBTIQ+ people are reduced to an implicit presence, suggested merely through the colours of the rainbow flag. The result is a visually appealing but politically incomplete message.

In communication, these omissions also convey a message.

When absence also conveys a message

Pride did not begin as a friendly celebration of diversity in cities. It began as a response to persecution, silence and invisibility. It began as a way of claiming public space at a time when many people were being excluded from it. It began to give a name, a face and a voice to those who had been forced to live on the margins.

That is why promoting Pride requires more than simply using that rainbow colour scheme, which has been so overused and trivialised by the mass media. It requires an understanding of what it stands for. We are not just talking about an inclusive campaign or a positive image for the city. We are talking about a collective memory built on a spirit of advocacy.

The slogan “Diversity is lived in Madrid” can be seen as an invitation to normalise diversity in everyday life. And that idea is valuable. Diversity should not exist for just one week, nor should it be confined to high-profile moments. It should be part of everyday life, of neighbourhoods, of homes, of workplaces and of shared spaces.

The problem arises when that standardisation is communicated without subjects. When diversity becomes part of the urban atmosphere, but not in human presence. When we talk about a diverse city, but not of the diverse people who live there.

Madrid is no minor player in this story. Its Pride is one of the major international events, one of the most well-attended gatherings in Europe and a space where celebration, activism, tourism, culture, the economy and rights coexist. Precisely for this reason, institutional communication surrounding Pride carries a greater responsibility than perhaps any other. It cannot be treated merely as a city asset or a tourism brand. Nor can it be seen simply as a pretty postcard depicting Madrid’s spirit of togetherness.

Pride is a celebration, yes. But it’s not just that. It is also remembrance, protest, reparation and presence.

When Madrid takes up the whole frame

Every institutional campaign chooses a central figure. In this case, the spotlight seems to be solely on… Madrid. Its balconies, its terraces, its shops, its colours. Its sense of community. Diversity emerges as a defining feature of the city, almost like a brand attribute. Madrid is open. Madrid is welcoming. Madrid is diverse.

None of that need be problematic in itself. The tricky part is that, by placing the city at the centre, the campaign runs the risk of appropriating a history that did not originate in institutions, but on the streets. Pride does not exist simply because a city is diverse. It exists because there were people who had to publicly assert their right to be so.

Therein lies one of the most interesting tensions in the field of communication. An institution can celebrate diversity, but it must do so without marginalising those who brought it to light. It can champion an open city, but it should not reduce the LGBTIQ+ community to a mere backdrop. It can talk about coexistence, but without erasing the conflict that made that coexistence necessary.

The campaign aims to convey that diversity is part of everyday life in Madrid. But by avoiding faces, bodies, names or explicit references to the community, it leaves a question unanswered. Are we talking about diversity, or are we using diversity as a way of talking about Madrid?

When the representation is not an ornament

In corporate communication and institutional communication, we talk a great deal about representation. Sometimes it seems like an overused term. But cases like this remind us why it still matters.

To represent does not mean to place symbols in a generic manner. To represent is to decide who appears, who speaks, who occupies the centre of the story and who is left in the background. In a campaign on LGTBIQ+ diversity, the absence of people from the community is not a neutral decision. It can be interpreted as a way of universalising the message, but also as a way of neutralising its political agenda.

Institutions need to address a wide audience. They must craft inclusive messages. They must ensure that public communication does not become a source of exclusion. But inclusivity must not mean blurring the lines. And toning down a message should not mean stripping it of its history.

When a Pride campaign replaces people with objects, it runs the risk of shifting the focus from rights to decoration. From memory to aesthetics. From advocacy to a postcard.

When we run the risk of turning diversity into a mere backdrop

One of the major challenges facing communication today is to prevent social causes from becoming empty visual codes. This happens with sustainability, equality, diversity and in any area where symbols carry reputational value.

The rainbow, like any symbol that is powerful, can mean many things. It can be a flag of struggle, a gesture of support, a symbol of belonging or a visual device. The difference lies in the context, the intention and the consistency.

In this campaign, the colours are there. So is the urban setting. But the community seems to be diluted into an abstract idea of the city. Diversity is presented as something that Madrid embodies, rather than as something that LGBTIQ+ people have championed, fought for and upheld for decades.

Communication does not just shape our image. It also shapes our memory. It determines what we remember, how we remember it, and whom we recognise as the protagonist of a story.

When we realise that memory also communicates

At a time when many social achievements seem to be firmly established, there is a risk of presenting rights as though they had come about of their own accord. As though equality were a natural evolution of societies rather than the result of decades of mobilisation, organisation and conflict.

But rights are not merely institutional window dressing. They are hard-won achievements. And every achievement has names, bodies, voices and memories.

Pride came about precisely so that LGBTIQ+ people would not be silenced or rendered invisible. That is why any campaign that aims to represent it should ask itself a simple question. Is it raising awareness, or is it replacing that awareness with a feel-good metaphor? Is it commemorating the struggle, or merely celebrating its outcome? Is it talking about diversity, or is it avoiding any mention of those who made it possible? Memory does not preserve itself. It is shared. And when it is not shared, it weakens.

When we can celebrate without holding back

Institutions find themselves in a complex (and sometimes even delicate) position when faced with movements that arise from social demands. When they incorporate these movements into their communications, they can help to normalise rights, broaden support and project an image of a more open city. But they may also be tempted to neutralise the conflict in order to make it more palatable, more aesthetically pleasing or easier to share.

The challenge lies in striking a balance between celebration and advocacy. Between a sense of belonging and remembrance. Between pride in the city and pride in the community.

Madrid can celebrate the fact that diversity is part of its everyday life. It must do so. But that idea gains strength when it acknowledges those who made it possible for that diversity to be experienced freely. Without that acknowledgement, the campaign remains a correct but incomplete statement.

Communicating Pride isn’t just about saying that Madrid is diverse. It’s about explaining why it can be so – and thanks to whom.

When we learn to recognise who not to delete

Every institutional campaign makes choices. It chooses images, words, symbols, approaches and what it leaves unsaid. Much of its credibility hinges on those choices.

The controversy surrounding the 2026 Pride campaign should not be limited to whether people like the posters or not. What happens when a public message tries to be so universal that it loses its connection to its origins? What happens when a cause becomes merely a matter of aesthetics? What happens when a city takes centre stage in a story that was created to raise the profile of a community?

Pride does not need to be expressed in a strident manner to be a statement of defiance. But neither can it be expressed with absolute neutrality without losing some of its meaning.

In communication, it is not enough simply to be on the right side of the values. You have to know how to represent them well. And representing them well involves something as simple and yet as difficult as not erasing those who gave meaning to that narrative.

Madrid City Council should learn a lesson from this campaign. After all, Pride wasn’t created to decorate the city. It was created to take it over.

