ResidentialBusiness

Want more housing market stories from Lance Lambert’s ResiClub in your inbox? Subscribe to the ResiClub newsletter. National home prices rose 0.7% year over year between April 2024 and April 2025, according to the Zillow Home Value Index—a decelerated rate from the 4.4% year-over-year rate between April 2023 and April 2024. And more metro-area housing markets are seeing declines. For example, 31 of the nation’s 300 largest housing markets (10% of markets) had a falling year-over-year reading in the January 2024 to January 2025 window. In the February 2024 to February 2025 window, 42 of them (14% of markets) had a falling year-over-year reading. In the March 2024 to March 2025 window, that was up to 60 housing markets (20% of markets). And in the most recent reading—the April 2024 to April 2025 window—80 of the nation’s 300 largest housing markets (27% of markets) had a falling year-over-year reading. While 27% of the 300 largest housing markets are currently experiencing year-over-year home price declines, that share is gradually increasing as the supply-demand balance continues to shift directionally toward buyers in this affordability-constrained environment. Home prices are still climbing in many regions where active inventory remains well below pre-pandemic levels, such as pockets of the Northeast and Midwest. In contrast, some pockets in states like Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas—where active inventory exceeds pre-pandemic 2019 levels—are seeing modest home price corrections. These year-over-year declines, using the Zillow Home Value Index, are evident in major metros such as Austin (-5.1%); Tampa, Florida (-5.0%); San Antonio (-3.2%); Dallas (-3.0%); Phoenix (-2.8%); Orlando, Florida (-2.8%); Jacksonville, Florida (-2.7%); New Orleans (-2.4); Atlanta (-2.3%); Miami (-2.3%), Denver (-1.8%), and Houston (-1.4%). The markets seeing the most softness—where homebuyers have gained the most leverage—are primarily located in Sun Belt regions, particularly the Gulf Coast and Mountain West. Many of these areas saw major price surges during the pandemic housing boom, with home price growth outpacing local income levels. As pandemic-driven migration slowed and mortgage rates rose, markets like Tampa and Austin faced challenges, relying on local income levels to support frothy home prices. This softening trend is further compounded by an abundance of new home supply in the Sun Belt. Builders are often willing to lower prices or offer affordability incentives to maintain sales, which also has a cooling effect on the resale market. Some buyers, who would have previously considered existing homes, are now opting for new homes with more favorable deals. Given the shift in active housing inventory and months of supply, along with the soft level of appreciation in more markets this spring, ResiClub expects the number of metro areas with year-over-year home price declines in the Zillow Home Value Index to continue ticking up in the coming months. View the full article

Right now, America is facing a traffic safety crisis unlike anything we’ve seen in decades. And it’s only accelerating: 2023 was the deadliest year for pedestrians and cyclists in 45 years. Crashes are rising in nearly every state. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration just warned that traffic deaths are staying at “persistently high levels,” despite fewer people commuting post-pandemic. Meanwhile, distracted driving deaths jumped nearly 12% last year alone, according to the latest federal data. Everywhere you look, it’s getting more dangerous to move through your own neighborhood, whether you’re walking your dog, riding your bike, or just driving home from work. It is a daily, growing threat to your family, your friends, and your community. A common nightmare Twenty-one months ago, my 17-year-old son Magnus was out on a training ride. He was on the U.S. National Cycling Team and was a U.S. National Cycling Champion. It was a Saturday at 12:30 pm. He was doing everything right. He was riding on a designated bike route, on the far right of a wide, 10-foot shoulder, wearing his Team USA cycling kit. A driver stayed up all night, drank whiskey and took prescription drugs, then got behind the wheel of her car. The driver passed out, crossed the white line into the shoulder at 60 mph, and drove straight through Magnus, never touching the brakes. Since Magnus’s death, I’ve met countless other families living the same nightmare. Families who lost children, parents, siblings, good people who were doing everything right as a pedestrian or cyclist, but paid the ultimate price for someone else’s reckless choices. This isn’t rare. It’s happening every day, all over America. Technology can move faster The brutal truth is that humans are flawed. We choose to speed. We choose to look at our phones. We choose to drive drunk. Our infrastructure is flawed too, especially here in the U.S. Streets designed for speed, not safety. Crosswalks painted on four-lane highways. Stop signs placed where they don’t slow anyone down. And rebuilding all of it would take decades and dollars that we don’t have. But technology can move faster. Technology can sometimes even compensate for human mistakes. It can spot dangers our eyes miss, respond faster than our reflexes, and protect lives even when people choose to drive recklessly. The technology exists today to save lives. It’s real, it’s proven, and it’s ready. Safety features like lane-keep assist, automatic emergency braking (AEB), and blind-spot detection aren’t luxury add-ons. They’re lifesaving necessities. AEB alone cuts rear-end crashes by up to 50% and blind-spot monitoring reduces lane-change crash injuries by 23%. And yet, carmakers still sell models without them. Insurers still treat them as optional. Buyers still skip them to save a few hundred dollars at the dealership. If we want to stop the daily slaughter on our roads, the bare minimum must be mandating that all cars in the U.S. have this technology that corrects for human error. Immediately. Smart infrastructure powered by AI is already saving lives too. Cities like Bellevue, Washington, have seen serious crash reductions of over 20% after installing AI-powered traffic systems that predict and prevent accidents. Impaired driving is also solvable. On-demand breathalyzers, smartphone saliva tests, and eye-tracking sensors are all tools that already exist to stop drunk and high drivers before they even start the ignition. Uber is already testing real-time driver sobriety verification. Why aren’t carmakers racing to put similar tech in every new vehicle? Better data Most importantly, we critically need better access to traffic incident data. Today, vital data on where, when, and how these vulnerable road user deaths and incidents happen is scattered, outdated, and buried behind bureaucratic walls. Advocates fighting for reform can’t build a case without it. Companies trying to engineer safer roads and smarter vehicles can’t act fast enough without it either. Technology and data companies must come together to unlock real-time, public access to nationwide safety data. Lives depend on it. Evidence fuels change. Right now, we are starving for it. Heightened urgency The tools are here, and they work. What’s missing is urgency. Here’s what must happen: Lawmakers must make safety tech standard in the U.S., not optional. Insurers must reward drivers and companies that use lifesaving technology. Consumers must refuse to buy vehicles without proven safety features. Technology companies must push harder, louder, and faster for adoption. Magnus’s death was preventable. Hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved if we stop dragging our feet and demand better. Private industry and technology have handed us the tools to make death and injury on our roads obsolete. It’s up to tech, business, and political leaders here in the U.S. to make them mandatory. The future we need is within reach. Now we have to have the will to make it happen. View the full article

