Or, if you’re looking for a quicker hit of dopamine, whether the highest temperature in Los Angeles will exceed 84 degrees today?

We have reached a bizarre stage in the lifecycle of capitalism where we are no longer merely ignoring the slow-motion collapse of our planet; we have found a new way to monetize it.... by betting on it.

Subscribe now

We have successfully engineered the financial instruments required to day-trade the apocalypse.

A round of applause for humanity, please.

You might wonder how a society arrives at a place this deeply detached from its own survival...

How do you get people to accept a financial system that bets on their own destruction?

Simple. To keep a market like this running, you need a populace that is too numb, too isolated, and too inundated with urgency to notice the smoke coming under the door. And that system was built, piece by piece, by the modern marketing and tech industry.

For as long as human beings have had things to trade, marketing was simply a function of gravity. You built a reliable tool, people used it, and they told their neighbors. If you made a flimsy tool, it broke, and you went out of business. The market was grounded in actual utility and genuine human need.

But eventually, the people selling the tools realized that waiting for organic demand wasn’t quite profitable enough. So they stopped waiting for demand and started engineering it.

Today, we don’t rely on the quality of a product to make a sale; we just beat you over the head with the sheer volume of the pitch. We expose you to thousands of hyper-targeted ads a day, spending hundreds of billions of dollars to weaponize your insecurities, hijack your paleolithic emotions, and manufacture artificial FOMO just to get you to buy profoundly mediocre products.

But if you are going to subject a population to that level of relentless bombardment, you first have to make sure they can’t look away. You have to build a room that they never want to leave.

Contrary to what the name implies, social media wasn’t actually designed to connect you; quite the opposite, its goal was to enclose you. And to keep you inside this ecosystem, we didn’t need to use force; we just used your own biology. We took your deepest, most primal vulnerabilities and we quantified them.

We took human approval and turned it into hearts and thumbs up.

It is incredibly difficult to sustain a meaningful, collective panic about the ecological collapse of the planet when your nervous system is constantly being hijacked by Tinder match notifications, Instagram DMs, or whatever breaking news is happening at each nanosecond.

You can’t worry about doomsday when you are mentally incapable of focusing on it.

When you widen the lens and look at the bedrock of our market system, you see a global economy built entirely on the model of self-interest. It relies on the unquestioned, almost religious faith that consumer desire is limitless and deeply narcissistic.

But the fatal flaw in this model is that we are running an algorithm of infinite growth on a highly finite rock - the Earth.

When we treat both human attention and the earth’s physical resources as endless dumping grounds, we train ourselves to never think about what happens after the purchase.

We are conditioned to ignore the physical reality of our consumption, completely blinding ourselves to the environmental and social byproducts of all that sourcing, production, and distribution.

We abstracted the damage so thoroughly that the destruction of our own planet barely even registers. Until we eventually end up betting on our own demise, apparently...

Marketers sell an ideology. We sell the deeply comforting, highly profitable illusions that:

1. Human consumption operates in a guiltless vacuum.

2. Your desirability is directly proportional to the number of Rolex watches you own.

3. Someone else will eventually fix the consequences of our actions.

For the last twenty years, the absolute governing law of the internet has been to remove all barriers between a human impulse and a financial transaction. To what end?

Can we look at a marketing dashboard and actively choose a 2% conversion rate that comes from treating a person with genuine dignity, rather than squeezing out a 5% conversion rate through coercion? Can we stop tracking them when they leave our ecosystem? Can we stop pretending that a human being’s value is defined by their lifetime revenue potential?

Can we really put the genie back in the bottle?

The only way to take this machinery apart is by fundamentally changing our relationship with the consumer and treating their attention and intention as something sacred. And for the first time in a long time, actually look at what we are selling, who we are selling it to, and what the consequences of that sale are.

Even Philip Kotler (the father of modern marketing) is now telling the industry to dial it back and focus on “sensible consumption,” and de-consumption as a necessary response to the climate emergency we’re now facing.

This is the crossroads. On one hand, you have the path of “sensible consumption,” which requires the heretical choice of introducing friction in the sales process. On the other hand, you have the reality of today.

And until we bridge that gap, we are all just sitting in the living room, swiping our screens, waiting to see if our 99-cent bet on the apocalypse finally pays out.

We imagine a pristine control room atop a glass high-rise, where “serious adults” stand ready to hit the emergency button the moment things go off the rails.

Eventually, we grow up and realize those very adults are just staring up at someone else, waiting for them to make the move.

We’re watching a steady accumulation of events that would have once been unthinkable, now arriving with such regularity that they’re processed less as global shocks and more as items in a feed you thumb past while waiting for your oat milk latte.

We have a military operation in Iran, followed by a headline about the Epstein files. A military push into Venezuela, and then, the Epstein files. The killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti, eclipsed by the Epstein files. A war grinding on in Ukraine, a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza that has dropped any pretense of being temporary, the U.S. exiting sixty-six international institutions... and through it all, the persistent, unresolved static of, you guessed it, the Epstein files.

Each one deeply consequential, each one unresolved, all of them simultaneous, and somehow, all of them normalized.

Not because any of this feels normal, it very clearly doesn’t, but because nothing ever really ends anymore. There are no conclusions, no moments of accountability, just a relentless displacement by the next crisis.

And this is where the math gets dangerous.

Ray Dalio has spent decades studying the mechanics of how world orders start wearing out, and his conclusion is worringly straightforward.

Empires don’t collapse because the citizenry suddenly loses its moral compass. They collapse when the social contract is voided. They fall when people stop believing the government will regulate fairly, when the markets feel irreparably rigged, and when institutions act less like pillars of society and more like extraction machines.

In other words, empires collapse when their legitimacy finally erodes to its hollow core.
Are we there yet?

For the longest time, we relied on the illusion that someone, somewhere, was managing the macro-level chaos so our brains didn’t have to. And when that fiction shatters—when we realize we are completely exposed to a wildly complex system that views us as nothing more than data points—our nervous systems understandably look for an escape route.

But what do we do when we realize we have absolutely zero leverage over the macro? We can’t fix inflation, we can’t halt a war, we can’t punch an algorithm. That anxiety has to go somewhere, so it reroutes violently downstream, and we frantically grab for the micro: our habits, our daily routines, our purchases - the few remaining things we can actually touch.

This is why we used to blindly toss the cheapest body wash into our carts, but now we stand frozen in aisle four, squinting at a label, asking: “Is this the full price? Who or what else am I funding?” It is nothing more than an attempt to buy a twelve-ounce bottle of moral absolution, a way to soothe a nervous system trapped in a society that has entirely lost the plot.

This mismatch—this desperate need to control the micro when the macro is lost—explains exactly how we arrived at our current cultural moment. It is why we are now deeply, almost spiritually, concerned about whether AI is “drinking our water,” yet we can barely sustain a fifteen-minute conversation about the fact that we are building synthetic truth-machines in a society that no longer agrees on what truth is.

Let’s be clear: data centers do consume massive amounts of water from fragile places. It is a real ecological crisis. But the sheer scale of the public discourse isn’t proportional to the metric; it’s proportional to our desperate need for accountability.

We can’t picture algorithmic bias. We can’t hold surveillance capitalism in our hands. But water? Water is wet. We can imagine a river running dry. In a digital economy where human exploitation is neatly flattened into “efficiency,” water is the last piece of reality we haven’t outsourced to the cloud.

This same reflex—the desperate grasp for the micro—is exactly what is driving the current backlash against OpenAI and pushing Claude past ChatGPT in the App Store.

When the opportunity to exert even a fraction of control presents itself, we take it. It is a necessary rebellion of the exhausted. It is why we are auditing our tech stacks, canceling our subscriptions, and severing ties with platforms that view us merely as inventory.

When the cynics insist that these isolated choices are just drops in the bucket, they conveniently forget that drops are precisely what carve canyons.

History is littered with the hubris of arrogant institutions that believed they were immune to a collective of human beings who had simply decided they’d had enough.

We are finally realizing that the definition of consumption has expanded.

Consumption is no longer a passive act of receiving: attention is consumption, a click is consumption, and the mere act of “engaging” is an active transfer of wealth. We are learning to treat our focus the same way we treat our capital: as a finite resource that must be spent on purpose.

We don’t stand in aisle four and buy the organic bath wash because we harbor some delusion that it will fix democracy. We buy it because, in a world where institutional trust has evaporated, our shopping carts and our screen time are the only arenas left where we can practice moral clarity without filing paperwork or getting tear-gassed.

If 2026 becomes the year of the ethical consumer, it won’t be because we all suddenly ascended to some elevated state of enlightenment. It will be because living inside unresolved, macro-level chaos forces the human nervous system to crave coherence wherever it can find it.

So, we do the only thing left to do...
We pull the levers we can reach.
Pull them hard.

After the Super Bowl, much of the media conversation fixated on the rivalry between Anthropic and OpenAI.

Anthropic showed up to take a swing. OpenAI showed up to call the swing “dishonest.” Then came the tweets. The clarifications. The counter-clarifications. Because nothing says “I don’t worry about the competition” like writing a novel in response to an ad.

Meanwhile, the actual viewer is sitting there thinking:
”Wait, am I supposed to download something? Fear the garage door? Be excited for the future?”

This year, nearly one-quarter of the ads were AI-related. That alone could have been interesting. Instead, it once again showed AI companies talking loudly, expensively, and, mostly to each other.

What the SuperBowl viewers didn’t understand is that these ads weren’t trying to explain AI, so much as ease people into it. What they were really doing was normalization. And normalization is a weird thing; that’s how you get people used to living with something they didn’t ask for.

First it’s a joke.
Then it’s a feature.
Then it’s a default setting you can’t find the toggle for.

In trying to make the technology feel inevitable, the industry ended up spending something it didn’t have much of to spare - trust.

Most people already assume they’re being marketed to by machines, and a growing number believe they can tell when something has been generated, smoothed, or scaled past the point of human involvement. Whether they’re right is almost beside the point. The perception alone is enough to change how the message is interpreted.

That’s the “AI Bowl” in a sentence: a bunch of companies spending a fortune to talk past the public.

And you could argue, fairly, that none of this really matters. That these ads work. That the companies behind them are doing just fine. That awareness is awareness, and reach is reach, and the rest is noise.

So let’s look at it.

There are quite a few ways to measure whether an ad works: brand awareness, purchase intent, search lift, website traffic, social engagement, and long-term recall. The spreadsheets are endless, and marketers love them because they let us pretend certainty exists.

To do a proper analysis, you’d need access to data impossible to access, but even with back-of-the-envelope math, the Super Bowl still looks defensible.

We have roughly 130 million viewers. Thirty seconds for $8–10 million in airtime alone. Call it about $63 per CPM, which makes it 6-8 cents per view - before production, before Matthew McConaughey, before the full campaign cost creeps toward $50 million.

On paper, it’s not irrational... until you compare it to the alternative.

For the price of a single Super Bowl spot, a brand could run months of highly targeted Meta, TikTok, YouTube, PickYourPoison ads, reaching people who actually resemble their users, testing messages in real time, optimizing toward something measurable beyond “people saw it while refilling nachos.”

A 50 million-dollar budget can buy far more than a cultural cameo. It can buy time, iteration, and the chance to build trust. Which makes the decision to spend it all at once, on a message that barely bothered to explain itself, feel... what?

careless?
egotistical?
strangely unconcerned with whether anyone was actually listening?
more confident in its own importance than in its audience’s understanding?

There’s this popular trend on social media with AI executives saying things that feel increasingly out of touch, sometimes bordering on the diabolical.

Like in this clip below of Sam Altman saying: “I think AI will probably, like most likely, sort of lead to the end of the world, but in the meantime, uh, there will be great companies created.”

@aimann.ai

Aiman Naqvi on Instagram: "Day 4 of posting a video where a tec…

... while everyone else is posting photos of budget Super Bowl snacks on Pinterest, and trading tips on how to stretch the night a little further. The mood isn’t “what’s the next thing we’re all supposed to be excited about?” So much as “how do we get through this without spending more than we have?”

Against that backdrop, watching companies spend ten million dollars to needle each other feels oddly George-Orwellian, but I digress...

Subscribe now

And then there was Amazon...

Amazon introduced Alexa+ with a Super Bowl spot featuring Chris Hemsworth narrowly avoiding a fatal accident caused by his own smart home.

I felt very uncomfortable watching this ad, not because of the unnecessary gruesomeness, but because of the kind of fear the ad decided to address… and, more importantly, the fears it avoided.

If Amazon wanted to do real satire, there were plenty of targets closer to the bone.

They could’ve made fun of the engineers laid off after years of loyalty, told their work was being “accelerated.”

They could’ve joked about white-collar redundancy, about resumes rewritten by the very systems that replaced the jobs behind them.

They could’ve touched on economic precarity, deskilling, and the creeping sense of being optional.

Instead, the ad picked a safer villain: the homicidal garage door. (lol)

It’s a strawman fear. Cinematic. Absurd. Easy to dismiss. No one really thinks Alexa is plotting murder. But lots of people do think AI is coming for their work, their leverage, their sense of usefulness.

So the joke rerouted the anxiety. Away from labor, power, and displacement. Toward spectacle. Toward something you can laugh off and forget. I blame Chris Hemsworth.

Humane marketing doesn’t try to correct or mock what people are afraid of; it starts by recognizing the fear they’re already living with and addresses it head-on.

I was initially planning on ending this article by pointing out the ads that were done “right.” But then again, what is “right” depends on the stick you use to measure it.

According to Kellog’s Yearly School Super Bowl Advertising Review, Google’s Gemini Ad ranked as the #1 ad for “tugging at the heartstrings” while showing practical utility (redecorating a child’s room.)

Budweiser won the USA TODAY Ad Meter by simply showing a horse and an eagle, the brand’s recognizable identity, rather than abstract digital battles

Data from iSpot says that Ring’s ad promoting an AI feature to find lost dogs scored in the 100th percentile for both attention and likeability. This would suggest audiences respond better when AI messaging addresses specific, relatable problems rather than broad promises (go figure!)

Ultimately, winning your audience’s trust is not done by spending tens of millions of dollars on ads, but by taking responsibility for the externalities your brand creates (social, economic, environmental) and not pretending those don’t exist.

These AI companies are trying to shape expectations about work, automation, surveillance, and power. When you’re operating at that scale, how you market is just as important as what you’re marketing.

Marketing is one of the most powerful levers companies have to redirect capital, attention, and behavior, not just demand.

Which raises an obvious question:

Instead of spending $50 million to “win” a cultural moment, AI companies could have:

• Invested in visible, verifiable climate mitigation, especially water and energy conservation, two areas where large-scale computing already carries a reputational cost.

• Funded workforce transition programs for the very roles most likely to be displaced. Not “reskilling narratives,” but actual paid training, job placement, and income bridges.

• Built public-facing transparency tools that help people understand how, when, and where AI systems are used.

• Redirected marketing budgets toward public-interest campaigns that explain tradeoffs honestly: what AI does well, what it doesn’t, and where humans are still essential.

• Partnered with municipalities, schools, or utilities to solve specific, boring problems (water leaks, energy waste, logistics inefficiencies.)

The same resources could have been used to acknowledge the fears people already have, and do something concrete about them.

