A fresh glimpse at our AI-filled future arrived this week, in the form of an unmemorable ad by a company most people have never heard of. The ad is kind of flat and will probably scan as goofy to everyone outside its target demo, but don’t write it off just yet: It could signal the beginning of some very big (and scary) changes.
The upstart fintech company Coign claims to be a “conservative credit card company,” a distinction that boils down to the founders pledge to never donate to liberal causes and candidates. And while that self-definition raises some questions, it pales in comparison to the actual ad.
The 30-second clip is a patriotic parade of red-blooded, red-voting Americans boasting about recent Coign-fueled purchases such as deer-hunting gear, a stack of cartoonish gold bars, and the “biggest American flag” available. But here’s the most striking thing about the ad: All of those situations, and all of the actors, were created by AI.
There’s something a little off about Coigns ad, to be clear. The pacing of the phony satisfied customers movements feels too jittery at times, and theres an eagle at the end that is not exactly natural looking. While the ad is spiritually the same AI slop as Shrimp Jesus, it doesnt carry the same overtly synthetic visuals. In that regard, its a lot more casually AI-generated than many of its predecessor ads.
When Coca-Cola released an AI-generated holiday spot last fall, it sparked an uproar. Creatives were livid about such a monumentally successful company neglecting to splash out on an all-human production, and even casual observers noticed the glaring flaws in the video: The trucks tires glided over the ground without spinning, Santas hand was bizarrely out of proportion with the Coke bottle it gripped, and the entire ad sat squarely in the “uncanny valley.”
The same goes for the ad Toys R Us released last year using OpenAIs text-to-video tool Sora: The kindest thing one could say is that its human characters looked marginally more lifelike than the unsettling, motion-captured Tom Hanks from The Polar Express two decades earlier.
So far, AI-generated ads have been rare enough and mostly the domain of heavy-hitter companies, making them lightning rods for attention and backlash just about every time a new one is released. The simple fact that they were AI-made has been enough to generate headlines, even before factoring in the slop.
But maybe not for much longer. If the Coign ad is any indication, there may be an entire class of AI ads coming that will be subject to far less attentionand far less scrutiny.
Were at a precarious moment with AI, collectively feeling out its least objectionable uses through trial and error. So far, uncanny ads from massive companies have triggered backlash, but when lesser-known brands dabbleespecially without obvious visual glitchesthey often escape notice.
Advertising legend David Droga once noted the existence of a “mediocre middle” in marketing and entertainment, and that may be exactly where AI quietly thrives: in ads from companies too small to spark outrage. Advertising, after all, is already the most disposable and least emotionally protected form of mediaexpensive to make, widely avoided, and largely unloved. That makes it the perfect Trojan horse for AIslipping past scrutiny not because its good, but because few people care enough to notice.
On a moral and economic level, the advertising industry should not be diving headlong into a technology that makes large swaths of professional workers expendable. And on an aesthetic level, just because AI technically can create an ad doesnt mean it can create a good one.
Once a seemingly harmless use case eases peoples minds about a given technological breakthrough, its only a matter of time before the more flagrantly objectionable use cases take hold.
The facial recognition tech that first allowed Facebook users to tag their friends in photos was eventually used to strengthen the surveillance state and threaten privacy everywhere. Todays drones that make aerial photography easier become tomorrows drones that mistakenly blow up weddings in other countries and threaten to displace delivery workers.
Obviously, AI is going to play some role in humanitys future. The size of that role, however, is not yet set in stone. As machine learning creeps into all creative fields, workers need regulations to ensure the technology doesnt spread too far too fast. The good news is that a majority of Americans seem to want AI regulation.
Although the House of Representatives recently passed a major tax and spending bill with a provision forbidding state governments to regulate AI over the next 10 years, that clause is getting bipartisan blowback. According to a recent poll, 81% of voters agree that “advances in AI are exciting but also bring risks, and in such fast-moving times, we shouldn’t force states to sit on the sidelines for a full decade.”
Even the CEO of generative AI company Anthropic is a full-throated advocate for stricter AI regulation.
The people have spoken. Whether they are listened to is another matter altogether.
A single, silly credit card ad may seem an unlikely step toward a dystopian future of unfettered AI and full unemployment, but if we laugh it off now, the bill may still come due later.
Standard financial advice starts with the assumption that 40-year-old investment newbies are getting a late start. So what if you’re a card-carrying member of AARP without a portfolio? How do you start investing when youre in your 60s?
Recently, a family friend reached out for some advice on how to start investing for retirement. At 61 years old, he was afraid it was useless because he had heard the standard tut-tutting about how he should have started earlier.
Once I got over my shock at his age (because that means Ive reached my late 40s and I have no idea how that happened), I assured him that its not too late. Just because a lot of retirement math starts with the wonders of compound interest over time doesnt mean your retirement is doomed.
