JPM Healthcare 2026: Signals Leaders Must Read

As the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference begins in San Francisco this week, attention once again turns to not just deal activity, pipelines and market sentiment. But also innovation, announcements and transactions that are not part of the bigger picture.

JPM Healthcare Week has evolved. In 2026, it's no longer just the world’s most important healthcare investment event. It has become a signal-setting forum, where healthcare and life sciences today intersect with geopolitics, industrial policy, capital discipline and artificial intelligence.

For leaders, investors and founders, the real value of this week lies beneath the headlines.

Healthcare is now a strategic geopolitical asset

Life sciences and healthcare are no longer viewed simply as growth industries. They are now strategic geopolitical assets for nations around the world.

Across the developed world, healthcare sits at the heart of national priorities: resilience, economic security, demographic stability and technological leadership. Governments are shaping policy with these objectives in mind, and capital is responding accordingly.

This shift has real consequences. It changes how companies are valued, how innovation is funded, and how markets are accessed. Healthcare is now part of the national industrial strategy, not separate from it, which means perception, alignment and trust matter more than ever.

Reputation, trust and perception are no longer 'soft issues'

One of the most underappreciated dynamics shaping healthcare performance is reputation.

Public research consistently shows a paradox. Many people recognise the scientific value of healthcare innovation, yet broader understanding and trust remain fragile. Familiarity is low, allowing scepticism to persist regarding the benefits and value, with motivations often still misunderstood.

Among clinicians, trust is higher, especially where collaboration exists. But public trust, political confidence and investor perception are uneven.

This matters.

Reputation is not a communications afterthought. It is a strategic asset that influences:

• Patient adoption of innovation

• Clinician confidence and collaboration

• Regulatory engagement and policy outcomes

• Investor appetite and cost of capital

There is a clear economic logic to this. Reputational strength helps organisations navigate policy environments, secure market access, attract partners and stabilise valuations. A weak or ambiguous reputation does the opposite, increasing risk premiums, slowing growth and delaying life-saving and enhancing treatments and potential cures.

For both enterprises and start-ups, reputation, perception and positioning are now core drivers of performance.

Capital discipline has replaced narrative momentum

Another clear signal from JPM Healthcare Week 2026 is the return of capital discipline.

After years of valuation resets, investors are no longer underwriting stories alone. They are underwriting execution, governance and credibility.

Growth is available, but it is selective. Capital is flowing towards organisations that can demonstrate:

• Operational discipline

• Clear regulatory pathways

• Realistic deployment of technology

• Coherent engagement with policy and stakeholders

Narrative still matters, but unsupported narrative now destroys trust rather than creates it. For founders and executives, this represents a shift in what “good storytelling” actually means. It must now be anchored in evidence and delivery.

Artificial intelligence moves from hype to infrastructure

Artificial intelligence remains central to healthcare strategy, but the conversation has matured.

In 2026, AI is no longer judged on what it might do, but on what it delivers in practice. Investors and strategic buyers are focused on:

• Integration with existing systems

• Interoperability across payers and providers

• Measurable return on investment

• Governance, data provenance and security

AI is becoming core infrastructure, comparable to cloud computing or electronic health records. This has significant reputational implications.

Organisations that over-promise on AI, obscure how systems are trained, or underinvest in governance are now seen as higher risk. Those that demonstrate restraint, transparency and operational integration are rewarded with credibility.

In this environment, AI success is less about being first and more about being trusted.

China is a structural force, not a cyclical one

One of the most consequential signals shaping global healthcare is also one of the least openly discussed during JPM Week: China’s accelerating role in life sciences and healthcare.

China is no longer just a manufacturing base or clinical trial location. It is increasingly:

• A source of novel drug discovery

• A leader in specific cell and gene therapy platforms

• A scale player in diagnostics and digital health

• A strategic healthcare partner across Asia, Africa and the Middle East

This has three implications.

First, competitive pressure is now structural. Western companies are competing with, partnering with, or acquiring assets originating from Chinese ecosystems.

Second, capital flows are becoming more multipolar. Asian sovereign wealth funds, regional banks and private capital pools are backing healthcare platforms aligned with regional priorities.

Third, reputation and trust matter more. As geopolitical scrutiny intensifies, data governance, intellectual property protection, and national alignment are examined through both political and commercial lenses.

Ignoring this shift does not reduce risk. It compounds it.

Therapeutic focus reveals what investors really value

On the surface, JPM 2026 highlights familiar therapeutic areas: oncology, obesity, neuroscience, radiopharmaceuticals and cell and gene therapy.

But the deeper signal lies not in which therapies are fashionable, but in what investors are underwriting.

Across these areas, attention is shifting towards:

• Manufacturability

• Logistics and supply-chain resilience

• Scalability and operational readiness

• Late-stage durability rather than early novelty

Radiopharmaceuticals, for example, are attractive not only for clinical promise, but because control over isotopes, logistics and site readiness creates defensible strategic positions.

Similarly, in cell and gene therapy, investors are prioritising vector supply, comparability plans and outcomes-based access models.

Execution capability has become a reputational asset. Scientific excellence remains essential, but it is no longer sufficient.

M&A, private credit and disciplined growth

M&A remains central to healthcare strategy, particularly as large pharmaceutical companies face significant patent cliffs. But deal-making has changed.

Valuation discipline is tight. Deal structures increasingly rely on:

• Staged acquisitions

• Options-to-acquire

• Contingent value rights

• Royalty monetisation

Alongside this, private credit and capital is playing a growing role, attracting institutional investors and family offices with longer return horizons.

In this environment, credibility, governance and clarity matter more than momentum.

The five signals leaders should be watching

Cutting through the noise of JPM Healthcare Week 2026, five signals stand out:

1. Policy alignment is now a valuation input

2. AI governance is a reputational issue

3. Manufacturing and logistics are strategic moats

4. Multipolar healthcare is a reality

5. Transparency is no longer optional

These are not communications issues. They are leadership issues.

Reputation as strategy, not optics

The unifying lesson from JPM Healthcare Week 2026 is that reputation has become a strategic operating system.

For governments, it shapes investment attractiveness and national influence.

For businesses and start-ups, it underpins partnerships, valuation and licence to operate.

For investors, particularly CVCs and family offices, it determines access, deal flow and long-term returns.

Organisations that treat reputation as a by-product of success will struggle. Those who treat it as an asset to be built, governed and protected will shape outcomes.

Seeing the year clearly

JPM Healthcare Week 2026 is not about predicting winners. It is about understanding how the rules of the game are changing.

In 2026, the leaders who outperform will not be those who shout the loudest, but those who:

• Read signals early

• Act coherently

• Communicate transparently

• Build trust across markets, borders and institutions

That is where strategy, geopolitics and reputation now meet in healthcare and life sciences.

