Of course, the desire to keep up to date with the latest trends and to follow developments in the tools and processes that can optimise them is an integral part of being a designer. In the past, this involved watching Adobe tutorials (Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign) and keeping up with the steady stream of updates that improved workflows and made it easier to create new styles.

But the current whirlwind of change, with a new revolution in graphic design tools emerging every week, is overwhelming.

We’ve already discussed previously how Adobe’s dominance has been shaken by the emergence of free competitors such as Affinity Studio, which are backed by Canva with its artificial intelligence – which is precisely where they’re trying to monetise this project. The latest giant leap that left us speechless came when they unveiled Magic Layers. Finally, we can edit images generated by any AI using layers. Gone are the days of having to fiddle with prompts for every minor change, such as a colour or a font type.

Over the summer, Google Pics – which was announced at the last I/O – will be launched, promising image generation with advanced controls to move, resize and transform objects, edit or translate text, or retouch specific areas of your images. And all of this is integrated into its workspace. Google is doing everything it can to ensure you never have to leave its ecosystem at all. This is an approach also pioneered by the Spanish company Magnific (formerly known as Freepik) with an infinite visual canvas system where you connect different AI cards to design, automate and control the entire creative process in a single workflow.

Gemini Omni will also be wowing us very soon with its video generation capabilities. Google is well aware of the potential held by many content creators who do not make the leap to video due to a lack of technical resources (cameras, lighting, locations, make-up, etc.). Its commitment to digital avatars is clear. Think of that client who has a wealth of knowledge on a subject but doesn’t perform well in front of the camera. Omni will allow us, starting with a photo and some text, to generate a video in which our client—perfectly lit and looking their best—explains to us, looking straight at the camera with impeccable diction and without hesitation, the advantages of active management or blockchain decentralisation. Rumour has it that it will be integrated into YouTube Shorts. This would put the current market leader, HeyGen, under pressure.

Another contender is making its mark. Claude Design is a game-changer because it significantly lowers the technical barriers to app and web design. Unlike traditional visual generators, which only create static images, Claude Design creates functional interfaces and mock-ups (in live code such as HTML/JS) that you can click on, interact with and test in real time within its canvas. This is a huge help for developers, who can optimise their workflows by creating elements with a simple prompt.

Now, with the Vibe Coding boom in full swing – which has made coding accessible to everyone – there is a wide range of new web apps available for applying image styles or creating simple motion graphics.

Our favourites web apps for design

If I had to draw up a list of my favourite web design apps, they would undoubtedly be these:

Dither garden

Dithering effects on images. A variation on pixel art to achieve an alternative, nostalgic or cyberpunk aesthetic.

Isocons

Library of resources for isometric icons with an interactive panel to change the perspective, adjust the style and choose the colour.

Visu Haus

Interactive visual effects of elastic text, distorted, moving or with circular shapes. Three-dimensional graphics and mathematical simulations rendered in real time (such as Voronoi fractals or liquid metabolas).

Change Capture

Transform any object (using your webcam or by uploading a video file) into a motion in trails that are fluid, dynamic and abstract.

Brik Space

Developed by Wix, it allows you to create, customise and export visual effects, kinetic typography and reusable 3D scenes without needing to know how to code.

Formia

Designed to instantly transform any flat 2D logo into an eye-catching three-dimensional version. It also allows you to create videos with 360-degree rotations and adjust the axis of rotation.

Typeface animator

A fantastic collection of custom typographic animations. Although the ability to edit all elements (text, shape, colour, animation, etc.) depends on the individual template, you’ll be amazed at what you can achieve with this system, which even works on your mobile.

AI Particle Simulator

A WebGL-based experimentation environment designed for the interactive simulation of 3D particle swarms. It converts prompts into JavaScript code, allowing you to control the behaviour of over 20,000 particles.

Baby Track

A tool for tracking moving objects (blob tracking) that applies interactive visual effects (heat maps, glitch-style distortions, particles and dynamic text labels) to your video file.

