All Activity

What Is Job Scheduling? Job scheduling is the process of planning, assigning and timing tasks so they are completed using available resources. It is commonly used in construction, manufacturing, maintenance and IT operations to organize work, coordinate labor and meet deadlines. Clear sequencing and resource allocation allow teams to execute work without delays or conflicts. What Is a Job Schedule? A job schedule is a structured plan that shows tasks, timelines and assigned resources for completing work. It is used to track when each task should start and finish, who is responsible and how activities are sequenced. By laying out dependencies and deadlines, it helps teams across industries coordinate execution and keep work moving without conflicts or delays. ProjectManager is an award-winning project management software that helps teams across industries plan, schedule and track work from start to finish. Create detailed job schedules, manage resources, monitor costs and compare planned versus actual performance with a full suite of powerful tools including Gantt charts, kanban boards, real-time dashboards and much more. Get started for free today. /wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Manufacturing-gantt-chart-light-mode-costs-exposed-cta-e1712005286389-1600x659.jpgLearn more What Industries Use Job Scheduling? Job scheduling is used anywhere work needs to be planned, sequenced and executed using limited resources. While the core principles remain the same, how schedules are built and managed varies depending on the type of work, the level of complexity and how resources are deployed. Construction On construction projects, job scheduling coordinates crews, equipment and subcontractors across multiple phases of work. Tasks must follow a strict sequence, as many activities depend on others being completed first. Delays in one area can impact the entire project, so schedules are continuously updated to reflect progress and keep work aligned with deadlines. Manufacturing Within manufacturing operations management, job scheduling organizes production tasks across machines, workstations and operators. Each job may follow a different process, requiring careful sequencing to avoid bottlenecks. Schedules must account for setup times, material availability and production capacity to ensure consistent output and prevent disruptions on the production line. IT and Software Development In IT projects, job scheduling is used to manage automated tasks, system processes and development workflows. Tasks such as data processing, system updates and deployments must run in a specific order to avoid conflicts. Schedules help teams coordinate dependencies, manage system loads and ensure that critical operations run at the right time. Maintenance and Field Service Maintenance planning teams rely on job scheduling to plan inspections, repairs and preventive work across multiple assets and locations. Schedules must balance urgent requests with routine service tasks while ensuring technicians and equipment are available. Effective scheduling reduces downtime, improves response times and helps maintain consistent asset performance. /wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Printable-Gantt-chart-template.jpg Get your free Gantt Chart Template Use this free Gantt Chart Template for Excel to manage your projects better. Download Excel File Why Job Scheduling Matters Across construction sites, production floors and service operations, job scheduling determines how work actually gets done day to day. Poor coordination leads to idle crews, missed deadlines and wasted materials, while structured scheduling aligns resources with demand. Teams that actively manage schedules can respond faster to changes and maintain steady progress without constant disruption. Efficient job scheduling ensures that labor, equipment and materials are allocated at the right time, preventing costly downtime and improving overall productivity across projects. Clear scheduling structures help teams avoid task conflicts and overlapping responsibilities, reducing confusion and ensuring that work progresses in a logical and controlled sequence. Accurate job schedules make it easier to meet deadlines by aligning task durations with realistic timelines, helping teams avoid delays that can impact project budgets and client expectations. Well-managed schedules improve resource utilization by balancing workloads across teams, preventing overloading some workers while others remain underutilized or idle. Structured job scheduling provides better visibility into ongoing work, allowing managers to track progress, identify bottlenecks early and make adjustments before issues escalate. Consistent scheduling practices support better cost control by reducing inefficiencies, minimizing rework and ensuring that resources are used effectively throughout the project lifecycle. Reliable job schedules create a foundation for better decision-making by providing real-time insight into project status, enabling teams to adapt quickly to changes in scope or priorities. What Should Be Included in a Job Schedule? Before work begins, a job schedule needs to clearly show what will be done, when it will happen and who is responsible. A complete structure removes guesswork during execution and gives teams a reliable reference point to track progress, adjust priorities and keep work aligned with deadlines. Job or Task Name: Each activity must be clearly labeled so teams can quickly identify what work needs to be performed without confusion. Task Description: A short explanation provides context on what the task involves, helping ensure consistency in how the work is executed. Start Date and Time: Defines exactly when a task is scheduled to begin, allowing teams to plan resource availability and sequencing. End Date and Time: Establishes when the task should be completed, creating clear expectations for delivery and progress tracking. Task Duration: The estimated time required to complete the task, which supports realistic scheduling and workload balancing. Assigned Resources: Identifies the workers, teams or equipment responsible for completing the task, ensuring accountability and coordination. Task Dependencies: Shows relationships between tasks, indicating which activities must be completed before others can start. Priority Level: Highlights the importance or urgency of each task so teams can focus on critical work first when conflicts arise. Status: Tracks whether tasks are not started, in progress or completed, giving real-time visibility into execution. Work Hours or Effort: Captures the amount of labor required, helping managers distribute workloads and avoid overallocating resources. Location or Work Area: Specifies where the task takes place, which is essential for coordinating teams across multiple sites or departments. Materials and Equipment Needed: Lists required inputs so teams can prepare in advance and avoid delays caused by missing resources. Constraints or Restrictions: Identifies limitations such as deadlines, regulations or resource availability that may impact how the task is performed. Notes or Instructions: Provides additional guidance or special considerations that help teams execute the work correctly and consistently. Job Schedule Example Consider a small construction project involving site preparation, foundation work and structural framing. The team needs to coordinate labor, materials and equipment across sequential tasks. A clear job schedule ensures each activity is properly timed, resources are available when needed and work progresses without delays or conflicts. Job or Task Name Task Description Start Date and Time End Date and Time Task Duration Assigned Resources Task Dependencies Priority Level Work Hours or Effort Materials and Equipment Needed Site Clearing Remove debris and prepare the site for construction activities 06/01/26 07:00 06/01/26 12:00 5 hours Ground crew, bulldozer None High 10 labor hours Bulldozer, safety gear Excavation Dig foundation trenches according to site plans 06/01/26 13:00 06/02/26 12:00 1 day Excavation crew, excavator Site Clearing High 16 labor hours Excavator, measuring tools Foundation Pouring Pour concrete into prepared trenches 06/02/26 13:00 06/02/26 18:00 5 hours Concrete crew, mixer Excavation High 12 labor hours Concrete, mixer, rebar Curing Time Allow concrete to set and reach required strength 06/02/26 18:00 06/05/26 18:00 3 days No active crew Foundation Pouring Medium 0 labor hours Curing blankets Framing Build structural framework of the building 06/06/26 07:00 06/10/26 17:00 5 days Carpenters, tools Curing Time High 80 labor hours Lumber, nails, power tools Job Scheduling Process Getting from a vague scope of work to a clear, executable plan requires a structured approach. A well-defined job scheduling process helps teams organize tasks, sequence activities and align resources so work progresses in a controlled and predictable way. 1. Define the Job to Be Performed Before anything is scheduled, the team must fully understand the job that will be performed. That means clarifying what work will be done, what goals and objectives need to be achieved and who the stakeholders are. Without this clarity, schedules become disconnected from reality and fail to support execution effectively. 2. Break Down the Job Into Individual Tasks Once the job is clearly defined and understood by both leadership and the team responsible for execution, the next step is to divide the work into manageable tasks. Breaking down the scope of work allows each activity to be assigned, tracked and completed with clarity, reducing confusion and making the schedule easier to follow. 3. Identify Task Dependencies Task dependencies determine the sequence in which work must be performed, giving the job schedule its logical structure. Some tasks cannot begin until others are completed, and recognizing these relationships is essential. There are four main types of task dependencies, and understanding them helps create a realistic and executable schedule. 4. Estimate the Duration of Tasks Estimating task durations allows schedulers to build a realistic project timeline and understand how long the job will take overall. Methods such as expert judgment, historical data, CPM and PERT can be used. Since estimates rarely match actual results, comparing planned durations against real performance is critical during execution. 5. Create a Timeline for the Execution of the Job With task durations defined, the next step is to assign start and end dates to each activity so the full timeline becomes visible. This timeline represents the job schedule that stakeholders will review and rely on. It also establishes a schedule baseline that allows teams to track progress and measure performance throughout execution. 6. Assign Resources for the Completion of Tasks After the timeline is established, resources must be assigned to ensure each task can be completed as planned. This includes human resources such as workers and supervisors, as well as non-human resources like materials, equipment and components. Aligning these inputs with the schedule ensures that work can proceed without interruptions. 7. Estimate Resource Costs Once resources are allocated, the next step is to estimate the costs associated with labor, materials and equipment. These projections provide a financial view of the job schedule and help guide decision-making. Because actual costs often vary from estimates, tracking real expenses is essential to maintain control over the budget. 8. Monitor Progress, Costs and Timelines As work moves forward, performance must be tracked against the original plan to keep the job on course. Reviewing progress, timelines and costs together allows teams to identify deviations early and take corrective action. Continuous monitoring ensures that adjustments are based on real data rather than assumptions, keeping execution aligned with expectations. What Tools Can Be Used for Making a Job Schedule? Different tools can be used to build and manage a job schedule depending on the complexity of the work and the level of control required. The right tool helps teams visualize tasks, organize timelines and coordinate resources without losing track of dependencies or deadlines. Gantt Charts Gantt charts are one of the most effective tools for building a job schedule because they visually map tasks across a timeline. Teams can see start and end dates, task durations and dependencies in one place. This makes it easier to sequence work, adjust schedules and quickly understand how delays in one task affect the overall timeline. /wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Gantt-Manufacturing-Light-2554x1372-1-1600x860.png Kanban Boards Kanban boards help teams manage a job schedule by organizing tasks into visual columns that represent different stages of work. As tasks move from one stage to another, teams can track progress in real time. This approach is especially useful for managing workflows that require flexibility and continuous updates rather than rigid timelines. /wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Kanban-Manufacturing-Light-2554x1372-1-1600x860.png Task Lists Task lists provide a simple way to create and manage a job schedule by outlining tasks, deadlines and assigned resources in a structured format. They are easy to update and ideal for smaller jobs or teams that do not need complex scheduling tools. With clear priorities and deadlines, task lists help keep work organized and on track. /wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Sheet-light-mode-punch-list-construction-custom-columns-costs-hours--1600x875.png Types of Job Scheduling Different scheduling approaches are used depending on deadlines, resource availability and how work flows through an operation. Choosing the right method helps teams structure timelines, prioritize tasks and adapt to constraints without disrupting execution. Forward Job Scheduling Forward job scheduling is a scheduling method used to plan tasks from the present time into the future based on available resources. It is commonly used when work can begin immediately and the goal is to complete jobs as early as possible. Tasks are scheduled in sequence as resources become available, often resulting in earlier completion but potential idle time between activities. Backward Job Scheduling Backward job scheduling is a scheduling method used to plan tasks by starting from a fixed deadline and working backward. It is commonly used when delivery dates are predetermined and meeting them is the priority. Tasks are scheduled as late as possible without delaying completion, reducing idle time but requiring accurate duration estimates. Job Shop Scheduling Job shop scheduling is a scheduling method used to organize tasks across multiple jobs that follow different workflows and sequences. It is commonly used in environments where each job has unique requirements and must pass through shared resources. This approach requires careful coordination to manage resource conflicts and maintain efficient task sequencing. Batch Job Scheduling Batch job scheduling is a scheduling method used to group similar tasks and process them together within a defined time period. It is commonly used when tasks share the same requirements or resources and can be executed in cycles. Grouping work into batches improves efficiency by reducing setup time and optimizing resource usage. Free Job Scheduling Templates We’ve created over 100 free project management templates for Excel, Word and Google Sheets. Here are some that can help with job scheduling. Gantt Chart Template This Gantt chart template helps plan and visualize job schedules by mapping tasks, timelines and dependencies, making it easier to track progress, coordinate resources and keep work aligned with deadlines. Critical Path Template This critical path template identifies the sequence of tasks that directly impact completion time, helping teams prioritize critical activities, reduce delays and maintain control over project timelines and execution. PERT Chart Template This PERT chart template helps estimate task durations and visualize dependencies, allowing teams to analyze uncertainty, plan realistic schedules and improve decision-making when managing complex job scheduling scenarios. ProjectManager Is a Robust Job Scheduling Software ProjectManager is an online project management solution that provides a complete set of work planning, scheduling and tracking tools, including Gantt charts, kanban boards, task lists and real-time dashboards and reports. With these features, teams across industries can build detailed job schedules, assign resources and monitor progress, costs and timelines. ProjectManager also delivers AI-powered project insights to support better decision-making and connects with over 100 tools like Microsoft Project, Acumatica and Power BI. With its open API and wide range of integrations, organizations can seamlessly link ProjectManager to their existing systems. Watch the video below to learn more! Related Job Management Content How to Make a Job Cost Report for Construction Job Card Template What Is Job Costing? How to Make a Job Cost Sheet (Example Included) 10 Best Job Tracking Software of 2026 (Free & Paid) If you need a tool to help you manage projects, then signup for our software now at ProjectManager. Our online software helps teams across industries plan, track and oversee projects as they unfold. Sign up for a free 30-day trial today! The post Job Scheduling 101: Making a Job Schedule appeared first on ProjectManager. View the full article