This Reputation Matters article is a summary of a longer briefing note that is detailed and supported by facts and sources:

JPM Healthcare 2026: The Signals Leaders Cannot Ignore by Julio Romo

How geopolitics, capital discipline and AI realism are reshaping the investment in and growth of life sciences and healthcare sectors and why positioning and perception matters to build trust.

Read on Substack

Subscribe to my Reputation Matters Substack for information.

Geopolitics, Trust and the 2026 Strategy Test

As we start 2026, most leaders and decision-makers in government, business, and investment will be looking for clear signals to help them mitigate risk and drive growth. The coming year is going to be, at the very least, interesting.

Yet many organisations still do not invest seriously in understanding how geopolitics influences their strategy, shapes their opportunities, or constrains their operating environment.

Geopolitics now behaves less like background context and more like an operating constraint: shaping what you can build, where you can invest, which partnerships are acceptable, and how quickly confidence can evaporate when perception flips.

That would be manageable if trust were abundant. It is not.

We are entering a year in which the economics of trust, the politics of technology, and the fragility of global trade converge into a single strategic conversation. Leaders who continue to treat reputation as an output of communications and geopolitics as a paragraph in the risk register will discover they have miscategorised the problem.

The most material risks are not only what happens, but how it is interpreted, by whom, and how quickly that interpretation turns into a decision: a blocked deal, a delayed procurement, a new regulatory requirement, an employee walkout, or a funding round that suddenly becomes harder to justify.

So here is the test that matters for government leaders, technology executives, and investors across CVC, VC, and family offices:

Can your strategy survive scrutiny from regulators, citizens, employees, customers, and rival states at the same time?

If the honest answer is “not sure”, that is a good place to start. Strategy begins with realism, not reassurance.

These are the signals I believe leaders need to read differently as we move into 2026. None is novel in isolation. What is changing is how they compound, with trust and perception acting as the transmission mechanism.

1) Multipolarisation is now operational, not theoretical

The Munich Security Report 2025 used the term multipolarisation to describe today’s international order: more centres of gravity, more competing models, and widening divisions that make collective responses harder.

This matters because ‘multipolar’ is not simply a description of who has power. It describes how quickly your organisation can become a political object.

In a more contested world, partnership choices are no longer read only as commercial decisions. They are read as signals. Supply chains are no longer only about efficiency. They are about exposure.

Corporate neutrality, once considered prudent, is increasingly interpreted as evasive, particularly when questions touch national capability, dual-use technology, data sovereignty, or capital sources.

This is where reputation becomes operational.

A company may believe it is ‘staying out of politics’, but stakeholders will still assign intent. Governments may believe a policy is technical, but it will still be interpreted through domestic grievance and external suspicion. Investors may think they are simply allocating capital, but in strategic sectors, they are increasingly treated as political actors.

Multipolarisation does not mean choosing sides in every argument. It means clarity about the boundaries of your behaviour, as others will test them for you.

Practical implication for 2026:

Write down your non-negotiables and make them legible. Not in a 40-page policy document, but in a page that can survive stress. If you cannot explain your red lines simply, you will not be able to defend them quickly when challenged.

2) Geo-economics hardens into enforceable friction

The second signal is the continued conversion of economic policy into national security policy.

It rarely arrives with drama. It arrives through process: screening, licensing, procurement clauses, source-of-funds questions, and export controls that tighten incrementally, then bite suddenly.

Two indicators capture the direction of travel.

First, investment screening is now mainstream. The OECD reports that more than four out of five OECD members operate investment screening mechanisms. This is not a technical footnote. It changes how deals are timed, justified, and perceived. Intent is now assessed alongside structure.

Second, capital flows are under pressure. UNCTAD reports that global foreign direct investment fell by 11% in 2024 to $1.5 trillion, marking a second consecutive year of decline. Less patient capital increases competition for ‘clean’ capital and heightens suspicion of unclear objectives.

Now connect this to technology.

In the most strategically sensitive sectors, rules are moving faster than many executives admit. Export controls and counter-diversion expectations in advanced computing and semiconductors have been tightened repeatedly, with a precise policy aim: prevent strategic advantage leaking through the gaps.

This is not simply about compliance. It is about deal viability and operating freedom.

In 2026, more transactions will be slowed, reshaped, or abandoned not because they are illegal, but because they are politically difficult, reputationally fragile, or poorly explained.

Practical implication for 2026:

Treat deal readiness as a strategic capability. Combine legal diligence with political and perception diligence. Map screening triggers early. Identify who can derail a deal informally. Shape the perception of a transaction at the same time as you structure it.

3) Trust scarcity is becoming the baseline condition

This is where the argument becomes uncomfortable.

Many leaders still behave as if trust is the default, and reputation is something you lose only if you behave badly. The evidence suggests the opposite. Distrust is increasingly ambient, and legitimacy must be earned repeatedly.

The World Economic Forum continues to rank misinformation and disinformation among the most significant short-term risks, explicitly linking them to the erosion of trust and governance. Edelman’s Trust Barometer describes a widening ‘crisis of grievance’ that stifles growth and innovation.

In low-trust conditions, stakeholders interpret events through suspicion. Narratives form faster and are harder to correct. Regulatory appetite shifts towards visible toughness, even where nuance would deliver better outcomes.

This is also where the information environment becomes a corporate risk, not just a social one. Disinformation increasingly targets firms, founders, funds, and deal counterparties.

What leaders believe privately and what decision-makers assume quietly matter as much as public reputation.

The cost of generating plausible falsehoods continues to decline. Verification still takes time. That asymmetry is now structural.

Practical implication for 2026:

Shift from messaging to evidence. Build trust infrastructure: governance, independent oversight, transparent standards, and escalation protocols for misinformation events. In 2026, trust will belong to organisations whose claims are verifiable, not merely well-phrased.

4) AI governance moves from opinion to timetable

AI has spent the last two years living in a fog of hype, fear, and ideology. Towards the end of last year, there were signs of a potential AI bubble.

2026 introduces a different dynamic: deadlines.

The EU AI Act entered into force in August 2024 and will be fully applicable in August 2026, with some obligations applying earlier. That alone should change planning cycles for firms operating in or selling into Europe.

It also matters far beyond Europe. Regulatory gravity travels through procurement, supply chains, and global standards. Firms based elsewhere are already being asked for EU-aligned assurance because it reduces buyer risk.

For investors, this is a value and exit issue, not simply a legal one. Companies that cannot evidence governance will struggle with regulated customers, face greater litigation exposure, and see exit routes narrow.

In a low-trust environment, ‘responsible AI’ as a slogan invites scrutiny rather than confidence.

Leaders will be judged on accountability: the models used, how they are tested, the data they rely on, and how incidents are handled.

Practical implication for 2026:

Treat AI governance as a board-level capability. Inventory use cases, including shadow use. Assign accountable owners. Document controls and monitoring. Build an evidence trail that survives scrutiny.

