Generative AI has rapidly become core infrastructure, embedded across enterprise software, cloud platforms, and internal workflows. But that shift is also forcing a structural rethink of cybersecurity. The same systems driving productivity and growth are emerging as points of vulnerability.
Google Clouds latest AI Threat Tracker report suggests the tech industry has entered a new phase of cyber risk, one in which AI systems themselves are high-value targets. Researchers from Google DeepMind and the Google Threat Intelligence Group have identified a steady rise in model extraction, or distillation, attacks, in which actors repeatedly prompt generative AI systems in an attempt to copy their proprietary capabilities.
In some cases, attackers flood models with carefully designed prompts to force them to reveal how they think and make decisions. Unlike traditional cyberattacks that involve breaching networks, many of these efforts rely on legitimate access, making them harder to detect and shifting cybersecurity toward protecting intellectual property rather than perimeter defenses.
Researchers say model extraction could allow competitors, state actors, or academic groups to replicate valuable AI capabilities without triggering breach alerts. For companies building large language models, the competitive moat now extends to the proprietary logic inside the models themselves.
The report also found that state-backed and financially motivated actors from China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia are using AI across the attack cycle. Threat groups are deploying generative models to improve malware, research targets, mimic internal communications, and craft more convincing phishing messages. Some are experimenting with AI agents to assist with vulnerability discovery, code review, and multi-step attacks.
John Hultquist, chief analyst at Google Threat Intelligence Group, says the implications extend beyond traditional breach scenarios. Foundation models represent billions in projected enterprise value, and distillation attacks could allow adversaries to copy key capabilities without breaking into systems. The result, he argues, is an emerging cyber arms race, with attackers using AI to operate at machine speed while defenders race to deploy AI that can identify and respond to threats in real time.
Hultquist, a former U.S. Army intelligence specialist who helped expose the Russian threat actor known as Sandworm and now teaches at Johns Hopkins University, tells Fast Company how AI has become both a weapon and a target, and what cybersecurity looks like in a machine-versus-machine future.
AI is shifting from being merely a tool used by attackers to a strategic asset worth replicating. What has changed over the past year to make this escalation structurally and qualitatively different from earlier waves of AI-enabled threats?
AI isnt just an enabler for threat actors. Its a new, unique attack surface, and its a target in itself. The biggest movements we will see in the immediate future will be actors adopting AI into their existing routines, but as we adopt AI into the stack, they will develop entirely new routines focused on the new opportunity. AI is also an extremely valuable capability, and we can expect the technology itself to be targeted by states and commercial interests looking to replicate it.
The report highlights a rise in model extraction, or distillation, attacks aimed at proprietary systems. How do these attacks work?
Distillation attacks are when someone bombards a model with prompts to systematically replicate a models capabilities. In Googles case, someone sent Gemini more than 100,000 prompts to probe its reasoning capabilities in an apparent attempt to reverse-engineer its decision-making structure. Think of it like when youre training an analyst, and youre trying to understand how they came to a conclusion. You might ask them a whole series of questions in an effort to reveal their thought process.
Where are state-sponsored and financially motivated threat groups seeing the most immediate operational gains from AI, and how is it changing the speed and sophistication of their day-to-day attack workflows?
We believe adversaries see the value of AI in day-to-day productivity across the full spectrum of their attack operations. Attackers are increasingly using AI platforms for targeting research, reconnaissance, and social engineering. For instance, an attacker who is targeting a particular sector might research an upcoming conference and use AI to interpret and highlight themes and interest areas that can then be integrated into phishing emails for a specific targeted organization. This type of adversarial research would usually take a long time to gather data, translate content, and understand localized context for a particular region or sector. But using AI, an adversary can accomplish hours worth of work in just a few minutes.
Government-backed actors from Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia are integrating AI across the intrusion lifecycle. Where is AI delivering the greatest operational advantage today, and how is it accelerating the timeline from initial compromise to real-world impact?
Generative AI has been used in social engineering for eight years now, and it has gone from making fake photos for profiles to orchestrating complex interactions and deepfaking colleagues. But there are so many other advantages to adversaryspeed, scale, and sophistication. Even a less experienced hacker becomes more effective with tools that help troubleshoot operations, while more advanced actors may gain faster access to zero-day vulnerabilities. With these gains in speed and scale, attackers can operate inside traditional patch cycles and overwhelm human-driven defenses. It is also important not to underestimate the criminal impact of this technology. In many applications, speed is actually a liability to espionage actors who are working very hard to stay low and slow, but it is a major asset for criminals, especially since they expect to alert their victims when they launch ransomware or threaten leaks.
Were beginning to see early experimentation with agentic AI systems capable of planning and executing multi-step campaigns with limited human intervention. How close are we to truly autonomous adversaries operating at scale, and what early signals suggest threat velocity is accelerating?
Threat actors are already using AI to gain scale advantages. We see them using AI to automate reconnaissance operations and social engineering. They are using agentic solutions to scan targets with multiple tools and we have seen some actors reduce the laborious process of developing tailored social engineering. From our own work with tools such as BigSleep, we know that AI agents can be extremely effective at identifying software vulnerabilities and expect adversaries to be exploring similar capabilities.
At a strategic level, are we moving toward a default machine-versus-machine era in cybersecurity? Can defensive AI evolve fast enough to keep pace with offensive capabilities, or has cyber resilience now become inseparable from overall AI strategy?
We are certainly going to lean more on the machines than we ever have, or rik falling behind others that do. In the end, though, security is about risk management, which means human judgment will have to be involved at some level. Im afraid that attackers may have some advantages when it comes to adapting quickly. They wont have the same bureaucracies to manage or have the same risks. If they take a chance on some new technique and it fails, that wont significantly cost them. That will give them greater freedom to experiment. We are going to have to work hard to keep up with them. But if we dont try and dont adopt AI-based solutions ourselves, we will certainly lose. I dont think there is any future for defenders without AI; its simply too impactful to be avoided.
United Parcel Service (UPS) is planning to close dozens of packaging facilities this year, the shipping giant revealed in a court filing this week.
