All Activity

Starting July 1st, Meta will add “location fees” to ad buys targeting users in six countries — effectively offloading the cost of European digital services taxes onto the advertisers themselves. The numbers. Fees will match each country’s digital services tax rate: France, Italy, Spain: 3% Austria, Turkey: 5% UK: 2% How it works in practice. Per Meta’s email to advertisers — “$100 in ads delivered to Italy will cost $103, plus any applicable VAT on top of that.” The fine print. The fees apply to where the ad is delivered, not where the advertiser is based — meaning a US brand running campaigns targeting French users will pay the French rate regardless. Why we care. This is a direct, unavoidable cost increase hitting European campaigns on July 1 — with no opt-out. If you’re running ads targeting users in France, Italy, Spain, Austria, Turkey, or the UK, your effective CPM and CPA benchmarks are about to get more expensive, which means existing budgets will stretch less far and current ROAS targets may no longer be achievable without adjustment. And since the fee is based on where the ad is delivered rather than where you’re based, even non-European brands aren’t off the hook. The big picture for advertisers. This isn’t unique to Meta — Google and Amazon already charge similar pass-through fees. But it’s a meaningful shift in how European ad budgets need to be calculated, and campaign managers should revisit their cost models before July 1 to account for the added overhead across affected markets. The backdrop. Digital services taxes have been a flashpoint between Europe and Washington. The The President administration has threatened retaliation against European firms over the levies — adding geopolitical uncertainty to what is already a complex compliance landscape for global advertisers. Dig deeper. Meta Hikes Fees for Advertisers to Cover Europe’s Digital Taxes (subscription is needed) View the full article

The oil markets are rattled. Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz—through which a fifth of the world’s oil flows—have sent prices toward $90 a barrel, with Qatar’s energy minister warning they could hit $150 within weeks. Energy analysts are invoking “the mother of all disaster scenarios.” Commentators are drawing comparisons to the 1970s. The mood is grim. But here is an uncomfortable question worth contemplating: What if expensive oil is not a catastrophe, but an inflection point that finally aligns economic incentives to address critical issues that decision-makers in the global economy have been ignoring for decades? That is the argument that economic historian Carlota Perez has been making for years. And right now, with oil shocks back on the front page and the energy transition stalling under political headwinds, her framework urgently deserves renewed attention. Technology revolutions and their discontents Perez, whose landmark work Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital traces the long waves of capitalist development from the Industrial Revolution to the digital age, argues that we are living through a pivotal transition. Each great technological revolution—steam power, railways, steel, automobiles, information technology—follows a predictable arc: an installation period of financial speculation and infrastructure-building, followed by a deployment period in which society learns to use the new technology productively and broadly, with a dramatic reduction in income inequality and shared prosperity as a result. We are, she argues, at exactly that inflection point with digital and green technologies. The installation phase—the dot-com boom, the shale revolution, the explosion of platform companies—is behind us. What comes next, if societies make the right choices, is a potential “golden age” of broad-based prosperity, grounded not in the extraction of physical materials but in the creation of knowledge, services, and sustainable production. The catch? Getting from here to there requires making the old paradigm less attractive. And that is precisely where expensive oil comes in. When high prices are the point For Perez, the relative price of energy and materials is a steering mechanism for the entire economy. Cheap oil has historically facilitated mass production, long supply chains, suburban sprawl, disposable goods, planned obsolescence and carbon-intensive industry. It has made the incumbent model—stuff-intensive, energy-hungry, globally fragmented—far more economically competitive against alternatives. Expensive oil changes that calculus. It accelerates the relative attractiveness of dematerialized products and services: software over hardware, streaming over shipping, local services over global supply chains, energy efficiency over energy consumption. It makes renewable energy, which has near-zero marginal fuel costs, look dramatically better against fossil alternatives. It incentivizes the kind of circular economy thinking—repair, reuse, and redesign—that the green transition requires. Perez is explicit that she is not celebrating energy poverty or global supply disruptions. She is arguing that a world of persistently higher resource costs is more likely to generate the innovation incentives, the policy seriousness, and the investment reallocation needed to build a fundamentally different kind of economy—one that employs more people in high-value services, invests in intangible assets, and goes easier on the physical environment. The irony playing out right now The Atlantic’s Roge Karma has noted a bittersweet irony in the current moment: no president has done more to throttle clean energy development than Donald The President, yet the oil shock his Middle East policy may be triggering could inadvertently accelerate the energy transition more than any amount of climate regulation would have. Columbia’s Jason Bordoff agrees: prolonged oil crises have historically been the most reliable forcing functions for energy diversification. This is exactly what Perez would predict. Market signals, when they become undeniable, do what policy debates often cannot: they change behavior at scale. The 1973 oil shock sparked the first serious wave of energy efficiency innovation. The 1979 crisis accelerated it. Both produced more lasting change in energy consumption patterns than any amount of exhortation. The difference now is that the alternatives are genuinely ready. Solar, wind, and battery storage have achieved cost curves that were unimaginable even a decade ago. Digital tools enable service-based business models at scale. The knowledge economy infrastructure—broadband, cloud computing, remote work capability—exists. What has been missing is urgency. The dematerialization dividend Perez’s vision for a green golden age is not a story of austerity. It is a story of transformation—from an economy organized around the production and movement of physical things to one organized around knowledge, care, creativity, and sustainability. In this model, employment grows in services: healthcare, education, software, design, arts, and personal services that are inherently local, relatively low in energy intensity, and high in human value. Manufacturing does not disappear, but it becomes cleaner, more automated, more circular. Supply chains shorten. Urban environments become more livable. The pressure on ecosystems from extraction and waste declines. None of this is automatic. Perez is clear that the transition to a golden age has never happened without deliberate policy choices—about financial regulation, industrial strategy, and the distribution of productivity gains. The installation phase always ends in a speculative crash and a moment of reckoning. We have had ours, arguably more than once. The question is whether the crisis of the moment becomes the impetus for genuine transformation, or simply another disruption to be muddled through. What business leaders should take from this For executives and strategists, the Perez lens suggests a reframe. The instinct when oil prices spike is to treat it as a cost problem: hedge the exposure, cut the energy-intensive activities, lobby for relief. That is the wrong frame if the signal is structural rather than cyclical. The right question is: what business models become more viable in a world of persistently expensive physical inputs? Which of our activities depend on cheap energy in ways we have never fully noticed? Where are the opportunities in dematerialization—in selling outcomes rather than products, in building local rather than global, in investing in human capability rather than physical throughput? Companies that used the 1970s oil shock to rethink their operations—Japanese automakers being the canonical example—did not merely survive the crisis. They redefined their industries. The companies that treated it as a temporary inconvenience found themselves structurally disadvantaged for decades. The uncomfortable conclusion None of this is to minimize the real human costs of energy price spikes. Households and small businesses that cannot easily absorb higher energy costs need support. Transition assistance is a genuine policy imperative. And geopolitical instability in the Middle East carries risks that go well beyond energy markets. But for those thinking about the longer arc—about what kind of economy we are building and how we get there—the current moment may look, in retrospect, less like a disaster and more like an inflection point. A moment when the costs of the old model finally became undeniable, and the alternatives were finally ready. View the full article

PHH Mortgage's new name comes after a recent sale of reverse lending assets and also arrives less than two years after Onity Group itself rebranded. View the full article

We all want media coverage. Positive coverage creates exposure, authority, trust, and often valuable backlinks. But for many people, the path to getting it is a mystery. Others believe myths about how it works. Some believe you have to be at the very top of your industry before the media will care about your story. That’s simply false. Others believe you can simply buy your way into media coverage. There’s a small degree of truth to that. You can find contributors willing to feature you (or your client) for a fee, but this blatantly violates every outlet’s contributor guidelines. You may land the feature, but editors will eventually find out. What happens then? First, the article gets deleted or any mention of you and your links gets removed. Then, the contributor gets removed from the platform and blacklisted in the media industry. Finally, you get blacklisted too. Good luck getting featured again. It won’t happen. The reality is that you can get featured in the media. You just need to understand the process and execute it consistently. Develop your story You probably have a great story — you just may not realize it yet. The media has to produce a constant stream of content. If you have a strong story, you’re already one-third of the way to getting featured. Let’s start with what doesn’t make a great story. You’re the first. You think you’re the best (everyone thinks that, and no one cares except your mother). You’re the biggest. You want to change the world. So what does make a great story? Like the answer to most SEO questions: it depends. A great story starts with an actual story. You have to explain, in an engaging way, why anyone should care about what you have to say. For example, I often tell the story of how I used PR to rebuild my success after being on my deathbed. I explain that my agency’s specific PR approach comes from the exact process I used to rebuild my own business — and that I want to give others the same advantage. And my story is easily verifiable. But you don’t need a life-or-death struggle to have a compelling story. You just need a story that shows a deeper purpose. A mission. Something people can get excited about and care about. Craft your pitch Even with the best story in the world, you still need an effective pitch. Your pitch has to cut through the noise and grab attention. Journalists, producers, and others in the media are inundated with pitches — many receive hundreds every day. Your pitch has to tell your story clearly and quickly, and motivate them to respond. Easier said than done. Most pitches are sent by email, so most people start with the subject line. That’s the exact opposite of what you should do. Start with the body of the email. There’s a reason for this, which we’ll get to shortly. Find a way to connect your story to current events. If a topic is already popular in the media, other outlets are more likely to cover it. But remember: while the story involves you, it isn’t about you. You have to pitch from the perspective of what the audience wants. The journalist’s, editor’s, or producer’s needs come second, and yours come in a distant last place. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. You need to distill your story and why the audience should care into a few sentences. You can add a little more detail after that, but keep it short. If they see a wall of text, they’ll likely delete your email. Once your pitch is solid, write your subject line. It should be short, punchy, and aligned with your pitch. Short and punchy matters because the subject line determines whether they open your email. If the pitch doesn’t align with the subject line, they’ll likely delete the email without reading it. Getting attention means nothing if they don’t read the message. I once saw a publicist use a subject line that certainly grabbed attention, but it had zero positive impact and damaged his reputation. What was it? “Fuck You!” Bottom line: your pitch must quickly and clearly show the value the audience will get, and your subject line must grab attention in a positive way while aligning with the pitch. Build your media list PR isn’t a numbers game. Yet people treat it like one. They buy or compile lists of media contacts and blast their pitch to anyone they can find. That’s no different from spam emails selling generic Viagra. Success comes from sending the right pitch to the right people at the right time. Finding the right people means identifying journalists, producers, and other media contacts who cover the types of stories you’re telling. Several expensive tools can help you find these contacts and their information. But you can often find the same information with a search engine and social media. In fact, that’s how I built most of my media relationships. As for the right time, that’s largely a matter of chance. Send your pitch There’s no magic formula. The time of day you send your pitch doesn’t matter much unless it’s extremely time-sensitive, which most business topics aren’t. Producers often check email at certain times, but they won’t touch it while preparing for or running their show. Now here’s something you need to avoid: Don’t bombard them with follow-up emails! For truly time-sensitive stories, it may be acceptable to follow up within the same week. In most cases, though, wait about a week. Frequent follow-ups will annoy journalists, producers, and other media contacts. Stop after two or three follow-ups. If you haven’t received a response by then, they likely aren’t interested in the story. Try not to take it personally. They probably won’t tell you it’s not a fit. Given the sheer volume of pitches they receive, responding to every one would be a full-time job. Nurture your relationships Most of your pitches won’t result in media coverage. The problem is that most people stop after a rejection or no response. That’s crazy to me. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “no” or received no reply before finally landing a feature. It happened because I didn’t pitch once and move on. These contacts all started as strangers, but I invested time and energy in building real relationships. As a result, when I reach out, they open and read my emails because I’m not a stranger. Those relationships make it far easier to turn a pitch into media coverage. Most initial outreach won’t lead to coverage. But if you nurture the right relationships, you’ll eventually build a network of responsive press contacts. View the full article