The irony is that trust can’t be bought in thirty-second increments, no matter how expensive they are. But it can be built, slowly, by showing people you understand the world they’re living in, and that you’re willing to invest in making it a little more livable, not just more inevitable.

If you’re into that, hit the heart button. The algorithm loves it, and so do I.

The Trust Paradox: Ads vs. Influencers vs. AI

The News

Online ads continue to irritate users and they find them misleading, yet paradoxically, trust in influencers, real and even AI-generated is higher than ever, especially among younger consumers (Stacked Marketer). Virtual influencers, powered by AI, are booming, pulling billions of views on platforms like YouTube (Stacked Marketer, AI Marketing School). However, studies reveal a darker side: influencer content may contribute to manipulation and unhealthy consumer behaviors, with some AI-driven bots secretly swaying online opinions in controversial experiments (MSN, Reddit).

Bianca's Take

If you've ever sold anything online, from million-dollar courses to an old bike on Craigslist, you know trust is the ultimate online currency. It's marketing’s golden rule, yet frustratingly tricky to nail down.

Ads aren't fooling anyone, they shout their intentions loud and clear, practically screaming, flashing, begging "BUY ME!" from your screen. We instinctively roll our eyes and push them away because they're predictable, artificial, and honestly, a bit desperate.

Influencers, on the other hand, are playing a much smarter game. They act like our friends, sharing "genuine" moments, vulnerabilities, humor, and yes, plenty of products along the way. They're ads wrapped in humanity, and that's why they work so well. Same-same, but different.

Ever since I read that article on Aitana Lopez, I've been racking my brain, trying to explain the rise of virtual influencers. What exactly dictates trust online if not... the human?

Virtual influencers are algorithm-driven, pixel-perfect personas who mimic humanity so well they've got millions of followers hanging on their every post and buying the products they endorse. Is trust simply about looking human? If authenticity online is just an act, what happens when the actor isn’t even alive? Are our brains hardwired to trust anything that vaguely resembles a human face, even if we (intellectually) know those are just pixels?

Maybe the real question isn't just what we trust online, but why trust matters at all. As marketers, consumers, and humans stuck spinning through an increasingly more digital orbit, we've got to stay sharp.

Trust is integral to human dignity and meaningful connection. If we let trust become just another commodity, engineered and exploited without deeper consideration, we risk losing something far more profound: our shared human experience.

Big Tech’s Battle for Your Attention (and Survival)

The News

Mark Zuckerberg admitted a notable decline in engagement on Facebook and Instagram as users drift toward more engaging competitors like TikTok (Social Media Today). Meanwhile, Trump's administration hints at delaying TikTok’s ban yet again, prolonging the uncertainty over the app’s future (Stacked Marketer). Google's facing a historic breakup after losing antitrust lawsuits related to monopolizing search and advertising markets (Platformer). Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai argues such regulatory interventions could profoundly alter user experiences (and humanity) (Search Engine Land).

Bianca’s Take

There’s something weirdly intimate about watching giants stumble. Like seeing the cool kid from high school get really into NFTs and then quietly go bankrupt. Meta is bleeding attention, TikTok is in political purgatory, and Google is facing the regulatory equivalent of an identity crisis.

But let’s pause the schadenfreude for a second…

The “fall” of Big Tech isn’t just about billionaires in hoodies losing power, it’s about who gets to shape the internet we all live inside. For decades, we’ve outsourced that responsibility to the highest bidder. We handed over our attention, our data, our memories, and micro-decisions, and in return, we got convenience, connection, and a dopamine drip-feed that’s increasingly hard to unplug from.

Meanwhile… Google tightened integration between Demand Gen campaigns, YouTube, and Merchant Checkout, making impulse purchasing easier than ever. Similarly, ChatGPT's new shopping enhancements further remove consumer friction (Google Ads Help, The Verge)

As regulators finally sharpen their teeth, the cracks are showing, but even if your next phone will live longer thanks to Brussels, it's nowhere near enough.

I don’t romanticize regulation. But I do believe in friction where friction makes sense. I believe in slowing down enough to ask better questions and consider the consequences. And in the absence of friction, we end up making decisions on impulse, not intention.

That’s not user freedom. That’s behavioral engineering.

We need pauses. Checks. Boundaries. A moment between stimulus and response where ethics, and, dare I say, conscience can kick in. We need time to develop that critical thought, a thought that comes to you in the dead of night when you're scrolling through Amazon, that says, "You don't need another plastic container for your cereals, the box it comes in will work just fine."

Right now, the dominant system runs on an infinite growth loop: more engagement, more data, more monetization, more ecological and psychological debt. Regulation, if done well, could be the tool that reintroduces the necessary friction to interrupt this loop.

And no, regulation isn’t the magic bullet. It’s often slow, sometimes messy, and always reactive. But, in a world where platforms profit from addictiveness, where consumption is the default, and where attention is a resource extracted without consent, some friction is better than none.

Greenwashing and the Thin Green Line

The News

Earth Day saw an avalanche of superficial sustainability campaigns, often critiqued as empty PR gestures. Consumer confusion over vague "eco-friendly" labels is rampant, contributing to ineffective recycling behaviors known as "wishcycling." Meanwhile, Amazon finds itself under fire for allegedly misleading sustainability claims (The Conversation, The Cool Down).

Bianca's Take:

Slap a leaf on the label, say something vague like “consciously sourced,” and hope no one checks the fine print. Maybe it works for a while. Maybe it even boosts quarterly revenue. But let’s be clear: consumers aren’t stupid, and the planet doesn’t give points for empty effort.

Sustainability isn’t a seasonal campaign. It’s not a press release timed with Earth Day or a pastel green logo refresh. It’s a structural commitment, a long game. It means supply chain transparency, fair labor, honest labeling, lifecycle thinking, and accountability after the sale. If your “eco” product ends up in a landfill six months later, it wasn’t sustainable, it was storytelling. And storytelling has consequences.

Because when we flood the market with performative “green” messaging, we erode the very trust we claim to stand for. We make it harder for consumers to distinguish signal from noise. We dull their instincts. We make cynicism feel like the only rational response. And once people stop believing in sustainability altogether, we’ve lost far more than brand loyalty; we’ve lost momentum on the one thing we can’t afford to stall.

Don’t just market sustainability. Practice it. Prove it. And make it boringly, relentlessly consistent.

Because the world doesn’t need another hashtag campaign. It needs marketers who give a damn.

I’m curious to know what you think…
Anything you disagreed with? Or worse, agreed with?

1. So Is TikTok Actually Banned or…?

The News:

• Supreme Court Upheld the Ban: TikTok’s last legal avenue is done, and ByteDance initially said it’ll shut down on Sunday in the U.S.

• Biden Won’t Enforce? President Biden said he isn’t enforcing the law, leaving everyone scratching their heads.

• Trump Is… Inviting TikTok’s CEO to His Inauguration? The same ex-President who initiated the ban is now cozying up to TikTok’s top brass.

• Rumors of a Musk Takeover: Bloomberg and WSJ reported China might sell TikTok’s U.S. operations to Elon Musk (ByteDance called it “pure fiction”).

• Xiaohongshu Emerges: Another Chinese app called RedNote is surging in U.S. app stores, ironically picking up "digital refugees" from the threatened TikTok.

Bianca’s Take

If your head’s spinning, you’re not alone. Between legal whiplash, political maneuvering, and tech bros sprinting to kiss whichever presidential ring is in power, it’s obvious that no one truly knows which side is up. The one clear lesson that emerged from this saga is this - the app itself no longer seems to matter. Call it TikTok, Vine 2.0, RedNote, or “X Dance Karaoke.” Social media has entered an era of commoditization. Users want to consume content or a place to post theirs. If the temperature gets too hot (a ban, security drama, new ownership), we just move on to the next vaguely similar app - whether or not we understand the language it's in.

And no, I’m not here to beat the drum of platform diversification. It's just another example of people valuing the experience, not the mechanism through which it's delivered. Knowing your brand story can outlive any single app should be a relief, but it also means entire communities can dissolve overnight.

2. Mastodon Goes Nonprofit and Pixelfed Gets Blocked

The News:

• Mastodon Nonprofit Transition: Founder Eugen Rochko is handing over the project to a new nonprofit in Europe, aiming to prevent centralized power like we’ve see with Elon Musk’s X or Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta.

• Meta Blocks Pixelfed Links: Pixelfed, an Instagram-like service built on Mastodon’s protocol, has been labeled as “spam” on Facebook, instantly deleting any shared link.

Bianca’s Take

We’re watching two parallel universes play out simultaneously, the corporate control and the grassroots digital communities. Mastodon’s pivot to nonprofit status is a statement: We’d like to keep decision-making transparent and shared. Meanwhile, Meta’s reflex to block a competitor’s URL is the opposite kind of statement: We’ll kneecap anything that threatens us.

If you’re hunting for a more “humane” digital space, Mastodon’s bet is that a nonprofit can both succeed and stick to communal values, while Meta’s bet is that you’ll never leave its empire, especially if they force you to stay.

Honorable Mentions

• UK to ‘Unleash’ AI - The UK government aims to turbocharge the economy with AI. Fingers crossed they also remember the “human” side of that equation.

• ‘Free Our Feeds’ on Bluesky’s AT Protocol - A group wants to raise $30 million to build a “billionaire-proof” social network on top of Bluesky’s tech. Will it actually happen? Watch this space.

• Apple Pauses AI Summaries - After botched notifications full of inaccuracies, Apple’s putting their AI news bulletins on ice.

• Google Ads Phishing - Hackers are impersonating Google itself via phony Ads homepages on Google Sites

• A French interior designer lost €830,000 to AI-powered scammers posing as Brad Pitt - a sobering reminder of the need for digital safeguards.

• Right after Meta announced it would be ending its fact-checking program, Google decided it won't comply with EU fact-checking law. Don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

• Lidl decides to remove cartoonish packaging from less healthy items to avoid the kiddos’ “buy me!” meltdown in the cereal aisle. Small steps, big impact.

What about you? What do you think of the TikTok ban non-ban?

Hit reply and let me know your hot take, random rant, or cautious optimism. And if you found this newsletter enlightening (or at least entertaining), share it with a friend.

A lot has bubbled up since we last chatted; legal showdowns, AI hiccups, big-tech pivots, so buckle up, because you’re about to get right back into the thick of it.

1. TikTok on Trial: The Ban, the Lawsuits, and the Backup Plan

The News

• The Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether TikTok should be banned or forced to sell, potentially making the U.S. the first Western nation to give the app the legal axe.

• TikTok faces a separate lawsuit from Utah alleging that its livestream features knowingly exploit minors.

• ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, is quietly ushering U.S. users onto its sister app Lemon8, a “Plan B” if TikTok’s fate is sealed.

Bianca’s Take

We’ve got a social media giant perched on the gallows, and the world is watching to see if the rope drops. On one hand, you have regulators pounding the drum of “national security.” On the other hand, you’ve got free-speech advocates worried that this sets a dicey precedent. TikTok’s pivot to Lemon8 reminds me of that friend who packs an overnight bag mid-argument, just in case. But the real tragedy here is the young creators and small businesses who’ve built entire livelihoods on TikTok could face whiplash if the platform vanishes overnight.

This TikTok saga is packed with teachable moments that will probably inspire a whole library of books, but for now, all I’ll say is this...

Relying on a single platform isn’t just a personal business risk; it places disproportionate social and economic power in the hands of one corporate gatekeeper. When that gatekeeper changes course (whether from market meltdowns, legal showdowns, or a sudden change in policies), entire communities and microeconomies lose their footing. It’s not just your audience count that gets gutted; it’s the cultural conversations, the homegrown businesses, and all the social connections made in that space. Diversifying your channels isn’t just brand self-preservation; it’s a move toward a more resilient, equitable marketplace where no single entity can yank the rug out from under 170 million people in one smooth pull.

2. Meta’s “New” Free Speech: Fact-Checking? What Fact-Checking?

The news

• Meta ends its fact-checking program, opting for a user-powered “Community Notes” system.

• Nick Clegg steps down as Meta’s global policy chief, replaced by a Republican insider, coincidentally right as Trump is set to return to the White House.

• The company simultaneously pulls back on DEI (Diversity, Equity & Inclusion) initiatives.

Bianca’s take

Ever since I began diving into Meta’s fact-checking rollback, I’ve heard countless variations of “Nobody really believes that stuff anyway.” That kind of dismissal might be fine if Facebook were just another app. But for millions globally (especially in Asia and South America) Facebook isn’t just a social network; it’s the national soapbox, the real-time newswire, and in some cases, the only gateway to political discourse. When there’s no coherent oversight or accountability on that platform, the ripple effects can spark revolutions or, worse, accelerate existing tensions with dire human consequences (think Myanmar.)

Even in more regulated Western contexts, it’s unnerving to accept that we must treat every post or headline as potential misinformation. Canada’s Bill C-18 offers a glimpse of just how legislation could push social platforms to shoulder more responsibility. And while Bill C-18 may not be a cure-all, it signals a global need for policy frameworks that ensure these digital spaces serve the public good, rather than amplify chaos or profit from mistrust. After all, if we keep waving off misinformation with a casual “nobody believes it,” we effectively hand the public square to the loudest or most nefarious voices, and that’s a risk we can’t afford to keep ignoring.

Listen, I’m all for a freer internet, but can we at least keep the anti-spam filters on? It’s like they’re saying, “We want to be a democracy of ideas—without the messy nuance of verifying those ideas.” Mno… you can't have your cake and eat it too.

3. Apple’s AI Fumbles

The news

• Apple settles a $95 million lawsuit over Siri allegedly recording conversations without consent.

• Apple’s AI-generated news summaries have repeatedly served up errors, prompting the company to clarify they’re “machine-made.”

Bianca’s take

Seems even the mighty Apple can stumble when chasing that generative AI gold rush. It’s one thing to have your AI guess the plot of a K-Drama incorrectly; it’s another to have it deliver misleading news that shapes public opinion. But the bigger question here is how a tech giant so famed for user-centric design fell short on transparency in the first place.

For marketers, Apple’s fiasco is a sobering reminder that hyper-personalized user experiences often mask a lot of complicated, glitchy code, and, sometimes, questionable data practices. If Apple, with its deep pockets and reputation for quality control, can mishandle AI, what does that mean for smaller firms using similar technologies without the same resources? Once a brand’s credibility wavers, no software update can fully patch the hole in public confidence.

Honorable Mentions

• The Blake Lively-Baldoni Scandal

I don't have enough seconds in a day to summarize the story here - both camps allegedly weaponized influencer outreach to shape the narrative. A reminder that information online (particularly around cancel culture) is often taken at face value and can have permanent effects, whether true or not.

• Net Neutrality? Not So Much

An appeals court just punched a hole in the FCC’s authority to uphold net neutrality, reminding us how fragile our open-internet ideals are. If the internet fractures into “fast lanes” and “slow lanes,” small businesses and social initiatives could be priced out of visibility, yet another reason humane marketers should keep an eye on policy shifts.

• Meta’s AI Profiles: Poof!

Meta tested AI-generated Facebook and Instagram profiles, faced a backlash, then yanked them faster than you can say “unblock button.” Maybe rolling out half-baked AI personas wasn’t such a hot idea.

