All Activity

Back in December, Google began showing read more links on some of the search result snippets within Google Search. Today, Google published new documentation around best practices on how to show Read more links in the Google search results. The best practices. The new documentation was posted over here in the snippets section and it lists three best practices: Make sure content is immediately visible on the page to a human (and not hidden behind an expandable section or tabbed interface, for example). Avoid using JavaScript to control the user’s scroll position on page load (for example, don’t force the user’s scroll position to the top of the page). If you make history API calls or window.location.hash modifications on page load, make sure you don’t remove the hash fragment from the URL, as this breaks deep linking behavior. What it looks like. Google also posted an illustration of these links, here it is: Here is an example of how they look: Why we care. These read more links do add an additional eye-catching link to the search result snippets. Hopefully, this leads to encouraging more clicks to websites and no less. More clicks to websites is a good thing, so make sure to review the best practices to encourage more clicks to your site. View the full article

Watch this video on YouTube Rand Fishkin didn’t get into SEO because he saw the future. He got into it because he had no choice. In the early 2000s, Fishkin helped run a small web business with his mom in Seattle. They hired another company to do SEO until they couldn’t afford to pay them anymore. That moment pushed him into search marketing. More than 20 years later, Fishkin has become one of the best-known voices in SEO — and one of Google’s biggest critics. In this interview, he looks back at how search has changed, what went wrong, and what may happen next. Early SEO was wild SEO today can feel messy. But in the early days, it was even more chaotic. “There was no social media,” is how Fishkin described that era, where forums like WebmasterWorld and Search Engine Watch were the center of the industry. People shared tactics openly. Many of those tactics were risky. Buying links was common — and effective. Fishkin did it, too. Then Google’s Matt Cutts called him out in public. That moment changed how he approached SEO. He spent years focusing on “white hat” practices and following Google’s guidelines. Looking back, though, Fishkin now questions whether that shift went too far. He believes Google’s own behavior over time has made those guidelines harder to trust. The early industry wasn’t just chaotic — it was also full of strange and memorable moments. Fishkin recalled massive conference parties with huge budgets and over-the-top ideas, including a staged “retirement” of the Ask Jeeves mascot. But what stood out most to him wasn’t the tactics or the parties. “My favorite thing… is people,” he said, pointing to the relationships and friendships built over decades in search. When Google stopped sending traffic Many people think AI is the big turning point in search. Fishkin says the shift started much earlier — around 2011. That’s when the idea of “zero-click search” first appeared. Google began answering more queries directly on the results page instead of sending users to websites. At first, it was small features like weather boxes and calculators. Then it grew: Around 2016–2017: nearly half of searches ended without a click By 2018: more than half Today: more than two-thirds Fishkin emphasized that this trend didn’t start with AI — it has been building for more than a decade. Publishers had a chance — and missed it Fishkin believes publishers could have taken action early — but didn’t. “The time to fight back… was 15 or 20 years ago,” he said. In his view, large media companies should have worked together to push back against Google’s growing control. They could have demanded payment for content or limited how Google used it. Instead, they allowed Google to crawl and use their content freely. At the same time, Google expanded its influence through lobbying and policy. “Publishers just missed that opportunity,” Fishkin said. Now, he argues, the focus has to shift to adapting: Build subscription businesses Monetize attention, not just traffic Learn how to operate within platform ecosystems Some companies have already made that shift. Fishkin pointed to The New York Times as an example of a business evolving beyond traditional news consumption. Did Google change? Fishkin does not believe Google has become worse for users. “If it was easier or better to search on Bing… people would go to those places,” he said. But he does believe Google has become much harder for publishers and creators. The change, he said, was gradual. As Google grew, went public, and aligned with investor expectations, its priorities shifted toward growth and revenue. “They became the people that they spent time with,” Fishkin said. The biggest AI mistake people make Fishkin says most people misunderstand how AI works. They treat AI answers like search results — consistent and reliable. But they aren’t. If you ask the same question multiple times, the answers can vary widely. “You will get completely different answers. And if you do that 10 times, you will get 10 incredibly unique different answers,” he said. His advice is simple: don’t rely on a single response. Ask multiple times and look for patterns. If the same answer shows up consistently, it’s more likely to be trustworthy. This matters most for important decisions, like health or finance, where relying on one answer could be risky. What he misses about the early days of SEO Fishkin doesn’t miss a specific tactic or tool. He misses the level of opportunity that existed in the early web. Back then, smaller creators and independent sites had a better chance to succeed. Traffic was more evenly distributed. “The world of clicks and traffic… was so… flat compared to… today,” he said. What’s next? Fishkin believes the future of media and search may look more like the past. He expects a smaller number of powerful platforms to control most of the flow of information. At the same time, individual creators will still produce much of the content — but within those systems. Still, he hopes the web can evolve again. View the full article

A refund system for businesses that paid tariffs which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled President Donald The President imposed without the constitutional authority to do so is scheduled to launch Monday. Importers and their brokers will be able to begin claiming refunds through an online portal beginning at 8 a.m., according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency administering the system. It’s the first step in a complicated process that also might eventually lead to refunds for consumers who were billed for some or all of the tariffs on products shipped to them from outside the United States. Companies must submit declarations listing the goods on which they collectively put billions of dollars toward the import taxes the court subsequently struck down. If CBP approves a claim, it will take 60-90 days for a refund to be issued, the agency said. The government expects to process refunds in phases, however, focusing first on more recent tariff payments. Any number of technical factors and procedural issues could delay an importer’s application, so any reimbursements businesses plan to make to customers likely would trickled down slowly. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court on Feb. 20 found that The President usurped Congress’ tax-setting role last April when he set new import tax rates on products from almost every other country, citing the U.S. trade deficit as a national emergency that warranted his invoking of a 1977 emergency powers law. Although the court majority did not address refunds in its ruling, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade determined last month that companies subjected to IEEPA tariffs were entitled to money back. Not all taxed imports immediately eligible Customs and Border Protection said in court filings that over 330,000 importers paid a total of about $166 billion on over 53 million shipments. Not all of those orders qualify for the first phase of the refund system’s rollout, which is limited to cases in which tariffs were estimated but not finalized or within 80 days of a final accounting. To receive refunds, importers have to register for the CPB’s electronic payment system. As of April 14, 56,497 importers had completed registration and were eligible for refunds totaling $127 billion, including interest, the agency said. System requires accuracy Meghann Supino, a partner at Ice Miller, said the law firm has advised clients to carefully list in their declarations all of the document numbers for forms that went to CBP to describe imported goods and their value. “If there is an entry on that file that does not qualify, it may cause the entire entry to be rejected or that line item might be rejected by Customs,” she said. Supino thinks the portal going live will require composure as well as diligence. “Like any electronic online program that goes live with a lot of interest, I would expect that there might be some hiccups with the program on Monday,” she said. “So we continue to ask everyone to be patient, because we think that patience will pay off.” Nghi Huynh, the partner-in-charge of transfer pricing at accounting and consulting firm Armanino, said most companies claiming refunds will have imported a mix of items, and not all will qualify right away. “It’s about having a clear process in place and keeping track of what’s been submitted and what’s been paid, so nothing falls through the cracks,” she said. “Each file can include thousands of entries, but accuracy is critical, as submissions can be rejected if formatting or data is incorrect.” Patience with the process Small businesses have eagerly awaited the chance to apply for refunds. Brad Jackson, co-founder of After Action Cigars in Rochester, Minnesota, said he starting compiling records and preparing to enter information into the system the minute CPB announced the launch date. The company imports cigars and accessories from Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. Last year, it paid $34,000 in tariffs and absorbed much of the cost instead of raising customer prices, Jackson said. Last spring, he had a two-week delay in a shipment due to a missing document, so he is being more careful with refund documents, he said. “My main concern is the turnaround time,” Jackson said. “A refund process that takes several months to complete doesn’t solve the cash flow problem that it is supposed to fix.” Will consumers see refunds? Tariffs are paid by importers, and some companies pass on the tax costs to consumers via higher prices. The system starting up Monday will refund tariffs directly to the businesses that paid them, which are not obligated to share the proceeds with customers. However, class-action lawsuits that aim to force companies, ranging from Costco to Ray-Ban maker Essilor Luxottica, to reimburse shoppers are winding their way through the U.S. legal system. Individuals may be more likely to receive refunds from delivery companies like FedEx and UPS, which collected tariffs on imports directly from consumers. FedEx has said it would return tariff refunds to customers when it receives them from the CPB. “Supporting our customers as they navigate regulatory changes remains our top priority,” FedEx said in a statement. “We are working with our customers as CBP begins processing refunds and plan to begin filing claims on April 20.” —Mae Anderson, AP Business Writer View the full article