Aantlii Work

Anatolii Babii presents his portfolio featuring projects in the field of animation of abstract elements which the user can edit according to their needs and export in various formats.

Deeo Studio

This interactive experiment in design and movement, centred on three-dimensional typography, invites users to play freely and explore how letters sculpted from voxel-style blocks (3D pixels) behave and interact.

Endless Tools

An online interactive design multi-tool that allows you to create custom typography, effects and 3D objects without writing any code. Dozens of templates featuring material effects, extrusion, textures and distortions that can be edited in just a few clicks.

React Bits

More than 110 animated and interactive components (with smooth micro-interactions, scroll effects and visual transitions) exportable as code snippets ready to copy and paste.

Tools to suit every taste

It is clear that, now more than ever, we have countless ways to bring out our inner artist. Will the dizzying pace at which new graphic tools are appearing continue to amaze us next week, or will it eventually bore us? Technology now allows users without extensive graphic design skills to bring their ideas to life with ease, but the democratisation of these processes carries the risk of visual homogeneity.

Think back a few months to the first time you saw that picture on Instagram of your mate turned into an action figure, or your girlfriend drawn in Pixar style. Amazing, isn’t it? But when you’ve seen it ten times over – even on your sister-in-law’s profile – it gets a bit tiresome, doesn’t it? Some media outlets overuse these eye-catching effects, without realising how quickly they go out of fashion.

This is why strategic design is so important. We must make the most of the new opportunities that technology offers us, whilst carefully assessing their impact and how they evolve.

It is discernment that will make the difference. As Víctor Palau says in Gráffica: “Now that everyone can design, it matters more than ever.” But it is not just that; experience, knowledge and craftsmanship will also set us apart.

La entrada AI design: fleeting trends se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

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.

As they say: this time it’s different. Because this is the first time Spain has started as the clear favourite since that South African summer of ‘the Iniesta of my life’, ‘Waka Waka’ and Paul the octopus trying to predict the outcome of every match. The world, meanwhile, has changed at a pace that is very difficult to keep up with. Today we no longer rely on a cephalopod to make predictions, but instead turn to artificial intelligence models capable of processing vast amounts of data and variables.

But, even though it may seem as though a hundred years have passed, there is one thing that remains just as relevant today as it was then: the importance of auctoritas. We are not talking about leadership in the conventional sense, but about something much deeper: the ability to provide a point of reference, to bring order, to interpret events and to inspire confidence in times of uncertainty or collective weariness.

In fact, in today’s digitalised world, auctoritas has become even more essential. We have seen this in very recent cases in the world of football, as we noted last week in this very column when analysing the famous press conference held at Real Madrid’s headquarters by Florentino Pérez, now the triumphant winner. And this is a concept that goes beyond sport. Because it seems that something similar is also happening in today’s news landscape. Access to information has never been so easy, with so many sources, channels and tools. However, this is not helping to bring greater clarity of thought; on the contrary, it leads to a saturation that makes it difficult to distinguish between signal and noise.

The space for context in the age of TikTok

Behind this reality lies the sense that, in certain complex fields, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find platforms capable of providing context and depth on a consistent basis.

It is not a problem of a lack of information. Quite the opposite. News, analysis, opinions and data now circulate at such a speed and in such a volume that it becomes impossible to process. Added to this is a social and technological ecosystem that rewards the immediate, the emotional and the simplified. Many information-gathering habits have changed radically in just a few years. Younger colleagues readily admit that they ‘keep up to date’ via Instagram, TikTok or snippets distributed algorithmically across various platforms.

Such are the times we live in. Platforms respond effectively to an ever-faster pace of consumption. But what about issues that require more time? Stripping away the nuances has consequences. This is particularly true in fields such as economics or finance, where decisions have a very tangible impact.

The temptation to let AI call the shots

The rise of artificial intelligence adds a new layer of complexity. Tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity no longer function merely as sophisticated search engines. Increasingly, users are turning to them to obtain summarised answers, compare options, understand industries, or form an initial impression of companies, markets or trends.