A reader writes: At my company, we have an instant messaging system. A lot of people will send an initial message that says nothing but “you free?” or “hi.” In addition to making me irrationally annoyed (just tell me what you want already!), I have no idea what the appropriate response is. Is it “yes,” “hello Bob,” “what’s up”? All of these seem terrible. What is appropriate IM protocol? I like to start with, “Do you have time for a question about X?” Or just the question if it’s short because that’s what I’d prefer to receive, but maybe people find this rude? I am aware that I am overthinking this but I also can’t stop overthinking it. I answer this question over at Inc. today, where I’m revisiting letters that have been buried in the archives here from years ago (and sometimes updating/expanding my answers to them). You can read it here. The post is it rude to instant-message someone “hi” with no further context? appeared first on Ask a Manager. View the full article

An incident that starts in ServiceNow is escalated to Jira, so software developers using that tool can start working on a solution. You’ve set up an automation from ServiceNow to Jira that automatically turns the incident into a Jira work item. The developers start working on it. And then? Nothing. None of the work happening in Jira gets sent back to ServiceNow. Frontline agents looking for updates need to ping developers in alternate channels (e.g., chat apps, email). Developers needing additional content send messages to support agents through these same channels, waiting for a reply before any more work gets done. Automations can bridge the gap between tools, but it’s a temporary bridge. It stops as soon as a work item goes through or a single update is pushed over. The problem isn’t that you chose the wrong tool. It’s that the approach you use — trigger-based, one-way automation — is fundamentally incapable of keeping two systems in sync. Here’s why. The trigger-action model was built for notifications (not sync) Popular automation tools like Zapier and Make use the same basic technology. A user chooses a trigger in one tool (e.g., a new ticket being created) and an action in another (e.g., creating a work item in Jira). The tool then repeats that action automatically every time the trigger happens. But as soon as the action is performed, that’s it. Every automation only pairs a single trigger with a single action. That’s why most teams using these tools have multiple automations running between tool pairings. Here’s why that matters in incident response: No relationship: Automations can push an escalated incident from ServiceNow to Jira and create a work item there, but they don’t form any relationships between the two. They’re two copies of the same information, but only the information that was there when the first item was initially created. Priority inconsistency: If the priority of an incident in ServiceNow changes, nothing changes in Jira, and vice-versa. That means as soon as the automation runs its course, context stops flowing between developers and support agents. Automation risks: You can use automation tools to achieve something approximating two-way updates, but that requires multiple automations. At least one to push data from tool A to tool B and at least one more to move data from tool B to tool A. Using multiple automations creates potential risks like infinite loops and silent failures. API update issues: AI updates in either tool you’re automating can break an automation chain. That’s why many of these platforms automatically disable your automations when a long sequence of errors occur, usually due to API changes. Why custom integrations don’t scale either When one-way automation fails, many teams choose to build their own integrations. They’ll either dedicate internal technical resources to do this or work with third-party experts. It’s more expensive than relying on one-way automation tools but, in theory, can lead to a solution that’s a better fit for your workflow. But custom integrations have their own pitfalls. The tools you integrate are constantly changing. API updates don’t affect your custom integrations any less than automation tools. The difference? You’re now responsible for updating your integrations accordingly. The sequence quickly becomes: An integration breaks. You investigate and find out about an API update. You dedicate technical resources to updating your integrations accordingly. You might get more functionality, but there’s a greater total cost of ownership (i.e., the costs you pay for an integration beyond a subscription or contract). And that’s only for API updates. You’ll deal with other ongoing maintenance costs to keep your integrations running smoothly as your workflows evolve. Maintenance is far from the only problem with custom integrations, however. If you’re using custom scripts to bridge the gap, you won’t have the same built-in logic that dedicated two-way sync platforms have. That means you’ll deal with overwritten or duplicated data any time both systems are updated simultaneously. Similarly, your custom scripts don’t have the same security that third-party integration tools do, like access controls, audit trails, and two-factor authentication. That makes them a potential weak point in your security chain. What a stateful bidirectional sync can achieve Stateful synchronization goes beyond automation tools. When an automation tool automatically creates a new work item, it just creates a copy of the original. There’s no link between the two items. Stateful synchronization, on the other hand, builds relationships between work items, continually updating them as you work. A bidirectional stateful sync ensures that happens in both tools. Here’s a breakdown of the differences between automations and two-way, stateful sync. Trigger-based (Zapier, Make)Stateful sync (Unito)Connection typeStateless (fires once per event)Persistent (maintains live link between work items)DirectionOne-way (Tool A → Tool B)Bidirectional (Tool A Tool B)Sync on updateRequires additional automationsAutomaticConflict handlingNone (Risk of infinite loops or overwrites)Rules-based resolutionHistorical dataNew items onlyFull historical data supportField depthLimited (usually one field per automation)Custom field mappingSub-item supportLimitedMaintenanceCan break with API changesNo user-side maintenance A two-way, stateful sync gives support agents and developers complete context when they collaborate, ensuring nothing gets left behind. What this looks like for incident response Let’s use an example of a common incident response workflow to see how a two-way, stateful sync powered by Unito impacts the way your teams work. In this example, ServiceNow is the frontline system, while Jira is where developers work on escalated issues. A priority one incident is logged in ServiceNow. A Unito rule spots the criteria that qualify the incident for escalation (e.g., a specific caller, a certain level of urgency). Unito creates a Jira issue with full context: priority, description, affected customers, SLA timers, and relevant comments. An engineer updates the status in that Jira issue to “In Progress.” Unito syncs that change to ServiceNow automatically, so support agents know the incident is being worked on. After an initial investigation, the engineer adds a comment in Jira describing the cause of the incident. That comment appears in ServiceNow. An agent, after receiving a call from an impacted customer, adds further details in ServiceNow. Unito syncs them to Jira. When developers finish their work, they close the relevant Jira issue. Unito automatically moves matching ServiceNow records to “Resolved.” The SLA timer stops. No manual handoffs required. A one-way automation tool stops at step one. It pushes a ServiceNow record to Jira and that’s it. Any updates or additional context that happens after that needs to be sent through another channel, like email, or copied and pasted manually between tools. Getting started Switching away from a familiar tool can feel risky. You’re not sure what you’re getting into and you don’t want to risk any downtime for essential workflows. But a two-way sync can completely transform the way your teams work, making the leap more than worth it. Ready to optimize your incident response? Meet with our team to see what Unito can do for your workflows. Talk with sales FAQ: One-way automation in incident response Can Zapier do two-way sync? No. Zapier is an automation tool that uses trigger-action logic to push data in one direction. You can build something approximating a two-way sync with Zapier by chaining multiple automations together, so data gets pushed in both directions. But this creates risks like infinite loops, where Zapier automations trigger each other until you stop them manually. It also increases the maintenance required to manage your automations. A true two-way sync platform like Unito handles this natively with conflict resolution and persistent record syncing. How long does it take to replace a Zapier integration with Unito? Unito users set up their first integration in around 12 minutes. Because you can replace several Zaps with a single Unito flow, you can save a ton of time when you make the switch. Additionally, Unito flows don’t require the same kind of ongoing maintenance that Zaps do. What happens to existing data when I switch from Zapier to a sync platform? Unlike most automation solutions, a sync platform can easily detect and sync historical data. That means all the work items and data Zapier moved between tools can be synced with your new sync platform. A single flow between two tools can replace multiple automations, making the transition even smoother. Is stateful sync overkill for simple integrations? A stateful sync maintains a persistent relationship between work items in multiple tools. For workflows like incident response, that ongoing relationship is essential to maintain full context for all teams involved. But for truly simple, one-way transfers (e.g., sending notifications to Slack when a ticket is submitted) than trigger-based automations are perfectly fine. Does bidirectional sync work with ServiceNow and Jira? Yes, Unito offers connectors for both ServiceNow and Jira, allowing you to build integrations between them. You can sync most fields, including priority, status, comments, and custom fields. Unito also supports other popular connectors for incident response, including Azure DevOps, Asana, Zendesk, and HubSpot. View the full article

Oil jumps to $114 as tensions flare up in Middle EastView the full article

...And firms are feeling the strain... By CPA Trendlines Research Staff Go PRO for members-only access to more CPA Trendlines Research. View the full article

