Most believe AI helps small businesses compete with larger firms
And for many, it's paying off.
Advertisement
According to the poll of 1,000 American business owners, marketers, and salespeople, 77% believe the more they use AI tools for work, the more confident they feel in the quality of their work.
6 A new survey has found that one in five are secretly using AI at work, even when there's no official policy for it.
Urupong – stock.adobe.com
Likewise, 75% believe using AI for their business can make it more effective at competing with larger and more well-known businesses.
Commissioned by ActiveCampaign and conducted by Talker Research, the survey found 82% of respondents who are using AI in the workplace are using it for marketing — either in imagination (52%), activation (48%), or validation (44%).
Advertisement
Many others are using it for customer support (31%), operations/people management tasks (28%), and product-related tasks (25%).
But despite AI's usefulness, 20% still feel like they've had to 'sneak' AI into their work because it's not officially allowed. Although 48% said they use AI in their work daily, 17% reported they only use AI less than once per month, and an additional 9% 'never' use AI in any official work capacity.
6 According to the poll of 1,000 American business owners, marketers, and salespeople, 77% believe the more they use AI tools for work, the more confident they feel in the quality of their work.
SWNS
Respondents shared that the main reason they aren't using AI tools at work is connected to various fears surrounding it. One in five respondents is concerned about poor-quality output, while another 21% of employees, specifically, are concerned that AI will replace their job.
Advertisement
Additionally, 19% fear that patrons and consumers will lose trust in their business, and 17% have heard negative feedback and opinions about AI use from other people.
Over half (57%) said they've either had negative opinions about AI themselves or have had negative opinions shared with them from others.
Twenty percent admitted they were the biggest critics themselves, while others found negative feedback stemmed from social media comments (20%) or directly from customers and clients (18%).
6 The survey found 82% of respondents who are using AI in the workplace are using it for marketing — either in imagination, activation, or validation.
SWNS
Advertisement
'While some businesses are still figuring out how to integrate AI into their core operations, many have moved beyond experimentation to strategic implementation, focusing not just on what AI can do for them, but on how it creates measurably better outcomes for their customers,' said Jason VandeBoom, Founder and CEO of ActiveCampaign. 'We're seeing people discover AI's impact on their bottom line in real time, whether that's increased revenue or time saved. Often, it starts with a personal 'aha moment' where they experience AI's power firsthand, which then naturally evolves into professional adoption and business transformation.'
The study also revealed that using AI tools in a more personal setting can help resolve some of the fears people have.
6 20% of respondents still feel like they've had to 'sneak' AI into their work because it's not officially allowed.
SWNS
Nine in 10 have used AI for both personal and work-related tasks. And of them, two-thirds used AI for their personal lives first, taking, on average, six weeks to fully understand what to use it for.
In work settings, it takes people just as long on average to understand it, but the payoffs quickly appear afterwards.
In a typical week, people said using AI at work saved them 13 hours of time. And it appeared to save more time the more it was used: respondents who used it daily said it saved them 14 hours per week, on average. Those who use it less than once per month only have six hours saved.
6 In a typical week, people said using AI at work saved them 13 hours of time, according to reports.
SWNS
And during a typical month, AI tools have saved them $4,739 in operational costs. This followed the same pattern, saving more money the more it was used. Daily users saved $5,038 on average, and infrequent users only saved $2,237.
Advertisement
Many said incorporating AI into their company's workflow has helped them feel more efficient in completing tasks and allocating resources (39%), feel confident about the quality of their work (29%), and feel creative in their marketing approach (37%).
They said they found AI especially effective for certain departments, like marketing (82%), design and creative (78%), and analytics (75%).
6 75% of respondents believe using AI for their business can make it more effective at competing with larger and more well-known businesses.
IDOL'foto – stock.adobe.com
'Marketing is where AI really shines because it amplifies human creativity rather than replacing it,' said Amy Kilpatrick, Chief Marketing Officer of ActiveCampaign. 'Our survey shows 82% find AI especially effective for marketing because it handles the time-consuming tasks — like data analysis and content ideation — so marketers can focus on strategy and building genuine connections with their audience. The result is better work delivered faster, which ultimately benefits both the business and the customer.'
