ResidentialBusiness

Many teams look busy. But beneath the surface? Disengagement is growing. At Think Productive, we believe productivity isn’t about doing more. It’s about connecting better. With your work. With your team. With what really matters. That’s why we’re speaking at the CIPD Festival of Work 2025, inviting HR professionals and people leaders to rethink what engagement truly looks like in the modern workplace. In our session, you’ll discover: Why traditional engagement tactics often fall flat How to create moments of real connection in meetings and beyond Simple shifts that re-energise your team’s relationship with their work Here’s a taste of what we’ll be exploring at the event: Led by David Papa, our session blends human insight with practical tools. David has worked with global leaders and teams to create cultures where people feel seen, switched on, and safe to bring their best. Whether you’re navigating burnout, change fatigue or a dip in team morale, this is your space to press pause and reset Not coming to the CIPD Festival of Work? You can still join the conversation. Join our free taster session on the 10th of July to start building engagement that sticks. The post Is Your Team Really Engaged or Just Going Through the Motions? appeared first on Think Productive UK. View the full article

In the spring of 2019, while on tour for my book Digital Minimalism, I stopped by the Manhattan production offices of Brian Koppelman to record an episode of his podcast, The Moment. We had a good conversation covering a lot of territory. But there was one point, around the twenty-minute mark, where things got mildly heated. Koppelman took exception to my skepticism surrounding social media, which he found to be reactionary and resisting the inevitable. As he argued: “I was thinking a lot today about the horse and buggy and the cars. Right? Because I could have been a car minimalist. And I could have said, you know, there are all these costs of having a car: you’re not going to see the scenery, and we need nature, and we need to see nature, [and] you’re risking…if you have a slight inattention, you could crash. So, to me, it is this, this argument is also the cars are taking over, there is nothing you can do about it. We better instead learn how to use this stuff; how to drive well.” Koppelman’s basic thesis, that all sufficiently disruptive new technologies generate initial resistance that eventually fades, is recognizable to any techno-critic. It’s an argument for moderating pushback and focusing more on learning to live with the new thing, whatever form it happens to take. This reasoning seems particularly well-fitted to fears about mass media. Comic books once terrified the fedora-wearing, pearl-clutching adults of the era, who were convinced that they corrupted youth. In a 1954 Senate subcommittee meeting, leading anti-comic advocate Fredric Wertham testified: “It is my opinion, without any reasonable doubt and without any reservation, that comic books are an important contributing factor in many cases of juvenile delinquency.” He later accused Wonder Woman of promoting sadomasochism (to be fair, she was quick to use that lasso). Television engendered similar concern. “As soon as we see that the TV cord is a vacuum line, piping life and meaning out of the household, we can unplug it,” preached Wendell Berry in his 1981 essay collection, The Gift of the Good Land. It’s easy to envision social media content as simply the next stop in this ongoing trajectory. We worry about it now,but we’ll eventually make peace with it before turning our concern to VR, or brain implants, or whatever new form of diversion comes next. But is this true? I would like to revisit an analogy I introduced last spring, which will help us better understand this conundrum. It was in an essay titled “On Ultra-Processed Content,” and it related the content produced by attention economy applications like TikTok and Instagram to the factory-contrived “foodlike edible substances” we’ve taken to calling ultra-processed food. Ultra-processed food is made by breaking down basic food stock, like corn and soy, into their constituent components, which are then recombined to produce simulated foodstuffs, like Oreos or Doritos. These franken-snacks are hyper-palatable, so we tend to eat way too much of them. They’re so filled with chemicals and other artificial junk that they make us sicker than almost anything else we consume. As I argued, we can think of the content that cuts through modern attention economy apps as ultra-processed content. This digital fare is made by breaking down hundreds of millions of social posts and reactions into vectors of numbers, which are then processed algorithmically to isolate the most engaging possible snippets. This then creates a feedback loop in which users chase what seems to be working from an engagement perspective, shifting the system’s inputs toward increasingly unnatural directions. The resulting content might resemble normal media, but in reality, it’s a fun house-mirror distortion. As with its ultra-processed edible counterparts, this content is hyper-palatable, meaning we use apps like TikTok or Instagram way more than we know is useful or healthy, and because of the unnatural way in which it’s constructed, it leaves us, over time, feeling increasingly (psychologically) unwell. This analogy offers a useful distinction between social media and related media content, like television and comic books. In the nutrition world, experts often separate ultra-processed foods from the broader category of processed foods, which capture any food that has been altered from its natural state. These include everything from roasted nuts to bread, cheese, pasta, canned soup and pizza. As processed foods became more prevalent during the twentieth century, experts warned against consuming too many of them. A diet consisting only of processed foods isn’t healthy. But few experts argued against eliminating processed foods altogether. This would be practically difficult, and many argue that it would lead to an unappealingly and ascetic diet. It would also cut people off from cultural traditions, preventing them from enjoying their grandmother’s pasta or bubbe’s kugel. These same experts, however, are often quick to say that when it comes to ultra-processed foods, it’s best to just avoid them altogether. They’re more dangerous than their less-processed counterparts and have almost none of their redeeming values. It’s possible, then, that we’re confronting a similar dichotomy with modern media. When it comes to watching Netflix, say, or killing some time with Wordle on the phone, we are in processed food territory, and the operative advice is moderation. But when it comes to TikTok, we’re talking about a digital bag of Doritos. Maybe the obvious choice is to decide not to open it at all. In other words, just because we’ve been worried about similar things in the past doesn’t mean we’re wrong to worry today. The post Are We Too Concerned About Social Media? appeared first on Cal Newport. View the full article

Last week, the nonprofit that runs New York City Pride revealed that around a quarter of its corporate donors have either canceled or diminished their support this year. The pullback has result in an estimated $750,000 shortfall for the organization as it gears up for its biggest event of the year. According to Chris Piedmont, media director at Heritage of Pride, many sponsors cited uncertainty around the economic impact of tariffs as their reasoning for scaling back. Others, though, “expressed concern about potential blowback from the current administration for publicly supporting Pride and other [DEI] initiatives.” It’s a troubling new chapter in a months-long trend of companies that once championed—and, in some cases, profited off of—DEI initiatives, which are now quietly diminishing their support. The drop in corporate sponsorship isn’t isolated to New York City; it’s happening across the country, from San Francisco to St. Louis, Missouri, to St. Petersburg, Florida. Joanna Schwartz is a professor at Georgia College & State University with a specialty in LGBTQ+ marketing. She says that, while there has been more caution around this marketing in the last few years, the current political climate has made companies especially fearful of the backlash that might come with supporting the queer community. Amid this climate of capitulation, Schwartz says it’s “more valuable” than ever for companies who truly hold LGBTQ+ support as a core value to stand by the community rather than abandoning it. Pride celebrations losing sponsorship dollars In a press release sent to supporters last week, Heritage of Pride said NYC Pride is hoping to raise $25,000 before June 30 to account for its funding gap. While the number of partners supporting the event has actually increased from 70 last year to 76 this year, overall investment has taken a drastic hit. Spokesperson Kevin Kilbride told the New York Times that PepsiCo, Skyy Vodka, Target, Nissan, and Mastercard are some of the brands that either backed out, reduced their contributions, or asked for their involvement to go unpublicized. In a statement to Fast Company, Nissan said it “is currently reviewing all marketing and sales spending—including select consumer auto shows, sports properties and other entertainment activations—to maximize both efficiency and breakthrough effectiveness.” L’Oreal is the only brand returning from 2024 as a platinum sponsor, contributing $175,000 to NYC Pride. Meanwhile, small, local, and queer-owned businesses—like Brooklyn Brewery, Mischief Mates, Radiant Light Candles, and the Travel Agency—have stepped up in the absence of larger corporate sponsors. Still, the organization is in a challenging place as it looks to stage a successful Pride this year. Per the release, a 25% budget gap could mean fewer floats and performers, a loss in grant programs that aid queer New Yorkers, and difficulty hiring security teams. These are concerns that have been echoed across the U.S. In St. Louis, Anheuser-Busch, a key sponsor of PrideFest for over 30 years, didn’t renew its sponsorship in 2025. After other sponsors also pulled back, the organization was left with a $150,000 deficit. San Francisco Pride organizers told Bloomberg in late April that their event is down nearly $200,000 this year after Anheuser-Busch, Comcast, Benefit Cosmetics, and the liquor brand Diageo dropped their sponsorships. And Twin Cities Pride reported a similar financial shortfall as it waited to hear back from around 30 former sponsors. In small towns, the impact is felt even more acutely. Eve Keller, co-president of USA Prides, a national network of LGBTQ Pride organizers, told NBC News that some smaller, rural Prides have reported sponsorships declining 70% to 90% compared to the average year. Piedmont says it’s been “beyond disheartening” to watch corporations bow to public pressure at a time when the queer community, and especially trans individuals, are “under attack now more than ever.” Last week, House Republicans passed a budget bill that a bill that would cut off Medicaid funding for all gender transition care. Experts have called it “an assault” on transgender healthcare. (The bill still has to go to the Senate.) “We need corporations and partners of all sizes to step up to the plate, stay on the right side of history and support the entire LGBTQIA+ community,” Piedmont says. “We’re here. We’re queer. And we’re not going anywhere. Regardless, our community will do what it has always done—from Stonewall, to Compton’s Cafeteria, to the youth-led trans protests today—we march on.” Since last week’s news of Heritage of Pride’s budget shortfall, Piedmont says the organization has received nearly $10,000 from almost 100 different donors. A troubling chapter in a larger trend of capitulation The retreat of companies like Nissan and Anheuser-Busch, who once served as major Pride sponsors across the U.S., follows a more troubling trend. As the The President administration pushes to codify its extreme views, brands including Tractor Supply Co., John Deere, Harley-Davidson, Ford, and Lowe’s have walked back DEI efforts. “Pride parades have typically been a relatively inexpensive opportunity for companies to demonstrate support for their LGBTQ+ employees while hitting a very targeted audience,” Schwartz says. “But in the current political environment, companies are being far more careful about being connected to support for the community because there’s a growing backlash calling attention to corporate efforts at inclusivity, particularly of LGBTQ+ people generally, and trans and nonbinary people in particular.” This is striking, Schwartz says, in that it feels like a regression to an era when corporate support for the queer community was almost nowhere to be found. When Pride first started out, it was a “kind of grassroots way to acknowledge and celebrate Stonewall.” Only in the last decade or so have companies become more willing to openly sponsor queer events—so much so, in fact, that NYC Pride has previously faced criticism for transforming from a community-focused event into a “corporate party.” “Part of the benefit of sponsorship isn’t just advertising to the LGBT community, but also showing support for your LGBT employees, so it builds community within organizations,” Schwartz says. “Up until the last couple of years, companies were being more and more supportive of the LGBT community and, to be perfectly frank about it, also profiting off of that, which gets into rainbow capitalism.” “Rainbow capitalism,” or “rainbow washing,” generally refers to a company’s outward support of the queer community, while not truly backing up LGBTQ+ customers or employees behind the scenes. The perception of rainbow washing is one of the reasons why Target, which spent years promoting Pride Month collections, is facing major financial backlash for its retreat from Pride and DEI efforts at large. Financially speaking, there was a good reason for companies to embrace the queer community: According to a 2023 study by the investment adviser LGBT Capital, LGBTQ+ people hold an estimated $3.9 trillion in global purchasing power. “You don’t want to let that part of the community think you just don’t care about it, but unlike every other sub-population in the United States, that’s the one target that, if you advertise to it, you potentially lose other customers,” Schwartz says. Anheuser-Busch subsidiary Bud Light experienced a similar problem in 2023. After the company released a small ad campaign featuring trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney, conservative critics spread transphobic rhetoric and advocated boycotting the brand. Bud Light shrank away from critics rather than facing them head-on, in turn alienating its queer customers. In 2023 alone, Bud Light lost an estimated $1.4 billion in U.S. beer sales as both conservatives and LGBTQ+ advocates spoke out against it. Currently, some companies are publicly retreating from DEI initiatives while still maintaining behind-the-scenes initiatives, like support for LGBTQ+ employee resource groups. Schwartz says she’s also noticed a trend of companies being much more careful about how they support the queer community, like avoiding any overt reference to trans or non-binary people, in order to avoid becoming “targets” of conservative media or the The President administration. She believes this overarching fear is the main reason that many companies are backing out of Pride celebrations this year. “They’re saying, ‘There’s shifting corporate alignment, and we’re looking at our advertising budgets.’ All of that is just a polite way of a company saying, ‘We’re too scared to do this, and we don’t want to own it because we also don’t want to disenfranchise the LGBT community,'” Schwartz says. For many LGBTQ+ community members, there’s a feeling that some companies only offered their support when it was convenient, and are retracting it now that the optics are no longer as beneficial. On Reddit, dozens of users are collating lists of companies deemed “fair weather friends” for their recent backtracking. “The [queer] community has been completely abandoned by a number of major companies, across a lot of brand categories,” Schwartz says. “The current prevailing wind is out of a far more conservative place, and companies are trying not to make anyone mad, but the companies that were really trying to make an easy buck off of the community were the first ones to leave. In that way, there is a little bit more of a purity with the companies that have stuck around.” View the full article