5) Strategic policy-making: reducing market friction

A persistent but under-emphasised signal for 2026 is the need for policy-making itself to become more strategic.

Too often, regulation in areas such as technology, trade, investment screening, and industrial policy is developed in vertical silos, with limited cross-sector oversight. The result is friction within markets and between markets: slower investment, higher compliance costs, and dampened competitiveness.

OECD analysis and business surveys consistently show that regulatory complexity and inconsistency impose measurable burdens on firms and public administration. When policy is written in isolation, the cumulative effect is not just administrative cost, but strategic drag.

For 2026, this matters because investors and technology leaders increasingly price in not just the content of rules, but the coherence and predictability of policy environments.

Practical implication for 2026:

Treat regulatory clarity as a competitive asset. Engage early in cross-government and cross-industry reviews that prioritise coherence and remove unnecessary friction.

6) Hybrid shocks are the new normal

Finally, assume disruption will arrive as a bundle, not a single event.

Critical mineral supply chains remain concentrated, while investment momentum is weakening. At the same time, cyber pressure on public institutions and critical systems is intensifying.

Now connect the dots.

A supply disruption can become a political crisis. A cyber incident can become a legitimacy crisis. Both can be amplified through misinformation and grievance.

When systems fail, the public question is rarely just ‘what happened?’ It becomes ‘were you negligent, naïve, or dishonest?’

Reputation is not the aftermath. It is part of the incident.

Practical implication for 2026:

Run hybrid stress tests that combine operational disruption with narrative pressure. If your crisis planning assumes incidents arrive one at a time, it is built for a world that no longer exists.

The connective tissue: perception is now the delivery mechanism

Taken together, these signals indicate a change in how power operates.

In 2026, outcomes will be shaped less by what you claim and more by whether your behaviour is interpreted as credible under pressure. Perception and trust convert geopolitics into regulatory action, disinformation into commercial friction, and technology governance into market access.

Reputation is not a veneer. It is a form of strategic resilience.

If you lead an organisation operating across government, strategic technology, or cross-border capital, the question for 2026 is not ‘how do we look?’

It is: how do we hold?

A 90-day agenda for leaders

If I were advising a leadership team preparing for 2026, I would start with three moves:

• Codify your non-negotiables. Make them usable under pressure.

• Build deal and partnership legitimacy early. Do not outsource perception to the end of the process.

• Invest in trust infrastructure. Assume misinformation will be part of the next crisis.

This is not about caution. It is about deliberateness.

In a low-trust, high-friction world, the organisations that win are not those with the loudest messaging. They are those whose strategy survives scrutiny and whose leadership can move quickly with evidence when the environment turns hostile.

Sorrell Is Wrong: Reputation Matters More Than Reach

Sir Martin Sorrell is one of the most consequential deal-makers the advertising industry has produced. His transformation of WPP from a modest manufacturer into the world’s largest advertising and communications group remains a case study in scale, consolidation and financial ambition. More recently, his creation of S4 Capital has sought to reflect a digital-first, data-driven future for ‘marketing’ services. That record deserves recognition.

But admiration for deal-making should not prevent a challenge where his views fall short.

His reported assertion on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme that public relations is ‘dead’ and that modern communications is about ‘flooding the internet’ reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how reputation, trust and perception create and protect value in today’s economy. The views that he shared are rooted in ad-man advertising-era logic, not in the realities faced by leaders, boards and investors navigating 2025 and beyond.

This matters because Sorrell’s influence still carries weight. As the architect of WPP’s rise, the founder of S4 Capital, and a regular business commentator, his thinking shapes how executives, investors and the media interpret what ‘modern communications’ should look like. But reducing communications to reach and volume ignores the strategic function that protects enterprise value when scrutiny is highest, risk is greatest, and trust is hardest to earn.

Reputation is not built by flooding the internet. It is built through credibility, consistency and judgement over time. Confusing visibility with trust is not just an intellectual error, it is a strategic risk to leaders who manage companies with huge valuations.

Communications is not distribution. It is trust infrastructure.

At its core, communications is about how organisations are understood, judged and trusted by the people who matter most to their success. That includes customers, investors, regulators, partners, employees and wider society.

Reducing communications to ‘flooding the internet’ collapses three distinct disciplines into one:

• Advertising and media buying

• Digital and performance marketing

• Strategic communications and reputation management

Yes, they intersect, but they are not the same.

Advertising optimises for attention.

Digital marketing optimises for conversion.

Strategic communications optimises for credibility, legitimacy and trust over time.

Those outcomes cannot be delivered by volume alone. In fact, it is private engagement and positioning that establish how an individual, company, or brand is perceived.

Academic and professional research consistently shows that corporate reputation is a material driver of long-term financial performance, influencing profitability, cost of capital, customer loyalty and resilience during crises. Reputation is not an abstract concept. It is a critical intangible asset with a measurable economic impact.

Reputation is one of the most valuable assets a company owns

Multiple studies across economics, management and finance demonstrate that companies with strong reputations:

• Attract and retain better talent

• Command price premiums

• Enjoy greater investor confidence

• Recover faster from reputational shocks

This is why reputation is increasingly treated as a strategic asset, and not a by-product of marketing activity.

Warren Buffett has articulated this more plainly than most business leaders ever have. His long-standing warning that it takes decades to build a reputation and minutes to destroy it captures a truth that advertising metrics cannot measure and algorithms cannot fix.

For Buffett, reputation is inseparable from value creation. Lose money and it can be recovered. Lose trust and the damage can be existential. But yes, Sorrel’s public view is that what matters is flooding the internet. That is not counsel I would ever give to a client.

Why ‘flooding the internet’ is a high-risk strategy

There is a fundamental flaw in equating visibility with credibility.

Digital platforms reward frequency, speed and engagement. They do not reward accuracy, responsibility or long-term trust. In fact, research on platform dynamics shows that algorithmic systems often amplify polarisation, misinformation and emotional responses rather than informed understanding.

From a strategic perspective, this creates several risks:

1. Volume without trust erodes credibility

Audiences are increasingly sceptical of high-frequency brand messaging. Over-exposure without substance damages perception rather than enhancing it.

2. Platforms control reach, not organisations

The assumption that brands ‘own’ digital distribution ignores the reality that platforms mediate visibility, context and tone. Reputational exposure is outsourced to third-party systems with incentives misaligned to corporate trust.

3. Public narratives leak into private judgment

Reputation is formed as much in boardrooms, regulatory meetings, investor conversations and internal culture as it is in public channels. Flooding public spaces does nothing to address private perceptions.

Strategic communications exists precisely to manage these tensions.

Digital marketing KPIs are not reputation metrics

Click-through rates, impressions, engagement and followers are useful operational indicators. They are not measures of trust.