Becoming a first-time investor in your 60s may feel scary, but its the best way to ensure you have a financially secure retirementunless you can get your hands on some kind of time traveling phone booth. Heres what you need to know about beginning your investment journey long after hitting the big 60.
Start setting money aside right away
And when I say right away, I mean right this minute. Putting money aside for retirement is the kind of important-but-not-urgent task that is very easy to put off, which is why 20% of Americans over the age of 50 have nothing set aside for retirement, according to a 2024 AARP survey.
If you already have an IRA, 401(k), or other retirement vehicle, transfer whatever amount you can afford today, and set up an automatic contribution to come out of every paycheck.
If you dont already have a retirement account, take a half hour today to set one up with a reputable brokerage like Vanguard, Fidelity, or Schwab. Each of these brokerage firms offer retirement accounts, education, and tools for newbie investors. Additionally, each major brokerage has customer service available by phone and online chat that can walk you through the process of opening an account and setting up a recurring contribution.
Asset allocation in your 60s
Of course, its not enough to set up your retirement account and your contributions. You will also have to decide how to invest your contributions, which feels a little more complicated in your 60s than it is for younger investors.
Thats because the traditional advice for retirement investors is to buy-and-hold index funds, allowing time and compound interest to perform their magic on your money. But sixtysomethings dont have the same luxury of time enjoyed by whippersnappers in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s.
Except, thats not necessarily true, is it? The Social Security Administration estimates that a current 60-year-old man has a life expectancy of 80 and a 60-year-old woman has one of nearly age 84which means investors in their 60s can and should invest some portion of their money for a longer time horizon.
Older first-time investors need to allocate their retirement money the same way every investor doesby when they expect to need it. This is often referred to as the bucket method, and is often broken down into three investment buckets.
Short-term investments: Since you will use it for living expenses in the first one to five years after you retire, you want this money to be invested in assets that are reasonably stable and liquid.
Medium-term investments: This money will provide you with retirement income for years six to 15, so youll invest it in slightly more aggressive investments that still aim to protect your principal.
Long-term investments: You wont plan to touch this money until at least 16 years in the future, so you can afford to invest in higher-risk-higher-return investments, giving you time to ride out market volatility.
Put away as much as you can
While your future self will be glad for whatever amount you can put aside for retirement today, more is definitely better in this scenario. Luckily, the IRS agrees with the importance of saving for retirement. Contributions to traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts are tax-deductible, meaning the money you put in those accounts lower the amount of your taxable income for the year.
The IRS allows the gray-haired set to make tax-advantaged catch-up retirement contributions to IRA and 401(k) accounts. For 2025, the IRA contribution limit is $7,000 for anyone under the age of 50, and $8,000 for anyone over the age of 50. For 401(k) accounts, the contribution limit is $23,500 for those under age 50, $31,000 for anyone between the ages of 51 and 59, $34,750 for those between the ages of 60 and 63, and it drops down to $31,000 to anyone 64 or older, because the IRS is nothing if not confusing.
In 2025, if you areYou can contribute this much to an IRAYou can contribute this much to a 401(k)Under 50$7,000$23,50050 to 59 years old$8,000$31,00060 to 63 years old$8,000$34,50064+ years old$8,000$31,000
Find other sources of investment money
If every dollar is spoken for before your paycheck even hits your account, the idea of maximizing your retirement account contributions may feel quaint. So its helpful to start identifying some other sources of investment money. You may have more cash available to invest than you realize.
Check for old 401(k) accounts
Once youre blowing out 60 candles on your birthday cake, you likely have multiple careers under your belt, let alone shorter-term jobs youve forgotten about. You may have unclaimed retirement benefits gathering dust.
A quick search of the National Registry of Unclaimed Retirement Benefits can let you know if youve got some retirement money languishing in an old account.
See if you have unclaimed funds
An estimated one out of every seven Americans is owed unclaimed property totaling $70 billion as of 2023. You can search for unclaimed funds by visiting the National Assoiation of Unclaimed Property Administrators and searching any states where you have lived.
Sell things you no longer want or need
You probably have a lifetimes worth of accumulated clutter, some of which may actually be worth some money. Cleaning out your stuff to find hidden gems will not only help you pad your retirement accounts, but it will also help you with any downsizing you may want to do before retirement.
But DO NOT invest your Social Security benefits
If youre looking for other sources of investment money, taking your Social Security benefits as soon as you turn 62 and investing that money may seem like a no-brainer. But it is nothing short of a terrible idea.
Thats because your Social Security benefits are as close to a financial guarantee as youre going to get in this world. Your Social Security benefits are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States governmentwhich, admittedly, has lost a little of its luster and reputation recently. But you can absolutely count on the monthly amount promised to you, the approximate 8% per year delayed retirement credit for waiting to take your benefits, and the annual cost of living adjustment.
