Episodes

  • AI and the Writing Profession with Josh Bernoff

    AI and the Writing Profession with Josh Bernoff
    Dec 10 2025
    Josh Bernoff has just completed the largest survey yet of writers and AI – nearly 1,500 respondents across journalism, communication, publishing, and fiction. We interviewed Josh for this podcast in early December 2025. What emerges from both the data and our conversation is not a single, simple story, but a deep divide. Writers who actively use AI increasingly see it as a powerful productivity tool. They research faster, brainstorm more effectively, build outlines more quickly, and free themselves up to focus on the work only humans can do well – judgement, originality, voice, and storytelling. The most advanced users report not only higher output, but improvements in quality and, in many cases, higher income. Non-users experience something very different. For many non-users, AI feels unethical, environmentally harmful, creatively hollow, and a direct threat to their livelihoods. The emotional language used by some respondents in Josh’s survey reflects just how personal and existential these fears have become. And yet, across both camps, there is striking agreement on key risks. Writers on all sides are concerned about hallucinations and factual errors, copyright and training data, and the growing volume of bland, generic “AI slop” that now floods digital channels. In our conversation, Josh argues that the real story is not one of wholesale replacement, but of re-sorting. AI is not eliminating writers outright. It is separating those who adapt from those who resist – and in the process reshaping what it now means to be a trusted communicator, editor, and storyteller. Key Highlights Why hands-on AI users report higher productivity and quality, while non-users feel an existential threatHow AI is now embedded in research, brainstorming, outlining, and verification – not just text generationWhy PR and communications teams are adopting faster than journalistsWhat the rise of “AI slop” means for trust, originality, and attentionWhy the future of writing is not replacement – but re-sorting About our Conversation Partner Josh Bernoff is an expert on business books and how they can propel thinkers to prominence. Books he has written or collaborated on have generated over $20 million for their authors. More than 50 authors have endorsed Josh’s Build a Better Business Book: How to Plan, Write, and Promote a Book That Matters, a comprehensive guide for business authors. His other books include Writing Without Bullshit: Boost Your Career by Saying What You Mean and the Business Week bestseller Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies. He has contributed to 50 nonfiction book projects. Josh’s mathematical and statistical background includes three years of study in the Ph.D. program in mathematics at MIT. As a Senior Vice President at Forrester Research, he created Technographics, a consumer survey methodology, which is still in use more than 20 years later. Josh has advised, consulted on, and written about more than 20 large-scale consumer surveys. Josh writes and posts daily at Bernoff.com, a blog that has attracted more than 4 million views. He lives in Portland, Maine, with his wife, an artist. Follow Josh on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshbernoff/ Relevant Links https://bernoff.com/https://bernoff.com/blog/ai-writer-survey-results-analyzing-royalties-neuroscientific-sneakers-newsletter-5-november-2025https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyright/article/99019-new-report-examines-writers-attitudes-toward-ai.htmlhttps://gothamghostwriters.com/AI-writer Audio Transcript Shel Holtz Hi everybody, and welcome to a For Immediate Release interview. I’m Shel Holtz. Neville Hobson And I’m Neville Hobson. Shel Holtz And we are here today with Josh Bernoff. I’ve known Josh since the early SNCR days. Josh is a prolific author, professional writer, mostly of business material. But Josh, I’m gonna ask you to share some background on yourself. Josh Bernoff Okay, thanks. What people need to know about me, I spent four years in the startup business and 20 years as an analyst at Forrester Research. Since that time, which was in 2015, I have been focused almost exclusively on the needs of authors, professional business authors. So I work with them as a coach, writer, ghostwriter, an editor, and basically anything they need to do to get business books published. The other thing that’s sort of relevant in this case is that while I was at Forrester, I originated their survey methodology, which is called Technographics. And I have a statistics background, a math background, so fielding surveys and analysing them and writing reports about them is a very comfortable and familiar place for me to be. So when the opportunity arose to write about a survey of authors in AI, said, all right, I’m in, let’s do this. Shel Holtz And you’ve also published your own books. I’ve read your most recent one, How to Write a Better Business Book. Josh ...
    Show more Show less
    58 mins
  • FIR #491: Deloitte’s AI Verification Failures