Using AI as a first line of defence has obvious advantages. Access to knowledge is simplified. It is possible to process and synthesise vast amounts of information in a way that would previously have been unthinkable, but with the risk of, almost without realising it, abandoning that very human capacity known as critical thinking. And that makes the quality of the sources feeding the ecosystem particularly important.

In this situation, the gradual disappearance of certain specialist outlets – or the difficulty in sustaining journalistic models based on in-depth reporting and expertise – also affects the quality of public discourse and, ultimately, our collective ability to interpret phenomena, whether complex or straightforward.

A responsibility that influences decision-making

Financial literacy is a good example. Spain has historically suffered from significant shortcomings in this area, and the current situation probably makes it more necessary than ever for the public to be able to understand basic economic concepts, assess risks and identify reliable information when making decisions. This is not only a matter of individual responsibility, but also because many of the major contemporary challenges – from geopolitics to the technological or energy transition – have an economic dimension that is difficult to ignore.

However, the media landscape often pushes in the opposite direction: towards an immediate and emotional reaction.

Perhaps that is why it is significant that, while the World Cup is once again dominating conversations and screens, Spain has also recently been visited by Pope Leo XIV. Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, few global figures today so clearly embody a form of authority that is difficult to establish in the contemporary world: an authority based less on bombast or speed than on the ability to maintain a recognisable voice. It is no coincidence that a large part of his recent remarks have centred precisely on issues such as artificial intelligence, human dignity, or the need to preserve spaces for critical thinking in the face of increasingly automated processes.

In an environment of scattered attention and fast-paced narratives, auctoritas is not so much about imposing a voice as it is about remaining a consistent point of reference that does not vanish with a single click.

Credibility is the strategic asset

Communication plays a major role in all of this. For years, many organisations competed primarily for visibility. Today, that seems insufficient. As information multiplies relentlessly, the real difference lies less in taking up space and more in providing clarity and context.

Reputation no longer depends solely on being present, but on becoming a point of reference that is truly useful. Perhaps therein lies an important part of the challenge for contemporary for media, businesses and institutions. Not in speaking louder and louder. But rather in helping to preserve our ‘magnificent humanity’. In the face of the chaos, auctoritas.

La entrada In search of the Auctoritas: from Paul the octopus to the algorithms se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

I’m going to tell you what this article actually is: a post about how to ruin a 26-year-old reputation (both personal and corporate) in 26 minutes. A post about how to lose control by giving in to improvisation and emotions, ultimately turning a public appearance into a real battleground. And, although moral lessons are usually left until the end, I’ll give you a spoiler right now: any spokesperson must prepare and carefully consider every statement in detail, and have the tools to maintain control (or regain it if they’ve lost it). Otherwise, their image will be in tatters, directly impacting the corporate reputation.

A corporate reputation is built slowly (very slowly), over years and decades, through strategic decisions and, above all, leadership based on credibility and consistency, but it can be destroyed in an instant: a single public statement made without an awareness of the role you represent and without proper preparation is enough to jeopardise decades of reputational capital. And, I think we can all agree, the press conference on 12 May by Florentino Pérez, the (still) president of Real Madrid, is an extraordinary example of this.

So, let’s take a look at the three key points that stood out during this press conference and the lessons we can learn from each of them.

When the spokesperson ceases to represent the institution

One of the basic principles of spokesperson training is that anyone speaking in public must be clear that they represent an organisation, its corporate culture and values, and that they represent these above and beyond themselves. In other words, above and beyond the spokesperson themselves. Spokesperson roles are individual, yes, but above all, they are institutional.

However, for much of the press conference, Florentino Pérez moved away from institutional matters and onto a personal level: the press conference ceased to be a corporate explanation of the club’s future and instead became a response to personal rumours, media criticism and conflicts external to the club he represents. And this loss of control had a direct impact in three areas: firstly, on the message, which ceased to be perceived as leadership and began to be perceived as a reaction; secondly, on the image of the executive himself; and thirdly, on the image of the company itself.

And that was exactly what happened.

