All Activity

Stop obsessing over 500 searches. This week's Ask An SEO shows how to decode keyword intent and turn Google Keyword Planner into an SEO asset. The post Ask An SEO: Should We Optimize For Keywords With High Search Volume Or Competition? appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Separate accounts, separate campaigns, or one shared setup? It’s often the first question marketers face when launching Google Ads in multiple countries or languages. The structure you choose lays the groundwork for how well you can: Localize ads. Manage regional budgets. Analyze performance by market. While consolidation simplifies PPC management, it can limit your ability to connect with diverse audiences. Full separation allows for maximum customization but can lead to administrative overhead and missed efficiencies. Striking the right balance is key to aligning effort with impact while maintaining centralized data. Effective localization can be the difference between resonating with international audiences and missing valuable conversions. This article tackles strategies for localizing Google Ads campaigns, from choosing the right account structure to advanced cultural adaptations that drive performance across global markets. Why localization matters: Beyond simple translation Localization goes far beyond basic translation. While translation focuses on converting text from one language to another, localization adapts your message to be culturally relevant and appropriate for your target audience. This includes: Cultural references: Ensuring idioms, metaphors, and examples resonate with the local audience. Purchasing behaviors: Adapting to regional buying patterns and preferences. Visual elements: Modifying images and design to align with cultural expectations. Currency and measurement units: Using local formats for prices, sizes, and distances. Regulatory compliance: Adhering to regional advertising regulations and requirements. Different spellings: For example German is spoken in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, but while Germany and Austria have an “ß”, in Switzerland a double s “ss” is used. Another example is British versus American English, such as “colour” (British English) and “color” (American English). Start with the right account structure The foundation of a successful campaign localization begins with a well-planned account structure. Expanding into multiple markets? How you organize your Google Ads accounts greatly impacts tracking performance, managing budgets, and localizing campaigns. One of the fastest strategies for managing multi-market campaigns is bundling markets that share the same language. This approach streamlines content creation and reduces translation workload. For example: Group all English-speaking markets (U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia) to leverage similar ad copy. Combine Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. Cluster German-speaking regions (Germany, Austria, parts of Switzerland). Language bundling allows your team to create a single set of compelling ads that can be deployed across multiple markets with minimal adaptation, saving time and resources while maintaining message consistency. While language bundling offers significant efficiency advantages, it does come with trade-offs worth considering. The emphasis on speed and streamlined management sometimes means compromising on certain details: Currency variations: When grouping markets solely by language, you may overlook important currency differences that affect bidding strategies and budget allocations. Exchange rate fluctuations can impact campaign performance reporting across regions sharing a language but using different currencies. Regional language nuances: Even within the same language, regional spelling conventions (American vs. British English, European vs. Latin American Spanish) and cultural references may vary. A bundled approach might not capture these subtle but important distinctions that could resonate more effectively with local audiences. These limitations don’t invalidate the language bundling strategy. Still, they highlight the importance of balancing operational efficiency and market-specific customization to achieve optimal campaign performance across all territories. Currency considerations: The critical constraint While language bundling is fast to implement, it’s essential to remember that Google Ads permits only one currency per account. This limitation often becomes the deciding factor in your account structure, sometimes overriding language groupings. For instance, while the U.K., U.S., and Australia share English as their primary language, they use different currencies (GBP, USD, and AUD respectively). This means you’ll need separate accounts for each, despite the language similarity. Yes, Google has currency conversion functionality. However, it often leads to reporting issues, mixing too many currencies into one account. Consider these strategic approaches: Currency-first grouping: Create accounts based on currency requirements first, then create language-specific campaigns within each account Regional hubs: Establish regional account hubs (e.g., EMEA, APAC, Americas) that balance both currency and language considerations Major market separation: Maintain individual accounts for your largest markets while bundling smaller markets with shared currencies When structuring your accounts with both language and currency in mind: Develop standardized naming conventions that clearly indicate language and currency for each campaign. Create shared asset libraries for language groups to maintain consistency across accounts. Implement cross-account tracking to evaluate performance across language clusters regardless of account separation. Use labels to quickly identify and manage campaigns targeting the same language across different accounts. A well-planned account structure that considers both language and currency gives you a strong foundation. There’s no universal ideal structure for multi-market campaigns. Your approach should be guided by market distribution and business goals. Assess where your volume concentrates. If you have one dominant market with minimal activity in similar markets, bundling makes sense despite some localization sacrifices. However, when significant volume flows across multiple markets, invest in proper market-specific structures that support long-term scaling. The right balance weighs immediate efficiency against future growth potential across your target regions. Setting up localized campaigns in Google Ads When setting up localized campaigns, ask yourself about: Language. Location. Currency. The checklist below can serve as your guide. Language Choose the right language targeting: In your campaign settings, select the specific languages your potential customers speak. Create separate campaigns for each language: Rather than mixing languages, create dedicated campaigns for each target language. Enable language detection: Google can identify a user’s preferred language based on their browser settings and search behavior. Location Geographical targeting levels: Target by country, region, city, or even radius around specific locations. Location groups: Target places of interest, like business locations or your storefront. Advanced location options: Choose whether to target people in your selected locations, those who show interest in your locations, or both. Location extensions: Show your local business addresses alongside your ads. Location insertion: Automatically insert the targeted city, state, or country name into your ad text. Local inventory ads: Display products available at nearby stores to drive foot traffic. Currency Set up currency conversion: Configure your campaigns to display prices in local currencies. Show tax-inclusive pricing: In countries where displaying tax-inclusive prices is expected or required. Offer local payment methods: Highlight accepted payment options popular in each region. Note: If a market has enough volume, you might also want to look into cultural and seasonal localization. Culture Adapt headlines and calls to action: What motivates action varies by culture – some respond better to direct calls while others prefer indirect approaches. Customize imagery: Select visuals that reflect local aesthetics, models that represent your target audience, and scenarios familiar to local users. Adjust value propositions: Emphasize benefits that matter most in each market (e.g., efficiency in Germany, innovation in South Korea). Seasonal Create a localized marketing calendar: Map out important dates and events for each target market. Develop region-specific promotional campaigns: Align offers with local events, such as Diwali in India or Singles’ Day in China. Adjust bidding strategies: Increase bids during peak shopping periods specific to each region. PPC localization pitfalls and how to avoid them Machine translation limitations While Google Translate has improved dramatically, relying solely on machine translation can lead to embarrassing errors: Invest in professional translation: Work with native-speaking translators familiar with marketing content. Conduct back-translation checks: Have a different translator convert the localized content back to the original language to catch potential errors. Run linguistic quality assurance: Have native speakers review ads before launching. That being said, advertisers short on budget can use: Google Translate. DeepL, a German translation engine that uses convolutional neural networks to deliver more natural translations. It’s more of a question of how much volume goes through the translated assets. The more traffic and impressions, the more you want to double-check and have a professional translation. Cultural faux pas Even major brands make cultural mistakes that damage their reputation: Research cultural taboos and sensitivities: Colors, numbers, and symbols can have unexpected meanings in different cultures. Check for unintentional double meanings: Ensure product names and slogans translate appropriately. Review visual elements: Images considered normal in one culture may be offensive in another. Get the newsletter search marketers rely on. Business email address Sign me up! Processing... See terms. Standardizing international campaign management with SOPs When managing Google Ads campaigns across multiple countries and languages, establishing clear standard operating procedures (SOPs) is essential for: Maintaining consistency. Enabling efficient team collaboration. Ensuring scalable campaign management. Well-designed SOPs create a framework that minimizes errors, speeds up campaign creation, and simplifies reporting across your international portfolio. Campaign naming conventions A clear naming convention serves is key to managing campaigns across multiple markets. The most effective approach incorporates geographic, linguistic, and strategic elements in a consistent format: Recommended format: {Country} | {Language} | Campaign Type | Campaign Goal Examples: US | en | Search | Brand DE | de | Display | Awareness CA | fr | Search | Revenue MX | es | Performance Max | Revenue This standardized structure offers several advantages: Enables quick filtering and sorting within the Google Ads interface. Simplifies reporting across regions and languages. Ensures consistent understanding across team members. Facilitates automated rule creation and script implementation. The language code becomes particularly crucial for markets with multiple languages. For example, distinguishing between CA | en and CA | fr for English and French campaigns in Canada ensures clarity in performance analysis and budget allocation. Asset organization procedures Beyond campaign naming, establish clear protocols for organizing ad assets across languages: Asset library structure: Create separate folders for each country-language combination. Maintain consistent subfolder organization for ad types (responsive search ads, image assets, etc.). Include language code in all file names (e.g., product_banner_us.jpg). Documentation requirements Maintain translation glossaries for key brand terms and product names. Document market-specific restrictions or requirements. Record any cultural adaptations made for specific markets. Localization workflow Establish a structured process for campaign localization to maintain quality and efficiency: Translation and adaptation process Define clear handoff procedures between marketing and translation teams. Create templates for providing context to translators. Establish review protocols for culturally-sensitive content. Quality assurance checklist Verify landing page language matches ad language. Confirm currency, measurement units, and date formats are localized. Check that offers and promotions are valid in target markets. Ensure compliance with local advertising regulations. Reporting templates and schedules Standardize reporting to enable clear cross-market comparison and insight sharing: Unified report structure Create templates that normalize metrics across languages and regions. Include a side-by-side comparison of key markets. Incorporate currency-normalized cost metrics. Reporting calendar Establish a consistent cadence for different report types. Define responsibilities for report generation and analysis. Create protocols for sharing insights across regional teams. Implementation strategy When rolling out SOPs for international campaign management: Start with documentation of existing processes across markets. Identify best practices and areas for standardization. Create templates and tools to support consistent implementation. Conduct training sessions for all team members. Schedule regular reviews to refine procedures based on feedback. Well-documented SOPs transform international campaign management from a potentially chaotic endeavor into a structured, scalable process. Clear rules for naming, organizing, localizing, and reporting help your team scale across markets while keeping quality and performance tracking consistent. Automated search term translation script Managing search term analysis across multiple languages presents a challenge for international marketers. Reviewing non-native language search queries often involves tedious copying and pasting into translation tools or depending on team members with language skills, which can slow down optimization workflows. To address this pain point, I’ve developed a Google Ads script that seamlessly exports search terms from search campaigns and automatically translates them into your preferred language within Google Sheets. Getting started with the script To implement this time-saving tool in your Google Ads account: Access the script code and installation instructions here. Make a copy of this Google Sheet. Configure your preferred language settings. Schedule regular runs based on your optimization routine. The setup process takes less than five minutes, but saves hours of tedious work each month while improving your ability to optimize international campaigns effectively. Building scalable international PPC campaigns with a local impact Effective localization in Google Ads goes beyond simple translation to create campaigns that truly connect with local audiences. By following the strategies in this article – from language and location targeting to cultural adaptations – you can boost campaign performance in international markets. Investing in proper localization leads to higher engagement, better conversion rates, and stronger brand perception. In today’s global marketplace, localization isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s essential for successful international advertising. View the full article

