All Activity

The 250 top mortgage originators in 2025 brought in high volumes despite less than ideal conditions. Check back in the following days for the final full list, with further cuts of the data to be published thereafter. View the full article

Unassigned traffic in Google Analytics 4 (GA4) is a common headache for digital marketers. It’s like trying to solve a puzzle with missing pieces: your data is incomplete, making it hard to measure the success of your marketing efforts. This article covers the common causes of unassigned traffic in GA4 and tips to ensure your campaigns are accurately tracked and optimized. What is unassigned traffic? Unassigned traffic refers to web traffic that isn’t categorized under any of the traffic sources or mediums provided by Google Analytics 4 (GA4). Often, this arises when we use UTMs that reference traffic sources or mediums that GA4 doesn’t recognize. In such cases, Google labels this as Unassigned. While this is a frequent reason, there can be other factors causing this classification. How does GA4 classify user acquisition and traffic? The traffic source dimensions provide information about where the website or app traffic comes from. GA4 provides different dimensions to analyze it. Among the most used include: Default channel groups This dimension lets you delve into the channels that bring users to your site. Google offers a default list of channel groups. In 2024, GA4 updated its default channel groups, adding new categories such as email and SMS to better classify traffic and, among other objectives, reduce the amount of unassigned traffic. Source Identifies the origin of your traffic, like from a search engine such as Google or another website. Medium Indicates through which method you acquired the website traffic, i.e., via organic, CPC, etc. First user source / medium Given at the user level, this indicates the source or medium responsible for the user’s initial session. Session source / medium Assigned at the session level, this represents what originated the session. Get the newsletter search marketers rely on. Business email address Sign me up! Processing... See terms. What are the causes and how to prevent unassigned traffic in GA4? Manual tagging based on source and medium One of the main causes of unassigned traffic is the manual tagging of UTMs that do not follow Google’s recommendations. UTM parameters enable you to manually tag URLs for emails, ads, and more. They can be easily added using Google’s Campaign URL Builder, providing insights into the origin of visits. The essential and most recommended tagging fields are: Source and medium, which will allow you to identify where the campaigns come from. Campaign name, which allows you to assign a name to the campaign so you can analyze its results through the campaign dimension. Below are common channels for manual traffic: If you don’t tag these fields per Google’s recommendations, GA4 cannot group them into its predefined categories, and the traffic will be labeled as Unassigned. For instance, if you want to manually tag a newsletter URL, you’ll have to fill in the UTM parameter fields using Google’s predefined ones: https://www.tiodenadal.online/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=october_2023 *Newsletter is optional. If you choose to put this source, it is always recommended to stick with it. If not, we can set the name of the ESP used or look for how the source is tagged. When tracking links from another website, verify your source and medium tracking, then create a UTM with a campaign ID: https://orvitdigital.com/?utm_source=searchengineland.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Post_Unassigned_Traffic https://orvitdigital.com/?utm_source=searchengineland.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Post_Unassigned_Traffic For platforms like social networks or marketplaces, Google has a list of sources and categories to ensure accurate tagging and prevent unassigned traffic. Common UTM tagging mistakes that cause unassigned traffic Even if you manually tag your URLs, small mistakes can cause GA4 to misclassify the traffic. Here are common errors to avoid when creating UTMs to classify your traffic manually: Tagging utm_medium as “newsletter” or “mail” instead of “email” GA4 expects the predefined group “social”. Using capital letters inconsistently (like “Newsletter” vs. “newsletter”) GA4 treats them as different. Adding UTMs on internal links within your website For example, adding UTM parameters when linking from your homepage to a product or blog page can disrupt the original source/medium attribution, leading to traffic being marked as “unassigned.” Manually tagging Google Ads campaigns with UTMs instead of auto-tagging Google Ads handles source, medium, and campaign data automatically. If you add manual UTMs incorrectly, GA4 might ignore or classify them incorrectly. Incorrect UTM tagging in paid social campaigns For instance, using utm_medium=paid instead of utm_medium=paid_social – which GA4 expects for proper classification – can result in the traffic being miscategorized. AI traffic classification in GA4 As AI tools – especially chatbots – become increasingly important sources of website traffic, it’s essential to group this traffic into a dedicated channel within GA4. Otherwise, it often ends up being classified as Referral or Unassigned, making it difficult to track and analyze effectively. Currently, traffic from chats and other AI-driven tools is commonly lumped into these generic categories, alongside unrelated sources, which complicates accurate reporting. Dig deeper: How to segment traffic from LLMs in GA4 How to properly classify AI traffic in GA4 Creating a dedicated AI traffic channel group in GA4 helps you better segment this growing source, reduce unassigned traffic, use it as a dimension in reports, and build more precise audiences. In your GA4 property, go to Admin > Data Display > Channel Groups. Copy the default channel group by clicking the three dots next to it and selecting Copy to create new. Name the new group something distinctive so it’s easy to identif – e.g., “Default Channel Group + AI.” Click Add new channel to create your AI traffic channel. Name it something intuitive like “AI Traffic” or just “AI”. Set the matching rule using a regex to capture common AI sources. Use the following regex: ^.*ai|.*\.openai.*|.*copilot.*|.*chatgpt.*|.*gemini.*|.*gpt.*|.*neeva.*|.*writesonic.*|.*nimble.*|.*outrider.*|.*perplexity.*|.*google.*bard.*|.*bard.*google.*|.*bard.*|.*edgeservices.*|.*gemini.*google.*$ Double-check that the regex captures all the AI traffic you want to track, and adjust it if necessary. Reorder the channels by moving the AI traffic channel above the general Referral or Unassigned channels. This ensures traffic from AI tools is categorized correctly before being grouped under broader categories. Save the new channel group. Go to Reports > Acquisition > Traffic Acquisition. Change the primary dimension in the table to the new AI traffic channel group. Check if you see “AI Traffic” in your reports. If your GA4 property has already received traffic from AI tools, it should appear. Use the search bar to filter by “AI Traffic” and isolate this type of traffic. Add a secondary dimension, like session source/medium, to gain deeper insights into where the AI traffic is coming from. Other ways to prevent unassigned traffic Since Universal Analytics ceased processing data in July 2023, GA4 has become Google’s primary analytics tool. This means the tool may still have bugs, discoveries, and improvements. As of today, some other actions we can do to prevent unassigned traffic include: Reporting identity Google Analytics 4 uses methods like user ID, Google signals, device ID, and modeling for tracking user data across platforms. Selecting the right method can help prevent unassigned traffic. Device-based is the recommended one nowadays. Email traffic tracking Incorrectly tagged email campaigns are one of the leading causes of unassigned traffic in GA4. To avoid this, always ensure that all links inside your emails – including those in images – are properly tagged with UTM parameters: utm_source: This should be the platform or sender (e.g., newsletter, Mailchimp, HubSpot). utm_medium: This should always be set as email. utm_campaign: Use this to specify the campaign name (e.g., winter_sale2025). If your email marketing platform supports it, it’s also recommended to enable automatic UTM tagging to make sure every campaign is consistently tracked. Cross-domain tracking If your website uses multiple domains (for example, if users go from your blog domain to your shop domain), and you don’t set up cross-domain tracking, GA4 might lose the session information. When this happens, it creates new sessions without a proper source or medium, and traffic can appear as Unassigned or Direct. Here’s how to fix it: In GA4, go to Admin > Data Streams > Web > Configure tag settings. In the Settings section, click Configure your domain. Add all the domains where you want to maintain the same session. Save the changes. To verify it works: Open a page with a link or form that points to another domain you’ve configured. Click the link or submit the form and check that the new page loads without errors. Verify that the URL in the destination domain contains the linker parameter _gl. For example: https://www.example.com/?_gl=1*abcde5* If your website offers downloads, check that downloads start properly when the _gl parameter is present. As Google points out, if you encounter an error, try troubleshooting cross-domain measurement. Event configuration Unassigned traffic can also stem from incorrectly configured events. Ensure your Google Tag Manager settings are spot-on. Events and parameters must also be tagged following Google’s guidelines. Other causes of unassigned traffic include: Events sent through regular tracking without session_start (h/t Antoine Eripre). Incorrect session tracking due to short user visits, ad blockers, or connection and data collection errors. Ad blockers and other devices Devices or ad blockers that hinder Google’s data capturing can also cause misclassifications of traffic, Himani Kankaria has found. Simon Vreeman noted mobile apps as a potential source of channel assignment issues. Use of audience triggers As Himanshu Sharma highlighted the use of audience triggers in GA4 can greatly increase the volume of unassigned traffic. If the event generated by the audience trigger isn’t tied to an existing session, perhaps because the session has ended or the criteria are met outside of the user’s current session, the source/medium might default to (not set) / (not set), which then appears as Unassigned in some GA4 reports. Measurement Protocol events without client_id or session_id As Julius Fedorovicius explains, when manually sending events to GA4 via the Measurement Protocol, it’s essential to include client_id, session_id, and, in some cases, timestamp_micros. Without these, GA4 may be unable to associate the event with the correct session, resulting in traffic being marked as unassigned. The Measurement Protocol is designed to add events to existing sessions, not to create new ones. To avoid data gaps, always ensure your server-side events include the necessary parameters. Managing unassigned traffic in GA4 Addressing unassigned traffic in GA4 requires a combination of best practices, accurate tracking, and awareness of potential causes. Implement these tips to ensure your campaigns are accurately tracked and optimized, providing a more comprehensive view of your marketing performance. View the full article

