The growing sophistication of investors, the prominence of international funds, the pressure on boards of directors and developments in corporate governance rules are changing the communication needs of listed companies. In this context, financial information remains essential. But it is no longer sufficient. The markets demand an understanding of strategy, an assessment of the consistency of management teams, and the ability to anticipate how companies will respond to an increasingly uncertain economic and geopolitical environment.

This transformation requires closer ties between three areas that have traditionally operated at different paces and with different priorities. On the one hand,requires strategic senior management; on the other, investor relations (IR) departments; and, thirdly, the corporate communications and media relations departments. Coordination between them is no longer limited to a mere exchange of messages prior to a significant announcement. In today’s climate, it must take the form of an ongoing dialogue, capable of linking business decisions with the expectations of investors, analysts, business journalists and other stakeholders.

Communication, across each of these dimensions, is moving away from its traditional objective of being the final step in the corporate strategy. Now, it has taken on a challenge of greater substance. It has become an indispensable tool for business management.

The market demands a dialogue, not a schedule of announcements

The evolution of investor relations departments illustrates this conceptual shift. Spanish IR professionals have achieved levels of specialisation comparable to those in Anglo-Saxon markets, with growing influence within their organisations. So much so that their role is shifting from strictly financial areas towards corporate strategy and business development.

This is no coincidence. International capital accounts for around 50 per cent of the shareholding in Spanish listed companies and is increasingly shaping the requirements for disclosure, transparency and good governance. Institutional investors are not content merely to know how revenue or profits are performing. They want to understand investment decisions, operational risks, capital allocation, the composition of boards, and the consistency between stated objectives and actual results. In short, the stakeholders are becoming increasingly demanding, and their channels of communication with the companies in which they hold interests are IR.

This requirement also changes the nature of external communication. A company may post satisfactory results and yet fail to convey a convincing investment case. It may have a sound strategy but find it difficult to explain its implications. Or it may take financially sound decisions which, if poorly contextualised, create uncertainty amongst investors and the general public.

The response to these scenarios requires the development of a shared corporate narrative capable of integrating financial information, business strategy and reputation. The so-called equity story should not be seen as a commercial analysis for investors, but rather as a coherent explanation of how the company creates value, what sets it apart from its competitors and why its decisions are sustainable in the long term.

This ecosystem of market issuers places strategic consistency at the very heart of market confidence. A company that repeatedly fails to meet its financial forecasts ultimately erodes its credibility with investors, even when its business fundamentals remain reasonably sound.

Accuracy and reliability, therefore, do not depend solely on communicating forecasts effectively, but on maintaining a verifiable link between what the company announces, what it does and what it ultimately achieves.

To achieve this, communications professionals need to work closely with those responsible for strategy, finance, operations and corporate governance. It is not enough simply to receive ready-made information and turn it into public messages. They need access to the reasoning behind decisions, to contribute alternative perspectives, to identify possible interpretations, and to be able to prepare explanations before doubts arise in the market.

In the same way, the teams responsible for relations with the media must convey to management the concerns that they identify amongst journalists, analysts and other stakeholders. Strategic communication works in both directions. On the one hand, it must engage with and explain the business decisions; on the other hand, they must help their audience or their interlocutors to understand them.

Activism makes reputation a matter for the board

The ever-increasing prominence of shareholder activism underscores the need for coordination. General meetings can no longer be viewed merely as formal gatherings to approve resolutions. They are moments of particular scrutiny, where financial interests, corporate governance requirements and reputational expectations all converge.

The analyses of the ecosystem of issuers in the market describe an activism that is increasingly more selective and specialised. In an in-depth analysis of the sector relating to 2025, the industry accounts for 23.7 per cent of this growing demand for investment due to access on an ongoing basis to the deliberations of companies, followed by technology, at 16.4 per cent, and the finance sector, at 15.8 per cent. The stakeholders are looking for companies where they can influence strategic decisions, improve operational efficiency or drive changes in the bodies of corporate governance.

Shareholder pressure does not follow a uniform pattern either. In Spain, a more constructive and private form of activism prevails than in the US, focusing particularly on the composition of boards and the alignment of remuneration with market expectations, as explained in reports such as that by Sodali, a global corporate advisory firm. Many disagreements are raised in private meetings, before they reach shareholders’ meetings or the media. Hence the importance of anticipating conflicts and coordinating responses between IR, communications and senior management.

