A good spokesperson should never improvise. They must prepare, practise and undergo proper training. This isn’t the first time we’ve discussed this on our blog, but we feel it is necessary and useful to summarise, in this post, the key points for understanding what spokesperson training involves, why it is so important, and the key steps involved in preparing a spokesperson.

What is spokesperson training?

Spokesperson training is a process designed to prepare the professionals who represent an organisation so that they can communicate in a manner that is effective, secure and consistent in various situations and when addressing different audiences.

Having a thorough understanding of a company, a sector or a particular topic does not necessarily mean knowing how to communicate it effectively. A good spokesperson must be able to convey that knowledge clearly and comprehensibly, always bearing in mind who they are addressing, through which channel and with what aim.

That is why a spokesperson training programme focuses both on verbal and non-verbal communication skills and on an understanding of corporate communication processes and how the media works.

During the spokesperson training, participants learn to identify, structure and convey their key messages, to handle interviews and all kinds of public appearances, to answer difficult or sensitive questions, and to adapt their message to different audiences, situations and channels. In addition, they practise key skills such as listening, the ability to summarise, clarity and how to react to unforeseen situations.

Why is it so important to include it in the communications strategy?

The training of spokespersons as part of a corporate communications strategy enables those who will represent the organisation to be prepared to deal with different communication scenarios and to do so in a manner consistent with its positioning, values and objectives. The role of a spokesperson should not be viewed in isolation, as it is directly linked to one of the key assets of any organisation and its communication strategies: its reputation.

Every time a spokesperson speaks, they are shaping perceptions of the company. Their clarity, confidence, ability to listen, approachability, the way they respond, and the consistency between what they say and what their organisation does all help to shape the image that different audiences have of the organisation.

A good intervention can build trust, raise profile, strengthen the positioning of the organisation and humanise a company. A poor campaign can lead to confusion, create headlines that are not desired or exacerbate a delicate situation. For that reason, investing time and resources in preparing the ones who represent the organisation is also investing in protecting its reputation and, therefore, consequently, its brand.

How does one prepare to be a good spokesperson?

Training a spokesperson does not consist of providing them with a set of talking points and teaching them to repeat them. Nor is it turning someone into someone they are not. Training in an appropriate manner to a spokesperson involves providing them with tools so that they are able to communicate with clarity, confidence and ease, whilst maintaining their personality and, at the same time, effectively fulfilling the role that they play within the organisation.

Practise active listening, show empathy, getting to know your audience or being clear and concise are some of the keys to being a good communicator and achieving effective communication communication.

But, above all, a good spokesperson is properly prepared through practice. You need to work on key messages, carry out mock interviews and/or press conferences, practise responses to tricky questions, and analyse your communication style to identify strengths and areas for improvement. Training is key, as is constructive feedback that helps you improve. And, of course, it’s not just the words that matter: you also need to pay attention to eye contact, gestures, posture and tone of voice, because non-verbal communication is also part of the message.

Spokesperson training gives the spokesperson confidence. When a person knows what they want to communicate, understands the context they are facing and has practised different scenarios beforehand, there is less room for improvisation and their ability to focus on what really matters—communicating—is enhanced. And they will do so effectively.

The importance of training courses that are tailored and bespoke

For over 25 years, we have been committed to providing bespoke spokesperson training, tailored to the needs of each organisation and the profile of its professionals. We combine knowledge, experience and practical training to help executives and experts communicate more effectively and represent their organisations with confidence and efficiency. If your organisation needs to prepare its spokespersons, refresh their skills or train them for specific communication situations, we can help.

La entrada Spokesperson training: what it is, why it is important and how to train a good spokesperson se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

A few weeks ago, half of Spain started to talk about “the downfall of the influencers”. series of controversies involving some of the country’s best-known content creators took over TikTok, Instagram and the media headlines. There were calls to unfollow certain accounts, videos celebrating losses in follower numbers, and figures that seemed to suggest we were witnessing a sort of collective reckoning with the influencer phenomenon.

Now that some time has passed, we can analyse what happened and the actual consequences it has had. An analysis by Kolsquare of the trends over 50 days for some of the profiles that were at the centre of the conversation reveals a rather less clear-cut picture. The losses were mainly concentrated over a period of around ten days in August and then levelled off for almost all the profiles analysed.

