The world of content creation is changing. Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping how we approach creativity, offering both exciting possibilities and increasingly complex challenges.

Brands are exploring AI as a tool to streamline content creation, personalise marketing and stay competitive. But AI is nuanced – it’s not a miracle solution, but a sophisticated tool that requires thoughtful implementation.

The way brands choose to approach AI in content creation will determine whether the results are innovative or uninventive. In recent years, some brands have rushed to use AI to maximise efficiency, placing too much trust in the technology and forgoing human oversight entirely.

The result? Cautionary tales of untrustworthy, inaccurate content. 

A double-edged sword

CNET and Bankrate’s experiments with AI-generated finance articles resulted in content that offered misleading financial advice to readers. Some articles contained subtle errors that could misinform readers unfamiliar with the subject, highlighting the critical need for human expertise and careful review.

Sports Illustrated is another example of careless AI content creation where efficiency was prioritised over authenticity. The magazine published articles with AI-generated author profiles and headshots, using the technology to create fictional writers who existed only on their website. 

This mishap not only confused readers but undermined trust in the publication, leading to significant reputational damage. While the brand disputed the claims, the backlash was so severe that it ultimately led to the CEO’s dismissal. 

These instances underscore an important point: AI requires careful, strategic application.

Innovation with integrity

Of course, there are successful cases that show how brands can strike the right balance between AI and human creativity. 

One such example comes from the earlier days of AI-powered content creation. Lexus’ collaboration with IBM Watson treated AI as a creative partner. The venture used AI to create a TV advert, ensuring the technology analysed years of award-winning campaigns to uncover patterns in emotionally resonant storytelling. 

But AI didn’t replace human ingenuity; it provided insights that shaped, rather than dictated, the final script. 

The project also used an academic study and brand data to inform the final results.  By blending data-driven intelligence with human intuition, Lexus demonstrated an approach that enhanced creativity without sacrificing authenticity. 

This balance – leveraging AI’s efficiency while maintaining strategic oversight  – remains the difference between innovation and creative dilution in content today.

A creative partner 

Whether you’re writing a blog post or producing TV adverts, the difference is human oversight. Strategic thinking. Embracing the possibilities that technology offers while safeguarding the need for a balanced, collaborative approach. 

We are witnessing a fundamental shift in the possibilities of creativity in a technology-driven world. AI is no longer just about efficiency – it’s about creating genuine value for brands and those that engage with their content. 

The most powerful applications don’t dismiss the value of human creativity; they look for ways to enhance it. Of course AI can generate content, but the most compelling storytelling still requires human nuance, emotional intelligence and a deep understanding of the audience.

Looking ahead, transparency will be crucial. Brands must be clear about their AI usage, tackling taboo and showcasing how these tools are integrated into workflows while maintaining the authenticity of their brand voice. 

The goal is to show how technology can drive innovative content creation while respecting the principles of genuine storytelling.

 In the spirit of that transparency, AI played a role in shaping this piece. I used it to gather examples of AI in content creation, refine the alignment of my ideas and outline a rough structure. But the writing, editing and final storytelling remained human-led. My role simply shifted from solely a writer to collaborator and editor. 

In this new era of content creation, the most successful brands will be those who view AI as a powerful ally, not a silver bullet.

Stop. 

Before you read any further, I urge you to go and spend 3 minutes taking Raconteur’s IMPACT assessment. I’ll wait…

Right. Ahem. Now that you know what kind of impact your current content marketing has, let’s get into it.

Decision-makers are busy. That’s a given. In turn capturing their attention comes at a premium: not only is it hard to attract but it’s even harder to retain. And while a short, eye-catching video snippet on Linkedin may give a scrolling finger pause for thought – what can a brand realistically communicate with impact in that brief window? This makes the job of editorial content that much harder. 

While long-form content offers unparalleled opportunities to get under the hood of challenges to explore them in thought-provoking depth, it also asks – and expects – more of the reader. It’s a two-way value exchange.  B2B buyers today aren’t just scrolling through content for fun – they expect something in return.

Marketers need to be bold and cross the rubicon and move from creating shiny,  shallow content to create something of substance. If your content doesn’t immediately deliver value, then your audience is out. That’s not just an arbitrary hunch; it’s backed by my own experience and industry data. Think about the morning doom scroll on linked-in – was it the ‘here are the B2B lessons from my son’s first birthday’ post that stopped you scrolling, or was it the insights from a new piece of agency research?