In December 2025, the biggest battery maker in the world, CATL, started what it calls the world’s first large-scale deployment of robots in its Luoyang, China factory. Last week, the State Grid Corporation of China began its $1 billion 2026 plan to deploy a humanoid army to maintain its grid autonomously. And just a few days ago, at the other side of the East China Sea, Japan Airlines announced the beginning of a test program of humanoids to carry luggage at airports. While we listen to Elon Musk tell us how magical and civilization-changing Tesla’s Optimus robots are, Asian countries are light-years ahead of us, deploying humanoids to do their bidding in real-life scenarios. There are two main reasons humanoids are happening much faster in Asia than in the U.S. or Europe. One of the reasons is purely economic: China is always looking at cost optimization. For years, industrial robotics has been a main driver in the country’s quest to reduce manufacturing prices and times. China’s dark factories, where fully automated robots churn out devices with the lights off because they don’t need them, are famous. “China is by far the world’s largest robotics market in 2024. It represents 54% of global deployments. The latest figures show that 295,000 industrial robots have been installed in the country, the highest annual total on record,” says the International Federation of Robotics in its World Robotics 2025 Report. So humanoids—bipeds or wheeled—are the logical next step. This is especially true as AI models begin to understand the world, and companies realize that a huge market awaits for general and specialized tasks that only human-like robots can properly do. The other reason is demographic: Japan’s population is quickly getting older, while in China, fewer people want to do hard and dangerous work like maintaining power grids. Japan became the world’s first “super-aged” society back in 2006, and as of 2026, over 30% of its population is aged 65 or older. The country’s total population is currently shrinking by nearly one million people per year. The sheer lack of young, able-bodied workers makes manual labor roles in logistics and aviation impossible to fill, forcing the country into reliance on machines. In China, the issue is slightly different, but equally pressing. While China has a massive population, its traditional blue-collar workforce is aging out. An estimated 300 million migrant workers—the people who physically built the country’s modern infrastructure and power grids over the last four decades—are now approaching retirement age. Younger generations are simply not stepping in to replace them in highly dangerous roles, like maintaining live 10,000-volt power lines. Facing a critical workforce shortage in the trades, China has chosen to deploy robotic electricians that operate 50% faster than human crews with a 98% success rate. Business and political drive At the same time, China and Japan have the means and the willpower to make this happen. The former controls the majority of the global supply chain to make humanoids—and robots of any kind—in huge quantities. Meanwhile, the U.S. can’t even produce magnets—a key component to robotics—without reliance on its rival. Japan, with its aging population in mind, has been working on robotics for years and now is making the jump from small deployments in hospital facilities to large-scale industrial deployment of humanoids. The country’s move into aviation logistics is born of sheer demographic desperation. According to The Guardian, the country will require more than 6.5 million foreign workers by 2040 just to hit its economic growth targets, but it faces intense political pressure to limit immigration. The solution is mechanical. Starting this May, a 130-centimeter-tall humanoid manufactured by the Chinese company Unitree will begin hauling passenger luggage and cargo on the tarmac of Haneda airport, a massive hub that handles over 60 million passengers annually. These units can operate continuously for two to three hours. Tomohiro Uchida, President of GMO AI and Robotics—which is collaborating on the pilot alongside JAL Ground Service—says that while airports look highly automated, “their back-end operations still rely heavily on human labor and face serious labor shortages.” While Japan is testing the waters to plug a gaping demographic hole, China is diving headfirst into mass industrialization. The State Grid Corporation of China has allocated 6.8 billion yuan (roughly $1 billion) to purchase approximately 8,500 robots this year alone. While that order includes 5,000 quadruped robot dogs to examine power lines in mountainous terrain, they are actively introducing humanoid and dual-arm models to execute dangerous maintenance duties on the ultra-high-voltage grid. Across all Chinese utility companies, spending on AI robotics is projected to exceed 10 billion yuan in 2026. The growth of embodied AI is about to explode in the Asian country—with total output in China reaching 2.1 million units by 2030—says Zheshang Securities. It’s only the beginning of the future, as the financial firm describes: “We believe 2026 will be the year humanoid robots achieve mass production. The future has arrived.” A robotic army marches towards automation That future is already clocking in at CATL’s Zhongzhou facility. Operating via a Vision-Language-Action AI model, robotics company Spirit AI’s Xiaomo humanoids visually identify shifted plug positions and instantaneously correct their grip to connect high-voltage battery components with a 99% success rate. Not only is this a dangerous task for human operators—who obviously don’t want to get electrocuted—but, because they don’t take breaks, a single humanoid handles a daily workload three times larger than a human employee. CATL is not alone in this industrial shift. A massive ecosystem of highly funded, specialized manufacturers is fueling these deployments. Unitree Robotics—the Hangzhou-based firm supplying Japan Airlines—recently completed its Series C funding, pushing its valuation past $1.6 billion. The company recorded over 5,500 shipments in 2025 and recently filed for a $610 million IPO on the Shanghai Stock Exchange to aggressively scale manufacturing. AgiBot is another purely-robotic play in China. Founded in 2023, the Shanghai-based company shipped over 5,100 humanoid robots in 2025 alone, securing the number one spot globally in both humanoid shipment volume and market share. By early April 2026, AgiBot officially rolled its 10,000th unit off the production line, cementing its position as the undisputed global leader in commercial humanoid manufacturing. For context, American counterparts like Figure AI, Agility Robotics, and Tesla shipped a fraction of the Chinese humanoid industry numbers. Same with Ubtech Robotics, which has introduced its Walker S2 industrial humanoid. It features an autonomous battery swapping system that allows it to operate continuously. Ubtech reported a staggering 2,200 percent surge in full-size humanoid robot revenue in 2025, successfully hitting its target of delivering 500 units by year’s end, and actively placing hundreds on the factory floors of BYD, Geely, and Foxconn. Ubtech has amassed cumulative orders exceeding 1.4 billion yuan and is currently scaling its manufacturing capacity with a target of 10,000 units annually. But the humanoid push doesn’t stop at these specialized robotic startups. Other tech and car brands are quickly pivoting to embodied AI as well. Xpeng just broke ground in the first quarter of 2026 on a 1.2 million-square-foot production facility in Guangzhou that will build its viral Iron humanoid robots by year’s end. Xiaomi is embracing robotics, too. Its CEO Lei Jun recently announced that the company’s humanoids have successfully completed autonomous trial operations on their EV assembly lines, maintaining a 90% success rate when installing self-tapping nuts on car floors within a 76-second window. Xiaomi plans to deploy these machines in large numbers across its production facilities by 2030. Supply chain and more China is clearly ahead and that’s because, in addition to having the political and economic will, they have the manufacturing power to make it happen. The same reason why American giants like Tesla will struggle to compete with this robotic army that Beijing is pushing full steam ahead: China fully dominates the supply chain. The center of which is in Shenzhen, a hyper-concentrated manufacturing hub that acts as the world’s primary robotics forge. By the end of 2025, Shenzhen manufactured nearly 8 million service robots—a broad category that includes logistics bots, cleaners, and the foundation for more complex humanoids. This staggering volume accounted for 43% of China’s total national output, pushing the city’s robotics industry value past $35.4 billion. Yang Qian, the chief operating officer of X Square Robot, says that this local supply chain advantage means “custom parts can be delivered in days, compared with months overseas.” He adds that iteration costs in Shenzhen are “only a tenth of those abroad.” American manufacturers are currently choking on their lack of a domestic supply chain. It’s not only that the Chinese have more experience and manufacturing power. You only have to focus on one of many critical bottlenecks: rare-earth magnets. A single Tesla Optimus humanoid requires up to eight pounds of Neodymium-Iron-Boron magnets to power its 40-plus servo motors. When Beijing halted exports of these materials on April 4, 2025—after The President started his tariff war against China—Optimus production hit a brick wall. Anonymous sources within the Optimus supply chain confirmed to AInvest that Tesla capped its inventory at roughly 1,000 units, stating that with the procurement freeze, Musk’s goal of producing 5,000 units this year is “now largely unattainable.” In a recent podcast recorded at Nvidia’s GTC event in San Jose, CEO Jensen Huang warned that the U.S. robotics industry will be forced to rely on China. “I think China is formidable,” Huang said. “The reason for that is because their microelectronics, motors, rare earth and magnets—which are foundational to robotics—are the world’s best. So in a lot of ways, our robotics industry relies deeply on their ecosystem and their supply chain.” Huang added that, while the U.S. practically invented robotics, then the country got “tired and exhausted” waiting for the necessary AI “brain” technology to emerge, allowing China to seize the manufacturing advantage. The problem is that, while the U.S. government is frantically trying to prop up a domestic magnet supply chain through companies like MP Materials, China is also advancing in the AI models that humanoid robots use, matching and even surpassing its American counterparts. If Washington and Silicon Valley don’t spend more money in becoming independent from China as fast as possible, America will be stuck watching Elon Musk’s home videos while China actually builds the robotic workforce of the future to solve real problems, today. View the full article

Does your firm have the right mix? By Domenick J. Esposito 8 Steps to Great Go PRO for members-only access to more Dom Esposito. View the full article

Willie Simon stood outside the Memphis motel where Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in 1968, now a museum dedicated to the Civil Rights Movement. Days after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, Simon feared what the decision would mean not just for Black Americans like himself but an entire country where the political guardrails seem to be coming apart. Simon, who leads the Shelby County Democratic Party in Tennessee, said the court’s conservative majority set a precedent that if you’re “not in the in-crowd group, they can just erase us.” By weakening a requirement that states draw congressional districts in a way that gives minorities an opportunity to control their own fate, the court escalated the nationwide redistricting war that has seen Democrats and Republicans casting aside decades of tradition in hopes of gaining an edge over the competition. New sessions are scheduled to begin this week in two Republican-controlled states to eliminate U.S. House districts represented by Democrats, and there’s more on the horizon. It’s the latest example of how the American democratic experiment has been pushed to the breaking point in the decade since Donald The President rose to power. Extreme rhetoric has become commonplace. There’s been a spike in political violence and a rash of assassinations. Five years after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, The President’s allies are trying to harness the same falsehoods about voter fraud to reshape elections. The rules and norms that once helped smooth over an unruly country’s vast differences have given way to a race for power at all costs. “I’ve never subscribed to the idea we’re in a civil war, but the gerrymandering wars and the recent decision from the Supreme Court do not make the United States more united,” said Matt Dallek, a political scientist at George Washington University. “It speeds up the hyperpartisan force and atmosphere that people feel on both sides.” ‘No more rule of law’ The President ignited the conflict over redistricting last year by urging Republicans to redraw congressional maps to reduce the likelihood that his party loses the U.S. House in the November midterm elections. It was an unusual step, since redistricting normally only takes place after the once-a-decade census to accommodate population shifts. But in 2019 the Supreme Court ruled federal courts cannot prevent partisan gerrymandering, and The President saw a chance to push the limits. Once Republican-led states like Texas started shifting district lines, Democratic-led states like California countered. The fight was heading for a draw until the Supreme Court’s conservative majority issued its long-awaited decision in Louisiana v. Callais. The court weakened the last remaining national impediment to gerrymandering — the Voting Rights Act’s requirement that, in places where white people and outnumbered racial minorities vote differently, districts be drawn to give those minorities a chance to elect representatives they prefer. The ruling opened a new set of political floodgates. Republicans in Tennessee plan to erase the only Democratic congressional district, which is majority Black and centered in Memphis, by splitting it up among more conservative suburban and rural white communities. More than a dozen other majority-minority districts, mainly in the South, could face the same fate. Louisiana moved to postpone its congressional primaries, set for May 16, to have a chance to redraw two majority-Black Democratic seats it was required to maintain before the recent ruling. Alabama is trying to get the Supreme Court to let it redraw its two majority-Black seats. “We should demand that State Legislatures do what the Supreme Court says must be done,” The President wrote on social media on Sunday. “That is more important than administrative convenience.” He said Republicans could gain 20 seats through redistricting. Democrats have threatened to retaliate by splitting up conservative bastions in states like New York and Illinois, which would reallocate Republican voters to more liberal, urban districts. With fewer limits — either legal or self-imposed — people expect the issue to become a perpetual race to squeeze every possible advantage out of legislative maps. “It’s hard to know where it ends,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor at UCLA. Partisans gleefully shared color-coded maps of California with all 54 House seats drawn for Democrats, or southern states with only a couple of blue districts. Most agreed that eventually it will be very hard for Democrats to get elected to the House in any Republican-run state, even if there are large swaths of blue-leaning terrain, and vice versa for Republicans in Democratic-run states. That seems un-American, said Jonathan Cervas, a political scientist at Carnegie Mellon who’s redrawn maps on behalf of judges reviewing redistricting litigation. The country’s system, he said, “was founded on this idea that it’s majority rule with minority rights.” “There is no more rule of law in redistricting,” Cervas said. “There have to be some constraints, somewhere. Otherwise we don’t really have elections.” Politicians’ best tool to game elections The arcane art of drawing legislative lines is the most powerful tool that politicians have for gaming elections. They can make districts an almost guaranteed win for their side by drawing lines that scoop up a majority of their voters and just enough of the opposition’s supporters to ensure the other party cannot win that seat or the one next door, either. Lawmakers have used the trick since the country’s founding. Democratic gerrymanders helped the party hold onto the House through the Reagan revolution. After the 2010 midterms, Republican majorities in state legislatures allowed the GOP to draw districts to lock up control of the House even during President Barack Obama’s reelection two years later. However, that didn’t prevent the “blue wave” in 2018, during The President’s first term, when Democrats retook the House. It was a reminder that even the most partisan gerrymanders may stifle shifts in public opinion but eventually crack as political tides turn. “When you try to get every last ounce of blood from the stone you can end up shooting yourself in the foot,” said Michael Li of the liberal Brennan Center for Justice in New York. Political coalitions also change, and voters that a party thinks will be reliable can switch sides. That’s what’s happened in the The President era, as Democrats have expanded their support among wealthier and suburban voters and Republicans among Blacks and Latinos. Although Republicans won’t be able to exploit the full force of the Supreme Court ruling until after the November midterms, it will be challenging for Democrats to find enough seats to counter those gains. Sean Trende, a political analyst who has drawn maps for Republicans, agreed that the court decision is likely to lead to partisan gerrymandering run amok. He said it’s been hard to find neutral arbiters to rein in politicians who draw lines to benefit themselves. The coming storm, Trende said, will be more of a symptom of polarization than its root cause. “All our institutions are broken. We don’t speak a common political language,” Trende said. “This is what you get.” —Nicholas Riccardi, Associated Press View the full article