I’m not one for binaries, but it’s likely you’re either aware of Gap’s 2025 comeback tour, or you have a healthy amount of screen time. For those of us who aren’t full luddite teen (aspirational), I’m here to tell you that Gap is continuing its play to cement its place among the fashion set—and cultural domination—in 2026. We’re seeing this with Gap’s announcement today of a new Spring collection kicking off a multi-season partnership with Victoria Beckham, bringing clean lines and refined classics that harken from the designer’s British sensibilities to the eponymous American brand. The 38-piece line of wardrobe staples will be available online and in select global Gap stores beginning April 24 at 9am ET, with prices that range between $34 to $328. This isn’t Gap’s first partnership of the year. It previously launched collaborations with Harlem’s Fashion Row and Awake, as well as a keystone campaign for the brand’s sweatpants with rapper Young Mikko. (And let’s not forget last year’s sell-out Sandy Liang collaboration.) The Victoria Beckham collaboration is its latest in an ongoing story of reinvention the brand wants to convey to the public. “We always are looking for new, interesting, cool, unexpected-for-our-customer collabs, and Victoria Beckham is a real natural for us,” says Gap CEO Mark Breitbard of the pairing, noting that her design sensibilities bring an elevated level of polish and refinement to Gap’s casual everyday wear. The partnership was the result of a conversation Breitbard had with celebrity stylist Alastair McKimm, who he considers to be part of the Gap creative team, about his other clients. “When he brought up Victoria, we both just kind of looked at each other and said, ‘Wait, could this be interesting for us?’” Breitbard recalled. And Beckham, for her part, was game. The design results apply subtle degrees of difference from Gap classics like its Arc denim and matching jacket, pull-over denim quarter zips with a tent-like shape, dark wash capris (having a moment this spring), pleated khaki shorts, white button-downs, jersey tank dresses, and a classic trench coat. The difference from Gap pieces may not be detectable to the non-fashion obsessive’s human eye, but the simplicity of lines and the appeal of the Victoria Beckham brand ID could subconsciously appeal to the same discerning shopper who gets neutral manicures and wears La Ligne. “You’ll see really modern lines and elegance that still has Gap casual in it,” says Breitbard. “So it’s very versatile. Dress up, dress down. Look incredibly chic, but also don’t look like you tried too hard. It’s just a really great balance, but clean lines and a fine aesthetic.” The cerulean blue pullover anorak adds a bright pop of color to staples like white, khaki, olive, and denim, which have enough wearability that could toss on a piece and head out the door. There is some overlap between the positioning of this line and Gap Studio as an elevated take to Gap classics, but Breitbard splices Gap Studio as more of a play for red carpet caché, with some looks they then commercialize. The multi-season partnership also points to the brand’s broader partnerships strategy, which aims to reestablish relevancy through brand partners with caché. Gap is extending these partnerships through marketing that’s less sales-y and more shareable content (“brandtainment” is the linguistic ligature du jour). By doing so, it’s goal is to drive cultural conversation. In short: organically become part of the chatter in the elusive group chat. At this point, the brand is building on the momentum of the previous year-and-a-half. (Its financial gains are still playing out: net sales were up 2% and store sales up 1% year over year, respectively.) Where Gap gets luxury fashion bonafides from Beckham, Beckham gets to capitalize on her existing growth and expand her reach. Victoria Beckham posted $170 million in group sales resulting in 19% growth in 2025, which includes fashion and beauty, (Breitbard noted her success in beauty in particular). Beckham told WWD last fall that she plans to open more stores in the U.S., which is the brand’s biggest market—this collab could be a preview for a lot of new consumers. Ultimately a collaboration is successful if it’s multidimensional. “[The Victoria Beckham collaboration] is going to hit new consumers who are paying attention to fashion and existing consumers, and consumers who have been with us for a while,” says Breitbard. While I can’t say that the Victoria Beckham brand has been in my group chats lately (that’s been dominated by fashion brands like Khaite, the Row, Still Here, and quests for vintage Prada and Manolo Blahniks, and even Gap itself), it does have a major online fan base: 3 million TikTok followers compared to Gap’s one million, and 33.4 million Instagram followers compared to Gap’s 3.7 million. “One of the things that I think we’re doing well when we do a remix, [is] there might be dimensions that the younger consumer really appreciates, and then there is also just artistry and creative that is very accessible and easy,” says Breitbard, which translates to online traction and cultural interest that are bigger than sales KPIs. He points to the Katseye campaign as an example. “They’re young. They have a young demographic. They have a huge fan base, but tens of thousands of people reposted that dance. We had 600 million views, and it wasn’t just from young [people]. It was so accessible and so uplifting to a very broad audience. That’s what we’ve done well,“ he says. “Victoria has younger consumers, but also consumers who have known her and followed her throughout her career and I think that’ll be inspiring very broadly.” He adds that Beckham’s cultural impact and personal relationship with her brand also fit with Gap’s story telling sensibilities. The story they plan together was too big for one drop. And a multi-season collaboration has to have a different business strategy. “The strategy for us here is to bring in the right amount to have excitement and energy and have it be accessible, but not bought with such depth that it’s meant to live for months and months in the store,” says Breitbard. “These things are meant to be moments of high heat, to draw attention, to have fun, to drive business. And so we are intending to do that for this drop and then another drop later in the year, versus it’s going to launch and it’s going to be in the store.” Beckham’s designer bonafides are another lens for potential Gap customers who haven’t thought of the brand yet to tap in. “Gap made new,” says Breitbard concisely of the brand’s strategy. “We want to continue to make Gap new and this is a great way to do that.” View the full article

For years, premium credit cards competed on points, perks, and airport lounge access. Now the lounge itself is becoming the strategy. Chase is the latest to double down. With new Sapphire Lounge locations planned—starting with one at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport and another at Los Angeles International Airport—the company is expanding its footprint at a moment when airport lounges have become one of the most competitive battlegrounds in consumer finance. The move follows a wave of recent openings that show how Chase is trying to differentiate not just on access, but on experience. “We’re really excited,” Dana Pouwels, head of airport lounge benefits at JPMorgan Chase, told Fast Company in an interview. “Dallas is opening this year, and Los Angeles will be opening within the next 12 months.” Specific details of those lounges are still under wraps, but the broader strategy is already visible, and it’s less about square footage and more about turning the airport into part of the destination. The lounge arms race is splitting in two directions To understand what Chase is doing, it helps to look at its biggest rival. American Express, which helped define the modern airport lounge with its Centurion network, is expanding in two directions at once. The company is building larger flagship lounges in key hubs like Boston and Dallas Fort Worth, while also rolling out smaller “Sidecar” spaces designed for travelers with limited time. That split reflects a simple reality. Not all travelers use lounges the same way. Some want a place to settle in for hours. Others want something closer to a high-end restaurant that they can move through more quickly, such as Capital One’s recently launched LGA lounge with José Andrés. Chase, at least for now, is leaning harder into the first camp, but with a twist. Designing for the destination, not just the delay If there is a defining feature of Chase’s lounges, it’s how much they try to feel like the city in which they’re located. The Las Vegas lounge, opened at the end of 2025, pushes that idea to its limit, leaning into theatrical design and playful details. “We went for bold and shimmering finishes, and it’s really just inspired by that city’s nightlife,” Pouwels said. The lounge includes a champagne parlor, a menu created with Momofuku founder David Chang, and cocktails that nod to the city’s history, like a jet-black libation topped with edible gummy dice. The Philadelphia lounge takes a different approach. There, Chase built a 20,000-square-foot space centered on the city’s beer culture, complete with a beer garden and a beer flight program that proved so popular it’s already been replicated by Chase in its Boston lounge. Beyond the food and drink offerings, the Philadelphia lounge also includes sports memorabilia, retro arcade machines, and one of the lounge network’s only TV-equipped spaces, a deliberate nod to local fan culture. The goal is consistency in quality, but not in sameness. Data decides where to go next Behind the scenes, Chase’s expansion is driven as much by data as design. “We’re always looking at the top places where our card members travel to and through, and also where they live,” Pouwels said. Los Angeles stands out as a priority, ranking as the second-most-booked destination for Chase cardholders in 2025. Dallas checks multiple boxes, serving as both a major travel hub and a city with a large Chase employee base. Still, demand alone is not enough. “The location has to be right in terms of the airport, but it also has to be right in terms of the terminal and the amount of space that’s available,” Pouwels said. That constraint helps explain why lounge growth, across the industry, has been steady but uneven. The post-pandemic traveler wants something different What is changing fastest is not where lounges are built, but what travelers expect from them. According to Pouwels, that shift started during the pandemic, when people grew accustomed to highly personalized environments at home and began expecting the same from travel. “Our lounges really have evolved to be more personalized experiences,” she said. That means more than just comfortable seating. Travelers are looking for discovery, whether that is a local chef, a regional drink, or a design element tied to the city. “They want to see something or learn something different every time they’re on a travel journey,” Pouwels said. American Express is responding to that demand by segmenting its lounge experience into multiple formats. Chase, meanwhile, is trying to build a sense of discovery into every location. Lounges as a loyalty engine The bigger play is not the lounge itself. It’s what the lounge represents. Chase sees these spaces as part of a broader travel ecosystem that starts before a trip is booked and continues through the airport and beyond. “We’re really focused on the end-to-end travel journey,” Pouwels said. That includes everything from trip planning to the airport experience itself, which has become a central touchpoint. “We really want to ensure that we’re bringing the local element of the city into the airport experience. . . . and really, the lounges are a natural extension of that, right? Enhancing every step of the card member’s travel journey,” Pouwels added. In other words, the airport is no longer just a stop along the way. It’s part of the product. What comes next With the Dallas lounge set to open this year and the one at LAX expected within the next 12 months, Chase’s new wave of lounges will test how far that strategy can go. The competitive pressure is only increasing. American Express continues to scale both larger and smaller formats. Other issuers, like Capital One, are experimenting with their own concepts. Travelers are gaining more access and, in turn, becoming more selective. For Chase, the bet is that the future of loyalty isn’t just about getting people to travel. It’s about owning more of the journey once they do. View the full article

