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

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

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

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

Less transparent, and less sovereign?

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

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

From Volcker’s silence to the narrative of expectations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Has the Federal Reserve spoken too much?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our favourites web apps for design

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

Dither garden

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

Isocons

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

Visu Haus

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

Change Capture

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

Brik Space

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

Formia

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

Typeface animator

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

AI Particle Simulator

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

Baby Track

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

Aantlii Work

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

Deeo Studio

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

Endless Tools

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

React Bits

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

Tools to suit every taste

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

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

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

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

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

Some campaigns fail because they fail to find the right message. Some campaigns succeed because they get the tone, the timing and the right approach just right. And then there are campaigns that fail for a reason that is harder to pinpoint: what they choose not to say.

At comma, we are convinced that communicating is power. The power to construct narratives, to raise awareness, to preserve memory and to decide who takes centre stage in a public conversation.

The latest campaign by Madrid City Council to mark Pride 2026 is based on a slogan that appears to be friendly. “Diversity is lived in Madrid”. It sounds positive, inclusive and easy to accept. Perhaps that’s why it’s worth looking at it with a bit more attention. Who experiences that diversity. Who represents it. Who appears in the story.

Because on the posters we don’t see any LGTBIQ+ people from Madrid. We see balconies, flowers, shops, terraces, colours and scenes from everyday life in the city. We see Madrid. But we don’t see those who have made Pride a collective achievement, a public presence and a shared memory.

This shift and this absence are no small matter. The campaign positions Madrid as the centrepiece of Pride, whilst LGBTIQ+ people are reduced to an implicit presence, suggested merely through the colours of the rainbow flag. The result is a visually appealing but politically incomplete message.

In communication, these omissions also convey a message.

When absence also conveys a message

Pride did not begin as a friendly celebration of diversity in cities. It began as a response to persecution, silence and invisibility. It began as a way of claiming public space at a time when many people were being excluded from it. It began to give a name, a face and a voice to those who had been forced to live on the margins.

That is why promoting Pride requires more than simply using that rainbow colour scheme, which has been so overused and trivialised by the mass media. It requires an understanding of what it stands for. We are not just talking about an inclusive campaign or a positive image for the city. We are talking about a collective memory built on a spirit of advocacy.

The slogan “Diversity is lived in Madrid” can be seen as an invitation to normalise diversity in everyday life. And that idea is valuable. Diversity should not exist for just one week, nor should it be confined to high-profile moments. It should be part of everyday life, of neighbourhoods, of homes, of workplaces and of shared spaces.

The problem arises when that standardisation is communicated without subjects. When diversity becomes part of the urban atmosphere, but not in human presence. When we talk about a diverse city, but not of the diverse people who live there.

Madrid is no minor player in this story. Its Pride is one of the major international events, one of the most well-attended gatherings in Europe and a space where celebration, activism, tourism, culture, the economy and rights coexist. Precisely for this reason, institutional communication surrounding Pride carries a greater responsibility than perhaps any other. It cannot be treated merely as a city asset or a tourism brand. Nor can it be seen simply as a pretty postcard depicting Madrid’s spirit of togetherness.

Pride is a celebration, yes. But it’s not just that. It is also remembrance, protest, reparation and presence.

When Madrid takes up the whole frame

Every institutional campaign chooses a central figure. In this case, the spotlight seems to be solely on… Madrid. Its balconies, its terraces, its shops, its colours. Its sense of community. Diversity emerges as a defining feature of the city, almost like a brand attribute. Madrid is open. Madrid is welcoming. Madrid is diverse.

None of that need be problematic in itself. The tricky part is that, by placing the city at the centre, the campaign runs the risk of appropriating a history that did not originate in institutions, but on the streets. Pride does not exist simply because a city is diverse. It exists because there were people who had to publicly assert their right to be so.

Therein lies one of the most interesting tensions in the field of communication. An institution can celebrate diversity, but it must do so without marginalising those who brought it to light. It can champion an open city, but it should not reduce the LGBTIQ+ community to a mere backdrop. It can talk about coexistence, but without erasing the conflict that made that coexistence necessary.

The campaign aims to convey that diversity is part of everyday life in Madrid. But by avoiding faces, bodies, names or explicit references to the community, it leaves a question unanswered. Are we talking about diversity, or are we using diversity as a way of talking about Madrid?