As millions of new graduates enter the job market this spring and summer, many may encounter a potentially frustrating paradox: They need experience to get hired, but they need a job or internship to gain that experience. This paradox is deepening in today’s labor market. At Deloitte, we recently released a Global Human Capital Trends report that found that 66% of hiring managers say most recent hires are not fully prepared for their roles, most often due to a lack of experience. Meanwhile, research has shown that a majority of employers have increased experience requirements over the past three years, and many “entry-level” roles today often require two to five years of prior experience. This can present a virtually impossible situation for young talent. Foot-hold jobs, especially those traditional entry-level roles where workers could grow into an organization, are becoming increasingly hard to find. If organizations want to build sustainable talent pipelines and develop tomorrow’s leaders, they should rethink what it means to be “ready” for work and how they help people get there. The Disappearing Entry-Level Job For years, work has been trending towards greater complexity and specialization. It demands judgment, creativity, and adaptability—enduring human capabilities that are hard to acquire without hands-on experience. AI and automation amplify the issue, consuming many of the routine, repeatable tasks that once formed the core of entry-level roles. Simultaneously, some organizations are flattening their structures to increase agility. But this can have unintended consequences, as they may potentially risk eliminating stepping-stone roles and informal mentorship channels that can help early-career workers grow. This erosion of early-career development doesn’t just affect individuals. It could threaten future leadership pipelines and innovation capacity. That’s why organizations need to take action now to close the growing experience gap among tomorrow’s business leaders. Experience ≠ Readiness We need to challenge the assumption that experience or degrees automatically equate to job readiness. They often don’t. Human capabilities like empathy, curiosity, and problem-solving are more predictive of success than a bullet point on a résumé. In the AI age, human capabilities are tested just as much as hard skills. Nurturing these capabilities is incredibly important for creating leaders with the resilience and problem-solving skills for any challenge. In 2025, modern workforce development models—like what we have at Deloitte—emphasize three factors: technical skills (such as coding or accounting), human capabilities (such as critical thinking and emotional intelligence), and potential (including adjacent skills or latent abilities that can be nurtured). Yet, hiring systems often filter out high-potential candidates who don’t meet what can sometimes be arbitrary experience thresholds. That means career changers, first-generation graduates, or self-taught professionals often struggle to get noticed. Strategies to Close the Experience Gap Fixing the experience gap requires systemic change, from hiring criteria to day-to-day development. 1. Adopt Skills-First Hiring and Whole-Person Models: Move beyond degree and tenure filters. Focus on demonstrated skills, motivation, and learning agility. This approach opens doors to candidates who may not follow traditional paths but are ready to grow. 2. Invest in Internships and Modern Apprenticeships: Paid internships and apprenticeships offer the context-rich experience grads need to develop. Research from Burning Glass Institute and Strada Education Foundation shows these programs not only reduce underemployment but also improve long-term retention. There’s an unmet demand for these programs, too, as Deloitte’s Workplace Skills Survey revealed that 57% of employees want more on-the-job observation and shadowing opportunities. Moreover, 61% of workers value mentorship programs as an effective way to build workplace relationships, emphasizing the importance of fostering connections alongside structured development initiatives. 3. Use AI to Accelerate, Not Replace, Early Career Development: AI can simulate on-the-job experience in safe, low-risk environments. “Digital playgrounds” allow early-career employees to test their decision-making and receive feedback. AI tools can: Prompt reflection with critical questions Synthesize knowledge from experienced colleagues Help users practice judgment via realistic scenarios, including answering client questions during mock presentations When used intentionally, AI becomes an accelerator—not a displacer—of new talent development. 4. Create Micro-Opportunities for Experiential Learning: Organizations should make it easier for employees to gain experience through short-term projects. Talent marketplaces, internal gig platforms, and simulations allow early-career employees to try new challenges and build confidence incrementally. 5. Empower Managers to Develop Talent: Managers still control hiring filters, but they’re often overwhelmed. Deloitte’s 2025 Human Capital Trends Report shows managers spend just 13% of their time on tasks like hiring and onboarding. And 36% say they aren’t well prepared to manage people. That has to change. Managers need training and bandwidth to mentor early-career employees. With around 40% of their time dedicated to administrative work or problem-solving, most managers simply lack the time to be the mentors most junior staff need. Formal mentorship, real-time feedback, and inclusive leadership practices help new hires grow and turn potential into performance. From Experience Gaps to Opportunity Gateways The potential risks of inaction are clear: persistent underemployment, shrinking leadership pipelines, and a projected global shortfall of 85 million skilled workers by 2030. These aren’t future concerns; they’re already weakening competitiveness today. Gen Z, however, is ready. Deloitte’s 2025 Gen Z and Millennial Survey shows nearly a third plan to leave their employers within two years, not from disloyalty, but in pursuit of growth, stability, and purpose. They’re reskilling on their own and eager to contribute. It’s time to redefine readiness—not as tenure or credentials—but as the potential and agility that comes from well-honed human capabilities. It’s time to treat AI and access to apprenticeships as launchpads for early career professionals, not barriers to their ability to gain the experience they need. And it’s time to equip managers to be talent builders, not just task owners. The class of 2025 doesn’t lack talent, but they do often lack access. It’s time for organizations to stop asking “Where’s the experience?” and start creating it. View the full article