What makes LinkedIn content appear in AI answers? Our analysis of 89K cited URLs reveals what AI models trust—and how brands can win visibility. View the full article

Fresh off a historic 40-point performance in the finals of the Unrivaled season, WNBA player Kelsey Plum is taking a different shot: an AI twin. Fans can now voice call with a digital version of the Los Angeles Sparks star. Plum announced the twin on her personal Instagram account on March 6, asking her AI self for advice on her ponytail and coffee versus energy drink. Plum is the first professional female athlete to launch a verified AI digital twin. It’s a move that’s earning plaudits as a way for women in sports to take control of their image and expand their reach. “The opportunity to have a twin that can connect with fans, with young people, people that love basketball, people that are just interested in sports. The range is endless,” Plum says. “It’s where we are in society, and I think you are either gonna get with it or get lost.” Collaboration With Talk2Me Plum created the twin in partnership with Talk2Me, an AI communications company that creates verified digital humans. CEO Randy Adams considers himself to be on the leading (or bleeding) edge of innovation like this often. He’s a self-described serial entrepreneur—coinventor of Adobe PDF, cofounder of digital comedy brand Funny or Die, and now working on digital AI twins. “[Kelsey has] moved things from a business standpoint. She’s moved things first from a cultural standpoint,” he says. “We need to find people who are willing to take the risk to go out there and do this. And she’s been willing to do it. And we’re very honored that she is.” From a technical standpoint, the goal is to get the personality right based on what the celebrity wants. For Plum, that means interacting with fans when she can’t. “In the arena, I can only talk to so many people, so many fans at one time, and so I think the next best thing would then be to log on and have a one-on-one conversation,” Plum says. “I think it’s just a great opportunity to reach more people and obviously, too, we’re gonna be able to see what people are asking and wanna see, and we’ll be able to grow from there.” Maximizing reach Athletes finding ways to connect with fans off the court isn’t new. OK Tomorrow founder and CEO Nilesh Ashra is an expert on the intersection of AI and creativity. He says a move like this is helpful for celebrities like Plum because they’re looking for ways to maximize their reach. “Old world was they write a book. Recently, new world was create a coaching program,” he says. “Brand-new world is a digital twin.” And it is a bit of a brand-new world. Because Plum is one of the first to step into this kind of AI digitization, she admits there might be learning curves with some of the twin’s responses. Those potential distortions are where Ashra hesitates. “I think there is a benefit to interactivity. I think the risks are on unexpected behavior,” he says. “All AI models are nondeterministic. You actually don’t know how they’re going to respond until they’re in that context.” He’s not the only skeptic. Since Plum’s Instagram launch, commenters haven’t been shy about voicing their concerns about this use of AI. Some words of caution “Big fan here in cybersecurity . . . please, you’re teaching it, it’s learning every second and personal interactions add specifity to you besides what it’s gathered about you from the cloud, the IoT, etc.,” one Instagram user wrote. Many of the comments are from users expressing their support for Plum as an individual and player but opposing the use of AI due to environmental and cybersecurity concerns. Others are supportive. “I’ll just do your post exit interview with your AI twin, I’ll let you know what the feedback is,” Unrivaled CEO Alex Bazzell joked. Plum knows the twin isn’t a replacement for her. She’s passionate about mental health and connecting young people with community. But while she’s taking care of business on the court, she wants her AI version to connect with fans in the meantime. “I just think it gives a way . . . to connect, and that’s a cool thing,” Plum says. “Obviously, we use basketball . . . but I think using a twin in and outside of a basketball lane is something that will be special for people.” View the full article

Perplexity AI must stop using its Comet browser agent to make purchases on Amazon. A federal judge sided with Amazon in an early ruling over AI shopping bots. Why we care. The case targets a core promise of AI agents: completing tasks like shopping on a user’s behalf. If courts restrict how agents access sites, AI agents could face strict limits when interacting with logged-in accounts on major websites. What happened. U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney granted Amazon a preliminary injunction Monday in San Francisco federal court. The order blocks Perplexity from using its Comet browser agent to access password-protected parts of Amazon, including Prime subscriber accounts. Chesney wrote that Amazon presented “strong evidence” that Comet accessed accounts “with the Amazon user’s permission but without authorization by Amazon.” The ruling also requires Perplexity to destroy any Amazon data it previously collected. Catch-up quick. Amazon sued Perplexity in November, accusing the startup of computer fraud and unauthorized access. The company said Comet made purchases from Amazon on behalf of users without properly identifying itself as a bot. What’s next. The order is paused for one week to allow Perplexity to appeal. What they’re saying. Amazon spokesperson Lara Hendrickson told Bloomberg (subscription required) the injunction “will prevent Perplexity’s unauthorized access to the Amazon store and is an important step in maintaining a trusted shopping experience for Amazon customers.” View the full article

Don’t let deal fatigue lead you to shortcuts. By R. Peter Fontaine NewGate Law Go PRO for members-only access to more Peter Fontaine. View the full article

Don’t let deal fatigue lead you to shortcuts. By R. Peter Fontaine NewGate Law Go PRO for members-only access to more Peter Fontaine. View the full article

Self-perception is reality. By Martin Bissett Business Development on a Budget Go PRO for members-only access to more Martin Bissett. View the full article

Self-perception is reality. By Martin Bissett Business Development on a Budget Go PRO for members-only access to more Martin Bissett. View the full article

Ministers try to win over sceptical public by potentially excluding children and some personal dataView the full article

The steady encroachment of email into all moments of life has been quiet but formidable. A quick glance during a first date. Surreptitiously tapping out a reply during a wedding ceremony. Some even admit to refreshing their inbox at a funeral. Often it’s not the infinite scroll on social media that triggers the nervous phone-glancing. It’s the inbox. More than half of professionals check work email outside regular working hours, according to a recent study published by ZeroBounce, surveying 1,157 professionals in the United States and Europe last month. Nearly 3 in 4 professionals feel pressure to respond to emails off the clock, with that pressure intensifying among top earners. The creep of off-the-clock email is unsurprising given the average knowledge worker gets hit with 117 emails and 153 chat messages a day. And they check email on average 15 times daily. Roughly 80% of respondents admit to checking work email in at least one personal moment. If you receive a reply out of hours, there is a high likelihood it was typed out on the toilet. More than half of respondents, 53%, say they’ve checked their work email in the bathroom. Over a third report, 38%, checking email in bed next to their partner or 33% admit refreshing their inbox during important personal events. Nearly one in five respondents, 18%, admit to checking work email at a funeral, while others have done so at a wedding or, worse, while driving. High earners are the worst culprits. Men are also more likely than women to be distracted by their inbox in public settings, for example while attending a funeral or during a romantic dinner. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to check their email in personal moments, including whilst lying next to a partner in bed or in the car driving. Email alone consumes over a quarter of the average professional’s workweek. The line between work and personal time has never been blurrier with email intrusions now seen as an inevitable part of the job. Most workers, 74%, feel pressure to reply quickly, even when they’re off the clock. Only 11% say they never experience that pressure, according to ZeroBounce. “I get around 1,000 emails a day, and I rarely go more than a few hours without checking my inbox, even when I’m off,” says Liviu Tanase, founder and CEO of ZeroBounce. “Some of that is urgency, but a lot of it is responsibility and the fear of missing something that matters. There’s also the anticipation of what I might come back to if I disconnect completely.” Constant access may work out great for employers, but this digital tether takes an emotional and physical toll. In a 2018 paper published in the Academy of Management, those who checked their emails most, whether male or female, experienced the greatest stress and reported the lowest scores for well-being. It can sometimes make us forget to breathe. Productivity experts have long recommended limiting the number of times you check email. In the relentless pursuit of Inbox Zero, constant email access both stresses everyone out while mostly accomplishing little. Even the last defence, the OOO, is often ineffectual against the impulse to “keep on top of things”. Only 29% of respondents say their most recent out-of-office message clearly stated they wouldn’t be checking email. Instead, according to the recent ZeroBounce survey, 20% used vague language like “limited access,” while 14% explicitly said they’d be checking occasionally. Notably, 26% don’t bother with an out-of-office message at all, either because they’re always available or setting that boundary still feels uncomfortable. The incessant follow-ups, the noncrucial questions, the bulk-CCing—what they don’t want you to know? Most of it isn’t all that important in the first place. View the full article

Contract closings increased 1.7% to a 4.09 million annualized rate, according to National Association of Realtors data released Tuesday. View the full article

The offering marks a fresh attempt by Ackman to bring his long-term investment strategy to a broader base of investors, with a vision inspired by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. View the full article

