
Communicators and marketers battle for the brand
Why it matters: Those two concepts are often at odds and add to the strained relations between marketing and communications.
State of play: Throughout the week, I was having two very different conversations with communicators and marketers.
While CMOs were focused on grabbing attention with creative — and expensive — partnerships, CCOs were talking about staying under the radar to avoid stakeholder backlash and potential reputational exposure.
In short, CMOs want breakthrough, while CCOs want cover.
By the numbers: CEOs, for the most part, seem to be more aligned with the CCO train of thought.
A new McKinsey & Co. study found that marketing and other parts of the business are increasingly disconnected, and only 31% of CMOs believe their CEOs are comfortable with modern marketing strategies.
CMOs are also losing ground at the decision-making table. Forrester Research found that only 63% of Fortune 500 companies have a marketing leader who sits on the leadership team and reports directly to the CEO.
Meanwhile, the number of CMOs at Fortune 500 companies is down from 71% in 2023 to 66% in 2024, per Spencer Stuart.
What they're saying: Heightened political polarization, economic instability, AI advancements and cultural tension have made this moment more complex than ever, Weber Shandwick global president Jim O'Leary said at an Axios event in Cannes.
It's the battle between "cultural relevancy and cultural resilience," he said. "And I think that it's been a challenge for some companies to navigate that complexity."
But it has led to brands being more purposeful and less performative, by tying their brand campaigns to action or back to the business, as opposed to just capitalizing on a marketing moment, he added.
Between the lines: At the heart of it, communicators and corporate affairs professionals are wary that one shallow marketing campaign could do years of reputational harm.
Look no further than Bud Light and Target, which were still top of mind for many in attendance last week.
"I think that for a long time, people were convinced that trust was the only thing that really mattered with reputation, that it was almost a binary — are you trusted or not trusted? And of course, for anyone sitting inside of a company or a brand, you know that there are a multitude a multitude of levers that make up reputation," said Burson global CEO Corey duBrowa.
"It's not just what you say, it's what you do, and how that ties to values," he added.
What to watch: The shifting organizational structures of communication and marketing teams, and which function truly owns "brand."
"What's exciting about this moment as communicators is we're finally seeing a true opportunity to try to integrate brand strategy with reputation strategy, with marketing and anything that is more enterprise wide strategy," said Chris Foster, CEO of Omnicom Public Relations Group.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
From Vibe Coding To Agentic Engineering: Redefining SDLC With One-Pizza Teams
Serge Haziyev, CTO, Advanced Technologies at SoftServe. 25+ years helping Fortune 100s and startups capitalize on emerging tech. The vibe coding phenomenon emerged earlier this year—seen by some as a joke, by others as a threat and by a few as a genuinely helpful productivity approach. Ever since Andrej Karpathy introduced the term to the community, it has sparked ongoing debate across social platforms. But one key question remains: Can this prompt-driven coding style, enabled by agentic AI tools like Cursor and others, scale across development teams and be harnessed by businesses investing heavily in AI for productivity? While vibe coding proves valuable for generating small applications and rapid prototypes, it struggles when applied to larger codebases and more complex software systems developed by teams rather than individuals. The challenge often lies in the fact that the resulting code falls far short of production-grade quality. An increasing number of practitioners, myself included, believe that to effectively leverage agentic AI in real-life projects, we need to redefine the software development paradigm, particularly the people, processes and tools components of the SDLC (or PDLC) equation. For short, we can call this "agentic engineering" and define its key objective as achieving faster time to market with smaller teams and reduced manual effort, effectively lowering development costs without compromising the quality of the resulting software. Let's explore the three aspects of the SDLC that require revision: people, process and tools. People Most software development teams today follow the two-pizza team model, based on Jeff Bezos' idea that no team should be so large that it takes more than two pizzas to feed. This typically translates to eight to 12 individuals, with about half of them spending their full day working directly with code. Coding, in fact, is a highly brain-intensive activity. It's no secret that in the software development industry, engineers often spend only about one hour per day actually writing code. Multiple studies from respected sources, such as Microsoft Research, support this observation. On average, about three hours a day are spent working with code—reviewing, debugging and writing unit tests. The rest of the workday is often filled with communication, documentation or meditating on complex problems. The larger the team, the more time is typically spent on internal communication. As AI agents can autonomously execute part of a developer's activities, this leads to smaller teams where fewer people write code directly and instead leverage the agents, which act as a team of virtual developers. Here's something new in the one-pizza team model: a role called the Intelligence Engineer. This role is solely responsible for configuring, operating and customizing the agents. Think of it like a flight engineer in the early days of aviation—a crucial crew member responsible for the proper functioning of the aircraft. Process In traditional Scrum, which is commonly adopted across the software industry, each sprint lasts no longer than one month and typically spans two weeks. The cadence is defined by the time lag between planning and the retrospective. Now, imagine for a moment that development time has been reduced to zero. Once a user story enters the backlog, it immediately materializes as code. Of course, AI agentic development tools aren't quite there yet. But current performance already enables the translation of well-described tasks into code in minutes rather than hours or days. Understanding this leads us to redefine the SDLC process, as some have already observed that structured communication and evaluation are becoming the new bottlenecks. This shift elevates the role of written specifications: first, to align humans; and second, to translate intentions clearly to agents, minimizing ambiguity in the resulting program. Wait, wasn't that exactly what the