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.

The media narrative and the social conversation about blockchain and digital assets digital assets have evolved in a substantial way over the course of a period of time relatively short. Which was for years a single narrative halfway between the hype, scepticism and simplification by the media, it has been a while being told with greater accuracy, context and journalistic rigour.

The stories have become more sophisticated. And with them, also the space that occupies the sector in newsrooms. It is increasingly more common to find explanations about models of business, architectural technology, regulatory frameworks or risks associated. Projects are beginning to be characterised by a greater level of depth, which means that there are more and better interactions between founders, coaches and journalists, establishing a channel for conversation that is fluid and constant.

This has led to a shift in the media’s approach to stories about blockchain technology and digital assets, with outlets gradually moving away from marginal coverage focused on sensational headlines and price volatility – or, in some cases, directly linking the technology to illegality or fraud. Instead, a different way of reporting on the sector has emerged: more analytical, more demanding, more connected to the reality of what is being built.Crypto is no longer a marginal issue or one relegated to obscure sections, but is increasingly finding its way onto the pages of business, finance and technology sections. At times, it even makes the front page when the impact is systemic or institutional.

That shift is no small matter and says a great deal about the current situation in which the sector finds itself. But it wasn’t always like that and we should not forget where where we come from.

The transformation of sectoral narratives

For years, the conversation was characterised by an unhealthy mix of overblown promises and speculative narratives from within the ecosystem itself, coupled with constant – and at times self-serving – scepticism from certain traditional quarters. Added to this was a further problem: the genuine difficulty of explaining a complex technology in terms that are easy to understand.

The result was a narrative that was fragmented, polarised and, in many cases, superficial. We saw this clearly in the analysis that we carried out at comma in 2023 on the media coverage of the sector. The discussion was organised into blocks that were practically separate. On one hand, a more technical and sophisticated and constructive, but limited to niche media and audiences specialised. On the other hand, a pillar dominated by the price, trading and speculation, which accounted for a large proportion of the attention.

At the same time, in the mainstream media and also in some financial publications, a significant proportion of the articles linked cryptocurrency with fraud, scams or a crisis of confidence. The technological aspect, meanwhile, was relegated to far more specialised outlets.

Between those worlds there was barely any connection. And when there are no bridges, the story becomes simplified. Or worse: it becomes something else.

That context explains why for, for so a long time, the sector struggled to build a narrative of its own, solid and comprehensible. There was a lack of translators capable of navigate between the technical complexity and the language of the general public. And, without that exercise in mediation, what prevailed was not dialogue, but noise.

In just three years, however, the change has been striking. And, to a large extent, this is down to the fact that both the sector and those covering it have matured at the same time.

There is undeniable credit due to the editorial teams and journalists who have chosen to treat this field for what it is: an intersection of economics, regulation and technology. This has had a direct impact on the quality of the debate. And when the way an issue is covered in the media changes, the questions asked change too.

It is no longer enough simply to know whether an asset is rising or falling. The debate now centres on which parts of this ecosystem constitute infrastructure and which are financial products; what can be integrated into the regulated framework and what cannot; and which risks are technical, which are market-related, and which stem from governance issues.

This transformation of interactions and this greater degree of interest and knowledge on the part of the media is, without any doubt, a clear sign of maturity.

The narratives that are shaping the sector

If one looks at the conversation taking place today in forums, the media and professional circles, several narrative threads that are reshaping the story become quite clear:

• The first is the institutionalisation. The entry of traditional players, whether banks, asset managers or custodians, does not only contribute volume, but also standards, processes and a way different from explaining what is happening.
• The second is regulation and compliance. The sector can no longer operate within the boundaries of the regulatory framework. And this, far from being a limitation, introduces order, rigour and a language that is more precise.
• Keep a close eye on tokenisation and market finance. Here, the focus is shifting towards real-world assets, issuance infrastructure and operational efficiency. Less abstract promise, more concrete application.
• Added to this is a fourth narrative focused on cybersecurity and resilience, which is no longer limited to the headline about ‘hacking’, but now encompasses risk architecture, audits, traceability and accountability.
• The fifth relates to identity, privacy and data: who verifies, how it protect the rights of the user and how are designed systems that are compatible with regulatory frameworks that are becoming increasingly more stringent.
• And, perhaps most significantly in the medium term, is the narrative of real utility: use cases that stand on their own without relying on price, where the value lies in the process, not in the token as a promise.

They all point in the same direction: a growing desire to distinguish between infrastructure and financial products. And that distinction, which for years was blurred, is key to ensuring that the sector is no longer perceived as a homogeneous bloc.

The problem wasn’t the technology

If there’s one thing we’ve learnt on this journey, it’s that the main problem wasn’t technical. It was narrative. For too long, communication was confused with marketing. The promise was prioritised over explanation, the roadmap over risk, and the vision over context. That might have worked during periods of euphoria, but it failed spectacularly when it came to building a reputation.

Because communication in this sector, and in any other sector that aspires to become infrastructure, is a structural component, since without understanding on the part of the general public, adoption is not possible. And without adoption, there is no ecosystem.