This coordination is essential in the event of disputes regarding remuneration, corporate transactions, regarding the independence of the directors or in matters of sustainability. The response requires strategic sound arguments, knowledge of the expectations of the shareholders and awareness of reputational risks. It also requires an ongoing relationship with the economic specialist journalists that enables the contextualisation of decisions business decisions beyond the press releases and the crisis situations.

Regulation also sets out this modus operandi by establishing new communication responsibilities. European Directive 2024/2810, on structures involving shares with multiple voting rights, makes it possible to reconcile certain forms of market access with the preservation of corporate control, whilst incorporating safeguards for minority shareholders.

These structures raise questions about the distribution of power, shareholder representation and transparency, although their legal legitimacy alone does not guarantee investor confidence. Companies must explain their economic rationale, their safeguards and any potential drawbacks. This task requires communication to be integrated from the earliest stages of corporate decision-making.

From information to strategic intelligence

Companies need, therefore, a stable architecture of relationships between those who make decisions and those who interpret their consequences. Rather than simply reacting to announcements after decisions are made, communications teams should participate continuously in the decision-making process, ensuring context and public perception are integrated from the start. This premise implies overcoming the separation between corporate communication and financial communication, maintaining a dialogue on a daily basis with management and developing an ongoing dialogue with investors, analysts, journalists and other stakeholders.

Specialist communications consultancies bring expertise in the media landscape, the ability to anticipate developments and the experience needed to translate complex decisions into clear, understandable arguments. Their value therefore lies in identifying risks, preparing spokespersons, listening to concerns and maintaining a consistent narrative – even when there are no relevant announcements to make.

Financial reporting is moving towards strategic intelligence methodologies. This is because the markets will continue to assess profits, cash flows and risks, but also companies’ ability to explain their decisions and respond to their stakeholders.

Although results are presented periodically, board meetings are held only once a year, and corporate transactions take place on specific dates, reputation is built every day. This is why the communication that underpins it cannot operate on a quarterly basis.

La entrada Trust isn’t measured in quarters. Investor relations embraces this principle of financial communication. se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

This proliferation of channels and formats necessitates a shift in focus. The real quantum leap in internal communication no longer lies in how much we are able to send, but rather in the place which is occupied by the people within that conversation: whether they receive information or whether they also have a say; whether they are familiar with the company or also whether they know each other amongst themselves; and if they contribute, with their experience and their identity, in the construction on a day-to-day basis of corporate culture. In other words: being informed does not amount to feeling part of.

This distinction takes on particular significance now that the employee experience is taking up an increasingly prominent role on the agenda of organisations. Loyalty, commitment, the ability to attract and retain talent or the desire to recommend a company as a place to work do not come are built solely on the basis of communication. It would be naive to attribute such power to it. Yes it can contribute, on the other hand, to create some of the conditions that nurture that experience: listening, recognition, participation, visibility, mutual understanding and the ability to express oneself.

That is why the question is no longer simply how to communicate more effectively with employees. It is also important to consider what happens when we communicate with them, when we enable them to communicate with one another, and when, of their own accord, they begin to look beyond the organisation.

Because the sense of belonging is not something that is communicated. It is built up.

From internal audience to community

Research into internal communication has been pointing in this direction for a while. In 2007, Mary Welch and Paul R. Jackson proposed in Rethinking internal communication: a stakeholder approach to move beyond the view of the employees as a homogeneous internal audience and to address the organisation by catering to its various groups, levels and relationships. The idea remains as relevant as ever, since a company is quite more than a broadcaster when faced with a captive audience. It is a network of conversations, connections and interests which are constantly intertwined.

Almost two decades on, the problem seems to be less resolved than one might expect. The IC Index 2026, compiled from a representative sample of 5,000 British workers, indicates that only 52% believe their organisation welcomes open and honest feedback on its performance as an employer. This figure drops to 44% when asked whether the company adequately demonstrates how it uses its staff’s feedback to guide decisions and actions.

This point is worth noting because it introduces a fundamental distinction. Listening is not the same as setting up a suggestion box, launching a survey or opening a question-and-answer session at the end of a corporate meeting. Listening only becomes valuable when there is a perception that that voice will be heard. And this is where one of the tensions in contemporary internal communication arises: we have greatly increased our capacity to speak out, whilst the capacity to provide feedback on the conversation remains far more uneven.