For generations of Americans, the soundtrack to spring weekends has been a rise in birdsong and the loud, constant “virrrrrr” of neighbors cutting their growing grass. But the gas lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and weed eaters that have been used for more than a century to keep lawns manicured aren’t only noisy—in the past few years, researchers have discovered that they also pose an outsize risk to the environment and to human health. In response, cities across the U.S. are experimenting with incentive programs to encourage residents to opt for more environmentally friendly electric lawn equipment. The shape these programs take isn’t one size fits all: From bans to rebates to tax credits offered at a variety of price points, each program has made its own calculations about what the location can afford and what will best attract residents. But across the board, these relatively new programs are producing promising results. “I think the most important thing is that it’s really exciting to see that so many cities and counties and states and utilities and communities across our country are taking action to tackle the really polluting, really loud, gas-powered lawn equipment,” says Kirsten Schatz, clean air advocate for Colorado Public Interest Research Group (CoPIRG). “It’s a real mix of approaches with, I think, some mixed results. But altogether, things are moving in the right direction.” Anything that runs on gas—think cars, planes, stoves, and water heaters—releases greenhouse gases that contribute to the warming of the planet. An important step in curbing emissions is to transition these machines to electric whenever and wherever possible. You might think that saving up to tackle the biggest items would make the biggest impact on reducing your carbon footprint. But physical size doesn’t always correlate to impact. Gas-powered lawn mowers and leaf blowers may be smaller than cars and used less frequently, but they produce a shocking amount of pollution because their engines are less efficient than those used in more technologically advanced products. In 2023, Environment America Research & Policy Center published a report based on 2020 data from the Environmental Protection Agency that found gas-powered lawn equipment produced the same amount of fine particulate pollution in a year as 234 million cars and more carbon dioxide than the entire city of Los Angeles. In addition to polluting the environment, the toxic by-products of running gas equipment have been linked to negative health impacts ranging from cancer and reproductive issues to mental health problems. There are many benefits to going electric: In addition to being better for the environment and human health, battery-powered equipment has the potential to save money and is quieter. But like all electrification efforts, switching requires what may at first seem like a hefty investment in new equipment—which is where incentives and rebates come in. As with many environmental issues, California was a leader in addressing the problem, choosing both a carrot and a stick approach. In October 2021, the governor signed into law a ban on new gas-powered equipment that took effect in January 2024. In the lead-up to the ban, the state offered generous incentives covering more than 50% of the cost of new equipment and batteries. In just two years, Assemblymember Marc Berman estimated that 90% of the $30 million allotted to these rebates had already been paid out. While several other communities have also adopted bans, including Washington D.C.; Palm Beach, Florida; and Burlington, Vermont, a larger number of programs across the country have taken an incentive-only approach. These incentives can help cost-conscious residents make the leap. “We know that electric lawn equipment is increasingly popular, particularly in recent years as the prices have come down, the performance has improved, and it’s much more widely available,” says Luke Metzger, executive director of the nonprofit Environment Texas. “We know that certainly over several years, given that electricity is cheaper generally than gas, [switching] more than pays for itself. But still there’s that up-front cost . . . and so those incentives can make a big difference.” Efforts in Texas have been a bit of a roller coaster. In 2022, Dallas was considering banning gas-powered lawn equipment. But the next year, the Republican-led state government ruled that bans were illegal. The city is now working on launching an incentive program. In the meantime, roughly 200 miles south, Austin’s publicly owned utility provider, Austin Energy, has operated a seasonal rebate program since 2020. At participating retailers, customers can get a $15 discount on weed trimmers and leaf blowers and a $25 discount on lawn mowers taken off the price of purchase during certain times of the year. In the past six months, Austin Energy has offered rebates on 2,053 lawnmowers, 1,008 weed trimmers, and 578 leaf blowers. “I’m excited to see people participating,” says Donylle Green Seals, environmental program coordinator at Austin Energy. “Participation is above the forecast and has been growing steadily since 2020. Not growing astronomically, but I would say by at least a few hundred per product.” In the past year and a half, Colorado has also been experimenting with various strategies. A statewide program went into effect on January 1, 2024, giving residents a 30% discount at participating retail locations. This is in addition to a variety of local and utility company-based rebates offered throughout the state. The Colorado Public Interest Network has tracked 200 initiatives across 26 states—20 of them are in Colorado. Schatz says the decision to implement a statewide program was all about improving air quality. While she doesn’t have data yet as to the success of the program, in her role working with retailers to offer the discounts and educating customers about them, she says, “The vibe is good. Anecdotally, it feels like it’s been a great success.” Not only has Colorado been encouraging private homeowners to make the electric leap, but it has also been tackling the problem of getting commercial landscapers to invest in a greener business model. This has been a harder segment to convert given the logistics. While a new electric battery can easily last for an entire session in the yard of an average private home, the costs and inconvenience of charging can rack up when businesses are using their equipment all day long. Though businesses can take advantage of the state rebate programs, new regulations set to take effect this summer will also impose bans on gas-powered equipment use on public property. This means any lawn care company with state or federal land as a customer will have to switch to electric to keep its clients. This is also where efforts to educate and sway both private citizens and companies converge—as more homeowners learn about the effects of gas-powered equipment, consumer opinion begins to change. “I would say about two-thirds of my customers reach out to me specifically because I am fully electric,” Jordan Champalou, owner of Electric Lawn Care in the Denver suburb of Westminster, told Denver7. Electric equipment is undeniably a win for the environment, for public health, and for peaceful neighbor relations. But on the financial side, it isn’t quite as simple as a onetime investment that will pay off once and for all. Incentives can get new adopters in the door, and those investments will eventually save them additional money, once the cost of buying gas for their old equipment surpasses the cost of buying new equipment and powering it with electricity. (Consumer Reports published a tool that allows readers to see when and how their new electric-equipment will start saving them money over a five-year period.) But there are still some kinks to work out. Electric batteries eventually wear out (current estimates are three to five years), and new batteries can be costly. Some users also claim that electric equipment isn’t quite as powerful as gas, though not all agree and many tout the greater reliability of electric as a bonus. While incentives and bans are helping customers make the switch, achieving widespread electrification of lawn equipment may come down to something even simpler: Equipment manufacturers and retailers control the products available for consumers to buy. In June 2023, Home Depot announced a company goal that 85% of all its lawn equipment sales will be battery-powered by 2028. On a recent trip to my local Lowe’s in Austin, there were twice as many electric lawn mowers available as gas ones, and prices were close if not on par. Ultimately, if manufacturers and retailers make the pivot to electric, incentives and bans will no longer be necessary—though they could still encourage customers to retire their gas equipment earlier than they otherwise might have. Austin Energy reevaluates its rebate programs every year, with the goal of making sure it’s offering the best options to raise customers’ awareness about energy efficiency and electrification savings opportunities. If electric equipment is all or most of what retailers are selling, and therefore most of what customers are buying, then Green says Austin Energy may decide to discontinue its lawn equipment rebates and shift its efforts to a new product category that needs the help more. But while the choice still sits in customers’ hands, a growing number of incentive programs will give them the nudge they need to go electric. As Schatz of CoPIRG says, “We know things are moving in the right direction, but we want to accelerate it, because it just doesn’t make sense to tolerate this much harmful pollution and noise from cutting grass and blowing leaves around when we have better ways.” View the full article

eOlipop’s surging popularity has taken the $60 billion soda industry by storm. As Gen Z and millennials ditch sugary sodas, Olipop is leading the pre-biotic beverage trend, sparking the likes of Coca Cola and PepsiCo to enter the fray. Olipop co-founder, CEO and formulator, Ben Goodwin, shares how the brand is navigating the turbulence of rapid growth amid rising competition, and whether healthy soda is actually healthy or just a TikTok-fueled fad. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by the former editor-in-chief of Fast Company Bob Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today’s top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. So for folks who are less familiar, Olipop’s known as a functional soda. What does that mean? What is a prebiotic soda versus a probiotic soda? Give us the landscape. Soda itself has a really, really interesting, very deep history. It goes back a couple hundred years. There’s Middle East roots, there’s European roots. So in the U.S., obviously full-sugar soda in a myriad of forms existed for many, many decades, especially starting in the late 1800s. It actually wasn’t until 1943 that the federal government stepped in and told Coke and Pepsi and Dr. Pepper that they could no longer call soda “healthy.” That’s how long it was they were saying that it was healthy, even though, by that time, it was loaded with caffeine and sugar. And then in the ’60s and ’70s, and then really peaking in the ’80s, you had diet soda come in, and that was this awareness that, “Hey, all the sugar’s not great for you. Let’s go with these kind of artificial sweeteners.” And it’s been that two-horse race for a really long time. Ben Goodwin Functional soda, which I am fortunate enough to effectively have been the one that created the category and I’ve been working on it since about 2010, is basically this idea that soda can actually be health-contributing. I was looking at the evolution of the science around digestive and microbiome health and decided that this kind of nutritional intervention was, I thought, actually a superior strategy. The base of our nutritional pillars are fiber, prebiotics, and nutritional diversity. So sometimes when I hear people say, “The prebiotic soda category,” I’m like, “Well, that’s true, but that’s just part of the story,” because a lot of the other competitors that have come into the space are just looking to capitalize for the most part on a trend, but it only is actually technically a part of what we offer. The health benefits, not everyone’s on board about them. There have been some class-action lawsuits, not about your claims, but about claims from others. Is Olipop actually healthy for me, or is it just better for me than traditional soda? I’m actually so grateful that you asked that question. I don’t want to wade into trash-talking territory here, but I do think a lot of the other entrants, they’ve either got a really small amount of total fiber or they’re putting some of that fiber in and it’s not even stable in their product. You really want a blend of different high-quality prebiotics. It’s how you get to the best outcome. That’s at least my formulation philosophy. Olipop is actually healthy. We have done multiple in vitro clinical trials now at Purdue. We’ve a partnership with their stability lab, we’ve a partnership with their complex carbohydrates laboratory, and we’ve looked at microbiome and digestive health outputs. We saw incredible bifidogenesis. We saw the fermentation of multiple forms of short-chain fatty acids. And then we just finished our first pilot human clinical trial, and we were looking at blood sugar stability and blood sugar response. And basically, of the folks that we studied, it kept their blood sugar stable for a full three hours. So if you start stabilizing people’s blood sugar response, you start benefiting their digestive health microbiome outputs. I don’t know exactly what level of data most people need to classify something as healthy, but I’d say that certainly meets my criteria. My goal is to say, “Health and wellness should be actually contributing to your health and wellness,” and you should have some empirical data to validate that. If you’re going to ask consumers to spend a premium, you want to know that you’re actually giving them real outcomes for what they’re spending. You mentioned how fast your business has been growing, and it’s one of the fastest-growing U.S. beverage brands ever. You recently raised funds that, I don’t know, around a $2 billion valuation, but you do have this intense competition, right? Poppi, which is known for these Super Bowl ads, that was recently acquired by PepsiCo for just under $2 billion. Coca-Cola’s launched Simply Pop. How much does that change the game when the big players step in? I really want to see this category live up to its full potential. You’ve got soda, which is a $60 billion, 98% household penetration market in the United States. If we can do good in that category and use that as a kind of a Trojan horse to drive healthy outcomes for people, it’s really powerful. In terms of big players entering the space, to be honest with you, I think it’s fantastic. Some of the largest brands and the largest players in the soda and beverage space in the world getting into your category goes a long way to massively validate what you’re doing. And so hats off to Poppi. I know that getting out, selling their business was really important to them. Coke as well getting involved. It’s like, to be honest with you, it’s a bit of an honor. One of your investors is Indra Nooyi, the former PepsiCo CEO. I imagine that PepsiCo may have approached you at the same time as they did Poppi. I don’t know. Do you consider tying up with a bigger place? Look, I mean, I can’t really speak to that with a lot of detail. I don’t want to be overly coy in terms of Olipop does need to create a liquidity event, right? The reality is we’ve taken on investor capital, you just pointed to that, that was our final round into the business. We’re very, very fully profitable and really liquid, pun intended, but we have raised investor capital, which means you need to generate a liquidity event. There’s multiple ways that you can go through M&A, there’s obviously IPO going public, and so that is where right now—we’re just preserving optionality. I mentioned Poppi’s Super Bowl ad earlier. They spent, I don’t know, $16 million on a one-minute spot. Oh, more than that, yeah. You didn’t make that investment, and, instead, you teased them for their spending on social media, which they then called online bullying. Is that kind of back-and-forth with them, is that strategic? Is that what customers want from brands? You’re laughing. Yeah, I have no idea. The online bullying thing is really good. It’s really good. First of all, there’s a difference between the stuff that I personally authorize, and sometimes the stuff that the social media team decides that they want to get up to. And that was a moment where, to be honest with you, there was a little bit of a gap. I was actually at a friend’s wedding in Puerto Rico. I was not the one hitting send on the whatever platform it is that we were commenting on. But at the same time, I understand where the consumers were coming from, which is we do live in a time with an enormous amount of income inequality. Whatever it was about how Poppi showed up, that hit a nerve for a lot of people. They made their own voices heard. I don’t need to add to that conversation. Our team did say a couple things, but then they stopped, and that’s good because they probably would’ve been fired if they hadn’t, and we just went on with their lives. But yeah, I think that we don’t spend the same amount of money on marketing that Poppi does. I’m okay with that because a lot of what has driven our business has been organic demand and organic word-of-mouth. That is real, sustainable growth that we’re experiencing, and I’m really proud of that. And as long as you can continue to grow the business like that, you should. I think that we will probably have increase in spend in marketing as we go, but it’s okay for us as brands to have different strategies in terms of how we approach growth. View the full article