The five lessons learnt:

1. Don’t speak without training first
2. Don’t lose sight of the main message
3. Don’t improvise
4. Don’t talk more than necessary
5. Don’t overlook non-verbal communication

The most dangerous mistake: speaking from a place of hurt

Let us always remember that the spokesperson’s emotional tone has as much, if not more, influence than the content of the message. This aspect marks a critical juncture in any public appearance: when the spokesperson ceases to steer and lead the conversation and begins to react to it and defend themselves personally.

In spokesperson training, there is one essential rule: you should never make a public statement driven by an emotional need for vindication or to settle scores, because when a spokesperson feels the need to deny something, explain themselves or seek revenge in public, they lose emotional control and their ability to exercise strategic control.

Corporate communication is not about winning debates or arguments. It is about leadership, and about demonstrating authority with confidence and transparency.

For this reason, one of the most sensitive aspects of the press conference was the constant personalisation of the conflict: naming journalists, accusing specific media outlets of orchestrating campaigns, or even using hyperbolic expressions such as “they’ll have to shoot me to get me out” are attitudes and elements that automatically shift the focus away from the institutional message and turn it into a personal conflict. And, in terms of reputation, this comes at a huge cost because the audience expects a calm, composed and controlled spokesperson who leads their statement with proportionality and reasoned arguments, especially in high-pressure situations. The spokesperson may be fundamentally right, but completely lose public support because of the manner in which they present their case, and that is one of the greatest risks in institutional communication: confusing firmness with aggression.

The five lessons learnt:

1. Do not get drawn into emotional arguments: do not react impulsively or speak out of anger
2. Do not use sarcasm or irony, nor display arrogance
3. Do not use a constantly defensive tone or threats
4. Confusing firmness with aggressiveness
5. Do not turn an official appearance into a settling of scores, nor adopt a victim mentality

When the spokesperson becomes the subject of the news

There is another fundamental rule regarding the role of the spokespersons in the field of corporate communication: the focus of the statement should never be the spokesperson. The protagonist should be the message, and the spokesperson, its messenger.

However, by the end of the press conference, the public debate was no longer centred on the elections at Real Madrid nor on the management of the club, but rather it centred exclusively on Florentino Pérez, his clashes with the press and the tone of his statements.

The ruling is clear from the perspective we are analysing: this shift in focus is one of the main indicators of communication failure. Because when public discourse strays from the strategic objective of the statement and focuses instead on the spokesperson’s behaviour, the organisation loses control of the narrative, with all that this entails for its reputation. And regaining that control often takes weeks, months or even years.

The five lessons learnt:

1. Don’t forget that you represent an institution
2. Don’t think that a reputation once established is indestructible
3. Do not make conflicts with journalists a personal matter or discredit the media
4. Do not ridicule uncomfortable questions or journalists because of their personal circumstances
5. Do not respond to provocations

Three key points and 15 lessons learned from a real-life example that highlight the pitfalls to avoid in public appearances, as they are exactly the kind of things any spokesperson should steer clear of.

A striking real-life example that illustrates how a business leader, accustomed to being in control and with three decades of reputation-building behind him, lost sight of the purpose of his appearance in the space of just a few minutes, and how this resulted in a complete loss of narrative control and emotional control. Because, beyond the political or sporting content of his statements, what is relevant from a corporate communications perspective is how a senior executive of an IBEX-listed company and a leading organisation such as Real Madrid lost the strategic focus of a speech that will take a long time to be forgotten.

That is why this is a prime example of how an institutional appearance can become a case study in poor media management. We must therefore always bear in mind one key principle: reputations can be destroyed in a matter of minutes – and almost always in front of a camera.

La entrada The case of Florentino Pérez: the three key factors in how to destroy 26 years of corporate reputation in 26 minutes se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

In day-to-day life, it’s easy to get swept up in the tide of digital trends or the pressure to ‘be everywhere’. However, the latest IAB Spain Social Media Study helps bring us back down to earth: the digital ecosystem in Spain has reached structural maturity. Users have become extremely selective, their expectations are higher than ever, and they no longer give their attention away to just any brand.