Leaders sometimes realize that incremental improvement won’t move an organization far enough. That realization is where the idea of a BHAG—short for big hairy audacious goal—enters the conversation. The concept was introduced in the book Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies by Jim Collins and Jerry I. Porras, where it was presented as a powerful way to push organizations toward extraordinary long-term achievements. What Is a Big Hairy Audacious Goal? A big hairy audacious goal is a bold, long-term objective designed to push an organization far beyond incremental progress and toward transformative achievement. Introduced in Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies by Jim Collins and Jerry I. Porras, a big hairy audacious goal provides a clear focal point that aligns teams, energizes employees and directs strategic decision-making toward a single ambitious outcome that may take decades to accomplish. Once goals are defined, teams need tools to plan the work and track progress. ProjectManager is an award-winning project management software that helps turn a big hairy audacious goal into an executable project plan by organizing tasks, building project timelines and monitoring progress in real time. Teams can track milestones, manage resources and visualize progress through dashboards and Gantt charts, ensuring their goals stay aligned with schedules, budgets and priorities. Get started for free today. /wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Light-mode-portfolio-dashboard-CTA-1600x851.pngLearn more Who Should Set a Big Hairy Audacious Goal? Fast-growing organizations, established corporations and mission-driven institutions benefit the most from a big hairy audacious goal. Companies operating in technology, manufacturing, aerospace, healthcare and other innovation-heavy industries often adopt a big hairy audacious goal to unite large teams around a long-term strategic direction that demands persistence, creativity and breakthrough performance. What Are the Benefits of a Big Hairy Audacious Goal? When organizations commit to a big hairy audacious goal, they gain more than an ambitious target. A big hairy audacious goal can reshape how leaders plan strategy, how teams collaborate and how employees understand the long-term mission of the organization. Creates a clear long-term strategic direction: A big hairy audacious goal gives teams a single, compelling destination that guides strategic planning, investment decisions and organizational priorities. Aligns teams around a shared mission: Because a big hairy audacious goal is easy to understand, it helps employees across departments see how their work contributes to the company’s long-term vision. Encourages breakthrough thinking: Pursuing a big hairy audacious goal forces organizations to abandon incremental thinking and explore bold ideas, new technologies and unconventional strategies. Strengthens organizational identity: Over time, a big hairy audacious goal becomes part of a company’s culture, reinforcing the values and ambitions that define the organization. Motivates employees with a compelling challenge: Many teams perform better when they feel they are contributing to something ambitious, and a big hairy audacious goal provides that sense of purpose. Supports long-term strategic planning: Leadership teams can use a big hairy audacious goal as a guiding reference when building strategic roadmaps, project portfolios and long-range growth strategies. Drives sustained performance improvement: Because a big hairy audacious goal often takes decades to accomplish, it encourages consistent progress and continuous improvement over time. Inspires innovation and competitive advantage: Organizations pursuing a big hairy audacious goal often develop new capabilities, products or services that strengthen their position in the market. /wp-content/uploads/2026/03/BHAG-Template.png Get your free Use this free to manage your projects better. How to Set a Big Hairy Audacious Goal Designing a big hairy audacious goal requires more than writing down an ambitious target. Leaders must translate long-term vision into a challenge that people across the organization understand, believe in and work toward consistently. The following steps reflect how visionary companies described in Built to Last structured a big hairy audacious goal so it inspires action for decades. 1. Set a Bold and Audacious Goal At its core, a big hairy audacious goal must stretch an organization far beyond normal expectations and push its vision. Collins and Porras describe it as a powerful long-term challenge that demands extraordinary commitment and pushes the organization toward breakthrough performance. A big hairy audacious goal should feel daunting but still believable, forcing teams to think beyond incremental growth and pursue transformative results. Imagine a renewable energy company that currently powers small regional communities. Leadership might establish a big hairy audacious goal to supply clean electricity to an entire national grid within twenty-five years. That challenge immediately changes how teams approach project planning, technology development, partnerships and infrastructure investments across the company. 2. Make the Goal Clear and Compelling Clarity is essential for a big hairy audacious goal to work. In Built to Last, the authors explain that visionary companies express their big hairy audacious goal in simple, memorable language so every employee understands it instantly. The goal must communicate a compelling destination that energizes teams and makes the organization’s strategic direction easy to rally around. Returning to the renewable energy example, leadership would avoid vague statements like “become a major clean energy provider.” Instead, they might frame the big hairy audacious goal as “power the entire country with 100% renewable energy by 2050.” That wording paints a clear picture employees, investors and partners can immediately grasp. 3. Establish a Clear Finish Line Another defining trait of a big hairy audacious goal is the presence of a recognizable finish line. Collins and Porras emphasize that a big hairy audacious goal should function like a long-term mission with a clear point of completion. Teams must know what success looks like so they can organize projects, milestones and strategic initiatives around reaching that endpoint. For the renewable energy company, the finish line becomes measurable and concrete: achieving enough renewable generation capacity to supply the entire country’s electricity demand. That milestone gives engineers, project managers and executives a shared reference point when planning large infrastructure projects, building partnerships and tracking long-term progress. 4. Think in Long-Term Horizons Unlike short-term performance targets, a big hairy audacious goal operates on a time horizon that can span decades. Collins and Porras observed that visionary companies use a big hairy audacious goal to guide progress over 10 to 30 years. The extended timeframe allows organizations to pursue transformational breakthroughs, build capabilities gradually and coordinate major strategic initiatives without being constrained by quarterly performance pressures. Continuing the renewable energy example, leadership recognizes that powering an entire national grid with renewable energy cannot happen within a few annual planning cycles. Instead, the big hairy audacious goal stretches across multiple decades, allowing teams to plan massive infrastructure projects, invest in research and development and gradually scale renewable capacity until the target becomes achievable. 5. Create a Unifying Focal Point One reason a big hairy audacious goal works so effectively is that it becomes a central point of focus for the entire organization. Collins and Porras describe a big hairy audacious goal as a powerful rallying objective that aligns decisions, motivates employees and channels collective effort toward a single long-term challenge that everyone understands and supports. Within the renewable energy company, the big hairy audacious goal of powering the country with renewable electricity becomes a constant reference point in meetings, strategy sessions and project planning discussions. Engineers, operations managers and executives all evaluate new initiatives by asking a simple question: does this move the organization closer to achieving that national energy milestone? BHAG Goal Template This example shows how a big hairy audacious goal can be created using clear criteria. Each row explains why the goal qualifies as a BHAG by demonstrating its ambitious scope, defined finish line, long-term horizon and ability to unite teams around a single transformative strategic objective. We’ve also created other goal-setting templates you can use to establish personal, project and organizational goals. /wp-content/uploads/2026/03/BHAG-Template-600x557.png BHAG Goal Examples Understanding a big hairy audacious goal becomes easier when looking at practical scenarios. The following BHAG goal examples illustrate how organizations translate a bold vision into a clear long-term challenge that aligns teams, guides strategic planning and drives transformational progress across the entire company. 1. BHAG Goal Example #1 A fast-growing electric vehicle manufacturer wants to accelerate the global transition to sustainable transportation. Leadership decides that incremental market expansion is not enough and establishes a big hairy audacious goal designed to redefine how vehicles are produced, sold and powered worldwide. Build the world’s largest electric vehicle ecosystem and replace gasoline-powered transportation in at least 20 major global markets by 2045. BHAG Criteria Explanation Audacious Goal Replacing gasoline transportation across major global markets requires massive innovation, infrastructure investment and industry disruption. Clear and Compelling The goal communicates a simple and powerful mission: transition global transportation to electric vehicles. Clear Finish Line Success occurs when at least 20 major global markets primarily rely on the company’s electric vehicle ecosystem. Long-Term Horizon The target year of 2045 allows decades for technology development, infrastructure expansion and global partnerships. Unifying Focal Point Every team—from engineering to supply chain—works toward enabling large-scale electric vehicle adoption. 2. BHAG Goal Example #2 An international healthcare organization aims to address global health disparities. Rather than focusing on individual programs, leadership defines a big hairy audacious goal that challenges the organization to dramatically expand medical access in underserved regions around the world. Provide reliable access to essential healthcare services for one billion people living in underserved regions by the year 2040. BHAG Criteria Explanation Audacious Goal Reaching one billion people requires unprecedented coordination across governments, nonprofits and healthcare systems. Clear and Compelling The mission of delivering healthcare access to underserved populations is easy to understand and highly motivating. Clear Finish Line The organization achieves the BHAG when one billion individuals consistently receive essential healthcare services. Long-Term Horizon The 2040 timeframe provides decades for infrastructure development, training programs and medical network expansion. Unifying Focal Point Doctors, logistics teams, program managers and partners coordinate around the shared mission of expanding global healthcare access. 3. BHAG Goal Example #3 A space technology company believes humanity’s future includes permanent settlements beyond Earth. Instead of focusing solely on satellite launches, leadership establishes a big hairy audacious goal centered on building the infrastructure necessary for sustained human presence on another planet. Develop the technology and infrastructure required to establish a permanent, self-sustaining human settlement on Mars by 2055. BHAG Criteria Explanation Audacious Goal Creating a permanent settlement on another planet represents one of the most ambitious technological challenges imaginable. Clear and Compelling The vision of establishing human life on Mars communicates a bold and inspiring mission. Clear Finish Line The BHAG is achieved when a functioning, self-sustaining human colony operates on Mars. Long-Term Horizon A 2055 target acknowledges the decades required for research, engineering breakthroughs and mission planning. Unifying Focal Point Scientists, engineers, investors and mission planners align their work around building the systems needed for interplanetary settlement. ProjectManager Is an Award-Winning Project Management Software ProjectManager offers robust project management features that are ideal for planning, scheduling and tracking the work required to achieve a big hairy audacious goal, such as Gantt charts, task lists, workload management charts, timesheets and real-time dashboards and reports. In addition to that, it’s also equipped with AI project insights, online team collaboration features and unlimited file storage that further help project managers ensure nothing falls through the cracks. Watch the video to learn more! Related Content 15 Goal-Setting Strategies for Individuals and Teams 15 Free Goal-Setting and Tracking Templates for Excel and Word How to Write SMART Goals: SMART Goal Examples SMART Goals Template If you need a tool to help you manage projects from start to finish, then signup for our software now at ProjectManager. Our online software can help project managers plan, track and oversee projects as they unfold. Sign up for a free 30-day trial today! The post How to Set a Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG) appeared first on ProjectManager. View the full article