When considering the average tax rate for corporations, it’s crucial to acknowledge that the current rate stands at 21 percent, a significant drop from the historical average of nearly 32 percent. This decline reflects various fiscal policy changes over the years, impacting large firms differently, as their effective tax rate hovers around 16 percent. Comprehending these nuances, along with the role of pass-through entities, can illuminate broader implications for corporate taxation and business strategies. What might these trends suggest for future reforms? Key Takeaways The current U.S. corporate tax rate is 21 percent on net income. The historical average corporate tax rate from 1909 to 2025 is approximately 31.99 percent. In 2022, the average effective tax rate for firms over $100 million was 16.0 percent. U.S. corporate tax revenues account for about 1.3 percent of GDP, lower than many OECD countries. Pass-through entities report around 70% of business income, impacting overall corporate tax revenues. Overview of Corporate Tax Rates Corporate tax rates play a crucial role in shaping the financial environment for businesses in the United States. Currently, the corporate tax rate in the United States stands at 21 percent, which applies to a corporation’s net income. Historically, the average tax rate for corporations from 1909 to 2025 is around 31.99 percent, with significant fluctuations over the decades. For instance, the highest recorded corporate tax rate was 52.80 percent in 1968, whereas the lowest was just 1.00 percent in 1910. In 2022, corporations with net incomes exceeding $100 million reported an average effective tax rate of 16.0 percent. Compared to other wealthy countries, the U.S. corporate tax revenues accounted for approximately 1.3 percent of GDP, indicating a lower tax burden overall. Historical Trends in Corporate Tax Rates Although many factors influence corporate tax rates, an extensive look at historical trends reveals a significant evolution in the U.S. tax environment over the last century. The average corporate tax rate in the U.S. has been approximately 31.99 percent since 1909, with notable fluctuations. In 1968, the highest recorded rate reached 52.80 percent, whereas the lowest was just 1.00 percent in 1910. Since the late 1960s, federal corporate tax rates have typically declined, currently sitting at 21 percent. This downward trend reflects broader fiscal policy changes and aligns with data from the tax rates by president chart. Comprehending these historical trends can help you grasp the shifting terrain of corporate tax by nation and its implications on business behavior. Comparison of U.S. Corporate Tax Rates With Other Countries When you compare U.S. corporate tax rates to those in other wealthy OECD countries, you’ll find some notable differences. Whereas the U.S. has a federal statutory tax rate of 21 percent, many OECD countries have average rates around 13 percent, which can greatly affect overall business costs. Moreover, comprehending the impact of state and local taxes, in addition to the distinction between effective and statutory rates, is essential for grasping the full picture of corporate taxation in the U.S. U.S. vs. OECD Rates In comparing U.S. corporate tax rates with those of other OECD countries, it’s important to recognize that the U.S. federal statutory rate stands at 21 percent, which aligns closely with the average rates of 13 wealthy OECD nations. Nevertheless, the effective tax rate for U.S. firms earning over $100 million is around 16.0 percent, illustrating a disparity between statutory and actual tax burdens. Here’s a quick comparison of statutory rates: Country Statutory Tax Rate United States 21% Germany 30% France 26.5% Japan 30.62% Despite the U.S. rate being competitive, corporate tax revenues account for only 1.3 percent of GDP, lower than many peers. State and Local Taxes Grasping the impact of state and local taxes on the overall corporate tax burden is vital for businesses operating in the United States. During the federal statutory corporate tax rate is set at 21 percent, adding state and local taxes can greatly increase the total tax burden. The average top state rate stands around 6.5 percent, pushing the effective tax rate higher for many corporations. In comparison, countries like Ireland attract multinational corporations with a much lower corporate tax rate of 12.5 percent. As a result, U.S. corporate tax revenues, which were only 1.3 percent of GDP in 2022, reflect a decline relative to similarly wealthy countries, emphasizing the importance of considering state and local taxes in overall tax strategy. Effective vs. Statutory Rates Even though the statutory corporate tax rate in the U.S. is set at 21%, comprehending the effective tax rate reveals a more nuanced picture. For large firms, the average effective tax rate was 16% in 2022, showing significant differences because of deductions and credits. In comparison, countries like Ireland and Hungary have lower rates at 12.5% and 9%, respectively. Meanwhile, the average effective rate across OECD countries was about 23.5% in 2021. This data highlights that U.S. corporate taxes are relatively low among developed nations. Country Statutory Rate U.S. 21% Ireland 12.5% Hungary 9% OECD Avg. 23.5% Large U.S. Firms 16% Impact of Pass-Through Entities on Corporate Tax Revenues As the popularity of pass-through entities, like S corporations and partnerships, grows, the scope of corporate tax revenues is undergoing significant changes. Today, about 70% of business income in the U.S. is reported by these entities, which means more income is taxed at individual rates instead of the corporate tax rate. This shift has led to a substantial reduction in overall corporate tax revenues, as pass-through entities completely avoid the corporate income tax. For instance, in 2022, firms earning over $100 million had an average effective tax rate of just 16.0%, well below the statutory corporate tax rate of 21%. This trend highlights the increasing influence of pass-through entities on the framework of corporate taxation, warranting careful consideration. State and Local Corporate Tax Rates Corporate tax rates at the state and local levels play a significant role in shaping business environments across the United States. The average top state corporate income tax rate is 6.5%, with New Jersey at 11.5% and North Carolina at a low 2.25%. States like South Dakota and Wyoming attract businesses by not levying any corporate income tax. Here’s a summary of some notable state corporate tax rates: State Corporate Tax Rate New Jersey 11.5% Nebraska 5.2% Louisiana 5.5% North Carolina 2.25% South Dakota No Tax Twelve states, including Arizona and Arkansas, as well maintain rates at or below 5%, impacting profitability for businesses. Policy Options for Reforming Corporate Taxation To effectively address the challenges faced by the current corporate tax system, lawmakers are considering a range of policy options aimed at reforming corporate taxation. One approach involves broadening the tax base and eliminating certain tax expenditures that disproportionately benefit a few corporations. Adjusting the corporate tax rate could improve fairness and efficiency, ensuring that all companies contribute a fair share to federal revenues. Lawmakers are additionally examining the implementation of a minimum tax on large corporations, targeting those with substantial profits that currently pay low taxes. Implications of Corporate Tax Rates on Business Decisions Comprehending how corporate tax rates affect your business decisions is essential for effective financial management. With the current federal rate at 21 percent and an average effective rate of 16.0 percent for large firms, you might need to implement tax liability management strategies to optimize profitability. Furthermore, fluctuations in these rates can influence your choices regarding investment, growth opportunities, and whether to reinvest profits or distribute dividends. Tax Liability Management Strategies As the federal corporate tax rate in the U.S. stands at 21%, businesses must navigate a complex environment of tax liability management strategies to optimize their financial performance. In order to minimize liabilities, corporations often employ tax planning techniques, utilizing deductions and credits that can lead to effective rates as low as 16.0% for firms earning over $100 million in 2022. Furthermore, with the rise of pass-through entities, companies need to evaluate their business structures carefully to achieve better tax outcomes. Changes in tax legislation, such as the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (CAMT) at 15%, further require businesses to adapt their strategies. Investment and Growth Decisions The implications of corporate tax rates on investment and growth decisions are significant, as they directly influence how businesses allocate their resources. With the federal corporate tax rate currently at 21 percent, companies often find themselves with higher after-tax profits compared to the historical average of 31.99 percent. This lower rate may encourage reinvestment in expansion or research and development. Furthermore, firms earning over $100 million faced an effective tax rate of about 16.0 percent in 2022, which can drive mergers and acquisitions as businesses aim to optimize tax liabilities. In addition, the rise of pass-through entities has shifted more income to individual tax rates, prompting companies to reconsider their strategic planning to improve overall profitability and growth potential. Frequently Asked Questions What Is the Average Corporate Tax Rate? The average corporate tax rate in the U.S. is currently 21 percent, effective until at least December 2025. Nevertheless, large corporations often pay a lower effective rate, around 16 percent, as a result of various deductions and credits in the tax code. Historically, rates have fluctuated markedly, peaking at 52.80 percent in 1968. Today, corporate tax revenues account for about 1.3 percent of GDP, reflecting a long-term decline in tax contributions relative to the economy. Why Is the Corporate Tax Rate 21%? The corporate tax rate is 21% primarily because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in December 2017. This law aimed to boost U.S. business competitiveness globally by lowering the previous rate of 35%. The 21% rate aligns more closely with those of other developed nations, making it easier for U.S. corporations to operate effectively in the international market. Moreover, various deductions and credits can influence the effective tax rate for companies. Why Is My Blended Tax Rate 37%? Your blended tax rate is 37% since it combines the corporate tax rate of 21% with other taxes you may owe, such as personal income taxes and state or local taxes. If your business is structured as a pass-through entity, your profits get taxed at individual rates, potentially reaching the highest personal tax rate of 37%. Furthermore, if applicable, the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax adds a minimum tax burden of 15% on adjusted income. Are C Corps Taxed at 21%? Yes, C Corporations are typically taxed at a federal statutory rate of 21% on their net income. This rate was established by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017 and is effective until at least December 2025. On the other hand, large corporations with net incomes exceeding $100 million may experience an effective tax rate of about 16% because of deductions and credits. Furthermore, certain corporations might face a Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax starting in 2023. Conclusion In conclusion, grasping corporate tax rates is vital for businesses and policymakers alike. The current U.S. statutory rate of 21 percent contrasts with an effective rate of 16 percent for large firms, reflecting complex tax strategies and the impact of pass-through entities. Historical trends show significant declines in tax rates over the last century. As debates on reform continue, the implications of these rates on business decisions and revenue generation remain critical for economic planning and growth. Image via Google Gemini This article, "Average Tax Rate for Corporations?" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