Reputation research focuses on very different signals:

• Stakeholder confidence

• Perceived integrity and competence

• Consistency between words and actions

• Willingness to grant the benefit of the doubt in moments of stress

Studies consistently show that reputation capital correlates with superior financial outcomes in ways that short-term marketing KPIs do not/

This is why serious organisations use reputation audits, stakeholder perception research and long-term trust indicators alongside financial reporting. These tools sit firmly within the remit of strategic communications and public relations, not media buying.

The private sphere matters more than the public one

One of the most persistent misunderstandings about communications is the belief that reputation is built solely in public view. This is wrong.

In reality, the most consequential judgments are often made privately:

• How investors talk about management credibility behind closed doors

• How regulators assess corporate intent before decisions are announced

• How partners evaluate reliability before committing capital or access

• How employees decide whether leadership is worth following

These perceptions are shaped by behaviour, consistency and trust over time. They cannot be engineered through content volume.

PR, at its best, operates in both public and private spheres. It helps leaders understand how they are perceived, where trust is fragile and how to align communication with strategy and conduct.

That work has become more important, not less.

The irony of declaring PR “dead”

There is a deeper irony in dismissing PR as obsolete.

Sir Martin Sorrell’s departure from WPP in 2018 occurred under a personal cloud. Regardless of the legal outcome, the episode demonstrated something fundamental: reputation affects even the most powerful executives. The subsequent creation and positioning of S4 Capital required careful narrative management, stakeholder reassurance and credibility rebuilding.

That is not achieved by flooding the internet. It is achieved through private trust-building with investors, clients, media and employees.

S4 Capital itself operates in markets where reputation, governance and trust directly influence valuation, client retention and investor confidence. For investors in any advertising or technology-enabled services firm, perception of leadership integrity and organisational culture matters deeply.

Communications does not disappear just because it becomes less visible.

Advertising scale versus communications judgment

Sir Martin’s career excellence lies in scale and deal-making. These are formidable strengths. But they are not substitutes for judgment about trust, legitimacy and perception.

Advertising and communications serve different strategic purposes:

• Advertising amplifies messages

• Communications shapes meaning

When organisations confuse amplification with meaning, they risk short-term noise at the expense of long-term value.

This distinction matters even more in an era of AI-generated content, synthetic media and declining institutional trust. As information becomes cheaper to produce, credibility becomes more valuable.

What leaders should take from this debate

For CEOs, boards and investors navigating 2025 and looking towards 2026, there are clear lessons:

Reputation is a strategic asset

It should be governed, measured and invested in with the same seriousness as financial capital and intellectual property.

Trust cannot be automated

AI, platforms, and digital tools can support communication, but they cannot replace human judgment, accountability, and ethical leadership.

Communications must be integrated with strategy

Communications and traditional PR work best when aligned with decision-making, not when treated as a tactical afterthought or distribution function.

Volume is not value

Flooding the internet may generate attention, but attention without trust is fragile and often destructive. Quality or quantity. You first want to be perceived well.

A warning worth heeding

Sir Martin Sorrell’s views carry weight because of his history and influence. That is precisely why leaders should approach his dismissal of PR with caution. Shouting the loudest for longer won’t influence how you are perceived.

Communications today is not about press releases or vanity coverage. It is about protecting and enhancing reputation in an environment where trust is scarce, scrutiny is constant, and perception shapes value.

PR is not dead. It has simply evolved beyond the comfort zone of those who equate success with scale alone.

For organisations that care about long-term value, resilience and legitimacy, reputation remains one of the most powerful assets they possess. Treating it as an output rather than an asset is a strategic mistake.

And one more thing. The irony in that, here we are talking about Sir Martin. For that and his business-building, I do commend him.

Are We Pricing Tech Ambition or Inflating a Bubble?

Yesterday I read an excellent opinion piece by the great Richard Waters, the FT’s West Coast editor, who set out how the potential listings of SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic could trigger not only a record-breaking IPO cycle but a deeper shift in how markets value ambition, with investors increasingly backing companies whose narratives, missions and sense of inevitability outweigh traditional financial metrics

These three companies now dominate expectations for a new wave of technology. Each is raising capital at valuations that would have been unthinkable even two years ago. According to the Financial Times, SpaceX has explored private secondary sales that imply a valuation of around eight hundred billion dollars. OpenAI’s most recent share sale priced the company at roughly five hundred billion dollars, while Anthropic is reportedly seeking a valuation of approximately three hundred and fifty billion dollars.

These figures dwarf the previous record for a technology IPO. Over ten years ago, in 2014, Alibaba's IPO was the world's biggest at $25 billion, which now looks modest by comparison.

If all three companies were to go public within a similar window, they would reshape market expectations of how frontier technology firms are valued. They would also force boards, investors and policymakers to reconsider how narrative, reputation and strategic influence shape the economics of high-growth companies.

This is not just a financial story, but a story about perception. It is about how a small number of companies have mastered the art of framing their work in ways that attract vast capital, maintain investor confidence despite heavy losses and position themselves as critical infrastructure for the future global economy.

This raises a question that Europe, the UK and even some institutional investors in the United States have yet to answer. How can such valuations be sustained when profitability is distant, business models are evolving and regulatory scrutiny is intensifying?

Look at the valuations that AI companies are getting and which are generating concerns about a possible bubble.The rapid surge in AI investment has raised concerns that valuations are running ahead of reality. Private funding for generative AI reached more than 25 billion dollars in 2023, almost nine times the previous year, while Nvidia’s market value jumped from about 300 billion dollars in late 2022 to over 3 trillion dollars in 2024 on expectations alone.The IMF has cautioned that such concentrated capital flows could create structural vulnerabilities if revenue models fail to mature. These signals point to a growing risk that the pace of valuation inflation may be unsustainable

The answer lies less in the balance sheet and more in the construction of reputation, control of the narrative, and deliberate engagement with the people who influence capital allocation.

Rewriting valuation logic

Traditional measures of corporate health do not explain these valuations. Instead, companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX have reframed investor expectations by positioning themselves not as providers of products but as architects of the infrastructure that will underpin future industries. Equally, the move towards a more fragmented world is nudging countries to invest heavily in the necessary hardware, chips, data centres, and associated energy industries for AI and other technologies.

OpenAI’s revenue trajectory illustrates how the narrative has shifted to scale, not profit. Reporting by the Financial Times showed that the company is ending 2024 with an annualised revenue rate of around twenty billion dollars, supported by close to two gigawatts of compute capacity. It also plans to triple this capacity to between six and 6.5 gigawatts by the end of 2025. The company suggests revenue growth will follow this compute expansion, creating the expectation that scale itself guarantees long-term value. The exact monetisation timeline remains unclear, but the perception of inevitability has been successfully established.

Anthropic has followed a similar path. The company raised more than seven billion dollars from Amazon, Google and major venture funds across 2023 and 2024. Here too, the valuation rests not on near term profit but on an argument that the company is building a core component of the global intelligence layer.