No investment can promise any of those things. Investing your Social Security benefits means you could lose that money. Taking your benefits as of age 62 means you will lose out on the guaranteed delayed retirement credit of 8% per year. And no investment can guarantee an annual return of 8%, let alone a cost of living adjustment to account for inflation.
If you are able to delay taking your Social Security benefits, it is generally best to wait to take them until you have reached age 70 so you can maximize your monthly benefit amount.
Other than yesterday, the best time is now
There is no point in beating yourself up with coulda-shoulda-woulda thinking if you get started investing later in life. Its counterproductive to ruminate over things you cant change, especially since theres still a lot of good you can do as a 60-something newbie investor.
The first thing to do is start right away. If you have a retirement plan, move money into it today and set up a recurring contribution. If you dont, open one with a reputable brokerage firm today, taking advantage of the customer service phone or chat options to help you lower the barrier to entry.
Once you have the account and automatic transfer in place, plan your asset allocation. Even though you don’t have the luxury of time like a young investor, you can still set up a three-tiered investing strategy. Your short-term, stable investments are for the money youll need in the next one to five years. The medium-term, slightly more aggressive investments will be accessed in years six to 15. And your long-term, higher-risk, higher-return investments will be left alone until year 16 and beyond.
Its important to put aside as much money as you can. If youre able to maximize your 2025 tax-deductible IRA and 401(k) contributions, that will lower your tax burden, which may help you afford the contributions. But you could also look for other sources of investment money, such as searching for forgotten retirement accounts and unclaimed funds, or by selling off some of your accumulated stuff as part of a downsizing effort. But do not use your Social Security benefit as a source of investment money. Thats trading a guarantee for a risk.
The world is awash in nonalcoholic beer right now. Athletic led the category with some $95.8 million in sales in 2024, followed by the legacy barons Heineken ($89.45 million), Budweiser ($62.37 million), Busch ($37.08 million), and Corona ($28.6 million). As Beverage Industry reports, 0% beer is predicted to continue growing by double digits this year, so it comes as no surprise that Modelowhich overtook Bud Light as the U.S.s leading beer in 2023is getting into the game. What does come as a surprise is the logo of its new alcohol-free beer. Some brands, like Heineken, simply made a few tweaks and added a 0.0. Others, like Budweiser, stripped the can of color (conceptually fun!) and added a Zero. But none of them were as perfectly primed to go NA as Modelo.[Image: Modelo]The brands new logo is as serendipitous as it is straightforward, but no less sublime. It almost feels like an intervention by the design gods, perhaps not unlike the FedEx arrow. And thats likely why there was no debate when Gut Design presented the work to Modelo. It was an instant go.You cannot unsee that, right? says Murilo Melo, Guts global head of design. They said . . . we dont have to see anything else. It was kind of a magic moment.[Image: Modelo]Model0%Around six months ago, Modelo brought the Gut agency on to oversee the strategy and branding of what would become Model0% Dorada and Model0% Negra, which just launched in Mexico. The company was focused on creating a nonalcoholic beer that tasted like beeror, rather, a nonalcoholic Modelo that tasted like Modelo, which the brand says it achieved via a proprietary yeast formula.When it came to the branding, Melo says Modelo needed a system that would work across multiple flavors and styles of its beer to prime it for the future. Given the companys success and its 100-plus-year history, there was an intention to honor the legacy of the brand, Melo says. So what we tried the most was to preserve the equity and everything the brand already had.They experimented with various concepts and hooks. But then, in an informal Gut team chat in WhatsApp, someone posted Model0%.[Image: Modelo]When we did that, we said, Whoa. Theres something here. Melo adds that his team has a mantra to keep things simple and powerful (we always try, but its quite hard)and, well, they had stumbled upon a mark that visually signifies a nonalcoholic Modelo that tastes like the regular Modelo fans love. Gut built out a system for the brand that can scale across new NA products, featuring secondary typeface Rauschen B (a funky, unexpected choice), a 0% label at the top of the bottle sporting the o of the legacy logo, and more. The bottle does away with the lions, banner, and other elements from the original. But look closely at that o, and youll indeed find some of the parallel line motifs from the full-strength formula.Ultimately, it all yielded that immediate green light from Modelo.Everybody was so on board to respect the visual legacy of the beer, and open to something new, Melo says. It was a perfect match.How often does that happen?Less than I would like it to, he says with a laugh.
Coal power is a dirtier energy source than renewables like wind and solar. But even for those Americans who don’t care about climate, its also a more expensive energy sourceand the economics of using it as a power source just keep getting worse.
As President Donald Trump tries to bolster the coal industry by ordering shuttered coal power plants to reopen, that means everyday Americans are likely to see their electricity bills spike.
Coal power was 28% more expensive in 2024 than it was in 2021, according to a new analysis by Energy Innovation, a San Francisco-based climate research firm. That means the cost of generating power with coal is rising faster than inflation, which increased by 16% over the same time period.