The plans include shuttering facilities in Texas, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, and several other states. It includes locations that have union employees, according to a docket made public as part of a lawsuit between UPS and the Teamsters Union.
UPS revealed in January that it will cut 30,000 jobs over the coming year. The move was announced as its partnership with Amazon was winding down and amid a broader push toward automation.
At the time, it also revealed plans to close 24 total facilities, though it did not reveal the locations.
Now the locations of 22 of those facilities have been made public. In the court filings, UPS said the applicable Local Unions have been notified of these closures and informed of the anticipated impacts.
Which UPS package facilities are closing?
The facilities marked for closure are spread across more than 18 states. They appear below:
Jamieson Park facility in Spokane, Washington
Chalk Hill facility in Dallas, Texas
Jacksonville, Illinois
Rockdale, Illinois
Devils Lake, North Dakota
Laramie, Wyoming
Pendleton, Oregon
North Hills, California
Las Vegas North in Las Vegas, Nevada
Quad Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland
Wilmington, Massachusetts
Ashland, Massachusetts
Sagamore Beach, Massachusetts
Miami Downtown Air in Miami, Florida
Camden, Arkansas
Blytheville, Arkansas
Kosciusko, Mississippi
Atlanta Hub in Atlanta, Georgia
Columbia Hub in West Columbia, South Carolina
Kinston, North Carolina
Austinburg, Ohio
Cadillac, Michigan
What has UPS said about the closures?
Were well into the largest U.S. network reconfiguration in UPS history, creating a nimbler, more efficient operation by modernizing our facilities and matching our size and resources to support growth initiatives,” a UPS spokesperson told Fast Company when reached for comment. “Some positions will be affected, though most changes are expected to occur through attrition. Were committed to supporting our people throughout this process.”
The facility closures were reported earlier by Freight Waves.
Last year, UPS also shed 48,000 workers. The primary drivers for the closures are a broader rightsizing effort, outlined back in 2024.
Shares of United Parcel Service Inc (NYSE: UPS) are up almost 15% so far in 2026. But the stock is down significantly from highs it had seen during the early pandemic years.
However, the impact of the closures will affect members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. In response, the Teamsters filed a lawsuit over a planned voluntary buyout program for union drivers, called the Driver Choice Program, or DCP, saying it violates its contract.
The Teamsters have asked the court for an injunction pending the two sides’ initiation of the grievance process outlined in their contract.
In a statement, the Teamsters have said that they have detailed at least six violations of its National Master Agreement by UPS in the rollout of the buyout program, including direct dealing of new contracts with workers, elimination of union jobs when UPS contractually agreed to establish more positions, and erosion of the rights and privileges of union shop stewards, among other charges.
For the second time in six months, UPS has proven it doesnt care about the law, has no respect for its contract with the Teamsters, and is determined to try to screw our members out of their hard-earned money, said Teamsters General President Sean M. OBrien, in comments included in the statement.
UPSs spokesperson tells Fast Company that the company is disappointed in the response.
The world is changing, and the rate of change isaccelerating,” UPS says. “As we navigate these changes and continue to reshape our network, our drivers appreciate having choices, including theoptionto make a career change or retire earlier than planned.”
This story is developing…
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s 2016 presidential campaign is remembered a decade on for the exclamation point in its “Jeb!” logo, but Jesse Jackson’s campaign actually used the punctuation 28 years before him.
Jackson, the civil rights activist who died Tuesday at the age of 84, ran for president twice, in 1984 and 1988. At the 1988 Democratic National Convention, his supporters held red signs that said “Jesse!” in white.
Democratic National Convention, Atlanta, 1988. [Photo: Robert Abbott Sengstacke/Getty Images]
Jackson came in second in the 1988 primary with nearly 30% of the vote against the party’s nominee Michael Dukakis, and since then, candidates from Bush to 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and former U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, have used the punctuation mark in their logos to give their names some added emphasis.
An attendee holds a campaign sign while listening during a campaign event for Jeb Bush in Charleston, South Carolina, 2016. [Photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg/Getty Images]
Though Jackson never held political office, the visual brand of his historic campaigns still resonates today for standing out in a sea of sameness.
A protege of Martin Luther King Jr., Jackson was the founder of the civil rights nonprofit Operation PUSH (People United to Serve Humanity) when he announced his campaign in 1983 without any experience in elected office and became the first Black presidential candidate for a major party since Shirley Chisholm.
[Image: United States Library of Congress]
Jackson’s exclamation mark logo was far from the only logo used in support of his presidential campaigns in a time before standardized, consistent branding was expected for political campaigns. He campaigned in serifs and sans serifs, and sometimes in bright yellow, a color that signaled a break from the standard red, white, and blue color palette of U.S. politics at the time. His campaign used slogans like “Now is the Time” and “Keep Hope Alive.”
During a speech at the 1984 Democratic National Convention, Jackson explained his idea of the nation as a rainbow, a symbol that became associated with his candidacy and advocacy. “Our flag is red, white, and blue, but our nation is a rainbowred, yellow, brown, black, and whiteand were all precious in Gods sight,” he said.
[Photo: Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture]
That message, along with Jackson’s push to build a “rainbow coalition” that transcended racial and class lines, inspired rainbow-themed buttons and ephemera.
Buttons depicted rainbows that were red, white, and blue
A new 3D-printed construction technique turns corn into a novel building material.
Corncretl is a biocomposite made from corn waste known as nejayote that’s rich in calcium. It’s dried, pulverized, and mixed with minerals, and the resulting material is applied using a 3D printer.
[Photo: Dinorah Schulte/Manufactura]
This corn-based construction material was made by Manufactura, a Mexican sustainable materials company, and it imagines a second life for waste from the most widely produced grain in the world. The project started as an invitation by chef Jorge Armando, the founder of catering brand Taco Kween Berlin, to find ways he could reintegrate waste generated by his taqueria into architecture. A team led by designer Dinorah Schulte created corncretl during a residency last year in Massa Lombarda, Italy.
“The material combines recycled nejayote derivatives with limestone and Carrara marble powder, connecting pre-Hispanic construction knowledge from Mexico with material traditions from northern Italy,” Schulte tells Fast Company.