The first time I met with a financial adviser who wasn’t my dad, I told him that I wanted to avoid fossil fuels, weapons manufacturers, and health insurance companies in my retirement investment portfolio. The adviser paused, sighed, and said, “I’ve got some bad news for you.” He explained that since I was unwilling to pick individual stocks, it was virtually impossible to avoid investing my money in those industries. And even if I had the time and temperament to trade individual stocks to keep my investments from oil, weapons, and health insurance, my money might not keep pace with the market, or even inflation. In short, my adviser believed I could either grow my money or feel good about my investments, but not both. This conversation took place more than 15 years ago. In the intervening time, socially responsible investing became mainstream. These days, every brokerage and retirement plan offers at least one ESG (environmental, social, and corporate governance) investing option for concerned investors. But just how much have things changed since my adviser poured cold water on my investing idealism? Does the existence of ESG funds truly give you the option of investing responsibly? And considering the way The President has declared war on the very idea of corporate responsibility, will ESG investing be around much longer? In a financial world that thinks morals are paintings on walls, here’s what you need to know about investing your values. Rating companies on ESG performance The ESG rating system measures the performance of a fund, security, or company in environmental, social, or corporate governance issues. Specifically, analysts look at how the company fares in terms of its environmental sustainability, its social impact, and how its internal governance promotes equity. The goal of the ESG rating system is to provide an objective analysis and rating of the company’s relative performance compared to other companies in the market. The rating is no more than a snapshot in time, since industry changes, market conditions, social and environmental shifts, policy adjustments within the company, and other situational changes can affect a score. ESG doesn’t mean what you think it means If ESG investing specifically highlights companies for their environmental or social impact, or for their commitment to equitable corporate governance, then investing in highly rated ESG funds means you are not only doing right by your money but also helping the planet and your fellow humans. At least that’s what you’d assume ESG investing was all about. Unfortunately, that’s not necessarily what highly rated ESG investments are doing. According to Kenneth P. Pucker and Andrew King, writing for Harvard Business Review in 2022, “the ESG ratings which underlie ESG fund selection are based on single materiality—the impact of the changing world on a company profit and loss.” This is in contrast to companies considering double materiality, which looks at environmental impact in both directions: How do the organization’s decisions affect the environment and climate, and what potential effect will the climate and environment have on the company’s bottom line? By looking only at single materiality, highly rated ESG funds are only interested in providing value to shareholders. The underlying companies may pay lip service to sustainability or social responsibility, but their business practices don’t accept responsibility for actually making any changes that will help the environment or social issues. Paying more for less Even if highly rated ESG companies aren’t necessarily playing fast and loose with the definition of “socially responsible,” it’s likely that you’re going to pay more to invest your money with an ESG fund—and get less for your investment. That’s because ESG funds typically charge higher management fees than passive index funds while providing worse returns. This means ESG investing is an emotional decision rather than a sound investment in improving the planet, society, or your nest egg. Gaming the system The ESG rating system isn’t set up to reward companies that are doing the hard work of mitigating negative environmental and social impacts. This doesn’t necessarily mean that all highly rated ESG funds are full of companies headed by Gordon Gekko types. But there are certainly a number of companies that are happy to use the ESG rating system to their advantage. For instance, in 2023, presidential pal and hat weirdo Elon Musk decried the ESG rating system for ranking Tesla below Philip Morris (of cancer stick fame). Although Tesla’s business model is about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Philip Morris earned a significantly higher ESG score for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion policies within its C-suite. Musk claimed that Phillip Morris gamed the rating system to garner its 84/100 ESG score, compared to Tesla’s measly 37/100. And as much as it pains me to admit it, Musk was probably right. There’s not much a cigarette company can do to improve its environmental or social impact, so if it wants to improve its ESG score, it has to focus on corporate governance. Despite having an eco-friendly product, Tesla was dinged for the lack of diversity within its corporate governance. Instead of ESG spurring environmentally friendly companies like Tesla to embrace DEI initiatives in the boardroom—which is what most idealistic investors probably would have preferred to see—the rating system created a way for companies like Philip Morris to greenwash their image. Navigating the ESG landscape in the The President era It may come as no surprise that the current president is no fan of ESG investing. Between rolling back environmental regulations, disproportionately affecting women and people of color in his mass layoffs, and axing all diversity, equity, and inclusion within his line of sight, The President has made it abundantly clear that he does not share any of the ESG values. His distaste for these values is shared by many within the Republican party. Even before The President returned to D.C. for his second term, multiple Republican-led states had adopted anti-ESG legislation generally aimed at keeping ESG investing out of state pension funds. While the backlash against ESG is going strong, it’s unlikely that investors interested in putting their money in ESG funds will be shut out. Not only is ESG a good marketing strategy for businesses (see Philip Morris, above) but it is also popular globally, with 68% of global retail investors stating that their ethical views are an important consideration when choosing an investment, according to AXA Investment Managers. The ESG rating system isn’t going anywhere. There are too many forces keeping it in place, even though high-profile tantrum throwers would prefer it to be gone. Invest like a cynical optimist I felt pretty low after my meeting with my financial adviser 15 years ago. Other than trading individual stocks—which will never be my investment style—my only option was putting my retirement money into companies I hated. When ESG investing first gained traction a few years later, my cynicism kept me from becoming too enthusiastic about the new socially responsible investing options. It was no longer my first rodeo, and I knew that there was no easy answer to values investing. And that is the trick to investing your values: recognizing that there are no easy answers. It is possible to invest your money only in companies and organizations that you truly believe in, but you will have to handpick your investments and live with the risk of low returns or potentially losing principal. You can accept the flawed ESG rating system as the best option among a bad lot, but you will have to accept higher management fees and lower returns compared to index funds. Or you can invest passively in index funds, pay lower fees, and expect average returns—but you have to accept that your money is flowing to companies you do not support. None of these options can relieve you of your ethical guilt, provide you with the investment returns you need, and require little-to-no active management on your part—because no investment can do all of that at the same time. Accepting that the perfect investment doesn’t exist is the fastest way to finding an investment strategy you can live with. As for me, I’ve chosen to stick with the passive investing strategy that best fits my skills and temperament while committing to donating a percentage of my returns to organizations working to make the world a better place. It’s an imperfect solution, but it works for me. View the full article

Branded is a weekly column devoted to the intersection of marketing, business, design, and culture. Earnings season has an important new element this quarter: President Donald The President. Wall Street is hungry for clarity from big consumer brands about the impact tariffs may have on prices—and thus inflation. But The President has been making it clear what his administration believes companies should do to the prices they charge shoppers: nothing. “EAT THE TARIFFS,” he berated Walmart recently, after the big-box giant indicated during an earnings call that price increases might be in the offing. “Given the magnitude of the tariffs,” CEO Doug McMillon said, “we aren’t able to absorb all the pressure, given the reality of narrow retail margins.” The President’s blunt rejoinder on social media waved that away, insisting Walmart need “not charge valued customers ANYTHING” extra in response to the tariffs, adding: “I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!” (Walmart reported quarterly revenue of about $165 billion, up 2.5% over the same quarter last year.) The President has also attacked toymaker Mattel for suggesting it could move production to dodge tariff costs, as well as Amazon for reportedly considering a plan to spell out tariff cost increases to consumers. The message seems to be getting through. This week another big-box giant, Home Depot, reported earnings—and made it clear that it claims to have no tariff-driven price increases planned. “We don’t see broad-based price increases for our customers at all going forward,” CEO Billy Bastek said in an earnings call. Target also reported earnings, and while its CEO acknowledged tariff pressure, he called price hikes “the very last resort.” Even Walmart has since sounded a somewhat conciliatory note: “We have always worked to keep our prices as low as possible and we won’t stop,” the company said in a statement this week. “We’ll keep prices as low as we can for as long as we can, given the reality of small retail margins.” It’s unclear how long presidential jawboning can stave off retail price increases, but the apparent effort is remarkable. In the last election, Democratic candidate Kamala Harris was slammed by critics who dubiously characterized her proposal to crack down on “price gouging” as essentially government price control. Attempting to publicly micromanage companies considering tariff-related price rises doesn’t have the force of law, but it certainly seems like government marketplace meddling, aimed squarely at controlling prices. Public companies in particular are left to thread the needle of serving shareholders by maximizing earnings and keeping investors informed of risks—while avoiding hostile publicity from the White House. Polling data suggests consumers expect further inflation, so maybe at this point of The President’s pressure campaign, it is just about who (companies or government policy) gets blamed for the trade war’s inevitable impact on costs. That said, any attempt at actually staving off tariff-sparked price increases with loud rhetoric seems doomed: A poll from insurer Allianz found that 54% of U.S. companies say they will have to raise prices to cope with tariffs. Not even The President can bully a majority of American businesses to “eat the tariffs.” And in fact, Home Depot’s high-profile distancing from tariff price increases had some caveats. Some toolmakers have already raised prices, and Home Depot’s CEO noted that one way it might avoid hikes is with less inventory: “There are items that we have that could potentially be impacted from a tariff that, candidly, we won’t have going forward.” Of course, there is nothing surprising or unexpected about tariffs driving up prices or narrowing consumer choice. It’s exactly what most economic assessments said would happen, what companies large and small have anticipated—and indeed what many of the big-box giants’ leaders reportedly warned The President would happen earlier this year. Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent now admits that prices are going to rise. Ultimately, these businesses will take the steps they need to, and consumers will muddle through the consequences. But perhaps, if the The President administration’s pressure campaign works, all that will happen with as little talk of tariffs as possible. View the full article