    FIR #491: Deloitte’s AI Verification Failures
    Dec 9 2025
    Big Four consulting firm Deloitte submitted two costly reports to two governments on opposite sides of the globe, each containing fake resources generated by AI. Deloitte isn’t alone. A study published on the website of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) not only included AI-hallucinated citations but also purported to reach the exact opposite conclusion from the real scientists’ research. In this short midweek episode, Neville and Shel reiterate the importance of a competent human in the loop to verify every fact produced in any output that leverages generative AI. Links from this episode: Deloitte was caught using AI in $290,000 report to help the Australian government crack down on welfare after a researcher flagged hallucinationsDeloitte allegedly cited AI-generated research in a million-dollar report for a Canadian provincial governmentDeloitte breaks silence on N.L. healthcare reportDeloitte Detected Using Fake AI Citations in $1 Million ReportDeloitte makes ‘AI mistake’ again, this time in report for Canadian government; here’s what went wrongCDC Report on Vaccines and Autism Caught Citing Hallucinated Study That Does Not Exist The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, December 29. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Neville Hobson: Hi everybody and welcome to For Immediate Release. This is episode 491. I’m Neville Hobson. Shel Holtz: And I’m Shel Holtz, and I want to return to a theme we addressed some time ago: the need for organizations, and in particular communication functions, to add professional fact verification to their workflows—even if it means hiring somebody specifically to fill that role. We’ve spent the better part of three years extolling the transformative power of generative AI. We know it can streamline workflows, spark creativity, and summarize mountains of data. But if recent events have taught us anything, it’s that this technology has a dangerous alter ego. For all that AI can do that we value, it is also a very confident liar. When communications professionals, consultants, and government officials hand over the reins to AI without checking its work, the result is embarrassing, sure, but it’s also a direct hit to credibility and, increasingly, the bottom line. Nowhere is this clearer than in the recent stumbles by one of the world’s most prestigious consulting firms. The Big Four accounting firms are often held up as the gold standard for diligence. Yet just a few days ago, news broke that Deloitte Canada delivered a report to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador that was riddled with errors that are characteristic of generative AI. This report, a massive 526-page document advising on the province’s healthcare system, came with a price tag of nearly $1.6 million. It was meant to guide critical decisions on virtual care and nurse retention during a staffing crisis. But when an investigation by The Independent, a progressive news outlet in the province, dug into the footnotes, the veneer of expertise crumbled. The report contained false citations pulled from made-up academic papers. It cited real research on papers they hadn’t worked on. It even listed fictional papers co-authored by researchers who said they had never actually worked together. One adjunct professor, Gail Tomlin Murphy, found herself cited in a paper that doesn’t exist. Her assessment was blunt: “It sounds like if you’re coming up with things like this, they may be pretty heavily using AI to generate work.”Deloitte’s response was to claim that AI wasn’t used to write the report, but was—and this is a quote—”selectively used to support a small number of research citations.” In other words, they let AI do the fact-checking and the AI failed. Amazingly, Deloitte was caught doing something just like this earlier in a government audit for the Australian government. Only months before the Canadian revelation, Deloitte Australia had to issue a humiliating correction to a report on welfare compliance. That report cited court cases that didn’t exist and contained quotes from a federal court judge that had never been spoken. In that instance, Deloitte admitted to using the Azure OpenAI tool to help draft the report. The firm agreed to refund the Australian government nearly $290,000 Australian dollars. This isn’t an isolated incident of a junior copywriter using ...
    Show more Show less
    14 mins
  • ALP 290: Balancing skills and personality when hiring a new team member

    ALP 290: Balancing skills and personality when hiring a new team member
    Dec 8 2025

    In this episode, Chip and Gini discuss the complexities of hiring in growing agencies. They highlight the challenges of finding skilled, reliable employees who align with agency values.

    Sharing personal experiences, Gini explains the pitfalls of hasty hiring and the benefits of thorough vetting and cultural fit. They stress the importance of a structured hiring process, including clear job roles, career paths, and appropriate compensation. They also underscore the value of meaningful interviews, proper candidate evaluations, and treating the hiring process as the start of a long-term relationship.