La entrada When Pride is left without people: the campaign by the Madrid City Council and the power of what is not said se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

Over the past three decades, we have witnessed the digital transformation, the rise of social media, the proliferation of communication channels, the emergence of new formats and, more recently, the advent of artificial intelligence. However, if there is one lesson that has remained unchanged, it is that communication is not about speaking louder than others, but about building solid and credible relationships with the people who matter to an organisation.

After more than 20 years as a communications agency in Madrid and Barcelona (27 years, to be precise), we have found that the companies that communicate most effectively are not necessarily those with the largest budgets or those that appear most frequently in the media. They are the ones that know who they are, what they want to convey, and how to do so consistently over time, supported by the best advisors.

Strategic communication begins with listening

There is a belief that communication consists of sending messages. Our experience shows exactly the opposite.

The best strategies stem from listening. Listening to customers, employees, shareholders, the media and all those groups that influence a company’s reputation.

Before designing a communication plan, it is necessary to understand the context, identify expectations and pinpoint risks and opportunities. Listening enables us to craft relevant messages and foster meaningful conversations.

This has been one of the most valuable lessons that we have learned by working with companies from various sectors over the course of these 27 years.

A reputation is not built in a single campaign

Another key lesson is that reputation is not the result of a single action. It is the cumulative result of hundreds of decisions made over time.

Many organisations turn to an agency when they need greater visibility or when they find themselves in a difficult situation. However, a reputation is built long before a crisis arises.

Our experience in corporate communication has taught us that the companies best prepared are those that work their positioning on a constant basis, maintain a narrative that is consistent and build relationships based on trust with their groups of interest.

Communication can boost a company’s reputation, but only when there is a consistent strategy behind it.

Experience brings more than just knowledge

People often talk about experience in terms of years. At comma, we believe that experience has more to do with the ability to interpret complex situations.

A communications agency with 27 years’ experience has seen markets evolve; it has supported companies through periods of growth, transformation and crisis; it has learnt to distinguish between passing fads; and it has witnessed major technological transformations and truly significant changes.

Experience provides perspective. It enables you to make informed decisions, anticipate scenarios and tailor strategies to the specific needs of each organisation.

And that value is particularly important in an environment where speed often takes precedence over reflection.

Communication must be aligned with the business

One of the most significant changes we have observed is the increasingly strategic role of communication.

Years ago, it was seen as a support function. Today, it plays a key role in major business decisions.

Communication helps to attract talent, build trust among investors, strengthen customer relationships, manage crises and consolidate a brand’s positioning.

That is why an effective strategy cannot be developed in isolation. It must be aligned with the business objectives and serve as a tool for creating value.

How to choose a communications agency

After many years of working with organisations of all sizes and from various sectors, we have also learnt what factors make the difference when choosing a communications partner.

If a company is wondering how to choose a communications agency, our recommendation is to consider factors such as:

• Genuine experience in similar projects.
• The ability to understand the business and not just communication.
• Knowledge of the media and communication and the digital environment.
• Specialisation in strategic areas such as reputation, corporate communications or crisis management.
• The quality and experience of the consulting team that will be involved in the project.
• The ability to provide strategic insight and independent judgement.

The best agency isn’t always the biggest or the best known. It’s the one that understands the organisation’s challenges and is able to support it over the long term.

What remains important even after 27 years

Technology will continue to transform the way we communicate. Communication channels will continue to evolve. And artificial intelligence will continue to change our habits and processes.

However, there is one thing that will remain essential: trust.

Organisations need to build credibility, generate meaningful dialogue and maintain strong relationships with their audiences. This has been the cornerstone of communication for the past 27 years and will likely remain so for decades to come.

Experience has taught us that a good communication strategy combines judgement, active listening, knowledge of the environment and a deep understanding of business objectives. Because communication is not just about being visible. Above all, it is about being relevant and credible.

In a world where information overload coexists with a growing demand for transparency, companies need communication based on trust, consistency and expert knowledge more than ever. That is precisely the main conclusion we have drawn after 27 years of working with organisations across a wide range of sectors.

Agencia comma, a communications agency based in Madrid with 27 years’ experience helping companies and institutions manage their corporate communications, reputation, media relations, financial communications and crisis situations, continues to learn every day because communication is constantly evolving. And it is precisely this combination of accumulated experience, adaptability and strategic vision that enables us to continue adding value for our clients almost three decades on.

La entrada What we have learned as a communications agency in 27 years of experience se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

The recent digital upheaval caused by the organisation TetayTeta following a viral video has laid bare an unbridgeable rift. This is not a case of a strategic failure or a ‘communication error’; what has happened is, quite simply, that they have been caught red-handed, and it is this reality check that has triggered the crisis. When the actual aid is negligible compared to the publicity campaign, the problem is not that the message was poorly managed; it is the lie. It is the fundamental lack of consistency in organisations that, quite profitably, confuse marketing with ethics.

The trick of donating stands instead of cash

The transparency report from the organising company, Sport Life Ibérica, reveals that it allocated €264,967 to “charitable initiatives”, a figure it claims represents 20% of its net registration revenue. It sounds impeccable in a press release, but the small print analysed by El País hides the accounting sleight of hand: of the 36 beneficiary organisations, 23 received this aid in the form of the provision and assembly of stands at the event’s fair. To imagine a team of scientists trying to pay for reagents in a cancer laboratory with three square metres of advertising marquee and foam board counters is almost a joke. Valuing the space you manage yourself and counting it as a “donation” is not philanthropy; it is a commercial exchange disguised as aid. Financial transparency is the only antidote: if an initiative does not specify from the outset how much cash is going towards research, brands should not offer their support. Otherwise, they are not victims; they are complicit in an accounting sleight of hand.

The legal excuse for ethical deception

Faced with the runners’ outrage upon discovering they were funding a for-profit event, the organisers defended themselves by claiming it is “a sporting event with a social commitment, not a charity run”. Their aim, they say, is to promote exercise. They are right about one thing: their strategy is entirely legal. In Spain, there is no specific regulation governing charitable advertising and, as FACUA points out, the masterstroke is that not a single poster needs to use the word ‘charity’. The sea of pink and the ribbons do all the associative work implicitly in the consumer’s mind. However, under the Unfair Competition Act, a campaign is misleading if it presents information in a way that misleads the recipient, thereby altering their economic behaviour.

Women don’t pay a registration fee to play sport on a rainy Sunday; they do so because they firmly believe their money will go towards saving lives. Exploiting legal loopholes to rake in millions with the public’s emotional complicity is, quite simply, an ethical deception. This ‘pink capitalism’ also generates a dangerous anaesthetic effect: it stifles political demands and mobilisation by delegating the solution to consumer brands. Who do we ask to look after us – a brand or public institutions? Window-dressing solidarity privatises empathy, turning it into an indicator of advertising performance.