We do not need to interpret these findings as an automatic cause-and-effect relationship. They are more interesting as an indication of a shift in perspective, whereby internal communication is beginning to move beyond its informative role to address the quality of the relationship an organisation maintains with its people.

That relationship is not limited to the classic two-way company-employee dynamic. In a living organisation, communication is necessarily multidirectional. The company engages with its staff and listens to them; staff interact with one another, exchange knowledge, get to know one another and recognise one another’s value; and, increasingly, some of these voices are also contributing to the external conversation about the company, its activities and the sector to which it belongs. In short, every member of the organisation begins to form part of the narrative.

To be known and recognised

Here is one aspect of the employee experience that I find particularly interesting: being known and recognised.

There is a difference substantial between both things. Recognition is usually associated with performance, to talent, to one’s achievements or to professional contribution. Being recognised introduces an additional layer: that the organisation and, especially, the people with whom we share our day to day know who is behind the role, of the department and of the mere photograph on the intranet. Belonging has quite a lot to do with that.

Companies have put a great deal of effort into defining their values and ensuring that their teams are aware of them. This makes sense. A shared culture requires common points of reference. The dynamic changes when there are spaces in which to express opinions, share knowledge, recount experiences and bring to the fore those personal aspects that each individual chooses to incorporate into their professional life. Collective identity then takes on greater depth because it makes room for individual identities.

This area also encompasses what is known as ‘emotional pay’, a concept that has often been trivialised to the point of becoming a catch-all term for employment benefits that do not appear on the payslip. Recent academic research offers a more precise interpretation. A study published in 2025 in the Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology defines it as a multidimensional set of intentional, non-financial organisational practices aimed at meeting socio-emotional and developmental needs. Its dimensions include relational elements such as recognition, fairness and social support.

It is worth drawing a clear line here. Communication, of course, does not in itself create emotional reward. It does, however, have the capacity to influence certain aspects of it, by highlighting a contribution, encouraging people to listen, creating opportunities for participation, connecting people, and recognising identities and knowledge that might otherwise remain hidden.

Because an organisation’s culture is also revealed in who it listens to, who it gives a voice to, and how much scope it gives its staff to be more than just the role they play on an organisational chart.

When the corporate content changes in terms of subject

This reflection takes on another dimension when it is applied to specific projects.

At comma, we have been working for some time with Grupo Mutualidad on ‘Tal como soy’, in collaboration with Esturión Producciones, an internal communications project linked to their Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policy. Its aim is to give a face and a voice to the diversity within the organisation and to create an environment where people can express their individuality, sharing who they are beyond their job roles.

The premise seems simple, yet its scope in terms of communication is quite a bit greater, since the the content corporate changes from subject.

The organisation provides the framework, the channels and the capacity for production. The floor is then given to the individuals. And here, once again, the idea of being known and recognised comes to the fore. ‘Tal como soy’ allows each participant to express themselves and, at the same time, offers their colleagues the chance to discover aspects that usually remain hidden from professional relationships; backgrounds, families, challenges, hobbies and personal aspirations become points of connection.

Each piece is based on prior research into the individual and their background. From there, the unique aspect of their story is identified, a profile of the subject is drawn up, an approach is defined, and a specific shooting script is developed. The on-camera conversation is deliberately longer than the final edit to allow room for natural responses and spontaneous moments. Next comes the editorial work: selecting, prioritising, contextualising and constructing a story. The video provides a voice, a face and emotion; the written feature allows for a broader context and preserves other nuances. Furthermore, a single conversation gives rise to an ecosystem of content capable of circulating across various internal channels.

This methodology avoids another common risk in corporate communication: turning uniqueness into a label. This is probably one of the project’s most interesting contributions: recognising a person requires taking a broader view of them.

From being heard inside to projecting outwards

There is one more aspect to consider. If internal communication can help people find their own place in the company’s dialogue, it is reasonable to ask what happens when some of those voices extend beyond the corporate boundaries.

This is where ambassador programmes and employee advocacy come in – two concepts that run the risk of being undermined when interpreted as a formula for achieving organic reach through employees’ personal profiles. The more their messaging resembles the company’s corporate account, the less likely it is that their contribution will offer any distinctive value. The strength of a professional voice lies precisely in what they can contribute based on their experience, their knowledge and their understanding of the field in which they work.