After 12 years and 500+ audits, here are 11 SEO lessons that can save you time, money, and frustration on your journey to better rankings. The post 11 Lessons Learned From Auditing Over 500 Websites appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

As Americans are having fewer babies, the White House has been gathering ideas on what can be done to increase the birth rate. The New York Times reported that one of the ideas is a $5,000 “baby bonus” to entice women to have more babies, received after delivery. Other ideas being entertained to start a baby boom include: reserving 30% of scholarships for the Fulbright program, the prestigious, government-backed international fellowship, for applicants who are married or have children; government-funded programs that educate women on their menstrual cycles, so we understand when we ovulate and conceive; and a “National Medal of Motherhood” awarded to mothers with six or more children. While President The President and his administration “want a baby boom,” none of these ideas address the root causes of why Americans aren’t having babies and why the annual birth rate is at a record low. Mothers don’t need a medal, they need meaningful family policies. If The President truly wants a baby boom in his administration, here’s what the government can focus on delivering for all Americans: better maternal healthcare, national paid leave, affordable childcare including not ending Head Start, better public education including not closing the Department of Education, safer schools,and a better cost of living for all. And sure, the government alone can’t solve this problem. As the Edelman Trust Barometer survey reminds us that trust in government continues to decline, business continues to be “the default solution for societal issues because it is seen as outperforming government on competence.” The pressure on business leaders to step up—including from their own employees—shows no sign of disappearing, particularly when it comes to how to best support employees and their families. Private-company based solutions to public policy shortcomings will leave millions of Americans out, but it’s still in business owners’ interests to support the working parents they employ (both moms and dads). In our workplaces, here’s a reminder of what leaders can begin to do to help all parents start and expand their families: Support employees with buying their first home One factor in the decline of U.S. birth rates is lack of affordable housing. According to a Clever Real Estate study, 70% of Americans are afraid of an impending housing market crash. And 32% of Americans are afraid they won’t be able to make housing payments as a result of today’s economy. Middle-class families in half in less than half of the U.S. can afford an average priced home. And If you can’t afford a home, you may be less likely to want to start a family. Here’s where leaders can step in: Offer resources and support your employees’ ability to purchase their first home. Partner with companies like Multiply Mortgage, a Denver based-company that offers employees one-on-one sessions with mortgage advisers, employee education sessions around the home purchase and financing process, and mortgage interest rate discounts of up to .75%. The company partners with a network of 15 to 20 lenders to access discounted interest rates. “Homeownership has become increasingly out of reach for many Americans, and we don’t expect interest rates to fall to the levels we saw in 2020 ever again,” shares Michael White, cofounder and CEO of Multiply Mortgage. White says companies work with them with zero cost to the employer, other than low administrative cost to promote the benefit internally to employees. For leaders, this can be a win-win. Employees who own their home and put down roots into a community are far less likely to leave your company and relocate somewhere else. Partner with other companies to solve the childcare crisis A recent Lendingtree study showed that it costs close to $300,000 to raise a child in the U.S. today, from the time they are born until they turn 18 years old. Costs have jumped 35.7% versus when the study was conducted in 2023. One of the biggest drivers of costs continues to be childcare, which is close to $18,000 a year. In places like the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Hawaii, the cost is closer to $25,000 a year. A $5,000 baby bonus (which may also be taxed) would hardly make a dent in that cost. According to a recent HiBob report, only 15% of companies surveyed provide childcare-related benefits. Leaders can step into help solve another root cause then it comes to why Americans are having less babies: the childcare crisis. Employees need to be able to afford childcare, and have access to reliable, safe options so they can be fully present to contribute at work. Companies can partner with local childcare providers and negotiate a group discounted rate for their employees. They can also partner with Bright Horizons and bring a corporate day care to their location, and help fund the costs. If you can’t afford the cost on your own, and are worried about low utilization rates, find other companies to partner with you to build a daycare center in a location that all employees can access. Finally, you can provide a caregiver stipend to employees so that they can use that to pay family members or friends to help take care of their children. For leaders, this can be another win-win. Employees who can be fully present at work, and not worry about whether their children are being well taken care of, are able to make an impact. And we know there are limits to linking childcare coverage to a job. The most important thing an employer can do is to let their employees know they support their roles as parents, by offering support with childcare, and other related benefits, and most importantly, providing them flexibility to be there for their children as needed. Remember to focus on parental leave, not maternity leave The U.S. still remains one of only seven countries that doesn’t guarantee any paid family leave. If companies are busy lobbying the U.S. government about lowering tax rates, preventing regulations, drug pricing, fossil fuel incentives, data privacy, and more, they should add paid family leave to that list. Until then, the burden remains on companies to offer leave to parents and help fill this societal gap. As I discuss in my book, Reimagine Inclusion: Debunking 13 Myths to Transform Your Workplace, when we don’t offer parental leave, and focus only on maternity leave, we put the burden on mothers to constantly be the primary caregiver. I’ll never forget working for a leader who didn’t want to create a parental leave policy. His response to me was, “Why do we need to give dads time off when they have a kid? It’s the mom doing all the work, and the dad is on the golf course using this as vacation time. He needs to be back in the office.” According to research from the brand Dove Men + Care, giving fathers time to bond with their child not only helps the other parent, but also later on, can lead to better behavioral outcomes when the child is in school. Fathers who are close to their children are healthier, and have stronger and happier marriages with their partners. In Sweden, the data shows that for “each additional month of paid parental leave taken by the father increases the mother’s earnings by 6.7%.” Imagine the positive ripple effect this can have on our society. Finally, the stereotypes about fathers not helping when a child is born and playing golf, or not being lazy or useless or not good at parenting is not only damaging to fathers, but also to mothers. It’s up to all of us to shatter these stereotypes. Leaders need to support more men in taking parental leave, leaving work early to take their kid to doctor’s appointment to attend that school play, and being a public role model when it comes to all things parenting. And men who are leaders should be doing it themselves. If we want more women to become mothers, we can’t leave fathers out of the equation. If the government refuses to address the declining U.S. birth rates with solutions that address the root cause, businesses will need to step up to support parents. Creating a society where we can start and expand our families and support both children and parents is best for everyone. View the full article

Google seems to be testing linking the "Reviews" button you see in the local panel, on a Google Business Profile, to AI Overviews. So when you search for a business, see the local panel on the right side, and then click on "reviews," you are taken to an AI Overview result.View the full article

Fast-fashion company searches for workarounds as The President’s trade war endangers operations in its most important market View the full article