When considering the average tax rate for corporations, it’s crucial to acknowledge that the current rate stands at 21 percent, a significant drop from the historical average of nearly 32 percent. This decline reflects various fiscal policy changes over the years, impacting large firms differently, as their effective tax rate hovers around 16 percent. Comprehending these nuances, along with the role of pass-through entities, can illuminate broader implications for corporate taxation and business strategies. What might these trends suggest for future reforms? Key Takeaways The current U.S. corporate tax rate is 21 percent on net income. The historical average corporate tax rate from 1909 to 2025 is approximately 31.99 percent. In 2022, the average effective tax rate for firms over $100 million was 16.0 percent. U.S. corporate tax revenues account for about 1.3 percent of GDP, lower than many OECD countries. Pass-through entities report around 70% of business income, impacting overall corporate tax revenues. Overview of Corporate Tax Rates Corporate tax rates play a crucial role in shaping the financial environment for businesses in the United States. Currently, the corporate tax rate in the United States stands at 21 percent, which applies to a corporation’s net income. Historically, the average tax rate for corporations from 1909 to 2025 is around 31.99 percent, with significant fluctuations over the decades. For instance, the highest recorded corporate tax rate was 52.80 percent in 1968, whereas the lowest was just 1.00 percent in 1910. In 2022, corporations with net incomes exceeding $100 million reported an average effective tax rate of 16.0 percent. Compared to other wealthy countries, the U.S. corporate tax revenues accounted for approximately 1.3 percent of GDP, indicating a lower tax burden overall. Historical Trends in Corporate Tax Rates Although many factors influence corporate tax rates, an extensive look at historical trends reveals a significant evolution in the U.S. tax environment over the last century. The average corporate tax rate in the U.S. has been approximately 31.99 percent since 1909, with notable fluctuations. In 1968, the highest recorded rate reached 52.80 percent, whereas the lowest was just 1.00 percent in 1910. Since the late 1960s, federal corporate tax rates have typically declined, currently sitting at 21 percent. This downward trend reflects broader fiscal policy changes and aligns with data from the tax rates by president chart. Comprehending these historical trends can help you grasp the shifting terrain of corporate tax by nation and its implications on business behavior. Comparison of U.S. Corporate Tax Rates With Other Countries When you compare U.S. corporate tax rates to those in other wealthy OECD countries, you’ll find some notable differences. Whereas the U.S. has a federal statutory tax rate of 21 percent, many OECD countries have average rates around 13 percent, which can greatly affect overall business costs. Moreover, comprehending the impact of state and local taxes, in addition to the distinction between effective and statutory rates, is essential for grasping the full picture of corporate taxation in the U.S. U.S. vs. OECD Rates In comparing U.S. corporate tax rates with those of other OECD countries, it’s important to recognize that the U.S. federal statutory rate stands at 21 percent, which aligns closely with the average rates of 13 wealthy OECD nations. Nevertheless, the effective tax rate for U.S. firms earning over $100 million is around 16.0 percent, illustrating a disparity between statutory and actual tax burdens. Here’s a quick comparison of statutory rates: Country Statutory Tax Rate United States 21% Germany 30% France 26.5% Japan 30.62% Despite the U.S. rate being competitive, corporate tax revenues account for only 1.3 percent of GDP, lower than many peers. State and Local Taxes Grasping the impact of state and local taxes on the overall corporate tax burden is vital for businesses operating in the United States. During the federal statutory corporate tax rate is set at 21 percent, adding state and local taxes can greatly increase the total tax burden. The average top state rate stands around 6.5 percent, pushing the effective tax rate higher for many corporations. In comparison, countries like Ireland attract multinational corporations with a much lower corporate tax rate of 12.5 percent. As a result, U.S. corporate tax revenues, which were only 1.3 percent of GDP in 2022, reflect a decline relative to similarly wealthy countries, emphasizing the importance of considering state and local taxes in overall tax strategy. Effective vs. Statutory Rates Even though the statutory corporate tax rate in the U.S. is set at 21%, comprehending the effective tax rate reveals a more nuanced picture. For large firms, the average effective tax rate was 16% in 2022, showing significant differences because of deductions and credits. In comparison, countries like Ireland and Hungary have lower rates at 12.5% and 9%, respectively. Meanwhile, the average effective rate across OECD countries was about 23.5% in 2021. This data highlights that U.S. corporate taxes are relatively low among developed nations. Country Statutory Rate U.S. 21% Ireland 12.5% Hungary 9% OECD Avg. 23.5% Large U.S. Firms 16% Impact of Pass-Through Entities on Corporate Tax Revenues As the popularity of pass-through entities, like S corporations and partnerships, grows, the scope of corporate tax revenues is undergoing significant changes. Today, about 70% of business income in the U.S. is reported by these entities, which means more income is taxed at individual rates instead of the corporate tax rate. This shift has led to a substantial reduction in overall corporate tax revenues, as pass-through entities completely avoid the corporate income tax. For instance, in 2022, firms earning over $100 million had an average effective tax rate of just 16.0%, well below the statutory corporate tax rate of 21%. This trend highlights the increasing influence of pass-through entities on the framework of corporate taxation, warranting careful consideration. State and Local Corporate Tax Rates Corporate tax rates at the state and local levels play a significant role in shaping business environments across the United States. The average top state corporate income tax rate is 6.5%, with New Jersey at 11.5% and North Carolina at a low 2.25%. States like South Dakota and Wyoming attract businesses by not levying any corporate income tax. Here’s a summary of some notable state corporate tax rates: State Corporate Tax Rate New Jersey 11.5% Nebraska 5.2% Louisiana 5.5% North Carolina 2.25% South Dakota No Tax Twelve states, including Arizona and Arkansas, as well maintain rates at or below 5%, impacting profitability for businesses. Policy Options for Reforming Corporate Taxation To effectively address the challenges faced by the current corporate tax system, lawmakers are considering a range of policy options aimed at reforming corporate taxation. One approach involves broadening the tax base and eliminating certain tax expenditures that disproportionately benefit a few corporations. Adjusting the corporate tax rate could improve fairness and efficiency, ensuring that all companies contribute a fair share to federal revenues. Lawmakers are additionally examining the implementation of a minimum tax on large corporations, targeting those with substantial profits that currently pay low taxes. Implications of Corporate Tax Rates on Business Decisions Comprehending how corporate tax rates affect your business decisions is essential for effective financial management. With the current federal rate at 21 percent and an average effective rate of 16.0 percent for large firms, you might need to implement tax liability management strategies to optimize profitability. Furthermore, fluctuations in these rates can influence your choices regarding investment, growth opportunities, and whether to reinvest profits or distribute dividends. Tax Liability Management Strategies As the federal corporate tax rate in the U.S. stands at 21%, businesses must navigate a complex environment of tax liability management strategies to optimize their financial performance. In order to minimize liabilities, corporations often employ tax planning techniques, utilizing deductions and credits that can lead to effective rates as low as 16.0% for firms earning over $100 million in 2022. Furthermore, with the rise of pass-through entities, companies need to evaluate their business structures carefully to achieve better tax outcomes. Changes in tax legislation, such as the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (CAMT) at 15%, further require businesses to adapt their strategies. Investment and Growth Decisions The implications of corporate tax rates on investment and growth decisions are significant, as they directly influence how businesses allocate their resources. With the federal corporate tax rate currently at 21 percent, companies often find themselves with higher after-tax profits compared to the historical average of 31.99 percent. This lower rate may encourage reinvestment in expansion or research and development. Furthermore, firms earning over $100 million faced an effective tax rate of about 16.0 percent in 2022, which can drive mergers and acquisitions as businesses aim to optimize tax liabilities. In addition, the rise of pass-through entities has shifted more income to individual tax rates, prompting companies to reconsider their strategic planning to improve overall profitability and growth potential. Frequently Asked Questions What Is the Average Corporate Tax Rate? The average corporate tax rate in the U.S. is currently 21 percent, effective until at least December 2025. Nevertheless, large corporations often pay a lower effective rate, around 16 percent, as a result of various deductions and credits in the tax code. Historically, rates have fluctuated markedly, peaking at 52.80 percent in 1968. Today, corporate tax revenues account for about 1.3 percent of GDP, reflecting a long-term decline in tax contributions relative to the economy. Why Is the Corporate Tax Rate 21%? The corporate tax rate is 21% primarily because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in December 2017. This law aimed to boost U.S. business competitiveness globally by lowering the previous rate of 35%. The 21% rate aligns more closely with those of other developed nations, making it easier for U.S. corporations to operate effectively in the international market. Moreover, various deductions and credits can influence the effective tax rate for companies. Why Is My Blended Tax Rate 37%? Your blended tax rate is 37% since it combines the corporate tax rate of 21% with other taxes you may owe, such as personal income taxes and state or local taxes. If your business is structured as a pass-through entity, your profits get taxed at individual rates, potentially reaching the highest personal tax rate of 37%. Furthermore, if applicable, the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax adds a minimum tax burden of 15% on adjusted income. Are C Corps Taxed at 21%? Yes, C Corporations are typically taxed at a federal statutory rate of 21% on their net income. This rate was established by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017 and is effective until at least December 2025. On the other hand, large corporations with net incomes exceeding $100 million may experience an effective tax rate of about 16% because of deductions and credits. Furthermore, certain corporations might face a Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax starting in 2023. Conclusion In conclusion, grasping corporate tax rates is vital for businesses and policymakers alike. The current U.S. statutory rate of 21 percent contrasts with an effective rate of 16 percent for large firms, reflecting complex tax strategies and the impact of pass-through entities. Historical trends show significant declines in tax rates over the last century. As debates on reform continue, the implications of these rates on business decisions and revenue generation remain critical for economic planning and growth. Image via Google Gemini This article, "Average Tax Rate for Corporations?" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

Google said it has “resolved” an issue with logging data within Google Search Console reporting. The logging issue happened between May 13, 2025 through April 27, 2026, about 50 weeks. The resolution did not fix the past data, but it did fix the issue going forward. What Google said. Here is what Google posted: “A logging error prevented Search Console from accurately reporting impressions from May 13, 2025 until April 27, 2026. This issue has been resolved. As a result, you may notice a decrease in impressions in the Search Console Performance report. Only impressions and related metrics – CTR and average position – were affected; clicks were not affected by the error, and this issue affected data logging only.” What was fixed. Just to be clear, Google has not fixed the data from May 13, 2025 through April 27, 2026 but just fixed the data going forward. So keep this in mind when reviewing the data in that date range. John Mueller from Google confirmed on Bluesky that this is only fixed going forward and the old data will not be fixed. Why we care. When reviewing your Search Console data, please note that for about 50 weeks, almost a year, the reports may be off and you may see a decrease in impressions, and thus click-through rate and average position data are also impacted. View the full article

A landmark federal court decision has opened the doors to COVID-era tax refunds for millions of U.S. taxpayers. In Kwong v. United States, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims determined that the COVID-19 pandemic effectively paused federal tax deadlines from January 2020 through July 2023, giving taxpayers more time to file and pay their taxes than the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had previously recognized. The court ruled that the disaster-relief provision in Internal Revenue Code Section 7508A requires the IRS to pause all penalties and interest throughout the entire disaster period, plus an additional 60 days. That means that while the COVID-19 federal disaster period ran from January 20, 2020, through May 11, 2023, returns and payments weren’t late until after July 10, 2023. Last week, Erin Collins, the national taxpayer advocate, wrote that tens of millions of taxpayers could be eligible for COVID-era refunds, given that they were hit with penalties or interest for late filings or payments during this period. “This issue is widespread and not limited to a small or specialized group of taxpayers,” she wrote. Collins leads the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate, an independent organization within the IRS that helps taxpayers resolve IRS issues and advocates for taxpayers’ rights. In the blog post, Collins explains that the ruling affects individual taxpayers, small businesses, corporations, trusts, and estates. She expects the Department of Justice (DOJ) to appeal the court’s decision. However, taxpayers can file a claim for a pandemic-era refund. Fast Company wrote about the court’s decision in March when it first happened. Who qualifies for a refund? Taxpayers may be eligible for refunds or abatements of penalties and interest the IRS assessed during the COVID-19 federal disaster period. This includes taxpayers who were: Assessed penalties for failure to timely file returns, failure to pay taxes, or failure to make estimated tax payments; Interest that began occurring earlier than it should have, or not at all; Overpayment interest for the same time period. Here’s how to file a refund claim Tax relief is not automatic. Taxpayers must file a claim. Collins writes, “Unless the IRS or Congress acts to ensure all affected taxpayers will receive refunds if the Kwong decision is upheld, taxpayers seeking refunds for penalties and interest they paid relating to that period will, in most cases, need to file claims by July 10, 2026.” Here’s how to check whether you qualify for a refund and file a claim: Review your tax records and transcripts through your Individual Online Account on the IRS website. Analyze your account activity during the 2020 to 2023 timeframe to verify whether any penalties or interest fees were charged. If you’re eligible for a refund, file IRS Form 843. File this form by July 10, 2026. Collins encourages taxpayers to send their forms by certified mail so they can easily prove they submitted a claim on time in case their form gets lost or misplaced. Millions of Americans filing claims could result in an IRS backlog and lengthy delays. View the full article

US tech billionaire leads $140mn investment into Panthalassa as search for AI power pushes into exotic new frontiersView the full article

A reader writes: I work in higher education, in an area that is particularly under political fire. Due to anti-DEIA legislation, there have been people who have been targeted and fired due to anti-diversity advocacy. Some of the incidents have involved video that had been taken clandestinely and then edited for maximum damage. This has led to people losing their jobs and created a space of paranoia. I work in an environment that requires collaboration and collegiality in order to complete work. During a casual meeting with a friendly colleague, they mentioned that another colleague showed them a piece of tech that they were now carrying that allowed them to record the people around them without their knowledge. Think Meta glasses but actually more discreet (like an AI transcribing device you can carry in your pocket). This information was *kind of* given in confidence, as the person who told me was the only one would know that our colleague was walking around with it. I hope to circle back to have a deeper conversation about what could be shared once I get your advice. I walked away from that conversation kind of freaked out. My profession has specific norms around privacy that are definitely in contrast to this technology and our front-facing policies reflect those norms. But our policy norms are not the same as the larger workplace and there are definitely a small but loud minority of people who would try to argue for the use of the tech. Regardless, I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of this colleague wandering from meeting to meeting, recording coworkers without their knowledge. The space I work is intensely hierarchical and while I’m not at the bottom of the hierarchy, I don’t actually interact with this person. So I technically don’t have a way to directly make him stop. But I do have strong networks in administration that I could involve. This also brings larger issues about recording colleagues, trust in the workplace and current standards of privacy. I guess I’m asking, am I overthinking/overreacting? And if I’m not, what should be the next step and what recommendations can I make to try to make sure that my colleagues are aware that we have a recorder in our midst? You are not overthinking or overreacting. Most workplaces have policies or practices that assume or require that people be informed before they’re recorded, and having someone surreptitiously recording every work conversation they’re involved in (and then having the data sent elsewhere to be processed and stored by AI) raises enormous security issues. As these devices get more common, employers are going to need to come up with more explicit policies to address their use. In fact, are you sure that your organization doesn’t have existing policies that would cover this? It’s possible that they do, even if those policies didn’t envision this specific technology. Either way, though, this is a very, very reasonable thing to raise. In fact, I’d argue that now that you know about it, you have an obligation to raise it (doubly so if you’re in any kind of leadership or senior role). Go to those strong administration networks you mentioned, explain what you’ve become aware of, share your concerns, and ask how to address it. The post my coworker carries a hidden recording device everywhere appeared first on Ask a Manager. View the full article

Even in the The President era, foreign tourists flock to the ‘Mother Road’ in search of the true AmericaView the full article