Here is our monthly Google Webmaster Report - the May 2025 edition - where I summarize the past 30 days or so of the big organic Google related news in one place. Google did not have any official Google ranking updates but we sure did see several days of intense ranking volatility.View the full article

America’s mid-air dismantling of the global system of trade represents a one-time chance to competeView the full article

Google AdSense has been testing serving and displaying ads within AI Chatbots. Bloomberg reported Google has already begun testing this within AI search apps iAsk and Liner and plans to allow other AI Chatbot providers to include AdSense ads in their chat responses.View the full article

Nigel Farage’s party is bolstered by disillusionment in the country rather than its policiesView the full article

Google has confirmed that Apple will be adding its Gemini AI service to Apple Intelligence by the end of 2025, reports are saying. We knew this would happen but we should also expect Apple to add not just Gemini but other AI services to Apple Intelligence. View the full article

“The apocalypse will start having vermouths and tapas,” a friend told me yesterday. Just a day before, the electricity shut down for all of Spain and Portugal, trapping thousands in subways, trains, and elevators for hours, forcing people to walk miles back to their homes, putting hospitals on backup power, and turning off traffic lights, phones, and credit card readers. It shut down everything. Officials are still calculating the economic costs, but it will be in the billions. As this was happening, I still saw the people drinking in bar terraces too, as I was walking up the street to pick up my son early from school. They were joking and making fun. Others were rushing around in a panic like me, some with their kids, some alone. Lines dozens of people long were waiting for buses that came and passed by, overloaded. After everything passed, many celebrated online how refreshing it was to be living without social media or phones. An analog world felt so nice to those who were ignorant about the ultimate consequences of a total blackout for hours or days. Nobody knew that, if this lasted for more than 24 hours, many people would start dying in hospitals and panic would ensue. In 48, we will be out of water or any food supply chains. And, in 72 hours without electricity, civilization as we knew it would be on the brink. “Without electricity, we go back to the Stone Age. Especially in high density urban centers,” Dr. Sangeetha Abdu Jyothi, assistant professor of computing in University of California, Irvine, told me in a conversation about a potential global blackout years ago. “I can’t even imagine what would happen in an event of this scale.” Luckily, that didn’t happen, but it felt like the beginning of the end to me. When the national blackout started at 12:23, on April 28, 2025, I was at home writing, as usual. I noticed that my internet was off at the same time as everyone else in the country. I shrugged. “The building power is down. Probably they are doing some work again outside,” I told myself. I took a break, had the last cup of coffee still warm in my french press. I noticed my phone’s data was off. An hour later, the internet didn’t come back and my cell connection still wasn’t working. Weird. I went outside and saw people rushing. Some were out of their offices, talking. The doorman didn’t know what was going on and mumbled something about the damn government. Thinking it was just my neighborhood, I decided to go to a café by my son’s school. That’s when I passed by the first traffic light. It, too, was off. At that point I suddenly got extremely worried. A police helicopter zoomed by at low altitude. “This is how the world ends,” I told myself. Where are all the zombies? I wasn’t expecting zombies. Okay, maybe for a split second (The Last of Us Season 2 is intense). A couple years ago, I wrote and directed a short documentary on how a major solar storm—something called a Carrington Event—could take down the entire civilization. The phenomenon made telegraph poles burn down back in 1859 but, today, when everything depends on electricity, experts told me that it would probably cripple our entire civilization. Not for 12 hours. Not for a day. But, for decades, according to the Pentagon and the National Academy of Sciences. John Kappenman, an American engineer with decades of experience in the North American electrical industry, painted a dire picture: “Yes, there would clearly be public health disasters, public service disasters, disasters in the food distribution chain, disasters in the pharmaceutical industry, collapse of hospitals and ERs, payment systems. . . . Everything will fall once you suffer an impact on the most important of all infrastructure, the power grid,” he said. I spoke with scientists from NASA. Everyone told me the same thing. And everyone insisted that we urgently needed to set up better early warning systems and reconfigure power networks throughout the world to make them more independent from each other. We needed to install surge suppression systems capable of absorbing the energy overload from such a solar event, and stockpile industrial transformers, which right now take about two years to make and deliver (most of them, from China, of course!). “It’s not a question about whether we are going to suffer one of these events or not. It’s a question about when it is going to happen,” Holly Gilbert—the former director of the heliophysical science division of the NASA Goddard research center who now heads the High Altitude Observatory of the National Center for Atmospheric Research of the United States—told me back then. A surreal experience So you have to excuse my contained panic when I started to assume the worst—even as, within minutes, the lack of transformers on fire proved I was just paranoid. I could still hear the ambulance, police, and firefighter sirens howling, and I saw the cars starting to pile up in long traffic jams. But drivers and pedestrian alike were incredibly polite and chill. My mind, still searching for a culprit, jumped from solar interference to the war in Ukraine and Putin. Could this be a cyberattack? I got to the café and asked the owner, Francesco, if he knew anything. “My father sent me a message from Italy. I got it in a brief moment of signal,” he said (I guessed and confirmed later that some people had connections that were coming and going because their cell provider had towers with backup power units). “He said that Spain, Portugal, and the south of Spain are down.” It had to be an attack. Well, that, or some monumental incompetence with the power lines. I decided to get my son from school right away. He was startled by the situation and he asked if the Russians could nuke Madrid. I told him no. I told myself yes. I knew a major cyberattack taking communications and power down would be the opening notes of a full war. I walked with him back home, easing his fears and making it all a game. We noticed hundreds of people walking alongside us. People out of their offices. People with kids. Many were carrying big water bottles and supermarket bags. “Don’t forget to fill your bath tubs,” I told a couple. They laughed nervously, thinking I was joking. I wasn’t. Others were carrying suitcases. “Are they leaving” I kept asking myself. Scenes from the documentary kept coming to my mind. “The first people start leaving the city hours after the hit,” the voice over was narrating in my head. I knew that fridges—at homes, restaurants, and supermarkets—were off. With no credit card readers—since there was no cell coverage for the most part—shops were shutting down. Some bars were open (it’s Spain!) but only cash payments were possible. TV and routers went off at homes. Some had solar panels and batteries, so they could still access the internet, while many were in their cars parked in the street listening to the radio, the only source of information. The government had no idea what was happening. The President only appeared to say that he didn’t know anything five hours after the shutdown. This would have been unthinkable in any other serious European country. The national power grid company said electricity may be on in six hours but, for most of Spain, it didn’t come after much later. As we were walking home, I noticed people searching for cell bars. Some of them were texting. I raised my phone trying to find a connection, like a diviner in search of water. My phone showed 5G and two bars. The internet worked for a few seconds and a torrent of messages poured in. Friends. Work. Family. Then I managed to call my brother for a few seconds. The 5G turned to 4G, then 3G then E. Then nothing. I got bits of info from other people and realized how everything I’d learned researching the documentary was becoming a reality. Hospitals were on emergency power. Surgeries got cancelled. I knew that, after 12 hours, we may start seeing generators running out of fuel. Without energy, people on respirators could start dying in the first 24 hours. People who needed dialysis or other electric devices to survive would die in a few days. Blood banks and some drugs would quickly start going bad, too. I learned that some buildings in Barcelona lost water pressure. Without electricity, their pumps couldn’t get water to the higher floors. I already had filled bath tubs and bottles with water. Just in case. After 24 hours, I knew things could get really bad. Logistics would stop. Major distribution centers would stop working. Cities would become rat traps. The water supply be cut off for most part in every city. The admirable civic attitude of the first hours would get replaced by desperation and panic. Supermarkets would be emptied. Elderly people in need of oxygen and care would be at risk. In 72 hours, the experts told me, civilization as we know it would just end. The weird feeling of seeing the world standing still My brain was racing but I put it all aside. I knew this was an extreme case. I learned that the rest of the world was fine. Europe was okay. We were okay. I went back out with my son because I didn’t have a cell signal at home. We went to the park. When we arrived, I saw all the families. At this time, nobody would be at the park on a typical weekday. But, without anything to do, there were parents and their kids, just hanging out, and commenting on what was going on. I overheard that all radios were sold out at Chinese bazaars and shops. No batteries either. And supermarkets were already out of water. But people seemed weirdly calm. It was almost picturesque. My son and I returned home after playing some soccer. We had dinner (luckily, we have a garden and a small grill, so I fired some wood and we had a feast of chorizos and blood sausage before they went bad in the fridge). We watched some Andor on my laptop. He brushed his teeth and went to bed using the light of my iPhone. It was just a little different than normal. He told me “I love you” and “goodnight.” And I went back to wait. It wasn’t until 11:30 p.m. when my neighborhood got the power back. It was a relief, but we still don’t entirely know what happened. We know that it wasn’t an extreme solar weather event, like some rumors from Portugal suggested. That would have fried everything electrical, worldwide. We also know that the European Union and the electrical companies said it wasn’t a cyberattack. The Spanish national power grid company said that 15 gigawatts coming from solar panels disappeared, a sign of what appears to be a terrible design of the power network and the lack of batteries that sustain Spain’s electric network, 71% of which comes from renewable energy. It seems that, for years, the current Spanish government has failed to architect its network to match the amount of solar and wind power we are producing. It’s a dreadful error that will now cost the country billions of dollars. But it was over. Alone in my room at night, brushing my teeth with my battery-powered toothbrush looking at the torrent of news and messages in my revived phone, I couldn’t think of anything else but how mundane everything seemed at that point and, at the same time, how close we all came from dodging the bullet that may one day end modern life as we know it. We got really lucky. Because nobody was ready for this. Not the companies, not the government, not the people—the latter of whom were so civil and nice and, luckily, so naive about how everything could have unfolded. I figured out that the world wouldn’t begin its final days with zombies invading out of nowhere. No, I thought, the zombies this evening are all of us still caught in a stupor. They are the thousands of people spending the night in frozen trains, waiting to be rescued by the military. The people sleeping in their homes after getting drunk with friends or alone. The wandering humans walking miles to their homes. Or this single dad having grilled chorizo with his kid, playing with him, putting him to sleep, and then impatiently waiting for lights and the internet to come back alive, staring blank at a bathtub full of water, planning how we could escape a city of seven million people and head to Cádiz in case things went truly wrong next time. View the full article