In our experience, we have developed this type of strategy primarily on LinkedIn, helping groups of professionals to build their own presence which, at the same time, broadens the way in which the company presents itself to the outside world. The corporate narrative thus coexists with other narratives capable of providing knowledge, sectoral authority and a perspective born of day-to-day work.

An programme for ambassadors makes sense when it identifies knowledge within the the organisation and helps those who possess it to express it with judgement of their own. Communication accompanies that process by providing training, editorial guidance and a framework that enables them to navigate the digital environment safely, without blurring the personality or the authority of the person speaking.

This work also has a knock-on effect. Professionals who participate thoughtfully in public discourse can become role models within the company itself, build trust amongst their colleagues and help others gradually find their own way of doing so. The conversation then takes on a truly multidirectional dimension, as it circulates within the organisation, amongst its members and also outwards. The company stops projecting itself in a single form to begin to recognise itself as a plurality in harmony.

The reputation as a consequence of pride in belonging

For decades, organisations have taken great care in crafting the narrative and the channels through which they communicate externally. That work remains essential. Today, however, corporate reputation is also built from within, through the experience of the people who make up the company and the way in which they choose to speak about it when that experience extends beyond the organisation’s internal boundaries.

The question is no longer how effectively a company gets its professionals to repeat its narrative, but how many discerning voices it is able to accommodate, and to what extent that diversity helps to reinforce a credible reputation. Belonging does not mean everyone speaking in the same way; it means being able to find one’s place within a shared project whilst retaining one’s own voice.

When that internal experience is coherent, recognisable and shared, communication ceases to be merely a tool for information or participation. It becomes also a part of the reputation of the company. And perhaps that is where a community begins which, in addition to being well-informed and feeling part of, has reasons to feel pride and speak well of that to which she belongs.

La entrada Internal communication in support of the employee experience se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

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

What is spokesperson training?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does one prepare to be a good spokesperson?

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

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

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

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

The importance of training courses that are tailored and bespoke

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

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

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

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

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

Is it true?

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

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

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

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

Just communicate or take part in the decision?

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

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

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

Why are we doing what we do?

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

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

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

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

Who and how is receiving our message?

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

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

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

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

Is it necessary to say it?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bureaucracy of ‘excellence’ and the virus of mistrust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is why I would like to take advantage of 4 February – International Cancer Day – to share a reflection that will hopefully help us overcome a paradigm that limits the transformative power of communication by understanding it as a mere process of disseminating information.

This reductionist view of communication, which naively attributes to it the ability to change perceptions and behaviours, has a significant opportunity cost when we talk about social challenges such as cancer, which require a shift in the focus of communication from persuasion and reputation to cooperation and its prerequisite: trust.

The purpose of the learning service

The digitisation of the economy and the automation of knowledge production systems, which are driving the Fourth Industrial Revolution, also require a new conception of the relationships between organisations and their environment.

While it is true that we have accepted the need to transform organisational models towards greater decentralisation and autonomy, the role of corporate culture in transformation projects and the implications of its relevance for the managerial role itself are not so well known.

The influence of corporate culture on organisational behaviour manifests itself through shared core beliefs about ‘what needs to be done’ in line with the organisation’s raison d’être and the results of observing the environment, listening, introspection and reflection; processes that make learning the basis of the evolutionary process of individuals and organisations.

This paradigm shift regarding the role of communication requires a prior paradigm shift regarding the role of leadership in organisations with social impact. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the relationship between corporate communication, transformational leadership and the influence of corporate purpose.

Trust as a starting point

Only through trust can a vision for change be created that breaks down knowledge silos and develops collective innovation capabilities in collaboration with other key players in the environment.

The cultural influence of leadership and its transformative capacity stem from trust and the reinforcement of the ability to ‘learn to learn’, both within the organisation and in the society of which it forms part.

It is this capacity that allows us to change continuously by integrating two equally necessary forces into the behaviour of organisations and society: change and stability. Therefore, we can say that corporate culture is both the cause and effect of the evolution of organisational identity.

Dynamism of culture

The dynamism of corporate culture is embodied in a conversational process that helps us replace ideas that no longer serve to explain reality and guide our behaviour.