[Photo: Dinorah Schulte/Manufactura]
Growing momentum for clean cement alternatives
Many sustainable materials studios are researching concrete alternatives. And while corncretl is just in the prototyping stage, food waste has been tested as a potential building material more broadly.
Researchers at the University of Tokyo made a construction material it said was harder than cement in 2022 out of raw materials like coffee grounds, powered fruit and vegetable waste, and seaweed. Last year, researchers at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology developed a rammed earth material encased in cardboard, which eliminated the need for cement completely, and Manufactura experimented with building materials made from coffee too.
Designers have turned to 3D printers to build everything from train shelters to houses, and developing alternative materials to print with could lead to cheaper, more durable, and more sustainable construction methods.
[Photo: Dinorah Schulte/Manufactura]
After Schulte’s team developed corncretl, they then moved to practical application, prototyping three panels for modular construction using a Kuka robotic arm.
“The project employs an internal infill structure that allows the 3D-printed wall to be self-supporting, eliminating the need for external scaffolding during fabrication,” Schulte says, and the geometry of the system was inspired by terrazzo patterns found in the Roman Empire, particularly Rimini, Italy, where the team visited.
[Photo: Dinorah Schulte/Manufactura]
“During a visit to the city museum, we were struck by the expressive curved terrazzo motifs, which became a starting point for translating historical geometries into a contemporary, computationally designed 3D-printed wall, culturally rooted yet forward-looking,” she says.
[Photo: Dinorah Schulte/Manufactura]
Corn, or maize, is native to Mexico, and the country produces 27 million metric tons of it annually, according to the Wilson Center, a think tank. Finding an alternative use for nejayote, then, could then turn a waste stream from a popular food into the basis for building physical structures.
If the byproduct from cooking tortillas proves to be one such source, taquerias could one day find themselves in the restaurant and construction businesses.
Trump’s latest plans for a White House annex could subtly reshape the path around the South Lawn, and its resulting irregularity says a lot about the Administration’s capacity for design nuance.
The latest renderings for a new proposed building on the site of the demolished East Wing were briefly posted to the National Capital Planning Commission website on February 13, and then deleted. The plans call for a ballroom much bigger than the rest of the White House. So big, in fact, that it ruins the shape of the South Lawn driveway.
[Image: NCPC]
Under the proposal, a new garden would cover the site of the Jacqueline Kennedy Garden, which was demolished alongside the East Wing last year, while a roughly 22,000-square-foot ballroom would jut out ever so slightly into the path of the looping driveway that encircles the most famous backyard in the U.S.
[Image: NCPC]
The elongated oval drive would then have to be pushed in on one side to accommodate the footprint of the enlarged ballroom, like the side view of an spherical exercise ball under pressure. Rather than maintain the intentional harmony of the current drive, the proposed path turns the South Lawn into a deferential design afterthought that makes way for Trump’s dream ballroom.
In the grand scheme of Trump’s presidencyand the White House’s overall facadea rerouted driveway is a minor thing. But the effect on this subtle element reflects the lengths his team will go to shoehorn his design ideas into reality, even if it means upsetting core design principles like balance elsewhere.
Gold-obsessed, unless it’s the golden ratio
Of course, nothing about Trump’s proposed ballroom has ever been symmetrical, nor have any of his other White House design projects been particularly subtle. He started by tearing out the Rose Garden and putting a car lot-sized flag poll on the North Lawn and then got to work tearing down portions of the White House before anyone could okay it or say no.
Trump replaced the original architect for the ballroom in December after clashes over its size. A National Park Service report last year found the plans would “disrupt the historical continuity of the White House grounds and alter the architectural integrity of the east side of the property.”
[Image: NCPC]
The latest proposed elevations for the ballroom, which were designed by Shalom Baranes Associates, a Washington, D.C., architectural firm, are more than twice the size of the since-demolished East Wing. The drafted design gives the White House complex the look of a male fiddler crab, which has one claw that’s bigger than the other. The planned ballroom dwarfs the West Wing in sheer footprint, which would make the overall visual balance of the White House grossly asymmetrical upon its completion.
Heightwise, however, the building appears in the renderings to rise about as tall as the Executive Mansion itself, and the proposal takes great pains to show that it won’t be visible from various vantage points in Washington, D.C., like from the Jefferson Memorial or from the U.S. Capitol steps facing northwest. The building is designed with a neoclassical facade, Corinthian columns, and a wide staircase entrance, matching the call for classical architecture Trump asked for in an executive order.
[Image: NCPC]
Fine arts fueled by cash, but not the arts
Construction of the ballroom will be paid for by corporate donors, raising thorny ethical questions for a president who once claimed to “drain the swamp.”
Two-thirds of known corporate donors to the ballroom have received $279 billion in government contracts over the past five years. Some donors, including Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and T-Mobile are facing federal enforcement actions, according to a review from Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group.
[Image: NCPC]
Earlier this month, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) found that many donors failed to disclose their contributions in lobbying disclosure filings.
Trump has taken steps to remove friction or opposition to his plans to build the new building. Last October, he fired every member of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts board, the agency that would have reviewed his construction plans. Now, his 26-year-old executive assistant Chamberlain Harris, who has no background in the arts, is set to be named to commission Thursday, according to The Washington Post.
The pressure to adopt AI is relentless. Boards, investors, and the market tell us that if we dont, well be left behind. The result is a frantic gold rush to implement AI for AIs sake, leading to expensive pilots, frustrated teams, and disappointing ROI.
The problem is that were treating AI like a magic wanda one-size-fits-all solution for any problem. But true transformation comes from strategically applying it where it can make the most impact.
This is the AI sweet spot, where the real competitive advantage lies. Its not about having the most advanced AI, but about having the right AI, applied to the right problems, with the right people. Here are five ways to find it.
1. Start with Your Biggest Bottleneck, Not Your Biggest Budget
Many organizations fall into the trap of allocating their AI budget to the department that shouts the loudest. Its a recipe for wasted resources.
Instead of asking, Where can we spend our AI budget? ask, Where is our biggest organizational bottleneck?