SpaceX illustrates the same dynamic but in a different sector. The Space Report 2024 Q4 shows that global launch attempts hit a record 259 in 2024, driven largely by SpaceX, which carried out 152 launches and deployed almost 2,000 Starlink satellites. Starlink’s expanding footprint has become strategically significant for defence, humanitarian operations, telecommunications and the emerging AI ecosystem, which increasingly relies on satellite connectivity. Investors are not being asked to value a launch business. They are being asked to value an organisation with an expanding monopoly in a strategically essential sector.

These examples reveal the underlying logic. Each company positions itself as an infrastructure company, which, as a result, attracts a premium valuation because its relevance expands as the global economy evolves.

This is perception engineered into valuation.

Controlling the narrative and limiting scrutiny

A consistent pattern across these and other companies in these sectors is the extent of control they exert over both public and private narratives. Unlike publicly listed firms, they release selective data that amplifies their growth story while limiting exposure to information that might raise questions about sustainability.

This is particularly visible in OpenAI’s financial disclosures. Microsoft reported its share of OpenAI’s losses in a recent quarter as 4.1 billion dollars, which implied that OpenAI’s total losses may have reached approximately 12 billion dollars. In almost any other context, such losses would be reputationally damaging. In this case, the narrative reframes losses as investments in global infrastructure, much as telecom companies were valued during the early phases of broadband deployment.

This narrative control also insulates these companies from critique. Losses become a symbol of ambition. Large capital requirements become a sign of inevitability. Investors rarely challenge this because the companies anchor the conversation in the scale of their vision rather than the detail of their current financials.

This is not misinformation. It is a narrative discipline.

Trust, perception and elite influence

The most powerful perception strategy these firms use is their focus on elite stakeholder engagement. Their audiences are not consumers or journalists. Their audiences are sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, institutional investors, global allocators, national security agencies, regulators, and a small number of corporate investors or family offices with deep capital reserves.

This is a political economy of reputation. Investors place trust not only in the company but in the network of institutions that surround it.

SpaceX benefits from partnerships with NASA, the US Department of Defence and multiple intelligence agencies. OpenAI and Anthropic benefit from close alignment with Microsoft, Amazon and Google, whose reputational and disciplined financial weight and management reduces perceived investment risk.

From a strategic communications perspective, these companies apply a highly selective engagement model. They rarely participate in broad public conversations except where doing so supports their mission narrative. Instead, they invest in private briefings, secure roundtables, controlled investor communications and founder-led storytelling that positions them as irreplaceable.

The result is a reputational halo that few European companies are currently able to achieve.

Why this approach works in the United States but not in Europe

The gulf between the US and Europe is not only about capital. It is cultural. It is a case of US Hyper-Capitalism vs. European Prudence. I've been told this face-to-face by a senior person working within a Silicon Valley company. Someone who wants to see UK technology companies grow with confidence and secure the returns that US companies secure.

American markets accept and reward scale-first economics. Losses are tolerated when the potential gains appear transformational. Dual class shares and concentrated founder control are expected. The US regulatory environment creates a wide runway for experimentation and narrative-driven growth.

Europe and the UK do not operate this way. Institutional investors have capital, but are more conservative. They seek predictable cash flow, clearer business models and earlier visibility of profitability. Regulatory regimes are also more prescriptive and cautious. Founders are not routinely granted the autonomy or control that US markets accept. Equally, American companies grow because their government influences their global partners worldwide. American soft power sells well.

As a result, European companies struggle to construct the same type of perception architecture. Their valuations are constrained by caution, governance expectations, regulatory oversight and a culture of risk aversion that limits ambition and holds back growth. Again, somebody that I respect here in the UK said that, “we need to be more mercenary!” That is a statement that has stuck with me.

This helps explain why sovereign wealth funds in the Gulf direct far more capital to American tech companies than European ones. These funds are attracted to large, high-visibility, narrative-driven bets that signal participation in the next global technological wave. The US ecosystem consistently delivers that narrative. Europe does not.

At the same time, Sovereign Wealth Funds from the Gulf, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and others, are mandated to diversify their national economies away from oil revenue by investing in global, future-facing technology. They are patient, strategic capital seeking exposure to frontier technologies like AI and space, aligning with their own national visions (e.g., Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 and its AI build-out). Again, back in 2011, during one of my first visits to the region, I remember learning about the work being done at KAUST that now looks like a precursor to what has become a focus of a planned move away from carbon revenue dependency.

The strategic risks of narrative-driven valuations

The strategies used by SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic and others are powerful, but they also carry material risks.

One is over-reliance on founder identity. Elon Musk’s influence over SpaceX, Sam Altman’s central role at OpenAI and the culture surrounding Anthropic’s founders mean these companies are vulnerable to reputational shocks that stem from leadership behaviour. The governance crisis at OpenAI in 2023 demonstrated how quickly confidence can be tested when internal control structures are unclear.

Another risk lies in the gap between ambition and financial reality. None of these companies has proven a long-term revenue model that fully supports its valuation. Investors are betting on possibility, not certainty. If revenue fails to scale at the expected rate or if regulatory pressures delay deployment, the gap between narrative and performance may widen.

Revenue run-rate projections for these companies are dependent on a massive, perfectly executed infrastructure deployment and a sustained, perfect conversion of consumer/enterprise users into high-margin clients. Any delay in capacity deployment, a slowdown in market adoption, or a major technical misstep could cause the stock price to violently revert to traditional valuation metrics, triggering an immediate correction. These companies are at the edge of perception.

Regulation is also becoming unavoidable. The EU AI Act, US AI-related executive orders, export controls on advanced chips and present geopolitical tensions create uncertainty for AI firms. Space technology is equally exposed to national security regulations and shifting defence priorities.

The final risk is narrative overshoot. Uber’s experience is instructive here. The company repeatedly faced pressure to prove that scale could translate into sustainable profitability. It took until 2023 for Uber to report its first quarterly operating profit, nearly four years after its IPO and following prolonged share price volatility.

And we cannot ignore that the US is the only player and the only strategy in the world. China is using an open source model that is securing buying and admiration.

Narrative creates momentum, but if it outpaces financial evidence for too long, valuation corrections become inevitable.

Strategic lessons for leaders and investors

The story here is not about hype. It is about intentional narrative construction supported by strategic engagement and an ambitious, long-term framing of value creation.

There are lessons here for governments, start-ups, investors and incumbents.

Companies must take control of their story before the market defines it for them. They must understand which stakeholders truly shape their valuation and build trust with those people, not the entire public. They must articulate the mission in a way that strengthens credibility and attracts world-class talent. They must demonstrate progress through evidence. Above all, they must prepare for governance scrutiny that intensifies once they enter public markets.

As I have said many times before and share privately with clients, perception and reputation are no longer soft assets. They are an intangible source of capital. Perception, when constructed with discipline, can shape the trajectory of entire industries.