Fabiana Sevillano, one of the creators who most appeared associated with this conversation, lost followers from the peak that reached around the time of La Velada, but by the beginning of September was still at a level of 3.98% higher than on 15 July. RoRo has indeed reported a considerable loss, although part of this is due to the correction of the enormous growth which had experienced coinciding with La Velada and Carliyo the Nervio is another of the figures who following the controversy which arose in the summer, has continued to lose viewers.

However, the decline, at least understood as a mass exodus of followers, never materialised, although that does not mean that nothing has happened.

Some creators jumped straight into the conversation. Fabiana Sevillano argued that a ‘shaming campaign’ would be unlikely to put an end to influencers because the controversy itself generates attention and engagement. Others asked people not to generalise, spoke of a loss of connection with the audience, or even emphasised the difference between being an influencer and being a content creator.

Most chose to stay on the sidelines, and we have also observed how some of the profiles that seemed to feel called out began to make certain adjustments to their content or to address issues relating to authenticity and their relationship with their audience.

It is difficult to know whether these changes are a direct response to the controversy or whether they will endure over time. But the fact that the quantitative consequences of the conversation have been limited does not mean it was irrelevant, because perhaps we were looking at the wrong data.

We still follow the influencers, but we trust them less

Influencers aren’t going away. More than half of Spanish internet users follow influencers, YouTubers or streamers, and brands continue to rely on them as part of their communication strategies. What does seem to be changing, however, is the relationship we have with influence.

According to the latest edition of Navegantes en la Red, published by AIMC, 56.4% of the internet users in Spain surveyed still follow influencers, YouTubers or streamers. Among those who do so, 69.8% consider that there is use or abuse of advertising in disguise; 61.9% believe that the majority of their posts and comments are advertising in nature ; and 45.7% state that this undermines their credibility. Mistrust, therefore, has not arisen this summer.

In 2023, the so-called ‘ lashgate involving Mikayla Nogueira turned a collaboration with L’Oréal sparked a huge debate about credibility after some of her audience suspected she had used false eyelashes to exaggerate the effect of a mascara.

Around those very same dates the phenomenon of deinfluencing was also gaining ground, creators doing apparently the opposite of that for which influencer marketing had been created, that is to say which products that went viral were not worth the trouble of buying.

Afterwards came phenomena such as the underconsumption core, the “use what you already have” and other trends that questioned the need to constantly acquire the next viral product.

These are different phenomena, but they all point to something similar: the audience has gradually learnt the rules of influencer marketing and has become much more critical of the content it consumes.

When a ‘normal’ person stops being one

There is another transformation less related to advertising and more to the very evolution of the creators.

A good proportion of the big influencers today started by showcasing a lifestyle that was quite relatable to their followers. They showed the clothes that they bought, how they applied their make-up, what they did during the day or where they went went on holidays. They were people who appeared to be normal and who replied to comments and shared a good part of their privacy, and that closeness was one of the greatest assets on which the foundation upon which the phenomenon was built.

Some of these accounts are now fully-fledged businesses, with millions of followers, professional teams, advertising deals, paid trips, invitations to events and incomes that are a world away from those of a large proportion of their audience.

Success shouldn’t be a problem, but inconsistent communication certainly is. When a creator’s circumstances change, the way they engage with their community must also evolve. Maintaining the same narrative of normality when the distance between you and your followers has increased considerably can end up causing resentment.

Some of the controversies in Spain this summer stem precisely from that perception of a disconnect. Rather than trying to decide who was right in each case, it is more interesting to ask why comments that might have gone unnoticed a few years ago now provoke such strong reactions. Because a community may still be there, yet the relationship it has with those on the other side of the screen may have changed.

Influencers are moving away from social media

Whilst we were discussing the alleged fall, something apparently contradictory happened at that moment: major sports organisations were backing them to reach new audiences.

La Vuelta a España welcomed the content creator Erola Jons, which has millions of followers on social media, with the aim of bringing the competition to a younger audience.