Millennials (people born between 1981 and 1996) are far more interested in buying homes today than they were just six months ago. That makes the group the only generation whose interest in homeownership has increased since September 2024. However, these same people are tending to put off the investment due to sky-high mortgage rates. The new data comes from an online survey of 2,230 adults conducted by Realtor.com. Six months ago, 15% of millennials said they were interested in buying a home. Now 23% are interested, according to the latest survey. Still, that doesn’t mean more 29- to 44-year-olds are actually buying homes. In a press release, Laura Eddy, vice president of research and insights at Realtor.com, noted how the desire to buy a home is being sidelined by soaring mortgage rates. “Even though we found a change in millennial home-buying intent, the influence of mortgage rates cannot be overstated, with the vast majority of Americans, including millennials, prioritizing lower rates before committing to a purchase.” Eddy added: “The lock-in effect is still very much in effect “ The survey also found that most Americans don’t have plans to buy a home in the immediate future. Some 69% said they don’t intend to go through with a home purchase over the next six months. And one-third of respondents said they have pushed back plans due to those high mortgage rates. But millennials and Gen Zers have delayed their plans at disproportionate rates, with more than half saying they’ve had to put off their plans to buy a home. Two-thirds of those surveyed by Realtor.com said mortgage rates have great influence over whether or not they will buy a home. Only 2% said they would even consider a home purchase with mortgage rates exceeding 6%; the threshold appears to be somewhere below 5% for 63% of respondents. (Meanwhile, the national average interest rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage is currently 6.95%, according to Bankrate.) “Across much of our research we see a trend where potential homebuyers feel stuck when it comes to buying a home due to their current mortgage rate,” Hannah Jones, senior research analyst at Realtor.com, said in the release. Jones continued, “Mortgage rates on top of an insufficient supply of budget-friendly homes complicates the affordability picture for many homeowners, especially first-time homebuyers who do not have equity from their existing home to help offset mortgage rates.” Jones added that the experts at Realtor.com believe potential homebuyers are likely to get tired of waiting for change, and out of necessity may go forward with purchases even if they aren’t totally satisfied with the rates. According to recent median home price listings, how much Americans need to earn to afford a home is growing exponentially. As of April 2024, they needed to earn $47,000 more per year to afford a home than they would have just six months prior. View the full article