The economics of coal have been bad for some time. A 2023 Energy Innovation report found that 99% of the existing coal plants across the U.S. are more expensive to run than to replace with renewables like wind, solar, or energy storage.
In the past four years alone, more than 100 coal-fired units have closed for economic reasons. And yet Trump has ordered coal plants set for retirement to keep operating past their planned shut-down dates. The J.H. Campbell power plant in Michigan, for example, was scheduled to close May 31, but Trump ordered it to remain open.
These orders to prop up the coal industry ignore the economic fundamentals underpinning coals decline, Energy Innovations most recent report reads. And that affects Americans across the country: If coal plants are being kept online that would otherwise be retired, the cost of running those plants is going to be passed on to the electricity consumer, says Michelle Solomon, a manager of the electricity program at the firm and the reports author
Electricity rates are on the rise across the country, but states that rely heavily on coal, like West Virginia and Kentucky, are seeing even faster increases. Between 2021 and 2024as 95% of the countrys coal power plants have gotten more expensive to runelectricity rates in West Virginia have gone up 24%. (Since 2022, residential electricity prices have increased 13% on average across the country.)
Coal is getting more expensive for a few reasons. In many areas, easy access to coal is gone, because its already been mined for so long. That means it gets more expensive to continue mining for coal, Solomon says. Coal plants are also aging, and so they’re more costly to maintain. Per Energy Innovation, the average age of U.S. coal plants is 43 years old, though multiple plants are pushing 70.
These factors also affect Trumps decision to keep operating coal plants that were set for retirement. Utilities have already planned for those plants to shutter, meaning they have likely burned down their stockpiles of coal and may have even deferred maintenance, since they wouldnt be kept running. Rushing to buy coal or scrambling to complete last-minute maintenance could add even more costs.
Renewables have seen some price volatility with inflation too, Solomon says, and this most recent Energy Innovation report didnt update renewables analysis. But its clear the coal fleet is getting significantly more expensive. And given that coal has already been more expensive than renewables for years, “its fair to say that the economics [of coal] continue to get worse compared to renewables, she adds.
Its hard to say exactly how much rising coal prices will affect someones electricity bills, especially when it comes to keeping open planned-for-retirement coal plants. But typically, the costs of operating these plants are passed on to consumers, Solomon says. The coal fleet, because its more expensive than inflation, is putting inflationary pressure on U.S. electricity prices.
So if the administration’s goal is to make energy cheaper and to bring down inflation, keeping old coal plants running is completely opposite to what they should be doing, Solomon says.
The United States has a well-developed digital economy, encompassing about 18% of its total economy, according to several sources and research from the International Data Center Authority (IDCA). This is above the world average of 15%. But the U.S. can always do better.
The IDCA defines a digital economy as representing all economic activities that are reliant on or significantly enhanced by the use of digital technologies, including digital infrastructure, AI, and digital services. Having worked with hundreds of public data sources and its own surveys to create its Digital Readiness of Nations Index, the IDCAs Global Digital Economy Report (2025) is a unique deep dive into the current development of the world’s digital economies.
Digging Into Digital Economy Data
This Index places the digital economies of the nations of the world into four categories: Phase III (Advanced), Phase II (Significantly Developed), Phase I (Early-Stage), and a Pre-Phase. It examines all the data sets across four broad categorieseconomy, environment, social, and governanceto rank the nations on a scale of 0 to 100. The Index considers relative progress, that is, how well each nation has developed its digital economy with respect to its economic resources and social development.
Doing this shows only six nations that are currently in an advanced, Phase III stage of development. Surprisingly enough, despite its economic size and potential, the United States is not one of them. In fact, none of the world’s G7 or even G20 nations have reached this advanced status, either. Today, Phase III has been accomplished only by the small nations of Scandinavia, Finland, and Switzerland. An aggressive commitment to the use of sustainable energy, relative income parity, and strong government institutions are all characteristics of this group.
The U.S. Is Not the Exemplar
So far the largest nations of the world, including the United States, have not been able to match these smaller countries. The U.S. and its G7 cohort are instead ensconced among a group of a few dozen nations within the Phase II group, all of which show significantly developed digital economies. Digging into the data finds that within this group, the U.S. lags Canada, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. in its commitment to sustainable energy, income parity, and strong government institutions.
Expanding the focus to the G20 group of nations finds more diffuse progress. Because membership in the G20 club is simply based on the size of a nation’s overall economy, not its relative development or wealth, there are several still-developing nations in the G20, including Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa. There are also the troubled economies of Argentina and Russia in this group. All the nations cited here are in Phase I, still at an early stage of their digital economies. It must be noted, though, that Brazil, China, and to some degree India, continue to make considerable progress toward fully developed economies and a higher stage of digital economy development.
So despite leading the world in the size of its overall economy and digital economy, having reached its status on the back of compounded historic economic dominance, the U.S. is not truly an exemplar for the world. What can the nation do to improve its standing?