The strategy made sense, if you want to reach an audience that does not usually follow cycling, to engage someone who already has their attention may prove much more effective than waiting for that audience to reach through the traditional channels.

The problem arose during the event, as some of her interactions with cyclists drew criticism, leading La Vuelta to amend the protocol. From that point onwards, any interaction between the organiser and riders or teams had to be authorised in advance.

Beyond acknowledging the creator’s achievements, this case raises an important question for those of us who work in communications: is having access to an audience enough to make you the right fit for any context? The answer is no.

Selecting a creator solely on the basis of their ability to reach a particular audience can be just as inadequate as choosing a media outlet solely on the basis of its readership. The audience and reach are important, but so too are tone, credibility, affinity, the ability to adapt to different conventions, and the specific role we want them to play. And, of course, the briefing matters.

Shortly afterwards, the debate reached the US Open. This year, the tournament accredited around a hundred influencers and content creators – roughly double the number from the previous edition – also with the aim of bringing tennis to new audiences.

During the competition, there were disruptions caused by people creating content in the stands and hospitality areas, including moving around during service, making noise, taking photographs or using lights to film. Some players, including Naomi Osaka, Coco Gauff and Jessica Pegula, eventually spoke out on the matter.

It is worth pointing out that some of the incidents that went viral did not involve creators officially accredited by the US Open, and it is precisely for this reason that the case raises a broader issue. The problem is not deciding whether or not influencers should be present at a tennis tournament, but rather understanding what happens when we introduce the dynamics of the attention economy into spaces that operate according to completely different rules.

The creator is seeking attention, the tennis player needs to concentrate, the event wants to broaden its reach, the spectator has paid to enjoy the match, and the brand wants to secure content. All these interests can coexist, but someone has to work out how.

Coco Gauff was highlighting precisely a responsibility that we sometimes overlook: if a brand invites creators to an event of this kind, it should also explain to them the rules and etiquette of the venue they are entering.

The debate has also turned the spotlight on Wimbledon, which, unlike the US Open, does not have a specific accreditation category for influencers and maintains particularly strict rules on the use of equipment that could interfere with matches.

Two ways of tackling the same challenge: reaching new audiences without losing what makes up the experience and identity of an event.

The problem of measuring influence using metrics relating to audience

After everything that has happened this summer, perhaps the question is not whether influencers are on the decline. The reality is that audiences are still there, brands continue to invest, major events want to incorporate them into their strategies, and every day new creators emerge who are capable of building communities around practically any topic. What does seem to be falling by the wayside, however, is the idea that audience, visibility, influence and trust are practically one and the same.

For years we have used metrics that are relatively easy to measure in order to make decisions that are much more complex: followers, views, reach, engagement.

One creator may have millions of followers yet little influence, whilst another may have a small community but exert enormous influence over it. Someone may generate millions of views yet be completely unsuitable to represent a particular brand. And a creator who performs perfectly well on their own channels may need training to thrive in a different context.

Because influence and visibility have never been the same thing, even though they have often been confused. And to this we must add another variable that is even more difficult to measure: trust.

The problem is not that a creator monetises their content; it is only natural that they should do so. The conflict arises when the accumulation of sponsorships, a lack of connection with what they are promoting, or a constant stream of new ‘must-have’ products ends up eroding the credibility on which their influence was built.

And a bad choice does not affect only the creator, it can also harm the brand that has selected it. For that reason, protecting that credibility should be a concern for creator, but also the brand, the agency and any organisation which decides to use its ability to exert influence.

After weeks of talk of a supposed decline, most major influencers have retained virtually all of their audience, and brand investment continues to grow. But something has indeed changed: the audience is becoming increasingly aware of how this industry works, recognises its commercial codes, and seems more willing to question those they follow.

At the same time, the sector itself has been forced to, even though it has only been for a few weeks, to talk about authenticity, responsibility, publicity, disconnection and trust.

Perhaps we are simply entering a more mature stage of influencer marketing. One in which attracting attention remains important, but is no longer enough, and in which a creator’s real advantage lies not in how many people they manage to get to watch them, but in how many continue to trust them when they have something to say.

Article written byMarta Rodríguez Ruiz, Marketing and Communications Director

La entrada The decline of the influencers that never came se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

It’s quite ironic to start by talking about truth with a quote whose origin has not been proven.