The year is 2014, and I’m stuck in Ukraine. I have a particularly antsy mother who wasn’t keen on me visiting the country just weeks into Russia’s attempted invasion, and she is expecting me back home. In Odessa—hundreds of miles away from the Maidan and the nascent conflict—the worst example of war I’d seen was a heated snowball battle between those who wanted to remain Ukrainian and those who wanted to be Russian. The reason I’m stuck has nothing to do with Russia: It’s bad fog grounding flights at the tin hut airport I’m due to fly out of. But with no reliable phone communication back home, I know my family will put two and two together and make five. The problem is allayed when I return to the plush hotel I’d been staying at, which was happy to have us pay for another night’s lodging, and get on Skype. I’m able to call home, explain what happened, and keep them from panicking when I don’t step off the plane back in the U.K. as expected. International calls remain prohibitively expensive. And for a generation that doesn’t own smartphones—like my parents—or a country that steadfastly refuses to join the rest of the world on WhatsApp (hello, United States), Skype has proven a lifeline. My use of the platform—to call home when stuck in war-torn Ukraine for an extra day, or to check on the status of my sick grandfather in hospital on the sidelines of a conference in the U.S. earlier this year—is very much a first-world problem. But the reality is that the imminent closure of Microsoft’s digital calling service (which the company attributes to dwindling user numbers and its belief that the same service can be offered through Microsoft Teams) will leave a significant gap for many who depend on it. I’m not a Skype power user, but by my own estimation, I’ve used the platform at least once a week for the last decade or more. My job as a tech journalist means I frequently call American contacts and sources. The country’s intransigence and refusal, with very few exceptions, to download and install WhatsApp on their cellphones means that unless I want to be hit with eye-watering minute-by-minute charges for calling them for interviews, I need to find an alternative. Since the early 2010s, that alternative has been a rolling Skype subscription to call the U.S.—400 minutes per month, landline and cellphones, has proved plenty for me. Shortly, it won’t be. Our lives, and our families, are increasingly scattered to the four winds. And in the two decades since its 2003 founding, Skype has helped those families stay connected. It’s also helped a good number of people whose jobs involve international interactions do so at a manageable cost. It’s notable that mentioning the closure of Skype on a regular roundup of tech news stories I do for a U.K. radio station received the most personal correspondence from listeners. They told me they too were worried about the closure of the service and were seeking out alternatives. Skype has long been unloved, long surpassed by the likes of Zoom and—whisper it quietly, and by tamping down your gag reflex—Microsoft Teams. Indeed, it’s Teams that Skype is recommending people move to, without realizing it doesn’t offer exactly the same experience. But Skype was our little app that could. And its disappearance will be a loss for many beyond just me. View the full article

Google is testing a feature to let you get notified if there is a deal for the product(s) you are searching for directly in Google Search. It is named "Track deals from this search" and it has a slider to toggle on the notification.View the full article

The administration's major moves include weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and rolling back numerous Biden-era regulations. View the full article

The Conservatives must choose between their US obsession and their electoral viabilityView the full article

Join us live and walk away with a clear roadmap for leading your SEO and content strategy in 2025. The post AI Search & SEO: Key Trends and Insights [Webinar] appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Welcome to Pressing Questions, Fast Company’s workplace advice column. Every week, deputy editor Kathleen Davis, host of The New Way We Work podcast, will answer the biggest and most pressing workplace questions. Q: How do I decide what to take off of my résumé? A: There is much debate about if your résumé really needs to be one page. But regardless of if it’s one page or two, there are some common elements you can cut to make your résumé easier to read and more effective. Here are a few: Work history that’s more than 15 years old This one isn’t cut and dry. You shouldn’t just delete everything before 2010. But here’s what to consider cutting or condensing. If you have been at your last (or current) position for fewer than five years, you can keep a few bullet points under each of your previous jobs dating back 10–15 years. But if a role on your résumé is from more than 10–15 years ago, your old responsibilities, tasks, and accomplishments are likely not very relevant anymore. The exception is if you are looking to make a career change and you have older relevant job experience. You can list your positions with just title and dates but add a couple of bullet points to the older related experience. Your cover letter (yes, you still should write one) is the best place to connect the dots for the hiring manager on how your older experience is related. Jargon, clichés, and hyperbole You should avoid unnecessary jargon, clichés, and hyperbole in all parts of your job search process, but your résumé is the most crucial place to trim it out. If your résumé is being read by AI, phrases like “seasoned solutions-oriented team player” won’t pass the keyword screens. Those words are similarly meaningless (and might actively work against you) if your résumé is being read by a real person. The best résumés follow the basic rules of good writing. Think of the golden rule of prose: Show, don’t tell. An easy way to do this is to replace adjectives with numbers and facts: Instead of “dynamic sales professional with a distinguished track record,” try “Closed over $1 million in new partnerships each quarter.” Your objective or summary and your mailing address I don’t know who ever thought an “objective” on a résumé was necessary. Your objective is to get hired, so anything you write here is just throat-clearing wasted space. Some people replace objective with a summary, which, in theory, can be useful for recruiters or AI that’s doing a quick scan. Most often though summaries are also useless because they are filled with meaningless buzzwords (see above). You’re better off formatting your résumé in an easy-to-scan way where your skills and accomplishments are clear. Including your mailing address is a relic of a time when applications were sent via snail mail and is an easy place to streamline. If you’re applying to an in-person job, however, you may still want to include the city you live in. The header space of your résumé should also include your email, phone, website/portfolio link, and one or two professional social media profiles, like LinkedIn. Fancy formatting, your photo, basic skills If you are early in your career and feel like you don’t have enough to fill the page, it can be tempting to pad your résumé by adding basic skills like “proficient with Microsoft office suite.” But skills like that are assumed and adding them can actually make you look less experienced. Don’t try to fill the space with colorful large fonts, formatting tricks, or your headshot either. White space is better and a simple format is easier to read, by both humans and applicant tracking systems. If you feel like your résumé is too thin, you may need to expand your definition of “experience.” (Here’s my advice on how to make up for lack of experience on your résumé.) Want more advice on what to cut from your résumé? Here you go: 5 ways to make your résumé more impressive without lying Many job applications are never read by a human. Here’s how to make sure your résumé gets seen 5 things you should take off your résumé right now View the full article

If AI lives up to its hype and we can “outsource” the thinking, planning, and strategy parts of our jobs, do we risk losing the skills that make us human? Research from the Center for Strategic Corporate Foresight and Sustainability found that there is “a significant negative correlation between frequent AI tool usage and critical thinking abilities, mediated by increased cognitive offloading.” In other words, use AI too much, and your mental faculties take a nosedive. But there’s another way to think about the issue. Could AI actually improve our cognition by freeing up our mental bandwidth for higher-value work? Make time for strategic thinking I’ve worked at jobs in the past where I’ve begged my boss for the budget to purchase technology that would make work better and easier. If technology could do part of my job for me, I could spend more time on other things, things that typically fell to the bottom of the pile because they didn’t have an instant, tangible result. Thinking strategically about improvements I could make in my department, for example. I suspect most knowledge workers can relate. We compile reports, attend status meetings, and follow processes with endless tedious tasks. There’s rarely time for higher-level thinking. While technology improvements may have previously been a “no,” the response to AI has been a resounding “yes.” Perhaps it’s the promise of “10x everything” but CEOs are enamored with the potential of AI. AI as sparring partner For many people, this poses a threat. For others, it can create an opportunity. Farm out the redundant, tedious tasks to AI so we can focus on work that requires our unique expertise. Take coding, for example. Software can have millions of lines of code, which previously needed to be entered manually. Now, AI can handle much of the repetitive work. Human coders take on the role of orchestrators: the brains behind the operation, guiding AI agents to the correct result. Personally, I’ve used AI to expand my existing skills. I’m self-employed, so I don’t have any colleagues to bounce ideas off of if I’m stuck. I was working with an app recently, and couldn’t get it to do what I wanted. I turned to ChatGPT and asked for help. ChatGPT gave me incorrect information, which I recognized right away, based on my knowledge of the app. I prodded ChatGPT again, explaining why the previous answer wouldn’t work. ChatGPT replied, “You’re right! Here are some additional steps you need to take.” The instructions were, again, incorrect. However, the incorrect instructions were enough to spark an idea . . . and my idea worked. As a sparring partner, AI let me work through a problem that I otherwise wouldn’t have been able to solve on my own (at least not without a significant amount of trial, error, and frustration). My skills haven’t atrophied because of AI. Quite the opposite: AI takes over some of the boring work, and lets me focus on more creative work—the type of work only a human can do. The right use cases Even if the research currently suggests that AI negatively affects critical thinking abilities, that doesn’t have to be your experience. You can find the right use cases to remove the boring and tedious work from your day. Once you do that, use the additional time for impactful work that was always pushed to the back burner. Or spend the time learning something new that could help your career. The people who will experience skill atrophy are those who outsource everything to AI—and can’t recognize when work needs human oversight, decision-making, and experience. View the full article