The keys to how to lead the conversation in this space such a fast-changing environment according to the study can be summarised as;

The user is digitally literate, but their attention span is limited

Although most of us are familiar with around nine different social media platforms, the reality is that in our day-to-day lives we only actively log in to and use about five of them each month. There is a growing gap between the public recognising an app and deciding to integrate it into their daily routine. Therefore, forcing a presence on every emerging channel for fear of being left out is a misjudgement; the key today is not inertial reach, but achieving relevance within the select group of platforms that truly capture the audience’s daily attention.

The shift away from more traditional networks

The percentage of users who say they have completely stopped using a social media platform has risen sharply in just one year, from 33% to 42%. The platforms leading this exodus are X, with 11%, and Facebook with 10%, as 40% cite lack of use, 23% a loss of interest, and 21% openly admit to being fed up with the saturation of political debates. Certain long-standing platforms are losing the ability to sustain constructive conversations. Facebook, for example, suffers from a huge disconnect: whilst maintaining a high frequency of visits, it lags behind in time spent on the platform (47 minutes a day), making it effective for quick, wide-reaching impact but not for retaining users’ attention.

The cornerstone of corporate positioning

In contrast to the volatility of entertainment channels, the professional sphere has established itself as an extremely robust platform. When analysing exclusively the corporate strategy and commercial use by organisations and businesses (an approach very different from that of the average user), LinkedIn stands firmly as the number one professional network and the top priority for the business community. With 44% usage, it ranks as the second most widely used platform globally by organisations, behind Instagram, which tops the business rankings. This corporate focus far exceeds the presence of brands in mass-market environments such as YouTube (27%) or TikTok (19%). With a clear positioning based exclusively on employment and work, this channel is the ideal platform for projecting an organisation’s identity, allowing the company’s thought leaders and the teams themselves to act as spokespersons to build credibility in the market and decision-making circles.

Less corporate monologue and more interactive activities

There is a very common internal contradiction in content planning, as 59% of the content published by organisations focuses on conveying the brand’s values and positioning. However, it is participatory campaigns, accounting for 41% of output, that truly engage the audience by generating twice as many interactions (26%) and web traffic (26%) compared to flat institutional content, which barely achieves 12% interaction and 15% traffic. The public rejects one-way communication. If the real objective is to build engagement and drive users to the organisation’s own web assets, content strategies must shift from merely disseminating messages to designing experiences where the community is part of the narrative.

The prescriber’s paradox: credibility under scrutiny

Almost half of internet users (46%) actively follow influencers, a practice that is overwhelmingly concentrated among women and young people. The problem is that the trust they generate hangs by a very fine thread, as despite this, 38% consider these creators to be credible, compared to 40% who perceive their comments as being purely promotional. The use of third parties to endorse a brand no longer operates under rigid or purely commercial frameworks; if advertising persuasion stifles authenticity, the user disengages, so collaborations must be based on a genuine alignment of values and creative freedom to safeguard trust.

The ethical imperative of AI: transparency or punishment

Advances in artificial intelligence in content creation pose a significant challenge in terms of perception, as most users admit that they find it difficult to distinguish between real and synthetic content, particularly older users. This is fuelling a climate of widespread mistrust that is intensifying severely in highly sensitive corporate or news-related areas such as current affairs, politics or health. In light of this, there is a unanimous and cross-cutting demand for the explicit labelling of all AI-generated content. Processing tools such as ChatGPT or Gemini are fantastic allies for optimising internal workflows, structuring ideas or analysing performance data, but when it comes to the public, honesty is non-negotiable, and attempting to release automated creative content or final messages without warning exposes organisations to an unnecessary erosion of their credibility and strains trust with their audience.

The real priority of the ecosystem

When professionals who manage the digital landscape are asked about their organisations’ priorities, the consensus is clear: the top objectives are improving search rankings (72%) and increasing brand awareness (65%), clearly outstripping immediate conversion goals such as direct sales, which stand at just 38%. Social media functions, above all, as a platform for reputation, trust and public perception. In a mature market, the success of a strategy does not lie in making more noise or dominating more screens, but in understanding the codes of each channel, respecting users’ demand for transparency, and accepting that the value of intelligent entertainment is the only real price the public is willing to pay to pay attention to us.