Identify the most time-consuming, repetitive processes in your company. Is it the hours your marketing team spends on pre-meeting research? The manual data entry bogging down your finance department? These pain points are your starting line.
For example, one company I worked with found their sales team was spending over five hours preparing for a single client meeting. By implementing an AI agent to handle the research and data compilation, they reduced that prep time by 87%, saving nearly $300,000 a year in productivity costs. The AI wasnt flashy, but it solved a real, costly problem. Thats a sweet spot.
2. Ask ‘Will This Enhance or Replace?’
The quickest way to kill an AI initiative is to make your employees feel threatened by it. When people hear AI, they often think job replacement. This fear breeds resistance and undermines adoption. As a leader, your job is to reframe the conversation from replacement to augmentation.
Before implementing any AI tool, ask a simple question: Will this technology enhance our teams capabilities, or simply replace a human function? The sweet spot is almost always in enhancement.
Think of AI not as a new employee, but as a tireless intern or a brilliant colleague for every member of your team. It can handle the grunt work, analyze massive datasets, and surface key insights, freeing up your people to do what they do best: think critically and make strategic decisions. When your team sees AI as a partner that makes their jobs better, they will champion its adoption.
3. Build Trust Before You Build the Tech
We dont use tools we dont trust. If your team doesnt understand how an AI system works or why it makes certain recommendations, they will find workarounds to avoid using it. Trust isnt a feature you can add later; it has to be the foundation of your implementation strategy.
This starts with creating a culture of psychological safety, where employees feel safe to ask questions and even challenge the AI.
Be transparent. Explain what the AI does, what data it uses, and where its limitations are. Appoint human oversights for critical processes, ensuring that a person is always in the loop for high-stakes decisions.
In my work, I use the framework 13 Behaviors of Trust, and it applies as much to AI as it does to people. An AI system earns trust when it is competent (delivers results) and has character (operates with integrity). Without that trust, even the most powerful AI is just expensive code.
4. Tie Every AI Initiative to a Business Goal
Exploring AI capabilities is not a business strategy. Too many AI projects exist in a vacuum, disconnected from the companys core objectives. If you cant draw a straight line from your AI initiative to a specific goallike increasing customer retention or reducing operational costsyou shouldnt be doing it.
Before you approve any AI project, map it directly to your companys OKRs or strategic pillars. How will this tool help us achieve our vision? How does it support our mission? This forces a level of discipline that prevents you from chasing shiny objects. It ensures that your AI strategy is not an isolated IT function, but an integral part of your overall business strategy.
AI that doesnt align with your core purpose will always be a cost center. AI that does becomes a powerful engine for value creation.
5. Create Space for Learning, Not Just Execution
Leaders often expect an immediate, seamless return on their AI investment. But there is no magic switch. Successful adoption requires moving your team from a zone of comfort, through the uncertainty of fear, and into zones of learning and growth. This takes time and patience.
Dont just budget for the technology; budget for the learning curve. Create sandboxes where teams can experiment with new AI tools without fear of failure. Celebrate the small wins and the lessons learned from missteps.
The organizations that are truly winning with AI arent the ones that got it perfect on day one. They are the ones that fostered a culture of continuous learning, empowering their employees to adapt and grow. The long-term ROI from an empowered, AI-fluent workforce will far exceed any short-term gains from a rushed implementation.
Finding your AI sweet spot is less about technology and more about psychology, strategy, and culture. Its about shifting your focus from what AI can do to what it should do for your organization and your people. Stop chasing the AI hype and start solving your real-world business problems. Thats where youll find the lasting advantage.
The 2026 Milan-Cortino Winter Olympics is set to debut a new sport: ski mountaineering, also known as skimo. Over the course of two days at the Stelvio Ski Centre located in Bormio, Italy, 36 athletes will compete in three main events: mens sprints, womens sprints, and mixed relay.
The race is part endurance and speed, as typical skimo competitions feature athletes racing against each other as they ascend uphill with support of climbing skins before skiing downhill. The Winter Olympics version, however, differs in format. This version compresses the competition into a roughly three-minute race.
Each leg of a skimo race requires its own specialized equipment. And that equipment matters. Who wins and loses in skimo is often a matter of milliseconds, determined during the transitions between the three distinct moments of the race: ascent, boot-packing (mountaineering), and descent.
Thats where a 76 year-old German company comes in. Dynafit created the DNA Sprint Collection, a six-product line engineered specifically for the Olympic stage that 11 out of 36 athletes will use during the competition. The remaining athletes will use similar equipment provided by different brands in line with the International Ski Mountaineering Federations (ISMF) requirements.
[Photo: Owen Crandall/courtesy Dynafit]
Dynafits Design Philosophy
A typical skimo competition features rough, high alpine terrain and harsh, snowy conditions that are physically demanding on athletes. To maneuver this challenging terrain, athletes rely on gear such as skis, boots, poles, gloves, backpacks (to hold equipment while transitioning from one part of the race to the other), crampons (a spike attachment for athletes boots to grip onto ice while on foot), and avalanche gear. All of this gear is specifically designed to be lightweight to assist athletes in navigating the challenging, mountainous terrain.
Historically, Dynafit is known for pioneering the boots and tech binding (a mechanism that lets athletes lift their heel while climbing uphill and lock into place to descend downhill) critical for performing the sport. Now, as the dominant brand in the $1.24 billion skimo equipment market, the company produces a range of products, including helmets, race suits, boots, skis, and skins, for the casual and elite skier.
[Photo: Dynafit]
The biggest challenge in our development [is] to find the balance between weight and safety, says Manuel Aumann, Dynafits Operations and R&D Director Bindings. Aumann explains that the company has an abundance of testing experience to ensure their products durability and safety.
We have to save every gram . . . but also [deliver] high safety products, explains Aumann. [For] every 100 grams you save on your boot or the ski, or on the binding, you could carry seven times more weight on the backpack. For our customers and for the athletes, [that] pushes them to the next level.