The Pentagon said Friday that it has reached deals with seven tech companies to use their artificial intelligence in its classified computer networks, allowing the military to tap into AI-powered capabilities to help it fight wars. Google, Microsoft, Amazon Web Services, Nvidia, OpenAI, Reflection and SpaceX will provide their resources to help “augment warfighter decision-making in complex operational environments,” the Defense Department said. Notably absent from the list is AI company Anthropic, after its public dispute and legal fight with the The President administration over the ethics and safety of AI usage in war. The Defense Department has been rapidly accelerating its use of AI in recent years. The technology can help the military reduce the time it takes to identify and strike targets on the battlefield, while aiding in the organization of weapons maintenance and supply lines, according to a report in March from the Brennan Center for Justice. But AI has already raised concerns that its use could invade Americans’ privacy or allow machines to choose targets on the battlefield. One of the companies contracting with the Pentagon said its agreement required human oversight in certain situations. Concerns about military use of AI arose during Israel’s war against militants in Gaza and Lebanon, with U.S. tech giants quietly empowering Israel to track targets. But the number of civilians killed also soared, fueling fears that these tools contributed to the deaths of innocent people. Questions about military use of AI still being worked out The Pentagon’s latest contracts come at a time of anxiety about the potential for over-reliance on the technology on the battlefield, said Helen Toner, interim executive director at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology. “A lot of modern warfare is based on people sitting in command centers behind monitors, making complicated decisions about confusing, fast-moving situations,” said Toner, a former board member of OpenAI. “AI systems can be helpful in terms of summarizing information or looking at surveillance feeds and trying to identify potential targets.” But questions about the appropriate levels of human involvement, risk and training are still being worked out, she said. “How do you roll out these tools rapidly for them to be effective and provide strategic advantage?” Toner asked, “While also recognizing that you need to train the operators and make sure they know how to use them and don’t over trust them?” Such concerns were raised by Anthropic. The tech company said it wanted assurances in its contract that the military would not use its technology in fully autonomous weapons and the surveillance of Americans. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the company must allow for any uses the Pentagon deemed lawful. Anthropic sued after President Donald The President, a Republican, tried to stop all federal agencies from using the company’s chatbot Claude and Hegseth sought to label the company a supply chain risk, a designation meant to protect against sabotage of national security systems by foreign adversaries. OpenAI had announced a deal with the Pentagon in March to effectively replace Anthropic with ChatGPT in classified environments. OpenAI confirmed in a statement Friday that it was the same agreement it announced in early March. “As we said when we first announced our agreement several months ago, we believe the people defending the United States should have the best tools in the world,” the company said. One company’s agreement with the Pentagon included language that said there should be human oversight over any missions in which the AI systems act autonomously or semiautonomously, according to a person familiar with the agreement who was not authorized to speak about it publicly. The language also said the AI tools must be used in ways that are consistent with constitutional rights and civil liberties. Those resemble sticking points for Anthropic, though OpenAI has previously said that it secured similar assurances when it made its own deal with the Pentagon. The Pentagon’s point of view Emil Michael, the Pentagon’s chief technology officer, told CNBC on Friday that it would have been irresponsible to rely on only one company, an acknowledgment of the friction with Anthropic. “And when we learned that one partner didn’t really want to work with us in the way we wanted to work with them, we went out and made sure that we had multiple different providers,” Michael said. Some of the companies, including Amazon and Microsoft, have long worked with the military in classified environments, and it was not immediately clear if the new agreements significantly altered their government partnerships. Others, such as chipmaker Nvidia and the startup Reflection, are new to such work. Both companies make open-source AI models, which Michael has described as a priority to provide an “American alternative” to China’s rapid development of AI systems in which some key components are publicly accessible for others to build upon. The Pentagon said Friday that military personnel are already using its AI capabilities through its official platform, GenAI.mil. “Warfighters, civilians and contractors are putting these capabilities to practical use right now, cutting many tasks from months to days,” the Pentagon said, adding that the military’s growing AI capabilities will “give warfighters the tools they need to act with confidence and safeguard the nation against any threat.” In many cases, the military uses artificial intelligence the same way civilians do: to take on rote tasks that would take humans hours or days to complete, said Toner, of Georgetown University. AI can be used to better predict when a helicopter needs maintenance or figure out how to efficiently move large amounts of troops and gear, she said. It can also help determine whether vehicles on a drone’s surveillance feeds are civilian or military. But people shouldn’t become overly dependent on it. “There’s a phenomenon called automation bias, where people can be prone to assume that machines work better than they actually do,” Toner said. O’Brien reported from Providence, Rhode Island. Follow the AP’s coverage of artificial intelligence at https://apnews.com/hub/artificial-intelligence. —Ben Finley and Matt O’Brien, Associated Press View the full article

Here is a recap of what happened in the search forums today, through the eyes of the Search Engine Roundtable and other search forums on the web. Google explained how using AI in isolation works better for them...View the full article

There’s a fundamental battle happening in search right now. On one side is topical authority — the darling phrase of every SEO consultant who needs to sell more content. On the other is brand authority — something marketers have talked about for decades, while much of search treated it as optional, vague, or something the brand team could handle after the sitemap was fixed. Now AI has walked into the room, kicked over the furniture, eaten half the traffic, and exposed the real problem. Search still matters. The global economy runs on people looking, comparing, buying, and solving problems through it. But the industry has a marketing problem. And it shows. Too many SEOs have lost the plot on why people choose, remember, trust, search for, recommend, and buy from brands. AI search is making that ignorance harder to hide. That’s why brand authority wins — but not in the way most SEO dashboards suggest. Topical authority was never supposed to mean content landfill Before we get to AI, we need to define what topical authority was meant to be. At its best, it’s simple. You publish useful work, create evidence, and share expertise. Others cite you, journalists mention you, communities discuss you, and customers search for you. Over time, your brand becomes associated with the topic. That’s authority. It’s also brand building. The problem is that much of the SEO industry hasn’t sold it that way. In practice, topical authority became a convenient commercial wrapper for content production. SEO retainers were built around three pillars: technical, content, and links. Technical SEO became more specialized. Links were outsourced, packaged, renamed, earned through digital PR, or bought in one way or another. Content, meanwhile, remained the dependable agency engine — easy to sell, scope, and report. Think 4-8 blog posts a month, a topical map, a content hub, a cluster, a pillar page, and another 2,000 words on something nobody asked to read. This wasn’t always wrong. In the pre-AI search world, content had real labor behind it. A decent article required research, writing, editing, optimization, internal linking, and promotion. That work had value. Good content could rank, attract links, build email lists, support commercial pages, and create some advertising effect through exposure. Back in the day, we built what were often called power pages — strategic assets designed to earn links, rank, get shared, and pass equity to commercial pages. They had a purpose. They weren’t created just because the spreadsheet had another empty cell. Topical authority changed that logic. It turned “let’s create something worth citing” into “let’s cover every possible keyword in the topic map and hope Google mistakes volume for expertise.” That was the original sin. Your customers search everywhere. Make sure your brand shows up. The SEO toolkit you know, plus the AI visibility data you need. Start Free Trial Get started with Authority is what others say about you Authority isn’t created by what you publish on your own site. It’s created when you become a recognized source. Former Google engineer Jun Wu described this in terms of “mention information” — how search engines analyze natural language, identify topic phrases and sources, cluster related terms, and map associations between sources and topics. In plain English, they can recognize when certain brands, people, domains, and entities are repeatedly mentioned in relation to specific topics. Today, SEOs call that brand co-occurrence. The idea isn’t new. When authoritative sites, journalists, communities, reviewers, experts, and customers consistently mention your brand in relation to a topic, you become associated with it — not because you published hundreds of near-identical articles, but because the wider web treats you as relevant. Topical coverage is what you say about yourself. Authority is what the market says about you. AI search makes that difference hard to ignore. The smash burger test Suppose you want to become an authority in the smash burger industry. You probably don’t, but some topical authority consultant calling themselves a “semantic SEO” is likely pitching it to a fast food brand right now. An SEO version of topical authority would probably begin with a map: What is a smash burger? Best meat for smash burgers. History of smash burgers. Smash burger recipes. Smash burger toppings. Smash burger glossary. Best smash burger restaurants. How to make a smash burger at home. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. If you run a serious smash burger publication, restaurant group, food brand, or equipment business, some of it might be useful. But authority doesn’t come from publishing those pages. Real authority looks different. You create original data on the fastest-growing smash burger chains. You publish an index of the best-rated smash burger restaurants in the U.S. and U.K. You interview chefs, test meat blends, and produce videos people actually watch. You become a source journalists use when covering the category. Food creators reference your data. Restaurant owners subscribe to your newsletter. People search for your brand plus “smash burger report.” That’s topical authority. It’s also brand authority. The thin SEO version is publishing thousands of keyword pages and internally linking them until your CMS starts begging for death. The real version is becoming known. AI has broken the old content economics The old commercial defense of topical authority was traffic. Brands didn’t hire search marketers because they had a deep spiritual yearning to become encyclopedias. They hired them for organic revenue growth — to appear when customers searched, and to drive clicks, leads, and sales. Informational content was sold, in part, as advertising. Someone searches a question, lands on your article, and sees your brand. Maybe they join your email list, return later, or buy. That model was always more fragile than the industry admitted. Most users don’t sit around thinking about your B2B SaaS platform, your dog food brand, or your running shoe category page. Ask someone to name 10 toothpaste brands, and they’ll struggle, despite a lifetime of exposure. Ask them to recall the last ten TikToks they watched, and watch their face collapse. Advertising works through memory structures, distinctive assets, repeated exposure, and relevance. A single accidental visit to a generic “what is” article was never the brand-building miracle some content marketers claimed. Now AI has made the economics worse. For many informational searches, answers are increasingly synthesized before the click. From the user’s point of view, that’s often a better experience. My dad is in his 70s. He loves AI Overviews. He doesn’t want to click through three ad-infested recipe pages, dodge newsletter popups, reject cookies, scroll past a life story, and finally find how long to boil an egg. He wants the answer. Users aren’t mourning your lost organic session. They’re getting on with their lives. That’s the uncomfortable truth. If the click disappears, much of the supposed advertising effect of informational content disappears with it — no logo exposure, no distinctive assets, no remarketing pixel, no email capture, and no carefully designed journey. Just your content absorbed into a synthesized answer, and maybe a small source link on the side. Get the newsletter search marketers rely on. See terms. AI citations aren’t the same as human citations This brings us to another emerging industry obsession: AI citations. The small source boxes in ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, AI Overviews, and other AI search experiences are being treated as the new holy metric. Agencies, tools, and consultants are already building around it. The SEO industry loves a single metric — domain authority, traffic, keyword positions, share of voice, and now AI visibility. The problem is that an AI citation isn’t the same as a human citation. An AI citation is often a helpful link — a reference, a retrieval artifact. It’s directionally useful. It can show what sources a system uses to support an answer, and whether your content is accessible, relevant, and being surfaced in certain contexts. But it’s not the same as: A journalist choosing to cite your research. A customer recommending you in a forum. A creator reviewing your product. A trade publication naming your brand as an expert source. Human citations are evidence of market recognition. AI citations are evidence of machine retrieval. Don’t confuse the two. The goal isn’t to be scraped. It’s to be recommended. Brand search is the cleaner signal If you want a better proxy for whether your authority is growing, look at brand search. People search for brands they know, are considering, have bought from, or were recommended. Brand search isn’t perfect, but it’s much closer to commercial reality than counting how often a chatbot footnotes your blog post. That’s why share of search matters. It gives you a directional view of market demand and mental availability. If more people are searching for your brand relative to competitors, something is happening. Your advertising, PR, product, reviews, word of mouth, content, partnerships, social presence, and customer experience are creating demand. This is where the “but this is just SEO” crowd starts clearing its throat. It’s not “just SEO.” Or rather, it’s only SEO if you define it so broadly that it includes every activity that might influence a search result. That’s strategic ambiguity. It lets everyone claim they were doing the future all along. Most SEO retainers weren’t building brand fame. They were producing content, fixing technical issues, buying or earning links, and reporting rankings. Sometimes it worked — sometimes very well. But the average topical authority strategy wasn’t a sophisticated brand visibility program. Traditional SEO still matters None of this means you abandon traditional SEO. Buyer-intent rankings, category pages, product pages, local pages, technical SEO, internal linking, structured data, reviews, and crawlability matter. Search still works as a shelf. Many brands are discovered for the first time in supermarkets. The same is true in Google. If someone searches “emergency locksmith near me,” “best trail running shoes,” or “meeting intelligence software,” you want to appear. Being found still matters, but it’s not the same as being recommended. Traditional SEO helps you get found, while brand authority drives recommendation. AI search shifts the balance toward the latter, synthesizing options, reducing uncertainty, and often naming brands, products, and solutions directly. The new job is meaningful visibility Semrush accidentally said the quiet part out loud with its April Fools’ “Brand Visibility Expert” stunt, where employees changed their titles on LinkedIn. It was a joke, but not entirely. The company later described AI visibility tools that track brand visibility, mentions, prompts, perception, and competitor presence in AI search. That’s where the market is going. The future of search marketing isn’t just search engine optimization. It’s brand visibility across the network. That means increasing meaningful visibility in the places where humans and AI systems encounter information: Search engines. AI answers. Review sites. Communities. YouTube. Reddit. Trade media. News sites. Podcasts. Influencers. Comparison pages. Customer reviews. Social platforms. Partner ecosystems. Your own site. The web is now the surface, and your website is just one part of it. This is the shift many SEOs don’t want to face. Many are used to optimizing owned pages for search engines. The next era is about optimizing a brand’s presence across the web. That requires different work. Start with positioning If you want to build brand authority in AI, start with positioning. Who are you for? What problem do you solve? How do you solve it better? What should the market associate with you? What proof supports that claim? These aren’t fluffy brand questions. They’re search questions now. A locksmith isn’t only an emergency locksmith. They may install commercial locks, repair window locks, replace garage locks, secure doors, and provide security advice. A running shoe retailer may want to be known for trail running expertise, fast delivery, wide range, gait analysis, competitive pricing, or specialist advice. A SaaS platform may want to be known for extracting meeting intelligence that helps sales teams improve conversion. These are performance attributes — the reasons people choose you. Your search strategy should reinforce them. If your pet food brand specializes in sensitive stomachs, you need to be visible around dog dietary problems — not just on your blog, but in vet commentary, buyer guides, reviews, creator content, journalist coverage, customer stories, comparison pages, and data studies. These are the places where humans and AI systems learn what’s credible. That’s brand authority. Create things worth being cited by humans The rule for AI-era content is simple. Every piece of content should have real-world marketing value at publish. If one person encounters it, they should understand your brand better, feel more positively about it, remember something useful, or be more likely to trust you. If content only makes sense as an SEO asset after it ranks, it’s probably weak. This means you stop creating “dead” content. Instead: Create original research. Publish category data. Build useful tools. Share expert commentary. Produce strong product comparisons. Release reports journalists can cite. Create opinionated guides. Review products properly. Explain problems better than competitors. Make videos people want to watch. Turn internal data into public insight. Build assets that earn links and mentions. Do fewer things. Make them better. Promote them harder. Brands have limited budgets — smaller ones have even less room for waste. Spending thousands on a content library that repeats known information may be less effective than using the same budget to create one excellent data study, seed it with journalists, get creators talking, earn reviews, improve product pages, and run ads that make people search for your brand. Ask yourself, “What use of this budget is most likely to increase brand search, links, mentions, reviews, and recommendations?” Fitness times visibility equals success A useful idea from network science applies here: success is driven by fitness multiplied by visibility. Fitness is your ability to outperform alternatives — product, service, price, expertise, speed, range, design, convenience, proof, reviews, and customer experience. Visibility is how often and how meaningfully the market encounters those signals. Fitness without visibility is a brilliant brand nobody knows. Visibility without fitness is hype — and it usually collapses. That’s how preferential attachment starts. Brands that are talked about get talked about more. Brands that are searched get searched more. Brands that earn links earn more links. Brands that become default sources are cited more often. Brands that sell more get more reviews, more mentions, more data, and more presence. AI accelerates this dynamic, consuming the web faster than humans and reinforcing those signals at scale. If your brand has dense, consistent, and credible associations with the problems you solve, you reduce uncertainty that you’re a good recommendation. See the complete picture of your search visibility. Track, optimize, and win in Google and AI search from one platform. Start Free Trial Get started with What actually wins in AI search Brand authority wins in AI — because real topical authority was always brand authority. The version of topical authority that deserves to survive is the one where a brand becomes a genuine source in its category — creating useful information, earning mentions, building demand, getting searched, getting cited, and becoming associated with the problems it solves. The version that deserves to die is the one where a brand publishes endless keyword-targeted sludge and calls the result authority. AI hasn’t killed SEO. It’s killed the illusion that mediocrity deserves traffic. The search marketers who win next won’t be the ones who publish the most. They’ll be the ones who make brands more meaningfully visible across the internet. They’ll understand positioning, PR, content, technical SEO, reviews, creators, category demand, links, mentions, and brand search as one connected system. The goal isn’t to optimize for search engines, but for the network they use to understand the world. Build the brand. Make it visible. Make it worth recommending. Everything else is just content with delusions of grandeur. View the full article