La entrada How to lead the conversation in a constantly changing ecosystem 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 workings of economic cycles can be compared to drinking alcohol at a party: there is a blood alcohol level that can facilitate social interaction, lower our inhibitions and even give us good ideas, as can be seen in David Vinterberg’s film ‘Another Round’. But once that level is exceeded – which, once the party gets going, is bound to happen – almost everything becomes a problem. Among these, getting up the next day.

We can also liken credit to a good drink. The easier it is to grant loans, the higher the blood alcohol level. And, although we are relatively rational creatures, when alcohol starts to take effect, it always creates a certain sense of euphoria. If we equate alcohol with money, we arrive at the concept of financial euphoria: there is always a moment when we are convinced that our investments, our financial gambles, will yield the best results, as if the scenario we construct in our minds were to play out exactly as we imagine in reality. And that is precisely when we are at our most dangerous – to ourselves and to others.

From this feeling of being delighted to meet each other, we move on to the financial bar and get more money (or more drinks). With these financial drinks, we snap up shares, property and foreign currencies that can only go up in value. We win, those who sell win, and the barman wins too – the employee of the ‘alcoholic bank’ who, for the moment, is offering an open bar for everyone. The night stretches from midnight to four in the morning. And the body begins to show signs of exhaustion. And intoxication.

Only those who know how to drink, whether by nature or through experience, will leave the party on time. Those of us who stay will keep partying on. When a lot of people have already left, the disco begins to take on the look of an after-party. The investors least informed, those drinkers who are reckless or naive, continue to drown in alcohol, and the financial assets acquired, those drinks of more, no longer feel the same as good.

There comes a point when the alcohol-fuelled bubble bursts and you’re no longer dancing as you’d initially imagined. You might even wake up next to a stranger who, just a few hours earlier, was the conquest of your life. The sun shines right in your face, filtering through a rickety blind in a shared flat. Everything you did in that state of euphoria now seems like utter nonsense. A sense of shame sets in: many investments were based on overly optimistic decisions and forecasts of financial results that are no longer looking so good.

To continue with the analogy, all those in debt who bought things that were not actually worth that much are now in a great deal of pain. They have become impoverished and cannot offload the houses, assets or currencies they acquired during the boom. They are no longer winners but poor investors. In this case, the side effects will last more than a year or two, often for a lifetime. This is what happened, for example, following the 2008 financial crisis, which made it clear that many of the investments and loans were of very poor quality. The hangover is still being felt today, with a sullen Parliament full of hatred and poor responses. A democratic headache.

Regulating alcohol has led to almost always negative consequences. Prohibition strengthened the mafia and the criminal trade in the United States. So the solution should go in another direction: it would consist of telling people that getting rich quickly is like a street party, an event which only a minority of elected representatives can survive successfully. And that one must tread with great care when night falls, because the shadows cast on the ground deceive us if we are prone to it.

Political courage should consist of this: being able to burst the bubbles, and thereby break the self-destructive tendencies of society, whatever the electoral cost; limiting the banking sector’s lending capacity during periods of euphoria in order to bolster it during periods of depression, when loans are most necessary and urgent; and in not being seduced by periods of easy growth, but rather seeking to encourage investment in the economic fundamentals that are most likely to yield returns in the long term.

To conclude, let’s imagine a night out that allows us to have fun and get home before two in the morning. It might not be what the films show, but it would let us enjoy a good night out without overdoing it to the point of regretting it the next day. It’s not the most exciting option, but perhaps it is the most sustainable. We need political and business leadership that seeks exactly that. And, unfortunately, everyone is currently shouting, glass in hand, gazing at the moon as if it were there 24 hours a day.

*Article written by Andrés Villena, lecturer in Applied Economics at the UCM

La entrada Communicate to prevent drunkenness se publicó primero en Agencia comma.