    Lastly, Chip and Gini emphasize learning from past mistakes to improve hiring effectiveness and employee retention. [read the transcript]

    The post ALP 290: Balancing skills and personality when hiring a new team member appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.
    Show more Show less
    21 mins
  • FIR #490: What Does AI Read?

    FIR #490: What Does AI Read?
    Dec 1 2025
    Studies purport to identify the sources of information that generative AI models like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude draw on to provide overviews in response to search prompts. The information seems compelling, but different studies produce different results. Complicating matters is the fact that the kinds of sources AI uses one month aren’t necessarily the same the next month. In this short midweek episode, Neville and Shel look at a couple of these reports and the challenges communicators face relying on them to help guide their content marketing placements. Links from this episode: Webinar: What is AI Reading? (Muck Rack)AI Search Volatility: Why AI Search Results Keep ChangingStudy finds nearly two-thirds of AI-generated citations are fabricated or contain errorsMajor AI conference flooded with peer reviews written fully by AI The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, December 29. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Shel Holtz Hi everybody, and welcome to episode number 490 of For Immediate Release. I’m Shel Holtz. Neville Hobson And I’m Neville Hobson. One of the big questions behind generative AI is also one of the simplest: What is it actually reading? What are these systems drawing on when they answer our questions, summarize a story, or tell us something about our own industry? A new report from Muckrec in October offers one of the clearest snapshots we’ve seen so far. They analyzed more than a million links cited by leading AI tools and discovered something striking. When you switch citations on, the model doesn’t just add footnotes, it changes the answer itself. The sources it chooses shape the narrative, the tone, and even the conclusion. We’ll dive into this next. Those sources are overwhelmingly from earned media. Almost all the links AI sites come from non-paid content, and journalism plays a huge role, especially when the query suggests something recent. In fact, the most commonly cited day for an article is yesterday. It’s a very different ecosystem from SEO, where you can sometimes pay your way to the top. Here, visibility depends much more on what is credible, current, and genuinely covered. So that gives us one part of the picture. AI relies heavily on what is most available and most visible in the public domain. But that leads to another question, a more unsettling one raised by a separate study published in the JMIR Mental Health in November. Researchers examined how well GPT-4.0 performs when asked to generate proper academic citations. And the answer is not well at all. Nearly two thirds of the citations were either wrong or entirely made up. The less familiar the topic, the worse the accuracy became. In other words, when AI doesn’t have enough real sources to draw from, it fills the gaps confidently. When you put these two pieces of research side by side, a bigger story emerges. On the one hand, AI tools are clearly drawing on a recognizable media ecosystem: journalism, corporate blogs, and earned content. On the other hand, when those sources are thin, or when the task shifts from conversational answers to something more formal, like scientific referencing, the system becomes much less reliable. It starts inventing the citations it thinks should exist. We end up with a very modern paradox. AI is reading more than any of us ever could, but not always reliably. It’s influenced by what is published, recent, and visible, yet still perfectly capable of fabricating material when the trail runs cold. There’s another angle to this that’s worth noting. Nature reported last week that more than 20% of peer reviews for a major AI conference were entirely written by AI, many containing hallucinated citations and vague or irrelevant analysis. So if you think about that in the context of the Muckrec findings in particular, it becomes part of a much bigger story. AI tools are reading the public record, but increasing parts of that public record are now being generated by AI itself. The oversight layer that you use to catch errors is starting to automate as well. And that creates a feedback loop where flawed material can slip into the system and later be treated as legitimate source material. For communicators, that’s a reminder that the integrity of what AI reads is just as important as the visibility of what we publish. All this raises fundamental questions. How much has earned media ...
    Show more Show less
    22 mins
  • Circle of Fellows #122: Preparing Communication Professionals for the Future