Whatever your take on humanity, it is hard to deny one fact: we are, as a species, more hypocritical than we think, and tend to display a curious tendency for holding strong moral principles on one hand, and disregarding them without much guilt or awareness on the other. Unlike humans, a penguin does not preach fidelity in the morning and download Tinder by lunch. A meerkat on guard does not issue a memo on teamwork before sneaking off duty. A wolf does not publish a servant-leadership manifesto before stealing the kill. Across history, human moral systems have shared a curious pattern: the stricter the rulebook, the richer the archive of exceptions. Religions preach chastity and accumulate scandals, empires proclaim justice and practice conquest, corporations enshrine “values” and reward results at any cost. The problem is not that moral codes are useless. It is that they are aspirational reminders, not accurate descriptions, let alone regulators, of human behavior. This does not mean morality is pointless. It means it is political, social, and psychological. Moral systems are our best attempt at creating coordination tools. They tell groups what behavior to reward and punish. They create identity and belonging. But they also create loopholes, status games, and rationalizations. As Oscar Wilde (half) joked, “I can resist everything except temptation.” He was mocking Victorian hypocrisy, but the joke lands because it is universal. Strong rules make transgression more visible, more tempting, and sometimes more creative. The lesson for leaders is uncomfortable. As Alison Taylor shows in her brilliant book on business ethics, the louder an organization proclaims its values, the more scrutiny it deserves. Integrity is not measured by mission statements, sermons, or training modules. It is measured by incentives, peer judgments, and what happens when nobody is watching. Put plainly: moral codes are easy to write, hard to live, and endlessly adaptable when power or profit is at stake. Cutting corners A perfect example of this tension is the almost universal command to “be nice” or “do good.” Every major moral system treats prosocial behavior as a foundational rule. Christianity elevates charity and turning the other cheek. Islam centers zakat and the duty of generosity. Judaism embeds tzedakah as an ethical obligation. Buddhism praises compassion as a path to enlightenment. Secular humanism celebrates kindness as the glue of social trust. In short, niceness is civilization’s default setting. Yet there is no shortage of cases where breaking that rule pays off, especially when everyone else keeps following it. If your competitors are honest, cutting corners is profitable. If your colleagues are cooperative, taking credit is rewarded. If your peers are polite, being assertive looks like leadership. Morality works best as a collective norm, but incentives often reward individual deviation. Do nice guys finish last? Organizational psychology has documented this uncomfortable reality for years. Timothy Judge and colleagues asked the wonderfully blunt question, “Do nice guys finish last?” Their work showed that agreeableness, the Big Five trait capturing kindness, trust, and cooperativeness, is either weakly related or even negatively related to income and career advancement in many contexts. In another meta-analysis on leadership and personality, Judge found that agreeableness is positively related to leadership effectiveness once someone is in charge, but negatively related to leadership emergence. In other words, agreeable people make better leaders, but disagreeable people are more likely to become leaders. Add to this the literature on the so-called dark side traits. Narcissism predicts confidence and visibility. Machiavellianism predicts political skill. Subclinical psychopathy predicts risk tolerance and emotional detachment. None of these traits is desirable in excess, but moderate levels can help individuals navigate competitive hierarchies. As I argued in Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders?, narcissistic overconfidence tends to beat competence when selection processes reward self-promotion over actual talent and integrity. Evolutionary psychology offers a deeper explanation. Human groups survive through cooperation, but individuals can gain short term advantages by free riding on others’ goodwill. If everyone contributes to the public good except you, you still benefit. This creates a permanent tension between what is good for the individual and what is good for the group. Altruism evolves through mechanisms like kin selection, reciprocity, and group selection, but so do strategies for exploiting altruists. Moral systems try to suppress free riding through norms and punishment, yet the incentives never fully disappear. Noble and naive So the injunction to “be nice” is both noble and naïve. It keeps societies functioning, but it does not guarantee personal success. The hidden career cost of excessive agreeableness is that systems reward those who are just cooperative enough to belong, and just selfish enough to win. The challenge for leaders is not to abandon morality, but to align incentives so that doing good is also good business. Otherwise, the nicest people keep doing the right thing while the boldest rule breakers keep getting promoted. In fact, the very purpose of leadership, especially at the institutional and societal level, is to regulate the natural tension between our desire to get ahead of others, with our need to get along with them. There is another wrinkle. Even niceness itself can be gamed. Societies that genuinely reward kindness often become vulnerable to those who merely perform it. In my book Don’t Be Yourself, I argued that our cultural obsession with authenticity reflects a collective fatigue with impostors who signal virtue without practicing it. When voters swing toward aggressive, combative outsiders, it is often less because they admire rudeness than because they have lost trust in polished insiders whose niceness felt rehearsed rather than real. Still, humans are ultimately pragmatic. Most of us prefer a colleague who is politely insincere to one who is sincerely hostile, at least when we are on the receiving end of their behavior. Courtesy lubricates the wheels of cooperation. Emotional labor, as author Rose Hackman shows, can be an underrated professional skill. But there is a limit. If politeness becomes flattery, if kindness becomes manipulation, if authenticity is replaced by theatrical virtue, reputations collapse. People are remarkably sensitive to exaggeration, ingratiation, and inconsistency, and once labeled a phony, it is hard to recover. Balancing act The real balancing act is therefore subtle. You need enough kindness to be trusted, enough honesty to be credible, enough self-interest to survive, and enough integrity (including the smallest possible gap between what you say and what you do) to be predictable and safe in the eyes of others. Above all, people want to know what you will do when incentives change. They may forgive flaws, bluntness, or even occasional selfishness if they believe, on balance, that you have their interests in mind. What they rarely forgive is the opposite: being showered with pleasant words while quietly feeling exposed to betrayal. Trust, in other words, is less about being perfectly nice and more about being reliably decent. And that, as both moral philosophy and organizational psychology keep reminding us, is harder than it sounds. View the full article

When considering business ownership, it’s crucial to understand the differences between franchise and corporate ownership. In a franchise model, you operate under an established brand, benefiting from its recognition as you make local decisions. Conversely, corporate ownership involves centralized control, where uniform policies are enforced across locations. Each model has unique financial implications and operational structures, which can greatly impact your investment and day-to-day management. So, which ownership style aligns better with your goals? Key Takeaways Franchise ownership allows individual franchisees to manage locations under a brand, while corporate ownership involves centralized control by the corporation and its shareholders. Franchisees pay fees and royalties, retaining a portion of profits, while corporate-owned businesses keep all profits generated. Franchise owners have flexibility in local decision-making but must follow franchisor guidelines, whereas corporate managers enforce uniform policies across locations. Establishing a franchise is simpler with a contract, while corporate formation is complex and requires extensive legal documentation. Employee benefits are often more extensive in corporate stores, while franchisees may offer limited employee resources and training tailored to local needs. Definition of Franchise Vs Company-Owned Business When considering the terrain of business ownership, it’s essential to understand the key differences between a franchise and a company-owned business. A franchise allows you to purchase the rights to operate under an established brand name, following the franchisor’s guidelines. In comparison, a company-owned business operates independently with full control over branding and operations. The primary difference between franchise and corporate ownership lies in profit-sharing; franchise owners pay initial fees and ongoing royalties, whereas company-owned businesses keep all profits. Furthermore, the operational decisions in a franchise are often dictated by the franchisor, limiting your autonomy. Consequently, knowing the difference between franchise and chain store structures can help you make informed decisions in your entrepreneurial expedition. Ownership and Structure When you look at ownership and structure, franchises and corporations operate quite differently. In a franchise model, individual franchisees take charge of their locations, investing their resources and following the franchisor’s guidelines, whereas corporations maintain centralized control, with shareholders owning the business. This dynamic shapes everything from decision-making processes to growth strategies, highlighting the distinct paths each ownership type takes in the market. Franchise Ownership Characteristics Franchise ownership is characterized by a unique structure that allows independent franchisees to operate individual branches under the umbrella of a larger brand. You pay fees and royalties to the franchisor for the right to use the brand and its business model. Franchise agreements define the roles and responsibilities of both franchisors and franchisees, providing a clear framework for operations. With a personal financial investment in their business, franchisees often engage in more hands-on management compared to corporate managers. This model facilitates faster growth through the collective efforts of multiple franchisees, whereas still requiring adherence to the guidelines set by the franchisor. This guarantees brand consistency, allowing you to adapt strategies to local markets within established standards. Corporate Ownership Dynamics In corporate ownership, the structure is designed to facilitate centralized control and decision-making, allowing for streamlined management across multiple locations. This model contrasts sharply with franchise ownership, where individual franchisees operate independently under a brand name. Here are some key points to take into account: Shareholders invest capital, sharing profits and risks as they maintain limited liability. A board of directors oversees strategic decisions, ensuring consistency across all locations. Corporations face complex legal formations and higher operational costs than franchises. Franchisees must adhere to franchisor guidelines, limiting their operational flexibility. Ultimately, corporate ownership emphasizes uniformity and central control, whereas franchise ownership allows for more localized management, creating distinct operational dynamics between the two models. Motivation and Management Comprehending the differences in motivation and management between franchise and corporate ownership is crucial for grasping how these business models operate. Franchise owners are deeply invested in their businesses, which drives their involvement in daily operations and decision-making. Their commitment is further reinforced by ongoing royalty fees paid to the franchisor, ensuring they aim for profitability. Conversely, corporate managers usually lack a direct financial stake, often resulting in a less engaged management style. This distinction encourages a more hands-on approach for franchisees, who are accountable for their location’s performance. Franchisors support owners with training and resources, whereas corporate managers adhere to standardized policies from the board. Franchise Ownership Corporate Ownership Personal financial stake No direct financial stake Active daily involvement Less hands-on approach Ongoing royalty fees Standardized policies Support from franchisors Policies from board Control and Decision-Making Though both franchise and corporate ownership models have their unique approaches to control and decision-making, they fundamentally differ in how operational authority is structured. Franchise owners enjoy some flexibility but must follow franchisor guidelines. Corporate managers work under centralized control from the board of directors. Franchisees can adapt strategies based on local market conditions, whereas corporate branches apply uniform policies. Corporate structures enforce strict compliance, limiting local adaptability and decision-making. In franchises, individual owners make strategic choices for their locations, potentially leading to variations in quality and service. Conversely, corporate-owned businesses maintain consistent brand standards through centralized control, ensuring that every branch adheres to the same level of quality and operational directive. Legal Formation and Financial Structure When considering the legal formation and financial structure of franchises versus corporate ownership, it’s essential to recognize the significant differences in their establishment and operational frameworks. Setting up a corporation involves complex legal processes, demanding extensive documentation and legal assistance. Conversely, establishing a franchise typically just requires signing a straightforward contract with the franchisor. Franchise owners pay initial fees and ongoing royalties, whereas corporate stores retain all profits without these fees. Financial risks in corporations are shared among shareholders, whereas franchisees bear individual risks based on their specific investments. The franchise model allows quicker expansion with lower capital from the franchisor, as franchisees fund their operations independently, unlike the centralized financial management seen in corporations. Risk and Reward Steering through the terrain of risk and reward in franchise versus corporate ownership reveals distinct differences that can greatly impact your investment decisions. Franchisees often face lower financial risk because of established brand reputations. Corporate ownership can lead to higher volatility in profits, affecting shareholders. Franchisees may see quicker returns on investment, whereas corporate expansion relies on internal funding. Operational flexibility is limited for franchisees, but corporate owners control strategic decisions fully. In franchising, ongoing royalties create a steady income stream, whereas corporate profits fluctuate with market conditions. Moreover, brand reputation issues can affect all franchisees, whereas corporate ownership keeps tighter control over their brand image, which can mitigate risk but requires a careful approach to operational management. Employee Management and Training In the domain of employee management and training, franchise and corporate ownership models exhibit key differences that greatly influence operational effectiveness. Franchise owners typically manage hiring and onboarding within guidelines from the franchisor, whereas corporate stores adhere to standardized protocols. This often means corporate employees benefit from uniform training that aligns with corporate strategies, whereas franchisees might receive customized training to meet local needs. Employee benefits additionally vary; corporate stores usually offer more extensive programs, while franchise locations may have limited resources. Furthermore, franchise owners are often directly involved in daily operations, leading to a more hands-on approach to management, whereas corporate management tends to be more detached, focusing on oversight rather than direct involvement in employee activities. Growth, Scalability, and Auditing Procedures When considering growth and scalability, franchises often outpace corporate ownership because of the financial investment made by franchisees, which allows rapid expansion. Meanwhile, franchisors benefit from reduced financial risk and local market insights. Corporate models face challenges in scaling since they rely solely on internal funds. Furthermore, both systems employ auditing processes to guarantee compliance, yet their approaches differ. Franchisors implement specific guidelines for franchise audits, whereas corporate audits maintain a standardized format. Franchise Growth Advantages Franchise growth advantages stem from a well-structured model that encourages rapid expansion and scalability. With franchisees investing their own capital, you reduce the financial burden on yourself as a franchisor. This model not only fosters growth but also allows for adaptability to local market preferences. Independent operators improve customer engagement and satisfaction. Ongoing royalty fees provide a steady income stream for financial stability. Clear auditing procedures guarantee compliance with brand standards. Standardized audit instructions promote consistency across the franchise network. Corporate Expansion Challenges Though corporate expansion can offer advantages such as complete control over branding and operations, it also presents significant challenges in growth, scalability, and auditing procedures. Unlike franchising, corporate expansion typically moves at a slower pace, as it relies on internal funding for new locations, requiring substantial capital investment. Managing growth becomes complex, demanding a robust infrastructure to oversee multiple sites, which can increase operational costs. All startup and operational expenses fall squarely on the corporation, potentially leading to financial strain. As auditing procedures are centralized and designed to guarantee consistency across locations, follow-up audits may be necessary if previous audits uncover issues. This emphasizes the need for maintaining uniform operational standards throughout the entire corporate structure. Auditing Processes Comparison Auditing processes play a crucial role in both franchise and corporate ownership models, as they guarantee compliance and maintain quality across locations. Grasping these differences can help you navigate the intricacies of each model: Franchise audits follow specific franchisor instructions to guarantee brand compliance. Corporate audits are scheduled by the parent company, emphasizing uniformity across locations. Follow-up audits are common in franchises when previous issues arise. Both auditing processes are essential for quality control and effective policy implementation. Marketing and Advertising In the realm of marketing and advertising, the distinction between franchise and corporate ownership greatly impacts strategy and execution. Franchise stores benefit from the marketing support of their parent company, gaining access to brand recognition and consolidated advertising campaigns. Nevertheless, as a franchisee, you’ll have limited control over marketing materials, which are typically dictated by the franchisor to guarantee brand consistency. You may additionally need approval for any localized campaigns. Conversely, corporate-owned locations enjoy more freedom, allowing for a centralized and cohesive advertising approach. Corporate stores often have access to more extensive marketing resources owing to centralized funding, whereas franchisees might allocate part of their budget to marketing fees payable to the franchisor, limiting their financial flexibility. Relationship Development and Client Success Stories Establishing strong relationships between franchisors and franchisees is essential for nurturing mutual success, as these connections can directly influence the overall health of the franchise system. Open communication and regular check-ins encourage collaboration and trust, leading to a more supportive environment. Franchisees often enjoy a familial atmosphere, enhancing personal interactions. Effective relationship development boosts franchisee satisfaction and retention. Successful franchise owners, like Sonja Nwabuoku with Young Rembrandts, showcase growth through these supportive relationships. Positive client success stories, such as Mike Doherty’s expansion with Junkluggers, illustrate the benefits of strong partnerships. Are You Ready For Business Ownership? Considering the importance of strong relationships in business, you might now wonder if you’re truly ready to commence your own ownership expedition. First, assess your financial readiness; both franchise and corporate ownership require substantial capital but differ in ongoing costs. Next, evaluate your desire for autonomy; franchise owners follow established guidelines, whereas corporate owners enjoy full control. Moreover, consider your risk tolerance; franchising offers a proven model with brand recognition, whereas corporate ownership carries higher risks. Reflect on your management style, as franchisees tend to be hands-on, whereas corporate managers may step back from daily operations. Finally, identify your long-term vision; franchising allows rapid expansion, whereas corporate ownership emphasizes consistent branding through centralized control. Frequently Asked Questions What Is the Difference Between Corporate Ownership and Franchise? Corporate ownership means you own and control all locations directly, making decisions centralized. Conversely, with franchise ownership, you operate under a parent company’s brand, following their guidelines while having some operational flexibility. Corporations face higher costs and slower growth because of reliance on internal funding. Franchises benefit from quicker expansion through franchisee investments, but you’ll pay ongoing royalties to the franchisor, sharing a portion of your profits instead of retaining all earnings. Is Chick-Fil-A a Corporate or Franchise? Chick-Fil-A operates primarily as a franchise, where individual franchisees manage restaurants under the brand’s guidelines. Nevertheless, the company retains ownership of the properties, which lowers financial risks for franchisees. You’ll pay a one-time franchise fee and ongoing royalties, typical in franchising. The approval process is selective, requiring franchisees to be actively involved in operations to guarantee alignment with the brand’s values, as corporate headquarters maintains strict oversight on quality and service. How to Tell if a Mcdonald’s Is Corporate or Franchise? To tell if a McDonald’s is corporate or franchise, look for signs indicating it’s a “company store,” which means it’s directly managed by corporate. Corporate locations follow standardized policies and menus, whereas franchisees often tailor offerings to local preferences. You might additionally notice a more formal management style in corporate stores, compared to the personalized approach from franchise owners. Checking business filings can furthermore clarify the ownership structure of a specific location. Do Franchises Have to Follow Corporate Rules? Yes, franchises have to follow corporate rules. When you invest in a franchise, you’re agreeing to adhere to the established systems and operational guidelines set by the franchisor. This guarantees brand consistency across all locations. Although you might’ve some flexibility in operations, major decisions must align with corporate standards. If you fail to comply, you risk legal disputes or even termination of your franchise agreement, highlighting the importance of following these directives. Conclusion In conclusion, comprehending the differences between franchise and corporate ownership is essential for potential business owners. Franchising offers brand recognition and operational flexibility, whereas corporate ownership provides centralized control and uniformity. Each model has distinct advantages and challenges, affecting risks, profits, and decision-making. By evaluating your goals, resources, and preferences, you can determine which ownership structure aligns best with your vision for success in the business world. Consider these factors carefully as you begin your entrepreneurial expedition. Image via Google Gemini and ArtSmart This article, "What Is the Difference Between Franchise and Corporate Ownership?" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