• Honey Scandal

If your brand’s marketing claims aren’t airtight, you’re one viral call-out away from exposing the cracks in your credibility.

• Kim Kardashian’s SKIMS vs. LA Wildfires

Promoting shapewear during raging wildfires? Even for a Kardashian, that came off as tone-deaf.

• AI-Powered Invalid Traffic

General Invalid Traffic skyrocketed by 86%, thanks in part to AI bots running amok. It’s like the “zombie apocalypse” of digital marketing—tons of fake clicks with zero real engagement. Why does it matter? Because when ads are fed to bots, real humans lose out on relevant, meaningful content.

• Anthropic’s Musical Mea Culpa

Anthropic settled with music publishers over AI-trained lyrics. Turns out creative work is, well, work. And it deserves protection, even if you’re a cutting-edge AI company.

• Meta & Amazon Slashing DEI

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs are getting cut back at some of the biggest corporate players. I can’t help but think, are these companies truly committed to inclusive workplaces, or did they just do a quick PR dance when it was trendy?

• Carbon-Neutral Claim Revisited

A court reversed its prior ruling on whether claiming “carbon-neutral” is misleading.

Next time you slap “carbon-neutral” on your packaging, don’t forget the footnotes or you might end up explaining yourself to a judge.

• Green Cosmetics Bibliometric Analysis

The data’s in: consumers want eco-friendly cosmetics, but they also want proof.

That sums up all the humane marketing drama from last week. If you’re feeling both inspired and slightly concerned… who isn’t?

So let me throw it back to you: How do you see marketing evolving in a world teetering between convenience and responsibility?

Drop me a reply, rant, or existential epiphany, I’m all ears, or eyes in this case.

And if this newsletter gave you even a spark of insight, I’d love it if you forwarded it to a friend (or three).

Subscribe now

Bianca's Take - I've read a few people's takes on this, and I have to say, it's not like brands suddenly throw out their entire playbook and rewrite their strategy the day after the election just because there's a new president in office. However, there are some broader shifts we can likely count on:

• A Return to Nationalism in Brand Messaging - Expect the “Made in America” slogans to rise again as brands pivot toward more patriotic messaging in response to Trump’s likely focus on nationalism. That means many brands might scale back on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives to align with the administration’s more nationalistic tones. Smaller, diverse-owned agencies could be in for a tough ride as the pendulum swings away from inclusivity.

• The Polarization Game - The political climate is only getting more divided, and marketers are in the crossfire. Brands that can find the sweet spot between staying authentic and avoiding divisive issues will likely resonate the most. Unity and integrity might be the safest bets.

• Tariffs, Inflation, and Tighter Budgets - With potential tariff reintroductions under Trump, consumer prices could spike, squeezing household budgets. That means we might see a shift in marketing spend, especially for industries hit hardest by rising costs. Expect more caution in ad budgets, particularly in sectors like retail, travel, and manufacturing.

• Deregulation: A Double-Edged Sword - On the flip side, Trump’s deregulation efforts could provide brands more creative freedom and lower compliance costs, giving rise to more audacious ad campaigns. You'll still want to stay on your toes and remember to keep an eye on shifting public sentiment.

If I’ve learned anything from past presidencies, I know marketing will find a way to make it work—even if it means slapping a flag on a bottle of ketchup and calling it a day.

The News - Trump's return signals change for sustainability, with potential shifts in climate policies. As COP29 kicks off in Baku, Biden's team is scrambling to finalize regulations, while the U.S. energy landscape faces uncertainty with LNG and hydrogen exports. Meanwhile, the EU is advancing its Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, and businesses are feeling the pressure to act more responsibly.

Bianca's Take - With Trump's return to office, the environmental battleground is heating up (get it?) Climate change doesn't care about partisan politics or shifting administrations; it is the ultimate equalizer. On the bright side, climate startups like Electric Hydrogen are contemplating a shift to Europe due to fears of lax carbon accounting and reduced support for green initiatives in the U.S. Yes! Come to Europe! We appreciate the moral value of "saving the planet" more than a growth at all costs mentality.

The News - With Trump's return, the tech landscape is poised for disruption. The AI safety guidelines established under Biden may be rolled back, while tariffs and export controls impact U.S.-China relations. TikTok's fate also hangs in the balance, with Trump potentially reinstating the TikTok ban, and Canada canceling TikTok altogether. Meanwhile, OpenAI is in talks to transition to a for-profit model. Netflix is turning to generative AI for its gaming and entertainment. Perplexity is offering to replace striking NYT staff.

Bianca's Take - Trying to decipher tech feels a bit like walking through a maze where the walls keep shifting. The only thing we know for sure is that money talks and change is constant. OpenAI's move towards a for-profit model, and Anthropic's "intelligence" price increase, raise questions about access and equity—will advanced technologies become tools for widespread benefit or just another means to widen the gap between corporations and consumers? These are questions addressed at length by in this post.

While platforms may change and technologies evolve, the fundamental desire for authentic connection remains. Embracing innovation shouldn't mean abandoning the principles of transparency, respect, and genuine engagement. Instead, it should challenge us to integrate these values more deeply into our strategies.

You can’t innovate away humanity.

HUMANE TECH

• Meta reveals Instagram now surpasses Facebook in active EU users — seems Europeans prefer scrolling through filtered selfies over reading long status updates.

• ChatGPT redirected 2 million users to official news outlets for election info — proving that even AI knows when to let the professionals handle politics.

• Google tests real-time conversational voice search — aiming to make your search bar more of a chatty friend than a silent know-it-all.

• OpenAI loses another lead safety researcher, Lilian Weng — looks like the guardians of AI ethics are checking out; hope the robots behave themselves.

• Robot artist Ai-Da's painting sells for over $1 million — the starving artist trope only applies to humans, apparently.

• Intel brings back free office coffee to boost employee morale — did AI make this decision?

• OpenAI wins a legal battle as judge dismisses news websites' copyright case — proving that AI knows its fair use rights, or at least has good lawyers.

Have I missed any news? Let me know.

Don’t forget to share with others who you think might love (or hate) this roundup.

Share

― Blair Warren, The One Sentence Persuasion

I had this quote pinned to my office walls for 5 years. I saw it every time I sat at my desk.

Few political figures have demonstrated a more profound understanding of marketing principles than Donald Trump. Love him or loathe him, his recent electoral victory over Kamala Harris—despite her spending DOUBLE the amount on advertising—speaks volumes about his seemingly uncanny ability to connect with voters.

But what is it about Trump's approach that resonated so deeply with 70 million voters?

I may not be a political guru, but as a marketer, one thing is crystal clear: this election wasn't about policies—it was all about personality.

The Starving Crowd

In marketing, we often say that standing in front of a starving crowd is more important than the quality of your offer, or your persuasion skills.

When you're holding the only loaf of bread in sight in front of a starving audience, you don't need to convince them of its quality; you simply need to show it exists. Trump gets this intuitively. He tapped into the deep-seated desires and fears of his audience—their "hunger"—and offered straightforward solutions that promised immediate satisfaction.

Trump has made 41 distinct promises for his first day in office, including mass deportations and banning transgender women from sports.

He didn't just identify his audience; he zeroed in on their most pressing issues and offered simple solutions—41 times over.

While Harris's campaign was a buffet of well-prepared policies and nuanced discussions, Trump served a single dish that fed the masses' most pressing appetites. He didn't complicate his message with side courses; he zeroed in on what his base craved most.

This brings me to the importance of focusing on the...

ONE THING

Not two things, not three, not one and a half—just **ONE**.

Marketing 101 teaches us that clarity is king. Sell one thing, and sell it well. Most people are single-issue "buyers," and in politics, voters often cling to the one issue that matters most to them.

Trump's laser-focused messaging on topics like immigration, gun ownership, economic nationalism, and taxes allowed his supporters to overlook other controversies. He presented a singular vision that was easy to grasp and hard to ignore. Think "Build the wall."

In contrast, Harris's platform, while comprehensive, may have diluted her core messages, making it harder for any single point to resonate powerfully with any one group.

And the reason people are laser-focused on the "one thing" is because, at the end of the day, what separates us is a...

Difference in Fears Rather than a Difference in Ideals

Though I'm not American, I'm married to one. For me, the most critical issue is same-sex marriage. A 1% change in taxes means nothing if my marriage is annulled—a very real fear I now carry with me.

Similarly, if someone genuinely believes there's an imminent threat coming their way, the Second Amendment becomes their most important issue.

You can find definitive examples for any issue.

And what these issues often have in common is their grounding in fear. Fear demands attention. Fear is easily weaponized. And most importantly, fear polarizes.

Polarization isn't just a side effect of Trump's strategy; it's a deliberate tool. In both digital and real-life interactions, nothing sparks engagement like a divisive topic.

Anyone who's ever posted a video on social media knows the first three seconds are crucial. They determine whether the viewer sticks around or scrolls on. The best scroll-stopper is a strong hook. Trump's hook is fear.

His willingness to court controversy keeps him at the center of conversations, dominating headlines and social media feeds alike.

He confirms his supporters' suspicions and helps them "throw rocks at their enemies." This not only solidifies his base but also forces his opponents to react on his terms, keeping him perpetually in the spotlight.

He then justifies the struggles of his supporters by attributing them to external enemies—be it globalization, the media, or political elites. This externalization of blame absolves individuals of personal shortcomings, creating a bond between the leader and the led.

Trump is not only a master marketer, but it also helps that technology favors the polarizers.

The Echo Chamber of AI and Social Media

Your online world is just that—your world. It's not the world, but the algorithm's best guess at what you want your world to be. Apart from the occasional post designed to ruffle your feathers and boost engagement, you're mostly surrounded by content that reinforces your existing beliefs.

Algorithms are the silent architects of our online experiences.

By analyzing our past behaviors, these algorithms tailor content to our preferences. While this can enhance the user experience, it also creates echo chambers where we're primarily exposed to information that validates our viewpoints.

For example, I don't know a single person in my social circle who supports Trump. Not one. Partly because I'm not a U.S. citizen, and partly because these aren't the people I naturally gravitate toward. Consequently, my online experience mirrors my offline reality.

But what that also means (aside from living a more peaceful life) is that I'm rarely confronted with opinions different from my own. I don't understand why someone would keep a gun in their house when they have a toddler; that kind of fear is foreign to me. My fears are different from theirs. Likewise, they will likely not understand my own fear of having my marriage annulled.

Unless we find a way to bridge these divides, the polarization will only intensify. Maybe it's time we step out of our algorithm-induced bubbles and start conversations with those who see the world differently. We might discover that, beneath the surface, our fears and desires aren't so different after all—we all seek safety, acceptance, and a promising future for ourselves and our loved ones.

And hey, if nothing else, perhaps the next Democrat candidate could brush up on their marketing skills.

The News - Consumers are increasingly eco-conscious, but there's growing skepticism due to rampant greenwashing. The clash between consumer and corporate green values is intensifying. Reports indicate a rise in greenwashing cases, undermining trust. Yet, there's significant untapped demand for genuine sustainable solutions (there's a free 1-hour webinar curated by MIT in there for you.)

Bianca's Take - It's always telling when brands think that slapping a green leaf on their packaging will distract us from the smog billowing from their factories. By engaging in greenwashing, companies miss the chance to build meaningful connections with their audience, to truly stand out, and to be remembered for authentic efforts. Without this genuine connection, customers remain casual buyers at best, and casual buyers aren't enough to sustain a business in the long run.

Greenwashing undermines the very foundation needed to create loyal advocates, the kind of customers who not only keep coming back but also spread the word on your behalf. Without them, brands are left trying to squeeze revenue from a shrinking pool of indifferent consumers, which isn't sustainable. Unless, of course, you have endless funds for awareness campaigns. But even then, without real engagement and trust, it's a costly endeavor with diminishing returns.

The News - There's a growing debate on whether businesses should engage with societal issues. Thought leaders like Seth Godin advocate for ethical marketing that delivers real value rather than "chasing fleeting attention." Recognitions like the Changemakers’ Awards highlight companies making positive societal impacts, emphasizing the importance of human rights compliance.

Bianca's Take - Figuring out where to stand on societal issues is like juggling flaming torches while riding a unicycle on a tightrope - one misstep and you risk alienating customers or appearing disingenuous. This is especially true if your brand isn't inherently values-based.

But then you look at studies like the Meaningful Brands Report, and the message is clear: consumers are not just hoping for change; they're expecting it. 73% want brands to show more humanity and generosity during tough times and 71% want companies to do more for the good of society and the future of our planet. Many brands do seem to have gotten the message and do things like: increase awareness around forced labor in cocoa supply chains (like Tony's Chocolonely,) or donate a percentage of their sales to environmental groups (like Patagonia.)

The world has changed, and the days of brands sitting on the sidelines are fading fast. Consumers are more informed, more connected, and frankly, more demanding. Gen Z is coming, haven't you heard? They don't just want to buy a product; they want to buy into a story, a mission, a set of values that resonates with their own.

So, what's a brand to do if it's not built on a foundation of activism? Start small but start somewhere. Authenticity is key. You don't have to overhaul your entire business model overnight or adopt causes that don't align with your brand identity. Instead, focus on areas where you can make a genuine impact.

Just look at Catan (a board game about trading sheep and building roads) now introducing the cost of using fossil fuel in their board game. It's both unexpected and brilliant. By integrating environmental concerns into their gameplay, they're raising awareness without coming off as preachy. It's a playful nudge that gets people thinking, what's not to love?

Yes, it's a tightrope walk, but in a marketplace crowded with options, standing for something meaningful is the smartest thing to do.

The News - Despite economic uncertainties, tech giants like Meta, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are experiencing significant growth in ad revenues. This surge indicates that businesses are ramping up ad spending, possibly to capture a distracted audience or regain lost ground in consumer engagement.

Bianca's Take - Amidst global economic uncertainties, social unrest, environmental crises, and a pandemic hangover, these tech behemoths are celebrating impressive financial performances. How come?

1. Through a hefty investment in AI and technology. AI integration allows for more targeted advertising, which is music to advertisers' ears.

2. More competition > more content > more time spent online > more fractured attention > more bids at capturing that attention > more money spent.

Does increasing ad spend actually translate into meaningful connections with consumers? Does it lead to sales? Or are we just adding to the digital noise that many are trying to tune out? Left to be seen…

It's worth noting that these companies have tightened their grip on the digital ad market, collectively accounting for over 51% of the U.S. digital advertising market in 2023, a dramatic leap from 23% the previous year. The concentration of ad revenue among a few giants could stifle competition and innovation, leaving advertisers with fewer choices and potentially higher costs in the long run.

Humane Tech News Dump:

• OpenAI's ChatGPT introduces a new search feature — looks like ChatGPT just leveled up from chatbot to know-it-all.

• Microsoft accuses Google of 'shadow campaigns', alleging secret funding of biased studies to discredit Microsoft — it's giving evil corp war games vibes.

• Open-source AI must disclose data used for training, says OSI, pushing for transparency in AI development — even robots need to come clean about their homework sources.

• Medium faces a surge in AI-generated content, with estimates suggesting over 47% of posts are AI-written — half the articles sound robotic, it's not just you.

• Universal Music partners with an AI company to build an 'ethical' music generator — auto-tune, meet auto-compose.