Advertisement
Survey methodology:
Talker Research surveyed 1,000 American business owners, marketers, and salespeople; the survey was commissioned by ActiveCampaign and administered and conducted online by Talker Research between May 21 and June 12, 2025.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why it matters who owns a newspaper
The House of Lords this week approved government legislation that will allow foreign states to hold up to a 15% stake in British newspaper publishers. This vote clears the way for the American investment company Redbird to take control of the troubled Telegraph newspaper group following two years of uncertainty. An integral element of that bid is a 15% stake by the sovereign investment fund IMI which is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the vice-president of the United Arab Emirates. The heated Lords debate raised fundamental questions about who should own newspapers, and the link between ownership and editorial content. On one side were those who argued that Britain's newspapers faced an 'existential threat' without outside investment. On the other were those who warned against the potential influence of a foreign power on one of the UK's longest standing publishers. Media mergers and acquisitions are often contentious. But given the parlous state of the newspaper industry, they are likely to become more frequent. A very different kind of newspaper deal was completed last December, when news website Tortoise Media bought The Observer. Tortoise, which was founded in 2018 by former Times editor and BBC director of news James Harding, startled analysts and journalists alike by taking over a newspaper first published in 1791. The deal prompted strong opposition from some Observer and Guardian journalists. But from a business perspective, the deal suited both sides. The Scott Trust, owners of the Observer since 1993, never seemed wholly committed to the Observer. (There was, for example, no dedicated Observer website). Tortoise, meanwhile, was keen to exploit the brand values of an established print product. It saw the Observer as a suitable vehicle for its approach of news analysis and explanation rather than breaking stories. The media world has also been fixated on the succession story of the Murdoch family and its implications for his UK newspapers. The Sun, News of the World (until its closure in 2011), the Times and Sunday Times have been the bedrock of Rupert Murdoch's economic and political power in the UK for decades. In December, he lost the battle to give his eldest son Lachlan exclusive control of his media empire. Speculation has grown as to whether any of Rupert's progeny will want to continue the family's print tradition after his death. His empire has suffered repeated financial and reputational hits since the phone hacking scandal. It is perfectly feasible that, once he goes, all the Murdoch press interests will be up for sale. These various battles beg the question: why does it matter who owns a newspaper? In short, it matters because ownership, to a large extent, determines content. Who owns the news? From the very beginning of printed news, proprietors have exercised control over their title's political direction and journalistic values. Prewar Britain saw Lord Beaverbrook famously exploiting his Express newspapers to campaign for free trade within the British empire. Meanwhile, fellow newspaper baron Lord Rothermere turned his Mail newspapers into propaganda sheets for Oswald Mosley's blackshirts, and cheerleaders for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during the 1930s. The Rothermere family's continued ownership of the Mail has guaranteed a consistent anti-immigration, anti-Europe rightwing worldview to the present day. How this consistent framing has been transmitted through the Mail's editors has been well documented by journalist Adrian Addison. Murdoch's UK newspaper empire has also pursued his personal free market, anti-EU political vision. He has used his papers to attack the publicly funded BBC and the regulator Ofcom. Murdoch has, however, been slightly more flexible in adjusting his papers' party political allegiance (guaranteeing a succession of prime ministerial genuflections from Margaret Thatcher through to Keir Starmer). At the other end of the political spectrum, the Scott Trust – owners of the Guardian – was conceived by the son of C.P. Scott as a vehicle for sustaining his father's liberal mission for the paper. It has a policy of no editorial interference, apart from continuing the paper's editorial policy on 'the same lines and in the same spirit as heretofore'. Editors are therefore enjoined to focus on the kind of progressive news agenda championed by Scott. The trust model allows a level of freedom from traditional commercial oversight. Editors can pursue the Guardian's well-established liberal tradition without worrying about shareholders driven by short-term profit maximisation, or an individual owner with a specific ideological agenda. This partly explains the hostility of Observer journalists to the Tortoise takeover. Why it matters The Lords debate focused on the risks of foreign state investment in British newspapers. But all commercial ownership models – and all owners – have their problems. Whether it be greedy shareholders, a power-hungry narcissist, an ideologically-driven family or a foreign state seeking influence in the UK, commercial