Create a national strategy and policies
American business and government leaders pride themselves on how the U.S. has long been the world’s capital of innovation and IT development without the help of national strategies or focused policies. But ad hoc development on the scale envisioned for the AI age will end up being more chaoticand less effectivethan necessary. The U.S. does not need to reach EU levels of regulation and enforcement, but its federal government can do more to meet today’s Sputnik challenge, or watch China and the EU run away with leadership of AI and digital economies.
Build more sustainable energy
Renewable energy delivers 20.3% of the electricity consumed within the United States, below the world average of 30%. Nuclear energy adds another 18.2% to the U.S. grid, which technically brings it close to the world average for sustainable energy. But this is not good enough. The U.S. remains the world’s second-largest producer of greenhouse gases and lacks a true commitment to sustainable energy progress.
Focus on workforce development
Even though the U.S. has the world’s largest IT-skilled workforce, it needs to upskill and retrain millions of people to prepare for the skills demanded by the continued growth of AI development and AI-driven data centers. The IDCAs own report recently found a workforce deficit of over 100 million IT workers globally. There are already several hundred billion dollars worth of large, advanced AI data centers being planned in the U.S., but without a workforce adequate to the challenge, these new facilities will be underused and mismanaged. Tapping into a holistic and dynamic set of professional training programs is key here.
Ensure smart buildouts
More than 40% of the world’s data centers are located in the U.S., and projections show that this dominance will continue. But it will be a grave mistake to build data centers along the same old, general purpose, inefficient lines. The new data centers, whether a small 10-megawatt building or sprawling gigawatt-sized campus, must all be built to suit, with the most efficient energy management and computational efficiency available. Developers must not only be smart about building them but also focus on smart environments that support more robotic manufacturing, autonomous transportation, sensor-driven energy management, and AI-driven services to businesses and consumers.
A high bar
In summary, it would be unfair to say that the U.S. significantly lags the G7, or any other group of nations, in the development of its digital economy. The situation is not dire, and the U.S. has not already given away the game. In fact, we see an influx of announcements for data centers and AI investments committing to the U.S. economy.
However, due to its sheer size and potential, what might be great for some countries is considered poorly accomplished by our benchmark. The world’s largest economic power needs to judge itself solely by the standards of what it can accomplish, comparisons be damned. U.S. government and business leaders must work much harder to deliver on the nation’s potential.
As the labor market tightens and job seekers leverage AI to apply for jobs en masse, recruiters are receiving hundreds or thousands of applicants for a single position. To deal with the deluge, many employers are adopting new tools, often powered by AI, to make recruiting more efficient, and, in some cases, replace human contact. A Resume Builder survey from last year suggested that nearly 70% of companies would use AI in their hiring process by the end of 2025.
Talent acquisition leaders tout the effectiveness of new recruiting tech: virtual assessments, asynchronous and AI-powered interviewing, chatbots, and the like. But what do job seekers think?
According to applicants, what new recruiting tech has going for it is speed. What it lacks, often, is clarity.
IT WAS SHORTER AND MORE SUCCINCT
One of the most common additions is the asynchronous video interview, in which applicants record answers that a recruiter reviews later. It often replaces screening calls, and sometimes, later-stage interviews. While recruiters dont have time to schedule and conduct calls with a hundred applicants, they can review prerecorded answers from as many.
More than half a dozen job seekers told Fast Company they spend anywhere from 30 minutes to two hours getting their two- to five-minute videos just right, worrying over lighting and sound and their own appearance, tweaking their answers, and recording multiple takes. Yet overall, the reviews are positive. Many say its still more convenient than a screening call with a recruiter.
Sarah, whos spent 20 years in HR, doesnt want her employer to know shes job shopping, so she asked that we withhold her last name. Following a recent asynchronous interview, she was notified that a recruiter had looked at her answers. Even though she didnt advance, the rejection was more palatable as I knew they had at least reviewed my information, Sarah says. Most of the time, shes been left to wonder whether anyone even bothered to set eyes on her résumé.
Some employers ask applicants to participate in video interviews with AI-generated bots that look and sound human. Nola Johnson, who works in customer success, met a series of three AI interviewers for an early-stage screening. She feels positively about the experience, even if the AI interviewer was glitchy and unable to end the conversation when time expired. It was shorter and more succinct than talking to a real recruiter, she says.
If some employers are betting that an AI-generated contact is better than no contact at all, they may be right. According to a recent survey of 1,000 U.S. adults, conducted by recruiting software firm iCIMS, 40% of workers say that never hearing from an organization after applying is their number-one frustration.
Indeed, what video modules lack in humanity they make up for in speed. Nola, after comparing notes with other job seekers, learned she heard back from the AI interviewer faster than her friends heard back from human interviewers.