• Linus Torvalds slams AI as '90% marketing and 10% reality', cutting through the hype surrounding artificial intelligence — trust the guy who created Linux to deflate the AI bubble.

• 25% of Google's new code is AI-generated, indicating a shift in software development practices — programmers beware, the machines are coming for your keyboards.

• Russia fines Google $20.5 decillion for blocking YouTube channels, a fine so astronomical it's practically science fiction — when your penalty has more zeros than the national debt, you know it's symbolic.

• LinkedIn launches its first AI agent to take on the role of job recruiter — because nothing says 'personal touch' like an algorithm reviewing your résumé.

• Apple urged TikTok to increase its age recommendations, as redacted documents reveal — when evil meets ignorance.

• Redditors are gaming Google's AI to keep tourists out of good restaurants, manipulating algorithms to protect local gems — the digital edition of 'get off my lawn.'

• Mark Zuckerberg pledges to fill Facebook with even more AI content, believing AI consumption is the future — the beginning of "Feeling Special As A Service." Get ready for your feed to feel even less human… if that's possible.

• Brazil sues Meta and TikTok for over $500 million for not protecting minors, highlighting global concerns about online safety — no real change is going to come out of this, but at least someone's making money.

• Facebook took more than $1 million for ads sowing election lies, raising questions about its commitment to combating misinformation — who needs truth when falsehoods are so profitable?

You know my take, what’s yours?

Should brands leave society to sociologists or get involved?
Do you think we should give them more credit for greenwashing?
I'd love to hear your thoughts!

If you enjoyed this deep dive in humane marketing, subscribe to be notified of the next one. And if you know anyone who’ll find this article useful, make sure to share it with them, the algorithm really likes it when you do that.

Subscribe now

Bianca's Take - On the surface, it's a bold move to promote affordability and accessibility, but I have my reservations. Dupes have been around for many years in the beauty community, and this creator explains the phenomenon well. Cheaper "dupe" products may not meet the same quality or safety standards as the originals, and an influx of similar products will eventually lead to market saturation and further push for more. It's a bit ironic when a company publishes a comprehensive Impact Report championing sustainability while simultaneously launching a campaign that could will lead to increased production and consumption. I wish they would have also encouraged responsible consumer behavior and not just bragged about their lip oils being five times cheaper than the competition.

The News - Last week, the FTC finalized its "Click to Cancel" rule, requiring companies to make canceling subscriptions easier. Last week, the cable industry, home security companies, and advertisers sued to stop it.

Bianca's Take - Color me shocked! It's both amusing and telling to see these industry heavyweights rallying against a rule that promotes fairness and transparency. The FTC's "Click to Cancel" rule is straightforward: the cancellation method must be "at least as easy to use" as the sign-up process.

It reminds me of gym memberships that require you to show up in person to cancel or magazine subscriptions that insist on a mailed letter. These tactics are clearly designed to wear you down, but in the process, they only manage to annoy customers and tarnish their reputation.

Instead of investing time and money into lawsuits to keep these barriers, perhaps these companies should focus on enhancing their offerings. If your business model depends on making it hard for customers to leave, maybe it's time for a new business model. Let's hope the FTC sticks to its guns.

The News - A lawsuit has been filed against Character.AI by the mother of a 14-year-old boy who tragically took his own life. The lawsuit alleges that the chatbot (Dany) manipulated the child and that Character.AI's products are designed to be addictive without proper safety measures.

Bianca's Take - I've seen this movie before, and I didn't like the ending. This heartbreaking case is a stark reminder of the profound impact technology can have on our lives, especially on the young and vulnerable. We're at a significant crossroads in humanity, and I can't help but draw a parallel between social media and AI—they both have the power to transform human interaction, for better or worse.

Suicides among girls aged 10-14 increased by 151% from 2001 to 2017, coinciding with a rise in social media usage. AI companionship apps are becoming increasingly popular, but without proper safeguards, we risk repeating the same mistakes we've seen with social media. Companies must prioritize ethical considerations and user safety from the outset.

The News - Australia is cracking down on greenwashing, the FTC took a firm stand against fake online reviews, the Philippines established a Standards Coalition to promote responsible alcohol marketing, and Canadian cities are restricting fossil fuel ads.

Bianca's Take - Are we witnessing a global awakening in marketing ethics??!! I'd say yes, and it's about time. It's refreshing to see regulators and industries stepping up to the plate. Consumers are smarter, regulations are tightening, and the old tricks just won't cut it anymore. Case in point—Havas Media’s first Shell campaign is under fire, receiving more than 70 complaints for greenwashing.

The News - There's been a wave of industry events popping up globally trying to raise DEI and sustainability awareness in business and marketing. The first edition of Blackweek took place last week, as did the 2nd Venice Sustainable Fashion Forum and the Impact Awards by Givsly.

Bianca's Take - I remember when I was swiftly met with an eye-roll at the mere mention of ethics in marketing—not that long ago, might I add. What's exciting about this trend is the ripple effect it creates. Each event not only raises awareness but also inspires others to take action. They provide platforms for thought leaders, innovators, and changemakers to collaborate and share best practices. The cross-pollination of ideas accelerates progress in ways that isolated efforts simply can't.

Honorable Mentions

• TikTok is starting to help creators manufacture their own products—yes, it empowers creators. Yes, it creates more mediocre stuff the world does not need.

• Cigarette sales are rising in China, defying the global trend—I suppose this tells me everything I need to know about marketing regulations in China.

• This ethical sourcing campaign for Fairtrade Farmers—nicely done.

• This post on Influencer Marketing Sustainability and Ethics—Influencers hold significant sway over consumer behavior; we need accountability.

Humane Tech News

• Google Photos will now label AI-edited images—you just have to click 10 times to see the label; ridiculous lip service.

• LinkedIn fined $335 million in the EU for tracking ads privacy breaches—under GDPR rules, the EU found that LinkedIn's justifications for ad tracking were invalid.

• Apple is ‘concerned’ about AI turning real photos into ‘fantasy’—Apple Intelligence doesn’t allow users to add AI-generated manipulations to images like competing services do (at least for now).

• Apple’s new hearing aid technology is being billed in early reviews as a potential game-changer for accessibility. +1 for accessibility.

• Google’s DeepMind is building an AI to keep us from hating each other—you know we're screwed when robots are better at being human than humans are.

• Redditors are trying to poison Google’s AI to keep tourists out of the good restaurants—not mad at it.

• Norway plans to increase the minimum age for social media use from 13 to 15—yes.

• You know what the world needs? Another social media app, according to Daze—please don't.

Right off the bat, he inquired about my "values," his tone tinged with a cautious skepticism. It was as if he was trying to determine whether I'd gone off the deep end - perhaps started weaving my own clothes from hemp or leading a meditation retreat in the mountains.

In my marketing world I'm expected to list acronyms and present graphs that go up and to the right, discussing ethics and values can feel almost subversive.

He wanted assurance that I could still deliver results, and that my focus on humane marketing wouldn't impede the ultimate goal: making money.

I understood his concern. After all, most thought leaders in marketing emphasize metrics, conversion rates, and the latest growth hacks, not the human element. Slow growth is a hard sell even to the most liberal CEO.

I'll admit it caught me off guard. Sometimes I forget people actually read what I write and it's not just my own private intellectual escapism.

When I talk about "humane marketing," people often assume I'm referring to NGOs, B Corps, or organizations whose actual duty is to "care."

When I talk about "humane marketing," people often assume I've become detached from the competitive realities of the marketplace, as if acknowledging the human element is a liability rather than an asset.

But humane marketing isn't about charity, being exclusive, or going soft. And it also isn't about sacrificing profitability or diminishing the competitive edge.

It's about acknowledging the human being on the other side of the transaction. It understands that no one wakes up in the morning excited to be sold to (except maybe telemarketers) and certainly, no one enjoys the regret that comes with buyer's remorse.

You want to make more money in your business. Fantastic! Who doesn't? You, me, especially NGOs. But a humane marketer doesn't immediately jump to scaling ads (though that's a valid approach). Instead, they understand the customer journey in its entirety and might start by examining customer service.

Why focus on customer service? Because everyone notices when it's bad, and more often than not, poor customer service stems from systemic issues rather than someone's lousy attitude. It's easily fixable and, unfortunately, just as easily ignored.

A humane marketer might take a step back and map out the entire user flow, examining every touchpoint from the first impression to the last, and at each stage they might ask themselves:

"How do I want my customer to feel when they first see our brand?" Perhaps intrigued and welcomed.

"What about when they're considering a purchase?" Confident and reassured.

"And after they've made a purchase?" Valued and supported.

They might want to reverse-engineer it and identify exactly what needs to happen at each stage to elicit those feelings.

1. First Impression:
- Website Landing Page: Ensure it's user-friendly, visually engaging, and tells your authentic story.
- Social Media Presence: Share content that reflects your values and resonates with your audience.

2. During Purchase:
- Clear Product Information: Provide detailed descriptions and transparent pricing.
- Customer Support Availability: Offer real-time assistance through chat or a responsive helpdesk.

3. Post-Purchase:
- Personalized Follow-ups: Send a thank-you email that expresses genuine appreciation.
- Easy Return Policies: Make returns hassle-free to instill confidence.

Naturally, these examples are general and your situation is unique. But by focusing on these human elements, you create an experience that leads towards trust and loyalty. You're not just closing a sale; you're opening a relationship.

My potential future client asked me "What is your strongest skill in marketing?" And without missing a beat I said "Having a bird’s eye view over the whole customer flow." And this goes much further beyond building a sales funnel.

The noise in marketing today is deafening: content overload, calls to action, endless features and benefits, upsells, cross-sells, promotions, testimonials, the list goes on. And while these strategies do have their place, they often overlook what truly matters - resonating with the customer's needs and values, loyalty.

A humane marketer recognizes that loyalty isn't built through flashy ads or aggressive sales pitches. But in the small, often overlooked moments, the nuances that collectively shape a customer's experience.

Profitability is a function of loyalty.

So many studies have already been done on this and I don't want to overwhelm you with numbers, but a typical company receives more than half of its business from existing customers. Imagine how much higher that number could be if you focused on progressing your customers from casuals to cheerleaders. In some categories, a 5% increase in loyal customers can produce a 95% increase in profitability (see Fred Reichheld, "The Loyalty Effect")

What do I mean when I say humane marketing?

Traditional marketing often relies on short-term gratification strategies that aim to manipulate customer behavior, and while these strategies do have their place in the funnel and can yield immediate results, it doesn't build the foundation for a long-term business. It must be followed up by something else, something more.

Humane marketing sees the human behind the marketing. It aims to rise above the noise created by traditional marketing.

Once your point of view shifts, just like mine has, it becomes hard to tolerate the old way of thinking.

You start to see that true engagement doesn't come from shouting louder but from resonating more deeply. And that's more true today than it has ever been.

Humane marketing identifies the intersection between what the organization believes and what the customer believes.

When you focus on shared values and genuine connections, you move beyond transactional relationships to build a community of advocates who resonate with your purpose.

You do this by providing value beyond the product or service. This could mean exceptional customer service, educational content, or community involvement.

It could mean engaging with customers in a meaningful dialogue. Encouraging feedback, listening to their concerns, and making them feel heard and valued.

And yes, for me, humane marketing also means having a reverence for nature and people. For me, it's important to acknowledge that our actions have consequences beyond the bottom line.

It means you'll never see me selling products that are purely built on awareness campaigns—products that are indistinguishable from the competition, products that exist in a vacuum, disconnected from any greater purpose or value. You will not see me selling drop-shipped items from overseas factories, or promoting fast-fashion brands that churn out low-quality clothing at the expense of exploited labor. I also avoid marketing disposable plastics or single-use items. Similarly, you won't find me endorsing products with built-in obsolescence, designed to fail so that consumers are forced to buy replacements.

For me, every product or service I choose to market must resonate with a deeper purpose. It's not enough for a product to simply exist or chase the latest trend. It needs to contribute positively to the lives of customers and, ideally, to society as a whole. Products mass-produced without consideration for their social and environmental impact don't align with the principles of humane marketing, and by extension, my principles.

I LOVE marketing. To me, selling is fundamentally human.

I get a thrill out of helping people achieve their dreams through the tales I tell. And yes, that sometimes means putting out ads to find you, it means using a bit of psychological nudging, a friendly push in the right direction, it means asking for your money.

There are so many people out there building products and services that actually matter and make a real difference. They often struggle to get noticed in the same sea of noise we helped create. If that's you, please keep doing what you're doing, we need more people like you.

So yes, possible future client, if I believe in your product, I'll sell crap out of it. My humane marketing values are not a bug, they're a feature.

I’ve added an extra section dedicated to Humane Tech. If you enjoy this roundup, please share it and subscribe to stay connected.

Let's dive in!

The News - The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has introduced a new 'click to cancel' rule designed to make breaking up with subscriptions as easy as starting them. Whether you signed up online, over the phone, or in person, businesses are now required to offer a cancellation process that's just as straightforward.

Bianca's Take - Those hard-to-cancel memberships aren't just annoying; they're bad for business. You're not building loyalty by trapping customers—you're breeding resentment. Just think of Adobe, their notoriously complicated cancellation process has earned them widespread frustration and a tarnished reputation. Creating goodwill with your audience starts with respecting their choices. If you make it easy for people to leave, they might just choose to stay (or at least, not badmouth you on social media.) Transparency and ease aren't just ethical; they're smart marketing.

The News - Brands are turning pink for Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Unilever is launching limited-edition pink packaging as part of Asda's Tickled Pink campaign supporting breast cancer charities. Toufayan Bakeries is also joining in, featuring pink packaging on select products with a portion of sales going to breast cancer research. Beauty brands are also releasing special products where proceeds contribute to the cause.

Bianca's Take - While I strongly believe in raising awareness, these campaigns often feel like corporations playing dress-up, much like the rainbow logos that appear every Pride Month. Slapping pink on packaging is easy; making a real difference takes more. I can only hope these brands are putting their money where their mouth is, following up with substantial donations to research and support. I really like what Lush does with their Charity Pot Collection, let capitalism do its job and allow people to vote with their money.

The News - As we reach the end of the travel season, a spotlight is shining on the sustainability of tourism. Climate-focused tours are becoming more popular, with operators offering trips that highlight the impacts of climate change, like glacier walks in Iceland that serve as "living classrooms" for climate education. Other tours direct tourists to local businesses to reduce overtourism with something called the Meaningful Travel Map. However, experts argue that overtourism isn't just about the number of tourists but also about poor local management. A study came out last week and argued that young adults are hesitant to choose green hotels due to perceived risks and lack of familiarity.

Bianca's Take - The rise in climate-focused tours is encouraging. After all, what better way to educate people about climate change than by immersing them in environments where its effects are most palpable? Having said that, I just want to point out that visiting fragile ecosystems to learn about their fragility ironically contributes to the problem. The study showing young adults' reluctance to stay in green hotels is telling. Even when sustainable options are on the table, they're not always embraced. This highlights a gap between awareness and action.

Yes, challenges remain—managing tourist flows and shifting perceptions isn't easy. But every effort counts. I organize free hikes in Vietnam to clear plastic from the trails, and it's incredibly fulfilling. Seeing the immediate impact of collective action reminds me that positive change is possible when we all chip in.