Four rules to ensure CSR is no longer just for show

For brands seeking genuine commitment and wishing to avoid the backlash of pinkwashing, the solution lies in taking action with radical honesty right from the outset of the project. We must focus on and demand transparency regarding the flow of funds: before signing, the CSR department must audit where the funds are going. Demand clauses stipulating the actual net percentage of cash that will reach the laboratories. If there is a lack of transparency, withdraw the sponsorship.

Swap large-scale events for local aid: large-scale events provide spectacular photos but dilute the impact of aid. It is far more transformative to work directly with grassroots organisations or independent foundations, fully funding a researcher’s salary or local equipment. The impact is direct, measurable and human.

Assess the consistency of the product: It is inconsistent to see highly processed food or cosmetics companies that are under scientific scrutiny sponsoring women’s health events. If your products are not suitable for someone whose immune system has been compromised by cancer treatment, you fail the ethical test. CSR starts within your own production chain.

Start showing solidarity within your own organisation: there is no point in funding external ‘pink tide’ initiatives if, behind closed doors, your work-life balance policies penalise female employees undergoing medical treatment or fail to support staff with sick relatives. Involving your workforce in the assessment of social projects fosters a genuine sense of pride that no amount of advertising can buy.

Show the impact, hide the logo: effective communication gives the floor to those at the heart of the story. Showcase the scientific progress you’ve funded or the families supported thanks to your direct cash transfers. When the facts speak for themselves, slogans become unnecessary and any suspicion of a mere facade naturally disappears.

The end of pink paint

This crisis of confidence is not directed at the thousands of citizens who are acting in the best of intentions. It is a warning to the management committees. Consumers have become more discerning; they know how to access transparency portals and are no longer satisfied with the colour of a T-shirt or with press releases drafted by public relations departments.

Companies face a very simple ethical dilemma: either they continue to spend their budget on tins of pink paint to hide the cracks in their corporate inconsistency, or they start investing that money in laying the foundations for genuine social impact of which they can be proud, without fear of being called to account.

La entrada The pink wave: the great accounting illusion behind the brands se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

Over the years, brands have learned (some sooner than others) to listen to what was being said about them in the media, social media, forums and platforms for opinion. Media monitoring allowed measuring media presence; social listening, understand conversations, detect risks and anticipate changes in perception. But the digital ecosystem, which is ever-changing and unpredictable, has incorporated a new intermediary: the assistants of artificial intelligence.

ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude… They are no longer just tools for productivity. Users use them to find out information, compare options, prepare decisions or understand who is who in a sector. In that context, it is not enough to know what people say about a brand. We must also begin to understand what “believes”, summarises and reproduces the AI about itself.

This new layer of listening is known as AI listening: monitoring how AI assistants mention a brand, what tone they use, which sources they cite, and to what extent their responses align with the corporate narrative the organisation wishes to build. To monitoring in the media and on social media, we must now add monitoring within generative AI tools.

From social listening to IA listening

Generally speaking, social listening helps brands understand human conversations, find out what users are saying on social media, how certain topics go viral, what criticisms are being repeated, and which communities influence public perception. This discipline remains useful, but it no longer covers the entire reputation landscape.

The difference is that AI assistants don’t just reflect conversations; they also summarise them, prioritise them and turn them into answers. When a user asks “which are the most innovative companies in this sector”, “which bank has the best reputation”, “which brand is the most sustainable” or “who leads this market”, the AI does not simply display a neutral list of sources. It crafts a response that may include names, comparisons, assessments and omissions.

That is why AI listening is not just about checking whether a brand appears. It involves analysing how it appears. Whether the mention is prominent or incidental. Whether the description is accurate or out of date. Whether the tone is positive, neutral or critical. Whether the sources used are reliable. And, above all, whether the AI’s response aligns with the narrative the company is trying to build.

We are moving from monitoring human conversations to analysing machine-generated narratives. And this shift is strategic because AI assistants are becoming new mediators of public perception.

Why AI listening matters in corporate communications

AI can become a new point of contact between a brand and its audiences. This is why it is important for a communications department. A journalist might use it to prepare for an interview. A job seeker might use it to research a company before applying for a vacancy. An investor might use it to get an initial overview of a sector. A consumer can use it to compare alternatives. A regulator or a stakeholder can use it to put a controversy into context.

In all these cases, the AI-generated response can serve as a first impression. And first impressions are often the ones that matter most.

This forces the teams of communication to ask themselves questions such as: what does ChatGPT say about our company; it mentions us when it asks about our sector; which sources are being used to talk about us?; is the information up to date?; are our key messages recognised? or, is the AI constructing another narrative?

What should be monitored

AI listening begins by systematically asking relevant questions across different assistants and observing the responses. It is not a matter of conducting a one-off test, but rather of repeating queries, recording results and identifying patterns.

The measurement process can begin manually, using a series of questions about the brand, its products, its spokespersons, its competitors and its sector. This method provides an initial qualitative snapshot of the brand’s visibility, helps identify inaccuracies and assesses overall sentiment without the need for significant technical investment.

As the project matures, this measurement can be automated using APIs or by utilising commercial solutions. But the principle remains the same: turning what AI says about a brand into actionable and useful information for communication.

Among the indicators that are most useful are the volume of mentions, the quality of the mention, the sentiment, the consistency of the responses, the alignment narrative and the sources cited.

AI reads newspapers too

One of the major benefits of AI listening is that it helps us understand which sources are ‘training’ the models. And this is where corporate communications has a significant role to play.

Unpaid content carries significant weight: 95% of mentions came from unpaid media, 89% from earned media and 27% from journalistic content. This reinforces an important point for agencies and communications departments: media presence does not only impact human audiences. It can also influence what AI systems read and, consequently, how they respond.

Press releases, although they do not always appear as a direct source, still play a role in the ecosystem: they can generate follow-up coverage, inform journalistic content and build context around a brand. In other words, the traditional work of PR is not disappearing; it is taking on a new dimension.

The risks of not listening

Failing to monitor what AI says about a brand implies accepting a “blind spot” in terms of reputation. The brand may be investing in content, media and positioning, whilst AI assistants continue to provide a description that is incomplete, out of date or poorly aligned with its strategy.

But the risk does not lie solely in invisibility. There may also be errors, inconsistent responses, unwanted associations or an over-representation of old news compared to recent milestones. In contexts of crisis, furthermore, the lack of reliable information can leave room for interpretations that are biased or for content of poor quality.

The materials on deepfakes, disinformation and hybrid threats serve as a reminder that generative AI can also be used to manipulate, spread disinformation or launch more sophisticated attacks against organisations, with reputational damage that is difficult to reverse. Although AI listening does not in itself resolve these risks, it does help to detect early warning signs and understand how a particular narrative circulates or gains traction.