But many of these tools are new, and stories of glitchy AI abound. Among the worst culprits are chatbots that employers embed in their career pages. Ostensibly, the purpose is to answer basic questions that would otherwise consume valuable recruiter time.
Jessica is a legal analyst who works at a law firm in Louisiana. (She also doesnt want us to use her last name since she doesnt want her employer to know shes looking around.) Jessica uses chatbots regularly and likes that she gets immediate answers, but says they dont always work as advertised. Some are so tightly scripted that theyre unable to handle basic questions about the job description or the benefits the company offers.
APPLICANTS ACCEPT THE TECH, BUT STILL QUESTION ITS INTENT
While some HR tech improves efficiency, others confound. Among the most confusing elements of job seeking in the age of HR tech: personality assessments.
Personality assessments in the workplace arent new, but they are becoming more common thanks to how easy it is to insert them into a digital hiring process. Its another screening tool hiring teams are using to vet applicants. Yet job seekers dont know why theyre being made to take them. Jessica was asked to take an assessment similar to the Myers-Briggs test. But she didnt understand what they were evaluating her for, or how it related to the job. She didnt even get to see the results.
Sarah was also asked to take a personality test while interviewing, a request shes okay with as long as its relevant to the job, but Sarah worries that companies are relying on tired stereotypes to eliminate or advance applicantsthat only extroverts succeed in certain roles, for example.
Lack of clarity can bruise the employer-applicant relationship. According to the same iCIMS report, the most frustrating parts of job searching are the ones that leave applicants wondering, why? Lack of transparency and relevant information leave 77% of job seekers frustrated. When applicants interact with interfaces more than humans, theres little room to ask why somethinglike a personality test, for exampleis being used.
Nola has applied to jobs where she was given the option to opt out of having her résumé reviewed by an AI tool. Yet, she says, what I would be curious about is not when or if, its how. Is it ranking me? Do I get a flag? If I remove myself from it being reviewed by AI, will I automatically move to the bottom of the list? Its never been clear.
What bothers her most is that she doesnt know how all of these new tools and evaluations are being used, tools that introduce a certain level of tedium to the process. And in some cases, her patience is exhausted. Now, if Nola is asked to submit an asynchronous video interview, she just moves onshe doesnt think its worth her time.
I once worked for a client who hired our agency to help them solve what they considered to be their biggest brand-related challengepoor customer experience, which had them losing contracts. During our first meeting at the clients building, my direct contact gave me a tour of every corner of the office, explaining what each department was responsible for and introducing me to key players in the business.
At a pause in the tour, she stopped in front of a large poster hanging from the wall, pointed at it dramatically, and said, This is the cause of all of our problems.
The poster was bright and well-designed. In bold letters, it proclaimed: Around here, the customer always comes first! The poster was meant to be a motivational reminder about the importance of treating customers wellbut it clearly had some unintended consequences.
The unintended consequences of putting customers first
All of the employees working here feel like their opinions dont matter and that their needs will always be put last, even if the customer is wrong or being unreasonable in their demands, my contact told us.
The poster, of course, was not the problem. The problem was how it made employees feellike second-class citizens in their own workplace. She went into detail about the culture of the company, the low morale among the team, and how employees had no real love for the organization or its customers. As it turns out, poor customer service was not the companys biggest brand-related challenge. It was a symptom of a much greater problemthat of poor employee engagement.
Somewhat paradoxically, because the company had a culture of putting the needs of customers first, they actually made their customer experience worse. Why? Because the employees who were tasked with providing remarkable customer experience were themselves having a poor experience in their workplace.
How your employees feel is how your customers will feel
The way your employees feel is the way your customers will feel, writes workplace facilitator and author Sybil Stershic. And if your employees dont feel valued, neither will your customers. By promoting a culture where customers always come first, the company had worsened its level of customer experience. The companys employees didnt feel valued and, as a result, neither did its customers.
Virgin Group founder Richard Branson puts it a different way: Clients do not come first. Employees come first. If you take care of your employees, they will take care of your clients.
Building a customer-centric business is an honorable and noble endeavor. After all, happy customers are the reason that the lights stay on in any business. But building a customer-centric business at the expense of employees happiness, mental health, work-life balance, and overall needs can only lead to mediocrity in the workplace.
The benefits of putting employees first
Theres clear evidence that putting customers first by prioritizing company culture, employee engagement, and the overall employee experience has a sweep of benefits, too. Research has shown that:
Organizations that score in the top 25% on employee experience receive double the return on sales of organizations in the bottom 25%.
More than 80% of workers at companies that perform well financially are either highly or moderately engagedcompared to just 68% at low-performing companies.
Organizations with highly engaged employees also get a higher return on investment per employee, with highly engaged employees responsible for an increase of 26% of revenue per employee, along with 13% greater returns to shareholders.
Clearly, the level of engagement in your organization has a real and meaningful impact on your bottom line. If you want to build a highly successful company, you cant sacrifice employee engagement in pursuit of customer satisfactionno matter how noble that pursuit may be.