Career politician will also act as vice-chancellorView the full article

The technology industry is in the midst of a skills shortage—one that shows no signs of slowing. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that tech jobs will grow at twice the rate of America’s overall workforce, creating hiring shortfalls as organizations struggle to fill critical positions in IT, cybersecurity, and other vital areas. The emergence of AI has only exacerbated the issue, as organizations in nearly every industry are seeking employees who can help them better understand the technology and get the most out of their solutions. Even as AI becomes a part of everyday life, most organizations are still determining how best to utilize it—and how to limit the risks it may pose. Interestingly, these challenges mirror another (relatively) recent innovation: the cloud. Before cloud computing became commonplace, businesses with any sort of digital footprint needed to buy rack space or manage their own on-premises servers. That was reasonable for businesses with a high degree of technical expertise, but building and maintaining a climate-controlled server room wasn’t realistic for most companies. The advent of cloud computing democratized access to advanced computing capabilities—and AI is already having a similar impact. As businesses wrestle with managing and securing their AI deployments, they can look to the cloud for lessons and guidance on how similar challenges were tackled in the recent past. The Evolution of Cloud Adoption and Security Consider the cost of on-premises computing. Server rooms are expensive, as are the servers themselves. They also require a substantial degree of technical expertise to maintain, and employees with experience in that area understandably command high compensation. The emergence of platforms like Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud changed all that, lowering the barrier to entry for advanced computing capabilities: businesses could eliminate the high initial investment associated with purchasing servers and building server rooms in exchange for a modest (in most cases) operating expense. Perhaps most importantly, it allowed businesses to work with reliable partners to get the most out of their cloud services, rather than relying on difficult-to-come-by in-house expertise. That said, securing the cloud still presents its own challenges. During the early days of the cloud, businesses often made the mistake of assuming that providers would handle any cybersecurity needs—a misconception that left them dangerously exposed. Today, the most common rule of thumb is that the provider is responsible for the security of the cloud itself, while the customer is responsible for the security of the data inside it. Essentially, the provider ensures attackers cannot exploit their systems to get to your data, but if poor password management, device security, or other data hygiene practices allow attackers to compromise your accounts—that’s on you. This delineation has helped businesses better understand where their potential risk factors lie when it comes to cloud security and mitigate them appropriately. Applying Lessons from the Cloud to AI It’s not hard to see the parallels between the cloud and AI. Like the cloud, AI has democratized access to resources that were previously difficult to come by for many organizations. The widespread availability of generative AI models like ChatGPT means organizations no longer need to hire costly AI engineers to create, manage, and fine-tune their own models. Instead, they can put an application layer on top of an existing model and deliver a compelling service to their customers at a relatively low cost of ownership. While this still requires a level of technical expertise, the barrier to entry is much lower—and organizations can move forward faster with smaller, more flexible engineering teams. The risks posed by this model mirror those posed by the cloud. When you upload data to the cloud, it is no longer under your direct control. The same is true of third-party AI models—when customers (or employees) input data into an AI-powered application, it’s important to know where the data is going, how it is being stored and protected, and how it is being used. With AI still in its relative infancy, the answers to those questions aren’t always clear—which means businesses providing AI functionality need strong AI governance practices in place to establish trust with their customers. For some businesses, that might mean offering customers the ability to opt out of AI features. For others, it might mean putting clear safeguards in place to prevent AI tools from accessing sensitive or confidential information. By demonstrating the ways in which they are limiting AI risk, businesses free their customers to evaluate the benefits of AI. Over time, most businesses migrated to the cloud because the efficiency gains substantially outweighed the perceived risks—and a similar pattern is already emerging when it comes to AI. In fact, it’s happening even more quickly this time. Since AI has use cases across nearly every business unit, the potential ROI is much easier to illustrate. While it’s true that every customer will have a different risk appetite, the trend is clear: eventually, nearly every business will decide that the rewards significantly outweigh the risks. By establishing strong governance practices and lowering the amount of risk associated with AI, businesses can help their customers reach that point more quickly. Freeing Customers to Embrace AI with Confidence While businesses and their customers are understandably concerned about AI risk, the history of the cloud provides a helpful road map for navigating those risks successfully. The risks associated with AI are not dramatically different from those associated with other technology—and businesses can mitigate them in much the same way. By establishing strong governance practices and implementing clear transparent policies regarding AI and its use, businesses can enable their employees and customers to embrace the potential of AI with confidence. View the full article

With 100 days back in office, it’s fair to say that President The President is leaving his mark. That hasn’t necessarily been a positive thing for the media or journalism, however, as the The President administration’s second iteration has been even more hostile to the press than the first, and it has many experts alarmed. Examples are myriad, and include (but aren’t limited to): The President banned Associated Press reporters from White House news conferences for refusing to rename the Gulf of Mexico. Lawsuits have been filed against ABC News and CBS, among others, with some having settled. The President’s Federal Communications Commission has threatened or initiated investigations into broadcasters. The administration reportedly wants to cut funding for NPR and PBS. The administration has tried to shut down Voice of America. And while presidential administrations often spar with members of the media—Richard Nixon, perhaps most notably, was also hostile to the press—the The President administration is taking this hostility to whole new levels, media industry experts argue. “What stands out to me is that this is a concerted, multipronged campaign against ethical journalists and the independent press,” says Caroline Hendrie, executive director of the Society of Professional Journalists. “We’re looking at this as a strategy of a death by a thousand cuts—take it all together, and we’re seeing an assault on transparency, accountability, and the public’s right to know.” The goal, Hendrie says, is fairly simple: Boost The President’s agenda and slap down any voice that pushes back against it. “They want to delegitimize anyone who contradicts his narrative or the narrative of the administration,” she says. Using the levers of government to not only influence coverage but also punish news outlets raises “more than red flags,” Hendrie adds. “It’s raising very legitimate alarms that our First Amendment free press rights are in danger in this country.” Part of a broader attack on expertise Gabriel Kahn, professor of professional practice of journalism at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Journalism, says attacks on the press coming from a sitting administration have “never been so blatant or severe, at least over the past 80 years.” However, Kahn says it’s important to think of the attack on the press as only one part of the issue. “You need to see the attacks on journalism and science and higher education as a part of the same piece,” he says. “It’s an attack on expertise, on independent thought.” He adds that many news organizations haven’t done themselves any favors in how they’ve responded to the administration’s treatment. Specifically, he cites some newspapers’ reluctance (or refusal) to endorse a presidential candidate during the 2024 election, the reining in of opinion writers, and the censoring of news stories to curry favor with the The President team. According to Kahn, “obeying in advance” and “kowtowing to the administration,” which is also happening at major universities and big law firms, risks doing more harm than good for media outlets. “Major corporate journalism interests have chosen the illusion of some sort of short-term relief over the long-term damage they’re doing to their brands,” he says. If there’s anything good that’s come out of The President’s treatment of the press, Kahn says, it’s that it has “highlighted how fragile the free press is. We’ve taken so much for granted for so long. [The administration has] demonstrated to the American people how important it is to have a free, independent press.” View the full article

The failure of business to join universities in the fight for academic research is short-sighted as well as cowardlyView the full article

The The President administration has made clear that it doesn’t want shoppers to see how much its new tariffs are costing them, based on its forceful reaction to one report yesterday. The dustup started with a relatively sparse story from Punchbowl News, a D.C.-based news outlet mainly focused on political scoops, which reported that Amazon had planned to show how much a product’s price is derived from tariffs next to its total price in website listings. The The President administration did not exactly respond to the idea of a price transparency label with an even keel. In a press briefing yesterday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called Amazon’s purported design update, which had yet to be confirmed, “a hostile and political act.” No matter DOGE’s supposed interest in transparency, the administration otherwise seems to find it a “hostile” idea. Following The President’s chastisement, Amazon denied the claim, stating that while its low-cost Temu competitor Amazon Haul had considered the idea of listing import charges on certain products, the company never considered listing tariff upcharges on its main site, and that such a plan “is not going to happen.” By jumping to condemn Amazon’s potential new feature, the White House as good as broadcasted that it’s worried about companies exposing how much the president’s tariffs are costing consumers, and it’s prepared to name and shame them to prevent that from happening. But its heavy-handed reaction also points to how, with just a few design tweaks, private companies could play against the administration’s self-inflicted political weak spot to gain consumer trust and influence the public messaging game on tariffs, if they’re brave enough. (Amazon wasn’t, and The President praised founder Jeff Bezos as having done “the right thing” following the company’s statement.) The widespread cost of The President’s tariffs The president’s tariff policies have produced massive ripple effects across the supply chain for many companies that manufacture overseas, and more can be expected. Already, the 145% duty on Chinese-made goods has caused cargo shipments into the U.S. to plummet by as much as 60% since early April, according to one estimate from the supply chain logistics firm Flexport. Since announcing his sweeping tariff plan in early April, The President has frequently suspended proposed tariffs and issued exemptions on certain goods following lobbying from tech companies like Apple and blowback from Wall Street, demonstrating that his plan is not exactly going off without a hitch—and leaving consumers confused about what’s actually getting more expensive. Retail giants including Adidas, Target, and Walmart have warned that prices could go up and shelves will begin to empty if the tariffs continue. Meanwhile, others that rely heavily or solely on Chinese factories have already bumped up their prices, including Amazon, Shein, and Temu, which all use cheap, Chinese-made goods to fuel their business models. Several upmarket brands, like Labucq, Jolie, and Dieux Skin have likewise announced tariff-based price hikes. The tariffs have proven to be a PR and approval ratings disaster for The President, who on the campaign trail promised voters he’d lower everyday costs but instead is culpable for raising them. According to a new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll, The President’s approval rating is currently 42%—the lowest on record for any newly elected president in more than 50 years. A CBS News/YouGov poll found that 69% of Americans believe The President is not focusing enough on lowering prices, while 62% believe that he’s spending too much time imposing tariffs. Based on this public reception, it makes sense that The President’s administration would want tariff-based price increases to remain intangible to American consumers. Amazon backed down, but more brands should show the receipts At the same time, from a consumer’s perspective, it’s difficult to keep up with how each company is being hit by the tariffs—and what the actual scale of incoming price increases might look like for everyday goods like toilet paper and groceries without direct comparisons at the point of sale. This trade policy decision has had costly consequences, and Amazon’s proposal could have been a simple, user-first solution to show the public the tariff receipts. Major retailers like Target and Walmart could clear up some of the confusion by doing exactly what Amazon has since declined to do: add a label to online listings (and even in-store items) spelling out how much The President’s tariffs have impacted the sale price for consumers. This simple gesture could serve as an effective political tool to shape public perception and shift policy on a key issue. And for brands, it would also communicate to consumers that price transparency matters more than the president’s whims. View the full article