Further, research from the Content Marketing Institute suggests that (somewhat depressingly) only 40% of B2B marketers have a documented content strategy. In short, far too many brands and their marketers (who don’t come cheap!) are throwing content at the wall and hoping it sticks. 

What’s most frustrating here is that I can speak from first-hand experience as to the impact of powerful, value-adding content. In a former life I headed up the content strategy for a travel risk management brand owned by a private equity firm. When I arrived, we had no content marketing to speak of. 

After little more than a year of regular blogs and monthly in-depth reports that offered proprietary insights to the audience – snippets of what the brand could offer – we’d caught the eye of an industry leader and were duly acquired. While they didn’t acquire us specifically because of the content – without the brand presence and communication of brand substance that our activity created, we’d never have raised our head enough above the pulpit to be noticed.

In short, companies that treat content marketing as a ‘value-producing function’ can unlock myriad benefits. A stronger brand presence, a clearer brand identity, stronger thought-leadership profiles for leaders in the business, better alignment with sales (who can leverage content to kick start conversations, and in time more executive buy-in and stronger revenue impact.

This isn’t just about writing better blog posts (even if this one is pretty damn compelling if I do say so myself). It’s about a fundamental shift in B2B marketing – and there’s where Raconteur’s new Value Dividend thinking comes in. 

We want to challenge our partners and clients. We want you to relish and embrace the creation of engaging, insightful and hyper-relevant content for your audience. Today, the brands that win are the ones that trade insight for attention.

Saying it like that, it does feel simple doesn’t it? Perhaps we’ve become so accustomed to content overload that everything has become saturated. If you’re happy being part of the pack – fine. But if you want to move the dial in any meaningful way, why not take our IMPACT assessment to better understand where your content marketing is today and how we might be able to help?

Like everyone else, I’ve been glued to Season 2 of Severance for the last ten weeks.

One of the biggest joys of the show is its relentless parody of corporate culture. Lumon, the fictional big-bad corporation in the show, has its own heightened, bizarre language, but so much of it is rooted in how companies often speak. This impersonal approach happens when a brand loses its human side and defaults to corporate jargon. 

In B2B content, we see this all the time: brands lean on stiff, jargon-heavy language, as if forgetting there’s a person on the other side of the screen. The result? Content that feels lifeless, disconnected and forgettable. Here are some key considerations and Lumon-esque pitfalls to avoid when producing B2B content. 

Disconnected language 

In Severance, the language feels hollow, eerie and comically exaggerated. It’s meant to unsettle you and make you laugh in equal measure. But sterile language isn’t limited to dystopian drama.

Brands can get stuck in their own version of this. Jargon is often used to sound impressive, but it can feel devoid of emotion and personal context. And vague, overused terminology can lack meaning. Does talking about an ‘end-to-end solution’ really give your audience the information they need, or could you give a real, relatable example? Could you talk about a ‘major change’ rather than a ‘paradigm shift’? Are you guilty of using a bunch of acronyms to make something sound important? 

I’m not talking about the occasional use of common industry terms (otherwise, my use of B2B in this piece would be a bit hypocritical!). But it’s a fine line between using industry language to communicate and letting it take over. 

If the above rings true, it might be worth stepping back and reconsidering whether anyone actually speaks like that. When every brand sounds like it’s reading off a corporate script, nobody stands out and nobody connects. 

Your audience is human – talk to them like humans 

Every decision-maker is a person. They worry. They care about doing a good job. They roll their eyes at buzzwords.

Recent Gartner research found that B2B buyers experience a wide range of emotions throughout the buying process, from excitement and optimism to disappointment and frustration. Tapping into that emotion and prioritising storytelling can help you connect with your audience. The brands that win are the ones that are approachable, clear and human. A little playfulness, creativity and personality go a long way too. 

According to Paul Cash and James Trezona in their 2021 book Humanizing B2B: “People don’t want to buy from you, they want to buy into you; they want to know what your company stands for, why it exists and what kind of people are behind it. They want to see its human face.” 

Your approach to content can make or break your reputation

While we are firm believers in the power of great content at Raconteur, bad content can do more harm than good. 