You couldn’t have missed the news: Jony Ive and Sam Altman have teamed up, after OpenAI acquired Ive’s company io for $6.5 billion. The plan? For Ive, and a sizable team of ex-employees from Apple, it’s to create a series of hardware products for OpenAI. The news alone dropped shares of Apple by 1.8% as two of the most celebrated software and hardware development teams in the modern era have combined to realize the potential of artificial intelligence and change the way we live. Hopefully for the better. The first io product, according to The Wall Street Journal, arrives in 2026. It will be a small object “capable of being fully aware of a user’s surroundings and life.” I imagine an environmental (audio, video, etc.) monitor the size of a macaron or iPod shuffle that Ive says accompanies a smartphone and laptop as a third device—which you can carry on your person or put onto the table. Despite the immensity of the partnership, it’s easy to be skeptical. After all, AI hardware has flopped thus far, due to a lack of vision and a lack of execution. And as wondrous as ChatGPT is, it still hallucinates and requires vast amounts of energy to train and operate. But within these barely explored large language models, there’s still hidden potential that designers have yet to tap. As Ive told me back in 2023, there have been only three significant modalities in the history of computing. After the original command line, we got the graphical user interface (the desktop, folders, and mouse of Xerox, Mac OS, and Windows), then voice (Alexa, Siri), and, finally, with the iPhone, multitouch (not just the ability to tap a screen, but to gesture and receive haptic feedback). When I brought up some other examples, Ive quickly nodded but dismissed them, acknowledging these as “tributaries” of experimentation. Then he said that to him the promise, and excitement, of building new AI hardware was that it might introduce a new breakthrough modality to interacting with a machine. A fourth modality. Ive’s fourth modality, as I gleaned, was about translating AI intuition into human sensation. And it’s the exact sort of technology we need to introduce ubiquitous computing, also called quiet computing and ambient computing. These are terms coined by the late UX researcher Mark Weiser, who in the 1990s began dreaming of a world that broke us free from our desktop computers to usher in devices that were one with our environment. Weiser did much of this work at Xerox PARC, the same R&D lab that developed the mouse and GUI technology that Steve Jobs would eventually adopt for the Macintosh. (I would also be remiss to ignore that ubiquitous computing is the foundation of the sci-fi film Her, one of Altman’s self-stated goalposts.) I’ve written about the premise and promise of ubiquitous computing at length, having been privileged enough to have spoken with several of Weiser’s peers. But one idea has stuck with me the most from Weiser’s theories. He often compared the vision of quiet computing to a forest. In a forest, you’re surrounded by information—plants, animals, and weather are all signaling you at once. And yet, despite your senses taking in all this data, you’re never overwhelmed. You never find yourself distracted, or unhappy. (Perhaps it’s disconcerting when the storm clouds roll in, but I’d still take the sound of low rolling thunder over a Microsoft Teams notification any day.) Ive never described what that fourth approach to interface looked like—he chooses his descriptors carefully and would not pigeonhole a burgeoning idea with limiting words. But for a man who planted 9,000 native trees when designing Apple Park and has expressed his own responsibility for the negative impacts of the smartphone, it’s hard to imagine he feels all that differently from Weiser. And that all comes to mind when analyzing the very little we know about the first io product. This first machine from io seems to be the input device needed for ubiquitous computing. I imagine the macaron will likely leverage notifications on your phone and audio in your ear to communicate with you. Down the line the partnership has teased “a family of products,” meaning, who knows what other UX possibilities io could dream up. While we can barely say anything more specific, there does seem to be a fork in the road here philosophically. Whereas it appears that Google, Apple, Meta, and Snap are all betting on smart glasses to introduce the idea of ubiquitous computing—sensors and pixels that sit in your eyes all the time—at least for launch, io is doing the opposite. All of the leaked details so far point toward io developing the quietest, most discreet computing device we’ve ever had. I’m thinking of it as something like the silent conductor to the orchestra of the products we already own before, perhaps, one day doing more. Drafting off the smartphone The inconvenient truth for any innovator planning to disrupt consumer hardware is that there’s a lot more competition than there used to be when the Walkman, iPod, or Razr came around. There are 7.21 billion smartphones in the world today—nearly one per person, adding up to a $434 billion hardware industry in 2025, according to IDC. (Do note: Almost all of them, regardless of brand, are still designed along the lines of Ive and his team’s original vision.) These supercomputing screens aren’t simply ubiquitous; they are essential. From 4K video social media posts that go global in an instant, to turn-by-turn GPS directions navigating us through our lives, to the infrastructure of hailing an Uber or Lyft, to the mindlessness of checking out at stores, to the frictionless experience of riding public transit, to the necessary remote for controlling appliances, to, when all else fails, having the option to makes calls via satellites, we deeply depend on these screens in our pockets. There is no future in which the smartphone suddenly goes extinct, not because it’s perfect for society but because it’s so ingrained in the many disparate parts of our living infrastructure. A world suddenly without working smartphones would plunge us into some level of chaos. The first error of the Humane Ai Pin—the hyped AI gadget by Apple alum Imran Chaudhri, backed by Altman—was when it claimed it could replace your phone by, more or less, simply removing the screen and sticking it on your shirt. (The second error was when it just didn’t work.) The first io device seems to acknowledge the phone’s inertia. Instead of presenting itself as a smartphone-killer like the Ai Pin or as a fabled “second screen” like the Apple Watch, it’s been positioned as a third, er, um . . . thing next to your phone and laptop. Yeah, that’s confusing, and perhaps positions the io product as unessential. But it also appears to be a needed strategy: Rather than topple these screened devices, it will attempt to draft off them. On paper, that is such a vague idea that it’s either dull or exhilarating, depending on your disposition. Personally, it’s so darn hard to realize that I wouldn’t give it much attention if it weren’t for the team building it. Ive founded io with some of the greatest engineering and design talents out of Apple. He also founded his firm LoveFrom with much of his core design team from Apple. These two firms will be tag teaming with OpenAI, the most singular force in kicking off the current AI era. By comparison, as I write this, a Limitless pendant sits on my desk, fully charged, fully unused. It’s an AI system that will listen to your life to transcribe everything. Designed by Ammunition, the same lauded design firm behind Beats headphones, it’s slick, small, and carefully realized. It clamps right onto any fabric with a magnet. But after a week with it, I still don’t know when or where I should wear it. With my family? Feels weird. At work? I work remotely, so I have Zoom, Teams, Slack, and every other platform already recording me. (And at any job, there’s sensitive stuff you don’t want recorded.) So that’s out. What does that leave? Hanging with friends? The one time in my life as a journalist that’s thoroughly off the record, no thank you. How deep is too deep into your life? My concerns for this io device are many, though privacy is top of mind. I can imagine some interesting UX around opting in to being recorded, but will OpenAI go that direction or just brute force itself into our lives? I can’t help but remember that despite Apple’s privacy-first messaging, the iPhone went from a wondrous pocket computer to the ultimate personal advertising tracker—a decision made at the level of its chipset and supportive APIs. However, my concerns around privacy are perhaps more existential than my personal conversations being monetized. I wonder, if there’s always this AI around, will we be allowed to be private in our own thoughts anymore? Will we be afforded the privacy to draw our own conclusions? Before these artificial entities, our lives have largely been colored by the people around us. Our family, spouses, friends, and coworkers. A chance encounter with a stranger can make a day or spoil it. It’s so often someone’s take on events that shapes our own—like leaving a movie theater, I almost always agree with the take of my companion. Let’s assume we all acquiesce to this new wave of technology where an AI companion sits alongside us all the time. Suddenly, every experience we have is being processed by a third party. It’s something that will be analyzing and summarizing our actions and interactions. It will shape what we do next, a vast acceleration of how algorithms shape our experience across social media today. Even if this io product doesn’t live in our eyes, the extreme subtleties with which it chronicles our lives means it may live in our hearts. If that sounds cheesy, fair! Imagine if ChatGPT summarizes your life with all of the nuance of Apple’s AI of today—Mark, confused by menu, ordered cowboy burger. Nobody will use the thing. A system like this inherently has to go deeper to prove its utility, but in doing so it has to balance the burden of that responsibility. A subjective computer Technologists discussing AI today often draw a line between a deterministic and probabilistic interface. A deterministic interface is what we’ve had for the past 50 years. Buttons always lead you through the same preplanned routes to play a song or pull up an email. Every app is essentially a permutation of a calculator that always leads to a perfect end point. With probabilistic AI, however, every question is more like a wheelspin of roulette. ChatGPT spins up its responses like an infinite Rubik’s Cube spinning together every piece of media ever recorded. No one knows exactly what you’ll get, so the argument has been that probabilistic interfaces have to be built to accommodate for the unknown. If the Star Trek computer, with its clear answers like Alexa or Siri, was a deterministic computer, then the Star Trek holodeck, with its ever-shifting invented characters and worlds, is a probabilistic one. But I want to challenge that framing as inhuman, and irrelevant for our discussion of intimate, ambient computing. Instead of deterministic versus probabilistic, I think AI is shifting us from objective to subjective. When a Fitbit counts your steps and calories burned, that’s an objective interface. When you ask ChatGPT to gauge the tone of a conversation, or whether you should eat better, that’s a subjective interface. It offers perspective, bias, and, to some extent, personality. It’s not just serving facts; it’s offering interpretation. The AI companion from io needs to be the first subjective interface. And that makes it as complicated and risky as any other relationship we have. Years ago when “big data” was all the rage, I asked the question, Should Google tell you if you have cancer? The idea being that it could track search patterns of someone who was sick over time and predict where they would go next. So shouldn’t it intervene when it spots you searching for a known pattern of disease? The io device, presumably recording and analyzing your whole life, would have a similar remit, but with all sorts of additional questions. If it followed along in a conversation, and you couldn’t think of the name of that book you read . . . should it whisper that name into your ear? If it caught you misremembering, or even lying, should it call you out? Privately or publicly? When Microsoft built Cortana, it interviewed real executive assistants largely to get the system’s voice right, to know what it might say or not say, and how it could respond to certain questions. That level of sophistication was fine for scheduling a meeting or asking about the weather—conversational calculators—but we are so far beyond that now. Consider that an AI listening in or filming a room can do more than remember where you put your keys. Research is proving that it can spot finite relationships that humans can’t even identify. Archetype AI, for instance, has demonstrated that with nothing more than an A/V feed, AI can predict everything from the swing of a pendulum to whether there might be a workplace accident. An io device will be able to hear so much more than what you say. It’s why, as nonsensical as this unknown product might seem to critics (I’m supposed to buy this surveillance thingy?!?), I can’t question the potential utility. Executed well (that’s a big caveat!), it is potentially the first step in a realized vision of ubiquitous computing, a little buddy in your pocket that experiences life with you so that you don’t need to explain (or input) what’s going on. And as wild as the alternative other companies are pursuing are—to see holograms floating in front of your face—the vision for a quieter era of computing is about as old as computing itself. It’s as if we realized, from the earliest days, that our natural world was already a utopia. Now, it will take incredible creativity and restraint from OpenAI, io, and LoveFrom to enhance what’s remaining of this world, rather than seize its last bits. View the full article

The last two years have been one of the toughest job markets I’ve seen in decades. This isn’t like 2020 or 2021, where after the initial phase of the pandemic receded, jobs quickly reappeared. This one has been slow and unrelenting—market volatility causing uncertainty, and digital transformation of workplaces, and AI taking over jobs faster than you can read the headlines. These days, it feels like you’re sending your resume into the abyss. Sound familiar? I see it every day as a recruiter and career coach: talented job-seekers submitting application after application into what feels like a black hole. Weeks turn into months. The silence is deafening. Each passing day without a response chips away at your confidence, your bank account, and your sense of professional identity. Luckily, through my work, I’ve also developed tried-and-true strategies for standing out no matter the market conditions. Here are three powerful steps to reinvigorate your job search. 1. Reclaim Your Value Whether you’ve just gotten laid off or have already been job searching for months, your self-esteem probably isn’t the strongest. You may be feeling bitter, angry, and doubtful of your professional value. Being in that kind of mindset while trying to find a job won’t allow you to show up as your best self. For example, I recently worked with a very successful leader who had steered a company over the last several years with enormous success, each year hitting higher and higher revenue targets and winning some of the most sought-after projects in the industry. As the economy shifted, those revenues took a hit—and he was let go because of a “spreadsheet decision.” He was blindsided and stepped into his job search doubting himself. When working with job seekers who are struggling, we always start with a simple but powerful exercise: documenting significant achievements from their career. Not just responsibilities—actual metrics and results, problems solved, value delivered. I’ll ask people to think about things they’ve done that they’re really proud of. I make them dig deep to detail what they do really well, what gets them fired up, and ask them how their colleagues and clients would describe working with them. As they reconnect with their expertise, things they haven’t thought of for a while, I see their faces light up and confidence starting to return. You can do this with a career coach, your partner, a best friend, even a colleague who knows you well—just ask them to take notes about what you’re telling them to read back to you at the end. Working through these questions with my executive client helped remind him of the successes he was responsible for and the resilience he showed in a tough market. Those reminders allowed him to work through his disappointment, prepare for how he’d talk about the challenges when asked, and enter his job search with renewed confidence in what he had to offer. This isn’t just about feeling better; it’s about how you show up. When you remember your professional value, you communicate with clarity and conviction. Your entire energy changes, and people take notice. 2. Stop Trying to Be Everything to Everyone When desperation sets in, the instinct is to cast a bigger net. The thinking is, by applying to more jobs, you’ll have better odds of landing something. This approach feels logical, but produces the opposite of what you hope for. Sure, you’ll be busy applying to things, but because you’re not the expert, you likely won’t get responses, so all that busy work will lead to frustration and burnout. I recently worked with a client who was going on two years of being out of work. The longer his job search went on, the more he began applying to a broader set of roles, thinking it would increase his chances of landing something. Here’s the counterintuitive truth: The more you narrow your focus and lean into your specific expertise, the more responses you’ll receive. When I tell people this, their initial response is anxiety; they don’t want to limit their options. But when you stop trying to appeal to everyone and boldly claim your niche, everything changes. Applications that once disappeared suddenly generate responses. Interviews that went nowhere convert to eager follow-ups. When you’re interviewing for a role where you are the expert, that’s the interview you’re going to ace. When I work with clients to understand how they’re speaking about themselves, we dig deep into what truly distinguishes them. We return to some of those questions from above that uncover their unique approach and what motivates and energizes them. Then we look at the roles they’re applying to and narrow their focus to roles and companies where their specific and unique expertise is sought after. We look at their job application materials and see if they’re making statements that many others could equally say and ensure that we get quite specific. When I read their new narrative back to them, all of it in their own words, many remark that they got chills—they’re finally hearing their professional value articulated in a way that feels authentically powerful and totally unique. When I reminded my client of his incredibly niche expertise—skills that very few people possess—and focused all his job-seeking efforts on companies who could benefit from him, things immediately began to shift. Within one day, he landed an interview. Two days later, he was meeting the leadership team. Companies want to hire the expert. Show them that it’s you. 3. Show That You’re The Solution They’re Looking For The interview is your last chance to not just show why you’re great, but show why you’re exactly the solution an employer has been looking for. I’ve seen so many clients underperform in interviews because they’re not giving themselves enough credit. But a few simple shifts can transform that: Think offense, not defense. The minute you start justifying why you’re right for the role, you’ve already lost it. Interviewers can feel defensiveness. Own the narrative before that happens by confidently articulating how your experience directly addresses the role’s most critical requirements before doubts can surface. Use high-impact storytelling. Give specific examples demonstrating how your experience solves exactly what they need. When you paint these pictures vividly, you allow the interviewer to truly see how effective you will be on day-one. Rehearse your stories before your interview so they are memorable. Embrace transparent confidence. Nothing undermines trust faster than pretending to know everything. When you confidently acknowledge what you know and don’t know, you establish genuine credibility. If they really like you and you satisfy most requirements, chances are they can evolve the role around you and fill in the gaps. Take your time. Less is often more. Really listen to what they are asking you, pause, and take a moment to reflect so you can give a considered response. If it’s a really tough question, you can even tell the interviewer you’d like a moment to think through your response. It buys you a few seconds to really compose a well-thought out answer and it never fails to impress an interviewer. They’ll remember the great answers and they often remark how much they enjoyed how reflective you were in wanting to answer it well. Simple Job Application Changes, Profound Results The strategies I’ve shared may seem straightforward, or even obvious. But when implemented with consistency and conviction, they transform job searches from no traction to multiple interviews and competing job offers. These strategies work not because they’re complicated, but because they align with a fundamental truth: Employers aren’t looking for generic candidates; they’re looking for the expert to solve their problem, now. When you reconnect with your expertise, focus your efforts, and communicate your value with clarity and confidence, you become that solution. You transform from just another resume in the pile to exactly what they’ve been searching for. View the full article