Nearly every day of President Donald The President’s first 100 days in office, his administration came out with new attacks on the environment. On a single day in March, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to roll back more than two dozen environmental regulations, affecting everything from mercury pollution at coal power plants to fuel efficiency standards for cars. On the same day, it shut down its environmental justice offices and made plans to limit the Clean Water Act. To help make it easier to follow the barrage of rollbacks, the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is tracking the actions online. It’s not clear yet what will survive lawsuits and actually stick, though the policy decisions are already having real-world consequences. Here’s a partial look at what’s happened so far. April 28: The The President administration “released” the scientists who were working on a national report about how climate change affects the United States. The report, required by Congress, has been published every four years since 2000. April 24: The President issued an executive order to fast-track permits for deep-sea mining, which environmental groups say could cause irreparable harm to marine ecosystems. April 24: The Department of the Interior announced a new “emergency permitting” approach that would fast-track approval for some energy projects from a period of one to two years to just two weeks, skipping most of the standard process of environmental review. (Wind and solar projects don’t qualify for the accelerated process; it’s aimed at fossil fuels.) April 23: The The President administration eliminated the Office of Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, which was responsible for global climate diplomacy. April 22: The The President administration announced plans to cut hundreds of jobs at the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, an office focused on helping communities that have suffered the worst impacts of pollution. April 21: The EPA announced plans to cancel around $40 million in grants aimed at protecting children from toxic chemicals, including pesticides and PFAS (“forever chemicals”). April 18: The White House announced a list of mining projects for expedited approval, including a copper mine in Arizona that Native American tribes say is on sacred land and could cause environmental damage, including draining scarce water resources. April 18: The Department of the Interior announced a new program to expand offshore oil and gas drilling. April 17: The Department of the Interior announced plans to cut $10 billion for clean energy projects. April 16: The The President administration proposed a new rule redefining what it means to “harm” wildlife under the Endangered Species Act. Habitat destruction, one of the leading causes of extinction, would no longer be considered harm. April 16: The The President administration took the first steps to roll back former President Joe Biden’s protection of millions of acres of public lands in the West and in Alaska. April 15: The Department of Energy issued a rule to repeal water efficiency standards for showerheads. April 15: The EPA gave the worst-polluting coal power plants exemptions from new limits on toxic pollution, including mercury, which is especially dangerous for children. April 15: The EPA announced plans to get rid of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which requires major polluters to track and report climate emissions. April 11: The The President administration announced plans to end climate research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including data used to predict hurricanes. April 9: The President issued an executive order that aims to erase hundreds of existing environmental and public health rules; this is undoubtedly unconstitutional. April 9: The President issued an executive order requiring agencies to add “expiration dates” to energy and environmental regulations. April 9: The President issued an order that aims to block states from enforcing their own climate laws. April 9: The The President administration cut nearly $4 million in climate research funding at Princeton University, saying the research promoted “exaggerated” climate threats and blaming it for increasing climate anxiety. April 8: The President issued executive orders to boost coal power, including opening up federal land to new mining and potentially forcing some coal plants to stay open when they were planning to close. April 5: The The President administration reportedly plans to stop states from limiting the use of PFAS (known as forever chemicals) in consumer goods. April 4: The The President administration canceled the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, which gave grants to communities to prepare for floods, wildfires, hurricanes, and other disasters. (One example of a project that lost what the administration called “wasteful” and “woke” funding: upgrading culverts in DeKalb County, Georgia, to keep roads usable during heavy rain and flooding.) April 3: The U.S. Department of Agriculture issued an “Emergency Situation Determination” that opens up more than 100 million acres of national forests to more logging. April 2: The The President administration fired all staff members working on the Low Income Energy Assistance Program, which was designed to help families afford heating and cooling. March 20: The President issued an executive order to increase mining on public land. March 19: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delayed the process of listing the monarch butterfly as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. March 19: The Department of Energy granted conditional authorization for the LNG export terminal in Louisiana, which will pollute local communities and dramatically add to climate pollution. March 17: The President signed a law repealing a fee on oil and gas companies for excess emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The fee would have had the same effect on pollution as taking 8 million gas cars off the road. March 17: The EPA announced plans to gut its science office and lay off more than 1,000 scientists. March 14: The EPA stopped enforcing pollution regulations at energy facilities. March 12: The EPA announced sweeping plans to dismantle more than two dozen air quality and carbon pollution regulations. That included an attack on the “endangerment finding,” which makes it possible to regulate climate pollution like CO2 under the Clean Air Act. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin described it as “driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.” March 12: The EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced plans to revise the definition of “waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act, threatening to strip protection from streams, wetlands, and other water sources that supply communities with drinking water and support wildlife. March 12: The EPA announced that it was shutting down its environmental justice offices, which worked on projects like helping rural communities prepare for flooding or install sewage systems. March 10: The EPA announced the cancellation of $1.7 billion in environmental justice grants. March 3: The The President administration ordered thousands of new EV chargers to be disconnected at federal buildings. March 1: The President labeled imported wood a “national security risk” and issued an executive order to dramatically expand logging in U.S. public forests. February 19: The Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a memo to remove 10 climate-related words and phrases from its documents, including climate resilience and changing climate. February 18: The The President administration fired hundreds of FEMA workers while disasters were ongoing in states like Kentucky and West Virginia. February 18: The EPA froze access to $20 billion in grants under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which supported projects like solar farms and EV chargers. (Even after a judge ordered the release of the money, the intended recipients still couldn’t access it.) February 14: The The President administration fired more than 1,000 National Park Service workers. Workers were later rehired, but the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, is currently looking for ways to make cuts again. February 14: The President issued an executive order to create a “National Energy Dominance Council” led by fossil fuel allies that excludes wind and solar power. February 6: The The President administration ordered states to suspend a $5 billion program to build a network of new EV charging stations. January 31: The The President administration scrubbed climate-related language from government websites. January 31: The President officials released billions of gallons of water from dams in California, claiming incorrectly that it could have prevented the Los Angeles-area wildfires, and giving California farmers new worries about water shortages. January 28: The EPA dismissed members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and Science Advisory Board, two groups that offer expertise on air pollution standards. January 28: The Department of Transportation started the process of weakening fuel economy standards. January 21: The President issued an executive order to end the American Climate Corps, a program that was designed to train thousands of young people to work on jobs like solar installation and wildfire prevention. January 20: The President issued an executive order to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. January 20: The President revoked executive orders from Biden that protected certain areas of federal water, opening up sensitive habitats to offshore oil and gas drilling. January 20: The President issued an executive order called “Unleashing America’s Energy” that aims to revive the abandoned Keystone XL pipeline, fast-track fossil fuel development, limit incentives for buying electric vehicles, and roll back efficiency standards for appliances. For the full list—and to follow new attacks on the environment from the The President administration—check out NRDC’s tracker. View the full article