We’ve been talking for months about artificial intelligence, influencers, reputation, algorithms, content, new audiences, loss of trust, the media, brands, disinformation… And I get the feeling that we’re starting this academic year with lots of new questions and many answers still pending. Before the summer holidays, I wrote in the monthly newsletter that judgement would be one of humanity’s greatest competitive advantages in an environment where we will all have access to similar technologies. I still believe that. But September forces us to take the next step: where are we going to apply that judgement?

It occurs to me to revisit those three old filters (whether or not they can be attributed to Socrates, they are relevant), adapt them to our profession, and add the questions that come to mind, even though we do not yet have all the answers.

Is it true?

José María Álvarez-Pallete, former chair of Telefónica, posted recently on his profile on LinkedIn a reflection which began with a sentence by Cervantes: ‘I know who I am’. He recalled how, after a certain Avellaneda had published a second apocryphal part of Don Quixote, Cervantes reacted by writing his own. Today we continue to read Cervantes. Avellaneda is remembered, mainly, by specialists.

Álvarez-Pallete used history to talk about artificial intelligence and the growing importance of the origin of content. The Internet is becoming filled with texts produced by machines, texts which feed other machines, content reworked on the basis of other content and responses whose origin becomes increasingly difficult to reconstruct each time. So perhaps the old question needs a few additions: Who says so? From where does it come from? Can I check it? How?

And it would be advisable to apply them as well to the great certainties with which we periodically bury professions, formats and channels. This summer, for example, we have witnessed yet another heralded end: the end of the influencers. Do we have enough evidence to be certain of this or are we turning clues, controversies and weariness into certain profiles a general conclusion?

It reminds me of the conversation I had with Patricia Fernández de Lis, science, technology and health correspondent for *El País*, in *El elefante verde*, in which she argued, from the perspective of science journalism, that distinguishing evidence from opinion is part of the job and, on occasions, the most rigorous response is to acknowledge that we do not yet have certainties, that we simply do not know. Perhaps this year we should be a little more cautious about jumping to conclusions too quickly and accept that, quite simply, we do not know.

Just communicate or take part in the decision?

It is all too common for communications to be an afterthought in the process. A corporate decision is made, and only then is the communications department called in to work out how to present it. There are rare occasions when the head of communications sits on the executive committee and is involved in that decision-making process from the outset. But if that is not the case, is it too late? What if the approach is wrong? What if it shouldn’t be communicated at all?

We have said this on numerous occasions, but it is worth emphasising once again. The communications department must be at the heart of discussions and decision-making that affect all stakeholders (employees, customers, investors, journalists, regulators and communities). And this can only be achieved, as both Jorge Álvarez-Naveiro and Joan Ramón Vilamitjana said in the 8th series of El elefante verde, that communication needs to regain leadership and participate in reputational governance, interpret the environment and convey that knowledge to management committees to facilitate better decisions. The new DIRCOM Board also emphasised this point, stating that the profession needs to regain influence in the forums where business strategy is defined.

We have work to do. Claiming that space requires a much better understanding of the business, interpreting the context and contributing a perspective that is useful when there is still scope to amend decisions. Are we ready to take it on? Are the organisations ready to listen to us?

Why are we doing what we do?

Let’s get back to the influencers. The controversy sparked this summer by the participation of Erola Jons in La Vuelta has sparked an discussion about the limits of these collaborations. Carlos de Andrés criticised harshly some of its content, but he added a nuance which I think much more interesting than the scandal: I understood that La Vuelta wanted to use an influencer to reach out to other audiences.

The question, then, should be directed at the organisation. What did it want to achieve? To reach people who don’t normally follow cycling? To rejuvenate its audience? To spark conversation? To generate views? Only then can we ask ourselves whether the choice, the briefing, the established parameters and the content helped to achieve this.

Mario Jiménez Arroyo summed it up recently in the headline of an article: “The problem isn’t the influencer, it’s you”. An influencer, a press release, TikTok, LinkedIn, an event, a podcast or a campaign involving UGC are options that we choose to achieve something. Marta Rodríguez Ruiz argued on our podcast that influencers, micro-influencers and UGC can coexist when each one plays a role within a single strategy. Holy strategy, so necessary and so forgotten.