After months of rigorous searching, you’ve found your ideal executive candidate. They tick every box on paper and seem perfect in interviews. But then reality hits: Your “Cinderella candidate” isn’t prepared for the real-world challenges of the role. Now what? A popular study highlights just how common—and costly—this scenario is. A 2015 research report from Corporate Executive Board found that 50% to 70% of leadership hires fail within 18 months. And that can cost the company one-half to twice the hire’s annual salary, according to a 2019 Gallup report. Given the high levels of remuneration, the financial impact can be even more severe at the executive level. As someone who has navigated countless executive searches, I’ve seen how easy it is to fall into the trap of searching for a “Cinderella candidate”—someone who appears to match a meticulously defined set of qualifications perfectly. And even if the ideal candidate does exist, they may not be interested in your opportunity or ready for a career move. Compounding these challenges, you have noncompete agreements that further shrink the available talent pool. Setting the ideal candidate bar high can help, but an overly rigid vision often results in a long, drawn-out search with diminishing returns. When we accept that perfection on paper rarely translates into perfection in practice, we create opportunities to find strong candidates who bring real, tangible strengths to the table, even if they don’t check every box. To find the right hire and mitigate leadership turnover, we must rethink how we define, evaluate, and select leadership candidates. The following insights will help broaden your approach: 1. The right leader is a catalyst, not a title Rather than locking into overly specific C-suite qualifications, consider the characteristics of transformational leaders that your team genuinely needs. While technical skills matter, you should emphasize broader competencies like adaptability, decision-making in ambiguity, and the ability to motivate diverse teams. These qualities often predict long-term success better than niche expertise. Consider leaders with transferable skills. They can bring fresh insights and a broader understanding of how to drive success in evolving environments. To implement this shift in your recruitment strategy, broaden your search criteria. Identify three competencies that you need to navigate the company’s evolving needs, and build the ideal candidate profile around them. Instead of seeking candidates with narrow expertise, look for ones who have thrived in roles requiring agility, like leading R&D initiatives or driving organizational change amid disruption. This approach allows you to attract versatile leaders who are ready to innovate and guide your organization through periods of uncertainty and change. 2. Culture isn’t one size fits all To achieve a balance in hiring for cultural fit versus hiring for skills, employ structured assessments that translate “fit” into measurable attributes. Tools like DISC profiles or situational interviews provide concrete data on qualities such as empathy, resilience, and adaptability, allowing hiring teams to evaluate whether candidates align with company culture in objective terms. This avoids the common pitfalls of hiring based on intuition alone and helps avoid overreliance on subjective notions of the perfect candidate. For senior leadership roles like COOs, scenario-based interviews should focus on how candidates have successfully navigated complex challenges related to people, processes, and change management. Ask how they’ve implemented large-scale organizational changes or optimized operations to drive efficiency. These structured assessments reveal a candidate’s approach to strategic problem-solving and their leadership style. In turn, this ensures they can align with the company’s vision and foster a high-performing culture. 3. Cross-functional input is key When creating an ideal candidate profile for a role that requires strong cross-departmental collaboration, include perspectives from various departments in the hiring process, such as finance, HR, operations, and product development. By aligning on core characteristics of leaders who inspire and unify, hiring managers gain a comprehensive view of each candidate’s potential impact across teams. For instance, used vehicle retailer CarMax involves leaders from product management, engineering, and customer experience to evaluate candidates for roles within its technology and innovation teams. Each team member provides insights into collaborative skills that they need for meeting customer needs and delivering fast solutions across functions. Utilizing these teams in the hiring process helps ensure that selected leaders can build relationships, bridge departmental divides, and facilitate cohesive, organization-wide success. 4. The perfect candidate is a myth The perfect candidate is a myth that often leads hiring managers to overlook leaders with qualities like resilience and learning agility. In executive hiring, finding the right cultural fit often outweighs industry expertise alone. Sure, technical knowledge is essential, and you can use that for a candidate in the room. But ultimately, you should make sure that the candidate aligns with the company’s values, vision, and culture. Leaders who seamlessly align with the company’s culture tend to engage teams more effectively, navigate challenges agilely, and drive change in ways that feel authentic to the organization. A high-performing C-suite hinges less on “perfect matches” than on leaders who can innovate within an evolving landscape. Hiring for sustainable success requires shifting from rigid, idealized profiles to assessing candidates for resilience, adaptability, and alignment with the core values of the organization. View the full article

Warren Buffett is likely the best-known, most successful investor in the world today. The philanthropist and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway has an estimated net worth of $158 billion and is known as the Oracle of Omaha for his ability to pick long-term investments. He’s also dedicated to sharing his wisdom with everyday investors, including beginners. Here are Buffett’s top three tips: Principle No. 1: Invest Only in What You Understand Buffett has famously advised, “Never invest in a business you cannot understand.” In a letter to Berkshire Hathaway’s shareholders in 1996, Buffett explained the concept of a “circle of competence”: Basically, these are the fields that you truly understand and are knowledgeable enough to evaluate. “You don’t have to be an expert on every company, or even many,” Buffett said. “You only have to be able to evaluate companies within your circle of competence. The size of that circle is not very important; knowing its boundaries, however, is vital.” For example, Buffett famously stayed out of tech stocks early on because he felt he couldn’t truly evaluate the investment opportunities himself. At a 2019 stockholders’ meeting, Buffett advised investors to try and learn as much as they can about as many businesses as possible and then figure out which ones they truly understand and have knowledge on. That, he said, would put them ahead of most other investors. If you’re an investor who’d like to build your own portfolio, sticking to what you know is vital. You’ll be able to evaluate each business for yourself and understand the true relevance of new developments over time. Meanwhile, if you’re investing in something just because someone else says it’s a good idea, you’re entirely dependent on their judgment, which may not be as sound as they claim or believe it is. If you don’t have the time or inclination to study individual businesses thoroughly enough to make these judgments for yourself, Buffett recommends investing in an S&P 500 index fund as the best option for most investors. Principle No. 2: Avoid Unnecessary Activity “You don’t get paid for activity, you only get paid for being right,” Buffett said in 1998. Especially as a beginning investor, you’ll likely get the urge to react to news about the market or your individual investments immediately. It’s easy to panic when an earnings announcement sends the value of your equity down 5% or more in a day. But Buffett preaches patience: If you’ve done your due diligence and you’re investing only in stocks you have strong reason to believe will pay off in the long run, a little market noise along the way shouldn’t scare you off. “Inactivity strikes us as intelligent behavior,” he said in his 1996 letter. If you’re sure you’re investing only in strong, well-managed businesses, then you need to trade only when those qualities aren’t true anymore. Stocks and the market tend to grow in value over time. By trading too frequently, you may find yourself reinvesting in stocks at higher prices than you originally bought them at—losing out on gains, dividend payments, and any trading fees in the process—or losing out on higher long-term profits. Principle No. 3: Make Every Investment Decision Count In a speech at the USC Marshall School of Business in 1994, Charlie Munger, cofounder of Berkshire Hathaway, said that Buffett believes most investors would be better off in the long run if he could give each one “a ticket with only 20 slots . . . representing all the investments that you got to make in a lifetime.” The root of this advice is the same as Buffett’s other investing principles: A limit of 20 investments forces you to carefully consider every move, to be patient, and to not invest in businesses you don’t understand. You’d also ensure you’re confident enough about each investment that it’s worth missing out on another investment in the future. Think about it: If you were buying a house or a car, would you buy it sight unseen, without an inspection, or on the word of some random person online? Probably not. Your investments deserve nearly as much deliberation. Buffett said in 1996 that every investor’s goal should simply be to purchase stocks in businesses that they are virtually certain will be earning more money in 5, 10, or 20 years. This diligence and patience has made Buffett one of the richest men in the world and could help your portfolio as well. View the full article