From listening to action

The true value of AI listening becomes apparent when it is linked to the communication strategy. If attendees do not mention the brand, there may be a lack of authority or presence in relevant sources. If they describe it inaccurately, it may be worth reviewing basic corporate content. If they cite unrepresentative sources, it may be necessary to strengthen the brand’s presence in the media, sector reports or well-structured company websites. If the tone does not align with the desired narrative, work will need to be done on messages, spokespersons and content to help balance perceptions.

AI listening is neither a passing fad nor just another layer of reporting. It is a new approach to corporate reputation. Just as brands learned to listen to the media and then to social media, they now need to listen to AI models as well.

La entrada AI listening: why should we monitor what ChatGPT and other models are saying about your brand? se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

The emergence of artificial intelligence brings new tools, but, at the same time, it highlights the fact that the ability to do ceases to be distinctive because, for the first time, it is accessible to everyone. Automate, scale, optimise, produce content, make decisions with assistance… all of that is already ceasing to be a competitive advantage in its own right, to become a commodity.

If we’re all going to be able to do everything, the difference won’t lie in the actual doing. This is where the nature of the business will start to change.

When execution no longer depends on people, when knowledge is accumulated in systems that learn from every interaction much more quickly, and when decisions are integrated into automated workflows, the organisation begins to resemble less a collection of teams and more an operating system. A system that functions, learns and acts continuously.

But who ensures that all of this meets a clearly defined set of criteria for business purposes?

For a long time, that approach was implicit within organisations. It was passed on through the culture, in conversations, and through people’s accumulated experience. It was imperfect, sometimes contradictory, deeply human… but, above all, very difficult to scale without it becoming distorted.

No one doubts that AI is set to overcome this limitation, as it enables decisions, knowledge and operations to be scaled with a consistency never seen before. But in doing so, it also removes an element which, although it caused complications, forced us to think, to stay connected, and to act as a whole.

Coherence as a structural element

This is where the risk lies. And it is not the risk of doing it wrong. The new risk is more subtle: doing everything right and, even so, not meaning anything.

Perfectly optimised companies, capable of responding in real time, adapting to their circumstances and producing without limit… yet indistinguishable from one another. Because the system has optimised everything that can be measured, but not necessarily what cannot.

In this context, consistency ceases to be merely a desirable attribute and becomes a structural element. It ceases to be a rigid rule, a style guide or a matter of aesthetic consistency, and instead establishes itself as an organisation’s ability to act in a way that is consistent with what it claims to be.

When an organisation operates according to clear principles, it can automate its processes without losing its identity. Optimisation then ceases to be an end in itself and becomes a natural consequence. It is not something that should happen by default.
This remains the organisation’s responsibility. And, more specifically, the responsibility of someone within it.

This is where the evolution of communication takes on a different meaning. Over the years, the role of the communications director has shifted from a function focused on the message to a broader role that is fully integrated into corporate affairs. It has moved from explaining decisions to helping shape them, from managing reputation to interpreting context, and from simply issuing statements to ensuring alignment.

That shift was no accident. It was a response to a growing need for consistency in increasingly complex environments. But AI takes that need to a whole new level.

It is no longer simply a matter of ensuring that what the company says is consistent with what it does. It is about ensuring that what the company is remains recognisable even when what it does is no longer in human hands.

Identity, criteria and action

We must accept that consistency is not merely a matter of communication nor of reputation, but rather that it forms part of the organisational architecture: of the design of the systems, of the criteria that governs them, of what boundaries are set and which decisions are automated.

That space, which is still somewhat vague, is beginning to call for a new responsibility. Not necessarily a formal role, but a function that someone will have to take on.

Some are starting to refer to it as the Chief Guidance Officer (CGO). Not so much as a new title on the organisational chart, but as a way of describing something that is not yet clearly defined: the need to link identity, judgement and action in increasingly automated systems.

It is not a technical function. Nor is it purely strategic. And it is certainly not operational. It is, in essence, a governance function. Governance not in the hierarchical sense, but in the sense of providing direction. It is about ensuring that the organisation, as a whole, does not lose sight of what defines it whilst gaining the capacity to do practically anything.

This does not mean concentrating decision-making in the hands of a single person. That would run counter to the very logic of distributed systems and collective intelligence. In reality, decision-making is a shared process. It is the result of a culture, of accumulated decisions, and of a way of being in the world. But it needs to be safeguarded and structured.

A new leadership

And that is where true leadership comes into play: leadership that reflects the collective will and makes decisions—without imposing or controlling—based on what has been agreed upon, because it understands that consistency is synonymous with commitment.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that the difference won’t lie in the integration of systems that automate, learn and operate on a scale that’s impossible for humans. The key now is what we’re going to do with that capability, how we’re going to direct it, what we’re going to retain because we consider it essential, and what we’re no longer going to rely on from now on.

The organisation will begin to operate on a different level by ceasing to do things that no longer add value, precisely because AI does them better. That is the transformation. What the organisation stands for takes precedence over how it operates, which is why consistency emerges as the only way to project a clearly recognisable identity in an environment where everything else tends to look the same.

Ultimately, AI is forcing companies to be clearer about their own identity and to consciously embrace what they stand for. From now on, it will no longer be just a question of efficiency.

And that inevitably redefines the basis on which everything else is governed.

La entrada AI forces us to redefine the framework from which we manage organisational coherence se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

The environment in which companies operate has changed in a profound and rapid manner. Regulatory pressure has intensified significantly in the last few years. Political cycles have been accelerated and the centres of power are found today more fragmented than ever. To this we must add some social expectations regarding the behaviour corporate which are becoming increasingly more demanding and critical. In this new scenario, there arises a need to evolve towards the Corporate Affairs.

A structural change, not a fad

It is essential to make it clear from the outset that the role of Corporate Affairs is not merely a passing organisational trend. Nor is this simply a change in terminology for what we have always done. This is not a break with the past, but rather a natural evolution of the role played by the communications director. It is a structural adjustment that enables companies to manage their relationship with an increasingly complex political, regulatory and social environment.

The main limitation of the model of traditional public affairs has not been its lack of professionalism, but rather its biased approach. For too long, this role operated in a manner relatively isolated within the company. It focused on the relationship with the administration and the legislature, but remained disconnected from other critical dimensions. I am talking about areas such as reputation, sustainability or corporate purpose, which were previously managed in independent silos. Corporate Affairs is breaking down those compartmentalised silos to provide a vision of the whole.

The new framework for public decision-making

Nowadays, public decisions are no longer made solely in the chambers of parliaments or within government departments. Today, these decisions are also shaped by social debate and public opinion. They take shape in the media, in the courts, within NGOs and in the markets. Furthermore, they unfold in digital environments that are often highly polarised. Regulation no longer comes about in isolation, but is shaped under constant public and reputational scrutiny.