models all involve editorial compromises. One approach to the problems raised by commercial ownership is an insistence, through legislation, on a plurality of owners. But this is increasingly difficult in an industry whose traditional advertising-funded business model is under severe pressure. This context is precisely why the Telegraph's new owner was desperate to access IMI funds. Upmarket publications such as the Financial Times and the Times can monetise subscriptions, but paywalls discourage easy access and diminish journalistic reach. Subscriptions are also a much less attractive proposition for tabloids whose readers are less willing to pay. Another approach is to diversify ownership models. Non-profit and charitable publishers, such as OpenDemocracy or the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, can leverage donations and are less vulnerable to the whims of corporate owners or powerful individuals. But this model is much less developed in the UK than the US. I and colleagues have argued elsewhere that there are strong arguments for making charitable journalism easier. These models can enhance journalistic freedom, but they also come with potential downsides that need to be acknowledged. All these options presuppose, of course, that newspapers and their online sites still have sufficient relevance and reach for us to continue to worry about ownership at all – a topic for another article. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Steven Barnett is on the management and editorial boards of the British Journalism Review. He is a member of the British Broadcasting Challenge which campaigns for Public Service Broadcasting. He is on the Advisory Board of the Charitable Journalism Project which campaigns for public interest journalism and on the board of Hacked Off which campaigns for a free and accountable press.
New York Post
11 minutes ago
- New York Post
Privateer Rum CEO Andrew Cabot was on an overseas work trip when Coldplay 'kiss cam' scandal broke: source
Privateer Rum CEO Andrew Cabot was on an overseas business trip when his wife Kristin Cabot was caught canoodling at a 'Coldplay' concert – and the couple's relatives were likewise blindsided by the scandal, a source close to the situation told The Post. The tipster said Cabot, the founder of the Massachusetts-based, high-end liquor maker, had been on a work-related trip to Japan and returned to find himself and his family in the middle of social media firestorm. [Andrew] was in Asia for a few weeks and returned on Saturday, so he was gone while all this went down,' said the source, who requested anonymity to discuss the situation. 'Poor guy.' Advertisement 5 Kristin Cabot pictured with Andrew Cabot in 2024. Maud Cabot/Facebook Multiple attempts to contact Andrew Cabot and Privateer Rum went unanswered. When The Post called Privateer Rum, the company's voicemail box was full. Kristin and Andrew Cabot married sometime after her previous divorce was finalized in 2022. The source said there had been little indication of any trouble in paradise before the Coldplay concert video went viral. Advertisement 'The family is now saying they have been having marriage troubles for several months and were discussing separating – which I find interesting since as of a month ago they were saying how in love they are,' the source added. 5 Andrew Cabot is part of one of the oldest and wealthiest families in Massachusetts. Boston Globe via Getty Images The Post was first to report that Kristin Cabot, whose maiden name in Stanek, was married to Andrew Cabot and that the pair had purchased a $2.2 million mansion in Rye, New Hampshire just five months before the scandal broke out. The Cabots were seen smiling and wearing wedding rings alongside two young kids in a Facebook post from May 2024. Advertisement Andrew Cabot is a member of one of the oldest and wealthiest families in Boston. The Cabots are one of the original 'Boston Brahmin' clans that controlled New England for centuries. 5 The home of Andrew and Kristin Cabot in Rye. LP Media A bio on Privateer's website says his 'ancestor, the original Andrew Cabot (1750-1791), was a merchant, rum distiller and successful American privateer during the American Revolution.' The brand — whose high-end bottles can retail for upwards of $100 each — touts its strict use of authentic ingredients and 'Made in the USA' pedigree. Advertisement 'One thing is certain,' one ad advises. 'Privateer advocates transparency, honesty and purity.' 5 Andy Byron (3rd from left) and Kristin Cabot (far right) in an undated photograph. Bain Capital Ventures Kristin Cabot's now-deleted LinkedIn account showed that she has served as an 'advisory board member' at Privateer Rum since September 2020. Andy Byron, the now-ousted CEO of New York-based software firm Astronomer, was caught canoodling on the jumbotron 'kiss cam' at Gillette Stadium. wit Kristin Cabot, the company's head of HR. Both scrambled to get out of sight, prompting Coldplay frontman Chris Martin to joke, 'Either they're having an affair or they're just very shy.' 5 Andy Byron and Kristin Cabot were caught canoodling at a Coldplay concert. Grace Springer via Storyful Astronomer placed both Kristin Cabot and Byron on leave while they investigated the incident. By last Saturday, Byron had resigned, with Astronomer cofounder Pete DeJoy taking over as the new interim CEO. So far, Kristin Cabot has yet to be fired.