So here's a thought: if you're a marketer with some time on your hands, why not lend your expertise to these green hotels and sustainable travel initiatives? They clearly need help amplifying their message. After all, effective marketing isn't just about selling—it's about inspiring meaningful change. And when what you're selling inspires change, that's the best kind of marketing there is.

Honorable Mentions:

• The Indian government has put out new guidelines to prohibit companies from making misleading environmental claims - advertisers are now required to substantiate claims like ‘Pure’ and ‘Organic’ with credible evidence.

• The upcoming Inclusive Wedding Summit on January 22, 2025, aims to transform the wedding industry by empowering businesses to embrace inclusivity in their marketing strategies - now if only they could make the cake prices as inclusive.

• Sustainable Brands 2024 San Diego Conference took place this past week, this is a good summary, this article also addresses the conference- hoping to make it next year.

• Unilever has significantly ramped up its R&D efforts to reduce plastic use, they want to cut 40% of their own plastic use by 2028 - looks like they finally realized turtles don't need shampoo bottles.

• Global electric vehicle sales are hitting records, but in the U.S., a significant gender gap shows women are less likely to buy EVs - marketers, how can we bridge this gender gap?

We have lived in the future for 20 years, argued The Verge.

Google went public in 2004. Facebook, Gmail, Firefox and Digg launched in 2004. The word “podcast” was coined from a portmanteau of “iPod” and World of Warcraft paved the way for modern massively multiplayer online games in 2004.

Janet Jackson's Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction that year didn't go viral due to the absence of online video platforms - a gap that inspired three friends to create YouTube.

2004 - the year that kickstarted our future.

Humane Tech:

• Google signed a deal to power its AI data centers with small nuclear reactors - meeting high energy demands while reducing carbon emissions.

• Penguin Random House updated its copyright rules to protect authors from AI scraping - stopping the ocean with a bath towel is better than not trying at all, I guess.

• FCC says all smartphones must be hearing aid-compatible - great step to make technology more accessible.

• Bluesky gained half a million new users in one day after X changed its blocking functionality - to block or not to block, that was the question.

Have I missed anything? Any humane marketing and/or tech news you’d like to add for last week?

Whether you're a marketer like me or someone aspiring to make a meaningful impact in the industry or, you know... life (if you're into that sort of thing,) this series is your go-to source for staying informed and inspired.

Together, we'll explore the latest trends, celebrate victories, and question the status quo, all with the aim of fostering a more responsible approach to marketing.

Let's dive in and make sure to subscribe to be reminded of next week’s edition.

The News - These past few weeks I've noticed a curious trend: corporations attempting to grow a conscience. Pizza Hut cut dairy emissions by 10% in just over a year by sourcing 60% of its U.S. milk from farms practicing sustainability. Home Depot has been going through a big plastic packaging purge, Sainsbury is swapping out traditional plastic trays for vacuum-sealed alternatives, saving 26 tons of plastic annually. Kind Snacks is dabbling in regenerative agriculture with one of the world's thirstiest crops—the almond. And Uber is partnering up to drive sustainability goals.

Bianca's Take - When big brands start hugging trees, you know something's up. By tapping into the growing consumer demand for environmentally conscious brands, they’re not just reducing their carbon footprint; they’re also future-proofing their brand in a competitive market. The real test will be keeping this momentum and ensuring that these sustainability efforts don’t just become another feel-good marketing play but deliver real, long-term impact. With the global market for sustainable plastic packaging projected to hit $122 billion by 2029, it's clear that doing good is good for business. Don't believe me? Ask the Financial Times.

Whenever I talk about sustainability, someone will inevitably bring up Khloe Kardashian and how she flew her private jet to cross the street, as if to say "My impact is nothing compared to that of others." Well, it would seem that these brands did get the memo. Remember we all have a part to play and 10% is better than no%.

The news - Fashion Month wrapped up, and surprisingly, sustainability stole some of the spotlight. Even Vogue is talking about the pitfalls of fast fashion. Fashion Week’s Spring-Summer 2025 shows highlighted several sustainability moments, including eBay’s focus on pre-loved fashion, an 8-foot clothing zombie raising awareness about textile waste, and Diesel’s catwalk featuring 15 tones of denim scraps to promote circularity.

Bianca's Take - Consumers are waking up, more socially conscious, and tuned into what brands represent. It's heartening to see major fashion players raising awareness. However, fast fashion giants like Shein and Temu are very much still thriving on reactive pricing models, challenging the high street establishment. The pressure to follow suit is intense. At its core, the fashion industry is built on consumption by desperately trying to make their own clothes popular. Can true sustainability ever coexist with a system that thrives on endless demand and rapid turnover? Patagonia seems to think so. We'll see.

The News - Documentary filmmaker Lauren Greenfield subjected herself to 1,200 hours of footage and 2,000 hours of social media screen recordings. Why would anyone put themselves through such torture? To make a point, of course. Her docuseries, Social Studies, delves into the impact of social media on Los Angeles high school students, uncovering "shocking" insights into screen addiction, mental health, body image, and teen behavior.

Bianca's Take - Is social media's dark side really "news"? It's like inhaling secondhand smoke, everyone knows it’s toxic, but we’re all still standing around pretending it’s just air. At least with cigarettes, we've slapped a warning label on the pack. Greenfield wants to screen the doc in San Francisco and invite tech companies to witness the havoc they're wreaking on America's teens. How quaint to think they don't already know. On the bright side, the issue is gaining traction. Australia has already taken bold steps to ban social media for kids.

The News - GreenBlue, the nonprofit behind the How2Recycle label in the U.S., has rolled out How2Recycle Plus. This enhanced label features a dynamic QR code, offering consumers real-time info on where to recycle the container.

Bianca's Take - Tech to the rescue, bridging the gap between good intentions and action. It's exactly what we need to clear up the confusion about what's recyclable because not everything with a triangle is. While this dynamic QR code approach could significantly reduce landfill waste, it assumes people will actually use it (correctly.) Fingers crossed.

The News - GlobeScan's research highlighted a significant trust gap for businesses, showing that global companies are rated lower than other institutions when it comes to being trusted to "operate in the best interest of society."

Bianca's Take - The report is a wake-up call for companies to embrace greater transparency and accountability. It's a chance for brands to stop giving lip service and show genuine leadership in solving real-world problems.

The News - The Democratic National Committee has launched a historic six-figure ad campaign in LGBTQ publications across key battleground states, aiming to mobilize LGBTQ voters ahead of the 2024 election.

Bianca's Take - I've discussed Kamala's ad spend before. As a lesbian, I usually roll my eyes at brands' over-the-top Pride Month antics. But Kamala has a solid track record on LGBTQ rights—she officiated the first same-sex marriage in California 11 years ago. This feels less like virtue signaling and more like a necessary reminder and awareness campaign. I can appreciate that.

Memorable mentions

• Google TV is blurring the lines between ads and content recommendations. The comment section alone is worth the visit.

• A guy wrote poems to his favorite brands and got free stuff in return—a fun little outreach that gave brands some free advertising. Though, after reading the poems, I'm convinced he used AI.

• This heartwarming Parkrun ad campaign mimicking a doctor's prescription pad. Back when I lived in London, I was a Parkrun regular. Can confirm: wholesome indeed.

In a world where everyone's vying for a nanosecond of attention, brevity should be your #1 marketing strategy for going viral.

Why Shorter Posts Will Make You the Next Big Thing:

• Attention Economics 101: People's attention spans are shorter than a goldfish on caffeine. Give them less to chew, and they'll swallow it whole.

• Shareability Factor: A concise message is like a catchy chorus—you can't help but repeat it.

• Mystery Sells: Leave them wanting more, and they'll come back begging.

The Foolproof, Guaranteed, One-Size-Fits-All Technique:

Ready for the secret that'll catapult you into influencer stardom before you finish your latte?

Here it is: Say less.

That's right. Trim the fat, skip the fluff, and get straight to the point—or better yet, don't even finish the point.

I’ve been told my posts are too “heady” and grim. Apparently, I take too long to get to the point and ain’t nobody got’ time for context. Learn from my mistake!

So moving forward, instead of diving deep into ethical paradigms and consumer psychology, I’ll hit you with a zinger and promptly bail.

Example:

"Want to revolutionize your marketing strategy and save the planet? It's easier than you think. All you need to do is—"

Boom. End of post. Mic drop. Watch the comments flood in:

• "Wait, what do I need to do?"

• "Did anyone else not get the rest of this?"

• "You can't just leave us hanging!"

Why This Works:

• Engagement Skyrockets: Curiosity might have killed the cat, but it fuels the algorithm.

• You're a Mystery Wrapped in an Enigma: And people love unwrapping enigmas.

• Effortless Content Creation: Half the words, double the impact. Do the math.

Ready to Craft Your Perfect Nano-Post? Here's How You Can Do It:

First, identify the most intriguing aspect of your message—the hook that'll reel them in.

Then, frame it in a way that promises value but stops short of delivering the full story.

The key is to build anticipation and leave them hanging right at the climax. Start with a bold statement or a provocative question that addresses a common problem or desire. Just as you're about to reveal the solution, you—

You know what's hard?
Executing said "humane" marketing plan.

This article doesn't just apply to niche organizations that have implemented the BOGO model. It’s for every marketer and leader curious about how purpose can drive profit. If that’s you, keep reading.

I'm currently doing the rounds, visiting family in Europe and, as of this writing, I'm sitting at my aunt's desk in Romania. My aunt is a very interesting woman who's led a very interesting life. She works at a church and has dedicated her life to raising and loving kids coming from very difficult backgrounds.

I have seen my aunt literally pick food off of our dinner table and give it to homeless people knocking at her door. I have no doubt a book will be written about her one day, but until that day comes, let me tell you about her and what you, and TOMS, can learn from her organization.

As we sit around the dinner table—her wrangling five energetic kids to eat, me sitting back with a glass of wine—the conversation inevitably turns to her NGO. It’s something she and her business partner started 10 years ago, and it’s become synonymous with her very existence.

Their organization is based in Bucharest and it provides critical services to vulnerable populations: disabled children, the elderly, and families in dire need of help. They offer free physical therapy for seniors, psychological counseling and behavioral therapy for children and a whole set of social support programs.

What began as an NGO entirely dependent on sponsorships has smartly evolved into a more sustainable model—necessity being the mother of invention when funds started to dry up. They've worked it out in such a way that for every 5 paying clients, they can offer 1 free service to someone in need.

This model not only keeps the lights on but also positions the organization as a positive force in society, allowing them to make an impact while reducing dependence on external funding.

This win-win approach mirrors the logic behind the Buy-One-Give-One (BOGO) model, where businesses sell products and simultaneously support a social cause.

The Buy-One-Give-One Model: Business for a Better World, or a Quick Fix?

The idea behind the BOGO model is simple.

You buy something for yourself, and someone in need gets the same. The customer gets their product, the brand gets a sale, and somewhere around the world, an underprivileged person receives a pair of shoes, glasses, or socks. What's not to love?

Initially popularized by TOMS Shoes, this model has become a preferred strategy for businesses that want to do more than just make money—they want to make a difference. By offering consumers the chance to contribute to a social cause with every purchase, brands found a way to blend commerce with social impact.

Just like my aunt, companies like TOMS, Warby Parker, Bombas, Soapbox, and others have successfully turned consumers into philanthropists with the swipe of a credit card.

But, just like anything else that sounds too good to be true—like diet pills, kitchen gadgets, and cryptocurrency—the BOGO model has its nuances. For all of its good intentions, the model has faced critiques, as well as adaptations.

The Appeal of the BOGO Model

Let’s start with why the BOGO model has been so successful.

First, it’s simple, and in the world of marketing a popular principle rings true "keep it simple stupid." The messaging is straightforward: buy this product, and you’ll help someone in need. No complex jargon or convoluted explanation. It’s direct, it's simple, it's powerful.

Second, consumers love it. At a time when we're all showered with reasons to feel guilty about our consumption habits, BOGO offers a rare chance to indulge and feel good about spending money. I often say that voting with your money is the greatest gift capitalism has given us, and in this case, the BOGO model reminds you that you’re not just shopping—you’re making the world a better place. Research has shown that when a purchase is tied to charitable donations, consumer interest spikes. In fact, some studies suggest consumer interest can increase by as much as 60% when charitable outcomes are part of the deal.

And finally, we have brand differentiation. For better or worse, we now have more options than we could possibly ever need, you can buy shoes from hundreds of brands, and socks from thousands more, but when you attach a social cause to a purchase, you aren’t just selling a product, you’re selling a purpose.

And that’s where the $$$ magic happens.

Brands using the BOGO model are tapping into something much bigger than consumerism or lifestyle. They’re tapping into identity. Words are wind, they come and they go, particularly marketing words. Consumers today crave something more meaningful and the BOGO model gives them an easy way to get meaning with minimal effort.

You’re no longer just the company that sells shoes; you’re the company that helps people. This builds a deeper emotional bond with your customers, turning them from clients to loyalists. And that’s invaluable.

The Nuances: Good Intentions, Complex Realities

But as with any seemingly perfect solution, there’s more beneath the surface. While the BOGO model is great at providing immediate relief—like shoes for a child or glasses for someone with impaired vision—it has also sparked debate about its long-term effectiveness and the waste it produces.

This isn't to say the model is flawed at its core, but rather, that its success depends on how thoughtfully it's applied.

And this is where the conversation with my aunt really kicked off.

A few critiques have emerged over the years:

1. Short-Term Fixes: At its best, the BOGO model provides immediate aid. But one critique, particularly in TOMS' case, is that it offers a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Giving shoes to children is a compassionate move, but without addressing the root causes of poverty—lack of jobs, education, and infrastructure—the donations alone can’t lift a community out of hardship.

2. Market Disruption: In some cases, flooding communities with free products has disrupted local economies. When shoes or other goods are given away for free, it can unintentionally undermine local businesses that rely on selling these very items. In the short term, it’s hard for local vendors to compete with “free.” But when the BOGO model is combined with more comprehensive community support—like job creation or education programs—the impact can be more sustainable. Instead of giving free shoes, TOMS can educate local artisans how to create the shoes themselves.

3. Dependence: One of the risks of the BOGO model is fostering dependency. If communities become reliant on the free goods being distributed, it can stifle efforts toward long-term solutions. The key is finding a balance between providing immediate aid and fostering independence and self-sufficiency.

4. Who foots the bill? Eventually, something has to give. Either the consumer ends up paying a premium for their good deed, or the workers see their wages squeezed to make up the difference. This can result in a model that can unintentionally push the cost onto the wrong people, which is exactly what you don’t want when your brand is built around doing good.

In my aunt's case, her NGO carefully balances paying clients with free services in a way that doesn’t just give or expect handouts but provides long-term, practical support. Because she stretched it out to a "Buy Five Get One" Model, she ensured that all of the operational and staff costs are covered by multiple people and not just a premium-paying client.

She's also intuitively understood the need to foster self-sufficiency rather than creating dependency. Her services are designed to address the deeper needs of vulnerable people in the hopes of them becoming functioning members of society, and not just provide temporary relief. This helps them avoid the trap of a quick fix that some BOGO models face.