Boss of UK’s biggest investment platform will depart following £5.4bn private equity takeover View the full article

As the founder of a high-growth SaaS business, Evan was the quintessential entrepreneur. Ideas and innovation were his strength, and they led to his success in attracting investors and inspiring his early hires. With the infusion of investment capital, the company entered a new stage of growth. To scale successfully, the business needed to standardize operations and develop repeatable processes to reliably deliver services to its customers. But these were not Evan’s strengths. With a near-constant flow of ideas and a desire to resource them, he soon earned a new nickname among his team: “chief distraction officer.” Eventually, investors grew tired of Evan’s lack of focus and replaced him with a seasoned operator who had the operational capabilities necessary to grow. The skills that make founders successful often become liabilities as a business builds. As executive coach Marshall Goldsmith says, “What got you here won’t get you there.” Here are five leadership behaviors that break at scale—and where the fixes lie. 1. Creativity over Discipline Evan was a perfect example of someone whose creativity and passion were a perfect fit for a founder. As his business progressed to the next stage of growth, the primary skill required was the ability to build out processes, to “systematize” the product so that it would be delivered to clients consistently every time. But highly entrepreneurial leaders often find it draining to limit their focus to only the one or two proven products. What’s the solution for the mismatch of a founder’s talents to this later stage of growth? The most successful ones recognize new skills are needed, have the humility to accept their own limitations, find a great COO, and get out of that person’s way. 2. High Appetite for Risk When starting out, it’s important to take risks, try new things, learn from your mistakes, and try again. As companies scale, though, the focus should turn to building stability and predictability. Sudden shifts in strategy and focus cause uncertainty and inconsistency, which erode the trust and confidence of customers, employees, and investors. How do leaders balance the need for continuous innovation with stability and predictability? Former Google executives Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg offer a great framework for continuing to innovate as you scale: the 70/20/10 rule. The idea calls for allocating 70% of capital to the core business, 20% to emerging products and services, and 10% to the cutting-edge, higher-risk ideas. This framework ensures that innovation is always happening—but not at the expense of the core business. 3. Command-and-Control Leadership Founders are notorious for having their hands in every decision, from product development and pricing to the paint color of the office. As the company scales, this level of involvement is no longer possible. Founders have to bring on new leaders to mobilize, motivate, and manage a larger number of employees. But bringing in leaders is the easy part: Moving to distributed leadership, where the company is truly led by a team instead of an individual, is harder. Distributed leadership calls for founder CEOs to step out of the day-to-day operational decisions, delegate, trust, and empower those on their team to drive results. Allowing others to share the management responsibilities pays enormous dividends. Beside the obvious—having others to lean on for their knowledge and expertise—it also helps to ensure the stability and continuity of the business. Only by distributing leadership will CEOs be able to elevate their role to focus more on leading strategy. 4. Open-Door Communication Early-stage leaders enjoy the close proximity of their team and the ability to communicate in real time. It can be really challenging for CEOs to break the habit of communicating informally and directly with everyone at the company. To scale successfully, a CEO needs to shift to more measured and intentional communication. As Google was growing rapidly in the early 2000s, founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin faced the challenge of shifting from being player-coaches who shared an office with fellow software engineers to becoming key executives of a publicly traded company. To help them—and their employees—enforce new and necessary boundaries, the two hired a key executive assistant. That new hire served as a filter for their email and a bouncer for their office, with their role empowered to moderate the flow of people in and out so the executives could be more disciplined with their time and focus. 5. Valuing Relationships over Accountability A key ingredient to building a successful company is a high-performing team—and most startups don’t begin with one. Founder CEOs often describe their initial team as a “family” who have bonded with each other through the intense challenges of the startup experience. Sometimes, early employees are actual family—siblings, spouses, and children are often part of the act, bringing all of their relationship dynamics with them. High-performing teams, by contrast, run on accountability. Those who are not able to deliver the required results won’t make it, regardless of their relationship to the founder. Adding accountability structures like job descriptions, goal-setting, and performance management helps to ensure the team is on track to execute. These processes also help to shine a light on anyone who is unable to adapt to the new demands of the larger and more complex organization. Inevitably, founders will be forced to make some difficult decisions regarding some of the early team members to make way for new talent who can drive results and take the business to the next level. Building a sustainable, stable growth engine with double-digit year-over-year growth is hard. Each new stage of growth brings new challenges that require a different set of skills. The most successful leaders are those who understand the need to adapt their behaviors to meet the next stage—and what it demands. View the full article

Have you heard of “Maycember”? According to social media, it’s a term that describes the hectic nature and mounting expenses families face around May, particularly parents with children, due to the increased cost of everything from graduation gifts to summer camps and family vacations, which combined with inflation (and tariffs), have made May feel extra expensive, just like the winter holiday season. That’s as total spending for college and graduation gifts is expected to reach a record $6.8 billion in 2025, up from $6.1 billion in 2024, according to the National Retail Federation. And U.S. consumer spending was up in May 2024, even as prices remained stable; the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index was unchanged last May but still marked a 2.6% year-over-year rise, according to financial news site Finimize. (On the consumer side, spending increased by 0.2%, maintaining momentum from April’s 0.1% rise, aided by a 0.5% bump in personal income.) “May often feels like a second December because so many expenses pile up at once,” Isabel Barrow, executive director of financial planning at Edelman Financial Engines, told CNBC. Some of those expenses include graduation, Mother’s Day, camp, summer travel, and weddings. Some families might also have higher grocery bills when children come home from college to visit for July 4, or throughout summer until Labor Day weekend. And the end of spring brings a flurry of activities that mark the end of the school year and the beginning of summer, which can often require paying up for tickets, gear, or other related expenses, including school events like dance or music recitals, kids’ sports tournaments, field trips, and end-of-year projects. But just where exactly did the term “Maycember” come from, anyway? The word got out after the Holderness family, popular on social media, posted a funny YouTube video that went viral, garnering 270,000-plus views. The family has since posted another Maycember parody. Meanwhile, a number of parents have also taken to social media to post and commiserate about Maycember; a recent Instagram post from Scary Mommy got more than 23,000 likes and even more shares. View the full article

Twice a year, New Yorkers and visitors are treated to a phenomenon known as Manhattanhenge, when the setting sun aligns with the Manhattan street grid and sinks below the horizon framed in a canyon of skyscrapers. The event is a favorite of photographers and often brings people out onto sidewalks on spring and summer evenings to watch this unique sunset. The first Manhattanhenge of the year takes place Wednesday at 8:13 p.m., with a slight variation happening again Thursday at 8:12 p.m. It will occur again on July 11 and 12. Some background on the phenomenon: Where does the name Manhattanhenge come from? Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson coined the term in a 1997 article in the magazine Natural History. Tyson, the director of the Hayden Planetarium at New York’s American Museum of Natural History, said he was inspired by a visit to Stonehenge as a teenager. The future host of TV shows such as PBS’s Nova ScienceNow was part of an expedition led by Gerald Hawkins, the scientist who first theorized that Stonehenge’s mysterious megaliths were an ancient astronomical observatory. It struck Tyson, a native New Yorker, that the setting sun framed by Manhattan’s high-rises could be compared to the sun’s rays striking the center of the Stonehenge circle on the solstice. Unlike the Neolithic Stonehenge builders, the planners who laid out Manhattan did not mean to channel the sun. It just worked out that way. When is Manhattanhenge? Manhattanhenge does not take place on the summer solstice itself, which is June 20 this year. Instead, it happens about three weeks before and after the solstice. That’s when the sun aligns itself perfectly with the Manhattan grid’s east-west streets. Viewers get two different versions of the phenomenon to choose from. On May 28 and July 12, half the sun will be above the horizon and half below it at the moment of alignment with Manhattan’s streets, according to the Hayden Planetarium. On May 29 and July 11, the whole sun will appear to hover between buildings just before sinking into the New Jersey horizon across the Hudson River. Where can you see Manhattanhenge? The traditional viewing spots are along the city’s broad east-west thoroughfares: 14th Street, 23rd Street, 34th Street, 42nd Street, and 57th Street. The farther east you go, the more dramatic the vista as the sun’s rays hit building facades on either side. It is also possible to see Manhattanhenge across the East River in the Long Island City section of Queens. Is Manhattanhenge an organized event? Manhattanhenge viewing parties are not unknown, but it is mostly a DIY affair. People gather on east-west streets a half-hour or so before sunset and snap photo after photo as dusk approaches. That’s if the weather is fine. There’s no visible Manhattanhenge on rainy or cloudy days, and both are unfortunately in the forecast this week. Do other cities have “henges”? Similar effects occur in other cities with uniform street grids. Chicagohenge and Baltimorehenge happen when the setting sun lines up with the grid systems in those cities in March and September, around the spring and fall equinoxes. Torontohenge occurs in February and October. But Manhattanhenge is particularly striking because of the height of the buildings and the unobstructed path to the Hudson. View the full article