What does it really cost to manufacturer products in America? And will high tariffs on Chinese goods bring those jobs back to the U.S.? These are questions that have been swirling since The President announced a 145% tariff on Chinese products last month, since reduced to 30%. But rather than debate or speculate, the pleasure jewelry company Crave has decided to do something else: It’s opening its books, sharing the full figures, and letting consumers choose what version they’d like to buy while exploring the global impact. In a Kickstarter campaign for their new Tease Necklace—a vibrator worn around the neck as an accessory—Crave will offer three ways to buy it at three different prices. The first Tease will be made in San Francisco, with (most) of its parts sourced domestically. The second Tease will be assembled in the U.S., with parts acquired from China. And the third Tease will be completely sourced from China. In a quest for full transparency, Crave shared a spreadsheet accounting their costs to produce each model. The takeaways are fascinating. The total build cost is $80.31 sourced in the US, $47.83 assembled in the U.S., and $25.74 made in China. They will retail for $195, $149, and $98 for this Kickstarter promotion on which Crave says it’s not cutting a profit. Even with tariffs currently sitting at ~30% on Chinese components and goods, the difference in the cost of tariff fees for each necklace negligible ($4.16, $5.34, and $5.87 respectively). But the Tease is sill less than ⅓ the cost to create in China than it is in the U.S. “Take China off the map as a global supply chain or factory? That’s not what’s going to happen,” says Crave CEO Michael Topolovac. “If tariffs hold this rate, China will be as strong as ever.” Unpacking transparent pricing Last month, a report from Punchbowl News claimed that Amazon was considering including the tariff costs on product listings. When the White House heard, they called the move “hostile.” Who knows if Amazon was ever actually going to take such a step, but the story struck a nerve with the public because tariffs are an invisible tax that’s typically built directly into a product’s pricing. Nearly every product we buy today has a global footprint, and in an era where we’ve just faced considerable inflation, that’s a scary premise. While digging through Crave’s spreadsheet with Topolovac and co-founder Ti Chang, I began to understand why they believe high tariffs will be devastating to small businesses—and ultimately futile as a strategy to get more goods built in the U.S. For instance, the San Francisco model can have its steel sourced in America for $25. That same metal costs $3.50 if you import it from China (and even after a 30% tariff, it’s only $4.55). That tariff will make the product cost more, but still a whole lot less than if Crave went with American suppliers. When you add labor, the price difference only grows. The core metal cylinder costs $20 in labor to machine it in the U.S., meaning it costs $45 between material and labor in all. That’s $20 more than buying the entire product sourced and assembled from China. Tracing components you simply can’t make in the U.S. But truth be told, a piece of machined metal is a simple case. Let’s consider the electronic components of the system. Batteries and motors can’t be sourced in America, Crave explains, since the factories to make them don’t exist. So even their full U.S.-made Tease has these pieces purchased overseas. Crave can source its microprocessor from the U.S., but the circuit boards are made in China. And the microprocessor needs to be affixed to the board there. So Crave buys a microprocessor, pays a 30% tariff to ship it to China. Then China plants it onto a board, and ships it back, adding another 30% tariff. Theoretically, you can have discussions with the government to have tariffs waved in some of these more complex cases. “If you’re Apple, you’ve probably got a whole division in China that’s managing that,” says Topolovac. “But there’s no way that our factories can deal with the overhead of the Chinese government.” The spreadsheet also reveals the futility of sourcing goods in China and then assembling them in the U.S. You end up paying a tariff cost and a higher labor cost. “It’s the worst of both worlds that way,” says Topolovac, who notes that there’s just nothing to encourage this practice at the scale and cost structure of their product. For most small businesses—and even many large—the math simply doesn’t work out to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. (These issues affect mega corporations too. Logistics are why major performance apparel companies, like Nike, have grown so reliant on Vietnam.) In theory, tariffs could encourage more factories established in the U.S. But new infrastructure of this scale is completely outside the reach of Crave or its peers. They’d need to raise hundreds of millions of dollars and spend years spinning up supportive factories, and even still, they’d need to source rare earth minerals globally. “If your plan was to take out two to three million US manufacturers or brands like us, this is how you would do it, and [a 145% tariff] is how you would kill them,” says Topolovac. Modern small business rely upon mega infrastructures Chang remembers building Incognito, her company before Crave, and relying on the technological cushion of China to do so. “I was able to get that business going because we have free trade. I could go over to China, have an idea, have things made, and bring that inventory into the U.S. And that enabled ideas and innovation to happen,” she says, noting that efficient manufacturing abroad lowers risk. “As an entrepreneur, you can experiment and you can test…now, if you’re a new entrepreneur making products, you have no stability.” And that lack of stability is ultimately the most frustrating point to Crave. They are constructing new products for the market as they follow the news cycle and project their ever-shifting costs. If they hadn’t planned ahead, stocking up on inventory in anticipation of the 145% tariff spike, they would have been sunk. Overall, even when the business works out, the mental overhead and additional planning it’s required has become a distraction for Crave on top of the day-to-day challenges of running any product business. “The world sets up the rules and supply chains, and you play by those rules,” says Topolovac. “But if the rules change every week, or whatever, it’s brutal.” View the full article

Indian IT company investigating whether it was gateway used by criminals to access retailer View the full article