Lumon’s coldness breeds suspicion – just like jargon-heavy, opaque content can make audiences feel you don’t understand their needs, or worse, make them stop trusting you. 

According to Edelman and LinkedIn’s 2024 B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report, more than half of C-suite executives have lost respect and admiration for an organisation due to poor-quality thought leadership content. 

Conversely, 7-in-10 decision-makers say they are very likely to think more positively about organisations that consistently produce high-quality thought leadership. And 70% of decision-makers say that a piece of thought leadership from another company had at least occasionally led them to question whether they should continue working with an existing supplier (I bet that the supplier was guilty of some of the aforementioned sins). 

The bottom line (or, in non-corporate speak, ‘In summary’) 

Severance is about the consequences of separating personal identity from work. In B2B content, the same warning applies: brands that hide behind jargon and lifeless messaging risk severing themselves from the very audience they’re trying to reach. The brands that stand out? They sound like people. They tell stories. They’re clear, honest and sometimes even playful. Because at the end of the day, business is still personal.

Trust in media is plummeting.

According to the Edelman Trust Barometer 2024, trust in UK news media is at an all-time low. Across the Atlantic, it’s even worse, with YouGov US recently reporting that Americans now trust Donald Trump’s administration more than they trust the media. Yes, Donald Trump. 

That should make every brand sit up and take notice.

While these trust issues primarily concern consumer media, the B2B world isn’t immune. Trust is the currency of business relationships and it’s just as fragile here. If trust in long-standing media brands can collapse, what does that mean for the corporate world?

The Trump effect

Trump is a politician. He is also a brand (think MAGA, think red hats). He has been able to maintain trust (at least among his supporters) despite a documented history of misinformation. Why does this happen? Because trust isn’t just about truth – it’s about perception, emotional connection and consistency.

Without meaning to sound glib, there are lessons here for brands. Trump has cultivated a devoted audience that feels emotionally invested in him. His followers don’t just listen to him; they believe him.

But here’s the catch: trust, when genuinely earned, is hard to gain and easy to lose, at least for commercial brands. Unlike Trump, who operates in a post-truth landscape, businesses operate in a world where credibility and reliability are non-negotiable. You don’t get to contradict yourself daily and still expect customer loyalty. You can’t lie and expect people to keep coming back. 

How can brands earn – and keep – trust?

Recent research from Forrester identifies seven key trust levers that B2B brands must pull:

1. Accountability – Own your mistakes and show how you’ll fix them.
2. Competence – Demonstrate expertise and deliver results.
3. Consistency – Stay true to your values and messaging.
4. Dependability – Be reliable and keep your promises.
5. Empathy – Understand and address customer needs.
6. Integrity – Operate ethically and transparently.
7. Transparency – Openly share how you do business.

So how can brands apply these trust levers in the real world and where does media fit in?

• Deliver on your promises. If you say your software reduces costs by 20%, prove it with data and case studies.
• Be consistent. Your brand’s messaging should not shift wildly depending on trends or market pressures. Stick to your principles.
• Be human. People trust people far more than they do faceless corporations. Showcase the human side of your brand, with leadership profiles and customer success stories.
• Admit when you’re wrong. Acknowledging missteps and addressing them head-on builds credibility.
• Engage in thought leadership. Publishing high-quality, research-backed content positions your brand as an industry authority.

If getting your messaging right is half the battle, then getting your message across is the other. And media, B2B or otherwise, still has a part to play here.

While it is true that trust in traditional media is declining, B2B media still holds significant influence, especially within professional circles. Working with trusted media partners can reinforce your brand’s legitimacy and this is as true now as it ever was. By leveraging independent validation, investing in quality and aligning with credible voices, brands can help bridge the trust gap. 

Trust is a long game 

Building trust isn’t about a single campaign or LinkedIn post. It’s an ongoing commitment to transparency, consistency and delivering real value. The brands that earn and sustain trust are the ones that don’t just say they are trustworthy – but prove it in everything they do.

If trust in media and institutions is crumbling, B2B brands have an opportunity to step up and fill the void. But remember: trust is hard-won and easily lost. Treat it like the precious commodity it is.

Raconteur has just released a new edition of the CEO Index – an annual project, launched in 2023, which provides an overview of the people running the biggest listed companies in the UK.

The 2024 edition has already produced some great results in terms of reader engagement. But it also gives me an opportunity to highlight another important topic that we’ve written about recently: the art and science of content creation.