And perhaps this is also a good opportunity to reconsider what we mean by success. Do we want followers or a community? Visits or readers? Virality or understanding? Engagement or trust? Impact or influence? We measure many things simply because we can measure them, but there are many others that we do not. This term, we could ask ourselves how many of these really help us to know whether we’re achieving what we set out to do.

Who and how is receiving our message?

For years, this question had answers that were relatively straightforward: customers, employees, journalists, shareholders, regulators, institutions… Then came search engines, social networks and algorithms. Now we have another intermediary: artificial intelligence.

Someone might want to find out who our company is, what its reputation is, what problems it has faced or what its customers think, and ask an AI directly. They may never visit our website, read our press release or come across our LinkedIn profile. The answer will be pieced together from the traces left behind not only by our organisation, but also by others.

What does an AI find when it searches for us? From which sources does it obtain its information? Can it identify which sources are official? What old information continues to form part of our digital identity? What narrative does it construct by linking one source to another?

This means we need to broaden our concept of an audience and, in turn, the scope of our work. Our own content, the authority of our sources, traceability, consistency of information, SEO and our presence in generative environments are beginning to intersect with disciplines that, for years, we have referred to as communication and reputation management. It is clear that we must stop treating them as separate spheres and start managing the information that others – whether people or machines – use to shape our reputation.

Is it necessary to say it?

We live surrounded by an infinite capacity for production of content. We can publish more, more quickly and at lower cost; keep constantly social media updated; create videos, images, reports, articles, newsletters, posts and opinions with a level of ease unknown until now. Do we also have the ability (or is it courage?) to stop?

In June I wrote about our tendency to have an opinion on everything, reacting to everything and living stuck in a constant debate. At that time I was talking more about ourselves as citizens than as professionals. The question applies equally to organisations: do we have anything to contribute to this conversation?, does it help anyone?, does it strengthen a relationship?, Does it explain something that deserves to be understood or is it simply noise? But… what would happen if we didn’t say anything today?

Truth, responsibility and usefulness. Perhaps those three criteria were never actually Socrates’ own, but they have proved very useful in helping us to put the new academic year, which is just beginning, into perspective. We return with many questions and, for the time being, we do not have all the answers. Or perhaps we do, but we are simply afraid of them.

La entrada Five questions to come back se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

If there’s one thing I can say about the past few months, it’s that I’ve never felt it was so easy to communicate (though I do regret the overuse of the term), but it’s never been so difficult to do it well. The plague of mediocrity is terrifying.

Perhaps we have an (unjustified) excuse. Geopolitical events and social polarisation, fuelled by ideologies rife with inconsistencies, seem to provide us with cover. Quantity and speed, driven by over-exploited AI, are no longer a competitive advantage. Anyone can use it; anyone can spout nonsense. What sets us apart now is judgement, so merely acting as executors undermines the power of high-quality, coherent and timely consultancy. Many organisations and brands should ask themselves whether their budgets are being spent on ‘hands’ (increasingly tech-driven) or on ‘heads’ capable of exercising judgement – understanding when to communicate, when to wait, who should do so, what risks to take and what the consequences of each decision will be. More noise or more substance. It is not an easy decision. It is a very wise decision.

It is now clearer than ever that it is not so much a question of communicating a lot or a little, but rather of having talent, strategy, transparency and consistency before communicating blindly.

Amidst all this fast-paced activity, it seems we have forgotten what the media – strategic allies of any initiative – need now more than ever: rigour. Good journalists continue to value verified information, context and access to reliable sources. Sometimes, the very pace of corporate life pushes this to the back burner and reduces it to mere anecdotes – something that will severely damage a publication’s reputation and be as difficult to restore as the mountains ravaged by the fires that are destroying our country.

And this is where the differences begin to emerge. The shifts that are beginning to take place within the profession – the new board of Dircom, the alignment with employers’ organisations of ADC and its membership of the CEOE – offer a glimpse of a certain optimism. This is also reflected in the commitment to work together which both organisations have demonstrated.