[Photo: Owen Crandall/courtesy Dynafit]
Re-Thinking Skimo Designs
This will not be the first time that skimo qualifies as a Winter Olympic sport. Between 1924 and 1936, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) included skimo in the Winter Games but later discontinued it in part due to its dangerous nature. Then in July 2021, the IOC unanimously approved skimos inclusion in the 2026 Winter Olympics.
For the occasion, Dynafit developed a unique line specific for the Olympics, including skis, bindings, poles, gloves, and backpacks. Creating a line of products to help elevate athletes performance involved a two-step process.
First, in 2022, Dynafit hosted an international summit with 25 of its sponsored athletes to curate their feedback on equipment constraints. That input served as the foundation for the company’s four-year process from the redesign to market availability of its specialty product line.
[Photo: Dynafit]
Aumann and his team dissected the Olympic format to inform their design process. The Olympic race focuses on sprint races. Athletes will be required to complete an uphill ascent on skis, transition into a short bootpacking section, then transition again for a downhill descent. This race format requires fast transitions between each phase.
The two minutes 30, you can split [in] time slots, says Aumann. The rough estimation [is] two minutes for the uphill and 30 seconds for the downhill. We got into the analysis of where we an have the most benefit if we change something.
The team determined that the first half of the race, involving the ascent with skis and the transition where athletes remove their skis and place them into their backpacks just before continuing onto bootpacking (a foot race on skis with the assistance of poles), would yield the most benefit.
The Dynafit team learned that while most of the new product line required minimal adjustments, their skis and bindings would require significant design alterations.
[Photo: Dynafit]
The handling operations, they’re quite important on this high level, explains Aumann. It’s really about the second[s] they can save during [these] transitions.
The rough alpine terrain of a standard skimo competition requires skis to have increased skiability, meaning they are carved and built for those conditions in order for athletes to make safe turns. Since the Olympics course will have smoother slopes with fewer steep curves and banked turns to help athletes, it allows skis to have less skiability. In other words, the skis do not need to be optimized for tough terrains, allowing Aumann and his team to focus on narrowing the ski-waist from 64 mm to 61 mm.
With this [slimmer] ski, we could save weight, says Aumann. While a traditional race touring ski weighs 690 grams, the altered ski weighs only 650 grams.
Another benefit of this slimmer version of the ski, particularly its narrower tail, is that it allows athletes to better handle transitions. For instance, when athletes move from skiing uphill to bootpacking, they must quickly loop their skis onto their backpack for the foot race and then later unhook them for the descent downhill. Ultimately, this design change is intended to help athletes shave off incremental seconds, which is critical in a sprint where every tenth of a second counts.
[Photo: Dynafit]
Further, during the uphill transition from skis to bootpacking (the foot race), athletes will need to release themselves from their ski bindings, where steel pins meet the boot inserts to secure the boots within the binding. Then on the descent portion of the course, athletes need to step back into their ski bindings. The act of stepping in and out of skis presented additional time-saving opportunities and speed optimization. Aumann and his team made three key design changes to their fully aluminum, binding product.
[Photo: Dynafit]
What we did is to really make [the grip zone], where the athlete can grab, wider,” explains Aumann. [The athletes] don’t have to look down, but can grab it in a very easy way without looking. The team widened the grip zone for the heel piece as well as the locking lever of the binding. Providing athletes with a larger grip zone surface allows athletes to use one hand to release their boots from the binding, saving at least a few tenths of a second.
Lastly, the team redesigned its ski race stoppers, a safety feature required by the ISMF. Generally, standard ski touring stoppers deploy a small metal arm, or wire, into the snow to slow the ski if an athlete loses it or releases from the binding. According to Aumann, each stopper includes a plastic cap at the end to help it grip and fix into the snow. While a traditional alpine ski touring stopper features sharp contours and edges that can easily snag on a loop in an athletes backpack, Dynafits re-designed stopper lacks these features.
[Photo: Dynafit]
Rather, the team modified the transition point where the plastic cap meets a metal wire by creating a smooth, rounded curve surface. By rounding out the curve, the updated design reduces the risk of catching onto other surfaces while improving overall reliability, all without adding weight. The modified race stopper alone weighs just 30 grams, compared to the 70 to 100 grams typical of standard touring models.
Another important aspect of the redesign is that the stopper automatically retracts when athletes switch to the descend/downhill model, eliminating an additional step for manual adjustment.
Aumann acknowledges that this design process helped accelerate a trend already happening across the industry. As the sport has grown in the past couple of years, manufacturers have increasingly considered tradeoffs rather than focusing solely on making lighter products.
Within the last two years that [has] changed, says Aumann. Perfect handling of the products [is] a very high priority. So, it is [acceptable] to have a product with a few [more] grams if the handling is better and can save time. Dynafit has already begun incorporating these design tweaks into its commercial products.
Most leaders understand their message needs to define exactly who their work is for. Fewer realize that it should also define who it’s not for. Fewer still realize that their message is unintentionally excluding some of the very people they want to attract.
Effective messaging repels on purpose. Careless messaging excludes by accident. And for leaders, knowing the difference can make or break your organizations credibility.
REPEL TO ATTRACT
The idea of intentionally turning away potential customers can make leaders uncomfortable. It seems counterintuitive, even reckless, to deliberately shrink your total addressable market when youre trying to grow. But trying to message to everyone can come at a high cost, resulting in:
Misaligned employees. People who dont share your organizations values may become unhappy and disengaged, ultimately eroding your culture and reputation.
Wrong-fit customers. Theyll never be satisfied with what wasnt designed for them, leading to negative reviews, returns, and reputation damage.
Wasted resources. Messaging too broadly can result in additional expenses, from advertising to (and trying to convert) a larger pool of prospects, all the way through to customer service.
The costs of attracting the wrong audience compound over time, while organizations with the deepest loyalty are often the ones explicitly saying this wasnt created for you. Two particularly effective ways to do this are through values-based declarations and explicit audience definition.
Values-based repelling involves taking a strong public stance on the ideas that matter most to your brand, effectively filtering out those who dont share those values. When Patagonia launched their edgy Dont Buy This Jacket campaign with a full-page ad in the New York Times on Black Friday, they werent just making a statement about overconsumption; they were signaling to impulse buyers and fast-fashion hunters that Patagonia isnt for them. It was a bold expression of this is what we stand for, and this is what we dont.
