The bubbles that fuel periods of financial speculation take shape long before prices collapse. Sometimes they are mere trial balloons, but on other occasions they appear to be grounded in reality. In any case, these bubbles arise from ideas. Before accounting imbalances or credit excesses—the triggers of stock market crises—accumulate, they take root in the investment climate through a collective narrative that seeks to convince people of a radically different future in which the classic rules of asset valuation no longer apply.

Do investors tend to suffer from low self-esteem? Are they simply the target of speculative greed on the part of certain market gurus seeking profits? Do they sometimes forget to value assets in the short term, to look beyond the immediate horizon, or to take a long-term view of their investment portfolios? Quite often—and not infrequently—the answer seems to be yes, judging by the rapid spread of episodes of irrational exuberance that have occurred since the middle of the last century. The IMF, for example, has recorded 414 currency crises, 200 sovereign debt crises and 151 banking crises. Dozens of them every decade.

It is true that most are local or regional. They appear to be limited in scope. But we must not underestimate their propensity for chaos. Because there have been ten instances of financial instability on a global scale since the oil crisis, some accompanied by global recession and all by stock market crashes, such as that of the 1973–75 period and its seismic aftershocks in the 1980s. Almost without a break, the Latin American debt crisis emerged. Another period of stress with widespread geographical repercussions that lasted a long decade until the Tequila Effect was overcome, which depressed the Mexican peso and spread to the markets and several banking systems. Or Black Monday in 1987, with synchronised falls from Hong Kong to every stock exchange on the planet, and the crunch in Japan two years later, which ushered in three long decades of economic stagnation and deflation in what was then the world’s second-largest GDP.

Before the end of the 20th century, there was still time for competitive devaluations of Asian currencies to take place and, almost in parallel, that of the Russian rouble, which resulted in five prime ministers in two years before Vladimir Putin came to power.

More recent —and even more global — have been the dot-com of 2000, with origins in the US and spreading recession in Germany and the credit crisis of 2008 with the nationalisation of Lehman Brothers and suspension of trading on the Stock Exchange in Moscow due to the freefall into the depths of hell of its share price. It was like watching the world upside down: the paradise of the free market buying with federal funds a a45> bank of investment private and the former USSR preventing the collapse of trading in capital. But it was not the last major systemic crisis. The European debt crisis of 2012, which was on the verge of bury the euro, and the Great Pandemic of 2020 caused by COVID -19 also led to economic contractions.

Common themes in the story

The story that has accompanied all of them has not been exactly the same. However, it contains common threads. The narrative that takes root in the markets not only persuades the investors, but also extends into the public arena. Analysts, banks, the media and political leaders end up reaching a consensus which seems to confirm that structural change is inevitable and is underway.

The 2013 Nobel laureate in Economics, Robert Shiller, described this phenomenon as narrative economics, based on the idea that the stories circulating in society directly influence economic behaviour and investment decisions. When a narrative gains sufficient traction — whether it be a transformative technology, a new financial model or a seemingly unstoppable economic cycle — it can become the oxygen that fuels any bubble.

The warning about irrational exuberance

One of the most famous concepts associated with them emerged as an institutional warning. In 1996, Alan Greenspan, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, publicly wondered whether the financial markets were displaying “irrational exuberance that was inflating stock market valuations beyond their fundamentals”. The expression became a benchmark for understanding speculative cycles. Paradoxically, the warning did not dampen market enthusiasm. Over the following years, the Nasdaq continued to rise, driven by the tech narrative.

Until it burst, the dot-com bubble was the example most visible of how a story can dominate investor sentiment. The internet promised to radically transform the economy, eliminate intermediaries and generate new forms of productivity. Technology companies began to gain value more due to their potential rather than for their actual profitability. Shiller explained it in his a46> influential book Irrational Exuberance: “the markets can enter into dynamics collective where optimism feeds feeds back into and in which each rise confirms the dominant narrative, and that narrative continues to attract new investors”. In 2000, the Nasdaq crashed and the narrative changed with the same speed with which it had been built.

In the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, a widely accepted dogma also took hold: house prices were a structurally safe asset. This assumption justified an extraordinary expansion of mortgage lending. From so-called subprime loans to complex financial instruments. They were dubbed “toxic assets” and became a permanent fixture on bank balance sheets. They were vast in scale following years of excessive lending and, above all, highly dangerous due to the dubious recoverability of the loans granted. They imploded when the credit cycle began to deteriorate and the international financial architecture revealed its grave fragility.