It’s been just 100 days since Donald The President was inaugurated for his second term as president, but it’s already clear that the tenor of this term is much different than his first—and The President has been carefully curating an image to match. Since taking office on January 20, The President has taken an aggressive approach to the presidency. On just his first day in office, he signed a whopping 26 executive orders, including several to eliminate federal DEI efforts and one aimed at granting pardons for January 6 rioters. That initial 24 hours proved a harbinger of what was to come. In the following 100 days, The President’s administration has taken a flurry of extreme steps, including slashing 260,000 federal jobs through Elon Musk’s DOGE; ramping up deportations and the surveillance of immigrants; and unleashing a global trade war through a series of harsh tariffs. For many Americans, it’s been a confusing period of social and economic upheaval. It has been difficult to predict what the President might do next, and how he’ll respond to backlash. But within these first 100 days, there is one through line that’s become clear: The President is trying to give his public image an overhaul. The first 100 days of his presidency has seen The President adopt a darker, sterner image that aligns with his no-holds-barred leadership strategy and appeals to his ultraconservative base. One need only look to four new portraits of the President to prove it. An official portrait inspired by a mug shot Portraiture of President The President has proven to be a fairly transparent window into the way he is branding his second term. The first glimpse at his new strategy came before The President even officially took office. Days before January 20, the world got a first glimpse at The President’s official inaugural portrait via his administration’s chief photographer, Daniel Torok, who posted the image to his X account. In the photo, The President stares down at the viewer with one eyebrow cocked in a stern, borderline angry expression. A bright artificial light illuminates the center of his face, leaving dark shadows on his profile. The framing comes almost uncomfortably close to his face, giving the unsettling impression that the viewer is standing just inches away. The headshot is a striking departure from past official presidential photos. These portraits, (viewable in the Library of Congress’s digital archives) have a few near universal features dating as far back as Nixon’s presidency. Each past president is framed at a straight angle that cuts off at the mid-chest; the photos are lit with even, neutral lighting, and the subjects are smiling broadly. In an interview with Fast Company back in January, Rhea L. Combs, director of curatorial affairs at Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, shared that subtle choices like these are generally used by presidents to lend them a friendly, down-to-earth appearance. It’s a precedent that traces all the way back to early depictions of George Washington. In 2017, The President himself largely followed these conventions. The official portrait from his first term frames The President at a more traditional, level angle, and he’s shown smiling into the camera in an evenly lit room. Next to his 2025 portrait, the difference is like night and day—and the departure is no coincidence. Through a series of comments on X, Torok confirmed that The President’s new portrait was inspired by the president’s mug shot, taken before The President was found guilty on 34 felony counts in a criminal hush money trial last May. Despite the guilty verdict, The President went on to use his mug shot as a political tool on the 2024 election campaign trail, including turning it into rally posters, selling pieces of the suit worn in the photo, and even printing the image on a line of mugs and T-shirts. (Merch has long been a major lever of image control for the president.) Torok openly admitted to using the mug shot as inspriation for the official portrait. The portrait felt calculated both to serve as rage bait for The President’s detractors and to bolster his image in the eyes of his conservative following. During his campaign, The President strongly aligned himself with members of the “manosphere,” an online community of male influencers like Andrew Tate, Adin Ross, and Logan Paul, who, to varying degrees, tend to glorify the concept of a certain brand of toxic masculinity (often alongside anti-woman rhetoric.) For The President, the official portrait was the perfect stage to debut a new personal brand that puts this unrepentant machismo front and center. A callout six years too late About two months into his presidency, amidst a war in the Middle East and massive unrest as a result of his new tariffs, The President took the time to double down on his new image by coming after a portrait that hung in the Colorado State Capitol. The President logged on to Truth Social on March 23 to demand that a portrait of him be removed. The President’s timing seemed odd, considering that it had been six years since the painting was first displayed. “Nobody likes a bad picture or painting of themselves, but the one in Colorado, in the State Capitol, put up by the Governor, along with all other Presidents, was purposefully distorted to a level that even I, perhaps, have never seen before,” The President wrote at the time. He went on to add that he was calling on Colorado Governor Jared Polis to “take it down.” The portrait, painted by artist Sarah Boardman, depicts a younger The President in soft lighting, with a rounded jawline and wearing a neutral, almost contented expression. While The President chalked up his disapproval to finding the portrait unflattering, it’s difficult to miss how the painting represents a vastly different The President from the more intimidating version he’s presenting with his new official portrait. His direct message to Polis showed that The President is willing to go out of his way to control how the public views him, even in ways that might seem inconsequential. “Walking around looking at images of yourself all day long” The The President administration took the President’s updated image to another level in April, when it swapped a minimalist portrait of former president Barack Obama in the White House’s East Room for a pop-art painting of President The President raising his fist after the assassination attempt last year on the campaign trail. Several historians told The New York Times that they were startled by the move, considering that it’s almost unheard of for a sitting president to place artwork of themselves in the White House (typically art of a former president is added after their term.) “It just seems tacky,” Ted Widmer, a presidential historian at the City University of New York, told the publication. “It feels different from our tradition of venerating the distinguished holders of the office from both parties—and going in a new direction of walking around looking at images of yourself all day long.” Beyond the peculiar choice to add the portrait in the first place, its contents are also bizarre for a placement in the White House. The painting depicts The President surrounded by Secret Service, pumping his fist in the air as rivulets of blood run down the side of his face—a depiction of a moment which The President and his campaign used for promotional material. Alongside his inaugural portrait, this choice of White House art was another carefully vetted opportunity for the The President administration to project his revamped image of strength. The President 2.0 catches on It’s evident that the The President administration has been carefully curating a darker, more aggressive public presentation of the President in both photos and artwork during these first 100 days of his presidency. One unexpected outcome of this The President 2.0 rebrand, though, is that some publications seem to be following the administration’s artistic lead. Last week, Time magazine sat down with the President to discuss the 100 day milestone—a reprise of a similar article run by the publication back in 2017, during his first term. Time chose to represent both articles with a close-up headshot of the President, which it posted as a side-by-side carousel on Instagram. While the 2017 photo is relatively warm-toned and brightly lit, the 2025 version is distinctly cooler and darker. Like The President’s new inauguration portrait, Time’s updated headshot of the President includes deep, prominent shadows on the sides of his face, as well as an almost stormy background. It’s an image that feels both foreboding and bleak. The President’s new image appears to be making its way into the public consciousness. And as his term continues, it’s likely that the The President administration will continue to develop this sterner version of The President through new imagery. In the meantime, these four portraits underscore an enduring theme for The President. To the President, public image is a matter of winners and losers. In his interview with Time, The President took reporter Eric Cortellessa to the East Wing to view the painting of him that’s been installed there, which sits across from another portrait of Obama. “100 to 1, they prefer that,” the President said of his portrait. “It’s incredible.” View the full article

Barbara Bouza went from architecture to Imagineering and back again. A trained architect who spent nearly 19 years working on building projects for the world’s largest architecture and design firm, Gensler, Bouza made an unconventional career pivot in 2020 when she became president of Walt Disney Imagineering, the famed division of the Disney corporation focused on theme parks, experiences, and future technologies. After four years of navigating pandemic closures, updating theme parks around the world, and debuting new cruise ships, she’s now coming back to her roots in architecture and taking on a new role as executive director of market strategies and growth at the architecture and engineering firm CannonDesign. With this unique background, she has some ideas about how the architecture industry can broaden its approach by creating multifunctional spaces where people can live, work, and play. Her time at Imagineering has shown her that designing places for people requires thinking about the wide range of different users of a space—whether within the confines of a theme park or in more of a real-world setting like a workplace or an educational facility. But a theme park is also a real place. Going from working on architecture projects for Gensler to theme park projects for Disney was less of a jump than most people would think, Bouza says. “You go out to a job site at a park for an attraction, and it’s very similar. Similar consultants, similar contractors, but not so much steel that is straight. It is all over the place because we’re turning people upside down. But they’re the same ideas around safety and quality,” she adds. “The process is very similar, but with a lot more disciplines integrated.” The approach, though, is much different than the way a traditional architecture firm works. Within Imagineering, Bouza says there were between 100 and 120 different disciplines that might get involved in any given project. She sees the opportunity for an architecture firm like CannonDesign to include more types of expertise on its projects. Hiring Bouza is part of the firm’s strategic long-term vision to diversify the services it offers clients, beyond the few years it takes to design and build a building. “The silo-ization in the profession is a missed opportunity to really address some big problems with our clients,” says Brad Lukanic, CannonDesign’s CEO. He says Bouza will help the firm figure out what new design services it can offer, and help clients to “articulate a very cohesive vision for things that really aren’t known yet because technologies are evolving, and experiences are evolving.” There is some precedent for Bouza’s career shift. In 2023, Bob Weis, Bouza’s predecessor at Imagineering, made a similar jump to architecture, joining Gensler as its global immersive experience design leader. Bouza’s new role won’t be about bringing Imagineering into architecture, but rather exploring the ways that architecture and design services should be changing to meet new client demands. She says that requires thinking more expansively about how a place can serve people and create a venue for new ideas. “Being at Disney was like getting a PhD in this idea that there are other aspects of what we call the built environment,” she says. Pulling on her Imagineering experience of developing a new cruise ship, Wish, and launching World of Frozen at Hong Kong Disneyland, Bouza says she learned a lot about designing for the varied experiences of every participant in a space, from the families on vacation to the performers roaming the theme park to the maintenance crews working behind the scenes. She also embraces the immersive nature of the Disney approach and sees ways that architecture projects can do more to engage their users beyond the basics of the design brief. “[Imagineering] is so story driven. And that’s one area that I really want to see more in architecture,” she says. “I think the storytelling out there can be very strong. I think the execution of the work is strong. But I think where we really need to look is the science behind it, because guest behavior, consumer behavior, is really evolving.” After years building very different kinds of projects, Bouza says she’s happy to be back in the architecture world. “It’s like riding a bike,” she says. View the full article