Google Ads is rolling out auto end screens — a new feature that appends an interactive, auto-generated card to the end of eligible video ads to nudge viewers toward a conversion. How it works. An interactive screen appears for a few seconds immediately after the video finishes playing. Content is auto-populated from campaign data — app name, icon, price, and a direct install link for app campaigns End screens appear by default on eligible ads, requiring no setup from advertisers Why we care. Advertisers no longer need to manually build post-roll calls-to-action. This feature is on by default and changes the end of your video ads — and if you’ve already built custom YouTube end screens, they’ll be overridden without any warning. With end screens being the last thing a viewer sees before deciding to act, losing control of that moment matters. And with broader expansion planned, now is the time to understand how it works before it reaches more of your campaigns. The catch. Enabling auto end screens in Google Ads overrides any manually added YouTube end screens — meaning advertisers who’ve already customized their YouTube end cards will lose them. Current limitations. The feature is only available for in-stream ads running in mobile app install campaigns, with broader expansion planned but not yet dated. What stays the same. Auto end screens don’t affect billing or view counts — they’re purely an added engagement layer tacked on after a full video view. Next steps. Advertisers running mobile app install campaigns should audit their video ads now — check whether auto end screens are serving as expected and verify that any manually added YouTube end screens aren’t being silently overridden. As Google expands the feature beyond app installs, it’s worth establishing a review process early so campaigns are ready when eligibility broadens. Dig deeper. About auto end screens for video ads View the full article

In the fast-paced world of construction, ensuring safety on job sites is critical not just to protect workers but also to manage costs effectively. Recognizing this pressing need, Oracle has launched the Oracle Construction and Engineering Advisor for Safety, an AI-driven solution aimed at transforming safety management in the construction industry. This cutting-edge tool promises to not only predict safety incidents but also prevent them, offering small business owners in the construction sector a practical avenue to enhance worker safety and reduce costs. At the heart of the Advisor for Safety is an industry-specific predictive model trained on data accumulated from over 10,000 project years. This extensive dataset enables construction firms, regardless of their current safety program maturity, to benefit from more accurate and timely safety predictions. For small business owners who often juggle multiple responsibilities, the solution simplifies the complexity of safety management, allowing for a proactive rather than reactive approach. Mark Webster, Oracle’s senior vice president and general manager, emphasizes the significance of this innovation: “Advisor for Safety marks a significant step forward in safety management, giving construction companies and owners the tools to predict and prevent incidents, while improving the industry’s overall efficiency and cost-effectiveness.” For small businesses, this means that they can leverage artificial intelligence to make informed decisions that prioritize worker safety without overextending their resources. Built alongside Oracle’s Aconex and Primavera Unifier Accelerator platforms, the new Observation capability makes it easier for teams at all levels—from project engineers to executives—to collect structured safety data seamlessly via mobile devices or web browsers. This streamlined process improves the quality of data collected, giving construction companies better insights into incident patterns and trends. Another important benefit is the provision of weekly risk forecasts. These forecasts identify the projects that pose the highest risks, allowing businesses to allocate resources more effectively and reduce the potential for incidents. Additionally, the system suggests actionable risk mitigation strategies, such as enhanced supervision in high-risk areas, thereby fostering a culture of safety and diligence within the organization. “By predicting safety incidents and providing actionable insights, our customers can now focus on prevention rather than reaction,” says Josh Kanner, Sr. Director of Analytics & AI at Oracle Construction and Engineering. The real-world implications are significant; some users have reported reductions in incident rates by up to 50% and cuts in workers’ compensation costs by as much as 75% in the first year of usage. Despite these promising benefits, small business owners should also be mindful of the potential challenges associated with the adoption of such advanced tools. Integrating data from various sources—such as safety observations, incident reports, payroll data, and project schedules—may require initial investment in training and technology infrastructure. Furthermore, organizations will need to ensure that their teams are well-equipped to utilize the new system effectively, which may involve a learning curve. However, Oracle’s approach to refining predictions over time by fine-tuning proprietary data addresses some of these concerns. As customers become more adept at using the Advisor for Safety, they can tailor insights to their specific environments, ultimately enhancing the program’s value and effectiveness. Overall, this new solution presents a strong opportunity for small construction firms to enhance their safety management capabilities. By transitioning to a framework that favors prediction and prevention, businesses can reinforce their commitment to worker safety while also managing costs more effectively. For more information on how the Oracle Construction and Engineering Advisor for Safety can transform your construction projects, visit the original announcement here. Image via Google Gemini This article, "Oracle Unveils AI-Driven Safety Solution to Transform Construction Sites" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

Creditors allege in filings ahead of urgent court hearing that UK mortgage provider lent to connected partiesView the full article