Very few investment voices—including, amongst others, Jeremy Grantham and Nouriel Roubini—warned several months in advance that the US property market was in the grip of a bubble and that a correction was inevitable. To no avail. Because the prevailing narrative continued on its optimistic course.

Spain and the rhetoric of bricks

In Spain, the property bubble also had a very clear rhetorical dimension. Over the years, a mantra became firmly established in political speeches, industry reports and everyday conversations: that property was always a sound investment and its prices never fell. This narrative served both an economic and a cultural function. It justified a growth model based on construction and reinforced the perception of housing as the safest asset for family savings. The logic was simple and powerful: building created jobs, jobs drove demand, and demand sustained prices.

So, when the international financial crisis spread to the European banking system, that dynamic quickly faded. The once-stable engine of growth became the most serious vulnerability in the recent history of the eurozone’s fourth-largest economy.

The narrative pattern of bubbles thus follows a recurring pattern:

· Innovation or structural change: a technology or economic model emerges that promises to change the rules of the game.
· Expansion of capital and credit: markets mobilise resources to capitalise on the opportunity.
· Consolidation of the dominant narrative: analysts and the media reinforce the growth narrative.
· Decoupling of expectations and fundamentals: valuations become detached from economic reality.
· Abrupt shift in narrative: when results fail to meet expectations, the narrative is reversed.

Furthermore, on rare occasions they erupt due to a lack of information. Rather, they collapse when the narrative underpinning the optimism ceases to be credible. The new narrative—that of today’s AI—is beginning to follow in its wake. It is a technology that is transforming entire sectors, from business productivity to scientific research, and is triggering a massive wave of investment in companies involved in AI development.

To make matters worse, the voices are growing louder once again setting off the alarms once more. Top executives from firms in the investment and private banking assure that the climate for investors could be underestimating the impact of the conflict in Iran following a correction in the stock market which has become apparent on Wall Street in February, prior to the escalation of military tensions in the Middle East, due to the persistence of certain values linked to AI unleashed with excessive use of credit.

There are warnings that the market is once again functioning as a storytelling machine. And with good reason. After all, financial bubbles are not merely economic phenomena. They are also narrative phenomena. As history shows, stories are also traded.

La entrada The story that inflates the bubbles: of the irrational exuberance of the past to the new narrative of AI 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.

A short walk from Soho to Southwark

In our work we have the privilege of speaking to the owners of marketing agencies all over the world every day. Those conversations offer a rare vantage point from which to sense the true pulse of the industry: how people are responding to the challenges we all face, what clients are asking for, how teams are coping, and what agency leaders really think about the future that lies ahead.

At the moment, that pulse feels uneasy.

Many owners quietly admit that they would like to step away from the business altogether. They survived COVID and the extraordinary disruption that followed, endured the relentless pressure of procurement, adapted to waves of new technology, and watched margins tighten year after year. For many of them, work that once felt exhilarating now feels draining, and a profession that once promised excitement and creative adventure has begun to feel more like a long, grinding obligation.

Perhaps the most telling observation of all is a simple one: it no longer feels like fun.

That thought was on my mind the other day as I walked past the WPP Campus—the sleek grey monoliths of One Southwark Bridge Road and Rose Court in London, where thousands of advertising professionals now spend their days inside immaculate glass buildings filled with identical chairs, identical meeting rooms and, inevitably, identical PowerPoint decks.

One cannot help but wonder whether identical thinking sometimes follows.

These buildings are more than just real estate; they are architectural symbols of an entire era in our industry. They reflect the age of the holding company and the industrialisation of creativity – a business model that elevated scale, automation and operational efficiency above the more intangible qualities of texture, personality and inspiration that once defined the craft.

It was striking to hear the new CEO of WPP, Cindy Rose, recently suggest that the organisation no longer sees itself as a holding company. Perhaps that shift in language reflects a deeper realisation shared quietly across the industry: that the model itself may have reached the end of its useful life, not only as a business structure but also as a cultural framework. It has struggled to serve clients as well as it once promised, and it has often served the people working inside it even less.

The world those buildings represent feels very far removed from the Soho where many of us first learned the business.