Chances are you’ve had a bad boss at some point in your career. Research shows that up to 65% of employees would take a new boss over a pay raise, and roughly half of people who quit their jobs cite their manager as the main reason for leaving. Bad bosses are not just annoyances; they’re productivity drains, engagement killers, and mental health hazards. They create toxic cultures, stifle growth, and often drive the best people out while promoting dysfunction. So why do we keep ending up with them? Companies have long tried to solve the “bad boss” problem. They spend billions on leadership development programs, executive coaching, and increasingly, AI-powered feedback tools promising to “upgrade” managers. These efforts are not entirely futile—some leaders do improve—but the overall return on investment remains disappointing. Gallup data still shows that the majority of managers are ill-equipped to lead. Why? Because leadership, like character, is hard to change—and even harder to scale. But maybe we’ve been asking the wrong question all along. Instead of trying to fix bad bosses after the fact, why don’t we focus on choosing better ones from the start? Just as we put considerable thought into selecting a romantic partner—considering compatibility, values, and long-term potential—we should approach choosing a boss with similar care. After all, your boss will profoundly influence your well-being, career trajectory, and daily experience. Mistakes can happen, but they are often avoidable if we learn to recognize the right signals. Here are three evidence-based principles for picking the closest thing to a “perfect” boss, or let’s just say a decent, good, beneficial boss . . . Forget charisma—embrace boring competence Charisma is the dating-app profile picture of leadership: seductive, memorable, and often misleading. It dazzles in job interviews, town halls, and all-hands meetings. But over time, the same charm can morph into attention-seeking, volatility, and narcissism. Many of the most inept and destructive bosses I’ve encountered (and studied) had an abundance of confidence and not nearly enough competence. They were high on style, low on substance—and their teams suffered for it. So how can you spot them? Watch for grandiosity (“I transformed the whole department”), name-dropping, and overconfidence in interviews. They often talk more about themselves than the team. They may even be entertaining—until you’re the one cleaning up the mess after their impulsive decisions. Now contrast this with the “boring but effective” boss. They’re calm, measured, and often underwhelming in first impressions. They may not blow you away in the interview, but they show deep knowledge of their domain. They talk about collective achievements, not personal triumphs. They ask questions, take notes, and actually listen. Competent bosses focus on execution, alignment, and people development—not just self-promotion. They might not get all the credit, but they usually deserve it. If charisma is what you want on day one, competence is what you’ll thank yourself for choosing on day 100. Find someone who will make you better The best bosses act more like coaches than commanders. They don’t just assign tasks—they challenge, stretch, and support their people. As leadership expert and scholar Herminia Ibarra put it, modern leadership is less about giving answers and more about “asking the right questions, enabling others to learn, and creating a space for people to grow.” If your prospective boss can’t describe how they develop their team, it’s a red flag. Here are a few questions you can ask in interviews or informal chats to gauge their orientation toward people development: “Can you tell me about someone on your team who’s grown significantly under your leadership?” “How do you help people identify and build on their strengths?” “What does success look like for someone in this role six months from now?” Great bosses will answer with specific stories, not generic platitudes. They’ll talk about feedback, mentorship, stretch assignments, and talent reviews. Mediocre ones will deflect or talk mainly about output and control. A boss who’s committed to your growth is worth their weight in stock options. Prioritize personality over raw talent We often assume that because someone is highly talented, they must be great to work for. But talent may have gotten them the job—not kept them good at it. Their personality, however, will determine your everyday experience. That’s why personality should matter more to you than their résumé. What traits should you look for? Empathy, emotional intelligence (EQ), integrity, curiosity, humility, and self-awareness. These are the foundations of psychological safety, trust, and good judgment—all of which drive high-performing teams. Fortunately, you can assess many of these in a conversation: Empathy: Do they ask about your interests, listen actively, and respond to your cues? Integrity: Do they credit others, admit mistakes, and avoid overpromising? Curiosity: Do they ask insightful questions, or pretend to already know everything? Humility: Do they share what they’re still learning or areas they’re working on? Self-awareness: Do they acknowledge past feedback or their leadership style, do they know how they are seen by others? A talented boss may impress you in a presentation. A great personality will make every meeting more human—and every tough moment more bearable. In the end, personality is the key to predicting your boss in the future: we are what we repeatedly do, and if you can work out what makes your boss tick, you will be better at dealing with them in the future, even if you have to make an effort to adjust. The perfect boss may not exist—but the right boss for you does. Choosing wisely can mean the difference between dreading Mondays and loving what you do. So don’t just focus on salary, benefits, or brand names. Consider the person who will shape your day-to-day experience and your long-term growth. Remember: charisma fades, competence compounds. Find a boss who builds others, not just their own reputation. And never underestimate the power of empathy, integrity, and humility—they’re not soft skills, they’re superpowers. After all, your boss may not be your spouse, but you’ll probably spend more waking hours with them than almost anyone else. Choose accordingly. A boss isn’t just a job title—it’s a lifestyle choice. Pick the wrong one, and you’ll spend your best years decoding passive-aggressive emails and starring in a workplace reality show where the villain wins every episode—and you’re the unpaid emotional labor. View the full article

In early March, it was leaked that Google Ads will be rolling out channel reporting for Performance Max campaigns. Well, now it is official, Google said they are introducing "'­new'¬'­ channel-level'¬'­ reporting'¬'­ in'¬'­ Performance'¬'­ Max" plus, "full'¬'­ search'¬'­ terms'¬'­ reporting'¬ and'¬'­ more'¬'­ detailed'¬'­ asset'¬'­ reporting'¬'­ that'¬'­ show'¬'­ you'¬'­ all'¬'­ the'¬'­ metrics'¬'­ for'¬'­ individual'¬'­ assets.'¬"View the full article

Google is testing showing favicons logos in its shopping ads, in the carousel of sponsored product results. Ginny Marvin, Google's Ads Liaison, confirmed this with me on X last night.View the full article