A smarter robots.txt can stop SEO issues before they start. Clean up WordPress crawl paths, block noise, and point bots to what matters. The post WordPress Robots.txt: What Should You Include? appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

In the days before a recent ballot referendum in Seattle that would determine the future of social housing in the city, large tech companies spent big. Amazon and Microsoft, both of which are headquartered in the Seattle metropolitan area, each donated $100,000, and opponents of a tax to fund social housing spent a combined $780,000 in the lead-up to the February 11 vote. Despite this, the vote on a corporate tax to fund the city’s social housing authority won, with 63% of voters supporting it. In 2023, voters had already resoundingly approved the social housing authority, agreeing that a new entity would be created to acquire and construct mixed-income housing and keep it permanently affordable and under the city’s ownership. But this February, voters were asked to return to the polls to determine how to fund the authority—or whether it would be funded at all. The first question on the ballot asked if voters approved of funding the new authority using payroll taxes. Next, voters had to choose whether they wanted a new 5% payroll tax on individual compensation above $1,000,000, paid by companies, or to use an existing payroll tax that mostly funds affordable housing. The new tax could bring in $52 million of funding each year for social housing. The second option would appropriate $10 million a year for five years that had already been set aside. The city’s big tech companies had no interest in paying a new tax. In addition to contributions from Amazon and Microsoft, Seattle’s Chamber of Commerce donated $40,000 and T-Mobile donated $20,000 to derail an additional tax on companies. But according to Tiffani McCoy of House Our Neighbors, a Seattle nonprofit that has been one of the lead supporters of the social housing authority, the influx of spending actually hurt Big Tech’s case. “Frankly, Amazon donating was a godsend for us,” McCoy says. “We capitalized on the fact that Amazon and Microsoft were dumping in $100,000, and we made clear to voters that these corporations don’t want you to have social housing.” McCoy says the campaign to fund the social housing authority with a corporate tax sent mailers, paid for digital advertising, and made social media posts that played up the tech companies’ donations. Supporters also held a rally in front of Amazon’s Seattle headquarters. “There’s a lot of resentment toward tech billionaires who are part of the The President regime here in Seattle,” she says. The win suggests a way forward for organizers on the local level to take the housing crisis into their own hands. Persistent federal inaction and recent drastic attacks to HUD have provided motivation. “We needed to The President-proof our housing sector,” McCoy says. “And I think that helps because there’s mass opposition to what he’s doing.” The vote also showcased a groundswell of resentment toward Big Tech that has been percolating among voters. The authority will initially be modest in its ambitions, as it won’t have funding to develop housing anywhere near the scope or scale of the private market. The plan is to build or preserve 300 units a year, once funding comes in, according to the social housing development authority—but it will own those units and will be able to issue its own debt. The first step, proponents say, is to make sure the money actually comes through. What will Seattle’s social housing authority do? The initial ballot referendum to build a social housing authority in Seattle passed in February 2023 with 57% of the vote. It created a public development authority, a type of government-owned private entity that can take out debt by issuing bonds. The term “social housing” has been used broadly in recent years to refer to types of housing that are not subject to the speculative market, including public housing, forms of subsidized affordable housing, and housing owned by community land trusts. Seattle’s referendum referred to social housing as “publicly owned and financed mixed-income housing intended to be permanently affordable.” According to the housing authority’s charter, that means it will acquire or build housing and rent it to people making between 0% and 120% of the area median income, with rents never exceeding 30% of a tenant’s income. The median income for a family of four in Seattle is about $160,000, according to the Seattle Housing Authority. That means families in properties owned by the authority could be paying between $0 and about $4,700 a month, depending on their income. Since the authority’s properties are not meant to be resold, it could provide a modicum of stability to lifelong renters as they age. Market-rate properties are meant to increase in value every year, but seniors with fixed incomes don’t see their pay increase as they age. For decades, working Americans in general haven’t seen their pay increase significantly. The authority’s charter also creates a mediation provision for tenants to prevent evictions: According to the charter, “residents MUST be afforded opportunities for restorative justice conflict resolution prior to being subject to eviction procedures.” “There’s not the pressure of somebody’s investment that is in cross purposes to their ability to stay there,” says Julie Howe, a Seattle Social Housing board member. The authority will issue its own debt in the form of bonds and create a revolving loan fund, lending itself money for construction and acquisition that would be paid back through rents, with higher rents subsidizing lower rents. Debt is a large and under-discussed factor in the cost of housing, as developers often price units to pay back loans. By using its own funds for construction, the authority will be able to reduce interest payments that can cause rents to balloon. The authority will be governed by a board with 13 members, including 7 appointed by the Seattle Renters’ Commission, an advisory board that consults with the mayor and city council. They will be mainly focused on the authority’s fiscal responsibilities and making sure it remains aligned with its mission. While public housing is notoriously underfunded in the United States, the result of a bipartisan aversion to government-owned housing, McCoy says the mixed-income approach that Seattle is taking with its own development authority might prove more sustainable, as it doesn’t require as much direct subsidy. The authority’s approach is also less convoluted than building housing using Low Income Housing Tax Credits, which requires multiple layers of financing on top of the federally issued credits. But there still needs to be a dedicated revenue stream to staff the development authority, to purchase and construct housing, and to issue bonds. The state law establishing public development authorities does not allow them to impose taxes. And the 2023 ballot referendum was limited to creating the authority; a dedicated funding stream was always going to require a second ballot measure. Some opponents of the social housing authority, which includes not just big tech but affordable housing developers, believed that the new ballot measure was an opportunity to relitigate whether the authority should be established at all. “They’re really looking for a do-over,” McCoy said prior to the February vote. Taxing the wealthy Rather than opposing the authority outright, opponents opted to put option 1B on the ballot to essentially recreate the affordable housing system that exists in Seattle, with no new funding. That option would have effectively made the social housing development authority moot: the city’s affordable housing fund that it would have pulled from can only go toward people making 80% of the area median income or lower, which means that the authority would not be able to cross-subsidize rents. According to Howe, the board member, this would have put the agency in conflict with affordable housing developers who rely on the existing funding stream. “That would essentially go against how we were founded,” Howe says. Suresh Chanmugam, a tech worker organizing with the group Tech for Housing, says tech companies don’t mind Washington having one of the most regressive tax codes in the nation. Because the state has no income tax, most taxes are derived from consumer sales and property, regressive taxes where poorer people have an effective tax rate much higher than the wealthiest. Chanmugam believes rich companies use the lack of an income tax as a pretext to pay their employees less than they would in other states. He says that dozens of members of the Tech for Housing coalition knocked on doors, tabled at farmers markets and phone banked across the city. “When people hear, ‘Hey, do you want to tax companies to fund social housing?’, people say yes, because there’s near universal appeal in Seattle for making big businesses pay their fair share in taxes,” Chanmugam says. He says he personally spoke to about 300 voters while canvassing and only received pushback from one or two people. It makes sense that tech workers have opposing priorities to their employers: While tech workers are typically high earners, many would benefit from the social housing authority, which would ensure that people making 120% of AMI, or around $190,000 for a family of four, would pay only 30% of their wages toward rent in units it owns. That would greatly offset any pass-through cost put on their wages by tech companies. According to campaign finance records, Microsoft and Amazon were tied for the highest donations to the campaign for option 1B—using existing tax—at $100,000 each. It’s not the first time that spending from tech companies has backfired in Seattle. In 2019, Amazon and the Chamber of Commerce supported a slate of City Council candidates, most of whom lost. The corporate tax was also opposed by the mayor; ads for option 1B, which would use existing funds, had pictures of his face on it. One opposition mailer included the mayor’s face and signature and the message, “I strongly urge you to vote for Prop 1B. We need to build and operate social housing the smart way. 1B uses existing city funds, and has all the voter accountability and transparency that 1A doesn’t have.” The mailer notes that 1A “builds homes for the poorest city residents.” Only two current city council members support the corporate tax, according to McCoy. “Our city council has taken a very reactionary turn,” McCoy says. But the campaign used the political opposition to their advantage, citing the mayor’s stance in opposition mailers and messaging. Money being held up Despite the measure’s success, supporters say the city is still lagging on funding the authority. The new payroll tax is retroactive to January 1, 2025, but the city told supporters of the corporate tax the system to bill for it will take a year to build out, so that money won’t be available for the authority until early 2026. In the past, the city has used an “interfund loan,” borrowing money from its existing funds to process a new tax right away. McCoy says the city didn’t initially appear willing to take similar measures to pay for the social housing authority—though the mayor’s office later contacted the authority to discuss a bridge loan. A spokesperson for the mayor’s office says the city offered the loan to the authority to keep it afloat until the payroll tax revenue comes in next year. “We have not determined the amount of the bridge loan yet, and any funding would require approval from the City’s Debt Management Policy Advisory Committee and the City Council,” the spokesperson said in an email. Additionally, the original February 2023 ballot measure required the city to pay for staff for the authority for 18 months, but supporters say the city has only paid for 12 months. The spokesperson at the mayor’s office says that the city had disbursed all $850,000 of its contractually obligated startup costs, with the final payment on March 4. Roberto Jimenez, CEO of Seattle Social Housing (SSH), told Shelterforce Next City, “The mayor interprets the charter and contract differently than does SSH. I believe we will reach agreement.” Jimenez says his recent conversation with the mayor’s office was positive. He says the authority has already started looking at opportunities to purchase housing. That includes real estate deals that have stalled because buyers have had trouble accessing financing. He says construction is getting harder to do because of rising interest rates and the uncertainty of The President’s tariffs. But ideally, the authority will be in a position to build small and midsize housing that larger developers now avoid because larger multifamily buildings are more financially feasible. But first the money needs to arrive. “Things could happen very quickly if the money gets freed up,” he says. “The challenge that we’re facing right now is we don’t have the resources to hire staff yet, and we don’t have the resources to really pursue analysis of these real estate options.” Despite the hostility to the social housing development authority and its funding mechanisms from the political class, voters have now affirmed that they want it, twice. “I think people don’t need to be afraid of it,” Jimenez says. “I think it’s an alternative form of housing that makes a lot of sense and has worked around the world. And it’s becoming much more utilized in the U.S. over the last couple of years. You’re going to see a lot more of it.” —By Roshan Abraham, Next City This story was originally copublished by Next City and Shelterforce. View the full article