In those days advertising felt less like an industry and more like a slightly disreputable travelling circus that had somehow taken up permanent residence in a single, energetic square mile of central London.

When Soho was a village

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, Soho was not merely a district of London; it was the creative village of the global agency world, and quite possibly the most exciting place on earth to work in an agency.

Agencies occupied crooked Georgian townhouses whose staircases creaked with the footsteps of young creatives rushing between floors. Around them clustered production companies, edit suites, photographers, illustrators and publishers, all scattered through narrow streets that seemed permanently scented with espresso, cigarette smoke and the faint but unmistakable smell of possibility.

The geography of the place made creativity wonderfully accidental. You might leave the office with the beginnings of an idea and, within the space of an hour, find yourself returning with a director, a photographer and a much better version of the thought you had started with.

Lunch might unfold at Il Siciliano, with Aldo holding court at the centre of the room, while the evening would almost inevitably drift toward the Groucho Club, where the industry gathered to exchange stories, gossip and occasionally even ideas.

Between those moments you would inevitably encounter a planner, a copywriter, a film director and—quite possibly—a jazz musician, because Soho at that time existed at the intersection of advertising, film, music, publishing and art. The entire neighbourhood seemed to run on a combustible mixture of talent, mischief and mild chaos, and it was precisely that chaos that made it so fertile.

Creativity, after all, is rarely tidy. It thrives on collisions between personalities, arguments about ideas, bursts of laughter, flashes of ego and the occasional moment of glorious irrationality.

The industry was full of characters. Copywriters often resembled slightly dishevelled poets who had accidentally wandered into commerce, while art directors dressed like rock stars and producers possessed the miraculous ability to solve impossible problems in the time it took to order another round at the bar.

Today an HR department might describe many of those individuals as “challenging”, but at the time they were simply the people who made the work extraordinary.

On evenings like those you might hear the melancholy warmth of A Rainy Night in Soho drifting from a nearby bar, sung by The Pogues. The song somehow captured the spirit of the place: boisterous and imperfect, full of life in the moment yet already carrying the faintest hint of nostalgia.

We did not realise it then, of course, but we were living through what would later be remembered as a golden era.

The age of big risks

Part of what made that era so exhilarating was the way the business itself operated. Decisions were often made in rooms filled with strong opinions and stronger personalities, and ideas were approved not because they had passed through endless layers of procurement or been validated by predictive analytics, but because someone in the room believed in them deeply enough to fight for them.

An idea that made people laugh, or surprised them, or simply felt brave in a way that others had not yet attempted could quickly gather momentum. Agencies took risks—sometimes enormous ones—and when those risks succeeded they did so spectacularly.

Campaigns entered popular culture, agencies became famous almost overnight, and careers were launched on the strength of a single piece of work that captured the imagination of the public.

It was not always sensible, but it was undeniably exhilarating, and above all it was joyful.

The age of optimisation

Over time, however, the centre of gravity within the industry began to shift. Technology transformed the way agencies operated, data became an essential currency, procurement departments gained influence and efficiency gradually became the dominant language of the business.

In many respects these changes were inevitable and even necessary. The industry professionalised itself, then systemised its processes, and eventually began to optimise them with increasing sophistication.

Yet somewhere along that journey something subtle changed.

Creativity, which had once been the beating heart of the industry, increasingly began to feel like a department within it rather than the force that animated the whole enterprise. Even the architecture of the business seemed to reflect the shift, as the crooked townhouses of Soho gave way to vast corporate campuses that were functional, efficient and impressive, yet curiously devoid of the quirks and irregularities that once made the industry feel human.

In the process something of advertising’s personality—and perhaps even its soul—was quietly diminished.

The change calls to mind the eerily ordered vision of industrial progress imagined by Thomas Hardy, in which every aspect of life becomes rationalised and optimised until something essential to human vitality slowly disappears.

Finding our way back

And yet there are reasons to feel optimistic.

Creativity has never truly depended on buildings, holding companies or organisational charts. At its core it has always been about people—curious people, brave people, slightly eccentric people who take pleasure in surprising and delighting others through the ideas they bring into the world.

Those instincts have not disappeared. They have simply been buried beneath an accumulation of dashboards, processes and quarterly forecasts that have gradually obscured the simple pleasures that once drew so many talented individuals into the profession.