Google is testing showing AI Overviews on the right hand side of the search results page. I am not sure if this is specific to local queries and a replacement of sorts for the local panel, I hope not.View the full article

Fall comes as The President’s tariffs knock consumer sentimentView the full article

A brand's approach to empathy, AI, and personalization offers key insights for CMOs aiming to drive impactful marketing campaigns and business growth. The post How CMOs Can Tell Stories To Manage Change [Case Study With Mondelēz International] appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Last week, President Donald The President sat for an interview with Time magazine to reflect on the first 100 days of his second term in the White House. The President, as he tends to do when discussing himself, let the superlatives fly. “I feel that we’ve had a very successful presidency in 100 days,” he said. “We’ve had people writing it was the best first month, and best second month, and really the best third month.” Although the fourth month has not yet concluded, I am confident I can guess how he’ll characterize it when the time comes. Normal people do not concur with his self-assessment, to put it gently. The President’s approval rating at the 100-day mark is the lowest of any newly elected president dating back to Dwight D. Eisenhower, who took office before the widespread availability of color television. More than half of voters say the country is headed “in the wrong direction,” which is generally not the sort of first impression that politicians aspire to make. Support for his trade war is hovering in the mid-30s, and that was before merchants began passing along the costs of tariffs to their baffled customers, who were suddenly getting hit with “import fees” that often cost more than the items in their carts. (Just in time for the shelves in big-box stores to start emptying out!) Even The President’s anti-immigrant agenda, traditionally a source of strength with his Republican base, is underwater these days: 53% of voters, including 61% of independents, disapprove of his handling of the issue, and almost half believe his deportations of undocumented people have “gone too far.” His penchant in recent weeks for illegally deporting U.S. citizens, too, including a toddler receiving cancer treatment, is unlikely to reverse this trend anytime soon. For any other president, numbers like these would be disastrous, and would prompt frantic hand-wringing about the continued viability of their policy agenda, to say nothing of their fitness to serve for 45 more months. But to date, the defining feature of The President’s second term has been his utter disinterest in what the polls, popular opinion, his advisers, fellow Republicans, and even the courts say about him. He seems to perceive his performance only through the distorted lens of a right-wing media ecosystem that amplifies voices that flatter him and filters out those that do not. The result is the most unabashedly venal presidency in recent memory—the beginning of a four-year victory lap during which The President intends to enjoy the perks of the office to the fullest extent, whatever the consequences for everybody else. No one would mistake The President as embodying the spirit of humble, selfless public service during his first term. But he has been even more cavalier about using the presidency to enrich himself this time around, and his hands-off approach to cryptocurrency in particular (on the campaign trail, he promised to make the U.S. the “crypto capital of the planet”) has been great for business. World Liberty Financial, a The President family-controlled crypto venture, has done a brisk trade since the inauguration, pulling in more than half a billion dollars in sales in recent months. He has dangled the promise of dinner at the White House to juice interest in the $2.7 billion market for his eponymous memecoin, most of which is controlled by members of his inner circle. And he remains the single largest shareholder in the The President Media & Technology Group, the share price of which jumped earlier this month after the company announced plans to expand into—you guessed it—crypto-adjacent financial services products in the near future. Not all of The President’s income streams are quite so sophisticated; you can still buy an ostensibly hand-signed The President Bible for $1,000, a price that does not include shipping. But his powers as president to manipulate markets and simultaneously dictate the government’s regulatory agenda (or lack thereof) makes this source of his wealth especially valuable. Bloomberg estimates the combined paper gains of The President’s crypto projects at close to $1 billion, which is a pretty nice return on an asset class that he was deriding as a “scam” as recently as 2021. In previous decades, a president splitting his time between making money, playing golf, and persecuting his political adversaries would read about his unpopularity in the newspaper every day, and hear about it on the news every night. Back in 2017, when The President routinely announced U.S. government policy while tweeting from the toilet, he was at least aware of which aspects of his agenda qualified as “controversial” with the public, because he could see real-time feedback from Democratic lawmakers and irate Krassenstein brothers alike. In 2025, however, there are no remaining institutions capable of checking The President’s apathy toward the plights of the people around him. The increasingly insular nature of conservative media—The President posts primarily on Truth Social, a platform built around his political movement, and occasionally on X, a cesspool of conspiracy theories curated by his wealthiest supporter—makes it rare for him to even encounter meaningful criticism, let alone digest and respond to it. Meanwhile, his administration is reshaping the White House press corps, elevating sympathetic reporters whose idea of a difficult question is asking The President whether Democratic politicians are merely wrong, or also treasonous. In his mind, legacy media outlets exist mostly to sue for billions of dollars anytime they have the temerity to report stories he doesn’t like. The upshot of all this is that The President effectively spends 24 hours a day in an information bubble of his own creation, surrounded by people who only tell him how great he is and what a great job he’s doing. He views skeptics of all types, from immigrants asserting their constitutional rights to corporate executives begging him not to sink the economy, as voices he can safely ignore, if not enemies whom he has an electoral mandate to humiliate and defeat. Those first-term hour-by-hour sparring matches with opponents are far less common now, in part because The President has the luxury of not knowing or caring what the haters are saying about him anymore. Perhaps the most unsettling lesson of The President’s first 100 days is that to the extent that he is willing to second-guess himself on anything, it is only when his financial interests are at stake. His decision in April to delay the planned implementation of most “reciprocal” tariffs is perhaps the most significant concession he’s made on his campaign promise to “tariff the hell” out of insufficiently cooperative trading partners. But he did so not because the reciprocal tariffs would constitute a self-inflicted financial disaster that could cost working families an average of $2,100 per year, according to the Yale Budget Lab, but because news of the tariffs triggered a sell-off in the bond market, which he described as “getting a little yippy.” In a remarkable coincidence, the value of The President’s investments in bonds could be close to half a billion dollars, according to The New York Times. The potential implosion of one’s own portfolio has a funny way of putting things in perspective. In his Time interview, The President downplayed his concerns about volatility in the bond market, his earlier admissions to the contrary notwithstanding, and said that he didn’t pause the tariffs “for that reason.” He then pivoted back to calling Joe Biden “the most incompetent president in history,” which is the same basic comms strategy my 4-year-old uses when I ask if her little brother is crying because she took his stuffed giraffe, and she responds by hiding it behind her back and asking me to read her a book. It is of course good that The President, at least for the time being, backed off a proposal that prompted JPMorgan to raise its projected odds of a global recession from 40% to 60%. But even though The President’s financial interests in this case happened to align with those of everyone looking nervously at their retirement accounts, what is best for normal people will rarely be best for an elderly television personality obsessed with holding down a spot on the fringes of the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Every decision The President makes during his remaining time in office will be about doing what is best for himself and his friends, because his only interest in public service is and has always been about how much he can profit from it. View the full article