When the representation is not an ornament

In corporate communication and institutional communication, we talk a great deal about representation. Sometimes it seems like an overused term. But cases like this remind us why it still matters.

To represent does not mean to place symbols in a generic manner. To represent is to decide who appears, who speaks, who occupies the centre of the story and who is left in the background. In a campaign on LGTBIQ+ diversity, the absence of people from the community is not a neutral decision. It can be interpreted as a way of universalising the message, but also as a way of neutralising its political agenda.

Institutions need to address a wide audience. They must craft inclusive messages. They must ensure that public communication does not become a source of exclusion. But inclusivity must not mean blurring the lines. And toning down a message should not mean stripping it of its history.

When a Pride campaign replaces people with objects, it runs the risk of shifting the focus from rights to decoration. From memory to aesthetics. From advocacy to a postcard.

When we run the risk of turning diversity into a mere backdrop

One of the major challenges facing communication today is to prevent social causes from becoming empty visual codes. This happens with sustainability, equality, diversity and in any area where symbols carry reputational value.

The rainbow, like any symbol that is powerful, can mean many things. It can be a flag of struggle, a gesture of support, a symbol of belonging or a visual device. The difference lies in the context, the intention and the consistency.

In this campaign, the colours are there. So is the urban setting. But the community seems to be diluted into an abstract idea of the city. Diversity is presented as something that Madrid embodies, rather than as something that LGBTIQ+ people have championed, fought for and upheld for decades.

Communication does not just shape our image. It also shapes our memory. It determines what we remember, how we remember it, and whom we recognise as the protagonist of a story.

When we realise that memory also communicates

At a time when many social achievements seem to be firmly established, there is a risk of presenting rights as though they had come about of their own accord. As though equality were a natural evolution of societies rather than the result of decades of mobilisation, organisation and conflict.

But rights are not merely institutional window dressing. They are hard-won achievements. And every achievement has names, bodies, voices and memories.

Pride came about precisely so that LGBTIQ+ people would not be silenced or rendered invisible. That is why any campaign that aims to represent it should ask itself a simple question. Is it raising awareness, or is it replacing that awareness with a feel-good metaphor? Is it commemorating the struggle, or merely celebrating its outcome? Is it talking about diversity, or is it avoiding any mention of those who made it possible? Memory does not preserve itself. It is shared. And when it is not shared, it weakens.

When we can celebrate without holding back

Institutions find themselves in a complex (and sometimes even delicate) position when faced with movements that arise from social demands. When they incorporate these movements into their communications, they can help to normalise rights, broaden support and project an image of a more open city. But they may also be tempted to neutralise the conflict in order to make it more palatable, more aesthetically pleasing or easier to share.

The challenge lies in striking a balance between celebration and advocacy. Between a sense of belonging and remembrance. Between pride in the city and pride in the community.

Madrid can celebrate the fact that diversity is part of its everyday life. It must do so. But that idea gains strength when it acknowledges those who made it possible for that diversity to be experienced freely. Without that acknowledgement, the campaign remains a correct but incomplete statement.

Communicating Pride isn’t just about saying that Madrid is diverse. It’s about explaining why it can be so – and thanks to whom.

When we learn to recognise who not to delete

Every institutional campaign makes choices. It chooses images, words, symbols, approaches and what it leaves unsaid. Much of its credibility hinges on those choices.

The controversy surrounding the 2026 Pride campaign should not be limited to whether people like the posters or not. What happens when a public message tries to be so universal that it loses its connection to its origins? What happens when a cause becomes merely a matter of aesthetics? What happens when a city takes centre stage in a story that was created to raise the profile of a community?

Pride does not need to be expressed in a strident manner to be a statement of defiance. But neither can it be expressed with absolute neutrality without losing some of its meaning.

In communication, it is not enough simply to be on the right side of the values. You have to know how to represent them well. And representing them well involves something as simple and yet as difficult as not erasing those who gave meaning to that narrative.

Madrid City Council should learn a lesson from this campaign. After all, Pride wasn’t created to decorate the city. It was created to take it over.