For decades, corporate leadership has been dominated by analytical prowess. Ascending the corporate ladder often meant demonstrating value through meticulous spreadsheets, precise forecasts, and detailed execution plans. Vision was acknowledged, but only when accompanied by a comprehensive road map. This paradigm, however, is shifting. In today’s era of rapid change, emotional complexity, and cultural fragmentation, linear strategies are insufficient. The most impactful leaders can envision new futures, cultivate emotional connections, and distill complexity into relatable narratives. The next generation of C-suite executives won’t just be adept operators; they will be architects of meaning. In short: They won’t just be strategists, but creatives. Rethinking Leadership: From Logic to Imagination Historically, businesses have prioritized logic over creativity, resulting in leadership cultures rich in data but deficient in imagination. But creativity is now paramount. A recent Gallup study revealed that only 30% of employees feel connected to their company’s mission or purpose, marking a record low in 2024. Notably, fully remote workers struggle even more with this connection, as physical distance often translates to a mental disconnect from their employer. Moreover, a Deloitte report found that only 26% of workers strongly agree that their employer treats them as whole individuals, recognizing their unique contributions and skills. These findings underscore a critical issue: The emotional infrastructure of leadership is faltering. Efficiency alone is no longer the answer; resonance is essential. This is where creatives come into play, not as peripheral marketers or consultants, but as integral members of executive leadership. Imagine a CEO who leads with storytelling, not just statements; a chief human resources officer (CHRO) who designs employee experiences with the finesse of an artist; a boardroom that embraces visuals, metaphors, and even moments of silent contemplation to navigate complexity. What Creative Leaders Do Differently Creative leaders transcend problem-solving; they reframe challenges, anticipate tensions, and design interactions with intentionality. They consider the emotional ripple effects of decisions and understand that before individuals commit to a plan, they must resonate with its underlying story. They recognize that logic informs, but emotion compels. In uncertain times, strategy provides direction, but storytelling fosters alignment. Data offers explanations, but design inspires action. These leaders treat organizational culture as a canvas, viewing each initiative as an opportunity for meaning-making. They might commence a product launch with a narrative circle instead of a sales chart, or conclude a quarterly review with a thought-provoking question rather than a performance dashboard. These practices aren’t gimmicks—they’re essential tools for leadership in an age where facts alone are insufficient. If Creatives Led the Boardroom Envision a leadership meeting that begins not with status updates but with the question: “What story are we living right now—and is it the one we want to be telling?” Instead of diving into objectives and key results (OKRs), the team members reflect on the narrative shaping their organization and assesses its alignment with their goals. Imagine strategy sessions resembling creative studios more than command centers. Whiteboards adorned with sketches, not just key performance indicators (KPIs); ambient music setting the tone; and silence embraced as a space for contemplation. In times of crisis, the initial inquiry isn’t “How do we manage this?” but “What does this moment ask of us as humans?” If this approach seems radical, it’s only because we’ve long separated creativity from leadership—a separation that’s contributed to misaligned teams, ineffective strategies, and stagnant organizations. A Real-World Example: Airbnb’s Creative Leadership Airbnb’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is a tangible example of creative leadership. Facing unprecedented challenges, CEO Brian Chesky didn’t rely solely on traditional strategies. Instead, he embraced storytelling and design thinking to navigate the crisis. Chesky penned heartfelt letters to employees and hosts, transparently communicating the company’s challenges and decisions as the travel industry cratered. He prioritized the community’s well-being, supporting hosts, and implementing flexible guest policies. This empathetic approach reinforced Airbnb’s brand values and maintained trust during turbulent times. On top of that, Airbnb reimagined its platform, introducing online experiences to adapt to the new normal. This innovative pivot showcased the company’s ability to blend creativity with strategic foresight, ensuring resilience and continued engagement with its user base. A Framework for Expanding Creative Leadership in the C-Suite Integrating creative intelligence into the C-suite doesn’t require a complete organizational overhaul. It starts with a mindset shift—an openness to design as a way of leading, not just a way of presenting. These practices are not soft skills; they’re strategic competencies that help leaders unlock deeper engagement, innovation, and trust. Here are four ways to begin. 1. Sense before you solve. Initiate major discussions by exploring the emotional landscape. Ask “What are we feeling?” to surface insights beyond data. This practice creates space for intuition, unspoken dynamics, and early signals that often get overlooked in performance reviews or planning decks. When leaders learn to read the room, not just the metrics, they make decisions that resonate more deeply and stick longer. 2. Design the experience, not just the strategy. Recognize that every policy, product, and meeting shapes the employee experience. Deliberately craft these moments to align with the emotions and values you want people to carry forward. Whether it’s a town hall, onboarding journey, or performance conversation, the “how” matters as much as the “what.” Design-thinking principles—empathy, prototyping, and iteration—aren’t just for products; they belong in leadership, too. 3. Use storytelling as a strategic tool. Move beyond declarations. Weave in narratives that encapsulate vision, challenges, and aspirations, fostering deeper connection and shared identity. A well-told story doesn’t just inform—it invites participation. It helps teams locate themselves inside a larger arc of meaning and progress. Leaders who communicate in narrative terms create alignment not just through direction, but through emotional coherence. 4. Invite diverse perspectives. Incorporate voices from artists, designers, facilitators, and other creative thinkers to challenge assumptions and expand the lens. These perspectives introduce new metaphors, fresh language, and alternative ways of making sense of complexity. When we bring in people who see the world differently, we don’t dilute business thinking—we deepen it. Innovation thrives at the intersection of difference. The Future of Leadership: A Studio, Not Just a War Room We’ve reached the limits of what linear thinking can achieve. Addressing challenges like cultural fragmentation, technological disruption, and global crises requires not just intellect but imagination. Future leaders won’t merely ask “How do we grow?” but “What are we growing toward, and who do we aspire to become?” They will: Design rather than direct. Curate experiences instead of solely managing outcomes. Imagine possibilities beyond analyzing current realities. Because the future of business isn’t something to be managed into existence—it needs to be imagined, crafted, and brought to life through creative leadership. This isn’t about replacing strategy with art. It’s about integrating the two so that organizations can lead not only with precision, but with vision. The companies that thrive in the coming years will be the ones bold enough to create what doesn’t yet exist, and human enough to make it matter. View the full article

Within their first moments of stepping inside Universal’s newly opened Epic Universe theme park in Orlando, Florida, visitors will realize there is something different about the space. Rather than the typical onslaught of gift shops and pavement that can usually be found right inside the gates of most theme parks around the world, Epic Universe’s grounds are unusually bucolic, with a dense canopy of trees, winding pathways, and lush landscaping. This meandering entrance space is named Celestial Park, and it’s a notable counterpoint to the theme park standard of densely packed commercialism. “[It’s] where we’ve put the ‘park’ back in theme park,” says Steve Tatham, Epic Universe’s executive creative director and lead designer. As Universal’s first major theme park in more than 20 years, it’s an attempt to reset expectations of the brand—and of the amusement park experience. Epic Universe’s design ditches at least some of the conventional theme park model. “We focus on our guests and their experience, and we didn’t want it to have as much hardscape as some other parks. We wanted to have a lot more greenery,” Tatham says. There are 400,000 plants in Celestial Park, which serves as the connecting central space between four “worlds” of attractions in the theme park, including Super Nintendo World and The Wizarding World of Harry Potter—Ministry of Magic. Rather than a space people simply pass through on their way to a ride, Tatham sees Celestial Park as an attraction in and of itself. “Some people want to come and just absorb the environment, so we wanted to create something for everybody,” he says. Celestial Park was envisioned as both a connective spine and a calmer respite from the rides and experiences in the rest of the theme park. The design of that space, and the design of Epic Universe as a whole, was inspired by the world’s fairs and world expos of the past, Tatham says. Citing examples like the architectural cornucopia of the 1893 World’s Columbian Exhibition in Chicago and the futurism-heavy 1939 New York World’s Fair, Tatham says Epic Universe’s design aspired to a grandness not often seen in typical theme parks. World’s fairs, he says, “had this really optimistic tone, a lot of Art Nouveau and Art Deco architecture—which to me represents the optimism and the coming together of a community. We really wanted to capture that essence.” Of course, this is still a theme park, and part of an increasingly massive complex of Universal-owned attractions and accommodations in Orlando. Universal, which is owned by Comcast, is betting heavily on the future of theme parks by spending an estimated $7 billion on Epic Universe. It could feed into ongoing momentum; on a recent earnings call, Comcast president Mike Cavanagh noted that revenue from theme parks has tripled in the past decade, to roughly $3 billion in 2024. Celestial Park has many of the hallmarks of the theme park genre, including a roller coaster, a carousel, an interactive water feature, 11 dining options, and six retail outlets. But they’re more artfully integrated into the space than most of Epic Universe’s competitors, building on the theme park’s backstory of visitors transporting to new worlds through entrance “portals,” each of which is accessed by exploring through Celestial Park. “My focus always is on the story,” Tatham says. “That’s the foundation of any kind of design that we will do here, whether it’s architecture or rides or any of the elements that are in the park.” Offering some open-ended elements in Celestial Park builds on what customers have called for in new theme parks, according to Tatham. Universal’s guest research shows that while people like the increasingly tech-influenced ride-and-experience design happening in new attractions, they’re also clamoring for more parts of parks that they can actively engage with, not just passively ride or watch. “They really wanted us to be even more immersive and do things with physical sets and animated figures, and we’ve really responded to that in force,” he says. “When the guests come here, they’re going to see the kind of experiences they’ve been really itching to see.” View the full article