Fat gross margin gives the chipmaker plenty of firepower to compete on priceView the full article

In cities across the U.S., the housing crisis has reached a breaking point. Rents are skyrocketing, homelessness is rising and working-class neighborhoods are threatened by displacement. These challenges might feel unprecedented. But they echo a moment more than half a century ago. In the 1950s and 1960s, housing and urban inequality were at the center of national politics. American cities were grappling with rapid urban decline, segregated and substandard housing, and the fallout of highway construction and urban renewal projects that displaced hundreds of thousands of disproportionately low-income and Black residents. The federal government decided to try to do something about it. President Lyndon B. Johnson launched one of the most ambitious experiments in urban policy: the Model Cities Program. As a scholar of housing justice and urban planning, I’ve studied how this short-lived initiative aimed to move beyond patchwork fixes to poverty and instead tackle its structural causes by empowering communities to shape their own futures. Building a great society The Model Cities Program emerged in 1966 as part of Johnson’s Great Society agenda, a sweeping effort to eliminate poverty, reduce racial injustice and expand social welfare programs in the United States. Earlier urban renewal programs had been roundly criticized for displacing communities of color. Much of this displacement occurred through federally funded highway and slum clearance projects that demolished entire neighborhoods and often left residents without decent options for new housing. So the Johnson administration sought a more holistic approach. The Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act established a federal framework for cities to coordinate housing, education, employment, health care and social services at the neighborhood level. To qualify for the program, cities had to apply for planning grants by submitting a detailed proposal that included an analysis of neighborhood conditions, long-term goals and strategies for addressing problems. The City of New York, Community Development Program: A Progress Report, December 1968 Federal funds went directly to city governments, which then distributed them to local agencies and community organizations through contracts. These funds were relatively flexible but had to be tied to locally tailored plans. For example, Kansas City, Missouri, used Model Cities funding to support a loan program that expanded access to capital for local small businesses, helping them secure financing that might otherwise have been out of reach. Unlike previous programs, Model Cities emphasized what Johnson described as “comprehensive” and “concentrated” efforts. It wasn’t just about rebuilding streets or erecting public housing. It was about creating new ways for government to work in partnership with the people most affected by poverty and racism. A revolutionary approach to poverty What made Model Cities unique wasn’t just its scale but its philosophy. At the heart of the program was an insistence on “widespread citizen participation,” which required cities that received funding to include residents in the planning and oversight of local programs. The program also drew inspiration from civil rights leaders. One of its early architects, Whitney M. Young Jr., had called for a “Domestic Marshall Plan” – a reference to the federal government’s efforts to rebuild Europe after World War II – to redress centuries of racial inequality. Young’s vision helped shape the Model Cities framework, which proposed targeted systemic investments in housing, health, education, employment and civic leadership in minority communities. In Atlanta, for example, the Model Cities Program helped fund neighborhood health clinics and job training programs. But the program also funded leadership councils that for the first time gave local low-income residents a direct voice in how city funds were spent. In other words, neighborhood residents weren’t just beneficiaries. They were planners, advisers and, in some cases, staffers. This commitment to community participation gave rise to a new kind of public servant – what sociologists Martin and Carolyn Needleman famously called “guerrillas in the bureaucracy.” These were radical planners—often young, idealistic and deeply embedded in the neighborhoods they served. Many were recruited and hired through new Model Cities funding that allowed local governments to expand their staff with community workers aligned with the program’s goals. Working from within city agencies, these new planners used their positions to challenge top-down decision-making and push for community-driven planning. Their work was revolutionary not because they dismantled institutions but because they reimagined how institutions could function, prioritizing the voices of residents long excluded from power. Strengthening community ties In cities across the country, planners fought to redirect public resources toward locally defined priorities. In some cities, such as Tucson, the program funded education initiatives such as bilingual cultural programming and college scholarships for local students. In Baltimore, it funded mobile health services and youth sports programs. Robert Breck Chapman Collection, Langsdale Library Special Collections, University of Baltimore In New York City, the program supported new kinds of housing projects called vest-pocket developments, which got their name from their smaller scale: midsize buildings or complexes built on vacant lots or underutilized land. New housing such as the Betances Houses in the South Bronx were designed to add density without major redevelopment taking place—a direct response to midcentury urban renewal projects, which had destroyed and displaced entire neighborhoods populated by the city’s poorest residents. Meanwhile, cities such as Seattle used the funds to renovate older apartment buildings instead of tearing them down, which helped preserve the character of local neighborhoods. The goal was to create affordable housing while keeping communities intact. Georgia State University Special Collections What went wrong? Despite its ambitious vision, Model Cities faced resistance almost from the start. The program was underfunded and politically fragile. While some officials had hoped for US$2 billion in annual funding, the actual allocation was closer to $500 million to $600 million, spread across more than 60 cities. Then the political winds shifted. Though designed during the optimism of the mid-1960s, the program started being implemented under President Richard Nixon in 1969. His administration pivoted away from “people programs” and toward capital investment and physical development. Requirements for resident participation were weakened, and local officials often maintained control over the process, effectively marginalizing the everyday citizens the program was meant to empower. In cities such as San Francisco and Chicago, residents clashed with bureaucrats over control, transparency and decision-making. In some places, participation was reduced to token advisory roles. In others, internal conflict and political pressure made sustained community governance nearly impossible. Critics, including Black community workers and civil rights activists, warned that the program risked becoming a new form of “neocolonialism,” one that used the language of empowerment while concentrating control in the hands of white elected officials and federal administrators. A legacy worth revisiting Although the program was phased out by 1974, its legacy lived on. In cities across the country, Model Cities trained a generation of Black and brown civic leaders in what community development leaders and policy advocates John A. Sasso and Priscilla Foley called “a little noticed revolution.” In their book of the same name, they describe how those involved in the program went on to serve in local government, start nonprofits and advocate for community development. It also left an imprint on later policies. Efforts such as participatory budgeting, community land trusts and neighborhood planning initiatives owe a debt to Model Cities’ insistence that residents should help shape the future of their communities. And even as some criticized the program for failing to meet its lofty goals, others saw its value in creating space for democratic experimentation. Robert Breck Chapman Collection, Langsdale Library Special Collections, University of Baltimore Today’s housing crisis demands structural solutions to structural problems. The affordable housing crisis is deeply connected to other intersecting crises, such as climate change, environmental injustice and health disparities, creating compounding risks for the most vulnerable communities. Addressing these issues through a fragmented social safety net—whether through housing vouchers or narrowly targeted benefit programs—has proven ineffective. Today, as policymakers once again debate how to respond to deepening inequality and a lack of affordable housing, the lost promise of Model Cities offers vital lessons. Model Cities was far from perfect. But it offered a vision of how democratic, local planning could promote health, security and community. Deyanira Nevárez Martínez is an assistant professor of urban and regional planning at Michigan State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. View the full article

Donald The President’s election helped revive loans that once threatened to hit banks with big lossesView the full article

By raising fees imprudently in recent years, the independent sector has deprived a tier of parents of financial wriggle roomView the full article

In a number of key markets, investors are losing patience with governments still wanting to borrow like there’s no tomorrow View the full article

About 50,000 Whitehall posts set to be cut in ‘brutal’ public spending review, officials sayView the full article

The US president is a crypto booster — and the faithful went to America’s gambling capital to celebrateView the full article

He may have survived a bruising encounter with Donald The President, but the veteran ANC politician is facing forbidding challenges at home and abroadView the full article

Business secretary Jonathan Reynolds set to hold talks with US counterpartView the full article

Jackie Sinclair has launched Jackie Sinclair & Co., a new content repurposing agency designed to help small business owners maximize their visibility through AI-enhanced strategies. Based in Palm Springs, California, the agency aims to simplify the content creation process by transforming a single piece of content into a wide-reaching digital presence. According to a release from the company, Jackie Sinclair & Co. uses The Social Cycle, a trademarked system developed by Sinclair, which has been used by dozens of clients over the past five years. The system is designed to repurpose blogs, videos, and podcasts into newsletters, social posts, SEO articles, and video scripts to expand a business’s digital footprint. “Your blog post shouldn’t just sit there. It should spin off, stretch out, and multiply into an entire content ecosystem—fueling your visibility across every platform,” the release states. Sinclair positions her agency as a tool for business owners who “want to do less, but show up more.” The agency incorporates AI into its services, but emphasizes it as a tool for empowerment rather than replacement. Sinclair, who also co-manages multiple business ventures with her husband and homeschools their children, is described as an advocate for entrepreneurs seeking sustainable growth. She provides support through mentoring, practical guidance, and strategic content services. Jackie Sinclair & Co. offers three main repurposing packages aimed at simplifying the content production process without the need for a full-time marketing team. According to the release, these services allow clients to “look like you have a team (even if you don’t).” The available packages include: Social Spark – Converts written content such as blogs and articles into a network of digital content. Social Symphony – Builds content from video or podcast material, including transcripts and YouTube-ready copy. Social Catalyst – Offers topic-driven builds that incorporate SEO keyword research and optimized content assets. Packages start at $300, according to the company, and are intended to offer affordable and accessible options for small business owners who want consistent visibility online. In addition to running her agency, Sinclair is a featured host on The American Dream TV, a program streaming on Amazon Prime, Tubi, and YouTube TV. The show covers stories of lifestyle, business, and real estate in Southern California. A link to one of her appearances was provided in the press release: Watch here. Sinclair has also presented to national and international audiences both in-person and virtually, focusing on helping small business owners embrace AI, streamline their content processes, and build long-term visibility. Image: Jackie Sinclair & Co. This article, "Jackie Sinclair Launches Content Repurposing Agency Tailored for the AI Era" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article