Which suggests that finding our way back to joy may not require a revolution at all, but rather a thoughtful rebalancing of priorities.

For those of us who own or owned agencies, that rebalancing might begin with a few simple commitments.

Five ways agency owners can find their way back to joy

1. Put ideas back at the centre of the business.
   Technology, data and process should support creativity rather than replace it. The agencies that thrive over the long term are rarely the most efficient; they are the ones whose ideas capture the imagination of clients and audiences alike.
2. Focus on agency culture and create space for characters.
   Agencies have always been built by brilliant misfits—people whose curiosity, eccentricity and stubbornness often made them difficult to manage but indispensable to the work. If we try to sand away every rough edge, we inevitably sand away the originality as well.
3. Encourage thoughtful risk again.
   The most memorable campaigns have rarely emerged from cautious thinking. They have come from moments when agencies and clients were willing to be brave together and trust an idea that felt slightly uncomfortable but undeniably exciting.
4. Rebuild real creative communities.
   Great ideas flourish when people collide in the real world—in conversations over lunch, in late-night debates, in the spontaneous encounters that once defined Soho. Creativity is still, at heart, a social activity.
5. Make the business fun again.
   Joy is not a frivolous luxury in a creative industry; it is one of its most powerful fuels. The best work in advertising has almost always been created by teams who were enjoying themselves and who believed, even briefly, that what they were doing mattered.

The Soho of the 1990s may never return in quite the same form.

But the spirit that made it special—the sense that creativity could appear anywhere when curious people collided—remains available to us.

And if we can rediscover even a small measure of that spirit, the next great era of agencies may not lie behind us at all.

It may simply be waiting for us to remember how to enjoy the work again.

*Written by Doug Baxter, Managing Partner · Agency Futures

La entrada Finding Our Way Back to Joy 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.

The term ESG has become popular since 2004, when the report ‘Who Cares Wins’ was published, a joint initiative by financial institutions led by the then UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, to find ways to integrate environmental, social and governance factors into the capital market. And since then, while communication agencies, companies and organisations have been striving to adjust the tone of sustainability reports, six out of ten people on the street think we are talking to them in Morse code or, worse still, that we are simply filling space.

One quickly learns that the longest distance in the world is not between Madrid and New York, but between a management committee and a shopping trolley in a local supermarket. Only 13% of citizens say they really understand what these acronyms mean. As Ana Gascón, Director of Human Resources, ASG, and Shareholders Office at PremiumFiber, pointed out in the presentation of the report: “It’s being seen, but it’s not getting through”. Companies are putting huge budgets on the table to transform themselves, but that investment seems to evaporate before it crosses the office door.

The Arctic is far away, but my postcode isn’t: there’s a trend that makes me smile because of its overwhelming logic: relocation. We’ve spent decades worshipping globalisation as if it were an infallible deity, only to realise that its impact is no longer measured globally, but locally. The report makes it clear: “Local is the new Global”. For me to believe that your brand is going to save the glaciers, I first need to see what you are doing for the park on my street.

72% of Spaniards prefer companies to manufacture here, at home, even if that means the final bill goes up. We want them to hire here (68% support) and buy raw materials from domestic suppliers (67%). It’s a kind of local activism. Beatriz Herrera, Corporate Communication Strategy, Reputation & Sustainability Director at Mahou San Miguel, summed it up with a phrase that should be on every marketing director’s screensaver: “Bring it down to me and tell me how this impacts my day-to-day life.” If sustainability can’t be touched, or at least seen in the neighbourhood, for many it simply doesn’t exist.

The wallet: that place where activism takes a break. Here comes our great contradiction, the one that makes us human and a little inconsistent. We love the idea of ethical business until we look at our bank account. Fifty-one per cent of Spaniards believe that tariffs should be reduced to encourage competition and lower prices. We want production to be domestic, but we also want avocados and mobile phones to continue to cost the same as when they came from the other side of the world.

This is what Beatriz Herrera calls shared responsibility. We cannot ask a company to be an NGO while we, as consumers, only look for the lowest price. With inflation pushing up the cost of the shopping basket by 35%, activism has become, for many, a luxury item they cannot afford. In fact, 56% of the population believes that companies should prioritise raising wages over reducing carbon emissions. In the end, it turns out that the first layer of sustainability is making ends meet.