From this perspective, communication must be a transformative conversation that consists of:

• The expression of the values that arise from the shared beliefs
• The creation of symbols
• The interpretation of reality.

Organisational learning thus defines the new managerial function, which consists of promoting new communication processes capable of moving from discourse on ‘innovative culture’ to innovative behaviour resulting from the transformative capacity of the union between thought and action thanks to a constructive and ongoing debate on identity.

The influence of this innovative culture on the dynamism of the organisation and its social impact are the result of:

• Contextual intelligence, which results from integrating relevant information from outside and inside the organisation.
• Creative confidence, which is achieved through the generalisation of a sense of belonging and awareness of the organisation’s distinctive personality (self-knowledge).
• The high level of commitment, which requires ‘intrinsic motivation’.

Lead from the future

Action-oriented thinking stimulates cultural dynamism and turns it into a factor for change by guiding relationships with other key players, both to improve decision-making and to design future scenarios.

A dynamic organisation requires a communication system that reinforces not only collective awareness of the organisational purpose, but also an understanding of the usefulness of a few simple rules that determine the behaviour necessary to achieve it and that also condition the way in which future challenges are faced.

This collective vision enables the organisation to evolve in solidarity with its environment and activates a network of alliances to monitor the evolution of potential risks, facilitating anticipation and preparation for crisis situations.

Accountability: inside and outside

An organisation’s strategic link with its environment is truly effective when it has an accountability system in place, both for the contribution of each part of the organisation and for the impact of the whole on society.

Only if we stop viewing reputation as an end in itself and use it to build genuine relationships of trust, will we be able to convert information from a global and dynamic environment into continuous knowledge and innovation, while also strengthening transparency.

To achieve this, senior management and governing bodies must contribute, with the support of communications professionals, to:

• Create a sense of alignment and encourage experimentation through the way you behave and interact.
• Create stories that connect identity with the dynamism of the environment
• Design and update listening systems
• Design and update support systems to overcome obstacles in the learning and personal development process.
• Design and update systems for measuring social impact and their consistency with the organisation’s priorities.
• Design and update talent management systems
  • Recognition systems based on the sense of belonging
  • Compensation for the contribution to results
  • Compensation for the contribution to collective learning
  • Compensation for the contribution to the connection with the environment

These indicators of learning and innovation capacity must be integrated into the management model so that they can be assessed in terms of their relationship to and influence on the dynamics of:

• Financial assets
• The value proposition
• Internal processes, especially those involving:
  • Senior management
  • Teams in the core of operations
  • Communication
  • Marketing
  • Human Resources

It may seem that many organisations that genuinely want to be impactful entities are far from having a communication system designed to create an effective link with their environment.

The intention with which I share this reflection is precisely to point out that the path is short if that will is sincere; it is the path of surrender of accounts.

Hopefully, this reflection will also help to put corporate communication at the service of cooperation—beyond shared intentions—among all organisations working for the well-being of people with cancer.

*Article written by Ángel Losada Vázquez, professor of corporate communication at the Pontifical University of Salamanca. Chair of the Committee for Communication, marketing and public affairs of the Spanish Association Against Cancer

La entrada Communication in organisations with impact. From reputation to transformative trust. se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

Communication is always a very delicate issue for companies to manage. Being exposed in public carries risks, controlling the message becomes more difficult as the degree of interaction with the press increases, and the media’s narrative may end up being very different from what the company had in mind, causing no small amount of upset and disappointment. However, there are always a number of easy-to-anticipate mistakes which, if we avoid them, will at least allow us to tread on solid ground. Below, we will outline the seven deadly sins that, unfortunately, are committed more often than they should be.

Forgetting that there is a thin line that separates communication from marketing

All executives know the theory, but in daily practice, many succumb to the temptation to approach communication with a “free advertising” approach in the news media. Every press release and every communication action must incorporate objectively interesting content with informational value. If a journalist asks a company spokesperson what they think of the current situation and the answer is “I think consumers should buy my product because it is the best on the market“, the result is counterproductive and contrary to the interests of the company: it creates a bad relationship with the press (which is looking for news, data and facts, not advertising), credibility is lost and the brand’s prestige suffers.