We may earn a commission from links on this page. A carnival thrill-ride that manages to evoke America's radical revolutionary history while referencing and responding to decades of cinematic rebellion, One Movie After Another is one of writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's richest films, and somehow maybe even his most fun. Its 13 Oscar nominations put it in line with the most-honored movies ever, alongside the likes of From Here to Eternity, Mary Poppins, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, and The Fellowship of the Ring. Of course, One Battle has the slight misfortune to be running against Sinners, with its all-time high of 16 nominations. Still: not bad. With a variety of tones and styles, these 10 other movies approach radical activism and the aftermath thereof from multiple perspectives. Some of them even directly inspired Anderson in the making of One Battle. Running on Empty (1988) I'm letting Paul Thomas Anderson himself do some of the work here, as he's already suggested this one is a good match while serving as a guest programmer on TCM. No surprise, really, as this 1988 film also follows one-time members of a radical anti-war guerrilla group (played by Judd Hirsch and Christine Lahti) who've been on the run since the 1970s, sure that the past isn't done with them. Having relocated to yet another new town and with new identities, their teenage son Danny (River Phoenix) is hoping to make a life for himself, particularly when he's recognized for his musical talent by a teacher who wants to know more about him and his family. Though there's none of the action and little of the satire of One Battle, the themes are definitely similar. Rent Running on Empty from Prime Video. Running on Empty (1988) at Prime Video Learn More Learn More at Prime Video How to Blow Up a Pipeline (2022) Turning a non-fiction work into an action-thriller, How to Blow Up a Pipeline follows eight individuals committed to bombing an oil pipeline in two separate locations. The movie, like the book it is based on, makes the case that property damage isn’t the worst thing in the face of environmental catastrophe; still, the level of commitment required to carry out such an act takes a deeply personal toll. Stream How to Blow Up a Pipeline on Hulu. How to Blow Up a Pipeline at Hulu Learn More Learn More at Hulu BPM (Beats Per Minute) (2017) Set amidst the AIDS crisis in the early 1990s, BPM focuses, to some extent, on HIV-positive ACT UP activist Sean (Nahuel Pérez Biscayart) and his developing relationship with newcomer Nathan (Arnaud Valois), though the film is very much an ensemble piece in the aggregate, a fact that ties into its meaning and messaging. It explores the evolving nature of ACT UP's activism and its messy internal battles over strategy, and the how-far-is-too-far considerations that are part and parcel of every movement. Writer-director Robin Campillo and co-writer Philippe Mangeot brought their own ACT UP experiences to the film, offering up a bit of verisimilitude to the more fictional activism of One Battle. Rent BPM from Prime Video. BPM (Beats per Minute) at Prime Video Learn More Learn More at Prime Video Up Tight (1968) Stars Ruby Dee and Julian Mayfield co-wrote and starred in this film from blacklisted director Jules Dassin, adapting a 1925 novel about an informer in the wake of the Irish Civil War. The setting is Cleveland in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. The narrative revolves around Tank (Mayfield), representing the complexities of Black political struggle in an era in which the non-violent Civil Rights Movement had both succeeded and failed spectacularly. Tank supported King's movement but lost his job and went to prison for defending his Black co-workers. Now released, jobless, and rootless, he sees his friends questioning his commitment to the cause—in spite of his sacrifices, a more radical, revolutionary movement is in the offing. The distrust of Tank becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in this appropriately angry thriller. Rent Up Tight from Prime Video. Up Tight (1968) at Prime Video Learn More Learn More at Prime Video V for Vendetta (2005) Though its politics are more muddled than those in the Alan Moore/David Lloyd graphic novel it's based on, V for Vendetta works as a superhero film with more going on under the hood than most (not for nothing that it popularized the Guy Fawkes mask as a kind of all-purpose anti-establishment symbol). Hugo Weaving gives a fine lead performance, despite mostly working from behind that iconic mask, as the terrorist and/or freedom fighter working against a fascist, totalitarian regime. As much as the British original was heavily influenced by Margaret Thatcher, this 2005 film speaks to the George W. Bush era, which we currently seem to be reliving. (Fun!) Natalie Portman co-stars as Evey Hammond, an ordinary citizen radicalized by an attempted sexual assault by the police. Stream V for Vendetta on HBO Max. V for Vendetta (2005) at HBO Max Learn More Learn More at HBO Max The Company You Keep (2012) Late national treasure Robert Redford directs and stars (alongside the somewhat less-beloved Shia Shia LaBeouf) as a defense attorney with a past: for decades, "Jim Grant" has evaded the FBI for a bank robbery and murder that occurred while he was a Weather Underground militant. LaBeouf is Ben Shepard, a reporter anxious for a big story who's very willing to blow up Jim's life, but things get more complicated when he tracks down the original arresting officer (Brendan Gleeson), as well as another former Underground member (Julie Christie) who might be able to clear Jim's name. This one's about the persistence of our past choices, much like One Battle, but it also deals with the activism of the Vietnam generation, interrogating the extent to which that idealism has served any purpose. Rent The Company You Keep from Prime Video. The Company You Keep (2012) at Prime Video Learn More Learn More at Prime Video The Battle of Algiers (1966) A shockingly relevant film about the tensions between Algerian nationalists and French forces in North Africa, a conflict that erupted into a three-year war, director Gillo Pontecorvo's hyper-realistic film is thrilling on one level, but also deeply challenging. While the its morality leans slightly toward the Algerians trying to reclaim their home from the French, it's also clear that the shocking acts of violence perpetrated by the guerrilla fighters render any discussion of heroes or villains ridiculous. (Bob is seen watching Battle of Algiers at one point during One Battle, so it works on a meta level, as well.) Stream The Battle of Algiers on HBO Max or rent it from Prime Video. The Battle of Algiers (1966) at HBO Max Learn More Learn More at HBO Max Dog Day Afternoon (1975) Al Pacino and the late, great John Cazale (who was never in a bad movie) play Sonny and Sal, first-time bank robbers is this crime thriller based on a true story. Sonny is desperate for money to pay for his trans partner’s gender-reassignment surgery, so he plans the heist with friend Sal. The result is a violent debacle that leads to a standoff with police. With an eye on queer liberation, the movie tackles the failures of the counterculture while gleefully thumbing its nose at the cops. It’s a fabulous heist movie, and one of the best movies of its era, period,. Notably, it doesn’t look down on its lead character’s bisexuality, nor his marriage to a trans woman—Sonny might not be a genius, but he's a good guy. Stream Dog Day Afternoon on Tubi or rent it from Prime Video. Dog Day Afternoon (1975) at Tubi Learn More Learn More at Tubi Born in Flames (1983) I'm going furthest afield suggesting this no-budget, radical feminist faux-documentary, but it works as a bit of counter-programming. One Battle finds Bob adrift in the wake of his period of radical activism, while Born in Flames imagines that socialist idealism of previous decades bore fruit—but that there are still plenty of battles to be fought. Adele Bertei plays Isabel, who runs the pirate radio collective Radio Ragazza in an alternate, socialist United States, while Honey (just "Honey") plays Honey, the voice of the competing Phoenix Radio. In the face of increasing government oppression, the two women and the factions they represent come to see that liberation, ultimately, requires more than just talk. Stream Born in Flames on the Criterion Channel or rent it from Prime Video. Born in Flames (1983) at Prime Video Learn More Learn More at Prime Video Repo Man (1984) A Paul Thomas Anderson favorite, Repo Man matches One Battle a bit less in story terms than many of these others, but it might be the best match in terms of anarchic tone. A pitch-perfect Regan-era satire (timely, given that I'm not sure we've ever really left the Reagan era), Alex Cox's film finds the great Harry Dean Stanton recruiting Emilio Estevez's Otto Maddox into the unexpectedly wild world of automobile repossession in 1980s LA. Otto's absconding with an unusual 1964 Chevrolet Malibu puts him on the run from pretty much everyone: the government has placed a $10,000 bounty on the car, which sends every repossessor in the city after him (the Feds have a very particular reason for wanting it, and it has to do aliens—but not the usual immigrant kind). A cult essential. Rent Repo Man from Prime Video. Repo Man (1984) at Prime Video Learn More Learn More at Prime Video View the full article