When we create content, whether it’s our editorial, our marketing initiatives or content we produce for our commercial partners, we’re always trying to find the best possible way to reach the target audience and bring our (or our clients’) value proposition to life.

First and foremost, having an original and interesting idea is key. But how we present those ideas, how we facilitate the absorption of information, makes a huge difference to how well we can serve our readers and drive engagement. We’re always asking: Does this piece of content capture attention? Is it useful? Is it memorable? Is it shareable? Etc.

When we talk about art we’re talking about how we can, in a literal sense, present content in a way that delights the reader. For us, that often means thinking about what our design team can do that’s unique and interesting.

With science, we’re talking about data. What data can we find? Can we match it up with our audience data? What kind of reader data can we capture that will improve engagement in the future? And, how do we use that to improve?

So it’s about matching data with visual representation, all underpinned by a creative idea. It’s the combination of these that really brings content to life. We can put a lot of data in front of people, but without engaging presentation, you’re asking a lot of readers to be able to absorb it effectively.

The CEO Index illustrates this approach very well. It started, like all of these things do, with a great idea and this one came from one of our data journalists. We decided we wanted to shine a spotlight on the lack of diversity at the top levels of British business. 

This obviously isn’t a new issue, of course, but that doesn’t mean we should shy away from covering what is a very real problem. When it comes to how we do this though, while there are senior leaders at UK businesses who want to talk about this topic, let’s be honest, they’ve probably been asked to comment on it quite a lot and they may be facing some fatigue. This is why it’s so important to use art to create something that people will actually want to engage with. Otherwise, it’s just more of the same.

One of the key features of the CEO Index is the calculator, which enables readers to create their own stories in a sense. Readers can compare themselves to FTSE 100 CEOs across a range of data points, including gender, ethnicity, disability status and education, among others. It’s a really powerful way to get readers thinking about this data and, by adding that personal element, the point hits home in a way that it wouldn’t by merely looking at the figures.

So we have all this data on FTSE 100 CEOs, but how do we present it in a way that readers can absorb it and understand it? It takes art and science – different teams working together, from data and editorial to design and social media. Something that otherwise would be ‘just another feature article on diversity’ instead becomes something memorable; something that sticks because it’s presented in an engaging way.

We can see the benefits of this approach in the numbers attached to this project. It’s getting great levels of interaction on our website, on social media and on LinkedIn; it’s driven a lot of registrations and has already produced a lot of great data for us, which helps us to understand our audience better. 

And, crucially, it’s shareable. People want to share their results: how similar are you to the average FTSE 100 CEO? People don’t share content that is just ‘kind of interesting’. They share stuff they connect with and want their friends and colleagues to connect with too. It elicits a range of emotions and it’s exactly the kind of engagement we’re hoping for with an art and science approach.

You can read more about the art and science of content creation here and read all of our great content on FTSE 100 CEOs, including the calculator, here.

It’s certainly not the first time this question has been asked. In fact, it feels very 2022. That was the year Cannes Lions launched the Creative B2B Lions, heralded as a major milestone at the time. This year, there are 13 awards for Creative B2B at the festival, ranging from brand building to disruption, challenger brands to effectiveness. With these accolades, there’s a willingness to believe the problem has been solved, that B2B has cracked creativity – but has it?

It is well understood that B2B marketers have traditionally concentrated on the bottom end of the funnel: sales activation. They are nearly twice as likely to depend on ‘rational’ product-centric creative compared to their B2C counterparts, while LinkedIn data reveals that B2B marketers allocate a mere 8% of their budgets to long-term brand awareness. Creativity can undoubtedly be used throughout the funnel, but it is arguably at its most effective towards the top: earning trust, becoming memorable and building brand.

For the last few years, weak economic growth, high inflation and rising interest rates have dented confidence and made it harder to found and grow profitable businesses. Now more than ever, marketers are having to think about the immediate, not the long term. Which begs the question, if we weren’t focusing on creativity and brand building when times were good, how can marketers be expected to do it now? We didn’t make brand hay when the sun was shining, and now things are considerably darker.

This brings us back to the perception of creativity within B2B, and whether time, money and effort should be funneled into long-term growth (brand) or short-term activation (product). We know the answer is both. They are not mutually exclusive. I am not telling anyone anything they don’t know. Unfortunately, we also know that the majority of B2B brands still take the short road when the going gets tough. The path of least resistance, sure, but the wrong one.