President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) bill was a landmark move for the economy. One year after it was signed into law, it had already created more than 170,600 clean energy jobs and spurred private companies to announce at least 210 major new clean energy and clean vehicle projects across 39 states, representing more than $86 billion in investments. Now the House Republicans’ reconciliation bill is poised to also have a drastic impact on the economy and clean energy landscape, but by gutting the IRA’s gains. Instead of fostering jobs and clean energy development, the bill—which passed the House this week and has now moved to the Senate—could erase those monumental investments and lead to fewer jobs, reduced clean energy capacity, and a drop in the national GDP. The GOP’s “big, beautiful bill” will increase some things, experts say, like Americans’ household expenses; it will also give tax benefits to billionaires. “House Republicans just voted to jack up prices, kill jobs, and rip away basic lifelines from working families by taking a sledgehammer to programs and investments that make life more affordable,” Lena Moffitt, executive director of the nonprofit Evergreen Action, said in a statement. “If passed into law, Americans will wake up to find the GOP quietly reached into their wallets and handed their hard-earned cash to corporate polluters and billionaires like Elon Musk and Donald The President.” Here’s a look at the impact of the Republican reconciliation bill by the numbers, specifically around jobs, clean energy, and household costs. The GOP’s reconciliation bill could cost the U.S. more than 830,000 jobs in 2030, according to an analysis from Energy Innovation. (That includes both direct job cuts from less EV production and clean energy manufacturing, as well as indirect losses from higher fuel costs and other economic impacts.) It would also lead to less new electricity generation, especially at a time when electricity demand is growing. Over the next four years, the bill would decrease additions to new electricity capacity by 302 gigawatts. That’s the same power capacity that the entire U.S. coal fleet had a decade ago. For context, 1 gigawatt can power 100 million LED light bulbs. With less new electricity being generated, wholesale power prices will increase about 50% by 2035, particularly because solar and wind are cheaper energy sources than fossil fuels. Across all American households, consumer energy costs will increase by more than $16 billion in 2030, and by more than $33 billion by 2035. “This increase happens even if oil and gas production rise and help reduce fossil fuel prices, as envisioned by the bill,” Energy Innovation notes. Between 2026 and 2034, the bill would cumulatively reduce the national GDP by nearly $1.1 trillion. For individual households, that could mean a $110 increase to electricity costs per year, beginning in 2026, which could then rise to $290 more in annual energy costs per household by 2035. The GOP bill will drive up household costs for Americans in other ways, too. The price of gasoline will increase between 25 and 37 cents per gallon, which, on the higher end, would mean more than $200 per year for the average gas vehicle. Without the IRA’s EV tax credits, Americans will also essentially see the cost of electric vehicles go up by at least $7,500 (and for used EVs, $4,000). The Republican bill also eliminates a tax credit for energy-efficient home improvements like heat pumps and water heaters. That credit has so far allowed households to save up to $990 each year on their utility bills, but Americans will now miss out on those savings. The bill has broader impacts on emissions and how climate change will worsen. Without tax credits to spur investments in clean energy and efficient appliances, the bill could increase greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 130 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2030—like adding 30 million gas-powered cars to the road for one year. By 2035, that could grow to nearly 260 million metric tons, equivalent to the annual energy use of nearly 35 million homes—or the entire annual CO2 emissions from Spain. With more emissions and air pollution come more deaths. According to Energy Innovation, that could mean nearly 350 additional premature deaths annually by 2030, and nearly 670 more every year by 2035. Many of these impacts will be concentrated in Republican states. The IRA was a huge boon to Republican districts: In just two years, it added nearly 200,000 clean energy jobs and more than $286 billion in clean energy investments to congressional districts represented by Republican House members. Now those districts will likely see job losses and less economic investment because of their Republican representatives’ votes. “In their crusade to rig the system for their fossil fuel backers,” Moffitt said prior to the House bill passing, “it’s people living in The President states—their own voters—who will pay the steepest price: lost jobs, higher energy costs, and missed economic opportunities.” View the full article

Four years ago, GM set an audacious goal: By 2035, the automaker planned to go all-electric. The company says it’s still aiming for that target. But it simultaneously lobbied the Senate to end California’s ban on new gas car sales—which was also supposed to go fully into effect in 2035. In theory, California’s policy should have supported GM’s transition. GM even recruited employees in the lobbying effort. “We need your help!” the company wrote in an email to staff, as reported by The Wall Street Journal. “Emissions standards that are not aligned with market realities pose a serious threat to our business by undermining consumer choice and vehicle affordability.” The lobbying worked. Yesterday, the Senate voted to revoke an Environmental Protection Agency waiver that allowed California to set clean air rules that are stricter than national standards. (Congress arguably didn’t have the legal right to revoke the waiver; more on that later.) In a statement, the company said, “GM appreciates Congress’ action to align emissions standards with today’s market realities. We have long advocated for one national standard that will allow us to stay competitive, continue to invest in U.S. innovation, and offer customer choice across the broadest lineup of gas-powered and electric vehicles.” GM CEO Mary Barra has said that the company believes in an all-electric future. The company, which began seriously investing in battery design in 2018, spent $11 billion on EV infrastructure between 2020 and 2024. It has a massive battery factory, co-owned with LG Energy, near Nashville, and another in Ohio, making thousands of battery cells per minute. It’s racing to bring down the cost of batteries, the biggest factor in the overall cost of EVs. In the first quarter of this year, GM sold 31,887 EVs in the U.S., a 94% increase over its electric vehicle sales in the same period last year. It’s now the second-largest seller of EVs in the U.S., quickly gaining on Tesla. The company plans to nearly double the number of EVs it makes this year compared to last. It has 11 models on the market, including the Chevy Equinox EV, currently the most affordable EV in the country. The popular Chevy Bolt, another affordable EV, will come back later this year. But the company argues that California’s clean car rule is moving faster than market demand. The rule sets targets that automakers have to hit each year. For model year 2026 cars, 35% of a manufacturer’s car sales in the state have to be zero-emission, or the manufacturer has to pay a fine. The target jumps up to 43% in 2027, 51% in 2028, and keeps going until new cars are 100% zero-emission by 2035. Last year, in California, around 25% of new cars registered in the state were electric. This year, as many buyers have veered away from Tesla, the percentage of EV sales could drop. GM declined to comment on whether it expects to hit the 35% target for model year 2026 cars in the state. Other states have followed California’s regulation, with the same annual targets: Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Those states have even lower percentages of EV sales now. Car companies say it would be unrealistic for them to immediately meet the targets for model year 2026 that those states require. Critics argue that if demand is lower than expected, automakers themselves bear some responsibility. “That’s like the kid who says, ‘Look, I didn’t study for the test, and it’s unfair that you’re giving me a bad grade,'” says Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, noting that GM has “the best engineers in the world. They know how to make vehicles that meet standards and that are attractive to consumers. And they’ve chosen not to market their electric vehicles. . . . The auto industry in the United States spends $14 billion a year on advertising and other marketing. Very little of that goes to advertising electric vehicles.” EVs are facing other major challenges. The House just voted to phase out the $7,500 tax credits to buy or lease new EVs (companies that have not yet sold 200,000 EVs will be able to continue to qualify for the credits until the end of 2026; GM has already passed that limit). The House bill also ends a $4,000 tax credit for used cars that was introduced in the Inflation Reduction Act, and another tax credit for home chargers. Since EVs haven’t quite reached price parity with gas cars, the tax credits are crucial. Car companies are also facing steep costs from tariffs. A GM spokesperson said on background that the California rules could cost the company billions at a time when profits are already being squeezed by tariffs—and that’s money that the company needs to continue to be able to invest in EV development to bring costs down. GM is still losing money making EVs, though costs are decreasing as production scales up and the technology continues to advance. The Senate vote on California isn’t definitive. The Senate parliamentarian ruled that Congress didn’t have the authority to overturn the waiver that allows California to make its own clean air rules. Waivers aren’t included in the Congressional Review Act, the law that the Senate used to revoke the waiver. (The CRA allows Congress to overturn recent laws with a simple majority vote; the waiver was also granted in 2022 and arguably would also not be considered recent.) “Congress doesn’t get to amend [laws] along the way by saying, ‘Oh, well, we really meant it to be this,” says Becker. “It’s a Pandora’s box that they’re opening. If the CRA isn’t limited to rules, then you’ve opened the door as to what can be undone by the congressional action—corporate mergers that are allowed by the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission], cost-of-living adjustments by different agencies, offshore drilling permits—who knows how this will ultimately be used. And the Republicans will not always be in charge.” California could potentially sue. “That will result in uncertainty for the industry,” Becker says. “They keep saying they want certainty. And they’re getting rid of it by demanding that Congress use an illegal mechanism to undo protections for people with lungs.” Meanwhile, EVs are growing faster outside the United States. Globally, more than one in four cars sold this year is likely to be an EV. In China, more than half of new car sales last year were all-electric. In Norway, 97% of all cars sold last month were electric. As federal support reverses in the U.S., American automakers will fall behind. View the full article