The bureaucracy of ‘excellence’ and the virus of mistrust

There is a critical, almost scathing view of how this is managed internally. Sometimes it seems that we care more about the exam than the subject itself. Ana Gascón spoke of the difference between students who are only looking for a pass mark and those who really want to learn. The role of sustainability has become so bureaucratised that we run the risk of spending more time filling in indicator tables than transforming the business model.

And citizens notice this. Mistrust is the general mood: only 29% of people believe that large companies are transparent. This is the lowest score in the entire report. If we are not open, if we do not communicate naturally, people assume that we are hiding something under a mountain of technical terms. As Ana says, “a cat is a cat”; we can call it ESG, impact or transformation, but if there is no consistency underneath, the consumer simply tunes out.

What keeps us awake at night (and it’s not a 40-pages PDF)

Sometimes, in the bubble of the business world, we forget what the real priorities of people are. The report is a reality check: quality and accessible healthcare (65% of utmost importance), housing affordability (62%) and education (62%). These are the pillars upon which 78% of the Spanish builds their demand: they want companies that act in the interests of everyone, not just of the shareholders.

We value diversity. 72% strongly support closing the gender pay gap. We care about the planet, of course: 74% believe it is vital to take action against climate change. But all this has to be connected to real life. We don’t need more classroom teaching, but brands that understand that their survival depends on being relevant to their neighbours, not just their investors.

After delving into this data, my conclusion is that sustainability must, above all, be affordable and understandable. Being an activist by shopping consciously is all well and good, but the Impact Monitor reminds us that, in the current context, it is a privilege that not everyone can exercise.

If companies want young people (and those who are not so young) to trust them again, the answer is not to invent another acronym in English. The way forward is to demonstrate impact in small, everyday ways, in what Beatriz Herrera defines as the “fundamental simplicity of facts”. Less global rhetoric and more local commitment. Because, at the end of the day, if your company doesn’t improve my neighbourhood, I’m hardly going to believe that you’re going to improve the world.

La entrada The sustainability dilemma: we want responsible brands, but it hurts our pockets se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

I confess: I am 22 years old, I am an intern, and I still stumble over the word ‘communication’ like someone who walks into a huge house and cannot find the bathroom. That is why this text does not aim to teach anything; it only aims to voice the uncomfortable questions that arose in my mind.

One of the ideas that came up repeatedly in the conversation was this: from 2000 to 2025, infant mortality was cut in half. Not slightly. Not ‘a little’. In half. We could be witnessing the greatest decline in human history. Vaccines that cost $1.50. Injections that cost $2 and prevent women from bleeding to death during childbirth. Mosquito nets that prevent malaria from continuing to be a game of Russian roulette for millions of children.

And, even so, very few people talk about this.

This is where, as someone who is beginning to look at communication from the inside, something grates on me. Because if saving millions of lives isn’t a ‘sexy’ headline, what is? At what point did we decide that data only matters if it’s wrapped up in drama, conspiracy or apocalypse?

Lack of continuity

Gates mentioned something that struck me as rather shocking: last year, more children died than the year before. Not because a new disease had been discovered, but because international aid had been cut abruptly and haphazardly. Mosquito nets did not arrive. Nutritional supplements remained in warehouses. HIV drugs were wasted. People died. Not because of a lack of solutions, but because of a lack of continuity in the projects.

From the perspective of someone starting out in communications, this is almost surprising and ironic. The story is simple and brutal: give a little money, save millions; cut it, people die. Period. And yet, no one talks about this. It doesn’t make headlines, no posts go viral, it doesn’t provoke mass outrage.

Perhaps it is because it is too rational. Perhaps because there are no obvious villains nor plot twists that surprise us. Perhaps because accepting that the world improves with actions that are small, silent and constant is not very glamorous, nor exciting, nor worthy of a meme.

One of the most absurd moments of the talk was when Gates recounted how healthcare aid in Mozambique was cancelled because one province is called Gaza and someone, doing text searches, decided that this meant funding condoms for Hamas. The result: babies born with HIV because medication for pregnant mothers was cut off. If this were a television series, we would say that the script was implausible. But it was real. And it happened almost without anyone noticing.