If you know anything about Google Ads Asset Studio, you’ve heard the hype: “Google just killed every excuse for not running video ads.” “Total game changer! You don’t need a production budget anymore.” “Upload a few product images and get campaign-ready video in minutes.” From Google Ads > Tools > Asset Studio, you can build, manage, and scale images and videos across ad formats. The recent addition of Veo (Google’s AI video generation model) and Nano Banana Pro means you can now turn a handful of product images into full-motion video ads, for free, in no time. Apparently, video creative is no longer a constraint. But does Asset Studio actually change the game? Read on to find out if it’s worth your time. A tale of two Veos Google is its own biggest cheerleader for the power of its AI images and video. A recent Think with Google article showcases AI-generated ads for Cosmorama, a Greek travel agency. The videos are genuinely imaginative: think a flamenco dancer in the clouds, not just close-ups of headphones and sneakers. As part of learning Asset Studio, I set out to reverse-engineer their approach. I wasn’t trying to match the quality. I just wanted a proof of concept using Nano Banana and Veo. What I got instead was a series of dead ends. No scene-level control: I’d read that prompting plays a major role in video output. But there’s actually no prompt function for scenes in Asset Studio. You select an image from your Asset Library, and that’s it. Google decides how to animate it. There’s no way to direct motion, pacing, or narrative. Human performer restrictions: Video generation repeatedly failed with errors about “specific individuals.” I assumed that meant celebrities or real people. In practice, anything that resembled a human face — even AI-generated — triggered issues. The only assets that consistently worked were tightly cropped: hands, partial torsos, and abstract scenes. No real audio control: The Cosmorama video featured cinematic music. In Asset Studio, you’re limited to a small set of preloaded audio. There’s no way to upload custom music or meaningfully shape the sound layer. After so many false starts, I returned to the article. It mentioned Nano Banana and Veo by name. It never said they were used inside Asset Studio. When Veo 3 became available in Asset Studio, I didn’t realize how many limitations it would have, resulting in a completely different experience from the stand-alone version. CapabilityVeo (Full Version)Veo (Asset Studio)Control levelAdvanced control (API, model tiers, audio support)Simplified UI with fixed constraintsText-to-video promptingFull prompt control: – Scene – Camera movement – Lighting – Style – Subject/actionNoneUse casesProduction-ready pipelinesLightweight asset generationScene stitchingMulti-scene / narrative workflows (stitching and extensions)NoneHuman generationSupport (with policy constraints)Limited / often restricted What’s available may still help you create some great 10-second motion ads, but don’t go into it expecting flamenco dancing. 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 Does Asset Studio actually save time and effort? That depends: Whose time? Whose effort? For years, paid search managers had one move for visual assets: push back. “I need a vertical version.” “The first five seconds need to be more engaging.” “Can you remove the text overlay?” Creative’s been a constraint, but always someone else’s constraint to solve. Asset Studio changes that. You can edit, adapt, and post YouTube video ads, even without access to the brand’s YouTube channel. But the constraint doesn’t disappear. It just changes hands. Managing creative strategy and production — even within Asset Studio — takes more time than not owning that role. Using Asset Studio, I’ve manually adapted logos to new aspect ratios, generated variations that need further edits, and written voiceover scripts I never would have been involved in creating before. And since production can’t exist without a strategy, I’m spending more time on that too. This is definitely game-changer territory, but maybe not the way you’d hoped: If you’re a brand that would otherwise need a production team: This is likely faster and more affordable than the alternative, satisfying the velocity mandate. If you’re an agency absorbing this work on top of an existing scope: You’re likely taking on a new responsibility that wasn’t priced in. It removes a bottleneck and replaces it with ownership. If that shifts what your role actually covers, it’s worth revisiting your contract scope. Will this get me in trouble? AI ad compliance explained No federal laws in the U.S. prohibit the use of AI in ads. But that’s starting to change. New York recently passed a law requiring advertisers to clearly disclose when an ad includes a “synthetic performer,” and it’s set to take effect in June 2026. (Hat tip to Sam Tomlinson for his LinkedIn post flagging this.) Asset Studio doesn’t generate a visible watermark (such as the Gemini sparkle), and there’s no way to add an AI disclosure in Google Ads. A couple of things worth knowing if you’re using Asset Studio specifically: You’re likely covered for now. Asset Studio can’t generate content with human performers. As mentioned above, anything resembling a face consistently triggers errors. That means the New York law’s “synthetic performer” provision wouldn’t apply to what Asset Studio actually produces today. There’s a watermarking layer. Google uses SynthID to invisibly tag AI-generated images. If disclosure requirements become more explicit, that infrastructure already exists to support it. Asset Studio’s limitations may actually insulate you from the most immediate compliance concerns, but if you want to proactively disclose AI use for ethical reasons, there’s no built-in way to do that. Get the newsletter search marketers rely on. See terms. AI without the slop Josh Spanier, Google’s VP of AI and Marketing Strategy, has this advice for marketers running AI-generated ads: “Stop fearing ‘AI slop.’ Humans made bad ads long before robots.” Interesting suggestion, but not all of our clients and stakeholders will be quite so enthusiastic about paying to run AI slop ads. Fortunately, tight control of Asset Studio images and video is easier than you might think. Unlike AI Max, where AI-generated assets can run before you’ve reviewed them, Asset Studio output isn’t automatically published. From your Asset Library, you choose which assets to run. The rest never see the light of day. What you can produce in Asset Studio is somewhat limited, but here are some of the non-sloppy features I’m most excited about. Image fidelity: Product images that actually look like your product Asset Studio’s Nano Banana 2 is built specifically for product integrity. Unlike general-purpose AI image tools like Midjourney, it lets you add up to five reference images and effectively “locks” the product. Only the surrounding environment is up for reinterpretation. Trim: Cut right to the action Client-produced video is rarely built for YouTube. Long intros and slow builds lose viewers before the message lands. Trim lets you jump straight to the action, without going back to the client for a new cut. Voiceovers and templates: Sleeper tools For a tool suite that promises to replace a production department, Asset Studio’s constrained voiceover and template options may seem underwhelming. Voiceover only works with audio ads or pre-existing video, and templates feel like glorified slide decks. But the more I reviewed the landscape of YouTube video ads, the more I realized: most companies struggle with messaging more than production quality. Low budget isn’t limiting sales, but bad scripts and concepts are. Templates and voice-overs let you test the right words faster than waiting for a new creative brief and a published video. In one campaign I’m running, an Asset Studio video I built in under 30 minutes using a template is already showing 10x the CTR of the client’s best-performing video. Beating the control may not be the highest bar to clear, but it’s a start. 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 The output isn’t the outcome Is Asset Studio a game changer? Not yet. But I’m not sure it needs to be. Positioning it as real competition against global creative brands sets everyone up for disappointment. The more useful frame: it’s a tool suite that makes creative faster and more accessible for accounts that couldn’t justify a production budget before. It does shift some of that strategy and production work onto the paid search manager who didn’t traditionally live in that role. But the bigger question is: what does any of this actually lead to? The point of digital marketing creative isn’t to produce more assets. It’s to drive conversions and sales. That’s still what needs to be proven. Tests are running now. I’ll share what holds up, and what doesn’t. View the full article