In December 2022, Matthew Boyer hopped on an Argentine military plane to one of the more remote habitations on Earth: Marambio Station at the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, where the icy continent stretches toward South America. Months before that, Boyer had to ship expensive, delicate instruments that might get busted by the time he landed. “When you arrive, you have boxes that have been sometimes sitting outside in Antarctica for a month or two in a cold warehouse,” said Boyer, a PhD student in atmospheric science at the University of Helsinki. “And we’re talking about sensitive instrumentation.” But the effort paid off, because Boyer and his colleagues found something peculiar about penguin guano. In a paper published on Thursday in the journal Communications Earth and Environment, they describe how ammonia wafting off the droppings of 60,000 birds contributed to the formation of clouds that might be insulating Antarctica, helping cool down an otherwise rapidly warming continent. Some penguin populations, however, are under serious threat because of climate change. Losing them and their guano could mean fewer clouds and more heating in an already fragile ecosystem, one so full of ice that it will significantly raise sea levels worldwide as it melts. A better understanding of this dynamic could help scientists hone their models of how Antarctica will transform as the world warms. They can now investigate, for instance, if some penguin species produce more ammonia and, therefore, more of a cooling effect. “That’s the impact of this paper,” said Tamara Russell, a marine ornithologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who studies penguins but wasn’t involved in the research. “That will inform the models better, because we know that some species are decreasing, some are increasing, and that’s going to change a lot down there in many different ways.” With their expensive instruments, Boyer and his research team measured atmospheric ammonia between January and March 2023, summertime in the southern hemisphere. They found that when the wind was blowing from an Adelie penguin colony 5 miles away from the detectors, concentrations of the gas shot up to 1,000 times higher than the baseline. Even when the penguins had moved out of the colony after breeding, ammonia concentrations remained elevated for at least a month, as the guano continued emitting the gas. That atmospheric ammonia could have been helping cool the area. The researchers further demonstrated that the ammonia kicks off an atmospheric chain reaction. Out at sea, tiny plantlike organisms known as phytoplankton release the gas dimethyl sulfide, which transforms into sulphuric acid in the atmosphere. Because ammonia is a base, it reacts readily with this acid. This coupling results in the rapid formation of aerosol particles. Clouds form when water vapor gloms onto any number of different aerosols, like soot and pollen, floating around in the atmosphere. In populated places, these particles are more abundant, because industries and vehicles emit so many of them as pollutants. Trees and other vegetation spew aerosols, too. But because Antarctica lacks trees and doesn’t have much vegetation at all, the aerosols from penguin guano and phytoplankton can make quite an impact. In February 2023, Boyer and the other researchers measured a particularly strong burst of particles associated with guano, sampled a resulting fog a few hours later, and found particles created by the interaction of ammonia from the guano and sulphuric acid from the plankton. “There is a deep connection between these ecosystem processes, between penguins and phytoplankton at the ocean surface,” Boyer said. “Their gas is all interacting to form these particles and clouds.” But here’s where the climate impacts get a bit trickier. Scientists know that in general, clouds cool Earth’s climate by reflecting some of the sun’s energy back into space. Although Boyer and his team hypothesize that clouds enhanced with penguin ammonia are probably helping cool this part of Antarctica, they note that they didn’t quantify that climate effect, which would require further research. That’s a critical bit of information because of the potential for the warming climate to create a feedback loop. As oceans heat up, penguins are losing access to some of their prey, and colonies are shrinking or disappearing as a result. Fewer penguins producing guano means less ammonia and fewer clouds, which means more warming and more disruptions to the animals, and on and on in a self-reinforcing cycle. “If this paper is correct—and it really seems to be a nice piece of work to me—[there’s going to be] a feedback effect, where it’s going to accelerate the changes that are already pushing change in the penguins,” said Peter Roopnarine, curator of geology at the California Academy of Sciences. Scientists might now look elsewhere, Roopnarine adds, to find other bird colonies that could also be providing cloud cover. Protecting those species from pollution and hunting would be a natural way to engineer Earth systems to offset some planetary warming. “We think it’s for the sake of the birds,” Roopnarine said. “Well, obviously it goes well beyond that.” —By Matt Simon, Grist This article was originally published by Grist, a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Sign up for its newsletter here. View the full article

Business leaders love to talk about innovation. But for all the energy poured into frameworks and strategy decks, most teams rarely experience what innovation actually feels like. Real innovation is uncertain, emotional, iterative, and profoundly human. That’s why Cliff has spent the past several years guiding organizations through songwriting experiences—yes, literal songwriting—to unlock the emotional and relational capacities that innovation demands. And as someone who works at the intersection of story, leadership, and transformational design, Tony sees this as more than a clever workshop: it’s a reorientation. The same skills it takes to write a compelling song—lateral thinking, storytelling, empathy, collaboration, and creative risk-taking—are the ones we need to build bold, resilient cultures. Songwriting teaches us more than how to think differently; it teaches us how to be different together. Innovation Is an Emotional Skill Innovation is often framed as a technical challenge. But research suggests the opposite: it’s emotional first. According to McKinsey & Company, organizations with the highest innovation scores also rank highest on soft skills like trust, emotional intelligence, and psychological safety. Meanwhile, Gallup data shows only 29% of employees say they’re expected to be creative at work, and just three in ten feel they have the chance to do what they do best every day. The problem isn’t a lack of ideas. It’s a lack of environments where risk, play, and expression are welcomed, let alone expected. This is where songwriting changes the game. In the space of a single facilitated session, teams cocreate something meaningful from nothing. They navigate ambiguity, listen closely, reframe messages—and yes, make something that sings. Not because they’re professional musicians, but because they’re immersed in a process that demands trust, presence, and creative momentum. The Seven Innovation Skills, As Told by Songwriting Too often, we treat creativity as a side activity. But songwriting isn’t an extra. It’s a mirror for the innovation journey itself. Here’s how it maps directly to seven essential innovation skills and why it works: 1. Lateral Thinking → The Metaphor. Innovation means getting out of the obvious. Writing metaphors trains the brain to think sideways, to turn literal ideas into poetic ones. It’s not just a creativity hack—it’s a neurological shift. Stuck thinking begins to loosen. 2. Creativity → The Verse. Creativity isn’t magic; it’s a method. Writing verses requires sequencing, voice, and structure. It’s storytelling in rhythm. For teams, this becomes practice in shaping ideas with intention and clarity, something we should emphasize in narrative strategy sessions. 3. Communication → The Chorus. A chorus carries the emotional center of the song. It must resonate, repeat, and land. Similarly, every great innovation needs a core message that sticks. The chorus teaches teams to distill complexity into coherence and find the line people will remember. 4. Empathy → Observation. To write lyrics that land, you need to observe deeply. What’s unsaid? What’s felt? Songwriting strengthens the skill of attunement—the ability to read emotional subtext, a fundamental asset for human-centered innovation. 5. Collaboration → Cowriting. Cowriting is the innovation lab in miniature. There’s friction, refinement, and co-ownership. Innovation isn’t about consensus. It’s about staying in creative tension long enough to find something better than anyone could create alone. 6. Risk-Taking → Vulnerability. Sharing lyrics out loud is deeply vulnerable. Singing them? Even more so. But when teams experience structured creative risk in a psychologically safe space, their tolerance for ambiguity expands, and their courage grows. 7. Diffusion → Performance. A song doesn’t live until it’s shared. Performing it completes the arc. Like any innovation, it’s not enough to build something—you have to deliver it. Performance transforms creativity into connection. It makes the work matter. One Team’s Transformation When Cliff leads a songwriting program, participants are never told beforehand they’ll be writing and performing a song. Why? Two reasons. First, it avoids the anticipatory resistance that creative work can trigger. Second, the moment they discover what’s coming, it unlocks a kind of flow state—one where fear and distraction give way to full presence. At a recent offsite for a Fortune 500 company, one participant, a former prison warden, started out stone-faced and silent. But when the group chose “80s metal ballad” as the genre for their song, he lit up. Not only did he contribute lyrics, but he also sang lead vocals at the end. His transformation from skeptic to center-stage performer reframed how his team saw him and how he saw himself. Culture as a Creative Practice In our work, we both see this truth: innovation isn’t just a process to manage. It’s a culture to curate. And culture doesn’t change through mandates. It changes through meaning. It changes when teams gather around a campfire, share a personal story, or sketch the opening lyrics of something no one’s ever made before. That’s why we design offsites around nature walks and story circles—not because they’re trendy, but because they’re necessary. Creativity needs conditions. Songwriting creates them. When leaders make space for art, ritual, and emotion, they’re not just encouraging creativity. They’re building the emotional infrastructure innovation requires. Your next strategy session doesn’t need more slides; it might just need a chorus. We don’t teach songwriting to turn executives into musicians. We teach it because songwriting is a shortcut to the human skills of innovation. It’s experiential, connective, and brings people back to what it feels like to make something that matters. And more than anything, it reminds teams that creativity isn’t far away. It’s already in the room—waiting to be invited in. View the full article