Getting dressed for work in the morning can be complicated. Gone are the days of the office dress code. While most of us are happy that our bosses no longer dictate that we wear collared shirts, heels, or shift dresses to work, this means the burden of figuring out what is appropriate now lies squarely on our shoulders. As corporate culture has become increasingly more relaxed, with denim often replacing trousers, finding the right balance between formal and casual can be tricky. If you show up to work in a three-piece suit, you might look like you don’t understand your company’s values. But if you wear your favorite baggy jeans, you might come off as unserious. And looking out of place can have negative consequences on your career. Citizens of Humanity, a denim label, and Argent, a workwear brand, are deeply familiar with this sartorial confusion. Both brands regularly field questions about how to put together an outfit that will allow someone to look polished but also creative and unpretentious. “This is not a trivial issue,” says Sali Christeson, Argent’s founder and CEO. “Our goal is to make sure that women show up to work feeling confident, so they can do good work.” The brands have joined forces to create a Citizens of Humanity x Argent collection of garments called “Good Work” that epitomizes the modern work wardrobe. Thanks to Citizens of Humanity’s expertise, it is full of denim pieces that are elevated and elegant, telegraphing professionalism. But taken as a whole, the capsule is meant to be versatile, helping the wearer transition from formal moments to casual ones, since work today often requires moving between diverse environments. “With these pieces, we’re trying to give women a formula for getting dressed for the many different parts of their work life, which could mean going from a board meeting to a creative brainstorm in a single day,” says Amy Williams, Citizens of Humanity’s CEO. The pieces in this collection offer a useful blueprint for how to style denim for the office today. Consider The Cut and Color Jeans have become an office staple, but the key to finding the appropriate pair for a given occasion depends on the cut and rinse. If you’re anxious about appearing too casual, one good solution is to find jeans that are cut like traditional suiting trousers. For this collection, Citizens of Humanity developed a pair called the Beverly Trouser made from non-stretch denim that has an elegant drape and a wide leg silhouette. It comes in two shades—very dark blue and white—that also give them a more formal look, since they are reminiscent of traditional suiting. But there are moments when you might deliberately want to look more relaxed. In Williams’s case, this might be when she’s working with her designers or creative teams, who tend to dress more casually. So Citizens of Humanity has included the Ayla jeans in this collection. These are baggier than the Beverly, with a roomy leg that can be cuffed to give them more structure or left to pool a little to give them a more laid-back look. To give the outfit a more polished look, Williams says you might wear them with, say, a button-down shirt or a waistcoat. (The Good Work capsule includes a black one.) Consider Denim Dresses and Skirts One way to bring denim into office wear is to go beyond the jean altogether, and consider other kinds of garments. The Citizens of Humanity x Argent capsule includes the Farrow Denim Dress, which has a structured fit that accentuates the waist and buttons that go down the entire front. Another material, such as crepe, might make the outfit look more prim, but denim fabrication offers versatility. You could wear the dress with a blazer to the office, and wear it on its own for a more casual lunch or dinner. The Gwynn denim skirt is similarly versatile. It comes in a dark wash and reaches the calf, a length that is work appropriate. But it also has a stylish slit in the front, that also makes it easier to walk around in. The skirt can be easily dressed up or down. With a button-down, you could wear this to meet with a client; with a tank top, you could wear it on a casual Friday. What About Denim Jackets and Shirts? If you’ve been used to wearing blazers to the office, but find that they’re increasingly feeling too formal, a good swap could be a denim jacket. For the Citizens of Humanity x Argent collection, the two brands developed the Abra Work Jacket, a silhouette that is in vogue. It comes in a dark indigo rinse, which is reminiscent of a traditional navy blazer. But the denim material and the contrast stitching makes it undeniably inspired by heavy-duty workwear. The jacket front also has staggered patch pockets, which transform it into a statement piece. And if you feel like your traditional Oxford button-down shirt makes you look too dressy, you might consider replacing it with a denim shirt. The Harris shirt in this collection is oversize, with a high low hemline. Williams points out that there are many ways to wear this piece. You can layer it over a tank top. You can pair it with trousers. Or, if you want to stand out, you could wear it with jeans to create a full denim look. What if I want to be more dressy, but not too formal? The Citizens of Humanity x Argent capsule is designed to have an outfit for every occasion, including more formal ones. Here’s where Argent’s expertise comes in. For this collection, Argent reimagined one of its suits, comprised of its Chelsea blazer and Park trousers, in a denim blue linen. Both the material and the color give the suit a more breezy feel that allows you to blend seamlessly into relaxed or formal scenarios. Another way to dress up without looking overly starchy is to swap a blazer for a waistcoat. Argent designed a linen twill waistcoat in black that you can pair with matching black trousers or shorts. It comes with a matching blazer that can elevate the look, so you can wear the entire three-piece suit to a talk or a board meeting, then remove the blazer for date night. View the full article

Only 20% of the Top Producers in the National Mortgage News survey were under 40, while almost half were between 41 and 50, and 30% even older. View the full article

The images of Panera Bread’s new Croissant Clutch could be straight out of a fashion magazine. Highlighted against a warm, glowing orange-and-brown background, the accessory looks out of place in its web store alongside the company’s Mac N’ Cheese Pillow and “Just Baked” onesie. The fast-casual chain’s newest handbag—what it calls “carb couture”—is an insulated clutch that’s reminiscent of a croissant in both shape and fabrication, with pleats to evoke the buttery breakfast food’s flaky layers. According to Panera, it’s also the best possible way to carry around its new menu item, a melted, crispy croissant toasted sandwich, without it getting, well, too melty. It does not say, however, whether the clutch is washable, which suggests a wipeable, insulated to-go box would actually be the better lunch box for a toasted sandwich. But neither fashion nor marketing were ever much about practicality. “We are always exploring new ways to connect with our guests, from craveable meals to playful expressions of our brand—including this unique fusion of food, function, and fashion,” said Mark Shambura, Panera Bread’s chief marketing officer. An attempted internet sensation redux With the Panera Bread Croissant Clutch, the company seems to be reattempting the success of the Panera BAGuette marketing campaign two years ago—which went viral on TikTok and sold out. Twice. But while the clutch bag became available to customers on April 30, there hasn’t been as much of an overwhelming response compared to Panera’s first take on haute couture. The 2023 BAGuette was also a clutch, although in a classic baguette shape with an embossed P in a repeat pattern. Some described the style as a dupe of Fendi’s iconic baguette bag, which could’ve been key to its viral success. Panera told Fast Company its BAGuette bag garnered close to 3.5 billion impressions overall. Some BAGuettes are still available on eBay, all marked well over the original price of $39.50 (prices range from about $70 to $225). The BAGuette’s virality drove many users to bemoan the limited stock. One Tiktok user talked about the bag in the context of Kylie Jenner merchandise drops. “I have truly never been so sad about missing a release of something,” she said. Panera announced the BAGuette after its baguette sandwiches proved popular among customers, which became a menu item in January 2023. Similarly, the new Croissant Toast Sandwiches, available in two varieties, are the inspiration behind the new clutch. “With this launch, our goal is to spark conversation and drive brand awareness by creating a bold cultural moment,” said Shambura. “Following the viral success of our BAGuette bag, which sold out—twice—we’re excited to see how fans embrace this next chapter of ‘carb couture.’” Panera is certainly not the first to try to capture that elusive viral cultural niche. TikTok marketing, spending aperitif “TikTok Made Me Buy It” continues to be a catch-all phrase for viral marketing content on social media, and a sentiment that played a role in the major success of the BAGuette. Viral content takes off quickly and drives consumer spending, encouraging brands to try to stay ahead of the cultural curve. Some brands have made being “unhinged” their entire marketing strategy. Others have invested in killing off—then reincarnating—their icons. Panera has chosen a different route altogether. It’s understandable why Panera Bread would want to recapture that internet magic. After all, what’s an investment in a run of $40 bags compared to billions of impressions? However, we have yet to see whether the success of the BAGuette will rub off on the Croissant Clutch. Customers eagerly ate up the BAGuette, but there’s one question remaining: Are there any crumbs left? View the full article

On the campaign trail, President Donald The President made multiple promises to lower energy prices and electricity bills for Americans, but 100 days into his second term, energy prices are up—and expected to keep increasing. Experts say The President’s energy policies—like inhibiting renewables, canceling federal energy assistance programs, and enacting widespread tariffs—are to blame. “Under my administration, we will be slashing energy and electricity prices by half within 12 months, at a maximum 18 months,” The President said in August. “Energy is going to bring us back. That means we’re going down and getting gasoline below $2 a gallon, bring down the price of everything from electricity rates to groceries,” he said in September. (Though at times he did hedge: “If it doesn’t work out,” he also said in August, “you’ll say, ‘oh well, I voted for him and he still got it down a lot.’”) At the 100-day mark, though, average gas and electricity prices are up, some Americans have already seen their energy bills increase, and there’s “potential for much more harm,” says Charles Harper, senior policy lead for the power sector at Evergreen Action. Average prices are up—and The President policies will raise them more The President recently claimed that gas prices dipped below $2 a gallon in some states, but that’s not true. The national average price of gas is currently $3.17 a gallon, 5 cents higher than a month ago—and tariffs are set to spike gas prices soon. U.S. refineries make gasoline from crude oil, which is produced here but also imported—predominantly from Canada and Mexico. The U.S. imports about 4 million barrels of Canadian oil per day. (We also import what’s called “finished motor gasoline” from other countries, primarily Canada.) Average electricity prices are also up, to $0.181 per kilowatt per the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s a slight uptick from both January and February, and the highest price on record. Though The President ran on a platform of “energy dominance and unlocking American energy,” Harper notes, “he hypocritically has tried to kill some forms of energy that are the lowest cost.” Wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity to build, and also the fastest to deploy. Yet The President has taken aim at these energy sources, suspending funding for clean energy projects and issuing orders to stop projects already underway, including for an offshore wind farm that would power more than 500,000 New York homes. In a list of “energy resources” he says we need to increase, The President specifically excluded wind, solar, and battery power. The President cut low-income energy assistance In the first 100 days of The President’s second term, low-income Americans, in particular, have been hit with extra energy charges because of his actions. When The President paused funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, as part of his “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, that affected the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps more than 6 million low-income households across the country cover their energy bills. Without those funds, about 2,000 low-income households in Alabama saw an immediate $100 added to their utility bills, in just one example. By April, states were missing out on about $400 million in LIHEAP funding that had yet to be distributed by the federal government. The President and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have fired LIHEAP’s staff as they try to kill the program entirely. That’s expected to raise energy bills for millions of Americans, meaning low-income households will be less able to pay those bills, or less likely to adequately heat and cool their homes. Previous cuts to LIHEAP have seen these effects play out. In 2023, Congress cut $2 billion from LIHEAP’s budget, and utility debt increased by 8.4% over the next year; 22% of households also kept their homes at unsafe temperatures in 2024, compared to 19.8% the year prior. Tariffs will keep increasing gas and electricity costs The President’s tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada aren’t only affecting consumer goods; they’ll also raise energy prices. Just how much depends on where you live, but Midwest states are expected to be hit the hardest. The President enacted a 10% tariff on Canadian energy imports and 25% on Mexican energy imports, which could raise gas prices by as much as 50 cents per gallon for people in the Midwest, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Canada and Mexico supply more than 71% of crude oil to U.S. refineries across the country (nearly 60% of all U.S. crude oil imports come from Canada alone). Canada has also threatened retaliatory tariffs, including a 25% surcharge on electricity sold to Michigan, Minnesota, and New York. Tariffs on steel and aluminum could also make new grid infrastructure and energy projects more expensive. The President’s push for fossil fuels may backfire Much of The President’s campaign promises and early term actions aim to increase fossil fuel production. But that won’t necessarily help energy prices or U.S. households’ energy bills—or even fossil fuel companies themselves. The President has said he wants to bring back retired coal plants, but those plants closed because they were no longer economically viable. Putting them back online would be an expensive undertaking that would also increase electricity prices once they’re up and running. The President has also looked to increase exports of liquified natural gas (LNG), and has approved licenses for new LNG projects. But increasing LNG exports actually increases domestic energy prices. Because that natural gas is being sold abroad, it makes it subject to global price fluctuations, and means exports aren’t addressing local demand. (When Russia invaded Ukraine, for example, European countries bought more LNG from the U.S., sending prices skyrocketing for Louisiana residents.) Thanks to rampant tax breaks, LNG projects can also cost local communities millions of dollars. The President’s actions have further increased uncertainty for fossil fuel companies. He has aimed to boost fossil fuel production by fast-tracking the approval process for new projects, and has said he wants oil prices to drop to $50 a barrel—but that price is considered too low to be profitable. Oil and gas companies aren’t clamoring to drill both because they don’t want to overproduce and flood the market, and because fears of a recession are causing uncertainty about the future. “This ‘Drill, baby, drill’ agenda his administration has been pushing is not bearing out in practice,” Harper says. “Many oil and gas companies benefit from a lower supply of energy and corresponding higher prices because they have higher profit margins on every barrel of oil that they sell, and they are really resistant to increasing production.” Oil and natural gas, including LNG exports, are both global markets “that are subject to the whims of other countries and global demands,” Harper adds. That means it’s impossible to isolate America from global price volatility. Clean energy could be a different story, because it’s generated domestically—but as previously noted, The President is hampering clean energy projects rather than pursuing them. All of these actions will only continue to raise energy prices for Americans, Harper says—and, he notes, they’re also all “self-inflicted wounds done by the new administration.” View the full article