Meanwhile, explicit audience definition expresses who an organization stands for. Basecamp takes this approach by saying: We are for this group. We are not for that group. This builds community and loyalty by creating a small business Us (We stand with the underdogs. Freelancer? Underfunded non-profit? Small team feeling stuck in a large enterprise? Start-up battling established competitors? Youre our people.) versus a big business Them (Theyre slow. Theyre conservative. They talk too much. Theyve stopped taking risks. Theyre resting on their laurels, gliding on their reputation.) dynamic that makes their ideal customers feel seen and understood.
So when does repelling cross over from good to badand is it possible to repel too much?
In many cases, it’s not a matter of degree (turning the repelling dial up or down), but of intentionality. Often, the smallest details create unexpected barriers. Seemingly minor messaging decisions, invisible to internal teams who know what they meant to say, can alienate the very people youd like to attract.
BARRIERS YOU DIDNT MEAN TO BUILD
Every message draws a line: inviting some in, leaving others out. The risk is when that line is invisible to you but glaringly obvious to your audience.
Strategic narrowing is, by definition, intentional. You decide whoand only whoyoure speaking to and why, shaping your message around what will resonate most. Careless narrowing happens when you filter people out by default through assumptions, jargon, stereotypes, unconscious bias, or unclear values.
This type of exclusion isnt deliberate. Its built into the words we use, the assumptions we make, and the systems we design. It often feels harmless in the moment; after all, you didnt mean to exclude anyone. But messaging missteps stack up, often in ways we dont see until its too late.And when a message ends up alienating the very people youre trying to reach, it can undermine everything youre building: your team, your customers, and your reputation.
Unintentional exclusion carries real costs:
1. Talent loss
Talented candidates self-select out because they dont see themselves reflected in your language, imagery, or values, leaving roles harder to fill. Current employees who feel overlooked or alienated disengage, and that disengagement can wreak havoc on your culture.
This shows up in a number of quiet ways, for example: A company says it values a diverse workforce but schedules events on days that are major holidays for some employees. A strong candidate doesnt apply because the job description uses jargon or must-haves that dont actually matter. Company headquarters are accessible by public transport but the company offsite is not. Leadership talks a big game when it comes to its global perspective, but every quarter the big all-hands meeting is only live in US time zones.
2. Missed growth
Customers who dont see themselves in your story wont buy in. People who could have been strong advocates never consider your product because the way you described it suggested it wasnt for them. This shows up in many ways:
Product positioning that assumes sameness. Parenting apps marketed for busy moms can unintentionally exclude dads, grandparents, or other caregivers who share the same challenges.
Language that creates barriers. A landing page filled with jargon can leave first-time buyers feeling shut out rather than invited in.
Product design with hidden friction. An app that assumes constant high-speed internet excludes rural users. Low-contrast color palettes exclude those with low vision.
Visuals that signal who belongs. When websites or ads feature only one demographic, they subtly suggest others arent welcome, even if they are part of the intended audience. Peloton learned this the hard way. An early campaign centered on ultra-fit people in luxury apartments projected an elite, upper-class image that excluded people who werent wealthy and who represented a wider range of body types. The campaign also came under fire for portraying a sexist dynamic. While the intent was to be inspirational and aspirational, it didnt take into account where many of its potential customers were starting out, and it wasnt aligned with Pelotons founding goal of democratizing fitness. The brand smartly course-corrected in 2023 with new messaging and ethos, emphasizing fitness offerings for all ages, levels, and walks of life.
3. Damaged credibility
Beyond costing you poential customers and engaged employees, accidental exclusion damages how the broader market perceives your brand. When your companys behavior contradicts your stated mission or core values, stakeholders notice the gap between what you claim to stand for and what your words and actions actually signal. The resulting erosion of trust can be imperceptible until it turns into a full-blown reputation crisis. Once trust is lost, its difficult to win it back.
The difference between strategic and careless narrowing is intention and awareness: one sharpens your message, the other shrinks your reach. The result is always the same: qualified candidates opt out, customers conclude “not for me,” and stakeholders lose trust.
You didnt choose a nicheyou just made yours significantly smaller.
HOW TO REPEL, NOT EXCLUDE
People are highly attuned to language. They notice whos acknowledged and whos overlooked, especially when its them. In a crowded market, intentional communication determines whether you expand opportunity or reinforce barriers.
Inclusive messaging doesnt mean trying to be everything to everyone. It means being deliberate about the language you use and the lines you draw so the right people feel welcomed in, not left out.
To avoid missteps, regularly pause to ask:
Who might this message unintentionally exclude?
Are we relying on assumptions that not everyone shares?
Does our language and imagery draw people in or push them away?
Build guardrails into your processes throughout your organization:
Choose words and imagery carefully. Intentionally repel those who are not ideal customers or employees, but incorporate safeguards and checks to make sure youre not using language or visuals that unintentionally exclude.
When creating a customer avatar, consider relying less on demographics and more on psychographics. What are their attitudes, values, and interests? Consider how your message might land differently based on someone’s lived experience, perspective, and motivations.
Run language and formatting through an inclusivity check, test job posts with employees from different backgrounds, and test brand copy with focus groups who have different points of view and lived experience.
When diverse perspectives are considered, accidental exclusion decreases. The business case is clear: employees are attracted and retained, brand messages land with the right audience, and teams better identify products and services for a broader customer base. According to a BCG study, companies with more diverse leadership boast 19% higher innovation revenue. And McKinsey finds that companies with diverse leadership teams are 39% more likely to outperform their peers financially.
Make checking for accidental exclusion and unintended barriers a regular practice. Invite perspectives from people who don’t look, think, or work like you. Brands that do this consistently don’t just avoid costly mistakesthey build stronger cultures, retain better talent, attract the right customers, and gain credibility that lasts.
Change often fails and that rarely has anything to do with whether the concept is a good one or not. As Howard Aiken famously put it, “Don’t worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you’ll have to ram them down people’s throat.” As the creator of the Harvard Mark, one of the very first computers, he was speaking from experience.