Yes, customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction are both critical to the success of your business, but the order in which you pursue these two important elements matters. The most effective path to having satisfied customers is to first have satisfied employees. When employees feel respected, trusted, and valued, they will pass on these sentiments to customers, leading to the type of remarkable customer experience that turns casual consumers into raving (and paying) fans of the brand. But when they feel disrespected, mistrusted, or undervalued because you put customers needs ahead of theirs, you can be pretty confident that your customer experience will worsen, not improve.
If youre not satisfied with the level of customer experience that your employees are delivering, try rearranging your priorities by first focusing on happier employees. You may just find that the level of your customer experience will improve organically.
For the past year and a half, there’s been a simmering concern over what AI is going to do to the workforce. Last week, that concern boiled over in a big way following back-to-back news stories: First, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei set off alarm bells by predicting that AI would wipe out half of entry-level jobs and massively drive up unemployment. As if on cue, Business Insider announced it was laying off 21% of its staff.
While the two obviously aren’t directly related, the one-two punch landed hard in the media business, which faces an existential threat to its business model (in a nutshell, AI answers mean less traffic than search). But like all demographics, it’s important to remember that the media isn’t a monolith. While AI summaries mean rapidly changing audience habits for all publishers, BI‘s move emphasizes that digital-native brands are particularly vulnerable.
In her memo to BI staff, CEO Barbara Peng said the company was “going all-in on AI,” explaining that the layoffs were part of a broader strategic shift and that, going forward, the publication would need to reduce its dependence on traffic in general. In addition to cutting click-dependent areas like its commerce business, BI would launch live journalism events, double down on subscriptions, and encourage all its journalists to embrace AI tools.
{"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/mediacopilot-logo-ss.png","headline":"Media CoPilot","description":"Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for Media CoPilot. To learn more visit mediacopilot.substack.com","substackDomain":"https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}}
This is far from the publication’s first move on this course. Not long ago, the company had ambitions to become a general interest brand, but after changing its name to Insider in 2021, it switched back to Business Insider less than three years later. Since then, the publication has been investing more in unique voices and talent instead of the volume content that fueled the company’s rise in the 2010s, when media brands like Vice, Quartz, and Buzzfeed were dominant.
The old media playbook meets a new world
The thing about BI, though, is that it was one of the few success stories to come out of that era. The publication sold to Axel Springer for $343 million dollars back in 2015, just before the bottom fell out of the scale media market. Perhaps that’s why it took BI so long to adapt. It’s been shedding its workforce for a couple of yearsnow roughly half the size of its 2022 peak of 1,000 people, according to Press Gazette.
Now AI is forcing the issue. Peng’s memo says that 70% of BI‘s business suffers from “traffic sensitivity,” a euphemism for content designed to attract eyeballs on the open web by appearing in search, social, or feeds. Who are those people? How do you keep them coming back or transacting with your brand? In the media model BI was built for, it didn’t matterit only mattered how big the number was on any given day.
Now BI is doing exactly what any media consultant would recommend: adopting tactics like paywalled subscriptions, events, newsletters, and first-party data. It’s the right strategy, but for BI the moves are reactive retreats rather than proactive bets. That doesn’t mean they’re bad ideas, but BI‘s DNA was born out of a different era. It has a brand, but is it strong enough to make the transition that AI demands?
I don’t mean to pick on BI, but I do think it exemplifies why digital media companies from the 2010s are likely going to have the hardest time in the AI era. Legacy mainstream outlets like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have built moats with their strong journalism and diverse revenue streams. On the other end, smaller digital upstarts like 404 Media, The Ankler, and The Free Press are finding success by cultivating talent, getting scoops, and offering unique perspectives.
It’s the brands in betweenthe ones that followed the same playbook as BInow scrambling to re-architect themselves to meet this moment. Ziff Davis (owner of PCMag, Mashable, and IGN) is similarly feeling pressure, as seen in its lawsuit against OpenAI, arguing that its strategy of publishing evergreen, free content on the internet to maximize clicks has made it particularly vulnerable to substitution by AI.
Experimentation isnt transformation
As evidence of the BI‘s all-in bet on AI, Peng talked about AI-powered features like its site search and dynamic paywall. She also mentioned that 75% of the staff were now using AI tools, specifically ChatGPT Enterprise, with the aim to get the figure to 100%. The note encourages “bold experimentation,” and says they’re building prompt libraries and sharing everyday AI use cases among staff.
However, this description of AI initiatives, while directionally solid, sounds like it’s still in the early stages. Contrast that with an AI-forward newsroom like Reuters, which has built modular tooling tailored to newsroom workflows, under a clear “reduce, augment, transform” framework. It’s great that they’re moving forward, but without a focus on systems, transformation will be piecemeal. And while the choice of ChatGPT is expected given the company’s partnership with OpenAI, pushing a single AI model over all the others is inherently limiting.