Advocating a regulatory stance without social legitimacy is becoming increasingly ineffective. Reputational consistency has become an essential prerequisite for any institutional action. For all these reasons, Public Affairs alone fall short in their ability to respond effectively. The discipline of Corporate Affairs brings together under a single strategic framework various areas that have previously been fragmented. We are talking about a genuine connection between communication, public affairs, reputation, sustainability and regulation.

An intelligence system for senior management

The key difference with this model is that it is not limited to managing institutional relationships. Corporate Affairs acts as a genuine intelligence and foresight system at the service of senior management. It becomes a nerve centre capable of translating political and social complexity into useful business intelligence. In many companies, this integration already exists in practice, even if it is not always formally reflected in the organisational chart.

The market has not yet standardised its terminology, but the direction of change is clear. One of the major qualitative leaps forward compared to the traditional model is the shift from reaction to anticipation. In an environment characterised by political volatility and regulatory uncertainty, the ability to anticipate has become a key competitive advantage. The most forward-thinking companies analyse trends and develop future scenarios long before a regulation is even proposed.

Risks geopolitical and competitiveness

Leading organisations today view politics as an integral part of the business environment. It is no longer seen as an occasional external threat, but as a constant management factor. This approach of strategic foresight not only reduces risks, but also enables better decision-making. Furthermore, it strengthens the company’s institutional legitimacy in the long term. Corporate Affairs thus acts as a radar that identifies weak signals within the regulatory ecosystem.

There are global geopolitical risks that have a direct impact on economic activity. Disruptions to global trade and fiscal fragmentation are challenges that no management team can afford to ignore. Added to this are technological competition surrounding artificial intelligence and the vulnerability of supply chains. Even demographic and cultural pressures on talent are now a risk that must be managed through this cross-functional role. Ignoring these variables means operating blindly in a global market.

Direct access to the CEO and corporate governance

This transformation has resulted in a profound organisational restructuring. The strategic importance of the function is reflected in its reporting line within companies. According to recent data, 84% of Corporate Affairs executives now report directly to the CEO or the executive committee. This indicates that the management of intangible assets can no longer be disconnected from strategic business decision-making.

There are different implementation models depending on the maturity of each organisation. The integrated model brings together communications, public affairs and sustainability under a single leadership. Others opt for a coordinated model, where the areas retain separate leadership but work through systematic collaboration mechanisms. What really matters is not the job title or the structure of the organisation chart, but the actual function performed. What defines Corporate Affairs is its vision for connecting the business with its environment.

From traditional influence to responsible lobbying

The very concept of influence has changed radically in recent years. For decades, personal access to public decision-makers was the main indicator of success. Today, that approach is wholly inadequate and outdated. Real influence is now measured by credibility, consistency and the quality of dialogue. The ecosystem of relevant actors has expanded significantly and includes many more players than just traditional politicians.

Alongside traditional decision-makers, we now see NGOs, think tanks, citizen platforms and digital opinion leaders. In this environment, transparency, ethics and active listening are no longer optional. They have become essential requirements for maintaining social legitimacy. A culture of responsible lobbying is now an unavoidable necessity for any serious organisation. It is about participating in public debate with sound arguments and a narrative aligned with the corporate purpose.

Transparency and institutional openness

More established companies are adopting principles of transparency and accountability as cornerstones of their corporate conduct. Some are already implementing voluntary transparency policies, such as the publication of agendas and specific codes of conduct. These practices not only bolster reputation but also enable companies to anticipate future, stricter regulatory frameworks. In Europe and North America, lobbying regulation continues to advance rapidly.

Countries such as France, Ireland and Canada already have very stringent transparency registers. In Spain, we still face the challenge of developing a clear, consensus-based framework that provides legal certainty. Beyond legislation, active listening has become standard practice within corporate affairs departments. Public perception is no longer shaped solely by communication campaigns, but by genuine consistency between what a company says and what it does.

The profile of the new cross-cutting leader

All this development is giving rise to a new profile of corporate leadership. The head of Corporate Affairs is a cross-functional leader with a high level of analytical skills and social awareness. It is not simply an manager institutional who knows the corridors of power. He is a strategic advisor to the CEO and an interpreter capable of reading the constant changes in the environment.

This profile tends to move away from a single specialisation and seeks a multidisciplinary background. It is common to find professionals with degrees in international relations, law, economics or political science. Key competencies include a cross-functional perspective, forward-looking analytical skills and uncompromising ethical leadership. They are organisational ‘brokers’ who translate the external environment into internal strategic decisions for the company.

Future challenges and measuring the impact

The Corporate Affairs function is now entering a decisive phase in its development. One of the most pressing challenges is to demonstrate its tangible impact on value creation. Unlike commercial departments, results in this area do not always translate into immediate metrics. However, there is a consensus on the need to develop metrics for measuring the return on reputation and institutional influence.

Models such as the ‘social licence to operate’ are useful tools for measuring trust and alignment with the purpose. Another major challenge is the internal fragmentation of the functions related to the intangibles. The coexistence of multiple areas under structures that are not integrated hinders coordination and dilutes the strategic focus. The future of the role lies in building models of governance that ensure a genuine collaboration between departments.

Technology as a strategic partner

Digitalisation offers new capabilities for anticipating trends and managing reputational risks. Automated monitoring tools and sentiment analysis facilitate the collection of large volumes of data. However, the real value still lies in human insight and judgement. Artificial intelligence enhances analysis, but its effectiveness depends on the strategic interpretation provided by the professional.

The full professionalisation of Corporate Affairs requires strengthening training pathways and ethical codes. It is necessary to establish forums for professional exchange in order to harmonise standards across sectors. The year 2026 will mark a turning point for this discipline. Organisations that continue to operate with piecemeal solutions will face increasing costs in terms of consistency and competitiveness.

Corporate Affairs is no longer a distant prospect, but rather a strategic response to today’s demanding environment. It serves as the essential bridge between the company and its complex political, regulatory and social ecosystem. Those who are able to align the company’s voice with the expectations of the wider environment will be the ones who bring the greatest value to the organisation in the coming years.

*Article written by Daniel Ureña, founding partner and chairman of NITID

La entrada Corporate Affairs, a role that is becoming increasingly more strategic for companies se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

The distance between us and others doesn’t always begin with an open conflict. Sometimes it starts almost imperceptibly: we stop challenging our assumptions, we stop listening, and we assume that the person opposite us won’t understand us or, worse still, doesn’t deserve our trust. Once that dynamic takes hold, understanding one another becomes much more difficult. And that is precisely what the latest edition of the Edelman Trust Barometer describes: a society that is more inward-looking, more reluctant to trust those who are different and, consequently, finding it harder to maintain shared values, public discourse and progress.