The United States attacked and seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship it said had tried to evade its naval blockade near the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday, and Iran’s joint military command vowed to respond, throwing a fragile ceasefire into question days before it expires. It was the first interception since the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports began last week. Iran’s joint military command called the armed boarding an act of piracy and a ceasefire violation, the state broadcaster said. With the U.S.-Iran standoff over the strait sharpening and the ceasefire expiring by Wednesday, it was not clear where President Donald The President’s earlier announcement on new talks with Iran now stood. He had said U.S. negotiators would head to Pakistan on Monday. The uncertainty sent oil prices rising again. One of the worst global energy crises in decades threatened to deepen. The President on social media said a U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer in the Gulf of Oman warned the Iranian-flagged ship, the Touska, to stop and then “stopped them right in their tracks by blowing a hole in the engineroom.” U.S. Marines had custody of the U.S.-sanctioned vessel and were “seeing what’s on board!” It was not clear whether anyone was hurt. The U.S. Central Command, which didn’t answer questions, said the destroyer had issued “repeated warnings over a six-hour period.” Iranian state media suggest new talks won’t take place There was no comment from Iranian officials directly addressing The President’s announcement of talks. However, Iranian state media, without citing anyone beyond unnamed sources, issued brief reports suggesting that they would not happen. Minutes after the ship seizure was announced, Iranian state media reported on President Masoud Pezeshkian’s phone conversation with Pakistan’s prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, earlier Sunday. U.S. actions, including bullying and unreasonable behavior, have led to increased suspicion that the U.S. will repeat previous patterns and “betray diplomacy,” the reports cited Pezeshkian as saying. Two previous attempts at talks — last June and earlier this year — were interrupted by Israeli and U.S. attacks. On another phone call, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told his Pakistani counterpart, Ishaq Dar, that recent U.S. actions, rhetoric and contradictions were signs of “bad intentions and lack of seriousness in diplomacy,” Iran’s state broadcaster said. Pakistan did not confirm a second round of talks, but authorities had begun tightening security in Islamabad. A regional official involved in the efforts said mediators were finalizing preparations and U.S. advance security teams were on the ground. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss preparations with the media. The White House had said Vice President JD Vance, who led the first round of historic face-to-face talks over 21 hours last weekend, would lead the U.S. delegation to Pakistan with envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Iran on Saturday said it had received new proposals from the United States. While Iran’s chief negotiator, parliament speaker Mohammed Bagher Qalibaf, late Saturday said “there will be no retreat in the field of diplomacy,” he acknowledged a wide gap remained between the sides. It was unclear whether either side had shifted stances on issues that derailed the last round of negotiations, including Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, its regional proxies and the Strait of Hormuz. The President’s announcement on talks repeated his threats against Iranian infrastructure that have drawn widespread criticism and warnings of war crimes. If Iran doesn’t agree to the U.S.-proposed deal, “the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran,” he wrote. Iran wants to control strait until ‘war fully ends’ Iran early Monday warned it could keep up the global economic pain as ships remained unable to transit the strait, with hundreds of vessels waiting at each end for clearance. Security of the strait is not free and “the choice is clear: either a free oil market for all, or the risk of significant costs for everyone,” Mohammad Reza Aref, first vice president of Iran, said in a social media post calling for a lasting end to military and economic pressure on Tehran. Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil trade normally passes through the strait, along with critical supplies of fertilizer for the world’s farmers, natural gas and humanitarian supplies for places in dire need like Afghanistan and Sudan. Iran had announced the strait’s reopening after a 10-day truce between Israel and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon took hold on Friday. But then The President said the U.S. blockade “will remain in full force” until Tehran reaches a deal with the United States. Iran said it would again enforce restrictions it imposed early in the war. On Saturday, Iran fired at ships trying to transit. For the Islamic Republic, the strait’s closure is perhaps its most powerful weapon, inflicting political pain on The President. For the United States, the blockade squeezes Iran’s already weakened economy. Each side has accused the other of violating the ceasefire. Since most supplies to U.S. military bases in the Gulf region come through the strait, “Iran is determined to maintain oversight and control over traffic through the strait until the war fully ends,” Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said late Saturday. That means Iran-designated routes, payment of fees and issuance of transit certificates. The council has recently acted as Iran’s de facto top decision-making body. The war is now in its eighth week after the U.S. and Israel launched it on Feb. 28 during talks over Tehran’s nuclear program. At least 3,000 people have been killed in Iran, more than 2,290 in Lebanon, 23 in Israel and more than a dozen in Gulf Arab states. Fifteen Israeli soldiers in Lebanon and 13 U.S. service members throughout the region have been killed. Associated Press writer Munir Ahmed contributed to this report. An earlier version of this story corrected the name of the Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson to Esmail Baghaei. —Michelle L. Price, Samy Magdy and Sam Metz, Associated Press View the full article

The European Commission proposed Google share data with rival search engines and qualifying AI chatbots in the EU/EEA. The post Google May Have To Share Search Data With Rivals appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Many ecommerce brands misapply Meta-style thinking to Google Ads, leading to wasted spend and weak performance from poorly structured accounts. The post Winning Google Ads Campaign Structures For DTC Ecommerce appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Shares in the space-based internet provider AST SpaceMobile Inc (Nasdaq: ASTS) are sinking this morning after a major mishap occurred with the deployment of its latest satellite from Blue Origin’s most advanced rocket, the New Glenn. Here’s what you need to know. What’s happened? On Sunday, April 19, Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin space company launched its flagship rocket, the New Glenn, for the third time. The New Glenn is a partially reusable heavy-lift rocket aimed at directly competing with archrival SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. (This rivalry pits two of the world’s richest people against each other: Bezos, founder of Amazon, and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk.) All three of these rockets are designed to deliver payloads into space and for their boosters to safely land back on Earth after launch, for reuse in future missions. The New Glenn, named after the U.S. astronaut John Glenn, is much larger than SpaceX’s rockets, allowing it to carry larger payloads. However, despite this benefit, Blue Origin still plays second fiddle to SpaceX, the premier private spaceflight firm that governments and companies rely on to launch their satellites. Blue Origin had hoped that the third launch of the New Glenn would begin to change this perception. For that launch, the New Glenn carried AST SpaceMobile’s BlueBird 7 satellite into space. And while the New Glenn did successfully launch, and its booster did safely touch back down on Earth, the rest of the mission—the part that AST SpaceMobile was relying on—did not go as planned. BlueBird 7 satellite was misplaced in orbit The New Glenn’s payload was AST SpaceMobile’s BlueBird 7 satellite, which is part of a constellation the space-based internet provider is building to deliver broadband internet to smartphones on Earth. When it launches later this year, AST SpaceMobile’s satellite internet service will have the advantage of working with existing, unmodified mobile devices. In other words, you won’t need a special satellite internet-capable smartphone to get satellite internet service. But before AST SpaceMobile can bring that service back to people on Earth, it needs to put about 45 satellites into space. While Blue Origin’s New Glenn successfully launched the BlueBird 7 into space, the satellite decoupled from the launch vehicle and powered on, but it was placed in an incorrect orbit, making it unusable. In a statement after the failed deployment, AST confirmed the New Glenn placed the BlueBird 7 “into a lower than planned orbit by the upper stage of the launch vehicle,” adding that “the altitude is too low to sustain operations with its on-board thruster technology.” As a result, the BlueBird 7 will be “de-orbited.” Deorbiting is the process by which a satellite is brought back into Earth’s atmosphere in a controlled reentry so that it can burn up. AST says the cost of the satellite, which is estimated to be in the tens of millions, should be recoverable by the company’s insurance policy. What went wrong? For now, it’s too early to tell what went wrong with the BlueBird 7’s deployment. Yet the fact that something did go wrong will serve as a stain on Blue Origin’s capabilities, especially just at the time when the company was hoping to start stealing some of the thunder from its main rival, SpaceX. AST SpaceMobile has not given any explanation for why the BlueBird 7 was deployed into an incorrect orbit. As for Blue Origin, in a social media post, the company confirmed that “The payload was placed into an off-nominal orbit,” while noting it was “currently assessing and will update when we have more detailed information.” Fast Company has reached out to AST SpaceMobile and Blue Origin for comment. ASTS stock drops after failed deployment After news of the failed deployment broke, AST SpaceMobile’s stock price plunged. As of the time of this writing, ASTS shares are currently down nearly 15% in premarket trading to $72.75 each. Blue Origin is a private company, so its stock is not publicly traded on any market. Until last week, AST SpaceMobile’s stock price had seen notable growth for the year. As of Friday’s closing price, ASTS shares were up nearly 18% year to date, far outperforming the Nasdaq Composite’s 5.31%. Over the past 12 months, ASTS shares have surged more than 265%. Investors have high hopes for AST SpaceMobile. If it can successfully deploy its full constellation of satellites, it could bring space-based broadband internet to billions of existing mobile devices across the world. But in order for the company to do that, its satellites will need successful launches and deployments—and not a repeat of yesterday’s mishap. The company says it is continuing with its plans, with BlueBird satellites 8 to 10 scheduled to launch in the next 30 days. It says it expects to have approximately 45 satellites in orbit by the end of the year. View the full article