New York Post
11 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump threatens to escalate trade war with new round of tariffs up to 50%
President Donald Trump said he will impose tariffs ranging from a minimum rate of 15% to a clip as high as 50% as his Aug. 1 deadline looms. 'We'll have a straight, simple tariff of anywhere between 15% and 50%,' Trump said Wednesday at an artificial intelligence summit in Washington, DC. Trump's latest tariff salvo was aimed at countries that have not yet secured bilateral trade frameworks with Washington. Advertisement 4 President Donald Trump said Wednesday that his administration is preparing to impose a new round of tariffs ranging from a minimum rate of 15% to a clip as high as 50%. REUTERS While some nations are actively negotiating to lower their rates, Trump emphasized that he intends to apply a 'very, very simple tariff for some of the countries,' citing the logistical challenge of negotiating individual deals with over 150 nations. 'You can't negotiate deals with everyone,' Trump said. Advertisement He added that negotiations with the European Union were 'serious' and tied potential reductions in tariffs to increased access for American businesses. 'If they agree to open up the (EU) to American businesses, then we will let them pay a lower tariff,' Trump said. The markets were mixed Thursday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average falling 164 points, or 0.36%, to 44,846.29 as of noon. The S&P 500 rose 13.68 points, or 0.22%, to 6,372.59, while the Nasdaq gained 43.05 points, or 0.21%, to reach 21,063.06. Advertisement 4 Trump laid out his latest tariff plans, describing them as 'reciprocal' duties ahead of an Aug. 1 deadline. Getty Images Trump's comments mark a shift from statements when he initially proposed a universal tariff of 10% on nearly every country during his 'Liberation Day' rollout in April. While his team has previously floated rates between 10% and 15%, Wednesday's remarks indicate that the baseline is now expected to begin at 15%, with significantly higher rates for countries with strained relations with the US. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Sunday that smaller nations — including 'the Latin American countries, the Caribbean countries, many countries in Africa' — would face a baseline tariff of 10%. Advertisement Despite initial expressions of interest in formal trade agreements, Trump has recently suggested that the letters themselves constitute a form of dealmaking. Still, countries may reduce their rates through side agreements. 4 Trump's tariff initiative, which he began rolling out in April, is aimed at countries that have not yet secured bilateral trade frameworks with Washington. REUTERS On Tuesday, the White House announced that Trump had agreed to reduce a proposed 25% tariff on Japan to 15%. The reduction was made in exchange for Japan lifting certain restrictions on US products and pledging $550 billion in US investments. A similar deal is reportedly under discussion with South Korea, according to people familiar with the matter. That country is also working toward securing a 15% tariff rate, including on automobiles. In Southeast Asia, the Philippines is also seeking to lower its rate. According to the country's ambassador to the US, Jose Manuel Romualdez, the Philippines hopes to bring down its current tariff rate from 19% to 15%. Vietnam, another country weighing its options, is assessing the possible consequences of not securing a trade agreement. An internal Vietnamese government estimate projects that its exports to the US could fall by as much as one-third if higher tariffs take effect. 4 An aerial view of a container shipped docked at the Port of Oakland on May 20. Getty Images Advertisement India and members of the European Union are also pushing for trade agreements before the new tariffs are enacted. As the deadline nears, multiple governments are working to either strike a deal or gauge the economic impact of the proposed levies. Trump's increasingly firm stance on tariffs suggests a broader strategy to use trade policy as a lever for international concessions. With the Aug. 1 implementation date fast approaching, the administration is signaling that countries will either accept the new terms or negotiate quickly to avoid higher costs.