This is just one window. In the hands of the professionals, whether members or not, lies the transformation that is both necessary and urgent for our activity. It is not just a matter of changing the name but of continuing to consolidate our authority, demonstrating that the professional and appropriate management of communication and of corporate matters has a direct impact on the profit and loss account. Voice and business always go hand in hand.

Perhaps the best assessment that we can make of these six months is that we continue believing in the same thing as when we started almost three decades ago: communication is not about filling spaces but about helping people to make better decisions.

Now it’s time to apply the three Ds: rest, switch off and enjoy – without losing sight of the fact that our role, if we so choose, will continue to be essential. But we have to want to. Make the most of this time to focus on that. Happy holidays!

La entrada Judgement, the ultimate competitive advantage se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

“If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said”. Few phrases have better defined an era of monetary policy than that boutade – an extravagant and witty remark – by the recently deceased Alan Greenspan: “If I have seemed too clear to you, you have probably misunderstood me”. But the phrase was no mere quip. It was the philosopher’s stone upon which the Fed has built its communication strategy. This is no trivial matter, given that its explanations have ended up being far more significant than market participants could ever have imagined.

The remark was made in September 1987, just five weeks after he took the helm of the Fed, during a hearing before the US Senate Banking Committee. It was offered, with an undeniably ironic tone, in response to the senators’ questioning regarding the traditional reticence of central bankers to explain the monetary policy decisions being debated by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) – the ‘engine room’ where the price of US money is determined. But also, and paradoxically, Greenspan used it in the run-up – specifically, four weeks earlier – to Black Monday on 19 October of that same year, when there were already signs on Wall Street of a stock market crash. All of this earned him a reputation from which he never strayed.

For much of the 20th century, the Federal Reserve regarded ambiguity as an integral part of its authority. A central bank should not anticipate every move, because uncertainty was also a tool of monetary policy. In a way, a sort of dogma took hold, asserting that its credibility rested on its decisions, not on its explanations.

Nowadays, it might seem as though that way of exercising control over interest rates belongs to another world. After all, over the last two decades, the Fed has set out the positions and approaches of its executive board in its minutes. In doing so, it has explained, anticipated, guided and, at times, almost dictated market expectations.

Less transparent, and less sovereign?

But the world – and the Fed is no exception – is always full of surprises. Kevin Warsh, its newly appointed chairman, wants to change that paradigm. Since joining the central bank par excellence – the guardian of the gold standard – he has advocated simplifying official language, reducing the emphasis on forward guidance – guidance on the future direction of monetary policy – and has comprehensively overhauled its entire communication strategy. Warsh’s assessment makes it abundantly clear that the Fed talks too much and makes excessive commitments to a future that the economy frequently contradicts.

It is not a question of style. It is a debate about how monetary power should be exercised. And it comes at a delicate moment, when the nightmare of a White House seeking to control the Fed’s every move has resurfaced with a vengeance. The parting words of Jerome Powell, spoken as he handed the reins of this sovereign institution over to Warsh, hint at the gravity of this change of course: “From now on, the Fed will be subject to a constant stress test regarding its degree of independence.”

From Volcker’s silence to the narrative of expectations

The Fed’s contemporary history is defined by its last six chairmen. All of them played a part in transforming the US central bank into the institution we know today.

Paul Volcker, appointed in 1979, never believed that credibility could be shaped by speeches. He took office with inflation running at over 13 per cent, raised interest rates to unprecedented levels, tackled two consecutive recessions and ultimately brought the surge in prices caused by the oil crisis – triggered by the then newly formed OPEC – under control.

The way he expressed himself was consistent with that view. He spoke little because he believed that a central bank derived its legitimacy from its actions. In those days, the Fed did not even officially announce its interest rate decisions. It was up to market participants to deduce them by observing the central bank’s manoeuvres. Volcker was the embodiment of an era in which authority stemmed from silence.

Alan Greenspan inherited that culture, although he refined it with a jargon of his own. The famous Fed Speak was not a gamble for its own sake on intellectual opacity. It was a way of preserving flexibility. The less explicit he was about his future intentions, the greater capacity he would have to react to events that were unforeseen. Paradoxically it was also Greenspan —nicknamed ‘the Maestro’— who began to dismantle that model. In 1994, still in the first phase of his long tenure (which lasted until 2026), it was announced officially, for the first time, that a decision on interest rates had been made. That move marked the beginning of a revolution that went unnoticed. The Fed acknowledged that transparency strengthened its legitimacy.