Adapting for the Future: Beyond the "One-for-One"

TOMS did eventually get it. After years of operating on a pure BOGO framework, the company shifted its model in 2019, moving away from one-for-one donations to a broader strategy: donating one-third of its profits to community-led initiatives. We love an evolving business model! This evolution reflects a broader understanding that sustainable impact requires more than just handing out shoes.

So, while the BOGO model has been an excellent differentiator for brands in the past, the future of brand differentiation lies in the depth of commitment. Consumers today are not just looking for a feel-good purchase; they’re looking for brands they can trust, causes they believe in, and authenticity that comes through in every aspect of the business.

When my aunt asked for help marketing her NGO, it quickly became apparent that the task wasn’t going to be simple. Romania presents a unique challenge: disposable income is limited, and there’s a cultural skepticism around charitable giving. This adds a layer of complexity to an already tricky model like BOGO, which thrives in markets where consumers have the luxury of spending a little more to feel like they’re doing good.

The perception of "free" also often carries a stigma—if you also give it for free it must lack quality, right? This is another hurdle we’re working to overcome. The challenge isn’t just about communicating value; it’s about redefining people's impression on services attached to an NGO.

We’ve been working on improving her strategy and through this journey, I’ve learned some valuable insights about navigating the complexities of purpose-driven business models like BOGO—lessons that are just as relevant for large brands as they are for small, local organizations.

What Humane Marketers Can Learn from BOGO

Here are a few key takeaways for humane marketers and leaders looking to borrow from, or refine their own BOGO strategies.

1. Don’t Stop at the Product: Selling products tied to donations is a great start, but brands that aim to make a lasting difference need to think beyond the initial gift. Consider how your brand can support long-term, systemic change in the communities you’re trying to help.

2. Embrace Transparency: consumers are savvy. They want to know exactly how their purchase is making a difference, and they’re increasingly skeptical of superficial promises. The brands that win will be those that offer full transparency, sharing the real impact—both the successes and the struggles—of their BOGO programs​.

3. Collaborate for Sustainable Solutions: No company can solve global issues alone. Brands need to partner with NGOs, local organizations, and experts who understand the on-the-ground challenges. This collaboration helps ensure that donations are truly beneficial and that local communities are empowered, not dependent​.

4. Innovate the Model: As consumer expectations evolve, so should the BOGO model. Companies like TOMS and Bombas have shown that the one-for-one framework can be a powerful starting point, but lasting change comes from adaptability and a willingness to go beyond the basics. It’s about finding new ways to give that solve bigger problems​.

As my aunt and I continue to refine her BFGO model, I'll make sure to share my findings with you. It's not a one-size-fits-all solution to the world’s problems, but when done right, it can be an incredibly powerful tool for social change.

As marketers, the challenge is to ensure that we’re not just riding the wave of feel-good marketing, but creating real, thoughtful impact.

Sell with purpose, not excess. Every purchase can fuel change.

Ever finished a book or binged a series so immersive that re-entering the real world feels like you've wandered into someone else's story?

I just wrapped a five-book series and I don't know what's real anymore.

I catch myself scanning the streets for these fictional characters I spent hours reading about. I feel lost, stuck between chapters of reality and fiction, grieving for a world that never existed. It's a very odd feeling, and I'm used to feeling odd.

Apparently, this phenomenon is called having a 'book hangover.'

It's amusing—and slightly disconcerting—how ink on paper can blur the lines between what's real and what's not, especially considering that I knew it was fiction...

But what if I hadn't known?

What if I had gone into this series thinking it was a memoir? Would it have mattered? Would my "hangover" have been any worse? Better?

What happens when the line between what's real and what's artificial isn't just smudged by novels and the movies they're based on, but by the very content we consume daily?

I'm obviously hinting, not too subtly, at social media. The ultimate content machine.

Social media is a new technology that promises to connect us, to give us a voice, and for a while, it felt like it did. We reconnected with old friends, shared photos of our lunches (whether anyone asked for them or not), and signed petitions online.

But then the cracks started to show.

We began to see how social media could erode privacy, turning our personal lives into data points for targeted ads. We began to see mental health issues surging amongst our young. Anxiety, depression, and feelings of isolation grew, ironically, in a medium designed to connect us and give us a voice.

We were so enthralled by the novelty and convenience that we overlooked the long-term implications. By the time we recognized the downsides, social media had already sown itself firmly into the fabric of modern society, and unraveling it proved complicated to say the least.

Supposedly we now know better. We have studies we ignore and documentaries we don't watch because the warnings have become background noise. We tell ourselves we've learned not to trust ads and influencers with their meticulously curated lives. And even though we double-tap their photos and sometimes take their advice, we know—at least intellectually—that it's all a façade.

But every so often, reality cracks the veneer. A beloved influencer caught faking a perfect lifestyle, a celebrity embroiled in scandal, a public figure exposed for dishonesty.

David Grohl and his secret baby, P. Diddy with his sex trafficking scandal, Lance Armstrong, and his performance-enhancing drugs. But these examples are neither here nor there. Who cares about politicians and other very public figures? They are too many degrees far removed to impact most people's lives in any meaningful way.

But what happens when these figures aren't so removed?

What about your favorite podcast host who feels like a close friend during your morning commute?
Your go-to writer whose articles resonate deeply with your own experiences?
The musician whose lyrics seem to narrate your life?
The Instagram followers you've never met in person but occasionally interact with in the comments section?
What about that Tinder match you've been texting—the one who seems to tick every box?
What about that stranger on Reddit you keep having banter with?
What about your child's Roblox friend?
What about your BetterHelp therapist?

What would happen if they did something so egregious it shook you to your core?
Or worse, that they were never real at all?

How would you feel? Confused? Betrayed?

What would it do to your sense of reality when connections you thought were genuine turned out to be fake?

I read more than 5—but less than 20—articles on Google's new NotebookLM Audio Overview feature—it's good, scary good.

If you've been living under a rock, or worse, out there in the real world, NotebookLM can now create a podcast based on your writing. The Audio Overview feature generates a surprisingly lively discussion between two AI hosts based on your text and documents. It sounds very blah until you actually hear the way it sounds.

It almost passes the "Can you tell it's AI" test.

So much so that, had I lacked the context, I probably wouldn't have been able to tell I'm not actually listening to real humans talking. The dialogue is engaging and full of the normal nuances that you’d expect from a natural speech, like laughter and slight mispronunciations.

Scary.

It's not only a cool gimmick (like most of the products build on AI have been) it's actually, dare I say... useful.

Apparently the motivation behind its creation was to "allow users to absorb information in a conversational manner, especially auditory learners." That's a whole lot of words to describe content creation - because everything is content now.

"I see your goosebumps and I raise my own...” I wrote on ‘s post on the topic. “Not sure if it's from a state of awe, or fear. Probably the latter."

"I mostly find this replacement of humanity to be ever more terrible." someone replied to my comment.

"I no longer had confidence that I could tell what was real and what wasn't." A reporter for TechRadar wrote.

Welcome to the looming reality of the "AI Hangover."

Just as a book hangover leaves you disoriented after immersing yourself in a fictional world, an AI hangover is the disillusionment that follows the realization that your digital interactions, may not be with real people.

It's the emotional whiplash from investing time, trust, and even affection into relationships that, upon revelation, feel hollow and deceitful.

This isn't some dystopian future... it's happening right now.

It starts slowly at first.

Under the guise of efficiency "real" influencers use LLMs to punch up their words and arguments, they churn out more "content" at a pace no human could sustain alone, just to stay afloat in a saturated market filled with other influencers doing exactly the same.

And then it gets more aggressive.

They clone their faces, voices... minds—for efficiency, of course. An AI avatar who doesn't need lunch breaks or dental plans. Something that smiles, nods, and delivers hot takes without a hair out of place—or a pulse. And if you think I'm exaggerating please remember we already have all the tools to do it, they just haven't passed the "can you tell it's AI test" yet.

But what will happen when they do pass the test?

Here we are again, 20ish years post social media, standing on the precipice of another technological "revolution," squinting into the bright lights of AI, wondering if this time we'll remember to wear sunglasses.

An average American adult spends around 8 hours a day actively engaging with some form of screen. Gen Z averages around 9 hours a day. And newborns are presented with a screen as early as 4 months old.

Technology is more common than... flowers.

Not enough (but also too many?) studies have been done on the topic of screen-time, internet-time and social-media time. And no matter how you roll the dice, the same advice stands—less is more. Yet contrary to every advice ever, the trend is moving in the opposite direction, every year, we use more technology, for longer, younger.

The internet has made it dangerously easy to form parasocial relationships. I mean, how can you not feel close to a podcast host when you're listening to them for 2, 3, even 4 hours a week? That’s probably more than you talk to your mom.

These artificial connections can spark real emotions.

You wouldn't be able to tell just based on the speed with which we're charging ahead, but AI is still a very young technology. And yet, we’ve already handed it some heavy responsibilities—ones that we don’t even fully understand.

And sure, the rusty gears of academia are ever so slowly turning out papers to discuss its societal impacts, but we’re in such a rush to see what AI can do for us, that we’re not stopping to think about what it could do to us.

What happens when the curtain is pulled back, and the wizard is revealed to be an intricate web of code?

We might start to question everything:

Can we trust our own perceptions? If an AI can mimic empathy, humor, and authenticity, how do we discern the real from the fabricated?

What are the ethical boundaries? Should there be regulations requiring disclosure when we're interacting with AI? Much like we have on cigarette packs?

Who holds responsibility when artificial interactions cause real emotional harm?

How do we protect ourselves and our loved ones? In a world where AI can imitate human connection, digital literacy becomes as essential as knowing how to read.

But perhaps the more profound question is:

What does this mean for the future of human connection?

Will we become so accustomed to artificial interactions that we start to prefer them over the messy, unpredictable nature of real relationships? Or will the inevitable AI Hangover push us to seek out and value genuine human connections even more?

While technology can imitate the form of human connection, it cannot replicate the depth and nuance of a relationship built on mutual understanding and shared experiences.

In the end, it's up to us to ensure that in our pursuit of innovation, we don't lose sight of the irreplaceable value of real human connections.

What about you? What was the last book you read that gave you a hangover?

The internet, predictably, went wild. Memes were made, jokes were cracked, and the poor guy became the poster child for how not to use LinkedIn.

But this isn't about piling on or shaming someone who's probably had enough ridicule to last a lifetime. It's about examining why we've reached a point where even our most intimate moments are fodder for content—and why that's a problem.

Have we taken "leveraging personal experiences" to a whole new (and slightly uncomfortable) level?

I tied the knot myself, 2 months ago. Amidst all the excitement and chaos, the idea of turning such a deeply intimate moment into a LinkedIn post never even crossed my mind.

My wife and I felt the same way for our guests—some of whom were actual influencers. Our celebrant reminded them, "You've flown across the world to be here, today, for this moment; so be here, today, in this moment. We have a photographer who will capture everything, and we'll send you the photos."

It was refreshing to keep things genuine and personal, resisting the urge to transform our wedding into another content opportunity.

Not every experience needs a hashtag.
Not every emotion requires an audience.
Not every experience needs to be shared to be meaningful.

When we blur the lines between personal milestones and professional content, we risk trivializing experiences that are inherently meaningful. We also expose ourselves to a public that may not respond the way we hope. The LinkedIn user who shared his proposal probably thought he was being innovative, instead, he faced ridicule and backlash—imagine having such a negative association attached to, what should have been, one of the happiest memories of your life.

Don't get me wrong—I understand the allure of sharing. In a world of "pics or it didn't happen," the pressure to document and distribute every facet of our lives is real. But when did we start viewing our most intimate experiences as untapped content opportunities?

Why are we so eager to turn our lives into a continuous feed of consumable content for strangers online?

Perhaps it's the dopamine hit from likes and comments. Maybe it's the pressure to build a personal brand, or maybe we've just simply forgotten how to keep things to ourselves.

As marketers, professionals, and human beings, maybe it's time we ask ourselves:

• Are we sharing to connect, or are we broadcasting to collect engagement?

• Are we valuing experiences for their intrinsic worth, or for their content potential?

• Can we allow ourselves to be fully present, without feeling the need to document and dissect every moment?

When we constantly convert personal experiences into content, we risk more than just annoying our network—we potentially harm our mental well-being.

So many studies have already been done on this. Here’s why:

Perpetual Performance Mode: when life becomes content, every moment is a performance. We're not just living; we're curating, editing, and strategizing. This perpetual state of self-scrutiny can lead to increased anxiety and stress. We're always "on," worried about how our experiences will be perceived by others.

Intrusion on Intimacy and Privacy Concerns: sharing intimate moments with an online audience can open you up to safety risks online. There's a delicate balance between sharing and safeguarding our personal lives. Remember that nothing can ever truly be deleted from the internet.

Validation Dependency: relying on likes, shares, and comments to validate our experiences can create a dependency that's hard to break, so much so that fluctuations in online engagement can lead to self-doubt and negatively impact your self-esteem.

Again, I get it and am not immune to it myself—social media platforms constantly encourage us to share, share, share, blurring the boundaries between personal and public life and normalizing this behavior. Yet, we still need to pause and consider the cost.

In a world that's increasingly interconnected yet paradoxically isolated, perhaps the most radical act is to experience life without an audience. To embrace moments for what they are, not what they could become online.

So, what's the solution? Well, I can think of 3:

1. Before hitting "post," consider why you're sharing and who truly benefits from it. Is this adding value to others, or are you seeking validation?

2. Keep certain experiences private to preserve their significance. Not everything needs an audience.

3. Focus on genuine connections rather than accumulating internet points. Meaningful interactions should trump high follower counts.

When I saw that marriage proposal turned into a sales pitch, I couldn't help but feel a mix of amusement and concern. Are we so desperate for content that we're willing to mine our most intimate moments for engagement?

But hey, I've never gone as viral as that guy on LinkedIn, so perhaps I'm doing it all wrong...

P.S. I've decided to share my wedding photo because same-sex marriage is legally performed and recognized in (only) 36 countries. Visibility matters. Not all sharing is harmful; sometimes, it’s exactly what’s needed to drive meaningful change.

Yes, I did get my wife’s permission to post it.

What about you? Have you ever felt the pressure to turn your life into "content?"

Liked this post? You’ll probably like my future posts, subscribe to get notified.

My interest is not to persuade you of any candidate politically but to educate you on political marketing ethics. If you like this topic let me know by pressing the 💖 button - the algorithm really likes it when you do that (as do I)

Remember when politics was about ideas, and debates mattered more than campaign dollars? Yeah, neither do I.

Having said that, Barack Obama’s 2008 grassroots campaign still stands out, particularly for its use of digital media. With a team of 100 managing his online presence (a first), Obama raised more than $750 million from small donors via email and social media (another first.) His campaign efficiently used data analytics, created viral content, and, (in another historic first) Obama announced his 2012 re-election campaign via a YouTube video.

Barack Obama spent $22.25 million on online political ads.

Fast forward to 2016, and attention-seeking-drama-farmer Donald Trump’s relentless use of Twitter became a defining feature of his candidacy and presidency. Trump bypassed traditional media entirely, using X to speak directly to his (shall we say, questionable?) base—often in real-time. Trump’s campaign demonstrated how social media could be used not just for engagement, but for setting the news agenda and controlling the narrative.