La entrada When Pride is left without people: the campaign by the Madrid City Council and the power of what is not said se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

Over the past three decades, we have witnessed the digital transformation, the rise of social media, the proliferation of communication channels, the emergence of new formats and, more recently, the advent of artificial intelligence. However, if there is one lesson that has remained unchanged, it is that communication is not about speaking louder than others, but about building solid and credible relationships with the people who matter to an organisation.

After more than 20 years as a communications agency in Madrid and Barcelona (27 years, to be precise), we have found that the companies that communicate most effectively are not necessarily those with the largest budgets or those that appear most frequently in the media. They are the ones that know who they are, what they want to convey, and how to do so consistently over time, supported by the best advisors.

Strategic communication begins with listening

There is a belief that communication consists of sending messages. Our experience shows exactly the opposite.

The best strategies stem from listening. Listening to customers, employees, shareholders, the media and all those groups that influence a company’s reputation.

Before designing a communication plan, it is necessary to understand the context, identify expectations and pinpoint risks and opportunities. Listening enables us to craft relevant messages and foster meaningful conversations.

This has been one of the most valuable lessons that we have learned by working with companies from various sectors over the course of these 27 years.

A reputation is not built in a single campaign

Another key lesson is that reputation is not the result of a single action. It is the cumulative result of hundreds of decisions made over time.

Many organisations turn to an agency when they need greater visibility or when they find themselves in a difficult situation. However, a reputation is built long before a crisis arises.

Our experience in corporate communication has taught us that the companies best prepared are those that work their positioning on a constant basis, maintain a narrative that is consistent and build relationships based on trust with their groups of interest.

Communication can boost a company’s reputation, but only when there is a consistent strategy behind it.

Experience brings more than just knowledge

People often talk about experience in terms of years. At comma, we believe that experience has more to do with the ability to interpret complex situations.

A communications agency with 27 years’ experience has seen markets evolve; it has supported companies through periods of growth, transformation and crisis; it has learnt to distinguish between passing fads; and it has witnessed major technological transformations and truly significant changes.

Experience provides perspective. It enables you to make informed decisions, anticipate scenarios and tailor strategies to the specific needs of each organisation.

And that value is particularly important in an environment where speed often takes precedence over reflection.

Communication must be aligned with the business

One of the most significant changes we have observed is the increasingly strategic role of communication.

Years ago, it was seen as a support function. Today, it plays a key role in major business decisions.

Communication helps to attract talent, build trust among investors, strengthen customer relationships, manage crises and consolidate a brand’s positioning.

That is why an effective strategy cannot be developed in isolation. It must be aligned with the business objectives and serve as a tool for creating value.

How to choose a communications agency

After many years of working with organisations of all sizes and from various sectors, we have also learnt what factors make the difference when choosing a communications partner.

If a company is wondering how to choose a communications agency, our recommendation is to consider factors such as:

• Genuine experience in similar projects.
• The ability to understand the business and not just communication.
• Knowledge of the media and communication and the digital environment.
• Specialisation in strategic areas such as reputation, corporate communications or crisis management.
• The quality and experience of the consulting team that will be involved in the project.
• The ability to provide strategic insight and independent judgement.

The best agency isn’t always the biggest or the best known. It’s the one that understands the organisation’s challenges and is able to support it over the long term.

What remains important even after 27 years

Technology will continue to transform the way we communicate. Communication channels will continue to evolve. And artificial intelligence will continue to change our habits and processes.

However, there is one thing that will remain essential: trust.

Organisations need to build credibility, generate meaningful dialogue and maintain strong relationships with their audiences. This has been the cornerstone of communication for the past 27 years and will likely remain so for decades to come.

Experience has taught us that a good communication strategy combines judgement, active listening, knowledge of the environment and a deep understanding of business objectives. Because communication is not just about being visible. Above all, it is about being relevant and credible.

In a world where information overload coexists with a growing demand for transparency, companies need communication based on trust, consistency and expert knowledge more than ever. That is precisely the main conclusion we have drawn after 27 years of working with organisations across a wide range of sectors.

Agencia comma, a communications agency based in Madrid with 27 years’ experience helping companies and institutions manage their corporate communications, reputation, media relations, financial communications and crisis situations, continues to learn every day because communication is constantly evolving. And it is precisely this combination of accumulated experience, adaptability and strategic vision that enables us to continue adding value for our clients almost three decades on.

La entrada What we have learned as a communications agency in 27 years of experience se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

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 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.

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.