For other digital media brands who fear death or downsizing, BI‘s approach is instructive. It’s urgent to rethink dependency on traffic, and even the lens of measuring success through traffic. Certainly, ad impressions are the KPI driving all this, and it’s not going to go away overnight (or ever, really). But a long decline seems inevitable. Shifting focus from traffic to metrics that measure impact, engagement, and loyalty is step one. That’s the path to cultivating direct reader relationshipsessential to building media brands that are sustainable in the AI era.
BIs shift is a step n the right direction, but survival wont come from cost-cutting or tool adoption alone. The digital media brands that make it through this next wave will be the ones that know who theyre for and what makes them worth returning to. That means being willing to rethink how things get made in the first placeand why.
{"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/mediacopilot-logo-ss.png","headline":"Media CoPilot","description":"Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for Media CoPilot. To learn more visit mediacopilot.substack.com","substackDomain":"https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}}
The NBA’s Orlando Magic looked to the past for inspiration for its rebrand. The team, which Forbes valued last year at $3.2 billion, unveiled a new logo, wordmarks, uniforms, and court this week, and the new look is a contemporary take on the team’s original uniforms from 1989 to 2000.
It was a time when players like Shaquille O’Neal and Penny Hardaway wore pinstripes and the team made one of its two franchise appearances in the league finals. It’s also a fan-favorite era.
Shaquille O’Neal (No. 32) and Penny Hardaway (No. 1) in action versus the Houston Rockets at Orlando Arena in 1995 [Photo: John W. McDonough/Sports Illustrated via Getty Images]
We heard from the fans loud and clear over many years about bold pinstripes, Shelly Wilkes, EVP of marketing and social responsibility for the Magic, told In the Zone on iHeart Radio. People have such passion around our original uniforms.
Orlando Magics logo progression through the years. Top, from left: 1989-2000 and 2001-2010; bottom, from left: 2011-2025 and the brand-new design unveiled this week [Images: Orlando Magic]
Nostalgia sells in pro sports. The Toronto Raptors recently brought back its old Raptor mascot for a special 30th-edition logo, while in other leagues, teams like the MLB’s Milwaukee Brewers and the NFL’s New York Jets introduced their own retro-inspired logos in recent years because of the built-in brand equity from a team’s golden age. Team rebrands don’t always land, and iterating on well-known, beloved assets is a safer bet than trying something new.
For NBA teams, though, it’s not as simple as bringing an old uniform out from the archives to wear again. That’s not allowed via licensing rights, Wilkes said of agreements between the team and partners like the NBA and Nike. You can’t go back. But you can modernize an old idea.
The rebrand process began in 2021 with multiple agencies and many early concepts that didn’t resonate. There were 14 different logos, each with multiple variations. Out of more than 30 uniform designs, the team narrowed it down to the final three, in blue, white, and black. All of them have pinstripes and retro-inspired trim, and the new Magic and Orlando wordmarks swap out the letter A for a star designed to look like it’s in motion. One of the jerseys features Chicago Bulls great Michael Jordans Jumpman logo (Jordan Brand partnered with the NBA in 2020), and all feature the Disney logo for the team’s uniform sponsor.
[Image: Orlando Magic]
Wilkes said the timing of the new logo and uniforms is the result of a pivotal moment in franchise history, but the final designs were submitted to the NBA and Nike in 2023, to give you an idea of the multiyear process involved in rebranding a professional team. That’s a long lead time, but by building a new brand informed by fan feedback and team history, the Magic ensured its new era has a visual identity that feels both classic and fashion-forward and aims to stand the test of time.
Herman Miller has brought a new archival piece from the founding director of its textile division back into production.
The Girard Stool by Alexander Girard is a four-legged, 18.6-inch-tall stool that can be used as a footrest or seat. It comes with multiple options for geometric, patterned textile upholstery designed by Girard as well as Herman Miller’s current fabrics, fitting for a stool designed by someone who made more than 300 textile designs for Herman Miller from 1952 to 1973.
[Photo: Herman Miller]
First designed in 1967, the modernized Girard Stool was redesigned for sustainability, with recycled aluminum and bio-based foam, and it’s not the first archival furniture of Girard’s that Herman Miller has brought out of its vaults. In January, the furniture manufacturer brought back the Girard Flower Table, a scalloped-edge, blossom-inspired table, while the Girard Color Wheel Ottoman that the designer made comes in monochromatic color schemes. In 2023, they reintroduced a collection of original posters by Girard.
Herman Miller’s Michigan-based parent company MillerKnoll reported a slight 0.4% year-over-year net sales increase on its March earnings call, and the company has found success in updating its bestsellers, like a sustainable update to its iconic Eames Lounge Chair last year. Reissuing archival pieces is a model Ikea has also played into, proving that sometimes a classic concept just needs a modern remake.