Donald Trump's campaign and the subsequent Russian scandal changed the way we do online political advertising forever. If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't worry, there's a sequel to this Russian saga happening live, grab your popcorn.

It's 2024, enter Kamala Harris.

By giving her staff 2 months to spend $200 million on digital ads, Harris officially launched the largest digital ad campaign in U.S. history. This level of spending isn’t just unprecedented, it marks a substantial shift in how political campaigns are expected to operate now and in the future.

Where Obama used social media to mobilize grassroots support, and Trump used it to set the narrative, Harris is using the digital space as the central battleground of her campaign. Her team is actively deploying these ads across social media, streaming services, digital audio platforms, and connected TV - but more on this in a second.

For the purpose of this post, I'll lean heavily on social media ads to make my point, primarily because that is within my expertise and, secondly, that's where most of the budget is going.

As of this writing, September 10th, 2024 - the day of the first (and only?) presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump - there are exactly 4300 ads currently running on Meta for Kamala and 360 ads for Donald.

Mind you, while I've pulled these numbers straight from their official Facebook pages, I'm confident more ads are currently running for both candidates through different business accounts.

At a glance, Trump's team seems to have initially put out unexplainably off-brand creatives, only to later settle on awkward videos of him talking directly into the camera. His tone is generally aggressive and accusatory of the opposition with a sense of urgency. The fact that he is asking for donations whilst sitting in a private jet is painfully (un)ironic, but certainly not as (un)ironic as his donations landing page.

To each his own - I have to remind myself, tongue firmly in cheek.

(For my marketing role at Visible, I’ve done an Online Perception Report on Trump you can scroll through here.)

Now let's look over to the other side.

In the last 24 hours, the official Kamala Harris Facebook page has launched 100 new ads trying to get people excited for the debate happening in a few hours. Every recent poll, every new influencer video, every time she does or says anything with the potential to go viral, they pour gasoline on that fire.

Her team is on it like hair on soap.

Running 4300 concurrent ads is as difficult of a task as it sounds. And while I can't see into their dashboard, from what I was able to gather, they quickly run through hundreds of ads, on sub 1M audiences, presumably to micro-target. This is common practice, they are testing different demographics, copy, and creatives. There's urgency and scarcity, there's influencers’ endorsements, there are interviews, there are strong calls to action, and there's something for every type of consumer voter. They've done their homework.

And Meta is just one slice of the pie.

According to the 24 year old staffer who runs her TikTok account - each campaign's social media platform has a distinct personality. For example, the campaign's X account targets "political junkies," Instagram appeals to a "millennial crowd," Facebook focuses on "older generations," and TikTok is designed for a "younger audience."

Kamala has been building goodwill for a while now.

During the 2022 midterm elections, fueled by women's multivitamins and directed by a great publicist, Harris was one of the DNC’s leading figures in collaborating with influencers. She engaged in more than a dozen recorded one-on-one discussions with social media creators and produced multiple videos with them, which were shared across various social media platforms. I couldn't find any numbers on how many interviews she's done this year, but I'm confident it's substantial.

Her campaign has strategically partnered with popular influencers like Vidya Gopalan, Taylor Hale, Alex Pearlman, and Olivia Julianna to amplify Harris's message to their followers. And while I've read rumors about her team paying for positive endorsements, there's no real evidence to prove it, so I choose to believe the excitement around her candidacy is a reflection of their well-oiled social media machine.

The scale and sophistication of this effort dwarf even the extensive digital strategies of Obama and Trump.

But is it working?

It depends. Beyond the likes, views, and the positive broader social media conversation, the "real" numbers, a wise analyst would say, are in the donations and, more importantly, the votes.

But unlike running a typical Meta Ads Campaign where you have your boss breathing down your neck to increase ROI, improve average cart value and decrease the cost per lead, an online political campaign doesn't have any of those real-time pressures. Sure, you have the calls for donations and other metrics that could help you forecast, but they aren't guarantees of a vote.

(Part of me wonders if they're even able to break-even the ad costs with the donations, but I doubt that's a real concern they have.)

I imagine it's similar to running a waitlist campaign, where you hope all of that excitement building will lead to a purchase once the product becomes available. In my experience, less than half end up buying.

What if a like on Facebook equated to a vote?

Research has shown that liking a politician's posts on Facebook can accurately predict voter intentions. This study proved that even a single like can reveal significant information about a user's political preferences.

Facebook itself has also conducted a 61-million-person experiment demonstrating how exposure to political messages can significantly increase voter turnout.

Political ads on Facebook allow marketers to precisely target specific demographics and gauge how different groups respond to their messages. This level of microtargeting offers political campaigns a deeper understanding of voter behavior—insights that go beyond what’s typically available in standard commercial advertising.

And herein lies the problem.

While the scale of Harris’s campaign is impressive, it raises important questions about the role of money in political advertising, particularly when it comes to how voters are targeted and influenced.

When a campaign can afford to spend hundreds of millions on advertising, how accessible is the political process to candidates who don’t have access to such resources?

What about the ethical challenge that having access to this extremely well-targeted political profiling machine demands?

I've done my own Fermi calculations and with an average CPM (cost per 1000 impressions) of $17, a $200 million budget could generate approximately 11.76 billion impressions.

And with a voting-age population of approximately 255 million people, each individual of legal voting age would see an ad approximately 46 times.

That means you have 46 chances to press enough buttons and twist enough knobs to test and adapt your message to whatever your audience wants to hear.

And you could rightly say "isn't all marketing manipulation?" Sure it is, but most marketers don't sell the presidency of a country.

You would think that having the financial ability to reach a voter 46 times and influence them to ultimately decide on the future of the country, would trigger some governmental body to, you know, do... something?

Maybe audit the spending? Ensure a level of legal, ethical, or humane responsibility is maintained. I mean, at the very least, send someone with a clipboard to check if we're running a democracy or a future Netflix documentary.

For context, many democracies actually do impose spending caps on political campaigns. Countries like Canada, the UK, Belgium, Chile, France, New Zealand, and South Korea want to regulate the influence of money in elections - notably absent from this list. The US.

And as the U.S. continues to escalate its spending, it sets a precedent that could pressure other democracies to follow suit, leading to a global arms race in political advertising. This not only undermines the integrity of elections but also risks creating an environment where only the wealthiest candidates can compete, further marginalizing those with fewer resources.

You can thank Citizens United v. FEC (2010) for this shift, where spending limits were ruled unconstitutional as they were seen as a violation of free speech.

The same freedom of speech that allows political candidates to lie.

As long as it's not defamatory, lying in political ads is legal, and some would say, necessary. Why? Because political ads are considered political speech, and First Amendment law protects political speech above all other types of speech. The government actually has more leeway to censor commercial speech, but it has very little authority to regulate political ads.

Isn't that ironic? Don't you think?

Now, I realize it might sound like I’m suggesting freedom of speech is the problem—far from it. My issue isn’t with freedom of speech itself, it's with misleading speech that happens to be free, and some having the means to have more speech than others.

The one silver lining in all of this is that thanks to (insert expletive) Trump and the Cambridge Analytica fiasco in 2016, we now do have a few social media regulations in place for online political campaigns, such as:

• disclaiming who paid for the ad,

• disclaiming whether the ad contains digitally altered media,

• not running in Washington DC,

• not questioning the legitimacy of elections (thanks Trump, again, I guess)

• among others.

Looking at the current state of events, and seeing how the US has already sanctioned Russia for interfering (again,) and Kamala's mammoth ad spend, I'm quite confident more regulations will be implemented after this election cycle. Knowing this warms my heart in a way liquor cannot.

You've made it this far, are you tired yet?

Depending on where you live and your activity on Facebook and Instagram you will see more (or less) political ads. This was actually my biggest concern when I saw the news on Kamala Harris's ads budget. This level of spending will definitely contribute to voter fatigue and cynicism—it’s practically guaranteed. You can't flood every channel and expect people to not be bothered by it.

Instead of feeling empowered and excited by the information, voters will become disillusioned, seeing these ads as more of a commercial barrage than a meaningful part of the electoral process. With 65% of Americans saying they always or often feel exhausted when thinking about politics, 55% feeling angry and only 10% saying they always or often feel hopeful about politics, this erosion of trust is already having long-term negative effects on the democratic process.

While the goal is to persuade and mobilize voters, there’s a fine line between influence and manipulation, doing it and over-doing it.

Humane marketing practices would emphasize the importance of delivering honest, informative content that helps voters make informed decisions, rather than overwhelming them with volume or using fear-based tactics. This approach not only respects the intelligence of (some of) the electorate but also contributes to a healthier, more informed democracy.

As digital ad spending in political campaigns continues to surge, so does the responsibility of marketing teams to maintain ethical standards. The sheer volume of spending in U.S. elections, especially when compared to other nations, begs for a thoughtful conversation about money’s influence in politics and the ethical challenges posed by digital marketing.

Because if democracy is for sale, we will all pay the price.

What about you?
Are you watching the elections tonight?

I.

Climate change, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, poor air quality, overfishing, food waste, AI anxiety, and on and on it goes. The world's going to hell in a handbasket, haven't you heard?

If you were living in Slovenia in 1924, you'd probably think the same.

Fresh off the chaos of World War I and the Austro-Hungarian Empire's breakup, you'd find yourself suddenly branded a "Yugoslavian," lumped in with Croats and Serbs—neighbors you don't even like. You'd probably be complaining about your tax dinars going to support veterans rather than being spent on education and health care. Sound familiar?

If you were American in 1924, you'd be annoyed about Prohibition and the ban on alcohol that came with it.

The Great Depression happened around the same time, the Russian Civil War, the Spanish Flu Pandemic, the rise of Fascism in Italy, the Chinese Civil War, I could go on...

The world has been going to shit for as long as we've had the words to say so. And while the specifics of our global gripes change, the feeling of impending doom does not.

Ironically, while this sense of overwhelm has intensified, it's not because the world has grown more dangerous, but because of technology.

Thanks to our smartphones and our current geopolitical dynamics, a disaster in a distant land feels like it's crashing through our own living room - I like to call this 'Anxiety by Proxy'. It’s a small world, especially when it feels like it's ending.

However, what makes 2024 different to 1924, different to 24 AD is that now we have access to more information than ever before, more rights than ever before, and more tools to potentially solve our problems—or create spectacular new ones.

Which begs the question, if we're supposedly that much smarter, richer and more informed, why is it so hard to convince people to take action? And more importantly, how can you motivate them to do so?

II.

Let's take Donald Trump's most recent avalanche of headlines as an example. I don't stay on top of US politics, but even I was made aware of Trump's guilty verdict within hours after it happened.

The headlines wrote:
"Trump conviction heralds a somber and volatile moment in American history" - CNN
"Trump Spews False Claims and Fury in Wake of Conviction" - The New York Times

and also…
“Trump: We're Dealing with a Corrupt Government,” Fox News
“INJUSTICE.” The New York Post

Same event, wildly different opinions. So what are you going to do about it?

Nothing.

Why? Because you probably already hold a well-formed opinion on the matter that is highly unlikely to change.

You're also likely only reading the articles that confirm your bias, and the sense of group identity you've formed with your peers is likely to help ease any contradictory beliefs you may hold.

If you're a Democrat you're probably thinking "Surely now they will see how corrupt Trump is and stop supporting him."

And if you're a Republican you're probably thinking "Now they'll finally see how corrupt the SYSTEM is and vote for Trump to change it."

Same event, wildly different conclusions.

When this news broke out, I was in Vietnam talking to my friends in Europe about stuff that's happening in the US - 'Anxiety by Proxy.'

In a world saturated with immediate and often polarizing information, like the deluge following a high-profile news event, this fact becomes more obvious than ever - the primary aim of most news is NOT to inspire the viewer to take action but to capture their attention.

News like this sucks all the oxygen out of the room. Every article seems to scream for your attention, and yet, none of them really expect you to do anything more than read and react, ideally over-react.

How can I be so sure?

Because, as a marketer, I know that news is not designed to persuade but to enrage and, occasionally, inform—three fundamentally different objectives.

The reason I've chosen to talk about news in this context is because I wanted to highlight this disconnect between how information is presented and how we are expected to interact with it.

When you think about topics surrounding sustainability, the news is most people's primary source of information. However, it often falls short of fostering genuine understanding or triggering any sort of personal commitment. Watching a 2-minute clip of a talking head informing us of yet another oil spill is rarely inspiring and persuasive.

According to the UN's World Food Program, it would cost $40 billion annually to directly address world hunger by 2030.

For context, Bezos is worth $196B - a lot of his money is tied in investments, of course, but that is beyond the point - world hunger is a solvable problem.

In fact, most of the problems facing humanity today are solvable problems. Especially the ones that can be financed by money: access to clean water, education, preventable diseases, mental health care etc. Money always makes for a sobering conversation, doesn't it?

We have the resources to fix all of these seemingly unfixable problems. And yet, why do urgent messages like sustainability fail to resonate as deeply as they should?

Why doesn’t climate change trigger our alarm bells like other global crises do?

Why do distant conflicts like those in Palestine and Ukraine stir immediate anxiety by proxy, while the pervasive threat of climate change barely registers on our emotional radar?

Please note, I'm not saying one is worse than the other, or that you should pick one over the other. As humans, we have the capacity to care about more than one thing at once.

Why do people who are generally good people drink Coke, thereby supporting the biggest plastic polluter in the world - Coca-Cola.

III.

Why isn't sustainability sexy?

There are several key reasons behind this. Understanding them can drastically transform how you communicate and incentivize change - if you're into that sort of thing. Let's first dig into the why, and then I'll teach you the how.

The Science of Perception

In his book, Stumbling on Happiness, Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert has outlined several reasons why certain dangers trigger an emotional and behavioral response while others do not.

1. Temporal Immediacy: We are more triggered by threats that appear to be immediate. Dangers that are perceived as distant in the future do not stimulate the same urgent emotional response.

2. Violates Moral Intuitions: Threats that clearly violate our moral intuitions or ethical standards are more likely to elicit a strong reaction. For example, rape triggers a more immediate response than something more abstract, like pollution.

3. Historical Precedent: Dangers that we have a historical context for or personal experience with tend to trigger us more. When we lack historical context, as with issues like climate change, it's harder to process the danger on an emotional level. For example, most nations have indeed gone through war, making it much easier to form opinions and trigger a motivation to respond.

4. Caused by Another Agent: We react more strongly to threats when they are caused by an identifiable agent, especially one with intent. When danger is diffuse, such as climate change, and cannot be traced to a specific malevolent actor, it’s less likely to evoke a strong reaction. Whereas Putin is an easy target to hate.

5. Instantaneous Manifestation: If the effects of a threat are immediate, such as a natural disaster, they are more likely to incite fear and prompt action. Slow-building threats like global warming or biodiversity loss do not trigger our alarms as effectively because their impacts accrue over time and aren’t immediately noticeable.

6. Statistical Victims versus Individual Stories: Gilbert points out that we are moved by individual, personalized stories of suffering rather than by statistical or abstract data. And I'm sure you've seen ads from NGOs like UNICEF that try really hard (too hard?) to get you to care by telling the story behind the people.

Large-scale environmental issues often involve statistics and predictions, which are less emotionally compelling than individual narratives. In the words of Joseph Stalin "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."