Tom Broughton, the founder of the British eyewear brand Cubitts that has recently landed in the U.S., wants to make you a set of glasses that you’ll be able to wear your entire life. “They could outlive you,” he says. That’s a radical notion these days. Over the past three decades, as fast fashion has become the norm, the price of eyewear has come down alongside the price of clothes and shoes. Brands like Zenni and Warby Parker market their glasses as a fashion statement that is so affordable, you can change them up whenever you want. You could wear a different pair every day of the week. Broughton finds this approach to eyewear problematic for many reasons. For one thing, 250 metric tons of eyewear ends up in landfills every year, by some estimates. This is an environmental catastrophe since most eyewear today is made of acetate, a kind of plastic that will not biodegrade and contribute to the microplastics crisis. But more broadly, as a lover of glasses (or spectacles, as he calls them) he believes glasses have a way of expressing your identity and shaping how you appear to the world, so there is something beautiful about having a pair that lasts your life. With Cubitts, Broughton is trying to bring this philosophy to life. The company has a more laborious handmade process than its competitors, to create a more durable pair of glasses, and each frame comes with a lifetime of servicing and repair. Now the company is doubling down on this approach by allowing customers to create custom lenses that are personalized to the shape of their face, ensuring that they are perfectly suited to a lifetime of wear. Customers can now get a fitting for custom lenses in store, and the company is also developing an app that will collect customer measurements digitally so they can create custom frames online. The app will be released in the next few months. A Spectacles Historian In his early teens, Broughton became obsessed with eyewear. More specifically, he fell in love with the rock star Morrissey’s glasses. In the 1980s, Morrissey, the lead singer of the iconic band The Smiths, wore large black frames that Broughton found irresistible. So Broughton got himself a pair of similar frames and wore them proudly to school, even when chunky frames weren’t yet popular. “I remember turning up to school in them when I was 14,” he says. “I felt like I was the coolest person ever, rightly or wrongly. Maybe people were laughing at me behind my back.” In his late teens and early twenties, Broughton became fascinated with the history of spectacles. He began collecting old pairs he found at antique shops, and learning as much as he could about them. This history made him long for the days when a pair of glasses was a valuable possession that people cherished throughout their life. For much of human history, there was no way to correct poor eyesight, so many people went through life with blurry vision, unable to fully take in the world around them. Then, over the course of the last two millennia, inventors discovered that they could use crystal, polished quarts, or glass globes to magnify text. In the 1200s, Europeans developed the first eyeglasses made of quartz, framed in wood that you could hold up to your face to see things more clearly. Throughout the Renaissance, scientists continued developing spectacles to correct vision, but it wasn’t until the 18th century that they developed a pair with arms that would rest over the ears, making them more stable and hands-free. But until very recently, corrective glasses were very expensive. Even a century ago, when they were widespread, most people only had a single pair they would wear over the course of a lifetime. “Their spectacles were a precious, life-changing tool,” Broughton says. “But their spectacles also became associated with them and how they presented themselves to the world.” This is no longer the case. Eyewear is now very inexpensive to produce. Companies realized they could make spectacles out of plastic, which is a very cheap material. And since the 1980s, most of the world’s eyewear has been mass-produced in China, where labor is inexpensive. Now you can now get a pair for as little as $30. And while Broughton thinks it is wonderful that corrective eyewear has been democratized, so that everybody who needs it can now get it, it’s possible that the industry has swung too far, transforming glasses into something that is disposable. “We’ve stopped seeing spectacles as the incredible invention that they are,” he says. Spectacles That Last a Lifetime Broughton hadn’t planned on becoming an entrepreneur. He studied behavioral economics and applied statistics, and eventually worked at Spotify. But in his spare time, he continued to pursue his passion for spectacles. He learned how to craft frames out of acetate and metal by hand, and began creating spectacles for his friends. “I would cycle around London with little measuring tools, knock on people’s doors and take their measurements,” he says. In 2012, while he was still at his day job, he launched Cubitts, creating custom lenses. The business quickly took off. Even though there are many competing eyewear brands on the market, people seemed to like Broughton’s approach that treated spectacles as something special. His customers took a long time to choose the perfect frames that they felt reflected who they were and how they wanted to appear to the world. Cubitts launched online and opened its first store in King’s Cross in London. The company also came to the United States, opening two stores in New York last year. The brand is known for its chunky, statement-making glasses, in the vein of the pair Morrissey wore, and they aren’t very expensive. The average Cubitts pair costs $200. Through its branding, the company emphasizes that even though the glasses are stylish, they’re not meant to be trendy. Throughout the store and the website, Cubitts makes it clear that the eyewear is meant to last a lifetime. The company makes each pair by hand using a lengthier process than its competitors, including using parts that are easier to replace if they break. For instance, it uses a premium hinge that connects the frame to the arm (that goes behind the ear) that makes it easier to fix. Cubitts has a policy of offering a lifetime of repairs, rehabs, and reglazing of their frames. When a prescription changes, they put in new lenses for free (many retailers offer this service, for a fee). But Broughton believes that creating eyewear that lasts a lifetime isn’t just about durability. It’s also about helping customers find a pair that they love and that fits them perfectly. Cubitts offers each pair of glasses in small, medium, and large sizes to fit faces of different sizes. But the company is now investing in technology to create custom frames that are perfectly suited to the customers’ face. The company has developed a system that allows customers to come into the store to take measurements of their face, identifying everything from the size of their nose to the shape of their face to the distance to how far back their ears are. (The company is also working on an app that will allow people to take these measurements at home, so they can create custom frames virtually. This is likely to roll out in the next year or so.) Then, when the customer pick a style of lenses they like, Cubitts will custom-make them to suit their facial proportion. He’s found that this has been particularly appealing to Black and asian customers who sometimes struggle to find eyewear that fits the dimensions of their face, since most eyewear is designed around caucasian features. But all customers, regardless of ethnicity, like being able to find a pair that can be designed to look perfectly suited to their faces, so they are aesthetically pleasing and also don’t pinch the nose or the ears. Ultimately, Broughton hopes that this technology makes customers love their spectacles even more, and want to hold on to them for longer. And even though Broughton himself has access to an endless supply of different frames, and is sometimes tasked with testing out different models, he generally sticks to a round frame he has become attached to. “I’ve become rather attached to my spectacles,” he says. “They’re part of me now.” View the full article