What these companies have shown is that valuation is now as much about narrative architecture as it is about financial results. The companies that master this will define the next decade of global growth.

The Geopolitics Shift Boards Cannot Ignore

The publication of the 2025 United States National Security Strategy (NSS) last week was not a routine policy refresh. It was a strategic rupture that signals the end of an era in which companies, investors and governments could rely on the United States to underwrite the security of international markets, uphold global norms, and intervene to stabilise supply chains wherever needed.

The new doctrine presents a clear conclusion. The United States will prioritise domestic economic strength, industrial capacity, and resource security over maintaining a predictable global order. This shift affects every organisation operating internationally and presents to the world how the U.S. wants to see an  ‘America First’ global ecosystem.

The document outlines a worldview in which economic vitality, access to critical minerals, supply chain sovereignty, and technological leadership are treated as national security priorities, directly challenging the assumptions that underpinned thirty years of globalisation.

For senior executives, boards and investors, the implications are profound. The world has entered a new era in which geopolitical competence is no longer optional. It is a fiduciary responsibility.

The End of the Global Security Subsidy

For decades, global businesses benefited from a geopolitical subsidy rooted in the assumption that the United States would secure key trade routes, intervene in regional crises, and protect the integrity of global markets. The 2025 NSS explicitly rejects this historic role, noting that prior commitments to liberal globalism and open markets were costly and strategically self-defeating. This ignores how the United States has benefited from globalisation.

The language, though, is unambiguous.

The United States has stated that it will not carry global burdens alone. Instead, it expects allies and partners to take primary responsibility for their regions. It also signals a readiness to leverage tariffs, sanctions and trade restrictions to ensure reciprocal economic treatment. To a certain extent, the current document outlines a brutal commercial mindset - if you want security in these turbulent times, then prove the benefit to the US and then pay for it.

Economically, Europe is still central to US growth, even if the new National Security Strategy talks about it as a burden that must carry more of its own weight rather than as a partner to be protected. The data are pretty clear on that.

Europe is one of the largest end markets for US exports. At the same time EU and US firms together have about €4.7 trillion of investment in each other’s markets. From profits to dividend flows, Europe is one of the main external engines of US earnings, investment returns and technological diffusion.

The shift in the document represents more than a policy change. Yes, it’s the withdrawal of the regulatory and military scaffolding that held the global economy together, which is why businesses and investors in 2026 and beyond must prepare for a world in which a single superpower no longer stabilises global markets. And if they are to be, then the price for security will be costly.

Geoeconomic Realism: A Redefinition of Risk

Economic security is national security

What is clear from the new National Security Strategy is that economic security, industrial capacity and technological leadership are core components of national power, with the United States intending to secure critical supply chains and eliminate dependencies on adversarial states. All while it works to rebuild domestic industrial capability. 

This recalibration is rooted in three structural trends:

• Great power competition and strategic rivalry

• Fragmentation of global supply chains

• Weaponisation of trade, minerals and technology

For boards and investors, the key message is that economic policy is now foreign policy. This means decisions once made under market-led or operational assumptions must now incorporate geopolitical strategic thinking.

What This Means for Global Trade and Supply Chains

Fragile supply chains face structural stress

The NSS reinforces a shift away from the post-Cold War paradigm of hyper efficiency and global interdependence. It emphasises the need for secure, diversified and politically aligned supply chains. Firms that rely on extended, single-region or politically exposed suppliers will face heightened risk. 

This creates upward pressure on operating costs, but also creates a new competitive advantage for companies that can demonstrate resilience, redundancy and political alignment. Perception will matter.

The rise of friend-shoring and near-shoring

Businesses and investors should expect governments to encourage, subsidise, or pressure sectors to relocate supply chains to aligned jurisdictions. This applies especially to critical minerals, semiconductors, dual-use technologies, pharmaceuticals and advanced manufacturing.

Near-shoring to trusted regions, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, is now considered strategically desirable and may attract preferential state support. 

Intelligence-led supply chain scrutiny

The NSS also authorises the US intelligence community to monitor the integrity, origin and vulnerabilities of strategic supply chains worldwide.

This has two consequences:

1. Corporate supply chain exposure will increasingly become a national security question.

2. Firms with opaque or politically sensitive supply networks may face regulatory or market penalties.

Technology, Innovation and the New Investment Reality

The future belongs to secure and sovereign technologies

The NSS is unambiguous about the strategic importance of advanced technologies. Artificial intelligence, quantum computing, undersea systems, defence technologies, energy innovation and critical infrastructure are all viewed as decisive factors in future economic and military competition.

For VC, CVC and PE investors, this is both an opportunity and a compliance obligation.

The United States will actively guide capital toward strategically aligned sectors and away from adversarial ecosystems. Outbound investment restrictions will likely expand, placing new responsibilities on GPs and LPs to demonstrate alignment with national security considerations.

Inbound capital will be filtered through a geopolitical lens

Investors from allied nations may benefit from expedited regulatory treatment, including through bodies such as CFIUS. Conversely, adversarial capital will face presumptive prohibition in strategic sectors.

Investors must now map not only the financial characteristics of deals, but the political identity of shareholders, limited partners and supply chain partners.

Why Companies and Non-US Governments Must Rethink How They Present Themselves

This is where your strategic viewpoint becomes essential. A world that prioritises economic security and sovereign resilience requires companies and foreign governments to articulate their position clearly and persuasively to reduce political risk and secure growth.

This idea is absolutely valid and increasingly essential. In fact, the organisations and governments that present themselves effectively will gain access, trust and policy support. Those who do not will face barriers.

The new imperative: position yourself as strategically valuable

Companies must demonstrate not only commercial merit but also geopolitical value.

This means:

• Showing how your operations support national economic resilience

• Demonstrating alignment with industrial strategy and technological priorities

• Proving that supply chains are transparent, ethical and politically secure

• Positioning your organisation as a reliable partner in a fractured global system

Non-US governments must take the same approach. They need to craft compelling, credible narratives about their reliability as investment destinations, their alignment with US and allied values, and their contribution to regional stability.

This is the difference between being viewed as a strategic partner or a strategic risk.

The power of government-backed positioning

U.S. technology companies have long leveraged the American state's weight as a competitive advantage when entering new markets. Non-US firms should do the same by aligning themselves with their own governments and presenting a unified narrative to international partners.

This reduces risk, supports regulation, and provides legitimacy.

What Senior Executives, Investors and Boards Must Do Now

Below are some strategic recommendations.

1. Embed geopolitical risk into enterprise risk management

Geopolitical risk must be integrated into all strategic decision-making. Conduct regular geostrategy audits to evaluate supply chain vulnerabilities, technology exposure, resource dependencies and political relationships.

Boards should mandate geopolitical risk reporting as standard practice.