From polarisation to insularity

The report highlights a clear shift: whilst in 2025 the debate was characterised by polarisation and social discontent, in 2026 the central issue is a different one: insularity. That is to say, the reluctance or refusal to trust anyone different from oneself, whether because of their values, the sources they believe in, their approach to social issues, or their background and lifestyle. In Spain, according to the report, 75% of the population subscribes to this mindset of withdrawal.

What the Barometer highlights is that mistrust is taking on an identity-based dimension, ceasing to be merely a defensive reaction and becoming a barrier to understanding. Insularity stifles progress. And not only because it hinders coexistence, but because it blocks any possibility of building shared solutions in societies that are becoming increasingly complex and fragmented.

Spain remains trapped in mistrust

If we look at the data on confidence for 2025, Spain barely shows any improvement. The overall index rises from 44 to 45 points, a rise of negligible significance. The data is revealing because it does not indicate a collapse, but rather of a stagnation that persists. We remain far from a recovery solid of the bond between citizenship and institutions.

Even so, there are some interesting nuances. In Spain, confidence in businesses is rising slightly, the media and the government, whilst NGOs are falling. “My employer”, furthermore, rises to 69 points and is consolidates its position as the institutional actor with the best relative position. In addition to this, the study highlights that this year all institutions, except for NGOs, are perceived as more competent and more ethical. These are positive signs, yes, but insufficient to speak of a a50> genuine change of cycle. The overwhelming dominant feeling continues to be one of an enormous fragility of confidence.

The company is holding out but is not coming out of it unscathed

This relative improvement in companies’ standing should not be interpreted as a clear-cut victory. The report itself shows that confidence across the various business sectors is falling across the board in our country. The most striking declines are occurring in manufacturing, consumer goods, healthcare and entertainment. And the financial sector, which is particularly relevant to many public and corporate debates, remains at a low rating: 46 out of 100. In other words, companies retain a comparative lead over other institutions, but they do so on an eroded footing.

Here is an important read on corporate communication. For many citizens, business remains a more practical, accessible or credible point of reference than other stakeholders. But that position is not set in stone. Legitimacy is no longer taken for granted; rather, it must be built, demonstrated and constantly renewed.

Pessimism is also a form of mistrust

Mistrust does not merely undermine relationships with institutions or with those who hold different views. It also dampens expectations for the future. Only 13% of Spaniards believe that the next generation will be better off than the current one, nine percentage points fewer than in 2025. This figure reflects a society that not only harbours doubts about the present, but is also beginning to doubt that the future will be any better.

And it is not just a pessimistic outlook on the economy. When the system is perceived as biased, distant or incapable of correcting inequalities, it weakens as well the idea that it is possible to move forward together.

The battle for the truth in an oversaturated environment

Added to this erosion is information disorientation. The study reveals a significant decline in exposure to differing political viewpoints. In Spain, only 41% say they obtain information at least once a week from sources with a political stance different from their own – a drop of 14 percentage points from the previous year. We are less exposed to differing viewpoints and, as a result, more easily reinforce our own biases.

At the same time, fears are growing about misinformation and its ability to sow internal division. In an environment of digital platforms, rapid consumption and endless scrolling, the truth is at a disadvantage when competing against impact, oversimplification or noise. And this creates a clear opportunity for corporate communications and public affairs: to provide context, rigour, education and solid references amidst an increasingly disintermediated conversation.

Ángeles Blanco, a presenter on Informativos Telecinco, summed it up well during the presentation of the report when she pointed out that we tend to treat social media as news outlets, when in reality they function primarily as entertainment platforms. In this context, newsrooms must strengthen their analysis, fact-checking and contextualisation. That is why corporate communications today also have the opportunity and the obligation to help steer the debate, not to distort it.

Mediation as a new requirement for companies and leaders

In the face of this entrenched isolation, the report highlights the need for ‘trusted mediators’: individuals capable of building bridges between groups that mistrust one another. In Spain, all institutions are expected to take on this role, but the report’s conclusions identify CEOs and employers as the guarantors or architects of this mediation.

In times of disengagement, a sense of connection becomes increasingly valuable, and the public expects business leaders to set an example, listen, and engage constructively with those who criticise or mistrust the company. In fact, 75% believe it is effective for CEOs to engage constructively with critical groups, and 69% believe that, when making decisions, they should consult people with different values and backgrounds.

The media, governments and NGOs are also expected to play a clear role. In the case of the media, the demand is very specific: to devote equal time and coverage to different viewpoints on major issues and to write accurate headlines that are neither exaggerated nor fear-mongering. It is a direct call to restore the fundamental role of information mediation.

Communicating also means building bridges

All of this places communication at the heart of the matter. Not as a mere embellishment or a tool for amplifying messages, but as the foundation of trust. Because in a society that is turning in on itself, communicating effectively means more than simply being right or visible. It means helping to create common ground.

The report itself notes that people trust those who are open-minded and do not try to change them, and those who are transparent about their differences. Trust, therefore, is not restored by sweeping disagreements under the carpet and forgetting them, but by learning to deal with them honestly.

And this is where “my employer” is particularly well placed to extend this mediation to the entire workforce, through training in conflict resolution and genuine opportunities to work with people who think differently. The company thus ceases to be merely an economic entity and becomes, in addition, a space for coexistence.

Eva Pavo, OHLA’s corporate director of communications and branding, summed it up in a simple yet apt phrase: “Mistrust hinders progress”. And Jordi Sevilla, former chairman of Red Eléctrica, added that mistrust is not always a bad thing; the problem lies in mistrusting those who are not like me, because then human and social progress becomes unfeasible.

Perhaps that is the key lesson of the Edelman Trust Barometer 2026: that restoring trust is not just about improving metrics, but about rebuilding a willingness to listen to one another. That is how it works in personal relationships. It is the same in public discourse. And in that arena, corporate communication has far more to say than it sometimes realises.

La entrada When we stop listening to one another: 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer and how insularity is undermining trust in Spain se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

Last week, in this blog, we reflected on how artificial intelligence is beginning to redefine not only how information is produced, but also who is involved in the process that makes it possible. In the context of 8 March, International Women’s Day, we addressed an increasingly evident issue: if technology is designed in environments that lack diversity, it runs the risk of reproducing—and even amplifying—existing gender inequalities.

In recent days, various studies have shown how some artificial intelligence systems reproduce gender patterns present in society. The latest report published by LLYC, Espejismo de Igualdad (The Illusion of Equality), reveals that certain AI models tend to suggest leadership roles or technical careers for men, while women are more often associated with profiles linked to caregiving or empathy.

This phenomenon brings back to the table a key issue for the field of communication and reputation: data matters, but so does the narrative that is built around it. Precisely along these lines is one of the most interesting conclusions of the study conducted by eToro on women and investment: Study on the profile of female investors in Spain.

When the problem is not trust, but rather the narrative

For years, the gender gap in investment has been explained with a seemingly simple argument: that women “lack confidence” to invest. This diagnosis has been repeated in reports, media analyses and public speeches until it has become almost an accepted explanation.