The DSCRI-ARGDW pipeline maps 10 gates between your content and an AI recommendation across two phases: infrastructure and competitive. Because confidence multiplies across the pipeline, the weakest gate is always your biggest opportunity. Here, we focus on the first five gates. The infrastructure phase (discovery through indexing) is a sequence of absolute tests: the system either has your content, or it doesn’t. Then, as you pass through the gates, there’s degradation. For example, a page that can’t be rendered doesn’t get “partially indexed,” but it may get indexed with degraded information, and every competitive gate downstream operates on whatever survived the infrastructure phase. If the raw material is degraded, the competition in the ARGDW phase starts with a handicap that no amount of content quality can overcome. The industry compressed these five distinct DSCRI gates into two words: “crawl and index.” That compression hides five separate failure modes behind a single checkbox. This piece breaks the simplistic “crawl and index” into five clear gates that will help you optimize significantly more effectively for the bots. If you’re a technical SEO, you might feel you can skip this. Don’t. You’re probably doing 80% of what follows and missing the other 20%. The gates below provide measurable proof that your content reached the index with maximum confidence, giving it the best possible chance in the competitive ARGDW phase that follows. Sequential dependency: Fix the earliest failure first The infrastructure gates are sequential dependencies: each gate’s output is the next gate’s input, and failure at any gate blocks everything downstream. If your content isn’t being discovered, fixing your rendering is wasted effort, and if your content is crawled but renders poorly, every annotation downstream inherits that degradation. Better to be a straight C student than three As and an F, because the F is the gate that kills your pipeline. The audit starts with discovery and moves forward. The temptation to jump to the gate you understand best (and for many technical SEOs, that’s crawling) is the temptation that wastes the most money. 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 Discovery, selection, crawling: The three gates the industry already knows Discovery and crawling are well-understood, while selection is often overlooked. Discovery is an active signal. Three mechanisms feed it: XML sitemaps (the census). IndexNow (the telegraph). Internal linking (the road network). The entity home website is the primary discovery anchor for pull discovery, and confidence is key. The system asks not just “does this URL exist?” but “does this URL belong to an entity I already trust?” Content without entity association arrives as an orphan, and orphans wait at the back of the queue. The push layer (IndexNow, MCP, structured feeds) changes the economics of this gate entirely, and I’ll explain what changes when you stop waiting to be found and start pushing. Selection is the system’s opinion of you, expressed as crawl budget. As Microsoft Bing’s Fabrice Canel says, “Less is more for SEO. Never forget that. Less URLs to crawl, better for SEO.” The industry spent two decades believing more pages equals more traffic. In the pipeline model, the opposite is true: fewer, higher-confidence pages get crawled faster, rendered more reliably, and indexed more completely. Every low-value URL you ask the system to crawl is a vote of no confidence in your own content, and the system notices. Not every page that’s discovered in the pull model is selected. Canel states that the bot assesses the expected value of the destination page and will not crawl the URL if the value falls below a threshold. Crawling is the most mature gate and the least differentiating. Server response time, robots.txt, redirect chains: solved problems with excellent tooling, and not where the wins are because you and most of your competition have been doing this for years. What most practitioners miss, and what’s worth thinking about: Canel confirmed that context from the referring page carries forward during crawling. Your internal linking architecture isn’t just a crawl pathway (getting the bot to the page) but a context pipeline (telling the bot what to expect when it arrives), and that context influences selection and then interpretation at rendering before the rendering engine even starts. Rendering fidelity: The gate that determines what the bot sees Rendering fidelity is where the infrastructure story diverges from what the industry has been measuring. After crawling, the bot attempts to build the full page. It sometimes executes JavaScript (don’t count on this because the bot doesn’t always invest the resources to do so), constructs the document object model (DOM), and produces the rendered DOM. I coined the term rendering fidelity to name this variable: how much of your published content the bot actually sees after building the page. Content behind client-side rendering that the bot never executes isn’t degraded, it’s gone, and information the bot never sees can’t be recovered at any downstream gate. Every annotation, every grounding decision, every display outcome depends on what survived rendering. If rendering is your weakest gate, it’s your F on the report card, and remember: everything downstream inherits that grade. The friction hierarchy: Why the bot renders some sites more carefully than others The bot’s willingness to invest in rendering your page isn’t uniform. Canel confirmed that the more common a pattern is, the less friction the bot encounters. I’ve reconstructed the following hierarchy from his observations. The ranking is my model. The underlying principle (pattern familiarity reduces selection, crawl, rendering, and indexing friction and processing cost) is confirmed: ApproachFriction levelWhyWordPress + Gutenberg + clean themeLowest30%+ of the web. Most common pattern. Bot has highest confidence in its own parsing.Established platforms (Wix, Duda, Squarespace)LowKnown patterns, predictable structure. Bot has learned these templates.WordPress + page builders (Elementor, Divi)MediumAdds markup noise. Downstream processing has to work harder to find core content.Bespoke code, perfect HTML5Medium-HighBot does not know your code is perfect. It has to infer structure without a pattern library to validate against.Bespoke code, imperfect HTML5HighGuessing with degraded signals. The critical implication, also from Canel, is that if the site isn’t important enough (low publisher entity authority), the bot may never reach rendering because the cost of parsing unfamiliar code exceeds the estimated benefit of obtaining the content. Publisher entity confidence has a huge influence on whether you get crawled and also how carefully you get rendered (and everything else downstream). JavaScript is the most common rendering obstacle, but it isn’t the only one: missing CSS, proprietary elements, and complex third-party dependencies can all produce the same result — a bot that sees a degraded version of what a human sees, or can’t render the page at all. JavaScript was a favor, not a standard Google and Bing render JavaScript. Most AI agent bots don’t. They fetch the initial HTML and work with that. The industry built on Google and Bing’s favor and assumed it was a standard. Perplexity’s grounding fetches work primarily with server-rendered content. Smaller AI agent bots have no rendering infrastructure. The practical consequence: a page that loads a product comparison table via JavaScript displays perfectly in a browser but renders as an empty container for a bot that doesn’t execute JS. The human sees a detailed comparison. The bot sees a div with a loading spinner. The annotation system classifies the page based on an empty space where the content should be. I’ve seen this pattern repeatedly in our database: different systems see different versions of the same page because rendering fidelity varies by bot. Three rendering pathways that bypass the JavaScript problem The traditional rendering model assumes one pathway: HTML to DOM construction. You now have two alternatives. WebMCP, built by Google and Microsoft, gives agents direct DOM access, bypassing the traditional rendering pipeline entirely. Instead of fetching your HTML and building the page, the agent accesses a structured representation of your DOM through a protocol connection. With WebMCP, you give yourself a huge advantage because the bot doesn’t need to execute JavaScript or guess at your layout, because the structured DOM is served directly. Markdown for Agents uses HTTP content negotiation to serve pre-simplified content. When the bot identifies itself, the server delivers a clean markdown version instead of the full HTML page. The semantic content arrives pre-stripped of everything the bot would have to remove anyway (navigation, sidebars, JavaScript widgets), which means the rendering gate is effectively skipped with zero information loss. If you’re using Cloudflare, you have an easy implementation that they launched in early 2026. Both alternatives change the economics of rendering fidelity in the same way that structured feeds change discovery: they replace a lossy process with a clean one. For non-Google bots, try this: disable JavaScript in your browser and look at your page, because what you see is what most AI agent bots see. You can fix the JavaScript issue with server-side rendering (SSR) or static site generation (SSG), so the initial HTML contains the complete semantic content regardless of whether the bot executes JavaScript. But the real opportunity lies in new pathways: one architectural investment in WebMCP or Markdown for Agents, and every bot benefits regardless of its rendering capabilities. Get the newsletter search marketers rely on. See terms. Conversion fidelity: Where HTML stops being HTML Rendering produces a DOM. Indexing transforms that DOM into the system’s proprietary internal format and stores it. Two things happen here that the industry has collapsed into one word. Rendering fidelity (Gate 3) measures whether the bot saw your content. Conversion fidelity (Gate 4) measures whether the system preserved it accurately when filing it away. Both losses are irreversible, but they fail differently and require different fixes. The strip, chunk, convert, and store sequence What follows is a mechanical model I’ve reconstructed from confirmed statements by Canel and Gary Illyes. Strip: The system removes repeating elements: navigation, header, footer, and sidebar. Canel confirmed directly that these aren’t stored per page. The system’s primary goal is to find the core content. This is why semantic HTML5 matters at a mechanical level. <nav>, <header>, <footer>, <aside>, <main>, and <article> tags tell the system where to cut. Without semantic markup, it has to guess. Illyes confirmed at BrightonSEO in 2017 that finding core content at scale was one of the hardest problems they faced. Chunk: The core content is broken into segments: text blocks, images with associated text, video, and audio. Illyes described the result as something like a folder with subfolders, each containing a typed chunk (he probably used the term “passage” — potato, potarto, tomato, tomarto). The page becomes a hierarchical structure of typed content blocks. Convert: Each chunk is transformed into the system’s proprietary internal format. This is where semantic relationships between elements are most vulnerable to loss. The internal format preserves what the conversion process recognizes, and everything else is discarded. Store: The converted chunks are stored in a hierarchical structure. The individual steps are confirmed. The specific sequence and the wrapper hierarchy model are my reconstruction of how those confirmed pieces fit together. In this model, the repeating elements stripped in the first step are not discarded but stored at the appropriate wrapper level: navigation at site level, category elements at category level. The system avoids redundancy by storing shared elements once at the highest applicable level. Like my “Darwinism in search” piece from 2019, this is a well-informed, educated guess. And I’m confident it will prove to be substantively correct. The wrapper hierarchy changes three things you already do: URL structure and categorization: Because each page inherits context from its parent category wrapper, URL structure determines what topical context every child page receives during annotation (the first gate in the phase I’ll cover in the next article: ARGDW). A page at /seo/technical/rendering/ inherits three layers of topical context before the annotation system reads a single word. A page at /blog/post-47/ inherits one generic layer. Flat URL structures and miscategorized pages create annotation problems that might appear to be content problems. Breadcrumbs validate that the page’s position in the wrapper hierarchy matches the physical URL structure (i.e., match = confidence, mismatch = friction). Breadcrumbs matter even when users ignore them because they’re a structural integrity signal for the wrapper hierarchy. Meta descriptions: Google’s Martin Splitt suggested in a webinar with me that the meta description is compared to the system’s own LLM-generated summary of the page. If they match, a slight confidence boost. If they diverge, no penalty, but a missed validation opportunity. Where conversion fidelity fails Conversion fidelity fails when the system can’t figure out which parts of your page are core content, when your structure doesn’t chunk cleanly, or when semantic relationships fail to survive format conversion. The critical downstream consequence that I believe almost everyone is missing: indexing and annotation are separate processes. A page can be indexed but poorly annotated (stored but semantically misclassified). I’ve watched it happen in our database: a page is indexed, it’s recruited by the algorithmic trinity, and yet the entity still gets misrepresented in AI responses because the annotation was wrong. The page was there. The system read it. But it read a degraded version (rendering fidelity loss at Gate 3, conversion fidelity loss at Gate 4) and filed it in the wrong drawer (annotation failure at Gate 5). Processing investment: Crawl budget was only the beginning The industry built an entire sub-discipline around crawl budget. That’s important, but once you break the pipeline into its five DSCRI gates, you see that it’s just one piece of a larger set of parameters: every gate consumes computational resources, and the system allocates those resources based on expected return. This is my generalization of a principle Canel confirmed at the crawl level. GateBudget typeWhat the system asks1 (Selected)Crawl budget“Is this URL a candidate for fetching?”2 (Crawled)Fetch budget“Is this URL worth fetching?”3 (Rendered)Render budget“Is this page a candidate for rendering?”4 (Indexed)Chunking/conversion budget“Is this content worth carefully decomposing?”5 (Annotated)Annotation budget“Is this content worth classifying across all dimensions?” Each budget is governed by multiple factors: Publisher entity authority (overall trust). Topical authority (trust in the specific topic the content addresses). Technical complexity. The system’s own ROI calculation against everything else competing for the same resource. The system isn’t just deciding whether to process but how much to invest. The bot may crawl you but render cheaply, render fully but chunk lazily, or chunk carefully but annotate shallowly (fewer dimensions). Degradation can occur at any gate, and the crawl budget is just one example of a general principle. Structured data: The native language of the infrastructure gates The SEO industry’s misconceptions about structured data run the full spectrum: The magic bullet camp that treats schema as the only thing they need. The sticky plaster camp that applies markup to broken pages, hoping it compensates for what the content fails to communicate. The ignore-it-entirely camp that finds it too complicated or simply doesn’t believe it moves the needle. None of those positions is quite right. Structured data isn’t necessary. The system can — and does — classify content without it. But it’s helpful in the same way the meta description is: it confirms what the system already suspects, reduces ambiguity, and builds confidence. The catch, also like the meta description, is that it only works if it’s consistent with the page. Schema that contradicts the content doesn’t just fail to help: it introduces a conflict the system has to resolve, and the resolution rarely favors the markup. When the bot crawls your page, structured data requires no rendering, interpretation, or language model to extract meaning. It arrives in the format the system already speaks: explicit entity declarations, typed relationships, and canonical identifiers. In my model, this makes structured data the lowest-friction input the system processes, and I believe it’s processed before unstructured content because it’s machine-readable by design. Semantic HTML tells the system which parts carry the primary semantic load, and semantic structure is what survives the strip-and-chunk process best because it maps directly to the internal representation. Schema at indexing works the same way: instead of requiring the annotation system to infer entity associations and content types from unstructured text, schema declares them explicitly, like a meta description confirming what the page summary already suggested. The system compares, finds consistency, and confidence rises. The entire pipeline is a confidence preservation exercise: pass each gate and carry as much confidence forward as possible. Schema is one of the cleaner tools for protecting that confidence through the infrastructure phase. That said, Canel noted that Microsoft has reduced its reliance on schema. The reasons are worth understanding: Schema is often poorly written. It has attracted spam at a scale reminiscent of keyword stuffing 25 years ago. Small language models are increasingly reliable at inferring what schema used to need to declare explicitly. Schema’s value isn’t disappearing, but it’s shifting: the signal matters most where the system’s own inference is weakest, and least where the content is already clean, well-structured, and unambiguous. Schema and HTML5 have been part of my work since 2015, and I’ve written extensively about them over the years. But I’ve always seen structured data as one tool among many for educating the algorithms, not the answer in itself. That distinction matters enormously. Brand is the key, and for me, always has been. Without brand, all the structured data in the world won’t save you. The system needs to know who you are before it can make sense of what you’re telling it about yourself. Schema describes the entity and brand establishes that the entity is worth describing. Get that order wrong, and you’re decorating a house the system hasn’t decided to visit yet. The practical reframe: structured data implementation belongs in the infrastructure audit, and it’s the format that makes feeds and agent data possible in the first place. But it’s a confirmation layer, not a foundation, and the system will trust its own reading over yours if the two diverge. Why improve infrastructure when you can skip them entirely? The multiplicative nature of the pipeline means the same logic that makes your weakest gate your biggest problem also makes gate-skipping your biggest opportunity. If every gate attenuates confidence, removing a gate entirely doesn’t just save you from one failure mode: it removes that gate’s attenuation from the equation permanently. To make that concrete, here’s what the math looks like across seven approaches. The base case assumes 70% confidence at every gate, producing a 16.8% surviving signal across all five in DSCRI. Where an approach improves a gate, I’ve used 75% as the illustrative uplift. These are invented numbers, not measurements. The point is the relative improvement, not the figures themselves. ApproachWhat changesEntering ARGDW withPull (crawl)Nothing16.8%Schema markupI → 75%18.0%WebMCPR skipped24.0%IndexNowD skipped, S → 75%25.7%IndexNow + WebMCPD skipped, S → 75%, R skipped36.8%Feed (Merchant Center, Product Feed)D, S, C, R skipped70.0%MCP (direct agent data)D, S, C, R, I skipped100% The infrastructure phase is pre-competitive. The annotation, recruited, grounded, displayed, and won (ARGDW) gates are where your content competes against every alternative the system has indexed. Competition is multiplicative too, so what you carry into annotation is what gets multiplied. A brand that navigated all five DSCRI gates with 70% enters the competitive phase with 16.8% confidence intact. A brand on a feed enters with 70%. A brand on MCP enters with 100%. The competitive phase hasn’t started yet, and the gap is already that wide. There’s an asymmetry worth naming here. Getting through a DSCRI gate with a strong score is largely within your control: the thresholds are technical, the failure modes are known, and the fixes have playbooks. Getting through an ARGDW gate with a strong score depends on how you compare to all the alternatives in the system. The playbooks are less well developed, some don’t exist at all (annotation, for example), and you can’t control the comparison directly — you can only influence it. Which means the confidence you carry into annotation is the only part of the competitive phase you can fully engineer in advance. Optimizing your crawl path with schema, WebMCP, IndexNow, or combinations of all three will move the needle, and the table above shows by how much. But a feed or MCP connection changes what game you’re playing. Every content type benefits from skipping gates, but the benefit scales with the business stakes at the end of the pipeline, and nothing has more at stake than content where the end goal is a commercial transaction. The MCP figure represents the best case for the DSCRI phase: direct data availability bypasses all five infrastructure gates. In practice, the number of gates skipped depends on what the MCP connection provides and how the specific platform processes it. The principle holds: every gate skipped is an exclusion risk avoided and potential attenuation removed before competition starts. A product feed is only the first rung. Andrea Volpini walked me through the full capability ladder for agent readiness: A feed gives the system inventory presence (it knows what exists). A search tool gives the agent catalog operability (it can search and filter without visiting the website). An action endpoint tips the model from assistive to agentic — the agent doesn’t just recommend the transaction, it closes it. That distinction is what I built AI assistive agent optimization (AAO) around: engineering the conditions for an agent to act on your behalf, not just mention you. Volpini’s ladder makes the mechanic concrete: each rung skips more gates, removes more exclusion risk, and eliminates more potential attenuation before competition starts. A brand with all three is playing a different game from a brand that’s still waiting for a bot to crawl its product pages. Note: Always keep this in mind when optimizing your site and content — make your content friction-free for bots and tasty for algorithms. 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 DSCRI are absolute tests, ARGDW are competitive tests. The pivot is annotation. Five gates. Five absolute tests. Pass or fail (and a degrading signal even on pass). The solutions are well documented: Discovery failures fixed with sitemaps and IndexNow. Selection failures with pruning and entity signal clarity. Crawling failures with server configuration. Rendering failures with server-side rendering or the new pathways that bypass the problem entirely. Indexing failures with semantic HTML, canonical management, and structured data. The infrastructure phase is the only phase with a playbook, and opportunity cost is the cheapest failure pattern to fix. But DSCRI is only half the pipeline, and it’s the easiest to deal with. After indexing, the scoreboard turns on. The five competitive gates (ARGDW) are competitive tests: your content doesn’t just need to pass, it needs to beat the competition. What your content carries into the kickoff stage of those competitive gates is what survived DSCRI. And the entry gate to ARGDW is annotation. The next piece opens annotation: the gate the industry has barely begun to address. It’s where the system attaches sticky notes to your indexed content across 24+ dimensions, and every algorithm in the ARGDW phase uses those notes to decide what your content means, who it’s for, and whether it deserves to be recruited, grounded, displayed, and recommended. Those sticky notes are the be-all and end-all of your competitive position, and almost nobody knows they exist. In “How the Bing Q&A / Featured Snippet Algorithm Works,” in a section I titled “Annotations are key,” I explained what Ali Alvi told me on my podcast, “Fabrice and his team do some really amazing work that we actually absolutely rely on.” He went further: without Canel’s annotations, Bing couldn’t build the algos to generate Q&A at all. A senior Microsoft engineer, on the record, in plain language. The evidence trail has been there for six years. That, for me, makes annotation the biggest untapped opportunity in search, assistive, and agential optimization right now. This is the third piece in my AI authority series. The first, “Rand Fishkin proved AI recommendations are inconsistent – here’s why and how to fix it,” introduced cascading confidence. The second, “AAO: Why assistive agent optimization is the next evolution of SEO,” named the discipline. The third, “The AI engine pipeline: 10 gates that decide whether you win the recommendation,” mapped the full pipeline. Up next: “How AI decides what your content means (and why it gets you wrong).” View the full article