The truth is that any time you set out to make an impact theres going to be some who wont like it. Theyll seek to undermine what you are trying to achieve and they will do it in ways that are dishonest, underhanded and deceptive. Its a hard truth, but one we all need to accept: resistance is inevitable when you try to drive change.
Once you internalize that, you can begin to move forward. When we work with organizations trying to adopt and scale new ideas, one of the first things we do is work to anticipate and build strategies to overcome resistance. We start by working to understand where resistance is most likely to come from and devise a plan to address the concerns opponents are likely to exploit.
Understanding Sources Of Rational Resistance
There are many good reasons to resist change. The status quo, for better or worse, is what people have become used to. They understand its benefits and how to work around its shortcomings. So the first barrier to change is the need to build trust in an alternative, more uncertain path.
A second source of resistance is change fatigue. We live in an era that glorifies change, where disruption has taken on an almost cult-like status. So we need to consider not only the merits and demerits of a single initiative, but also the broader contextwhat has come before and what else is happening at the time. Many organizations juggle too many initiatives and the ones that fail increase change fatigue, making it harder for those that follow.
A third source is competing incentives and commitments. Incentives, both explicit and implicit, are usually designed to reflect the status quo which is why many change leaders find themselves in the awkward position of asking people to act against their own interests, In other cases, the conflict is self-imposed, such as when a manager who wants to delegate more also sees herself as a hands-on manager.
Finally, every change faces switching costs. Change always requires some investment in time, resources, training and other areas. Opponents of change often make the case that these costs exceed the potential benefits, which puts the burden of proof on those who support doing things differently.
The key thing to overcome rational resistance is to anticipate it, which is why one of the first things that we do when we start working with an organization is to do a resistance inventory, laying out the categories of resistance and discussing what types of resistance can be expected, hope they will most likely manifest themselves and what strategies can mitigate them.
Anticipating Irrational Resistance
Many argue that resistance to change is merely an illusion. They claim that if youre facing pushback, its either because you havent effectively communicated the value proposition or havent put in the effort to understand the root causes behind the opposition. Surely, if your idea has value, people will embrace it.
Now, thats just silly.
Resistance doesnt need a rational basis and often doesnt have one. The truth is that humans form attachments to people, ideas, traditions and other things. When we feel that those attachments are being threatened, we will tend to act out in ways that dont reflect our best selves. Anybody who has ever been in a romantic relationship or part of a family knows that.
Transformation isnt a popularity contest. Its not consensus driven. Its also not some heroic journey to some alternative future state about which everyone agrees (they never will). Change is always a strategic conflict between that desired future state and the status quo, which always has inertia on its side and sources of power keeping it in place.
To overcome that resistance, you need to be clear-eyed and hard-nosed. Success or failure has surprisingly little to do with the quality or usefulness of your initial idea. Good ideas fail all the time. Thats why you need to be strategic. Slogans and gimmicks wont help you. Change isnt about persuasionits about power and collective dynamics.
Building Strategies To Overcome Resistance
The first principle of building strategies to overcome resistance is to address the causes of rational resistance youve uncovered in your resistance inventory. Another approach you can apply at the same time is to recruit a few skeptics to form an internal red team to let you know where youre going wrong. Theyre bound to identify blind spots and can often become genuine supporters over time.
Irrational resistance, however, requires more specific strategies. The first is to start with a majority. You can always expand a majority out, but once youre in the minority, you will feel immediate pushback. You get to decide who you put in the room, so choose wisely. You have no obligation to invite the bomb throwers in.
A second strategy is simply to not engage with your most active resistors. Decades of research has found that you usually need only 10% to 20% participation to hit an inflection point, so you dont need to convince everyone at once. Go to where the energy is. Find people already enthusiastic about your idea, gain traction toward that 10%-20% threshold.
A final strategy is a dilemma action in which you identify a shared value and then design a constructive act rooted in that shared value. That reates a dilemma for your opponents because they need to either let the constructive act go forward, or to violate the shared value. Either way, your change moves forward.
Dilemma actions have been used for at least a centuryfamous examples include Gandhis Salt March, Kings Birmingham Campaign and Alice Pauls Silent Sentinels. One of my favorites was a Lego protest in Siberia. They are just as effective in an organizational context, using an opponents resistance against them.
Change Is A Strategic Conflict
Many assume that you bring about change through persuasion. They believe that once people understand the idea they will embrace it. So they work to build awareness, desire and knowledge about the idea and equip people with the skills to implement it in the hopes that the transformation will take hold on its own and become self-sustaining.
They are usually sorely disappointed. Decades of evidence show that shifts in knowledge and attitudes usually dont result in changes in practice. There is also a large body of research that suggests providing people with the right information is unlikely to meaningfully influence their behavior. People arent blank slatesthey bring prior beliefs and biases that shape how they respond to new ideas.
The truth is that change isnt some kind of heros journey to some alternative future state. It is a strategic conflict between that desired state and the status quo, which always has inertia on its side and never yields its power gracefully. It has sources of power keeping it in place and those sources of power have an institutional basis.
Thats why you need to begin to think about how you will overcome resistance from the start. You cant just wait until you encounter it and react, but must work to anticipate it and devise strategies in advance. Thats what makes the difference between successful changemakers and mere frustrated dreamers who once had an idea.
Fifty years is a long time for any company to stay in business. About 20% fail in their first year. By year five, roughly half are gone. By the end of a decade, nearly 70% dont make it. Reaching a golden anniversary raises a question about what allows some businesses to last.
The answers are often framed in terms of Herculean efforts, access to capital, and brilliant strategy. All those matter. But in my experience, the gift of longevity is the result of something less visible and harder to measure: the quality of the relationships built along the way.
This factor was apparent to me when I opened my first flower shop on April 1, 1976, and it only grew stronger as that little business blossomed into 1-800-Flowers.com. When we stayed focused on our relationships, we moved forward. When we lost sight of them, we stumbled.
Those relationships, of course, begin with customers who trust you with moments that matter in their lives. They extend to the florists, growers, makers, and partners who bring care and craftsmanship to the work every day. And they include the people inside the company, whose pride, judgment, and commitment ultimately shape what the business becomes.