Blockchain was created with the aim of reducing the need for intermediaries, but that does not eliminate the need for trust; it simply shifts it. Trust no longer rests solely with a central authority, but lies in the code, in governance, in custody, in regulation… and also in how it communicates.

When that transfer of knowledge is opaque, ambiguous or overly technical, the result is the same as in the traditional system: mistrust.

Professionalisation or noise: the role of intermediaries

In this context, another tension emerges: the one that exists between media and creators of content. It is not a new debate, but in the financial sphere it takes on a dimension different dimension, because here information takes on the dimension of a raw material that directly influences financial decisions.

A reputable specialist media outlet operates according to certain principles: cross-checking sources, providing context, and exercising editorial responsibility. A channel that amplifies trends, on the other hand, is driven by different incentives: clicks, virality, and alignment with a community. And in finance, failing to highlight risk is a form of misinformation.

There is, moreover, a paradox that is hard to ignore: many of those most susceptible to FOMO (Fear of Missing Out), with few tools to understand the complexity of financial markets, tend to mistrust traditional media and rely on voices with no editorial accountability. For this reason, the debate should not be framed in terms of traditional media versus new channels. The underlying issue is quite another: professionalism versus unfiltered amplification. If the sector hopes to mature, it will need more of the former.

The unfinished business: pedagogy

Despite the progress made, there remains a structural shortcoming: a lack of pedagogy. The quality of the debate has certainly improved. But there is still a significant gap between what is constructed and what is understood.

And here it is worth emphasising a point which, although it may seem obvious, remains unresolved: you cannot hope for widespread adoption with language that only a minority understands. The technical discussion will remain technical at its core, but the public narrative must start elsewhere: with the ‘why’ and the ‘who benefits’. When users understand the value in terms of cost, efficiency, access and security, the technology ceases to be exotic. It is that balance that builds trust.

If we project this trend over the medium term, the fundamental shift is quite clear: blockchain will cease to be regarded as a ‘sector’ once it no longer needs to be defined as such. Once it becomes an integral part of the infrastructure that underpins the systems in use. Just as happened with the internet, and as is the case with any layer that supports more complex systems.

This requires better segmentation, moving away from the catch-all category where everything is labelled as crypto, and starting to distinguish precisely what each thing is. It requires prioritising value over technicalities. And, above all, it requires embracing standards: transparency, audits, controls, accountability and clear, understandable language.

But this transition is not automatic. It is a process that requires the sector to maintain a narrative that lives up to its aspirations. For it is in this coherence between what is built, what is explained and how it is perceived that its consolidation truly hinges. And it is precisely there that the role of the media proves decisive: not only in how that reality is projected, but in how it ultimately comes to be understood and accepted by the public.

La entrada Blockchain and digital assets: the evolution of media narratives that are reaching their maturity se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

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

A structural change, not a fad

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

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

The new framework for public decision-making

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

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

An intelligence system for senior management

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

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

Risks geopolitical and competitiveness

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

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

Direct access to the CEO and corporate governance

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

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

From traditional influence to responsible lobbying

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

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

Transparency and institutional openness

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

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

The profile of the new cross-cutting leader

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

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

Future challenges and measuring the impact

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

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

Technology as a strategic partner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common themes in the story

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

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

The warning about irrational exuberance

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

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

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

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

Spain and the rhetoric of bricks

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

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

The narrative pattern of bubbles thus follows a recurring pattern:

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

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

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

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

La entrada The story that inflates the bubbles: of the irrational exuberance of the past to the new narrative of AI se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

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

From polarisation to insularity

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

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

Spain remains trapped in mistrust

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

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

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

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

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

Pessimism is also a form of mistrust

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

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

The battle for the truth in an oversaturated environment

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

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

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

Mediation as a new requirement for companies and leaders

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

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

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

Communicating also means building bridges

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

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

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

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

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

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

A short walk from Soho to Southwark

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

At the moment, that pulse feels uneasy.

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

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

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

One cannot help but wonder whether identical thinking sometimes follows.

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

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

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

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

When Soho was a village

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The age of big risks

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

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

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

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

The age of optimisation

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

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

Yet somewhere along that journey something subtle changed.

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

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

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

Finding our way back

And yet there are reasons to feel optimistic.

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

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

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

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

Five ways agency owners can find their way back to joy

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

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

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

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

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

*Written by Doug Baxter, Managing Partner · Agency Futures

La entrada Finding Our Way Back to Joy se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

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

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

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

When the problem is not trust, but rather the narrative

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

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

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

The financial responsibility is already there.

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

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

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

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

The impact of public discourse

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

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

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

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

Diversity and technology: a strategic imperative

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

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

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

Change the narrative to change participation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The technological gap exists and shapes the narrative

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

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

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

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

AI and women: an impact that is not neutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sufficient references to lead the positioning

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

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

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

8M: from talent to technological leadership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repsol: farewell to flat design

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

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

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

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

Mapfre: the revolution of lowercase letters and mobile-first

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: design as a business driver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bureaucracy of ‘excellence’ and the virus of mistrust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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