A reader writes: I’m looking for some serious help navigating an issue. An employee at my company is likely to be transferred to my team. This person was arrested last year for soliciting a minor for sex. They are related to the CEO of the company and were bailed out. They will stand trial sometime in the near future. If anyone else were facing these charges, they would have been let go. This person has not and now I may have to deal with them on my team. I think the company’s stance is “innocent until proven guilty,” which I sort of get, but he was caught in a police sting where he was having explicit conversations with an officer posing as a teenager so public perception is pretty poor on this guy. Also, we have had former employees be charged with a crime and fired well before the trial. This is clearly a case of special treatment/nepotism. If we take this person on, how do we address it with our team? Do we get it all out there in the open and roll with the “innocent until proven guilty” line? Do I decline discussing outside personal matters? I don’t want to lose my job over this, so taking the stance that this guy is gross and the company is gross for keeping him on doesn’t really work. But my team will have legitimate questions and concerns. How are we supposed to have team events where families are invited? I’m not bringing my daughters somewhere this guy is invited and my team members won’t want to either. Do I just give a canned response and direct everyone to HR? I know readers will say that I should reconsider employment with this company, and maybe they are right and I need to hear it. But at the same time, I’ve worked here a long time and generally love it. There aren’t loads of jobs out there right now either. First and foremost, stop having team events that family members are invited to while this guy is on your team. You can’t safely encourage people to bring kids around him, full stop. If that means you have to change the sorts of team events you have, then that’s what you have to do. Beyond that, you absolutely 100% must ask HR for their guidance on how to manage this situation. You should do this for a few reasons: first, because your company has just dumped an enormous mess in your lap, and you shouldn’t be expected to figure out to navigate that alone. Second, there are potentially legal implications for how you talk about the situation, and you need to know how to navigate those correctly. (For example, in some states employers can’t take any adverse employment actions against an employee based on an arrest that hasn’t led to a conviction. I’m guessing you might not be in one of those states since your employer has done that in the past, but it also doesn’t sound like your employer is necessarily one we can assume would impartially follow the law, either.) Third, what are the company’s legal and ethical obligations around disclosure if, for example, you have team members whose minor children sometimes stop by the office? (Point out that legally, employers have an affirmative duty to protect employees, customers, and anyone else who comes in contact with the business from risks of harm that the employer knows about or should know about.) And fourth, how do they suggest you respond if team members come to you with concerns? For that last one, if they suggest you respond to team members with language you’re uncomfortable using or can’t personally stand behind, you should feel free to add your own addendum of “I spoke to HR about this and the company’s stance is…” in front of it. And you might go on to explain that while you personally don’t have the authority to respond to their concerns, you encourage them to talk with HR themselves. In other words, there are ways to keep your job while still not taking personal responsibility for a decision you’re not comfortable with — and while pushing your company to grapple with these ethical issues rather than just dumping them on you. The post a sex offender (related to the CEO) is moving on to my team appeared first on Ask a Manager. View the full article

Everything from global turmoil to inflation has caused consumers to tighten their purse strings. While many businesses have subsequently reported lower sales, some companies are still seeing significant success. On Tuesday, March 10, The Lego Group announced impressive 2025 financial results that included a 12% increase in revenue year-over-year. The privately held Danish toy company reached 83.5 billion Danish kroner (DKK), about $13.2 billion, up from 2024’s 74.3 billion DKK, about $11.6 billion. Similarly, the company’s operating and net profit rose 18% and 21% YOY, respectively. Lego also reported a 16% increase in consumer sales, a figure it primarily attributes to its “innovative” product line. Product demand was high across different market groups and for both adults and children. What is causing Lego’s success? Clearly Lego is doing something right: The company claims that it grew over twice as fast as the overall toy market in 2025. Lego launched over 860 products last year, about half of which were new. Its Star Wars, cityscape, and botanicals products were all popular, while the company also released its first items through its Formula 1 partnership—over 20 Grand Prix event activations supported the partnership. Volume was part of Lego’s success last year, with the company saying it launched its “largest portfolio to date.” But the company also has a resilient global supply chain, with six factories and five distribution centers worldwide—plus one in Virginia set to open in 2027. Each factory typically supplies from its immediate region, allowing for lower costs and tailored product offerings. “Our innovative and extensive portfolio, combined with the strength of the Lego brand and an effective operating model, drove high demand,” Lego CEO Niels B. Christiansen said in a statement. “We delivered these results by being both creative in product innovation and efficient in operations, bringing Lego play experiences to more kids than ever before.” A little nostalgia doesn’t hurt Of course, Lego is also popular with adults—many of whom might be experiencing digital fatigue or appreciate the nostalgic aspect. Lego even has a selection of products specifically designed for consumers 18 or older. Lego is also adapting, leaning—a bit—into the digital world. The company announced its Smart Play system at CES in January. The interactive technology responds to players with things such as lights, sounds, and even behavior. The entire system avoids using any apps or screens, with Lego stating that it wanted to captivate digital natives without screens. The Smart Play system doesn’t factor into Lego’s 2025 success since it launched this year. View the full article