Relationships, up close
Fifty years ago, I was working full-time as a social worker and part-time as a bartender. Both jobs showed me how our lives are shaped by relationships and how difficult it can be to express what we feel when the stakes are high.
When the opportunity arose to buy the small flower shop across the street from the bar where I worked, I took it. In both jobs, I had seen people searching for ways to connect. If words sometimes fell shortand alcohol helped loosen themwhy couldnt flowers do their own kind of work?
That tiny shop on Manhattans Upper East Side became a place where people brought moments they cared about: a birthday, a reconciliation, a loss, to name a few.
In those early days, orders rarely came without context. A customer might explain that her daughter had just moved into her first apartment and felt lonely. Someone else would describe a gathering they hoped would feel warm rather than formal. People shared intimate details of their livesit was the 1970s!and many stopped by simply to say hello, swap gossip, or ask for a restaurant recommendation.
Funeral work made that lesson unmistakable. Families came in for flowers, but what they really wanted was a way to express what words couldnt reach. Over time, we became known for deeply personal tributesarrangements shaped like garbage trucks for a sanitation worker, or gates left intentionally open because, as one family put it, you never lock the gates to heaven.
Those moments stayed with me. They made it clear, early on, that carelessness had consequencesand that trust, once given, had to be earned again every single day.
Scaling trust
Built on strong relationships, that single flower shop grew into a small chain. Business was good, but I could see opportunities to grow further. The challenge thenas it remains todaywas how to expand without losing the trust that had been built one customer at a time.
We learned early on that convenience plays a role in trust, and technology became a powerful way to deliver it. In 1984, while listening to the radio one morning as I shaved in the bathroom, I heard about the growing impact of toll-free phone numbers.
The company that owned the 1-800-Flowers number hadnt figured out how to turn it into a national floral business. I thought we could with the right investment in telemarketingthis has always been a relationship business, after all. It worked so well that the phone number eventually became the name of the company.
That was just the first of several technology waves weve navigated. We moved online when plenty of people doubted anyone would buy something so personal over the internet. We embraced mobile early. And today, were exploring how artificial intelligence can help people choose, personalize, and communicate more thoughtfully.
Each shift mattered only to the extent that it made human connection easier. Technology earned its place when it helped people act on intentions they already had. It succeeded when it reduced friction in relationshipsand failed whenever it distracted from them.
Stewardship is a choice
The trust required to build and sustain relationships is neither automatic nor permanent. It has to be earned again and again. I saw it up close as 1-800-Flowers.com expanded beyond flowers into gourmet food and gift baskets, and we began evaluating businesses to bring into the family.
I remember my first visit to Harry & David after we acquired the company in 2014. Years of ownership changes and aggressive cost-cutting had taken a toll. Trust between leadership and employees had been badly damaged, and customers had noticed.
When I arrived, the leadership team braced for a familiar conversation. They had grown used to owners focused on extracting value by cutting costs, narrowing ambition, and shrinking the future. People were understandably guarded, uncertain about what came next.
But the conversation took a different turn. Instead of talking about what could be stripped away, we talked about planting more fruit trees and protecting what made the brand distinctive for the long term. The focus was stewardship rather than short-term returns.
Previous owners had talked about harvesting value. We were talking about cultivating it. One longtime employee told me afterward that he had never heard an owner speak that way.
Staying connected in a crisis
The shift toward digital commerce brought challenges, especially when it came to maintaining relationships with customers who now encountered us through screens rather than storefronts. Technology created reach and convenience, but it couldnt replace the power of being together.
The pandemic brought that reality into sharp focus. In a moment of urgency, we closed all but one of our remaining Harry & David retail stores.
As the crisis unfolded, I asked a simple question of my executive team: How do we stay close to our customers now? How do we check in, not as a business, but as people? A young woman in my office suggested writing a newsletter. That idea became the Celebrations Pulse.
The first subject line captured the intent: Just checking in. In those early weeks, I shared thoughts on staying connected and maintaining perspective during a period of isolation and uncertainty.
The response surprised me. Readers were struck that a brand wasnt trying to sell them anything. As weeks turned into months, the focus naturally widened from COVID to loneliness, from crisis to connection, from coping to the deeper reasons we celebrate in the first place. We eventually invited readers to share their own stories, many of which became the foundation for future letters.
What began as a simple outreach grew into an ongoing weekly conversation. Circulation steadily expanded, from six million to 10 million readers. Today, its approaching 20 millionproof that even in a digital world, people still value being seen, heard, and remembered.
Another turning point
Technology continues to evolve, and customer expectations evolve with it. The tools change, the pace increases, and leadership requires a willingness to keep learnng. What matters most is staying attentive to the people you serve and the promises youve made to them.
Its easy to rely on approaches that worked well in earlier chapters. Over time, though, the work asks for new skills and fresh perspective. Relationships dont stay strong by standing still; they grow when you meet people where they are.
We were reminded of that in late 2024, when our food brands introduced a new order-management system ahead of the holiday season. The rollout didnt meet our expectations, and some customers were left waiting during moments that mattered to them. It was a difficult experience, and a revealing one.
As the company approached its 50th anniversary, that moment prompted reflection. Longevity brings responsibilitynot only to honor what has worked, but to make thoughtful decisions that support the relationships the business depends on today and in the future.
In the spring of 2025, I stepped aside as CEO of 1-800-Flowers.com and continued as chairman. Im now partnering with our new CEO, Adolfo Villagomez. His experience at Home Depot and strength in operations and team culture balance my own perspective. Hes the yin to my yang as we move into the next chapter.
After fifty years, the lesson is a simple one. As title and tools change, what endures is the work of earning trustby listening closely, acting responsibly, and making decisions that keep relationships at the center.
50 years of gratitude
Rather than protecting a legacy, the work ahead is about continuing to earn trust one decision, one interaction, and one relationship at a time. Gratitude keeps that responsibility front and center.
Businesses dont last because they declare success. They last because enough people decide, again and again, that theyre worth believing in. For that beliefand for the people who continue to extend itI remain deeply grateful.