2. Build or acquire geopolitical and strategic advisory capability

The pace and complexity of change require specialist capability. Companies should hire internal geopolitical teams or retain external advisory services to support horizon scanning, risk analysis, scenario planning and government engagement.

3. Realign investment criteria and due diligence

Investors must evaluate sovereign alignment, supply chain origins, technology classifications and regulatory exposure as core components of deal evaluation. GPs and LPs must prepare to demonstrate alignment with national security principles.

4. Rethink supply chain models

Friend shoring, near shoring, dual sourcing and vertical integration should be considered where strategic. Firms should quantify the cost of geopolitical instability and incorporate it into production decisions.

5. Engage governments with tailored positioning

Develop clear, evidence-based narratives for relevant governments that show how your company or investment activity supports national strategic outcomes. This may include job creation, industrial innovation, critical mineral security, or technological leadership.

6. Build robust scenario planning and stress testing

Test organisational resilience against geopolitical shocks such as export controls, energy disruptions, sanctions, regional conflict or technology bifurcation. Integrate scenario planning into capital allocation, M&A strategy and operational design.

A New Era of Strategic Responsibility

The 2025 NSS is the most consequential strategic document for business in a generation. It formalises the end of an era in which global markets operated within a predictable security architecture enforced by a single power.

Companies, investors and governments must now adapt to a world defined by selective engagement, fragmented supply chains, sovereign industrial priorities and political risk tied directly to economic activity.

Those who adjust early will be able to secure trust, shape regulation, build strategic advantage and capture growth. Those who fail to recognise the shift risk being left exposed in a rapidly reorganising world.

Geostrategy is no longer an add-on. It is the new operating system for every global business and investor.

The Hidden M&A Risk: Trust, Perception, Reputation

Mergers and acquisitions are routinely framed as exercises in financial engineering, operational consolidation or strategic realignment. Yet despite decades of accumulated expertise and countless integration playbooks, the industry still grapples with a painful truth: most deals fail to deliver their intended value. Deloitte, KPMG and Harvard Business Review continue to report failure rates between 70 and 90 per cent. The commercial explanations are familiar, but they mask the deeper issue. Deals fail not because the numbers change but because trust collapses, perception is mishandled, and reputational risk is overlooked until it is too late.

This is not a communications challenge in the narrow corporate sense. It is a strategic problem that begins long before the press release. The most decisive moments in M&A unfold privately, in rooms and conversations that shape expectations, manage emotion, and align political and commercial interests behind the scenes. The organisations that succeed are those that accept that perception is a form of due diligence and that strategic engagement is a core leadership responsibility from the earliest stage.

Too many leaders still rely on the hope that internal memos, polished announcements or a confident Day One narrative will carry the weight of expectation. They won’t. In reality, private communications are the primary mechanism for de-risking a deal, because it is in private that fears surface, alliances form, and early interpretations take hold. Once perception has set, it is extremely difficult to reshape.

Your draft identifies this perfectly: trust, perception and reputation must sit at the centre of any transaction, not on the periphery. They are not soft factors. They determine whether a deal will be welcomed, challenged, scrutinised, or quietly resisted.

Perception Risk: The Critical Factor Deals Ignore

Financial, legal and operational risks are measurable. Perception risk isn’t, yet it can erase value faster than any technical error. A single speculative rumour about job losses can trigger talent flight. A nationalistic narrative can politicise a deal across jurisdictions. A nervous supplier may begin to adjust production or pricing. These reactions often happen before leadership is even aware that a problem exists.

Perception risk is powerful because it is emotional. It is shaped by fear, self-protection and cultural norms. It spreads faster than verified information, and once embedded, it drives behaviour that materially affects value. By the time leaders hear concerns formally, the narrative usually has already moved on.

This is why the space between signing and execution is so dangerous. Without private positioning, anxiety fills the vacuum. What looks like a strategic advantage to leadership can feel like a loss, threat, or identity change to others. That divergence, if unmanaged, is where deals begin to fracture.

M&A is often treated as a rational financial exercise. It is, in reality, a political, emotional and reputational event.

Why Public Communications Always Arrive Too Late

The visible elements of M&A communications still dominate the standard playbook: the Day One announcement, the investor call, the employee Q&A. These matter, but they are almost always reactive. By the time any public communication lands, most key stakeholders have already formed an early judgment, often shaped by private whispers, internal speculation or external commentary.

Public communications can frame a story. Private communications determine whether that story is believed.

Three recurring blind spots illustrate the challenge:

1. Optimism bias: Leaders focus on synergies, ambition and opportunity. When difficult realities are downplayed or ignored, audiences interpret this as spin and trust erodes.

2. Narrow stakeholder mapping: Employees and shareholders dominate the traditional plan, but modern deals live or die through the sentiments of regulators, political actors, supply chain principals, local influencers, NGOs and specialist media. If they are not engaged early, they become unexpected centres of resistance.

3. The assumption of rationality: Communications teams often expect stakeholders to process information through logic. They rarely do. M&A triggers insecurity, questions of identity and cultural sensitivities. Emotion always moves first.

McKinsey famously described communications as ‘the glue’ in M&A. Yet glue only works when the surfaces are prepared. If private engagement has not already addressed tension and misalignment, there is nothing for the glue to bind to.

Private Engagement: The Real Foundation of Deal Stability

Private communications are not discreet conversations or side notes to the core deal. They are a structured strategy of intelligence, influence and reassurance designed to steady the entire stakeholder ecosystem long before the public narrative appears.

Effective private engagement begins with building an inner circle of trusted internal and external voices. This group provides candid feedback, cultural and political insight, and identifies friction points that formal governance structures can obscure. Their input becomes the earliest warning system for risk.

Alongside this sits the shadow influence map, which recognises that formal hierarchies rarely reflect where true authority sits. Influence travels through informal networks, respected subject experts, loyal teams and individuals who shape internal narratives. Understanding who people will call first when uncertainty arises is critical. These individuals must be engaged long before employees hear anything publicly.

A third pillar is quiet regulator engagement. Regulators across Europe, North America and Asia now interpret M&A through lenses far broader than competition law. They consider national interest, industrial strategy, data sovereignty, political sentiment and technology capability. Leaders who wait for formal engagement quickly find themselves on the defensive. Those who engage early and privately build credibility and minimise surprises.

Private engagement also needs to extend to supply chains, where anxiety can rapidly lead to operational disruption. A simple reassurance to a key supplier that volume will remain stable, or that payment terms will not change, can prevent far-reaching consequences. In cross-border or multi-region deals, local communities and regional leaders hold unspoken veto power through social licence. Their sentiment needs careful management through respectful, early engagement that signals commitment, not extraction.

This is not about oversharing or revealing commercially sensitive information. It is about sequencing. Private engagement, conducted lawfully and strategically, is the first line of defence against destabilisation.