All too often, the mindset that brand is more useful for B2C than B2B prevails. All the things that good creativity and brand growth bring – long-term loyalty, trust, emotional attachment – are useful in one world, but not another. Surely we have to move beyond this, not just when we celebrate great creativity and brand growth at events like Cannes Lions, but back in the real world, in the day-to-day. 

Most of us are aware of the 95-5 rule, as outlined by Professor John Dawes. “Only 5% of potential B2B customers are in-market at any given time, meaning marketers need to deploy broad upper-funnel campaigns for the other 95%.” Combine this with ever-increasing targeting opportunities – it’s no coincidence that the one new B2B award up for grabs this year at Cannes is for influencer marketing – and it’s obvious that creativity needs to be at the heart of everything we do in B2B marketing. We need to build brand loyalty, and we need to be creative in how we do it. 

We’ve seen great examples in recent years of brands really getting it right in B2B, being useful and memorable without being product-led. The Audiencers and Hubspot spring to mind, and closer to home we’ve seen great initiatives on Raconteur from Salesforce and Mailchimp. 

While product-centric marketing definitely has its place, it’s not the ‘rational’ choice by default. That would suggest creative, brand-led marketing is ‘irrational’, when everything we know about effectiveness and loyalty suggests otherwise. B2B products change and evolve over time, as do brands, but while it’s easy to forget features, demos and price tiers, it’s a lot harder to forget true creativity when you come across it. 

The shift to remote working has granted millions of us a better work/life balance, yet proximity bias is blocking the advancement of highly talented people, affecting female workers disproportionately

“What worries me is a world where women become less visible.” 

So said entrepreneur Debbie Wosskow at the inaugural Women in Work Summit in London this week.

She was talking in a session questioning whether the post-pandemic shift towards remote working in the UK has been good for women. I’d assumed beforehand that the consensus would be yes, but Wosskow offered a strong argument to the contrary. 

Her reasoning was as follows: there are more men in the workforce than women, who are more likely to be working remotely. And studies show that people who visit the office less often than their managers are less likely to secure a promotion than colleagues who attend HQ frequently.

Wosskow urged the audience to “be very careful about where the consequences of the pandemic and the desire for flexibility can take us”.

The reality of who works from home

Her arguments are supported by government research. Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that 79.4% of men aged 16 to 64 are employed in the UK as of Q2 2023, compared with 72.1% of women.

Women are also slightly more likely than men to be working remotely. The ONS surveys the population regularly on where and how they work. Its most recent findings indicate that 17% of women work purely from home, compared with 16% of men, while 29% of women are hybrid workers, compared with 27% of men. Nearly half of working men (48%) cannot do so from home, compared with 44% of working women. 

There is plenty of research evidence indicating that proximity bias exists in many workplaces. For instance, a survey of C-suite executives in the US last year found that 41% believed that remote workers were less likely to be considered for promotion in their firms. This phenomenon predates the pandemic: a study conducted in China in 2015 found that remote workers were half as likely as their office-attending colleagues to be promoted, even though they were more productive. 

So, as Wosskow highlighted, there could be an issue to address here. Yet it doesn’t mean that the uptake of remote working, especially by women, is intrinsically a mistake.

How to prevent WFH from becoming another equality issue

Nonetheless, employers should be aware of the potential challenges this trend presents. When designed well and applied effectively, flexible working policies can give employees agency, reduce their stress and improve their productivity. But if this harms people’s promotion prospects and earning power – particularly those in groups who are already disadvantaged in this respect – it will simply reinforce the status quo.

The solution, then, is to be mindful of how flexible working policies operate in reality and to mitigate any impact this could have on remote workers’ careers. 

Women remain overwhelmingly responsible for childcare and household chores, which may be part of the reason why they‘re more likely to take up flexible working where it’s offered. New data from the National Centre for Social Research shows that, while attitudes to women’s participation in work have shifted hugely over the past 40 years, behaviour has yet to catch up. For instance, 65% of the British public say that washing and ironing is done mainly by the women in their households, versus 27% who say it is shared and 7% who say it is done mainly by the men.

To build fairness into the system, an employer must track who is making use of flexible working policies and why, and then ensure that everyone feels equally able to access them. If women are using them more than men, it needs to consider why that’s the case. 