Trying to stop an ocean liner when it is going at full speed

What does this mean? Many firms are eager to communicate transactions that are very relevant to them and set the process in motion; but when it takes effect, they do not like what they see (or it frightens them) and they try to stop it. It is true that it is not the same to imagine yourself on the front pages of newspapers as it is to actually see yourself there: being the centre of attention, even if that was what we initially sought, can generate pressure or unforeseen side effects that are difficult to manage. Therefore, before initiating a communication campaign, companies must assess whether it really benefits them from a strategic point of view and analyse all the possible consequences, because once the game has started, it cannot be stopped.

“If it is very important to me, has to be important to the rest of the world.”

This is an extremely common mistake, despite how obvious it is. There are issues that are crucial for a company, but which are not important enough to be published at a general level. Companies must accept this reality: no matter how important something is to them, that does not mean it should necessarily make the headlines. On the other hand, if a corporate event is not newsworthy in itself, it is probably not as important to appear in the media as was previously thought.

Haste makes waste

Managing communication in a hurry is like buying all the tickets in a lottery where the prize is disaster. The communication management of an issue that is crucial for a company must be commensurate with the strategic importance of that action or decision. Communication must be an integral part of that strategic development from day one. The “I want this out now” approach, as an abrupt order with no room for planning, can only yield satisfactory results by pure chance. Typically, neither the repercussions nor the message will come close to achieving the quality and impact they could have had if careful planning had been done from the outset. Communication is not simply a matter of pressing a button and believing that everything will flow, as is too often thought.

The trees in the short term that prevent us from seeing the forest in the long term

Corporate communication is not limited to a one-day impact. To achieve a good relationship with the media, based on trust and influence, it is necessary to constantly cultivate and nurture that relationship. The desire to achieve short-term results, pushing the media to their limits or betraying their trust, jeopardises the long term, which is the road the company will have to travel throughout its life. Today’s impacts, if achieved at the cost of damaging relationships with journalists, sow the seeds of tomorrow’s failures. Communication, like economic development, must be sustainable and not compromise the resources that will be needed in the future.

Measure quantity and quality by the same yardstick

We really enjoy receiving a clipping from the press with hundreds of hits (if it’s good news). But, be careful, many times, a single impact can be more determining and decisive than 250. An exclusive in the launch of a medium with maximum dissemination and prestige is more valuable than a tonne of briefs to the weight, with all the affection and appreciation for the briefs. In communication, quantity matters, but quality matters much more.

In times of crisis, employ the ostrich technique.

Crisis communication is one of the classic methods that never fails, sooner or later it ends up happening. When a crisis erupts in a company, the technique of the ostrich is one resource that has been used since ancestral times: hiding one’s head under ground and trusting that the storm will pass. It may work, life is full of surprises, but that is a trump card with some cards that are very dangerous. Nor is it advisable to feed trolls by communicating compulsively, because transparency does not consist of that. It is about leading and maintaining control over the discourse of the company, make its message visible, manage the crisis with diligence and decisiveness, without allowing that third parties (media outlets or other sources) take ownership of the company’s discourse the discourse of the company and twist it to their whim.

These sins capital of communication may seem of common sense. However, the truth is that I have seen how for years many companies make one and another mistake after these errors. That is why I have wanted to highlight them. Planning and placing communication at the level of importance that it deserves, companies will have an easier life in the always complex relationship with the media.

La entrada 7 capital sins of communication that are as frequent as they are easy to avoid se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

Artificial Intelligence, yes, but with method, critical thinking and purpose.

Professor Ramón Salaverría has just announced the launch of NextDigiMedia, a project promoted by the Centre for Digital Research at the University of Navarra. a16> Digital of the University of Navarra – in collaboration with the University of Santiago de Compostela – and coordinated by its Faculty of Communication with the aim of a33> analyse the impact transformative of AI on digital journalism and the ecosystem of the media in Spain.

As explained by Salaverría himself, the project proposes to investigate the models of adoption of artificial intelligence in digital media and its impacts on the media ecosystem in a19> Spanish media ecosystem with the aim of building scenarios for the future of the sector.

It occurs to me that this very approach is the one we should also adopt from corporate communication: less a8> also from the perspective of corporate communication: less dazzle and more understanding. AI is a tool (a powerful one, no doubt), but its true value will liehow it is used to amplify credibility, not to replace it.

