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

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

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

When the spokesperson ceases to represent the institution

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

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

And that was exactly what happened.

The five lessons learnt:

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

The most dangerous mistake: speaking from a place of hurt

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

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

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

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

The five lessons learnt:

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

When the spokesperson becomes the subject of the news

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

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

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

The five lessons learnt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The shift away from more traditional networks

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

The cornerstone of corporate positioning

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

Less corporate monologue and more interactive activities

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

The prescriber’s paradox: credibility under scrutiny

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

The ethical imperative of AI: transparency or punishment

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

The real priority of the ecosystem

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

La entrada How to lead the conversation in a constantly changing ecosystem se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

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

The trick of donating stands instead of cash

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

The legal excuse for ethical deception

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

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

Four rules to ensure CSR is no longer just for show

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

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

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

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

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

The end of pink paint

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

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

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

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

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

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

From social listening to IA listening

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

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

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

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

Why AI listening matters in corporate communications

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

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

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

What should be monitored

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

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

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

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

AI reads newspapers too

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

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

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

The risks of not listening

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

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

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

From listening to action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coherence as a structural element

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identity, criteria and action

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

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

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

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

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

A new leadership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.