Elliott Rae, who founded MusicFootballFatherhood, a parenting platform for men, highlighted this issue at the summit from an alternative viewpoint. He spoke of a male friend who’d been offered four weeks of paternity leave by his employer but had taken only one because he knew that the other men in the firm who’d secured promotions after becoming fathers had taken only a week off. 

Rae asked delegates: “What are you doing in your organisations to encourage and support dads to take up flexible work policies?”

Managers also need to be trained in how to counter proximity bias and be mindful of treating everyone equally, no matter where they work. Likewise, they need fairer systems of gauging someone’s productivity and value to the business if they can’t see that person working next to them in the office.

Ultimately, as writer and futurist Christine Armstrong noted at the summit, the pandemic gave us “the most incredible opportunity to reset work”. But that reset needs to benefit everyone. It’s up to business leaders to ensure that it does.

Far from signalling a bright new future, Elon Musk’s decision to rebrand Twitter to X suggests the company is in more trouble than many thought

Things have been looking bad at Twitter for some time. Since Elon Musk bought the platform for $44bn (£34bn) last year, it has shed users and advertising revenues, as well as its place in the social media ecosystem. 

Time then, according to Musk, for a rebrand. Announcing the news, he detailed plans to “bid adieu to the Twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds” (a reference to the blue bird logo that has been synonymous with Twitter since it was founded). This morning, the logo visible on the website and the badges assigned to employee profiles had changed to an ‘X’ symbol, while the new logo was emblazoned on the outside of the company’s headquarters.

Twitter is not the first to attempt a rebrand to paper over strategic cracks. Branding history is littered with companies wanting to put the past behind them or signal a new direction with a name change. Most of these happen at the corporate level, with the aim of showing investors that things are changing.

RBS Group rebranding as NatWest Group is a recent example, but Philip Morris, Facebook, Google, Royal Mail and WeightWatchers have all tried it. Usually, however, they only serve to highlight what customers and investors already know: there are problems in the business that its leaders would rather move on from.

The issues at Twitter

At Twitter those problems are obvious. Musk himself has said revenues are down by 50% since he bought it in October. Staffing levels have dropped precipitously. More than 7,000 people worked for the company before the takeover, but that number is now down to 2,300, according to Musk. Documents seen by CNBC claim the figure is closer to 1,300.

There are no official numbers on monthly users, but Matthew Prince, CEO of DNS service Cloudflare, claims that Twitter’s traffic is “tanking”, while Insider Intelligence predicts user numbers will fall from a high of 368.4 million in 2022 to 335.7 million in 2024. More than that, there’s a feeling among Twitter users that the changes Musk has made, from introducing a subscription service to limiting the number of tweets people can see, have worsened the experience.

All of this means rivals are circling. Bluesky, created by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, has hit more than 1 million downloads (it operates a waiting list for new users). Facebook-owner Meta is also getting in on the action with the launch of Threads, which was the fastest app ever to hit 150 million downloads (although there are signs it is struggling to maintain interest with reports that traffic is down 70% from its peak). 

Musk wants the rebrand to signal a new direction for Twitter. CEO Linda Yaccarino has called the changes a “second chance to make another big impression”, claiming that in the same way Twitter changed the way we communicate, X will “transform the global town square”. 

Musk envisions X as an ‘everything app’ that will enable messaging, payments and banking. Yaccarino says it will be a “global marketplace for ideas, goods, services and opportunities, powered by AI that will connect us all in ways we’re just beginning to imagine”. 

The idea, then, is to put Twitter’s past as a social media platform behind it, in favour of building a ‘marketplace’ that offers so much more. The best way to get users, customers and advertisers behind that new ethos, Musk believes, is through a rebrand.

The difficulties of rebranding

Yet wanting to build a new company out of an old one and actually doing it are not the same thing. Google’s rebrand to Alphabet meant to signal that it was more than a search company, yet the business and the majority of its revenue remains synonymous with this. Facebook’s rebrand to Meta aimed to do the same, but the metaverse made up just 1% of the company’s revenues last year.

Rebranding Twitter to X does not make Musk’s vision any more likely to become a reality. The company needs to tempt users back with new features, while convincing advertisers it is a safe space for their brands to appear. Only when it has the trust of both audiences once again could X even think about becoming a bigger platform. 