However, the data tells a different story. The study, based on the opinions of 1,000 women in Spain, directly challenges this narrative. According to the research, 32% of those surveyed say they are confident or very confident in their knowledge of finance and investment. The largest group—40%—falls somewhere in between, while only 8% say they have no confidence at all.

More than a widespread lack of security, which is reflected the data is a prudent and thoughtful attitude towards investment. And that difference in nuance is not insignificant.

The financial responsibility is already there.

One of the most striking findings of the study is that, in fact, women already play a central role in day-to-day financial management.

41% of women say they are solely responsible for daily household expenses. In addition, 32% are primarily responsible for family savings and investments, percentages that are much higher than those attributed to their partners.

This reality contrasts with their lesser presence in financial markets. Data from the CNMV show that only 26% of individual accounts investing in IBEX 35 securities are held by women.

The gap, therefore, does not appear to be due to a lack of ability or financial responsibility, but to more complex factors related to economic culture, public representation and the dominant narrative frameworks.

The impact of public discourse

Beyond the data, the study also analyses how they influence the messages public messages influence perception of women about investment.

The results are revealing. When respondents are presented with the idea that women lack confidence to invest, 14% say that this message directly discourages them from doing so. In addition, 28% say they feel judged, 25% feel frustrated, and 19% feel patronised.

On the contrary, when it is pointed out that female investors achieve better results than men, 51% say that this fact increases their motivation to invest. Among those who do not currently invest, one in four say that this recognition would spark their interest in learning more about investing.

It is clear that the narrative is not neutral. The way in which women’s relationship with investment is described can directly influence their participation.

Diversity and technology: a strategic imperative

However, technology alone does not guarantee more equitable outcomes. As we pointed out in our blog last week, technological systems can also reproduce existing biases if those who design and develop them do not represent the diversity of society.

Something similar is happening in the financial sector. The real imbalance lies in visibility and representation. If the future of investment is increasingly linked to technology and artificial intelligence, it is essential that women participate actively in these areas. Otherwise, there is a risk that the lack of representation will also spread to the most strategic areas of the sector.

From this perspective, diversity is not only a matter of fairness, but also a factor that improves model design, risk assessment and the resilience of financial ecosystems.

Change the narrative to change participation

Ultimately, the debate on the gender gap in investment cannot be reduced solely to technical or economic issues. It also has a cultural and narrative dimension.

While the prevailing discourse has for years emphasised women’s supposed shortcomings in relation to investment, the data suggests that this narrative is not only inaccurate, but may also be contributing to maintaining the gap.

The combination of financial education, greater visibility of role models, and new technological tools can help to redefine this scenario.

La entrada Changing the narrative: investment, artificial intelligence and the power of narratives se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

Every 8 March, we reflect on leadership, equality and power. In 2026, perhaps the strategic question for our sector will be different: what role are women playing in constructing the narratives produced and amplified by artificial intelligence?

Because AI does not only automate processes. It also generates content, prioritises messages, segments audiences, and builds reputation. It intervenes, in a direct manner at the heart of the work of communication.

In this new environment, it is not enough to simply be present in the teams. It is important to ask who is leading the technological integration, who is defining its narrative criteria, and who occupies the expert space when it comes to digital transformation.

The technological gap exists and shapes the narrative

In Spain, there are 1,022,600 specialists in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), representing 4.7% of total employment, slightly below the EU average of 5% (Technological Employment Report 2025, 2024 data). Of that total, only 19.6% are women.

The European Union has set itself the target of reaching 20 million ICT specialists by 2030 (1.75 million in Spain) within the framework of the Digital Decade (Digital Decade 2025 Indicators). However, if the proportion of women does not increase in strategic areas—AI, data, cybersecurity—the gap will not only persist but will become more entrenched in areas of greater influence.

This is no minor detail for our sector. If the tools that are redefining communication are designed in predominantly male environments, it is reasonable to ask how they are being trained, what biases they incorporate, and what narratives they prioritise.

Artificial intelligence learns from data. Unfortunately this data will reflect the society that generates it.

AI and women: an impact that is not neutral

The effects of technology on women are not abstract either. More than 73% of women worldwide have been exposed to or experienced some form of violence on the Internet (UN, Combating online violence against women and girls). In the European Union, nine million women have experienced online violence since the age of 15 (European Agency for Fundamental Rights, FRA).

90% of victims of non-consensual dissemination of intimate images are women (Report by the UN Special Rapporteur on online violence). In Spain, 19.5% of women between the ages of 16 and 74 have been harassed at some point in their lives, and 85.8% of the perpetrators are men (European Survey on Gender-Based Violence 2022, Government Delegation against Gender-Based Violence).

Furthermore, 84.8% of the victims of a cybercrime recorded in 2023 were minors under the age of 18 and 96% of those investigated or arrested for these crimes were men (Ministry of the Interior, Report on crimes against sexual freedom 2023).

AI does not create this reality, but it may be amplifying it: sexual deepfakes, automation of image dissemination, algorithmic viralisation of hate speech… The study Violence against women, girls, boys and adolescents in the digital sphere (Ministry of Equality, 2025) shows how these new forms of cyberviolence disproportionately affect women and minors.

How does this impact communication? Algorithms don’t just distribute content: they decide what we see first. And what gets amplified becomes the dominant narrative.

Communication: a feminised profession, but who is leading the transformation?

In Spain, corporate communication, journalism and public relations have a very high female presence at the grassroots and intermediate levels. It is a profession with a woman’s touch.

However, this should lead us to ask ourselves: who is leading the integration of artificial intelligence in agencies and departments? artificial intelligence in agencies and departments? Who defines the ethical standards for its use? Who pilots technological innovation internally? To whom are attributed the contents about AI and digital reputation?

In an ecosystem where artificial intelligence automates newsrooms, optimises headlines, predicts behaviour of audiences and redefines metrics of impact, mastering the tool implies mastering decision-making and, therefore, the narrative will adapt to its programmers.

And therein lies the risk: that in a sector that is predominantly female at its core, the technological layer (and, therefore, strategic and narrative power) will once again be concentrated in male profiles. And this is not due to a lack of talent—which has been more than proven—but rather to the structural inertia that persists.

Sufficient references to lead the positioning

The question is not whether there are women prepared to lead the conversation on artificial intelligence in communication. The question is whether the sector—and the media ecosystem—is placing those voices where they belong: at the centre of the debate. Because when we talk about AI applied to reputation, content generation, process automation or algorithmic ethics, we are not dealing with an isolated technical conversation; we are dealing with a profound redefinition of the corporate narrative. And in communication, narrative is power.