When Formula 1 superstar Lewis Hamilton announced in December that he would be leaving the Mercedes team for Ferrari after 246 Grands Prix, 84 victories, and 6 drivers’ championships in 12 seasons, much of the focus was on Hamilton’s future plans. Just as compelling was the empty seat Hamilton was leaving at Mercedes. His departure triggered an intense internal process for the automaker—the search for a successor. Many of the discussions and debates that resulted in Mercedes choosing young Italian driver Andrea Kimi Antonelli played out over messaging app WhatsApp. That process is now the subject of a new one-hour documentary on Netflix called The Seat, dropping on May 5. Directed by Kyle Thrash, and produced by RadicalMedia, it’s also a WhatsApp commercial. The Meta-owned app is a producer, and created the project with its content partner Modern Arts. WhatsApp’s global head of marketing, Vivian Odior, says the company decided to create the doc in order to fully show how the app is often part of critical inflection points in its users’ lives. “When it comes to telling those stories, we believe in giving the space to properly unpack the role we play and share the full story of our user base,” says Odior. “We don’t believe we should be limited by ad formats. Storytelling allows us to occupy a unique position in the hearts of users and pushes beyond the functional role we play.” This isn’t some ad-tiered piece of content. It’s a legitimate addition to the streamer’s F1 library. Many marketers will be shaking with jealousy or excitement, inspired to make their own move into entertainment. But be forewarned, creating content that can go head-to-head with other films and TV is not for the faint of heart, nor is it for those searching for a formula. Even WhatsApp knows this is a unique brand opportunity. Make your own luck WhatsApp has long been a brand partner to the Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 team, and last year Modern Arts created a short film on Hamilton called Push Push. It chronicled the ups and downs of his racing career, as well as his personal struggles with dyslexia and bullying, woven into a conversation he has with a group of teens today about their own lives. That helped build the relationship and trust with Mercedes to make The Seat possible. Modern Arts has a track record of telling compelling stories around the platform, like its award-winning, 26-minute doc We Are Ayenda, about WhatsApp’s role in helping the Afghanistan Women’s Youth National Football Team escape the Taliban. Zac Ryder, the agency’s cofounder and co-chief creative officer, says that made it a lot easier to start figuring out a story to be told around privacy with the Mercedes team. “It just so happens that not only is WhatsApp a sponsor of the team, but the entire Mercedes team literally runs on WhatsApp,” Ryder says. “You very rarely ever send an email. It’s all done on WhatsApp. They have hundreds of WhatsApp groups, and that’s how their entire team is organized, from little details around traveling to big things like engineering and car designs. It’s all shared across WhatsApp.” In theory, this sounds like a formula for the greatest product demo video ever made. But Formula 1 teams are known to be about as forthcoming with secrets as the Pentagon. Ryder says Mercedes saw the value in giving the film access to its internal process, with the goal of helping F1 fans fall in love with Antonelli, a relatively unknown 18-year-old driver. For WhatsApp, the goal was to tell a privacy story by showing how well it functions in high-stakes situations. “Our job was to figure out how those two things can coexist to make something that was going to be compelling,” Ryder says. No one formula It’s a unique situation for a brand to have its product at the center of a major sports story. Ryder says the strategy quickly became to make the project revolve around trust. The Mercedes team was trusting its F1 driver’s seat to Antonelli, but in the process it was also showing its trust in WhatsApp as a communications platform. In a typical commercial edit, marketers will obsess over how many times the product is mentioned, or the product appears, or the logo is flashed. Modern Arts CEO Brooke Stites says the film is not about that because the brand and its product are so intertwined with the story itself. As a marketing investment, Stites says the film cost about as much as it would to make and buy ad time for a 60-second commercial. Here, the entire budget went into the production because being on Netflix means there isn’t the need to pay for advertising space on TV and online. “It’s a totally different model,” says Stites. “It’s not cheap, but it’s what you’re going to spend on a 60-second spot that you then have to spend 10 times more to buy places that force people to watch it. Everyone who watches F1 content on Netflix is going to get served our film.” The Seat is not a paid advertising arrangement with Netflix; it was acquired by the streamer in the same way other film and television content is acquired. Other major streamers were vying for the film, but Netflix’s connection to the long-running docuseries Formula 1: Drive to Survive made it the ideal home. For some time brands and ad agencies have been putting “make a film for Netflix” in their marketing briefs, but the reality is, it’s not that simple. Stites says there are some critical ingredients a project needs in order to get anywhere near Netflix or any other top-tier streamer. “You have to have an amazing story and quality of craft,” she says. “All these streamers are looking at it and asking, ‘Is this something that’s adding value to my audience? Is this something that my viewers are going to actually want to engage with?’ That was a big part of the F1 piece.” For other brands interested in this type of storytelling, Stites has a piece of advice: Tell a compelling story that involves your brand, don’t just tell your brand story. Every brand wants to tap into culture. To tell stories people really want to hear, you need to find the stories in culture that authentically include your brand instead of trying to force-feed your brand into culture. “We’re not telling a story about WhatsApp. It’s not about the brand,” says Stites. “Stories involving brands already exist in culture that are really actually very interesting, and people are willing and wanting to engage with them. Tell a story that people are going to care about, versus starting from a place of ‘Let’s tell a brand story.’” View the full article

SEO legend Todd Friesen names seven SEO fundamentals for winning in AI search, and it’s still called SEO The post SEO Rockstar Names 7 SEO Fundamentals To Win In AI Search appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article