Google has outlined best practices that can increase the likelihood of "Read more" deep links appearing. The post Google Lists Best Practices For Read More Deep Links appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Trust in search is now dynamic, requiring ongoing authority building, content maintenance, and structured delivery to remain visible. The post What Search Engines Trust Now: Authority, Freshness & First-Party Signals appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

When we lift weights, do yoga, or perform exercises of any kind, there’s often an instructor chiming in to tell us to “engage our core.” But what does that really mean? It turns out there are two different ways of doing it and they produce opposite results, so it’s important to know which one you need to work on to accomplish your fitness goals. Here are the two ways, why they're different, and how to know which one you should do. Method 1: Pull your belly button to your spineThis one is probably familiar if you’ve ever done pilates or physical therapy. You’re told to pull your belly button toward your spine, or to think of “hollowing” or “drawing in” your stomach muscles. In this motion, you are still allowing yourself to breathe; you’re not sucking in your stomach, but rather, tightening it with your muscles. (If you watch in the mirror, you’ll notice your waist appears smaller when you do this. Sometimes people will also do it to pose for a picture or to create a leaner look while performing as a dancer.) The reason this is a common practice in many physical therapy, yoga, and pilates classes is that doing so activates your transverse abdominis, one of the lesser-known ab muscles. A study in 1999 found that people with low back pain were less likely to contract this muscle while moving their bodies, so physical therapists began to instruct people to contract this muscle to protect their backs from strain. Unfortunately, it turns out this move may not actually do much to protect your back after all, but it’s still popular advice. If you’re performing yoga or pilates moves this way, you’re in good company, and many physical therapists still favor this approach. But there's another way to engage your core, one that's more popular in activities like weightlifting. Method 2: Brace before lifting something heavyNow let’s talk about what to do if you’re lifting a heavy weight or preparing to perform some kind of forceful feat of strength. First, you’ll need to brace. (Bracing may also be a good alternative to hollowing your belly in physical therapy, but I’m not your PT, so talk it over with them.) When you brace for a lift, you’ll do something much like if you were expecting to get punched in the gut. If that's not an instinctive movement to you, imagine that you're lying relaxed on a bed, and you notice your cat or toddler about to jump on your belly. Try that now: you’ll probably hold your breath, contract your abs, and feel the muscles all around your waist tighten up. Rather than sucking in your belly, it may seem like you’re pulling your ribcage down toward your pelvis. This activates your transverse abdominis along with everything else. (If it feels a little like you’re bearing down for a bowel movement, you’re on the right track.) This is what powerlifters and other weight lifters mean when they talk about bracing for a lift. If you are wearing a belt, bracing will push the muscles of your midsection against the belt (not just in front, but all around). This process turns your torso into a solid, stable, pressurized column that can support a lot of weight (as in a squat), or hold its position steady as you apply force to it in another direction (as in a deadlift, where your torso is the link between your back, your leg muscles applying force, and your arms, which are supporting the barbell in your hands). Holding your breath and locking it in with a valsalva maneuver is typically part of this process. In some cases—for example, if you are pregnant or if you have certain medical conditions—your doctor may advise you not to hold your breath under pressure. You can still do your best to brace; just exhale slowly during the lift rather than holding your breath. (If you have health concerns, talk to your healthcare provider about whether this is appropriate for you.) When you’re trying to do a heavy lift in the gym, remember the distinction between these two ways of engaging your core, and do not try to hollow your belly or pull your navel to your spine, since that will have an effect opposite of the one you want. Save that motion for pilates class; when you’re under a barbell, make sure you brace. View the full article

When people discuss climate innovation, they often picture technology. Better batteries. Smarter grids. Carbon capture at scale. Those breakthroughs matter and are happening every day. But on this World Creativity and Innovation Day, I want to make a case for a different kind of innovation. One that is structural rather than technical, already underway, and quietly accelerating climate progress. It is, in a word, trust. A SYSTEM BUILT FOR FRAGMENTATION The social impact sector is filled with brilliant, committed people working on the climate crisis. It is also organized in a way almost perfectly designed to prevent the scale of impact the crisis demands. Many organizations undertaking critical work compete for the same funding. They guard their methodologies, protect their data, and duplicate efforts. They differentiate their missions so precisely that a funder reading a dozen can be forgiven for wondering whether any of them are solving the same problem. None of this is driven by bad faith. It is driven by survival. For decades, philanthropic funding has rewarded differentiation over collaboration and proprietary impact over shared learning. The result is a fragmented ecosystem applying fragmented resources to a problem that is anything but fragmented. The climate crisis does not respect organizational boundaries, and those of us working to solve it must stop acting as if it does. DESIGN FOR TRUST, NOT COMPETITION So what would it look like to redesign the system itself, not just the solutions within it? In 2023, my organization, Pyxera Global, joined an unusual experiment: the Collaborative for Systemic Climate Action. We did not know where it would lead, but something fundamental had to change. We began with 15 organizations with a combined 250+ years of experience. Three years later, the Collaborative has grown to 29 organizations, including Climate KIC, the Club of Rome, the B Team, the Green Africa Youth Organization, and the Amazon Sacred Headwaters Alliance. All are united by a shared dedication to break down the silos that have long limited what any one of them could accomplish alone. Each organization committed to driving the systems change needed to build inclusive and regenerative societies. That meant leaving organizational ego at the door. It meant rethinking power dynamics and stepping away from traditional partnership models. Most importantly, it meant sharing what is usually protected: intellectual property, business models, and even funder relationships. This level of openness carries real risk. For any single organization, it could be destabilizing. But the members of the Collaborative believe that the scale of the climate crisis outweighs institutional self-protection, and that meaningful progress requires taking risks together. PROOF THAT IT WORKS And the results are beginning to speak for themselves. Together, the Collaborative has secured significant funding from major institutional donors, including the Oak Foundation, Hans Wilsdorf Foundation, and Quadrature Climate Foundation—partners that individual organizations might not have reached on their own. It has hosted joint thought leadership and fundraising events at global convenings such as the World Economic Forum, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, and Climate Week, creating a unified platform that amplifies collective knowledge and impact. It has also seeded more than a dozen systems-change initiatives across geographies as varied as Ghana, India, Ireland, New Mexico, and Brazil. Many of these efforts would have struggled to get off the ground independently, but through the Collaborative they are now positioned to attract the additional funding needed to scale. Just as important is the infrastructure behind them. Partners convene twice a year for deep sensemaking and portfolio review, and meet weekly in virtual sessions to stay aligned, build trust, and continuously learn from one another. I have spent more than two decades working on partnerships and 38 years in the social impact sector. I thought I understood collaboration. What I have seen in the Collaborative for Systemic Climate Action is something different. The level of trust, and the results already emerging from it, go beyond anything I have experienced before. This does not mean it is frictionless. Conflicts arise. Old habits resurface. Egos occasionally reenter the room. But even with those tensions, the trajectory is clear: Something fundamentally different is taking shape. This is what structural innovation looks like. It is as disruptive in its domain as any new technology. World Creativity and Innovation Day exists to celebrate creativity in all its forms. Redesigning how climate philanthropy operates, how knowledge is shared, and how trust is built at scale is creative work. It is not a new invention. It is a new way of organizing human effort. WHY THIS MATTERS NOW That shift is becoming urgent. Public sector climate funding is shrinking. Multilateral institutions are under increasing political pressure. Corporate ESG commitments are being quietly scaled back. In this environment, the traditional nonprofit response will not close the gap. What is needed is not just more funding, but better alignment of existing resources. That is where trust becomes a force multiplier. The Collaborative’s approach is simple in concept and radical in practice: Reduce the friction between organizations that should be natural allies, so that existing resources can move faster and go further. THE REAL BOTTLENECK The Collaborative is one proof point, but the model itself is replicable. We describe it as “mycelium,” a networked system that connects and strengthens everything it touches. It requires a convener willing to do the unglamorous work of building relationships and holding space for shared ownership. It requires funders willing to invest in connective tissue, not just individual projects. And it requires leaders willing to believe that their impact will be greater within a strong ecosystem than within a weaker one they control. For companies and philanthropists looking to maximize their climate commitment impact, this is where the leverage lies. Not in funding a single organization, but in enabling many organizations to operate as one. The hardest material in climate action is not carbon. It is the institutional ego and competitive reflex that keep aligned actors apart. Building the conditions for trust at scale may be one of the most important challenges, and opportunities, in climate action today. Deirdre White is the CEO of Pyxera Global. View the full article