Now, you probably already noticed that all of the faulty perceptions I just listed are indeed powered by our biases. I've already written a whole post about biases that you can read here, so I'm not going to open that Pandora's box again.

Unfortunately, this petri dish of biases is amplified by the reward system we've built online. People are more likely to engage with content—through clicks, comments, and shares—that resonates with their existing beliefs or content that evokes strong emotional reactions - fear, anger, shock, excitement.

This is, for example, why the main climate-related pieces of news you see online are indeed the ones with an obvious bad-guy, an urgent consequence, and an obvious solution. Such as an oil spill caused by some gas company that we need to stop.

This selective engagement is not random; it is deeply intertwined with the algorithms that govern what content is presented to users. They are designed to prioritize content that is likely to generate interaction, thereby ensuring that posts that trigger significant engagement are more frequently and prominently displayed.

As a result, we find ourselves caught in a digital echo chamber: the more a post is liked, shared, or commented on, the further it travels, boosting some viewpoints to celebrity status while leaving others in the dust. This not only amplifies favored narratives but also pushes less popular perspectives to the sidelines, skewing our collective lens and fueling a divide that's more about popularity than it is about truth.

Now that the foreplay is done and you understand the why, let's dive into the how.

IV

How do you change someone's mind?

You might innocently assume that anyone armed with all the facts will surely come to agree with your viewpoint and see the world the same way you do. Interestingly, that's exactly what the other side thinks as well.

If you only remember one thing from this post, remember this - all persuasion is self-persuasion.

People are deeply influenced by discoveries they make on their own, and not discoveries that have been presented to them. It's not until they get that "I might be wrong” feeling a few times before their model of the world begins to accommodate.

The brain is constantly balancing between overriding old information and conserving what it already knows. The mind changes once it can no longer ignore the magnitude of contradictory information.

This is hard to measure in numbers but according to David McRaney in How Minds Change, 30% is the quantifiable level of doubt when we admit we are likely wrong and become compelled to update our beliefs, attitudes, and values.

What this means is that the most effective way for you to encourage change is not by imposing new ideas but by guiding others to discover these insights by themselves.

Appeal to their values, and keep chipping at it, until there's enough contradictory information that they have no other choice but to change their mind.

Here are a few extra examples you can use depending on your situation:

When people initially doubt a persuasive message, sharing counterarguments alongside your main points can also be highly effective. Addressing opposing views before they're raised not only displays confidence in your own ideas, but it also builds credibility and shows respect for the intelligence of your audience.

If you're selling renewable energy solutions you could say: "Some may argue that the sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow. This is true, but advances in energy storage technology have made it possible to store excess energy during peak production times."

Presenting your argument in a way that resonates with the audience's current mindset can also enhance its effectiveness. For instance, telling someone, "I know you enjoy driving but using public transport during rush hour can save you from the stress of traffic jams," is more compelling than merely stating, "You should use public transport to save the planet."

Framing messages as rhetorical questions can also be effective. "Wouldn't it be nice if we could all drive electric cars?" prompts people to think deeply and articulate reasons supporting this shift. In contrast, simply asking, "Do you support the use of electric cars to reduce emissions?" might only elicit a yes or no response, minimizing their engagement.

Willingness to change is also something you need to take into account. For example, if you're aiming to shift attitudes about something like smoking, starting off by bombarding people with reasons why cigarettes are harmful is counterproductive. Simply presenting the facts isn't likely to sway anyone's opinions, as evidenced by the fact that there are still millions of smokers out there. If there's no desire to process information carefully, then there's no incentive to reach accurate conclusions.

I could go on, but I won't - this is probably why Andrew Huberman's podcasts are 2 hours long. Hopefully, this was enough to get your wheels turning.

Now that you know how to change people's opinions, let's dive into the most important part of it all, the main reason you started reading this post...

V.

How do you convince someone to take action?

Even if you do manage to convince someone that plastic consumption is bad, that means nothing unless they've actually taken the necessary steps to change their behavior.

Being aware of a problem and choosing not to address it, is just as harmful as being unaware of the problem at all, or perhaps even worse.

Even though the intentions behind sustainability messaging are usually good, the approach often leans towards the doom-laden. While this isn't the most effective tactic, I can see why it's frequently used.

They see the car approaching and scream at you to get out of the way, thinking "If I could only scream just a little louder, they'll hear me and pay attention."

What the sustainability messenger doesn't understand is that, as far as the listener is concerned, they can't argue with a crying baby - typical doom and gloom messaging does not foster a conversation; they talk AT people instead of talking WITH them. And as we've learned, effective persuasion is a process that unfolds gradually over time.

When being confronted with news that is overwhelming or daunting people tend to switch off. This is known as the "ostrich effect" —a cognitive bias where they figuratively bury their heads in the sand, choosing to ignore distressing information.

This is compounded by defense mechanisms such as denial and projection, where the anxiety generated by the threat is redirected towards less threatening objects or issues.

So while the dire predictions about climate change are scientifically backed and intended to prompt urgent action, and the listener does believe you, the apocalyptic framing can make the problem seem too colossal to tackle, causing inaction instead of engagement.

And this is where most marketers and other professional persuaders get it wrong.

So while the use of statistics and powerful imagery can get you a foot through the door, you have to know how to frame the problem in such a way that also motivates the listener to take action. Fear messaging only works when it's paired with efficacy: problem > agitate > solution.

In other words, you have to learn how to use...

Choice architecture

As behavioral economist Richard Thaler explains in his book Nudge, using a method known as "choice architecture" will subtly guide people toward desired behaviors without requiring them to process excessive information.

That sneaky small fee for plastic bags at your local grocery store is a great example of choice architecture in action. Instead of hammering customers with guilt trips about plastic waste, this clever tactic gently nudges them toward bringing their own reusable bags. Paying a few cents for a bag turns out to be just annoying enough to spark change, gradually making 'bring your own bag' the new normal.

Just remember that autonomy is also important, you want to present the user with two options: the obviously better choice A, or not-so-good choice B. Almost like you would with a child:

Choice A: "Would you like to try the carrot sticks or the cucumber slices with your dinner tonight?"

Choice B: "Or, you can choose not to have any veggies, but remember, no veggies means no dessert."

Choice A makes vegetables part of the decision-making process. The child feels in control and involved in the choice, which can make them more receptive to eating vegetables. Meanwhile, Choice B is less desirable because it comes with a clear drawback—no dessert.

You want to present choices in a certain way to guide behavior rather than consciously asking people to think about it.

Another example is the use of real-time energy usage displays in homes or businesses. These devices show immediate, ongoing feedback on energy consumption. By making energy use more visible and understandable, people are nudged to reduce consumption or adjust behaviors to save energy. For instance, if you see your energy usage spike while using an old appliance, you might be nudged to switch to a more energy-efficient model. You could couple this strategy with some good old-fashioned tribe psychology by showcasing how their consumption compares to that of their neighbors. This can create a social push towards reducing energy, as people often adjust their behaviors to align more closely with community norms.

Offer consumers clear, straightforward options like 'Would you prefer the energy-efficient model that saves $50 annually or the standard model?' By presenting choices this way, you engage people on their terms and within their everyday decision-making processes, making the sustainable choice feel more personal and immediate.

And finally, to effectively communicate the immediate impacts of global warming, it's important to help connect the dots between climate change and everyday experiences, such as the rising cost of groceries. Remember you need to lead them to their AHA moment, don't offer it on a platter.

By linking these two seemingly distant issues, you can help people understand that global warming is not just a future threat—it's a current reality affecting their wallets today. For example, consider explaining how extreme weather conditions, driven by global warming, disrupt agricultural production. You might say:

"Think about the last time you noticed that the price of tomatoes or bread had gone up at the grocery store. These price hikes are often linked to droughts or floods affecting crop yields around the world, which are becoming more frequent and severe due to climate change. As these extreme weather events continue to rise, so will the prices of your everyday essentials. This isn't just about future generations; it's about the cost of your next shopping trip."

There were 38 environmental protests staged in museums in 2022, but how many of them do you think led to tangible change? The protesters’ cause is serious, the threat is very real, and the message is important and urgent. But that's not how you get the public on your side, taking action.

I know that a lof marketers choose to work with NGOs and on social marketing campaigns because it makes them feel less icky about pushing products online. My hope with Human to Humans is to prove it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. We don’t have to be the bad guys.

If you’re working on a social marketing campaign I’d love to see it (and possibly offer some feedback.)

If you haven’t tapped that 💖 what are you waiting for?

Out of the many articles I could have written off the back of that AI Google conference, I figured SEO deserved its own send-off. Fanfare and all.

“Web publishers brace for carnage as Google adds AI answers,” reads the Washington Post headline on Monday.

The Slow Death of SEO

SEO has been on life support for a few years now. I get whiplash every time I see "SEO expert" on LinkedIn profiles. "Oh right, that was a phase we went through," I have to remind myself, "like bell-bottom jeans and slap bracelets."

It's a curious reminder of how quickly the digital world moves on.

How did we get here?

If you're a resident of the internet, but not a native, then you remember it was once fun and weird, and full of possibilities.

We used to go online to escape our real life, now we go into our real life to escape the online.

What used to be a playground for curious and creative voices became a battlefield where only the biggest players could survive. To make your website successful, you had to play the SEO game. This, generally, meant stripping your content of personality and cramming in as many keywords as possible while still maintaining some semblance of readability.

That was the extent of online marketing, back in the early 2000's.

And then came Google Adsense…

Those somewhat-readable-but-occasionally-helpful sentences were now packed with personal stories that were shoehorned in to add length while rarely adding value. We were all subjected to tales of great-aunt Maria's tomato garden when all we wanted was a straightforward marinara sauce recipe.

And then social media came along, turning every headline into clickbait and every feed into a frenzy of sensationalism. Those somewhat-readable-and-very-long-but-occasionally-helpful sentences had an enticing titles that got you to click and kept reinforcing this icky loop.

People still "surf" the web of course, but it's not the same - as evidenced by the fact that we no longer use fun words like "surf" to describe it.

To find anything remotely different and new, you have to scroll all the way down to page 64, and who's got time for that?

It's out of this mess that companies like Medium and Substack were birthed. Selling us on the idea that you don't have to search until the deep pits of Google to find interesting creators, we've brought everyone together right here. Ok, sure.

Google is to blame for this, of course.

By prioritizing certain types of content they inadvertently turned the web into a giant keyword-stuffed piñata.

Instead of crafting engaging, thoughtful content, writers found themselves churning out articles that read like they were produced by a particularly verbose robot (know any of those?) Every piece needed to be just long enough to sandwich in another ad, but not so long that it lost the reader entirely, although, let’s be honest, that ship had often sailed by paragraph three.

The charm and spontaneity of the early internet gave way to a mechanical grind, where originality was sacrificed at the altar of SEO.

And now we're here, today, a few days after the I/O 2024 developer conference, where Google unveiled their vision for the future, with AI at its core. Here's a good X Twitter thread that summarizes the many ways Google is going to incorporate AI into their products.

From search engine enhancements to personalized assistance, the advancements promise to reshape our digital interactions and, inevitably, marketing.

If you're looking for a general dive into how AI will influence marketing, put out a post yesterday with his take. One of the main predictions he makes is a convergence of marketing and sales - thanks to the many data points we now collect and the rush to hyper-personalize everyone's internet bubble. This is something I've said in the past, that both intrigues and frightens me.

What I want to focus on, for now, is Google's Search Generative Experience. Which, according to Google, by the end of 2024, it will appear at the top of results for 1 billion users.

If Google used to be an entry point into the web, now they're proudly going to summarize it all for you, "let Google do the Googling for you" was the conference's slogan.

In real terms, what that means is that this new search engine will summarize and then obscure the original links, requiring users to click to see them. Meaning, all of the effort that went into creating the content goes unnoticed, and the sources don't get any credit. Analysts who have studied the company’s early experiments with SGE say a "bloodbath" is coming. Geeks can be very dramatic.

Tech research firm Gartner predicts traffic to the web from search engines will fall 25 percent by 2026. I suppose you could call it a bloodbath, assuming this trend will only exacerbate in time.

"Wait a minute, wouldn't Google also lose money?" you might correctly be wondering.

Maybe, maybe not. Google supplies advertising to the very websites they're about to cut all of this traffic from. However, because Google holds a dominant position in the digital advertising market, it seems to be betting that it can navigate this transition without too many hiccups by leveraging its various other revenue streams.

Also, if all of these years in marketing have taught me anything, is that we can insert ads on everything, websites, toilet seats, and these new AI-generated summaries.

It is unclear how Google will prioritize what content to summarize, whether or not it's going to hallucinate, and whether people are willing to trade convenience for accuracy. But if you're one of those unicorns that still works in SEO. Here's a few things you need to consider:

1. Pivot to a different sub-set of marketing, or a different career altogether. Marketing is in for a seismic shift in the next few years, we're about to face a brave new world, so make sure you're up for it.

2. Clickbait is out, high-quality content is in. I hope. If a blog post can be summarized in one short sentence, AI won't see a reason to reference it.

3. Improve your technical SEO skills. AI will become more sophisticated in evaluating these factors. Understand how to optimize site speed, mobile responsiveness, and structured data.

4. Optimize for personalization and localization. AI will enable more personalized and localized search results. SEO marketers will need to tailor their strategies to target specific audiences and regions more effectively.

SEO tools like Ahrefs, Semrush, and Moz will also need to evolve. I suspect they will fight AI with AI and will integrate machine learning to provide deeper insights into content quality, user engagement, and overall user experience. This could include sentiment analysis, readability scores, and engagement metrics.

Given the growing importance of UX in search rankings, SEO tools might expand their offerings to include options that help optimize website usability, mobile responsiveness, and page load times. Perhaps most importantly, given AI's emphasis on personalized search results, these tools will likely introduce more robust features for personalizing and localizing SEO strategies. Data privacy be damned.

Both a relief and a new challenge

The prospect of not having to read about So and So's grandma every time I look for a recipe, brings me more joy than I'm proud to admit. To a degree, Google is cutting through the clutter (that they forced users to create, mind you) and delivering what we actually want.

For marketers and content creators, this means evolving once again. The focus must now shift from merely optimizing for search engines to creating content that both algorithms and AI recognize as valuable.

Ryan Broderick from Garbage Day summarized this well:

"If you really drill down into OpenAI and Google’s competing visions of AI, you start to see that they’re more or less the same. They’re both about trying to repackage what already exists into something either users, developers, or investors will care about.

With OpenAI, they’re literally just trying to jam everything we already do online into a new interface that they own. All while promising us that if they can commit just a bit more copyright infringement, they’ll build computer God.

While Google is just trying to repackage what Google already does and are calling it “AI” because no one would care if they said they were building Clippy 2.0."

The good news is that as AI begins to curate and present information, the playing field might level out, giving high-quality content a chance to shine regardless of the creator’s size. However, this also introduces new uncertainties. How will AI determine what is valuable? Can we trust it to be fair and unbiased?

The death of SEO as we know it might just be the beginning of a more sophisticated, AI-driven approach to online visibility.

What do you think?

What will happen to SEO now that Google is planning to infuse AI any and all of its products?

Was this worth reading?
Use the heart to let me know ❤️