    Circle of Fellows #122: Preparing Communication Professionals for the Future
    Nov 26 2025
    The forward-looking discussion was joined by five seasoned leaders: two professors shaping the next generation of communicators and three senior practitioners traversing today’s real-world pressures. Together, they bridge campus and workplace, theory and execution, to define what readiness really looks like in a world of constant change. Shel Holtz, SCMP, IABC Fellow, will moderate the session. This episode featured a candid, fast-paced discussion on the skills and mindsets that matter now — and the ones you’ll need next. From AI literacy and data comfort to ethical judgment, change agility, and human-centered storytelling, the panel will share practical frameworks you can apply immediately. You’ll hear how universities are evolving curricula, how employers can cultivate lifelong learning, and how individual pros can future-proof their careers without losing the craft that sets them apart. You’ll get actionable guidance, plenty of examples from classrooms and boardrooms. Whether you lead a team, teach, hire, or are building your own career path, this conversation will help you set priorities for the year ahead. You’ll leave with: A clear, current skills map for modern communicators Practical ways to integrate AI and analytics—without sacrificing trust and creativity Playbooks for continuous upskilling across individuals, teams, and organizations About the panel: Diane Gayeski is recognized as a thought leader in the practice and teaching of business communications. She is Professor of Strategic Communications at the Roy H. Park School of Communications at Ithaca College and provides consulting in communications analysis and strategies through Gayeski Analytics. Diane was recently inducted as an IABC Fellow; she’s been active in IABC for more than 30 years as a featured speaker and think-tank leader at the international conference, the author of 3 editions of the IABC-published book, Managing the Communications Function, and the advisor to Ithaca College’s student chapter. She has led more than 300 client engagements for clients, including the US Navy, Bank of Montreal, Fiat, Sony, Abbott Diagnostics, and Borg-Warner, focusing on assessing and building capacities and implementing new technologies for workplace communications and learning teams. Sue Heuman, SCMP, ABC, MC, IABC Fellow, based in Edmonton, Canada, is an award-winning, accredited authority on organizational communications with more than 40 years of experience. Since co-founding Focus Communications in 2002, Sue has worked with clients to define, understand, and achieve their communications objectives. Sue is a highly sought-after executive advisor, specializing in leading communication audits and strategies for clients across all three sectors. Much of her practice involves a strategic review of the communications function within an organization, analyzing channels and audiences. She creates strategic communication plans and provides expertise to enable their execution. Sue has been a member of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) since 1984, which enables her to both stay current with and contribute to the field of communications practices. In 2016, Sue received the prestigious Rae Hamlin Award from IABC in recognition of her work in promoting global standards for communication. She was also named 2016 IABC Edmonton Chapter Communicator of the Year. In 2018, IABC named Sue a Master Communicator, the Association’s highest honor in Canada. Sue earned the IABC Fellow designation in 2022. Dr. Theomary Karamanis is a multiple award-winning communication professor and consultant with 25 years of global experience. She is currently a full-time senior lecturer in Management Communication at the Cornell SC Johnson College of Business and regularly delivers executive education programs in leadership communication, crisis communication, and strategic communication. She has held several professional leadership positions, including Chair of the GCCC (Global Communication Certification Council), Chair of the IABC (International Association of Business Communicators) Academy, and Chair of the IABC Awards committee. Her academic background includes a PhD in communication studies, a Master of Arts in mass communication, and a postgraduate certificate in telecommunications, all from Northwestern University, as well as a bachelor’s degree in economics from the Athens University of Economics and Business. She also holds professional certifications as a Strategic Communication Management Professional (SCMP), online facilitator, and executive program instructor. She has received 40 professional communication awards, including 12 Platinum MarCom awards, 7 Gold Quill awards, 4 Silver Quill awards, and a Comm Prix award. In 2020, she received the Award for Excellence in Communication Consulting by APCC (Association of Professional Communication Consultants) and ABC (Association for Business ...
    Show more Show less
    1 hr and 2 mins
  • ALP 289: Firing underperforming team members

    ALP 289: Firing underperforming team members
    Nov 17 2025

    In this episode, Chip and Gini tackle the difficult subject of firing an underperforming and problematic employee. They discuss a real-life scenario where an employee with a bad attitude refuses to do their work, causing frustration among team members.

    They advise against prolonging the inevitable firing decision, suggesting that acting swiftly can alleviate overall team stress. Both hosts share insights on why Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) are largely ineffective, stressing the need for proper documentation and the guidance of an HR advisor during termination processes.