As Mónica González Ortín rightly points out, what is at stake is the narrative of trust: attributing, recognising and legitimising the value of those who generate knowledge. In a context of growing mistrust towards AI, organisations that know how to build narratives based on transparency will have not only a technological advantage, but also a reputational one. And as Joaquín Mouriz rightly pointed out in his participation in our podcast El elefante verde, “reputation is business, otherwise what are we talking about?”

Reputation, experience and emotion: the triangle that underpins brands

Mouriz of a step further and remembers something fundamental: the experience of a brand is woven from emotions. We are not talking about sentimentality; we are talking about that capacity—so human—to leave a mark. In his analysis of the barometer by Havas CX, highlights that emotion accounts for 60% of what consumers consider to be a perfect experience. The challenge lies in turning every point of contact, every interaction, into an opportunity to connect. A brand without the ability to move people will struggle to achieve loyalty or differentiate itself.

And this challenges us directly as professionals in communication. In what way are we contributing to building that emotional experience that is consistent with the personality of the brand? a14> emotional consistent with the personality of the organisation? Do we really understand that reputation is no longer just image, but also experience?

Communication is not the problem, but neither can it be the backdrop.

José Manuel Velasco presents a critique of the use (and abuse) of communication as a tool for cosmetic politics: spokespersons who prioritise the photo over action, speeches that take precedence over the facts, strategies that are constructed from the emotion of rejection. All this generates disaffection, yes, but it also puts the legitimacy of the profession itself at risk. If we communicators allow ourselves to be swept along by posturing and renounce a52> the critical gaze, we are collaborating with the mud.

For that reason it is urgent to strengthen our role as honest creators of of the story. It is not a matter of disguising reality, but rather to connect it with meaning. Communication is not the problem, but it can stop being be part of the solution if it is not exercised with responsibility.

Loyalty (properly understood) as the backbone of organisations

Behind this analysis, planning and implementation are the people: professionals who make this open debate possible, who verify the effectiveness and consistency of our thinking and theorising, who accept the challenges that arise from time to time. I really liked Pablo Gonzalo Molina’s review of the concept of professional loyalty because he approaches it from an unusual angle: loyalty is not obedience; it is critical commitment. It is not about keeping quiet to avoid tension or applauding out of habit. A professional who is loyal to their organisation is one who proposes, questions, disagrees… and then, once the decision has been debated, aligns themselves and executes it. This view of loyalty as a drive for improvement — rather than submission — is more necessary than ever in times of strong leadership and groupthink. What a powerful tool for transformation.

Communication, in this sense, fulfils a dual function: it is a symptom of the internal climate and a lever for cultural change. A team where there is no disagreement, where everything is agreed without discussion, probably is not loyal to the organisation. And that, in the medium term, will take its toll.

Narratives of one’s own, listening genuinely and ethically as a driving force

In this exercise of compiling other people’s thoughts, which has been so helpful in getting me started after the holidays, I have found a common thread that I believe is key to tackling this new academic year: we need to generate our own narratives. Let’s stop following other people’s agendas, easy headlines, and urgent but insubstantial issues. Communication should serve to build conversation, not to replicate noise. I realise this is not a new idea, but I cannot resist emphasising it.

And to build conversation, we need to return to real listening, not only externally, but also within our organisations. Listening to what is said, what is not said, what bothers, what inspires, what makes people uncomfortable… and from there, generate value.

Listening will also be the first step in building a solid communicative ethic. Because, as María Ángeles Quesada reminded me in a conversation I enjoyed very much, ethics cannot be imposed; they are built collectively from shared values. And only with ethics can a sustainable reputation be built.

Conclusion;

With this new post, I am not attempting to pass judgement or give definitive answers. a7> give definitive answers. Rather, I dare to draw a map of topics that will set the course: artificial intelligence with purpose, emotion as a factor in reputation, communication as coherent action , loyalty criticism as an organisational value and narratives of one’s own as a driver of of identity.

If anything we have learned from this process —in which also participated an AI—is that technological tools can help us to process, organise and generate content, but ideas, decisions and vision strategic continue to be unquestionably human.

So then, with pencils sharpened, notebooks blank or keyboards charged, let’s begin the course. With thought. With judgement. With purpose.

We’ll see you on the road.

La entrada Think before you communicate: communicate with meaning se publicó primero en Agencia comma.