Your boss can make or break your job experience: a good boss, smooth sailing ahead. A bad boss? Misery. According to a new workplace study, most employees are dealing with the latter. The research comes from Harris Poll’s Thought Leadership Practice who just conducted its Toxic Boss survey, which included online responses from 1,334 employed U.S. adults. It defined a toxic boss as someone who “exhibits harmful workplace behaviors, including unfair preferential treatment, lack of recognition, blame-shifting, unnecessary micromanagement, unreasonable expectations, being unapproachable, taking credit for others’ ideas, acting unprofessionally, or discriminating against employees based on personal characteristics.” A staggering six out of 10 workers said they currently have a toxic boss. Meanwhile, 70% say they’ve had a toxic boss at some point in their career. This rises to 75% for LGBTQIA+ workers. The impact is significant. Nearly half (47%) say their boss’s bad behavior is stressing them out, burning them out, or causing their mental health to slide downhill. Meanwhile, one-third say bad bosses have caused them to lose money, either because their behavior caused them to miss out on financial rewards or stalled their chances at a promotion. Most workers cope by working harder. The majority of workers (66%) say they’ve responded to toxic bosses by trying to meet their demands — working on weekends and on days off. Two-thirds of workers also say they’ve changed jobs because of a toxic job. But either way, workers are seeking mental health care to cope with how they feel about the situation. More than half (53%) have gone to therapy over their toxic boss. And while some workers say they avoid reporting their bosses’ behavior at all costs to avoid deepening the conflict, many are pushing back. More than half (55%) say they’ve taken at least one action to push back against their boss’s harmful behavior. Interestingly, it’s Gen Z who is stepping up the most: 73% of workers have pushed back against a toxic boss. Largely, workers say bad bosses are a result of external pressures: 71% blamed current economic conditions for high stress around the office. The AI race is playing an important role in driving toxic boss energy, too: 44% of workers said that their company invests more in AI than things like providing one-on-one coaching for people managers, and training the next generation of leaders within the company. “We’re in the largest technology investment cycle in a generation, and the human side of work is being left behind,” says Libby Rodney, Chief Strategy Officer at The Harris Poll. “Toxic leadership isn’t a character flaw. It’s an investment failure. These are today’s managers who were never trained or held to a standard, and now we’re asking them to lead through a transformation they weren’t equipped for before AI even arrived.” For the majority of employees, the solution is clear. It’s not less of an emphasis on AI, or even better pay: it’s more support. Sixty-four percent of workers said better leadership training is the best way to reduce toxic behavior and build healthier workplaces. View the full article

The AI chatbots are coming for your smart home. Both Alexa+ and Gemini for Home are now rolling out to users who've opted in to the upgrades, replacing standard Alexa and Google Assistant, respectively. Once you get access, they'll do everything we've become familiar with from these next-gen AI assistants—natural language conversations, complex queries and responses, various hallucinations—while retaining all the previous smart-home functionality, whether that's turning off lights or checking in on video doorbells. I got access to these two upgrades within the space of a week, giving me the opportunity to test them against each other. With an Amazon Echo Show, a Google Nest Hub, and a selection of Philips Hue smart lights, I got to work. Upgrading to Alexa+ and Gemini for HomeUpgrades to both Alexa+ and Gemini for Home appear in the relevant apps on your phone. You'll be prompted to set up the new AI assistant, then taken through a few basic configuration steps (like choosing a voice for the AI). With that done, it's a case of simply saying "hey Alexa" or "hey Google" to the app on your phone or one of the smart devices you've got, and talking. Alexa+ does have one advantage in terms of its web app: If you use it via a browser, you get a smart home controls section you can switch to. Gemini on the web won't understand or implement any smart-home-related commands you give it, though rather confusingly it does sync chats you've had on your phone app, which will include these commands if you look back at them. The Alexa app updated with Alexa+ Credit: Lifehacker Both these AI apps only offer the basics for free when it comes to smart home controls (switching things on and off). With Alexa+, if you want the full conversational AI experience, it's going to cost you $19.99 per month—though it's also available as part of Amazon Prime, which is $14.99 a month. Note that this is separate from any Ring subscriptions you need to archive your video recordings. With Gemini for Home, the conversational AI is paywalled, as is the video recording history. You can opt to pay $10 or $20 a month, depending on how much video history you want (these plans replace the old Nest Aware ones). The higher tier also gets you AI-powered event descriptions and summaries for what's happening in any recorded video clips ("a delivery driver arrived at 1pm" and so on), and if you already pay Google $19.99 or more a month for one of the other Gemini AI plans, you get Gemini for Home included. How Alexa+ and Gemini for Home stack up against each other With the AIs up and running, I asked about which days I'd need an umbrella. While both assistants accurately understood the question and told me the weather forecast for the week, I preferred Gemini's answer: It was more comprehensive, and actually answered the question about the umbrella for each day (Alexa+ just gave me the chance of rain each day, and left me to make my own mind up about an umbrella, though the graphics were nicer). The Google Home app updated with Gemini. Credit: Lifehacker I requested some tips on bathroom cleaning, and both Alexa+ and Gemini for Home gave me answers that were informed and free from errors (as far as I could tell). They both accurately summarized several movies for me without a hitch, too, though Alexa+ was more cautious when it came to spoilers. These are the type of questions and prompts you can put through Alexa+ and Gemini—but it's the smart home integration I was most interested in looking at. When you update to Alexa+ or Gemini for Home, all of your existing devices with smart assistant access get the upgrade too. How Alexa+ and Google for Home integrate with smart home devicesIt's in controlling your smart home devices where things get trickier for Alexa+ and Gemini for Home, because they first have to recognize that you're providing a simple command—and then they must carry it out, rather than launching into a long answer about the features of smart lights or the best affordable smart cameras for families. I was expecting a few mistakes and bugs here, but was pleasantly surprised by both AIs: I was able to easily change my smart-light settings with my voice, including their color and their brightness, as well as whether or not they were switched on. Setting a smart light routine with Alexa+ Credit: Lifehacker Scheduled actions worked well, too: I got Gemini for Home to turn on my smart lights at a certain time, and told Alexa+ to turn them back off at a later time, and my instructions were followed exactly. You can set up these routines to repeat across certain time periods too, and they get saved in the app if you need to make edits. If you've got an Amazon or Google smart display, you can set up widgets for your smart home devices, and control them with a few taps. Both my Echo Show and my Nest Hub let me control light status, color, and brightness from the screen, and both worked flawlessly with barely any lag at all. I also tested reminders and timers—two other features you're likely to want to access through your smart speakers or smart displays. Again, both Alexa+ and Gemini for Home did what they were told, correctly recognizing a direct command rather than a more complex AI prompt, and carrying out the instructions. Setting a smart light routine with Gemini for Home. Credit: Lifehacker With no smart home cameras or doorbells installed, I couldn't test out the video features offered by these AIs. Anecdotal evidence suggests they can be a bit hit-or-miss when identifying what's going on in a clip and summarizing it for you—so you shouldn't always expect them to be perfectly accurate. In general, I found Alexa+ and Gemini for Home to be reliable, smart, and useful. View the full article