In recent years, the FDA has approved dozens of gene and cell therapies that can potentially cure rare diseases like sickle cell disease and spinal muscular atrophy. But many patients still can’t access these treatments because insurers have refused to cover them. That reluctance is understandable, unfortunately. Widespread use of these multimillion-dollar therapies would bankrupt many health insurers. But the solution isn’t to deny lifesaving drugs to patients. Rather, it is to deploy creative financing solutions that deliver these therapies to sick Americans without collapsing the insurance system. The sickle cell dilemma Consider, for instance, the dilemma posed by sickle cell disease. About 100,000 Americans suffer from the condition, in which a genetic defect causes red blood cells to become crescent-shaped and impede circulation, leading to severe pain and shortened lifespans. Two therapies approved by the FDA show great promise, but are each priced above $2 million, reflecting the decades of research and development costs required to bring them to market and the relatively small patient population. Shockingly, $2 million may not be out of line, given the number of lives to be saved and the years of suffering to be averted, not to mention the improvements in workforce productivity for patients and their caregivers, and cost-avoidance of chronic disease management for sickle cell disease in the future. Curing the condition once and for all could actually save money in the long run, compared to managing the disease year after year and only slowing, not stopping, the patient’s decline. Even the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which argues that many pharmaceuticals are wildly overpriced, has concluded that these treatments would “achieve common thresholds for cost-effectiveness” at a price exceeding $2 million. Yet few insurers can afford the up-front cost of these cutting-edge therapies. Commercial insurance companies would similarly struggle to afford the treatments for dozens or hundreds of patients in their risk pools state by state. Simply put, the health insurance system was designed to pay for statins and surgeries, not miracle cures with seven-figure price tags. The mortgage model Giving patients widespread access to these cures will require going outside the traditional insurance system, and facilitating partnerships between manufacturers, payers, and financial institutions, including banks and private equity. For example, right now, sickle cell chronic disease-and pain-management for just one patient can cost upwards of $50,000 per year. For Medicaid, which covers about 50% of U.S. sickle cell patients, these costs could add up to $2.5 billion annually. But if banks partnered with Medicaid, they could finance sickle cell gene therapies in bulk for a discount, say $1.7 million, then Medicaid would amortize the loan over several decades, the same as mortgaging a multimillion-dollar house. At a federally subsidized interest rate of 1%, Medicaid would pay $50,000 per patient per year over 40 years. In other words, the government would effectively pay the same annual price for gene therapies that cure patients up-front as it currently spends just to manage the condition in perpetuity. But after 40 years, Medicaid would have paid off the loan. Banks get a safe, government-backed investment; manufacturers are paid quickly and can scale production; and patients enjoy decades of good health. Outcomes-based contracts The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is embarking on a voluntary program between the makers of sickle cell gene therapies and state Medicaid offices to expand access, but it is limited to contracts that take the states off the hook if a treatment doesn’t work as intended. So-called outcomes-based contracts are rife with complexities and are unlikely to lead to widespread access for sickle cell patients. Similarly, employer-sponsored health plans’ coverage of gene therapies is erratic. If private equity partnered with these health plans at publicly traded companies, the up-front cost of paying for treatment in working-age populations could be amortized over time, predictably increasing the value of the company’s shares. Consider that healthier employees lead to gains in top-line productivity and fewer chronic conditions in a company’s risk pool that could potentially lower premiums. This means a greater return for private equity, one that makes their large up-front investment worthwhile. Everyone wins Traditional insurance simply wasn’t designed for a 21st-century world where we have the tools to completely cure diseases by altering patients’ genetic code. But with regulators’ permission, financial institutions could introduce tools that reduce the long-term costs of chronic conditions, improve public health, and generate predictable financial gains. View the full article

For the first time in more than 20 years, Amazon’s logo got a touch-up. In fact, all of its logos got a touch-up. The small but subtle changes are part of a company-wide brand system refinement, bringing together more than 50 Amazon sub-brands across categories like pharmacy, groceries, and on-demand streaming under a single brand umbrella. Typography was key to making it all work. A pair of bespoke fonts, Amazon Logo Sans and Ember Modern, tie Amazon products and services together with a unified brand voice that has flexibility for different contexts. This is a brand that’s everywhere, from cardboard boxes to music to prescriptions, and needed to adapt to convey boldness and excitement in use cases like entertainment, but trustworthiness in its healthcare divisions. Koto Studio, the creative agency that worked on the brand system and refresh, started the endeavor by thinking of Amazon’s master brand logo as a type specimen, not just a mark. (Though they did plump up its arrow to give it a deeper “smile.”) The team refined the letterforms in the logo, which eventually became the foundation for a font. “The biggest challenge was the sheer scale,” Koto New York executive creative director Arthur Foliard tells Fast Company of the Amazon brand refresh. “Amazon’s brand had become visually fragmented. Every product or service seemed to have its own logo. It was a sea of arrows with no clear system or structure.” Under the new brand system, the Amazon family of sub-brands, house brands, and core services, from Amazon Basics to Amazon Kids, now have a unified logo system set in the new proprietary Amazon Logo Sans. Ember Modern is a new version of the typeface Amazon originally designed for Kindle screen. Koto updated it with characters for 366 languages and seven weights so it can be used globally in instances like high-impact headlines or for text-heavy, long-form reading. It’s a typeface designed for versatility. They also updated the company’s color palette to standardize its main brand color, Smile Orange; tweak its blue to a more saturated, digital-friendly shade; and give each sub-brand its own bright, expressive color scheme. Amazon Fresh, its grocery delivery business, uses shades of green to communicate freshness, while Amazon One Medical, its primary care provider, uses a turquoise green reminiscent of scrubs. “Historically, Amazon teams moved fast, spinning up businesses and logos on the fly to meet customer demand,” Foliard says. “That agility was great, but it sometimes led to brand fragmentation.” Going forward, the agency left the company with an automated “[amazon]:name” command to generate future consistent logos instantly, plus a full logo architecture to define what needs a logo and what doesn’t. With its new brand system and font book, Amazon is better positioned to express its brand and sub-brands across a growing number of categories. If Alexa is the audible voice of Amazon the brand, Amazon Logo Sans and Ember Modern are the brand’s voice in print. View the full article

Who shaped your career? Think about the people who guided, challenged, and helped you grow into the professional you are today. Do you think that artificial intelligence could have replaced their support? AI is revolutionizing mentorship by offering tailored learning, progress tracking, and administrative support. But AI has its limitations. AI cannot replace human intuition, empathy, and the ability to challenge mentees in a nuanced way. In today’s workplace, mentorship has never been more critical and complex. A new generation of employees is looking for new ways to learn and develop, and mentoring is at the top of their list. And they are not afraid to turn to AI for support. A recent Deloitte report revealed that eight out of ten employees believe AI can support their professional growth through tailored learning opportunities. That’s not just a statistic—it’s a clear signal. People are asking for mentorship that leverages the best of both worlds: technology and human connection. They also want it customized to their individual needs. What AI can do for mentorship AI is reimagining how we mentor, with tools like adaptive learning platforms can tailor learning experiences to specific needs, skills, and pace. It can also analyze data for skills gaps, suggest discussion topics, and provide summaries and progress reports. Virtual collaboration software is also making it easier than ever to connect, guide, and support mentees. These tools simplify time-consuming logistical and administrative burdens and free up time for deeper conversations. What AI can’t do for mentorship Here’s the catch: While AI can streamline mentorship, it can’t replicate the trust, empathy, and intuition that define a truly impactful mentoring relationship. People are not cookie-cutter, so having a one-size-fits-all solution rarely works. Only a human mentor can offer intuitive, nuanced guidance. AI cannot inspire and push mentees beyond their comfort zone in the same way a human mentor can. In our book, Financial Times Guide to Mentoring, Peter Brown, PwC’s global workforce leader, shared, “The use of generative AI in a mentor-mentee relationship is a classic case of where technology can be used to augment but not replace human beings. . . . As brilliant as it is, Al is unable to provide, for example, the emotional connection, empathy, and nuanced advice—all these innate, human qualities can’t be replaced by it.” What mentors provide that AI never will Meaning and motivation AI is extremely useful in developing mentoring matches based on specific variables, crafting bespoke learning paths, identifying areas for growth, and even personalizing the mentoring experience. It can suggest topics for discussion and ways to start the conversation, as well as summarize those conversations and the key takeaways at the end. It can also recommend relevant resources for further learning. It’s a powerful resource, but it’s the human mentor who interprets those insights, provides context, and motivates mentees to take meaningful action. Personalized and nuanced feedback To maximize impact, mentors should go beyond AI-generated insights by asking powerful, thought-provoking questions that challenge assumptions and encourage self-reflection. AI might give recommendations, but a mentor can contextualize them based on real-world experience, share personal stories, and help mentees see the bigger picture. AI cannot interpret nonverbal cues, but human mentors can, which allows them to adapt their feedback. Human mentors also inspire action by holding mentees accountable, celebrating their progress, and nudging them toward growth in ways that AI simply cannot. Empathy and trust AI can give you scripts of what to say, but it lacks genuine emotional intelligence. If you didn’t get a job, had a paper rejected, or lost a major client, it’s the mentor who will give you a safe space to be vulnerable, process your feelings, and use them to rebuild. Only a human mentor can truly listen and create a space where a mentee feels heard and supported. To build trust, mentors should focus on active listening and acknowledge disappointments without rushing to offer solutions. Instead of saying “You’ll get the next opportunity,” ask, “How are you feeling about this? What can you learn from this experience?” Moral and ethical guidance While AI might work in a black-and-white world, the rest of us live in a world of gray, filled with uncertainty. AI makes decisions based on the past, while our morals and values are what guide us toward the future. AI processes information based on historical decisions, but can’t make value-based judgments in complex scenarios, which is something humans face every day. We need to apply moral judgment to our everyday decisions. As a mentor, don’t just offer answers; help your mentee develop their own ethical compass. Ask them, “What type of leader do you want to be?” or “Which option will help you sleep at night?” These types of reflections build the critical thinking skills AI can’t replicate. It also prepares mentees to be ethically responsible leaders who can make sound decisions during periods of uncertainty. Encouragement beyond comfort zones AI can optimize learning and offer learning paths, but on the days you are tired, have a fight with your significant other, or are stuck in traffic, it’s the human mentor who can offer encouragement, nudges, challenges, and stretch assignments. When a mentee is stuck—either due to frustration, exhaustion, or self-doubt—the human mentor is the voice in their head that reminds them why they started. If you notice that your mentee is having an off day, ask “What’s one small thing you can do today so that you feel a sense of accomplishment?” or “When you look back at this moment, what do you want to see?” An appropriate challenge or stretch assignment, wrapped in encouragement by a mentor, can rekindle a mentee’s motivation in a way that AI can’t. At its core, mentorship is about relationships, not reports and data points. Trust, listening, and genuine curiosity are what make a mentoring partnership successful. AI can enhance what we do and save us time, but it’s how we ultimately show up as mentors—fully present, thoughtful, and invested—that’ll leave a lasting impact. AI is reimagining mentorship by expanding what’s possible, but it won’t replace the essence of what makes mentoring work: the human connection. As mentors, we have the opportunity to use these tools to amplify our impact and save us time, while doubling down on the skills that only humans bring to the table—trust, empathy, and presence. View the full article