Israeli PM accuses British, French and Canadian leaders of siding with Hamas after they called for end to Gaza offensiveView the full article

Neri Karra Sillaman is an adviser and speaker who was recently recognized on the Thinkers50 “Radar” list for 2024 as one of the top 30 emerging management thinkers. She is an adjunct professor and entrepreneurship expert at the University of Oxford, and founder of Neri Karra, a global luxury leather goods brand that has been manufacturing for leading Italian labels for over 25 years. A former child refugee, she brings a powerful perspective on resilience, cultural innovation, and ethical business to her work. Her insights have been featured in Harvard Business Review, Fast Company, Forbes, and Fortune. What’s the big idea? It’s no coincidence that immigrant-led businesses have better survival and long-term success rates. Common threads of the immigrant experience tend to naturally strengthen the necessary skills to build a thriving business. Qualities such as personal resilience, commitment to a greater purpose, and authentic community building give many immigrants an edge as entrepreneurs. Below, Neri shares five key insights from her new book, Pioneers: 8 Principles of Business Longevity from Immigrant Entrepreneurs. Listen to the audio version—read by Neri herself—in the Next Big Idea App. 1. Start with who you are, not just what’s missing Most entrepreneurs are told to scan the market for gaps to fill. But immigrant entrepreneurs often do something radically different—they begin by looking inward. They build businesses rooted in their personal stories, cultural legacies, and lived experiences. When Jan Koum, co-founder of WhatsApp, remembered the fear of phone surveillance in Soviet Ukraine and the costs of calling his family from America, he didn’t just see problems—he envisioned a solution. WhatsApp became a free, ad-free, encrypted service that now connects nearly three billion people. This principle of “inside-out” entrepreneurship isn’t just more human—it’s more resilient. When the origin of your idea is deeply meaningful, your motivation is more sustainable. You’re not chasing trends. You’re building what only you can build. 2. Necessity is the fuel of endurance Immigrants often don’t start businesses because they want to. They do it because they have to. This is what I call necessity entrepreneurship. “Companies started by immigrants tend to grow faster and survive longer.” Necessity isn’t a disadvantage. It’s a source of grit. When you’ve fled war, rebuilt your life from nothing, or supported your family with little more than hope, you develop a drive that doesn’t quit when things get hard. This endurance often makes immigrant-founded businesses outlast their peers. In fact, companies started by immigrants tend to grow faster and survive longer. In a world where 90% of startups fail, that kind of staying power is worth paying attention to. 3. Community is the business model Long before “stakeholder capitalism” was a buzzword, immigrant entrepreneurs were practicing it. Many come from collectivist cultures or grew up relying on informal networks of support. That mindset shows up in how they build companies. Take the story of my own business: we got out of a refugee camp in Istanbul thanks to a distant relative who took us in. Today, her children are my factory manager and accountant. We didn’t just build a brand—we built a family business, sustained by trust. Community is not a “nice to have.” For many immigrant founders, it is the secret to longevity. They succeed because they lift others as they rise. 4. Build with legacy in mind, not just profit Immigrant entrepreneurs tend to have a long-term lens. Perhaps it’s because they’ve witnessed how quickly everything can disappear. Or because they’ve felt the weight of what’s been lost and the responsibility to create something that endures. “Companies that last are the ones rooted in purpose.” Luis von Ahn, founder of Duolingo, grew up in Guatemala, where access to education was limited. He didn’t just build a tech company; he built a free tool to democratize language learning worldwide. That’s what legacy looks like. Profit is important. But the immigrant entrepreneurs I interviewed showed again and again: the companies that last are the ones rooted in purpose. 5. Connection is the true currency of success Success stories are often told in isolation, but nobody does it alone. Immigrant entrepreneurs understand this better than most. They’ve seen how invisible networks—family ties, community trust, shared experience—can shape their futures. In the book, I write: “Forests appear to be made up of individual trees, but each one thrives only because of the vast, interconnected root system below.” That’s what I’ve found in immigrant-led businesses, too. Whether it’s a factory built with childhood friends or a mentorship that changes everything, the unseen connections are what make a business resilient. They’re also what make it human. This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission. View the full article