Why do good companies stumble? I’m talking about the organizations that were once on top. The ones that seemed to lead their category. Today, we’d call them legacy brands or some euphemism that acknowledges the significance they once had and their staying power to stick around. However, somehow or another, they lost the plot along the way, and if only they had fixed this, changed that, or done this one thing, they would have continued winning. It’s a “If/then” proposition straight out of an MBA case study. A clear villain with an easy fix. As satisfying as that framing might be, it’s almost always never that simple. Instead, it’s typically a litany of factors at play that undermine an organization’s intentions and, ultimately, their outcomes and subsequent standing. And these factors are mainstay characters of change. So, the real question isn’t, “Why do good companies stumble,” but why do companies stumble navigating change? So, we invited Nick Tran on this week’s episode of the FROM THE CULTURE podcast to talk about change—how organizations endure it, maneuver around it, and occasionally turn it into something useful. Tran is the kind of marketer CMOs name when asked what CMOs they admire. That’s not surprising considering the brands he’s led (i.e., Taco Bell, Samsung, Hulu, and TikTok) and the changes he’s helped them navigate. Every one of those companies, he’ll cheerfully admit, was either a dumpster fire when he arrived or about to become one. Now, as President and CMO of First Round Collective, he no longer thinks the pattern is a coincidence; he thinks it’s a calling, which makes him the perfect person to talk to if we are to interrogate navigating change. What Tran said early in our conversation, almost as a throwaway, is the line I haven’t been able to forget. Most companies have good instincts. The leaders have experience that enables them to make good choices. Their understanding of who they are and who they serve was, at one point, at least, hard-won and clear. The reason they end up in trouble is rarely because their instincts disappeared but typically because the noise grew too loud and drowned out their instincts. The noise is familiar. Board demands. Shareholder pressure that prioritizes the next twelve weeks instead of the next twelve years. Executives incentivized to prioritize their career over the sustainability of their stakeholders. The cacophony of these inputs’ cumulative effect doesn’t destroy a leader’s good instincts; it just makes them increasingly less audible and harder to flow. This is where our conversation with Tran throws its hardest punch, and it’s the move I’d recommend any leader navigating change steal immediately. You have to remove self. Death to ego. You aren’t running the company; you’re a steward of it. It’s the spine of what Robert Greenleaf called servant leadership, and it remains countercultural for the same reason it always has: the C-suite is shaped by incentives that reward the opposite posture. For instance, by any measure, Tran has won the awards game. However, the stat that matters most on his scorecard is how many people who once worked for him have gone on to become CMOs themselves—at the time of our conversation, the number was seven. Ego counts what a leader led. Stewards count who they grew. One focuses on self and others focuses on others, which inherently quiets the noise and makes a leader’s instinct more pronounced. In a sound recording, like a song, for example, its steward is thinking about the listener, the performances of the musicians and vocalists who contributed to it, as well as the broader industry murmurs that will evaluate the song’s performance in the market. The steward (i.e., the music producers, the Quincy Jones’ of the world) is balancing all the sounds of all the stakeholders to create the best song possible. Their focus is the song, not themselves. The same goes with organizational stewards; they are custodians of the music, bringing out the most important parts and softening the sounds that are a part of the composition but need only be atmospheric and less pronounced. It’s not about them; it’s about the organization. Boards, shareholders, and quarter-watchers aren’t going anywhere. That’s just the nature of the beast. It’s the room noise that will always be present in a sound recording, but not its focus. And the song’s steward knows this, just as much as they know to add more volume to the vocals and less to the cowbell. The same thing goes with organizational stewards; they must balance all the sounds to ensure that their instincts are pronounced. Death to ego, it turns out, is mostly about clearing space. For the instinct to come back. For the people you lead to outgrow you. For the company to be handed off to whoever’s next in better shape than you found it. Most companies already know what to do. The leader’s job is to get out of the way long enough to let them remember. Check out our full conversation with Nick Tran on the latest episode of FROM THE CULTURE here. View the full article

With the right approach, webinars can evolve from awareness tools into consistent drivers of pipeline and revenue. The post How To Run A Webinar Program That Actually Drives ROI appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

GameStop Corporation has proposed to buy the online auction giant eBay Inc. for $125 per share, or a total of roughly $56 billion. “The offer represents a 46% premium to eBay’s unaffected closing price on February 4, 2026, the day GameStop started accumulating its position in eBay,” reads a press release from the video game retailer. “GameStop has built a 5% economic stake in eBay through derivatives and beneficial ownership of common stock.” Here’s what you need to know about the unusual move: What did GameStop propose? The deal, as proposed, would comprise 50% cash and 50% GameStop stock. Ryan Cohen, who took over as GameStop’s CEO in 2021, would remain as CEO of the combined company, should the bid be accepted. How has eBay responded? On Monday morning, eBay confirmed receipt of the offer, saying “it had no discussions with or outreach from GameStop prior to receiving the proposal.” It further said that its board of directors, “in consultation with its financial and legal advisors, will carefully review and consider the unsolicited proposal to determine the course of action that it believes is in the best interests of the company and all eBay shareholders.” This is not a common thing, right? What makes the news so surprising is that it was unsolicited, for one. And second, eBay is a much larger company than GameStop. As of the end of last week, GameStop’s market capitalization was $11.9 billion, while eBay’s was more than $46 billion. However, that isn’t slowing down Cohen, who even sent a letter to the chair of eBay on Sunday, explaining that he wanted to cut costs, combine GameStop’s physical stores with eBay’s large online presence, and create a company that could go toe-to-toe with Amazon—something that Cohen told The Wall Street Journal in an interview. For those who could read the tea leaves, Cohen did hint at GameStop taking a big swing back in January. In an interview with CNBC, he mentioned that GameStop wanted to try to acquire a much bigger public company that could drastically increase GameStop’s value. That has now come to fruition with his bid for eBay. Cohen, too, is putting the new proposed company’s success on his shoulders. “Following close, I will serve as Chief Executive Officer of the combined company,” he wrote in his letter to eBay Chair Paul Pressler. “I will receive no salary, no cash bonuses, and no golden parachute – I will be compensated solely based on the performance of the combined company.” How have the companies’ stock reacted? As markets opened on Monday, shares of eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY) were up about 6.58% to $110.92. Notably, that’s not quite as high as the $125 that GameStop says it’s offering. Shares of GameStop (NYSE: GME), which famously led the meme stock craze of 2021, were down 4.26% on Monday. However, the stock is up about 23% year to date. View the full article

We are highly confident that this could end up a car crashView the full article

If you’re looking to maximize your shopping benefits, consider joining free loyalty programs that cater to your spending habits. Programs like My Best Buy Rewards and Starbucks Rewards offer points and stars for purchases, whereas Target Circle and Sephora Beauty Insider provide personalized discounts and exclusive rewards. Furthermore, Mywalgreens improves your health-related shopping with cash back. Each program is designed to boost your savings and improve your experience, making it worthwhile to explore these options. Key Takeaways My Best Buy Rewards offers free shipping, points on purchases, and exclusive discounts for electronics shoppers. Starbucks Rewards allows members to earn stars on purchases, redeemable for free items, with personalized offers and mobile ordering. Target Circle provides 1% back on purchases, exclusive discounts, and birthday rewards, enhancing the shopping experience at Target. Sephora Beauty Insider offers tiered benefits, exclusive rewards, and personalized offers, making it ideal for beauty enthusiasts. Mywalgreens allows members to earn cash back on purchases, access personalized deals, and support health causes with their rewards. Best Buy My Best Buy Rewards If you frequently shop for electronics, the My Best Buy Rewards program could be an excellent fit for you. It’s a free loyalty program that offers several benefits for members. You’ll enjoy free standard shipping with no minimum purchase, making it convenient for shopping. Plus, you earn points on every purchase, which can be redeemed for discounts on future buys, enhancing your long-term savings. For those looking for more, My Best Buy Plus, at $49.99/year, provides perks like free 2-day shipping and exclusive member prices. If you’re tech-savvy, consider My Best Buy Total for $179.99/year, which includes protection plans like AppleCare+, 24/7 tech support, and a 20% discount on repairs. This program is available to residents in all 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico, making it one of the top free rewards programs for electronics enthusiasts. Starbucks Rewards Starbucks Rewards is a popular loyalty program that allows you to earn valuable rewards while enjoying your favorite coffee. For every dollar you spend, you earn 2 stars, and once you accumulate 150 stars, you can redeem them for a free drink or food item. The program also provides personalized offers, in addition to opportunities to participate in exclusive games and challenges, allowing you to earn even more rewards. With a mobile-first approach, you can save your favorite coffee orders and use mobile ordering for added convenience. Moreover, members enjoy free refills on brewed coffee and tea, which improves the overall value of the program. Currently, nearly 30 million members contribute to 53% of store spending through Starbucks Rewards, highlighting its significant impact on customer engagement and sales. Joining this program can maximize your coffee experience and rewards at Starbucks. Target Circle Target Circle is a free membership program aimed to improve your shopping experience at Target. As a member, you earn 1% back on every purchase, which you can redeem for discounts later. You’ll gain access to exclusive discounts and personalized offers customized to your shopping habits, making it easier to save on items you love. Moreover, Target Circle celebrates your birthday with special rewards, elevating your overall experience. You can likewise participate in community giving initiatives by voting on projects that matter to you, cultivating a sense of connection. To help you visualize the benefits, here’s a quick overview: Feature Description Benefits Cash Back Earn 1% back on purchases Redeem for discounts Personalized Offers Exclusive discounts based on habits Save on preferred items Birthday Rewards Special treats on your birthday Improved shopping experience Community Voting Influence local giving initiatives Connect with your community With the Target app, tracking your rewards and offers is simple and convenient. Sephora Beauty Insider As you explore the domain of beauty products, the Sephora Beauty Insider program offers a straightforward way to improve your shopping experience. By joining, you’ll earn one point for every dollar spent, and once you reach 500 points, you can redeem them for exclusive products and rewards. The program features three tiers: Insider, VIB, and Rouge, which require spending $0, $350, and $1,000, respectively. Each tier reveals increasing benefits, including special discounts during events. Members also enjoy personalized offers, birthday gifts, and access to exclusive events, enhancing their overall experience. Furthermore, Sephora frequently provides opportunities for bonus points and double points days, encouraging you to shop more often. With over 25 million active members, the program plays a significant role in nurturing customer loyalty and repeat purchases, making it a valuable option for beauty enthusiasts looking to maximize their shopping rewards. Mywalgreens When you join myWalgreens, you can take advantage of a free loyalty program intended to improve your shopping experience at Walgreens. As a member, you’ll earn 1% cash back on every purchase and 5% on Walgreens-branded products, making it easy to save during your shopping. The program tailors personalized deals and promotions based on your shopping habits, enhancing your overall experience. Additionally, myWalgreens celebrates your birthday with special rewards, encouraging more engagement throughout the year. You can track your points conveniently through the myWalgreens app or website, allowing you to redeem them for discounts on future purchases. Moreover, the program emphasizes community involvement by enabling members to donate their rewards to support health-related causes, promoting a sense of connection and purpose. Frequently Asked Questions What Company Has the Best Loyalty Program? Determining which company has the best loyalty program depends on your preferences and spending habits. Starbucks Rewards offers significant benefits, allowing you to earn stars for free drinks and food. Amazon Prime provides value with shipping and streaming perks. Sephora’s tiered system rewards beauty purchases, whereas Dunkin’ Rewards gives you points for coffee. Target Circle offers cash back and discounts. Evaluate these options based on what aligns best with your lifestyle and purchasing choices. What Is the World’s Most Generous Rewards Program? The world’s most generous rewards program often varies by individual preferences. Starbucks Rewards is popular, offering 2 stars per dollar spent, with 150 stars redeemable for a free drink. Amazon Prime improves loyalty through free shipping and exclusive deals. Delta SkyMiles provides miles that never expire, whereas Hilton Honors allows points for free nights. Sephora’s Beauty Insider Program features tiered rewards, offering points for purchases and exclusive access, boosting customer retention. What Are the Best Loyalty Programmes? When considering the best loyalty programs, you should evaluate options like Starbucks Rewards, where you earn stars for purchases, and Sephora Beauty Insider, which offers tiered rewards. Target Circle gives you 1% back with personalized deals, whereas Kohl’s Rewards provides 5% back and Kohl’s Cash for extra savings. Finally, myWalgreens offers cash back and customized promotions, enhancing your shopping experience through its app. Each program has unique benefits worth exploring. What Are the 3 R’s of Loyalty? The 3 R’s of loyalty are Reward, Recognition, and Retention. Reward involves offering tangible benefits, like points or discounts, to encourage repeat purchases. Recognition focuses on acknowledging loyal customers through personalized offers or tiered memberships, making them feel valued. Retention aims to keep customers engaged by providing a seamless experience and customized promotions. Effectively implementing these elements can lead to increased customer satisfaction and higher sales, as loyal customers tend to buy more. Conclusion Joining free loyalty programs like My Best Buy Rewards, Starbucks Rewards, Target Circle, Sephora Beauty Insider, and Mywalgreens can improve your shopping experience as you save money. Each program offers unique benefits customized to your preferences, whether you’re looking for discounts, points, or exclusive rewards. By signing up for these programs, you can maximize your shopping value and enjoy personalized offers. Consider enrolling in one or more of these programs to make the most of your purchases. Image via Google Gemini and ArtSmart This article, "5 Best Free Loyalty Programs You Should Join" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article