    Additionally, they highlight the importance of showing proactive steps to the remaining team to mitigate the workload burden and maintain morale. The episode emphasizes the critical role of leadership in making tough decisions for the greater good of the team and the business. [read the transcript]

    The post ALP 289: Firing underperforming team members appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.
    Show more Show less
    16 mins
  • FIR #489: An Explosion of Thought Leadership Slop

    FIR #489: An Explosion of Thought Leadership Slop
    Nov 17 2025
    In the long-form episode for November 2025, Shel and Neville riff on a post by Robert Rose of the Content Marketing Institute, who identifies “idea inflation” as a growing problem on multiple levels. Idea inflation occurs when leaders prompt an AI model to generate 20 ideas for thought leadership posts, then send them to the communications team to convert them into ready-to-publish content. Also in this episode: A growing number of companies are moving branding under the communications umbrella, detouring around Marketing and the CMO. It’s all about safeguarding reputation.Quantum computing has been a topic of conversation in tech circles for years. Now, its arrival as a commercially viable product is imminent. Communicators need to prepare.AI’s ability to generate software code from a plain-language prompt has put the power to create apps in the hands of almost anyone. There are communication implications.Share some photos of yourself with an AI model, or companies that provide this as a service, and you can get an amazing likeness of yourself. But is it okay to use it as your LinkedIn profile?Research finds that leaders not only handle change management badly, but it’s also having an impact on employees who have to endure the process. Communicators can help.In his Tech Report, Dan York reports on WhatsApp launching third-party chat integration in Europe; X is finally rolling out Chat, its DM replacement, with encryption and video calling; Mozilla has announced an AI “window” for the Firefox browser; WordPress 6.9 offers new features, collaboration tools, and AI enhancements; Amazon has rebranded Project Kuper as Amazon Leo; and Open AI says it has “fixed” ChatGPT’s em dash problem. (We dispute that it’s a problem.) Links from this episode: Why companies are merging communications and brand under one leaderWill quantum be bigger than AI?‘Vibe coding’ and other ways AI is changing who can build apps and how The market has spoken: Vibe coding is serious businessThe potential of vibe codingEverything Wrong with Vibe Coding and How to Fix ItVibe Coding: How to Avoid Over-Engineering and Build Smarter, Not HarderMastering Vibe Coding: How to Get Better AI-Generated Code Every TimeWhy AI Thought Leadership Hurts Content TeamsIs it Ok to use AI-generated images for LinkedIn Profiles?Your Staff Thinks Management Is Inefficient—They May Have a Point The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, December 29. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript: Shel Holtz: Hi everybody and welcome to episode number 489 of For Immediate Release. This is our long-form monthly episode for November 2025. I’m Shel Holtz in Concord, California. Neville Hobson: And I’m Neville Hobson in Somerset in England. Shel Holtz: We have a jam-packed show for you today. Virtually every story we’re going to cover has an artificial intelligence angle. That shouldn’t be a surprise — AI seems to dominate communication conversations everywhere these days. We do hope that you will engage with this show by leaving a comment. There are so many ways that you can leave a comment. You can leave one right there on the show notes at firpodcastnetwork.com. You can even leave an audio comment from there. Just click the “record voicemail” button that you’ll see on the side of the page, and you can leave up to a 90-second audio. You can also send us an audio clip — just record it, attach it to an email, send it to fircomments@gmail.com. You can comment on the posts we publish on LinkedIn and Facebook and elsewhere, announcing the availability of a new episode. There are just so many ways that you can leave a comment and we hope you will — and also rate and review the show. That’s what brings new listeners aboard. As I mentioned, we have a jam-packed show today, but Neville, I wanted to mention before we even get into our rundown of previous episodes: did you see the study that showed that podcasting is very male-dominated as a medium? Neville Hobson: I did see something in one of my news feeds, but I haven’t read it. Shel Holtz: I heard about it on a podcast — I don’t remember which one — but I found it really interesting because the conversation was all about equity. And I’m certainly not in favor of male-dominated anything, but podcasting is not an industry where there is a CEO who can mandate an initiative to bring ...
    Show more Show less
    1 hr and 42 mins
  • FIR #488: Did a Soda Pop Make AI Slop?