In our country, we have renowned female leaders in communications, and it is our duty to highlight their achievements: Luísa García (LLYC); Mónica González (AXICOM); Ludi García and Carlota Marco (SEC NEWGATE); Lucía Carballeda (EDELMAN); Núria Vilanova and Asun Soriano (ATREVIA); Sonia Díaz and Juana Pulido (ESTUDIO DE COMUNICACIÓN); Carme Miró (APPLE TREE); Silvia Alsina (ROMAN); Paula Carrera and Bárbara Navarro (TORRES Y CARRERA); Natalia Sánchez and Raquel Capellas (Weber Shandwick Spain); Ana Picó (Havas PR); Noelia Cruzado and Diana Vall (MARCO); Valvanuz Serna and Lucía Casanueva (PROA Comunicación); Carmen Basagoiti (HARMON); and our CEO and founder, Silvia Albert, among many others.

Interestingly, if we look at the technological layer (areas of AI, innovation, Big Data, or digital transformation), the picture changes dramatically. In several of these organisations that have specific AI departments, those responsible for the technical structures that feed the models, data and automation tools are all men. In other words, female business leadership is visible, but technological leadership is much less so, and when it does appear, it tends to be masculinised.

8M: from talent to technological leadership

This 8M, perhaps the conversation should not focus solely on how many women work in communications (because yes, they are in the majority) but on something more decisive: how many are leading the transition to artificial intelligence.

The digital divide is no longer just a question of access to devices or STEM education. It is a question of technological power within the digital world. of technological power within strategic areas.

Artificial intelligence is redefining how stories are produced, distributed, and evaluated. If women do not occupy central positions in this redefinition, their influence will be limited at the most transformative moment in the profession in decades.

AI is not the future of communication. It is its present. And leadership in this new environment cannot afford to become masculinised again without at least being aware of it. It is not just a question of equality, but of us all working together to build the narrative in the age of artificial intelligence.

La entrada Who designs the data defines the narrative: notes on AI and communication in the context of 8M se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

A rebranding is never simply an aesthetic decision. It is a move that responds to changes in the market, technology and consumer values. Between 2024 and 2026, three of the pillars of the IBEX 35 and benchmarks of the Spain Brand, Repsol, Mapfre and the former Cepsa (now Moeve) have undertaken rebranding processes that mark a before and after in their strategic visual communication. Why now? What do their new typefaces tell us? Why is colour no longer flat?

Moeve: how to ‘kill’ a giant to save the brand

The case of Moeve (formerly Cepsa) is undoubtedly the most radical. The rebranding process also includes a name change. This is the riskiest move in communication: giving up decades of brand recognition. Remember the case of HBO Max, which changed to MAX only to reverse the change a few months later.

Cepsa was founded as the Spanish Petroleum Company. In 2026, petroleum is a concept that is declining in terms of social reputation. The brand needed a conceptual clean-up. You cannot sell green hydrogen under a name that includes the word petroleum in its acronym.

Change in the colour palette: the traditional red and yellow have been abandoned. These colours are highly visible on the road, but are associated with fossil fuels. The new palette focuses on deep blues and turquoise greens. In colour psychology, this shifts the brand from the industrial sector to the technological and sustainable sector.

The naming and typography: Moeve plays with the word move (movement) and evolution. The typography is of style sans-serif, geometric, modern, with rounded terminations that suggest smoothness and efficiency.

Strategic implication: Moeve no longer competes with Repsol at petrol stations, competes with Tesla in chargers and with Iberdrola in energy for the home. Graphic design has been the bridge needed for the consumer to accept this new paper.

Repsol: farewell to flat design

Repsol could not afford a complete breakaway like Cepsa’s. Its logo is one of Spain’s most valuable assets. Its strategy has been one of adaptive evolution.

Repsol’s previous logo was a design from the analogue era: solid, flat, static. The new Repsol logo seeks to represent a company that no longer just extracts energy, but also transforms and distributes it in multiple forms (solar, wind, electrical).

Gradient and 3D: as we said earlier, the popularity of mobile phones with high-performance processors and fast download speeds means that the resource optimisation championed by flat design is no longer necessary. Repsol is joining this trend by evolving towards a more realistic style, transforming its logo into a three-dimensional shape that relies heavily on the use of gradients. The transition from dark orange tones to this gradient, which starts with yellow and reminds us of the sun, creates a sense of luminescence. The logo seems to emit its own light, simulating a source of living energy.

The circular shape: the edges have been polished. The R of the typography and the central symbol now are integrated into a narrative of circular economy. Graphically, everything flows towards the centre, eliminating the sensation of heavy blockage. It represents the heat of the sun, the vibration of movement and the warmth of service to the customer.

Mapfre: the revolution of lowercase letters and mobile-first

The case of Mapfre is a lesson in humanisation through typography. Historically, insurance companies communicated from a position of authority: capital letters, logos enclosed in shields or circles, dark colours…

Today, the relationship with Mapfre does not take place in a physical office with marble walls. It takes place in an app. The design of 2026 responds to the need to be an icon on the desktop of a smartphone, not a poster on a building.

From uppercase to lowercase: this is the most powerful change. By writing Mapfre in lowercase, the brand renounces imposing itself in favour of conversation. Lowercase letters are perceived as more friendly, modern and digital (think of logos such as Amazon or Airbnb).

The clover without borders: the circle surrounding the iconic shamrock has been removed. In graphic design, a circle is a border. By removing it, the symbol breathes. The aim is to create a more open, transparent and collaborative brand. The tone has been adjusted to a more vibrant red, less blood-like, optimised for screens. It is a red that conveys vitality and active protection, not relief after an accident.

Implications: What does this tell us about the current market?

When we analyse these three cases together, we see patterns that are worth highlighting:

· The dictatorship of the pixel over the paper. In the past, logos were designed to look good on paper. Today, they are designed to be a 16×16 pixel favicon or an Instagram avatar. Mapfre’s simplification and Repsol’s brightness are designed to shine in digital environments.

· The end of corporate authority. Brands no longer want to command respect through their size. They want to be partners. The use of rounded shapes, lowercase letters and softer colour palettes responds to a consumer psychology where users value empathy over hierarchy.

· Sustainability as a primary colour. It is no longer an addition to the annual report; sustainability is the visual focus. Moeve uses green, Repsol uses light and Mapfre uses openness. Graphically, the brands are eliminating visual noise to project cleanliness and efficiency.

Conclusion: design as a business driver

The changes at Mapfre, Repsol and Moeve show us that design is the visible face of business strategy. If a company changes its revenue model (from oil to renewable energy, or from insurance policies to digital services), its image must change for the market to believe it. These are not just logos. They are the insignia of a new economic era in which Spain seeks to lead the energy and digital transition. No one disputes the importance of strategic design anymore. Designing is deciding. And these three brands have decided that the future is lighter, brighter and, above all, more human.

La entrada Rebranding: changes in the visual identity of three Spanish giants. se publicó primero en Agencia comma.