You’ve audited your client’s website and compiled performance data. You’ve identified what’s working, what can be improved, and your recommendations for future strategies. But how do you turn that data into a presentation that’s easy to explain and builds trust? Start with stories. Storytelling isn’t just for entertainment. It’s how people make sense of information. That’s what makes it so effective for data presentation. One of the simplest ways to structure that story is the three-act structure. It’s a familiar framework used everywhere, from Aristotle’s Poetics to Star Wars. What is the three-act structure? The three-act structure is a simple framework that shows how a story moves from beginning to middle to end. It shows how a protagonist moves from their starting point to a meaningful change. Applied to data storytelling, it helps you organize your insights, position your client as the main character (the protagonist), and clearly show what happens next. While similar to the five-point narrative arc, this framework is organized into three manageable sections: what the story is about, what happens when the main character is introduced to conflict, and how that conflict is resolved. 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 Act 1: The beginning This is where the protagonist’s norm and conflict — the issue the main character is meant to face, also known as the antagonist — are established. The protagonist wants something, and the conflict is holding them back from what they want. An event or circumstance occurs that incites the protagonist into action. The background is established, the goals are defined, and the audience is invested in the protagonist’s success. Act 2: The middle The story is developed, and tension builds. The protagonist experiences roadblocks caused by the conflict/antagonist that hinder them from their ultimate goal. Conflict arises until it can no longer be ignored, causing a pivotal moment that leads into the final act. Act 3: The end The narrative is affected by the change in Act 2, bringing the story to a final showdown between the protagonist and the conflict/antagonist, ultimately resulting in a resolution. The protagonist may find closure or know what path lies ahead (this may set the stage for a sequel). The three-act structure helps you understand website data on a deeper level. It also prepares the data to be presented to your client in a way that places them at the center of the story. Using the three-act structure to identify your data’s narrative Why bother using the three-act structure as a framework for strategy analysis? It builds trust, showing your client that you’re going on a journey alongside them. You and your client are on the same team, with the same destination in mind: their success, even if the data isn’t communicating immediate results. The application of the three-act structure to data storytelling happens in three steps. Step 1: Briefly recap the existing strategies, establish previous wins, and identify the challenge currently affecting performance. This sets the baseline of Act 1. Step 2: Explain the roadblocks and how they stand in the way of the overall strategy’s success. This parallels the growing conflict found in the structure’s Act 2. Step 3: Recommend the next steps and how you plan to address the conflict. Show what success looks like by providing examples of how your recommendations fit the narrative of your client’s goals. This is Act 3, the resolution of the structure. Get the newsletter search marketers rely on. See terms. Where is your client’s story in the three-act structure? Your client is the protagonist of their story. To work more effectively together, you need to communicate to your client that you’re invested in the story of their success. At the heart of each data set is the story of how your client is impacted. When you communicate what the data is saying, position yourself as the guide who helps the main character get where they need to go. An example of applying the three-act structure framework to data analysis and presenting the data’s narrative would look like this: ActGoalScenarioApproach1Set the stage, center your client as the protagonist while introducing the challenge as the antagonist.Your client’s website has received a substantial increase in organic traffic as a result of your most recent strategy, but is experiencing a high bounce rate on select pages.Recap the strategy that led to the traffic increase and summarize the outcome from a high-level perspective.2Identify the conflict, potential roadblocks, and related stakes.The high bounce rate is preventing your website from experiencing consistent traffic flow. Explain why a high bounce rate is detrimental to overall performance, and connect the affected pages to the overall strategy.3Recommend strategies and outline next steps.Your client’s high bounce rate indicates low page speed due to large images that take a long time to load.Help the client visualize how best practices lead to better outcomes. Recommend image compression as a next step. The conclusion doesn’t always mean the end of the story Finding the story in your data — and communicating it clearly — is how you build trust with clients. Clients don’t want industry jargon. They want to feel seen, understood, and that they’ve entrusted their digital marketing success to the right person. Stories, and the connections they form, get them there. Reaching the conclusion of your data’s narrative isn’t the end, but the beginning: the start of strategy implementation, of collaborative partnerships, and of greater results. When looking at data, you and your client are on a journey together. A downward trend in your data doesn’t mean your story is over, and an upward trend doesn’t mean there’s no hope for a sequel. In either case, a new journey (your next strategy) can begin. View the full article

Google is reportedly testing opening search results in a new window. Yes, there is a setting to turn this on or off, but the setting is turned off and Google is testing opening these clicks in a new window.View the full article

The war is currently more likely to escalate than to be resolved by negotiationView the full article

Google is testing showing video ads within the local pack ads. This is also known as immersive map view videos, I am told.View the full article

A Reddit thread asks if there are any issues with Google Search handling a domain name that has a single letter change in the domain name from another domain name. John Mueller from Google said that usually this is not a problem from Google Search.View the full article

Everyone is talking about GEO. Agencies are selling it. Brands are buying it. On its face, the pitch makes sense: the search-based internet that powered the digital economy for decades is giving way to generative AI answers. The pressure to act is real. So is the trap: you’re going to start paying for another lease on someone else’s internet. GEO is a tactic for a bigger and more important strategy. That strategy is owning your audience. The problem is that this new tactic is generating too much buzz and money for brands to ignore. McKinsey recently released a report arguing that $750B in US revenue will flow through AI-powered search by 2028. If you want your brand in on that revenue, you must invest in so-called generative engine optimization (GEO) or answer engine optimization (AEO). Both are designed to convert user prompts into clear references of a specific brand. And both are important. Half of consumers already use AI-powered search engines. The shift is real. And optimizing for it isn’t wrong, it’s just not enough. The recommended response from industry leaders and agency directors is the same mistake the industry has been making for fifteen years: renting space from a landlord who can change the terms at any time. GEO is not a new strategy. It’s a new lease on the same building. And we all know how badly that can go. HubSpot is the cautionary tale nobody in this industry wants to sit with. They built one of the most sophisticated content operations in the business, dominated SEO for years, and then watched their search traffic fall off a cliff when Google changed how it surfaces results. They were renting. When the landlord renovated, they lost the apartment. McKinsey’s own data shows that a brand’s owned content comprises only 5 to 10 percent of what AI search actually references. The rest comes from affiliates, user-generated content, publishers, and sources the brand has no control over. So the optimization play — clean up your content, sharpen your headings, structure your data for LLMs — is optimizing a minority stake in the outcome. Data like that kind of gives away the game. Your GEO strategy amounts to tinkering at the margins while the real action happens elsewhere. The Infrastructure Is More Fragile Than the Pitch Admits There’s another problem nobody selling GEO is talking about. The web is fighting back. Independent developers have built tools — with names like Nepenthes and Iocaine, after a carnivorous plant and a fictional poison — designed to trap AI crawlers in infinite loops of garbage data, wasting their resources and corrupting their training sets. One developer reported eliminating 94 percent of bot traffic to his site the day he deployed one. Cloudflare and others now sell bot-mitigation and anti-scraping tools to throttle AI crawlers at scale. The resistance has gone commercial. The signal-to-noise ratio inside LLM training data is getting worse as publishers grow more hostile to being scraped without compensation. Any strategy built entirely on AI systems accurately surfacing your content is betting on a supply chain with an active sabotage problem. That is a risk the GEO consultants are not pricing in. What Building Looks Like Discoverability is not the end goal. It’s a byproduct of building something worth finding. There is a distinction between renting attention — optimizing your way into algorithms you don’t control — and building owned media infrastructure that creates direct relationships with audiences. Red Bull Media House is the most cited example because it’s the most extreme: a beverage company that became a legitimate media operation. The audience relationship it built doesn’t reset every time an algorithm updates. That’s the point of the investment. The brands doing this right are creating content tailored to how people actually search on each platform — what they’re trying to accomplish, what format serves them in that moment — and their GEO and SEO improve as a consequence of being genuinely useful. Useful first, optimized second. The Agentic Future Already Blinked McKinsey’s study ends with a prediction that LLMs will eventually act as agents making purchase decisions on behalf of consumers. Most GEO pitches build toward the same vision. So it’s worth examining what happened when OpenAI actually tried to build it. In September 2025, OpenAI launched Instant Checkout — buy products directly inside ChatGPT, Shopify and Etsy as launch partners. Users flooded in to research products. Almost none of them completed a purchase there. Out of Shopify’s millions of merchants, only a small fraction of eligible merchants went live with the integration. By early 2026, OpenAI pulled the checkout feature back, routing transactions to retailer apps instead. The agentic shopping future collided with actual human behavior and lost. People used the AI to get smarter about what to buy. Then they went somewhere they trusted to buy it. That is the whole argument. The brands that will survive AI-mediated discovery are the ones that have already built the kind of trust and direct relationship that makes someone choose them as the destination — not as the result of an optimization score, but because they earned it. No amount of schema markup builds that. No weekly GEO audit cycle builds that. Those are maintenance tasks. Infrastructure is something different. Stop renting. Start building. The landlords are getting worse, and the leases are getting shorter. View the full article