waterfall process did, with its emphasis on upfront specification? The very approach that Scrum later challenged? Waterfall emphasized upfront specifications to reduce ambiguity in execution. In the AI-driven era, we're seeing a similar need, but not for static specs. Instead, we need executable intent: interpretable, testable and traceable descriptions that replace the role of traditional source code. When, in the near future, code can be generated in minutes from a sprint backlog based on new specifications, the purpose of sprint cadence will change dramatically. It will no longer govern the 'time to write code,' but rather the 'time to think, align and evaluate.' Tools The plethora of prompt-driven coding tools appearing each month puzzles many engineering leaders. Evaluating the available tools for specific project needs alone could require a dedicated team working full time on just this activity. Then comes the build versus buy question: Can universal, publicly available tools like Cursor, Windsurf, Lovable, Devin and others be effective in a specific project environment based on X, Y and Z technologies? Or is it better to build custom agents tailored to project needs using agentic frameworks such as Claude Code, OpenAI Codex or Gemini CLI? Only time will tell which approach will prevail, but one trend we can already observe is that prompt engineering (the core of vibe coding) is giving way to context engineering, which promotes a more systematic approach to feeding LLMs with complete and relevant information. While some companies are already experimenting with the context engineering approach alongside spec-driven development for their in-house agents, we can expect such tools to become available to a broader market soon, with being a good example. Sure, bringing in context and project specifics requires much more effort than simply installing an IDE. But that's the point with humans, too—think of it as onboarding a new team member who doesn't drink eat pizza. The Future Of Software Development Starts With Redefinition Vibe coding is uncovering the need for a systemic shift in how we build software. As agentic AI becomes more capable, organizations must move beyond the novelty of agentic engineering and embrace it as a disciplined framework. This means rethinking team composition, adapting processes to accelerate alignment and evaluation and choosing tools not just for output, but for orchestration. Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?


New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
When the C.E.O. Retires but Won't Go Away
When Target said on Wednesday that its chief executive, Brian Cornell, would step down, the company noted that he wouldn't go very far. In February, after 12 years at the helm, Mr. Cornell will transition to the role of 'executive chairman.' It's an increasingly common move at big companies. But it doesn't always go smoothly, and the dynamics of having two leaders with 'executive' in their titles can be fraught. High-profile examples of the pitfalls include Disney's approach with Robert A. Iger, and there are other cases, like Jeff Bezos' at Amazon, that appear to be going to plan. In a study of chief executive transitions at S&P 500 companies last year, the recruitment firm Spencer Stuart found that nearly half had named an executive chair as part of the succession, and that in most of those cases the chair was the previous chief executive. As executive chair, a person still has important responsibilities, which could include maintaining relationships with key suppliers, lobbying the government or suggesting mergers and acquisitions. On average, having an executive chair can lead to stronger company performance, said Ryan Krause, a professor of management at the University of Iowa's Tippie College of Business. But he cautioned that the arrangement could hold a struggling company back. 'What the data say is when the former C.E.O. sticks around as chair, what you get is less change,' he said. 'You're going to get less performance change than you would if it was a clean break and the former C.E.O. just went away.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Miami Herald
AI and Virtual Coaching Are Transforming Reemployment - Big Interview Shows What's Possible
NEW YORK CITY, NY / ACCESS Newswire / August 21, 2025 / As the White House releases its America's Talent Strategy: Building the Workforce for the Golden Age, state agencies are facing an urgent question: how to prepare workers for a job market being reshaped at unprecedented speed by AI and automation. The challenge is clear. By 2030, 14% of workers will need to change jobs due to AI and automation, and 80% of the workforce will see disruption to their daily tasks from large language models like ChatGPT (McKinsey). Reemployment programs, built for a pre-AI economy, are struggling to keep pace. The paradox is that the same technologies fueling disruption may also be the key to recovery. Across the country, workforce agencies are piloting AI-powered assessments, virtual reality training, and AI-driven interview coaching to move people back into work faster and with better job matches. "Over the last decade, I've watched hiring trends shift-but nothing compares to the pace of change we're seeing now," said Pamela Skillings, co-founder and chief coach at Big Interview. "AI isn't just changing what jobs exist, it's changing how quickly people need to adapt. Agencies that integrate these tools now will be the ones that keep their workers competitive." AI-enabled resume and interview tools-like those built into Big Interview-are helping states like Idaho provide personalized interview feedback to thousands of unemployed residents annually, without increasing staff workload. These same approaches are in line with the White House's America's Talent Strategy Pillar IV and V priorities: Accountability: Linking investments to clear employment outcomes, shortening unemployment, and redirecting resources to programs that prove & Innovation: Using AI-era tools to pilot new models, adapt training to labor market needs, and scale access to rural and underserved communities. For state agencies, the impact is measurable. Big Interview's AI-driven mock interview simulations and resume optimization tools have already supported over two million job seekers worldwide, helping them land jobs up to 5x faster than the national average. "When you can serve thousands of people with personalized interview feedback-without adding staff-you're not just innovating, you're solving real problems," said Steve Ruder, Vice President at Big Interview. "We've seen measurable results in multiple states, and the technology is proven to scale." As agencies evaluate their next steps under the America's Talent Strategy report, one priority stands out: evaluate and pilot AI-driven tools that can scale impact, measure results, and adapt quickly to changing labor market needs. Contact Information Steve Ruder Vice Presidentsteve@