Tell what does work well

Here appears the real elephant in the room of communication: we don’t know how to tell properly what does actually work. We know how to amplify mistakes, scandals and catastrophes, but we get bored by the long processes, the cumulative results, the slow improvements. We prefer collapse to progress because collapse has a narrative.

Gates repeatedly emphasised that the problem is not a lack of money, but perception. Many people believe that rich countries devote 10% of their budget to international aid. In reality, it is less than 1%. When this is explained to them, they readily agree to increase it to 2%. The problem is that no one explains it properly. Or no one tries hard enough.

As an intern, I find this particularly disturbing because it confronts me with a responsibility I didn’t know existed. Communicating is not just about making something understood, but deciding what deserves to be understood. And that’s where we fail miserably.

At the conference, he also spoke about things that sounded like science fiction: virtual doctors; tutors who know exactly where you are going wrong; African farmers receiving better advice than even the wealthiest farmer in Europe would have… All said with exasperating calm. Without expectation. Without epic background music. As if the future were boring paperwork.

And there lies the problem: what truly changes the world rarely seems spectacular at the time. It is quiet, slow, unphotogenic.

What really matters

Communication cannot just be about repeating facts. It has to provoke a little, make someone wonder why they didn’t know this before. Show the difference between what makes headlines and what really matters.

It is not about embellishing figures or selling cheap optimism. Gates made it clear that a pandemic worse than COVID is possible. But he also said that we have better tools than ever to deal with it. The two things coexist, and perhaps communicating well means not choosing just one.

I don’t intend to close any debate, nor am I in a position to do so. But one thing became clear to me: communication fails more because of how we tell things than because of what we know. And for someone just starting out, that’s a little scary… but also exciting.

If communication serves any purpose, it should make visible the everyday miracles that occur, even if they don’t get likes, even if they don’t go viral, even if they make people uncomfortable a little while someone smiles and thinks: “this should matter to me more than it does.”.

And perhaps, just perhaps, that is where the real work begins.

La entrada The value of communication beyond data se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

That is why I would like to take advantage of 4 February – International Cancer Day – to share a reflection that will hopefully help us overcome a paradigm that limits the transformative power of communication by understanding it as a mere process of disseminating information.

This reductionist view of communication, which naively attributes to it the ability to change perceptions and behaviours, has a significant opportunity cost when we talk about social challenges such as cancer, which require a shift in the focus of communication from persuasion and reputation to cooperation and its prerequisite: trust.

The purpose of the learning service

The digitisation of the economy and the automation of knowledge production systems, which are driving the Fourth Industrial Revolution, also require a new conception of the relationships between organisations and their environment.

While it is true that we have accepted the need to transform organisational models towards greater decentralisation and autonomy, the role of corporate culture in transformation projects and the implications of its relevance for the managerial role itself are not so well known.

The influence of corporate culture on organisational behaviour manifests itself through shared core beliefs about ‘what needs to be done’ in line with the organisation’s raison d’être and the results of observing the environment, listening, introspection and reflection; processes that make learning the basis of the evolutionary process of individuals and organisations.

This paradigm shift regarding the role of communication requires a prior paradigm shift regarding the role of leadership in organisations with social impact. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the relationship between corporate communication, transformational leadership and the influence of corporate purpose.

Trust as a starting point

Only through trust can a vision for change be created that breaks down knowledge silos and develops collective innovation capabilities in collaboration with other key players in the environment.

The cultural influence of leadership and its transformative capacity stem from trust and the reinforcement of the ability to ‘learn to learn’, both within the organisation and in the society of which it forms part.

It is this capacity that allows us to change continuously by integrating two equally necessary forces into the behaviour of organisations and society: change and stability. Therefore, we can say that corporate culture is both the cause and effect of the evolution of organisational identity.

Dynamism of culture

The dynamism of corporate culture is embodied in a conversational process that helps us replace ideas that no longer serve to explain reality and guide our behaviour.

From this perspective, communication must be a transformative conversation that consists of:

• The expression of the values that arise from the shared beliefs
• The creation of symbols
• The interpretation of reality.

Organisational learning thus defines the new managerial function, which consists of promoting new communication processes capable of moving from discourse on ‘innovative culture’ to innovative behaviour resulting from the transformative capacity of the union between thought and action thanks to a constructive and ongoing debate on identity.