May is Mental Health Awareness Month. That means campaigns about anxiety, burnout, depression, and trauma will pop up in schools, offices, billboards, and magazines across the country. But few of those campaigns will mention a force that fuels all of those conditions—a force so normalized, it hides in plain sight. That force is Car Brain. Car Brain is an affliction that causes people to justify or ignore antisocial behavior that involves an automobile. It’s when someone who respects others in nearly every context suddenly becomes selfish, reckless, or even hostile just because a car has become part of the interaction. Once you start looking, you’ll see it everywhere, online and IRL. Car Brain is a dangerous but normalized condition that needs a spotlight during Mental Health Awareness Month. It’s a kind of cultural psychosis. It’s why someone who would never shove an elderly person out of the way has no problem speeding past a crosswalk while an elderly person inches across the street. Car Brain is why so many Americans experience a constant state of low-grade anxiety, sensory overload, and chronic stress—without realizing it’s rooted in something deeper than work or home life. It’s rooted in their daily environment, which has been designed around machine speed instead of human need. Every day, more than 100 Americans are killed in traffic crashes. Far more survive with catastrophic injuries—amputations, traumatic brain injuries, permanent disability. These aren’t all “accidents.” A high-speed collision on a downtown street that changes a group of people’s lives forever isn’t an oopsies. Most severe crashes are the logical result of antisocial choices baked into a car-first culture: ● Speeding through school zones because you’re late for work. ● Running red lights because “it was barely red.” ● Parking in a bike lane because “they can just go around.” ● Failing to yield at crosswalks because “didn’t I already tell you, I’m late for work!” These common and seemingly minor decisions have enormous consequences. What starts as personal entitlement often ends in someone else’s hospital stay—or funeral. The emotional weight of a car-centric world Mental health experts know that your surroundings shape your mood and behavior. Environments that are loud, fast, and disconnected from human interaction put us into a constant state of alert. What’s the dominant environment in most American communities? Roads that prioritize automobile travel and an ever-present sense that one wrong move could be deadly. Children can’t safely bike to school, so they get chauffeured instead—losing both independence and physical activity. Seniors become prisoners in their own homes if they can no longer drive. People in poverty are forced to spend thousands of dollars they don’t have just to participate in society. And all of us find ourselves stuck inside vehicles that make us more anxious, more aggressive, and more isolated. The dependence on personal vehicles leads to thinking of them as an extension of ourselves, or at least a vital part of our lives. So any perceived inconvenience ignites Car Brain, causing us to commit or justify behavior we’d otherwise condemn. In any other context, these antisocial behaviors would be signs of a serious problem: ● Yelling at someone who walked slower than you in the grocery store. ● Swinging nunchucks at a crowded playground. ● Storing your spare fridge on a public sidewalk. But do all of that with a car? And suddenly it’s just “the price of modern life.” That’s the power of Car Brain: it’s so culturally embedded that it looks rational. Speeding, running red lights, tailgating, parking in bike lanes, parking in bus lanes, parking on sidewalks, blaming dead pedestrians for not being dressed like Christmas trees—these are all harmful cultural norms that need to be shamed and met with severe consequences. There’s an unspoken belief that driving is natural, necessary, and morally superior. It’s why cities spend millions expanding roads while underfunding buses. It’s why “congestion” is treated as a crisis, but 40,000 annual road deaths are met with a shrug. The most dangerous part of Car Brain is that we don’t see it for what it is—a mass delusion that enables harm, excludes millions, and degrades mental and physical well-being. The path to wellness Mental Health Awareness Month shouldn’t just be about personal coping strategies and mindfulness reminders. It should include a reckoning with the systems that make us sick in the first place. The alternative is to design neighborhoods where walking, cycling, and taking transit aren’t signs of poverty or punishment, but signs of liberation. That requires us to stop treating streets as high-speed pipelines for cars and start treating them as places of connection—places for living, meeting, playing, and being human. Be ready to confront your own Car Brain, which whispers that anything slowing down a driver must be wrong—even if that “wrong” thing is a child trying to cross the street. Admitting what we’re capable of will make it easier to stop excusing antisocial, dangerous behavior just because it happens to involve a motor vehicle. The first step in healing is recognizing we’re all breathing the same polluted cultural air. View the full article

In the past several years, the trend of “going direct” in public relations has gotten trendy. Broadly, the idea is that certain companies—mainly tech startups—stand a better chance of advancing their own narratives by sidestepping traditional PR and media altogether. Instead, the company founder, fellow executives, and partners would post content to the internet and social media to directly communicate with their customers. There’s naturally been a lot of consternation in the media and PR industries about how effective this kind of approach is, the real value of traditional PR, and whether a company can really chart their own path without some kind of third-party validation. It’s not my intent to wade into that debate (though if you’d like a deep-dive exploration, I hosted a panel on the topic at the Consensus conference). It is, however, an undeniable trend that’s caught fire the last few years. Now AI is poised to throw gas on that flame. The next evolution of going direct I was struck by this after reflecting on my conversation with Scrunch AI CEO Chris Andrew on The Media Copilot podcast. Scrunch specializes in placement in AI search. Its customers are mostly brands who want to ensure their content is crawled, analyzed, and summarized when someone asks a chatbot about the brand or its area of focus. The idea is conceptually similar to SEO (search engine optimization), though the industry hasn’t yet settled on a name for it (AIEO, LLMO, and GAIO are all contenders). As Google has just aptly demonstrated in its push this week to elevate AI Mode as a standard feature in search, the purpose of an AI search is to give answers, not links. That’s a huge problem if your product is information, which is exactly why much of the media industry is locked in a legal battle with the AI industry over copyright. But if you’re a company just trying to sell something, an AI summary that informs a user about your brand is a win whether they click through to your site or not. If they do, there’s information to suggest they’ll be much more inclined to engage further and even transact. And if they don’t, you’ve effectively hit them with an ad by having the brand mentioned in the summary. On the media side of things, the click-killing aspect to AI search has many outlets throwing up defenses on their content against crawlers. They’re configuring their robots.txt file to say “no” to bots, putting up other digital defenses, and denying access to their content unless AI companies pay up—either through licensing agreements or pay-as-you-go frameworks. A recent story in A Media Operator, which covers the business side of the media industry, showed that many media companies have begun to wake up to the rapidly growing presence of AI crawlers. An executive from Cloudflare, an internet infrastructure company, said over 800,000 websites have activated Cloudflare’s most aggressive protection setting. There’s an obvious disconnect between the incentives of the media versus brands in AI search, and that creates an opportunity for an AI upgrade of the go-direct strategy. AI search engines still need to provide answers to queries, and if credible journalism about those topics is blocked, something has to fill the void. Brands that give unfettered access to their content to crawlers (because why wouldn’t you?) will have an advantage. This goes double if the company can execute on a multichannel content strategy that gets their brand cited across multiple sites or domains. One important difference between AI search and SEO, pointed out by Andrew in the podcast, is that citations count more to AI crawlers than links. That means if a brand can seed the web with consistent facts and brand citations across multiple sites, it will help ensure AI search engines “learn” from their preferred narrative. You can imagine a scenario where a major company, with enough resources, could theoretically pull off a version of what Russia has done with respect to advancing their preferred narrative on the war in Ukraine, thoroughly examined by a NewsGuard investigation. Except in Russia’s case, it was done mainly via sketchy-looking sites clearly created to “spam” AI crawlers with propaganda. A company could do this out in the open, with a content strategy that amplifies their storytelling across blogs, podcasts, social media, and more, published across multiple domains. Humans would easily be able to tell it’s all marketing, but AI engines just see it as more data—data that can have a large amount of influence in what appears in summaries. How the media can chart a smarter course There’s still hope to steer away from a future where corporate propaganda is dominant. It starts with media sites adopting a sophisticated approach to blocking, something I outlined in my newsletter last week. Blanket bans are understandable—publishers still feel burned by Big Tech’s platform dynamics of the past—but shutting off access entirely is a short-term defense with long-term costs. A more strategic approach would involve selectively exposing certain types of content: meta descriptions, older articles, multimedia, and more. This allows media companies to remain visible in AI search while still protecting core value. But beyond technical solutions, the real hope is in what consumers of information actually want. Review sites like PCMag and The Wirecutter didn’t become popular because they were algorithmically boosted. They emerged because people didn’t like getting fed the company line. Similarly, if AI-generated answers start to feel like corporate brochureware, consumers will notice. Credible, independent journalism isn’t just good ethics; it’s a market advantage—if it’s accessible. In the end, AI engines that optimize for this balance will win out, too. It’s right there in ChatGPT’s model spec: the chatbot is designed to “seek the truth together” with the user. It can’t do that without including independent perspectives and weighing them appropriately against a barrage of go-direct content. AI may be dramatically altering the ways people get information, but audiences also hate being misled. If the public has a way to find reporting they can trust—even in an AI-mediated environment—they’ll take it. But the burden is on both the media and AI platforms to keep that path open. View the full article

Sale heralds end to two years of uncertainty over future of the 170-year-old British titleView the full article

Boost to Labour government as it tries to tackle high cost of livingView the full article

Spectacles in the Oval Office are undermining America’s influence in the world, warn foreign policy experts View the full article

Worries about trade wars and a rising debt load have shaken faith in the Treasury market View the full article

In a country ravaged by war and poverty, citizens have emerged from the repression of the Assad regime — and taken up metal detectingView the full article

Immigration lawyers report surge in Americans looking to move to UKView the full article

German chancellor worried about reigniting domestic row over Russian gas importsView the full article

US negotiators to tell Brussels they expect unilateral concessions View the full article

Malaysia and Singapore find harder to maintain neutrality as geopolitical tensions growView the full article