Are ChatGPT ads allowing advertisers to go after competitors with greater specificity, or is this just a topical fluke? View the full article

The folks at the Internet Archive are having issues with archiving the web. Something it has done since 1996 and is such a foundational website that it is sad to see. That being said, Fabrice Canel from Microsoft Bing wants to help.View the full article

Carroll Tower, a 194-apartment public housing development in Providence, Rhode Island, was built in 1974. For more than 50 years, residents there relied on electric baseboards for heating and their own window air conditioners, if they had them, in the summers. But now, the entire building has been retrofitted with a modern HVAC system: 277 heat pumps from Gradient, a San Francisco-based climate tech startup, will heat and cool the property. The heat pumps were installed as part of a $1.25 million public-private project between the Providence Housing Authority, Gradient, the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources, energy consulting firm Abode Energy Management, and Envr Air, which works to accelerate HVAC electrification. It is among the largest completed heat pump installations in the United States. Installation across the entire building took just 12 days, with no drilling or rewiring required. Since heat pumps are highly efficient, the installation means less energy use and fewer emissions for Carroll Tower. The upgrade could save the building 450,000 kilowatt-hours, or about $94,500 in energy costs, a year, according to a preliminary estimate, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 219 tons annually—equivalent to a gas car driving about 500,000 miles. A solution for vintage buildings Residential buildings account for about 20% of the country’s carbon emissions, and heating and cooling is responsible for over half of those buildings’ energy use. HVAC systems can also leak natural gas or refrigerants, which are potent greenhouse gases. Electrifying those systems can drastically slash emissions. Heat pumps are a particularly promising climate solution; even when they rely on an electricity grid powered by fossil fuels, they still cut tons of emissions a year compared to other heating systems. In 2022, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) launched a “Clean Heat for All” challenge, asking manufacturers to develop an electric, easy-to-install heating and cooling system. Gradient was one winner (along with China’s Midea) and will provide 10,000 of its window heat pumps to NYCHA buildings. Those projects are rolling, but some buildings have already received the heat pumps. A public housing development in Queens got 72 heat pumps in 2023. That led to an 87% reduction in energy use, with the development’s energy costs cut in half. Gradient has since worked with housing authorities in Boston; Chelsea and Lynn, Massachusetts; and more. Its heat pumps work especially well in “older, vintage buildings,” like those found in public housing authorities, says Gradient founder and CTO Vince Romanin. These can be buildings where extensive upgrades are difficult (such projects may require asbestos mitigation, for example), and where upgrades are sorely needed because there are no current cooling systems or the heat fails frequently—both of which can be health risks to residents. ‘You can get your window back’ Carroll Tower is one of two elderly-only buildings in the Providence Housing Authority. The average age of residents there is 71. Before this upgrade, not every resident had air conditioning; in the summers, the building would turn certain spaces into cooling stations. Now, everyone will have access to their own AC. “A lot of them are happy,” says Larry D’Alfonso, an 81-year-old resident and president of the tenant council. The Gradient units, he adds, are “very quiet.” Depending on the apartment layout or building heating system, heat pumps can have other benefits too. If someone’s apartment uses steam radiators for which they can’t set their own temperatures, a Gradient retrofit allows for personal temperature control. The units also come with a standard air filter, with an ability to upgrade it. Romanin adds that the heat pumps, which hang over a windowsill, can make a unit more comfortable because they don’t block that window like an AC unit would. They’re also quieter than clanking radiators. “Human comfort is way more than just the temperature in the room,” he says. “The idea that you can get your window back and get more natural light is actually important to someone’s comfort. The noise profile is actually important to someone’s comfort.” Easy installation Then there’s the installation. For general HVAC systems, installers may need to drill holes into walls or run refrigerant lines or ductwork through buildings. Even less elaborate systems, like ductless mini-splits, can still require the handling of refrigerants or wiring, often requiring a licensed contractor. Gradient installers don’t need to be HVAC certified. The heat pumps plug into a standard 120-volt outlet. “Our system is the first I know of that can electrify [publicly owned] buildings without having to do any work on the facade,” Romanin says. Installing 277 heat pumps throughout Carroll Tower’s 194 apartments and common areas took only 12 days, without displacing any residents. (Some units may have more than one heat pump depending on their square footage). That saves building owners on retrofit costs, too. D’Alfonso confirms that the installation was “very fast.” The installers were also “tremendous to the tenants, very courteous,” he adds. The only complaints he’s heard so far from his neighbors were that some people had to move their furniture around to accommodate the heat pumps, which stick out about 9 inches from the wall. “They gotta get used to them,” he says. “It’s something new.” View the full article