The influence of this innovative culture on the dynamism of the organisation and its social impact are the result of:

• Contextual intelligence, which results from integrating relevant information from outside and inside the organisation.
• Creative confidence, which is achieved through the generalisation of a sense of belonging and awareness of the organisation’s distinctive personality (self-knowledge).
• The high level of commitment, which requires ‘intrinsic motivation’.

Lead from the future

Action-oriented thinking stimulates cultural dynamism and turns it into a factor for change by guiding relationships with other key players, both to improve decision-making and to design future scenarios.

A dynamic organisation requires a communication system that reinforces not only collective awareness of the organisational purpose, but also an understanding of the usefulness of a few simple rules that determine the behaviour necessary to achieve it and that also condition the way in which future challenges are faced.

This collective vision enables the organisation to evolve in solidarity with its environment and activates a network of alliances to monitor the evolution of potential risks, facilitating anticipation and preparation for crisis situations.

Accountability: inside and outside

An organisation’s strategic link with its environment is truly effective when it has an accountability system in place, both for the contribution of each part of the organisation and for the impact of the whole on society.

Only if we stop viewing reputation as an end in itself and use it to build genuine relationships of trust, will we be able to convert information from a global and dynamic environment into continuous knowledge and innovation, while also strengthening transparency.

To achieve this, senior management and governing bodies must contribute, with the support of communications professionals, to:

• Create a sense of alignment and encourage experimentation through the way you behave and interact.
• Create stories that connect identity with the dynamism of the environment
• Design and update listening systems
• Design and update support systems to overcome obstacles in the learning and personal development process.
• Design and update systems for measuring social impact and their consistency with the organisation’s priorities.
• Design and update talent management systems
  • Recognition systems based on the sense of belonging
  • Compensation for the contribution to results
  • Compensation for the contribution to collective learning
  • Compensation for the contribution to the connection with the environment

These indicators of learning and innovation capacity must be integrated into the management model so that they can be assessed in terms of their relationship to and influence on the dynamics of:

• Financial assets
• The value proposition
• Internal processes, especially those involving:
  • Senior management
  • Teams in the core of operations
  • Communication
  • Marketing
  • Human Resources

It may seem that many organisations that genuinely want to be impactful entities are far from having a communication system designed to create an effective link with their environment.

The intention with which I share this reflection is precisely to point out that the path is short if that will is sincere; it is the path of surrender of accounts.

Hopefully, this reflection will also help to put corporate communication at the service of cooperation—beyond shared intentions—among all organisations working for the well-being of people with cancer.

*Article written by Ángel Losada Vázquez, professor of corporate communication at the Pontifical University of Salamanca. Chair of the Committee for Communication, marketing and public affairs of the Spanish Association Against Cancer

La entrada Communication in organisations with impact. From reputation to transformative trust. se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

Today, in 2026, that fascination with anticipating what is to come remains intact. But in digital communication, it is no longer just an exercise in curiosity; it is a strategic necessity. Platforms change, algorithms mutate, audiences fragment, and technology advances at a speed that forces us to constantly rethink what we communicate, how we do it, and, above all, for whom.

If 2024 was the year artificial intelligence finally took off, and 2025 was the year it became normalised (with ups and downs), 2026 looks set to be the year of maturity. A turning point at which digital communication will cease to be obsessed with scale and automation and refocus on something as old as it is essential: people, usefulness and trust.

These are the main trends in digital communication for 2026 that we are already beginning to detect and that will set the agenda for brands, institutions and creators of content.

Back to human: the value of what is not done with AI

After several years of technological euphoria, 2026 will consolidate a clear reaction: fatigue in the face of mass-produced, generic, and soulless content. So-called AI slop (mass-produced texts, images and videos with no real value or criteria, or even of poor quality that demonstrate a lack of care in their production) will begin to be penalised not only by audiences, but also by the platforms themselves.

Paradoxically, artificial intelligence will continue to be a key tool, but its use will become increasingly invisible. The brands that stand out will be those capable of demonstrating human sensitivity, editorial judgement and authenticity. The imperfect, the handcrafted and the clearly human will gain relevance over the artificially perfect.

It is no coincidence that we have already seen campaigns withdrawn for abusing AI-generated resources or for failing to pass a minimum creative and ethical filter. In 2026, communication will be, more than ever, a question of intention and not just efficiency.