For as much as the design industry exaggerates the narrative and drama around unboxing a product, Kind is one of the few brands in which the packaging really does serve the customer experience. Its clear window advertises the natural ingredients: nuts, chocolate, and minimal sugar. The wrapper offers literal transparency into what you’re putting into your body. Of course we know now that plastic is as bad for our environment as it is for our biology. And Kind has spent more than two years reimagining its iconic plastic packaging as a paper wrapper that it hopes to eventually put around the hundreds of millions of bars it sells each year. Developed by Printpack, the company worked to source the right paper and fine-tune its structure—ensuring it’s both protective of food and feasible for assembly line production. “There’s an expectation from our consumer that we are delivering sustainable solutions,” says Kerri Clark, VP of Packaging R&D at Kind. “So I think the threshold that we have to meet is a bit higher.” Developing a better wrapperThe plastic Kind bar packages of today are technically recyclable in much of the U.S., but not through convenient curbside recycling. “We can’t get the consumer to take extra steps, to go to another place to drop things off. It’s a really big ask,” Clark says. “So the paper track is about driving circularity, and improving recycling rates on our Kind bar wrapper.” Swapping plastic for paper isn’t so easy, though. For starters, plastic is highly durable against puncturing and creates a strong seal against the environment. Meanwhile, Kind knows its bar can have sharp edges where it’s cut, and that their product isn’t just bought and then consumed at home. People bring them along as a snack, often shoving them deep into a bag to extract it hours later. “What we don’t want to do is solve one problem but then create another by having a product that’s not usable to the consumer and creating food waste,” Clark says. Plastic also runs easily through high-speed assembly lines, and it has just the right permeability to protect the product from oxygen and moisture without actually requiring a vacuum seal. Nuts, in particular, will go rancid if exposed constantly to air. “[Plastic] has been engineered for all these years for these performance characteristics,” Clark notes. “There’s a reason a lot of food packaging is plastic.” The other reason, of course, is one of cost. Technically, Kind’s paper packs are more expensive for Kind to produce than plastic, which the company considers a short-term cost it will swallow rather than pass along to consumers. Kind makes clear that it holds no patents or other IP on the packaging, which they hope other companies will adopt to drive down price. “This isn’t the paper you’re going to go buy at Office Max to put in your printer. It’s not the paper that we’re going to use for stuffing and an Amazon shipper. So part of what we need to do is to make sure that these things have a chance to be scaled,” Clark says. “It’s really shifted the thinking. I think for most big CPGs [consumer packaged goods], it used to be so much about competitive advantage and exclusivity. With sustainability, it’s the opposite again.” Unwrapping a paper Kind barThe solution Kind and PrintPack developed still feels like a Kind bar. But instead of revealing the nuts within through a window, the bar is printed right onto the wrapper. That wrapper feels lovely in your hands—with a heavy weight that reminds me of a fancier, hand-wrapped confectionery you might get at a fine café or bakery. The paper actually needs enough fiber inside to be a circular material, and I’d argue it feels all-around more premium as a result. (It’s actually a bit more bulky than the plastic pack, too, which leads to some interesting psychology around the portion size.) Tear open the pack, and you’ll feel a waxy interior. This is a plastic-free, FDA-approved water-based coating that, in lieu of plastic, creates a barrier protecting the bar from the aforementioned air and water. To validate the packaging before launch, Kind ran a few tests. It used digital modeling to simulate the performance of the pack. It employed accelerated testing, subjecting the bars to high humidity and heat in attempts to stress the packaging to its limits fast. And the company has also simply wrapped up bars and put them into storage, and checks on them periodically to see how they’ve aged. The company also ran a direct-to-consumer (DTC) pilot project with the packs in 2023. “We’re really taking this test-and-learn approach—where we’re going to try some things, we’re going to make sure that we’re not going to have those negative trade-offs on shelf life and product quality and the eating experience,” Clark says. “But also, does the consumer understand that it’s still a Kind bar? Do I need to literally see the product, or does [our motto of] ‘ingredients you can see and pronounce’ mean that I know what’s in this?” And for Kind, that question is of paramount importance, so it will be tracking sales closely to see if the new packaging impacts its shelf appeal. For now, the new paper packs are part of a limited test that will run through October 1, launching exclusively at Whole Foods Market stores in Arizona, Southern California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. Assuming they perform well, the paper packs could make their way to all Kind bars within a few years. View the full article

During his campaign, President The President made a lot of promises about what he would do during a second term. One of those promises was to roll back the civil and social rights of transgender people. And in his first 100 days in office, The President has been delivering on expelling transgender rights from the U.S., unlike with other promises like improving the economy. Starting from his first day in office, The President has attacked the trans community from all angles—in rhetoric and in policy. He has removed workplace protections for trans people and disallowed gender-affirming medical care. In just a few months, here’s what The President has done to turn back the clock for the trans community and transgender rights. An executive order to recognize only two genders On The President’s first day, he signed a flurry of executive orders. Among them was an order declaring that the U.S. government will now only recognize a person’s gender assigned at birth. It also set forth that the U.S. would recognize only two genders, male and female. The order states: “‘Gender ideology’ replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true.” The executive order meant that the U.S. would not recognize transgender, nonbinary, or intersex people, or even the idea that gender can be fluid. With the order, the State Department has ceased to issue passports with an “X” in the gender category, forcing trans individuals to return to using a gender category that doesn’t align with their identity. Banning trans Americans from military service The President banned transgender Americans from serving openly in the military, rolling back Biden-era protections. The move didn’t come as a surprise, given that The President had spoken frequently about the plan during his campaign. “If you want to have a sex change or a social justice seminar, then you can do it somewhere else, but you’re not going to do it in the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, Space Force, or the United States Marines—sorry,” The President said at a preelection rally. An estimated 15,000 transgender individuals are currently serving in the U.S. military. Lawsuits against The President’s order have already been filed by transgender active-duty members of the military, as well as those attempting to join. Last week, The President asked the Supreme Court to allow the enforcement of a ban on transgender people in the military as those legal challenges continue. Gutting DEI and allowing for workplace discrimination The The President administration quickly gutted DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies from federal organizations. The move is likely to hit the transgender community hard, as hiring discrimination is rampant for the group. But the administration also made specific moves to target trans individuals in the workplace. On January 29, the Office of Personnel Management sent a memo to federal organizations explaining that agency heads should place any workers whose jobs entail “promoting gender ideology” on leave. It called for the closing of all programs that support the concept that gender exists on a spectrum. It also banned all workers from using pronouns in email signatures, and media that may “inculcate or promote gender ideology.” Banning gender-affirming medical care In a January 28 executive order, The President banned gender-affirming medical care for individuals under the age of 19. “It is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures,” the order says. Not only did the order attack trans children, but it also targeted care providers, asserting that federal funds would be restricted from doctors who provide gender-affirming care. A federal judge temporarily blocked the enforcement of the order aiming to shut down access to gender-affirming care. Banning trans individuals from using their preferred bathrooms The President’s January 29 order also attacked transgender individuals using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity. It directed agencies to designate bathrooms “by biological sex and not gender identity.” In an interview with Time magazine, which named The President 2024’s Person of the Year, the then-president-elect said, “I don’t want to get into the bathroom issue. Because it’s a very small number of people we’re talking about, and it’s ripped apart our country, so they’ll have to settle whatever the law finally agrees.” View the full article