The amateurish way it has launched the rebrand is hardly likely to put minds at rest. Currently, the X name is only used on desktop, not on the apps. The Twitter name and the blue birds are still visible across its properties, from apps to its twitter.com URL. Musk said the x.com url would redirect to Twitter.com; currently it does not.

The decision to drop Twitter blue for black appears to be the result of a Musk poll, rather than any deep strategic insight. The logo is not an original piece of work, but simply the ‘x’ glyph from Special Alphabets 4 font (making it impossible to trademark). 

If anything, the rebrand is a distraction that will cost the company time and money when it cannot afford to waste either. The loss of equity from dumping one of the world’s most valuable brand names, according to Brand Finance, is hard to measure but likely to be sizeable.

What is clear is that Twitter is in trouble. The rebrand suggests it is in more trouble than many realised. 

The process when it comes to businesses making purchasing decisions is becoming increasingly complex. Will Brookes, CEO of Raconteur, explains why, and how to reach the new stakeholders for B2B sales

It’s never been easy to get the attention of B2B decision-makers.

But with digital transformation, the economic climate and growing pressures on businesses, navigating the path to purchase is more complicated than ever. The solo C-suite decision-maker has been replaced by a buying committee and that committee is expanding and becoming more complex.

In 2014, research by CEB found that on average five people were involved in a B2B purchase decision.

In 2022, a survey by Raconteur of 1,100 UK senior business leaders found that, in 94% of cases, more than six people are involved in the decision-making process, with one in five (21%) business leaders reporting that more than 16 people are involved in business investment decisions. Interdepartmental influence is also increasing, with departments such as finance, HR, IT, operations, marketing and sales influencing areas outside their assumed expertise.

There are more people with a say in each buying decision and this has ramifications on all aspects of the B2B environment. Since it is no longer purely the C-suite who make every purchase decision, the strategy of targeting this one department of the business has been superseded. The decision-making process now needs to be viewed through a wide lens to consider a new complicated buying matrix of multiple departments and cross-sectional executives at varying levels of seniority. The landscape for B2B purchasing decision-making has changed.

For marketers, the familiar strategy of targeting a senior executive role no longer works because it doesn’t reflect how decisions are made in business today.

According to Raconteur’s research, 76% of business leaders agree that they rarely make decisions without consulting stakeholders and departments in their organisation. And 86% of business leaders agree that they value regular communication, insights and/or updates from different functions for decision-making.

But why?

Because businesses are becoming interconnected. Technology has transformed how we work and communicate. Companies prefer to run the same software company-wide, which means that decisions about that software also run company-wide. Disciplines that 15 years ago weren’t viewed as instrumental are now integrated parts of the business. Data, for instance, is a key strategic business asset and that means data strategists have become part of the decision-making process. With the need for cybersecurity ramped up, that department also has a strong influence on the decision-making process. Increased regulation has heightened the need for legal teams, so their voices are heard too in decision-making discussions. And this is mirrored across myriad departments.

Added to this is the fact that purchase-making decisions can be career-changing and the cost of getting them wrong could be career-ending. Sharing the load among multiple decision-makers lessens the chance of a major career blow.

So, what does this mean for marketers?

Since decision-makers now range in expertise and seniority, marketing campaigns need to be relevant for experts and novices. Also, marketers need to target campaigns to many functions, not just the most obvious ones. And ultimately, the B2B marketing technique of distributing a white paper is now a waste of time.

True B2B marketing excellence is not just about how to reach this new cross-sectional audience. It’s also about what to use to reach them.

Instead of taking the time to get to know their audience and find out what will attract them, marketers often move too quickly to develop campaigns to achieve commercial goals and meet the bottom line. Understandable, considering the economic climate and scrutiny on budgets. But to work in this way often produces content that doesn’t pique the audience’s interest or keep them reading. All it does is harm the success of the campaign and relationships with potential buyers in the long run.

Content must be interesting, engaging, clear and relevant for each stakeholder, across different disciplines and levels of seniority. And the nature of B2B purchase behaviour means that marketers often have a narrow window of opportunity to get their content in front of the right person, at the right time. Don’t fall into the trap of wasting that opportunity by pushing generic research which doesn’t have real insights. It takes time, energy and money to craft a campaign that will land with this new era of decision-makers – but an authentic, challenging piece of content is worth a thousand white papers.