Hello and welcome to Modern CEO! I’m Stephanie Mehta, CEO and chief content officer of Mansueto Ventures. Each week this newsletter explores inclusive approaches to leadership drawn from conversations with executives and entrepreneurs, and from the pages of Inc. and Fast Company. If you received this newsletter from a friend, you can sign up to get it yourself every Monday morning. These are difficult times for elite universities. Controversies over the handling of pro-Palestine protests on campus cost several school presidents their jobs; under the The President administration, federal research grants have plunged; and just 42% of Americans polled by Gallup in 2025 reported confidence in higher ed, down from 57% in 2015, the first year the poll was conducted. Just this month, Yale University released a report acknowledging prestigious schools’ role in losing the public’s trust. So why is Daniel Diermeier, the chancellor of Vanderbilt University, thoroughly enjoying a role that has frustrated or felled many of his peers? Diermeier, who became chancellor (the equivalent of a CEO) in 2020, believes he’s cracked the code to leading unwieldy institutions: Avoid politicization and stick to one’s core purpose. And those are lessons he thinks corporate leaders should apply to running businesses. By many measures, Diermeier’s approach is working. Undergraduate applications rose 12.6% in 2025, and the school saw a 20% jump in early-decision applicants—a metric of a school’s desirability. Indeed, Vanderbilt now admits just 4.7% of applicants, making it more selective than Cornell or Dartmouth. Under Diermeier’s direction, the Nashville-based school is expanding, with a new campus opening in New York City and campuses planned in West Palm Beach, Florida; Chattanooga, Tennessee; and San Francisco. Diermeier also has his detractors. A February Chronicle of Higher Education feature called him the sector’s “most divisive” chancellor, noting that Diermeier’s embrace of institutional neutrality has been seen by critics as a capitulation to “bad-faith critiques” of universities. Before arriving at Vanderbilt, Diermeier was provost at the University of Chicago, whose “Chicago Principles” on freedom of expression mirror Vanderbilt’s Statement of Principles. Prior to becoming provost, he was a University of Chicago dean and professor, where he taught and researched crisis and reputation management. I sat down with Diermeier to talk about how he thinks about leadership in a polarized moment—and what his experience running a major research university might mean for CEOs facing the same turbulent terrain. Edited excerpts follow: MODERN CEO: Every generation feels like it’s living in extraordinary times. How would you characterize the current environment in which you’re operating? DIERMEIER: There are [some] big forces shaping our lives. One, we’re living in an age of rapidly accelerating technology. Of course, AI is on everyone’s mind, but the next big thing is right around the corner with quantum [computing], and that is transforming sectors and industries. Number two, the changing geopolitical environment has shifted dramatically. I remember an important CEO saying, maybe 10 or 15 years ago, that the great challenge for our generation was to “get globalization right,” and now people are talking about decoupling. The third one is the erosion of trust in major institutions, accompanied by a tremendous polarization of society, which is maybe the fourth—those are the three or four things that are shaping the leadership environment, whether you’re in business, a university, or government. MODERN CEO: Trust is a big topic. How do you think about trust as a leader, and what are some of the things you’re working on to restore trust in higher education? DIERMEIER: There’s a global erosion of trust across the board, and that’s one of the big findings from the Edelman Trust Barometer. The erosion of trust in universities has been more pronounced than in most other institutions. People on the left worry about inequality and that universities are enhancing inequality. The main concern is that we’re politically biased to the left and that we’re “woke machines.” And then everybody is worried about affordability. My sense is you have to address these concerns head-on and ask yourself: Is this a communication problem or a real [systemic] problem? Universities are a large segment with different flavors, but at leading research universities, there has been a dramatic increase in financial aid. The net cost for families has actually gone down over the last 10 to 15 years, especially for families at lower income levels. If you go to Vanderbilt and your family makes less than $150,000 [a year], it’s free. So that’s a perception problem. On inequality, people who graduate from our universities who come from the lowest income segment and those who come from the highest income segment, if they both have an economics undergraduate degree, they have the same expected lifetime income. There’s a high correlation between kids’ income and parents’ income, but if you graduate from a selective, large research university, your lifetime income and the lifetime income of somebody from a very different background is the same. So, the question is, “How do you get in?” We have debates on admissions, but inequality in education doesn’t start at age 18. The problem for us is how do we make sure that we get qualified applicants from across the spectrum to apply. On the political bias question—there, I think we have a real problem. I think universities have drifted toward one side of the political spectrum, and I think there has been mission drift. The willingness for universities to take sides in political battles has clearly increased during the last 10 years, and it has really hurt them. You need to be clear about what your purpose and your values are—and don’t be dragged into other things that are really beyond the purpose of what you do. MODERN CEO: At a research university, how do you navigate an environment where [accepted science] on vaccines or climate change are politicized? DIERMEIER: It’s really critical to be very clear and explicit about the values and the purpose that you’re engaged in. I’ll give you a different example that shows how we’re thinking about it. We’re in the business of generating knowledge and then conveying it to the next generation of students and to the public. We are not in the business of telling people how to think. Not in the business of taking sides on political or policy issues as an institution. Our job is to encourage debate, not to settle it. So, let’s take an example. The Dobbs [Supreme Court] decision on abortion rights in the United States [that overturned Roe v. Wade]: Some universities issued statements saying the Dobbs decision was inconsistent with the values of the university. But in my law school, I have faculty who believe Dobbs was badly argued, and I have faculty who believe Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided on jurisprudential grounds—even if, from a policy standpoint, they’d agree that access to abortion should be legal and safe. And we have people who say we need a compromise in the middle. The university needs to be a place where those views can be debated freely. We are a platform where questions on climate change can be freely debated and where faculty can do the work and provide decision makers with information and knowledge. MODERN CEO: You’ve said operating in hyper-polarized environments is increasingly the reality for CEOs broadly. What’s your advice to them? DIERMEIER: Be clear about who you are, your purpose, your values, and your positioning—you have to embrace that part. [Beyond] leading people and execution capabilities, managing your board—things that typically are seen as being part of the CEO’s toolkit—the ability now to operate in hyper-polarized and politicized environments is really critical. MODERN CEO: Last question: You once wrote that being a university chancellor is the best job in the world. Do you still feel that way? DIERMEIER: One hundred percent! You have to be an academic leader. Then you’re basically the CEO of a mid-sized enterprise, and it’s a pretty complicated business. It has a research and education mission, then you have an asset management component, which is the endowment. We also have a $3.5 billion real estate portfolio. On top of that, you have college athletics, which is a whole other thing. And the third piece is you really have to be a politician. You have to connect with your [municipal] mayor, with the council, with the local council, with the state, with the governor, with the federal government. These are entirely different skill sets, and makes this job challenging. Read more: the ABCs of leadership Ignition Schools drive entrepreneurship and innovation Be a better leader in today’s challenging environment How to build a leadership legacy View the full article

About 20 minutes into the Devil Wears Prada—the 2006 David Frankel film that constitutes one of the most important and perfect films ever produced (please hold all dissent)—Meryl Streep delivers a critical speech to Anne Hathaway that encompasses the plot’s primary tension. The moment, which may come up in the sequel (an Instagram post from a professional dyeing service in New York suggests this may be the case), comes as Streep’s Miranda, the frigid chief editor of a top fashion magazine is pondering items that might be featured for an upcoming issue, while surrounded by her stressed-out underlings. Also in the office is Andie (Hathaway), a comparatively disheveled new assistant who has somehow landed a coveted role at the esteemed Vogue stand-in, diligently taking notes on the runthrough. When an underling presents two blue belts to Miranda for consideration and notes that it’s tough to choose between them, Andie snortles and says, “Both of those belts look exactly the same to me. I’m still learning about this stuff.” This, of course, is precisely the wrong thing to say. Up until this point in the movie, Andie has hid, very poorly and under the guise of bubbly unfamiliarity, that she thinks the fashion industry is vain and stupid. Miranda, intelligent and ever-perceptive, has picked up on Andie’s covert derision, and uses her blue belt faux pas to delve into a crisp and critical evisceration of Andie’s attitude. You can just watch this scene online, but Streep’s dismantling of her assistant is summarized below. That “lumpy blue sweater,” she explains, is not just blue but cerulean, a color that traveled from designer collections, from Oscar de la Renta to Yves Saint Laurent, down through the market until it landed, inevitably, in Andie’s closet. What Andie shrugs off as “stuff” is a system she already participates in, albeit passively—and it’s one that generates countless jobs and millions of dollars. “It’s sort of comical how you think that you’ve made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry,” Miranda tells a now totally silent and humbled Andie, “when, in fact, you’re wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room… from a pile of ‘stuff.’” Andie’s implicit position, throughout the film, is that while she’s interning at a fashion magazine, she sort of thinks the industry is silly, even stupid, and she’s a reluctant—though perky—observer, not a participant. Miranda, of course, thinks the fashion industry is all there is. But that’s not Miranda’s point. Her point is that we all wear clothes. To think you’re not somehow not participating in fashion, however saintly or nefarious, is inane. Here’s where AI comes in. Now, a cerulean belt is not a large language model, and Miranda is not Sam Altman, but the scene is illustrative of a reflex by some to believe that they can simply excise the influence of a billion-dollar industry on their lives—and then feel morally superior for it. A small but loud community of AI skeptics is taking the position, like Andie, that AI is not something they’re participating in, sort of stupid, and even something to look down on. This community (which tends to thrive on Bluesky) seem to believe that AI ranges from silly, uncool, stupid, and most importantly, something ignorable that they are not using. AI will either be very good or very bad for humanity, but there’s probably no universe where AI is just a silly and vapid nothingburger we can roll our eyes at and ridicule. This has even emerged into a sort of purity test, where it’s become common (among some) to believe that using AI is like a personal flaw and nothing more than dimwit tomfoolery. Even in more thought-through circles, there’s a developing emphatic sense of moral outrage over the use of AI, and urging technological renunciation instead. One problem with this attitude is that it falls into the well-worn trap of an abstinence-only approach, pushing people to restrain themselves from making a poor choice when the deluge of social pressures and personal desire shepherd toward making that exact choice. Lest we forget that most of us are workers, and many people will use AI because their bosses tell them to, not, like, for fun. (Indeed, a Gallup poll recently found half of all workers in the US now use AI). This approach also suggests that a consumer choice is the solvent to a systemic threat. Calls for ardent vegetarianism, and urging people to flick off the lights when we leave the house, did not solve climate change (which is ongoing). The same is and will be true of AI and the misguided social trend that seems to hinge on shaming people who might do so. Miranda’s monologue, though, illustrates a second problem with this line of thinking. Yes, you can decide not to use ChatGPT, and perhaps this might give you a momentary feeling of organic cognition, free of AI’s influence. And that might be worth it, alone, for preserving your ability to think clearly. But know the internet is already polluted with the output of large language models, and that you are imbibing this output everyday. It is true that you do not need to personally pay for a subscription to Claude, but the architecture of our digital system means that large language models are already a rank-and-file feature of email software, customer service bots, in media production, and so much more. ChatGPT and search engines will eventually converge into the same thing, and they are, in fact, racing to the finish line to do so. AI is reshaping our energy production systems and our politics. The question is not whether you’ll have the soup, but whether you realize you, and the rest of us, are already swimming in the soup. Considered another way, this approach appears to be the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand when the very challenge you are facing is a sandstorm. Inconveniently, systematic threats require systemic solutions, not performing purity politics. If your revulsion is to AI is that it’s corrupting our ability to think independently—which it definitely is—ridiculing those who use the consumer version of ChatGPT is a very small and more importantly ineffectual hill to die on. View the full article