But the chief architect of this new paradigm was Ben Bernanke. An academic before becoming governor and a Nobel laureate, he realised during the 2008 credit crunch that conventional monetary policy had reached its zenith. With interest rates close to zero, words took on enormous economic significance. If households, businesses and investors were confident that interest rates would remain low for a long time, they would immediately adjust their spending and investment decisions.

Communication ceased to merely explain monetary policy and instead became an integral part of it. Alan Blinder, Professor of Economics at Princeton, former Vice-Chair of the Fed and author of The Quiet Revolution: Central Banking Goes Modern – an essay regarded as the bible of US monetary strategy – shares this view. He argues that the crucial shift in central banks over recent decades has not merely been about gaining greater independence, but about realising that communication had ceased to be a public relations exercise and had instead become a “strategic and sovereign instrument”.

Janet Yellen, who pushed for the regulatory clock to be reset to zero in 2009 and for rules to be imposed on the banking sector to prevent another credit crunch caused by the accumulation of toxic assets on their balance sheets, and who later served as Treasury Secretary in the Biden administration, consolidated her predecessor’s approach. Her contribution was less spectacular, but perhaps more profound. She made transparency a daily exercise in economic education. Explaining decisions was no longer a concession to the markets; it was a democratic obligation of an independent body.

Jerome Powell took this model to its logical conclusion. Press conferences began to be held after every FOMC meeting. Economic projections and the famous dot plot – an infographic showing the interest rate levels envisaged by each of the 19 members of its governing board – lent rigour to the direction of its monetary policy. During the pandemic and the subsequent bout of inflation, managing expectations was just as vital as the interest rate decisions themselves.

Has the Federal Reserve spoken too much?

That is precisely the question Warsh raises. For years, Trump’s current representative at the Fed has argued that the institution is held hostage by its own words. By offering too many clues, it has narrowed its room for manoeuvre and accustomed the markets to interpreting any nuance as a commitment. He says he does not wish to return to Volcker’s secrecy. But he remains determined to move away from the idea that he must continually anticipate the path his monetary policy will take. The economy changes too quickly to promise on any given day what will happen in six months’ time, he explains.

This view is echoed by leading economists. Some, such as Mohamed El-Erian, President of Queens’ College, Cambridge, warn that forward guidance can become an obstacle when the economic environment becomes uncertain again, as each statement can be interpreted as an irrevocable promise. Others, such as Otmar Issing, chief economist at the ECB, emphasise that excessive explanation can convey a false sense of precision in a world – the investment world – where uncertainty never disappears. And Mervyn King, former Governor of the Bank of England (BoE), warns that monetary authorities may end up promising a degree of foresight that no think tank can honestly offer.

However, the debate ceases to be purely technical when one considers the political context. Over the last decades, the Fed’s communication has served, above all else, to safeguard its independence. The more transparent its decisions were, the more difficult it was to question that they were based on economic criteria rather than on partisan pressures.

That is why the coincidence between Warsh’s media silence and Donald Trump’s attack on the Fed’s independence is causing concern. In such cases, perception matters. This is the view expressed by Raghuram Rajan, former chief economist of the IMF and adviser to the Indian Prime Minister. In his view, monetary sovereignty is not a permanent privilege, but a legitimacy that must be constantly renewed in the eyes of society and which demands explanation.

History will tell whether this shift strengthens the Fed’s capacity or undermines one of its key assets – its official discourse – which it had built up over forty years and which was designed to explain clearly how and why its decision-making would affect savings, employment, investment and, ultimately, the daily lives of millions of people.

But, meanwhile, it is worth not forgetting that communication has never been a mere exercise in public relations. Rather, it forms part of the exercise of power. So that the real risk may well not be so much that the Fed stops whispering to the markets, as that, when lowering its voice, other market participants end up speaking on its behalf.

La entrada When the Federal Reserve stopped ‘whispering’ (…) to the markets se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

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.