    FIR #488: Did a Soda Pop Make AI Slop?
    Nov 10 2025
    For the second year in a row, Coca-Cola turned to artificial intelligence to produce its global holiday campaign. The new ad replaces people with snow scenes, animals, and those iconic red trucks, aiming for warmth through technology. The response? A mix of admiration for the technical feat and criticism for what some called a “soulless,” “nostalgia-free” production. Shel and Neville break down the ad’s reception and what it tells us about audience expectations, creative integrity, and the communication challenges that come with AI-driven content. Despite Coke’s efforts to industrialize creativity — working with two AI studios, 100 contributors, and more than 70,000 generated clips — the final product sparked as much skepticism as wonder. The discussion explores: Why The Verge called the ad “a sloppy eyesore” — and why Coke went ahead anyway The sheer scale and cost of AI production (and why it’s not necessarily cheaper) Whether Coke’s campaign is marketing, corporate signaling, or both How critics’ reactions reflect discomfort with AI aesthetics in emotional brand spaces Lessons for communicators about context, authenticity, and being transparent about “why” Links from this episode: Coke’s AI Ad Isn’t Just Marketing. It’s Corporate Communications.Coca-Cola | Holidays Are Coming (YouTube)Coca-Cola | Holidays are Coming, Behind the Scenes (YouTube)Coca-Cola’s new AI holiday ad is a sloppy eyesoreCoca-Cola Sparks Backlash With New, Entirely AI-Generated Holiday 2025 Ad, Insists ‘The Genie Is Out of the Bottle, and You’re Not Going to Put It Back In’ Coca-Cola Is Trying Another AI Holiday Ad. Executives Say This Time Is DifferentWhat Coca-Cola has learned on its generative AI journey so farCoca-Cola’s AI Chief Dishes on Why the Brand Went Ahead With Another AI Holiday AdHilarious graphic shows how bad the Coca-Cola Christmas ad really isRemember kids, without the creative, we just have blank squares. It’s ALL about the CREATIVE. The next monthly, long-form episode of FIR will drop on Monday, November 17. We host a Communicators Zoom Chat most Thursdays at 1 p.m. ET. To obtain the credentials needed to participate, contact Shel or Neville directly, request them in our Facebook group, or email fircomments@gmail.com. Special thanks to Jay Moonah for the opening and closing music. You can find the stories from which Shel’s FIR content is selected at Shel’s Link Blog. You can catch up with both co-hosts on Neville’s blog and Shel’s blog. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this podcast are Shel’s and Neville’s and do not reflect the views of their employers and/or clients. Raw Transcript Neville Hobson:Hi everyone, and welcome to For Immediate Release, episode 488. I’m Neville Hobson. Shel Holtz:And I’m Shel Holtz. Coca-Cola is back with a holiday spot created using AI for the second year running, and the blowback is about as big as the media buy. If last year’s criticism centered on uncanny humans, this year they tried to sidestep that by leaning into animals, snow, and those iconic red trucks. The problem is that a lot of viewers still found the whole thing visually inconsistent and emotionally hollow — more of a tech demo than Christmas magic. The Verge didn’t mince words, calling it a “sloppy eyesore.” This wasn’t a lone creative prompting a model in a dark room. According to The Verge, Coke worked with two AI studios — SilverSide and Secret Level — involving roughly 100 contributors. So when people say AI is taking work away from humans, this example complicates that argument. The project generated and refined over 70,000 clips to assemble the final film, with five AI specialists dedicated to wrangling and iterating those shots. If you think of AI work as cheap and easy, that scale tells a different story. This was massive, industrialized production. Despite all that, audience reaction has been harsh. Delish collected consumer responses labeling the ad “soulless,” “nostalgia-free,” and — my favorite phrase — “intentional rage bait.” In other words, people felt provoked, not moved. The general sentiment is familiar: “Just bring back the classic trucks or polar bears and let real filmmakers work their craft.” The level of blowback reflects a mainstream discomfort with AI aesthetics invading a beloved ritual. So why is Coke doing this again? Partly for speed and efficiency, sure — but the more interesting rationale is signaling. As Forbes argues, this isn’t just marketing, it’s corporate communication: a message to investors and partners that Coke is a modern operator experimenting across its value chain. In that sense, the ad is a press release in moving pictures — “We’re innovating.” Whether consumers cheer or jeer, the signal still gets sent. For communicators, I see three takeaways. First, scale doesn’t guarantee soul. You can throw 100 people and 70,000 clips at a film and ...
    Show more Show less
    17 mins