GEO and algorithmic reputation: communicating for AI (without forgetting about people)

Traditional SEO is not disappearing, but evolving. In 2026, brands will compete on new ground: that of GEO (Generative Engine Optimisation), i.e. optimisation for AI-based response engines.

We will witness the rise of the so-called zero-click world: searches that will no longer drive traffic to a website, but will be resolved directly in the search engine or conversational assistant itself. This will force a complete rethink of digital visibility strategies.

In this context, a concept that is still in its infancy but decisive will come into play: algorithmic reputation. What does AI say about your brand, what sources does it use, what context it offers and what biases it reproduces. In 2026, this variable will begin (hopefully) to be integrated into plans for digital and reputational crisis management.

Brands that understand how to train their digital presence for these new environments (media, experts, quotable and consistent content) will have an advantage in a scenario where it is no longer enough to position oneself, but rather to be referenced.

Politics and geopolitics: from the margins to the centre of digital content

Far from being a passing fad, politics and geopolitics are establishing themselves as key topics in digital communication and social media. The reason is simple: the global media agenda spans all areas (including economics, technology, energy, defence and digital rights), and audiences, with increasingly specialised profiles and in many cases followers of current affairs, demand context.

Clear examples are the TikTok communication strategies of institutions such as Moncloa, the Prado Museum, and political figures such as the Mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani, who have understood that social media is not only a space for entertainment, but also for education and storytelling.

To this we can add the rise of newsletters and personal analysis formats. We can give as an example the Monthly active management, the monthly newsletter by Iván Díez, Country Head of Iberia and Latam of La Financière de l’Échiquier, on current events in markets (and many other topics), which demonstrate that there is an appetite for complex content explained in a clear and accessible manner.

In 2026, brands will not be able to ignore this context. Even those that do not explicitly discuss politics will need to understand the geopolitical framework in which they operate and how it affects their narrative.

Fewer likes, fewer comments… more real value.

One of the great frustrations of communication teams in recent years has been the gradual decline in visible engagement. In 2026, this trend will become more pronounced: there will be fewer likes and fewer comments, even on high-quality content.

The difference will be made by usefulness. Metrics such as saves or shares, viewing time, and recurrence will become much more relevant indicators than superficial interaction.

The formats that will work best are those aimed at solving specific problems or providing practical knowledge: tips, explained trends, tutorials, step-by-step guides, recipes, or applicable analyses.

Effective communication in 2026 will not be synonymous with virality, but rather with sustained relevance.

No more masses: hyper-segmentation and hyper-personalisation

This trend is not new, but in 2026 it reaches full maturity. Mass communication ceases to make sense in an ecosystem where there is no longer a homogeneous audience. There is no mass; there are communities, niches and micro-interests.

Hyper-segmentation of audiences and hyper-personalisation of messages (two terms we were already using in 2025) become a strategic requirement. It is not just a question of adapting the channel, but also the language, approach, timing and value provided to each audience.

Communication becomes surgical. Fewer impacts, but better targeted. Less noise and more connection. The goal is no longer reach, but rather building solid, lasting bonds.

Deepfakes and fake news: a structural threat

Unfortunately, another trend that will become more prevalent in 2026 is the increase in deepfakes and fake news. Technology is advancing faster than regulation and digital literacy, creating a perfect breeding ground for misinformation.

Recent cases, such as certain media crises linked to generative AI tools (the most notorious being Grok), highlight the fragility of the current information ecosystem. And everything points to us seeing more similar episodes throughout the year.

For brands, this means taking on a new reputational risk. Monitoring, verification and responsiveness are no longer optional. Digital communication in 2026 will need to incorporate clear protocols for dealing with content manipulation and identity theft.

Conclusion: communicate less, but better

Digital communication trends for 2026 paint a demanding picture, but also one of a new world full of opportunities. This will be the year when technology ceases to be the focus of discussion and becomes a tool at the service of judgement and strategy but, above all, of trust.

In a way, we are returning to the fundamentals: understanding who we are talking to, providing real value, and protecting our reputation. We must accept the responsibility that comes with communicating in a hyperconnected environment.

In a world saturated with messages, winning will not be shouting louder, but saying something that really deserves to be heard.

La entrada 6 digital communication trends for 2026: less noise, more judgment se publicó primero en Agencia comma.