There is an art to decision-making. And there is a skill to targeting the decision-maker. Only when we understand the complexity of the audience can we get to the crux of what they are looking for.

This article was originally published on WARC.

What, how and why brands choose to advertise is under increasing scrutiny as consumers move towards more thoughtful purchasing.

When Greenpeace scaled the Cannes Lions’ Palais and stormed the beaches of the Croisette to unveil its ‘No Awards on a Dead Planet’ campaign, the advertising industry received a poignant reminder of its role in the global environmental crisis.

Because what brands choose to advertise, how they choose to advertise and why is under greater scrutiny than ever before, and missteps and unsubstantiated claims can become damaging Twitter storms and global headlines in seconds.

So, why are so many brands getting it wrong? And what role do media agencies have in helping brands find their authentic voice and drive a more trustworthy purpose-led conversation?

Authenticity is key

In recent years there has been a steady rise in brands publicly committing to more purpose-driven efforts. So much so that the market has become oversaturated, making it challenging for competitors to set themselves apart. In addition, audiences are becoming increasingly savvy and socially conscious, placing added pressure on brands to not just have a purpose but also be transparent about their efforts and results. 

This is because while it’s easy for brands to talk about their purpose pledges, it’s a completely different task to get them to share evidence of meaningful and positive impact without the smoke and mirrors of ill-constructed definitions and goals. With more brands coming under scrutiny for claims of greenwashing, pinkwashing and wokewashing, this reinforces the need for authentic communication. Customers today need to be convinced that a message is true and not just a marketing communication gimmick, and they need brands to demonstrate their role in society beyond just transactions. 

Rob McFaul, Co-Founder of Purpose Disruptors, a climate action group set up to help drive the advertising industry towards net zero by 2030, believes the advertising industry has a role to play in driving change. “The shift we’re starting to see is an understanding that, through campaigns, we can do more than just raise awareness of environmental issues or promote our clients’ sustainability credentials,” McFaul says. “We can normalise sustainable lifestyles, encourage sustainable behaviours and play an important role in helping our clients transform their business models so they can thrive in a net zero world.” 

Information is power, and by being authentic and transparent about where you are in your brand journey and the areas you wish to improve, consumers will feel empowered and more willing to engage. It’s a simple yet powerful tactic to not only help convert the sceptics, but also build loyal brand ambassadors over the long term. McFaul adds: “We’ve found changing habits from a sustainability standpoint are down to people’s concern for their future and the future of their children, nieces and nephews. People care and are reflecting their concerns with their buying decisions.”

What can advertising agencies do to drive purpose?

So, what role do agencies have in helping brands find their genuine voice? It can start with seemingly small steps, as long as there is a genuine call to action and change. The #changethebrief alliance, started in response to growing scrutiny of the industry’s need to harness its own influence, is picking up pace. The alliance, now boasting 5,000 signatories, provides agencies and client-side marketers with the skills and confidence to promote sustainable behaviours through their campaigns.  

This has included initiatives such as encouraging people to take shorter showers by creating four-minute, ad-free Spotify playlists of ‘songs to sing in the shower’, as well as creating packaging that urges consumers to freeze leftover food in order to reduce food waste. The goal is to normalise these eco-desirable behaviours in society through advertising, and use media and marketing investment to achieve this. 

Marketers and agencies are more than just consultants. With a constant finger on the pulse, they are advisors to clients on culture, audiences and trends, and it is vital for brands to recognise this and understand the crucial role their media partners play in how they should respond to social issues. So, where does purpose-driven marketing go from here?

Be clear in your communication 

Having clear communication about your brand’s goals and values can help maintain your reputation, draw in new clients and make your current clientele feel connected to what you do. In addition, studies show that 63% of consumers favour making purchases from brands with a purpose. Therefore, even though purpose-driven marketing is excellent for building brand reputation, doing so is also in your best commercial interests. 

Looking ahead, adland needs to come together and collectively work on what is, in effect, its toughest brief yet. It’s more important than ever for advertising agencies to play this key role in the development, planning and activation of legitimate purpose campaigns. Consumers will become increasingly sophisticated at sorting the wheat from the chaff and, therefore, brands and agencies must work together to create a purpose-led narrative that is authentic and clear.

This article was originally published on shots.net