Culture: The Most Underrated Vector for M&A Failure

International culture is often treated as a soft factor, captured in integration workshops or post-close HR materials. This is a huge mistake. Culture determines how decisions are made, how conflict is addressed, how authority is perceived and how trust is built, in your home market as well as new international locations. When two organisations from different cultural environments merge, these factors collide. Perceptions from different cultures influence the potential success or failure of a deal.

Cultural due diligence must sit alongside financial and legal diligence. Leaders need to understand how teams communicate across borders, how hierarchy is interpreted, what risk appetite looks like in different regions, and where pace mismatches will cause friction. Without this insight, integration plans that seem logical on paper will fail in practice. In fact, ignoring culture, keeps an unnecessary risk on the deal table.

Cultural fluency is not about adopting a universal style. It is about adapting messaging, tone, sequencing, level of detail, and expectations, to ensure that communication signals stability, respect and clarity. Getting this wrong leads to delayed decisions, conflict between leadership teams and the silent loss of top talent.

Geopolitics: The New Arena Leaders Must Navigate

Today’s M&A landscape is inseparable from geopolitics, especially in the growing multipolar environment we are moving towards. Governments increasingly define technology, data, AI, energy and infrastructure deals as matters of national security. This transforms the communications environment from corporate to political.

A Franco–Japanese merger may be analysed in Washington. A US acquisition of a UK AI firm will inevitably raise concerns in Westminster. A European data infrastructure transaction may face scrutiny under emerging EU digital sovereignty rules. Leaders must be prepared to frame their deal not just in commercial terms, but in terms that resonate with national priorities and political sensitivities.

This requires a strategic communications approach that understands national narratives, industrial strategies and diplomatic concerns. Otherwise, leaders risk allowing competitors, commentators or political voices to shape the narrative first.

The Influence Chain: Wider Than Leaders Assume

The modern deal is shaped by a wider influence chain than most organisations acknowledge. Beyond employees and shareholders, there are regulators, governments, sovereign wealth funds, think tanks, community leaders, analysts, trade associations, NGOs and specialist media. Each group carries its own priorities, anxieties and informal power. Early private engagement is essential to avoid creating unintended opposition.

When these voices understand the rationale, see their interests acknowledged, and feel respected in the process, they become stabilisers rather than disruptors.

The Strategic Advisor: The Missing Piece of Deal Leadership

In my experience, one consistent theme stands out: the need for a senior advisor who serves as the deal's conscience, somebody who brings in external viewpoints to internal decision-makers. This is someone who challenges leaders when optimism outpaces reality, identifies contradictions between messaging and behaviour, and brings an external perspective into a process that can easily become inward-looking.

This advisor is not a spokesperson. They are a strategist who designs the private communications architecture, helps leaders navigate geopolitical and cultural challenges, and ensures that perception risk is addressed at every stage. They see the deal not just from the inside but from the outside, where it will be judged.

Why This Matters: The Space Between the Lines

The contract does not define M&A success. The subtle interactions between leaders, regulators, employees, suppliers and communities determine it. It is determined in the space between what is intended and what is critically perceived.

Deals fail because narratives are misunderstood, cultures clash, rumours spread unchecked, political tensions are left unaddressed, and trust is allowed to erode in silence. Leaders who treat communications as a post-deal task create a vacuum into which fear and misinformation quickly flow. Those who embed strategic communications early, through private engagement, cultural intelligence and geopolitical awareness, enter the public phase with alignment, momentum and confidence.

In a world defined by complexity, ambiguity and heightened political scrutiny, the differentiator is no longer the financial model. It is how well leaders manage the conversations that no-one sees.

Those who invest in shaping perception, engaging stakeholders and building trust early will define the future of successful M&A. Others will continue to learn the hard way.

2025 UK Budget: Tax Rises, Tough Choices and the Missing Growth Strategy

On Wednesday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, delivered her first full Budget. Expectations were low, and morale across business and investment circles had already been subdued. Matters were made worse by a communications failure when the Office for Budget Responsibility’s full economic outlook appeared online more than an hour before the speech. Commentators questioned whether the Treasury had control of the process and presentation.

The OBR confirmed that the Budget raises an additional £26.1 billion a year by the end of the Parliament and will push the UK tax to GDP ratio to 38.3 percent, the highest level in modern history.

Yet the central business challenge was not the leak. It was the realisation that this Budget raised revenue without offering a plan to support growth or unlock private investment. Reeves stressed stability, credibility and fiscal discipline, but delivered no significant structural reforms and no clear strategy to turn the UK’s new 10-year Industrial Strategy into action. It was an opportunity missed.

Stability has value, but stability alone cannot generate growth. If the government cannot spend heavily and will not cut taxes, then the only remaining lever is freeing businesses to invest. This Budget did not use that lever.

Tax Burden Up, Growth Tools Missing

The Budget relied heavily on revenue-raising rather than on incentives for investment or innovation. Key measures included:

• Freezing income tax thresholds to 2031, pulling millions into higher tax bands

• Facilitating the attractiveness of pension salary sacrifice through new caps

• Raising taxes on dividends, savings and high-value property

• Maintaining corporation tax at current levels with no new capital allowances

Some modest reliefs were included, such as business rate support for sectors like retail and hospitality, and a freeze on fuel duty and regulated rail fares.

But these were marginal adjustments, not part of a larger and more ambitious strategy to support growth. The Institute for Fiscal Studies described the next five years as the most significant period of sustained tax increases in modern British politics, and warned that none of the measures would improve long-term productivity or address weak business investment.

The CBI, meanwhile, argued that the Budget did not kick-start growth. And Make UK stated that manufacturers received little support.

The BioIndustry Association said that it was “very concerned about increases to business rates on expensive workspaces.” Adding that, “Life science companies will be unfairly and disproportionately affected, given the need for expensive laboratory facilities alongside office space.”

This combination of tax pressure and absence of growth policy is the core challenge the UK must now address.

Industrial Strategy Without Delivery

Labour came into government promoting a mission-led Industrial Strategy designed to transform the UK’s economic model. The five missions introduced before the election focused on clean energy, AI and digital transformation, national resilience, life sciences and advanced manufacturing.

But the Budget did not deliver the mechanisms needed to turn these missions into reality.

There were:

• No major expansions of R&D tax credits

• No large-scale planning reform for infrastructure, labs or industrial sites

• No significant capital markets redesign

• No new tools for the AI, biotech or energy sectors

• No new talent or visa reforms to help scaling companies

• No regulatory streamlining to accelerate investment

In other words, the Industrial Strategy remains a narrative, not a delivery system.

Private capital leaders noted this gap. Several commentators argued publicly that the Budget did not match the scale of the economic ambitions the government had set for itself. They noted that the missions are credible, but they remain ambitious rather than actionable frameworks without the tools needed to deliver them.

Private capital leaders reacted quickly. Many argued that the ambitions are credible but lack the tools needed to support them. A strategy without regulatory and investment mechanisms remains an expression of intent rather than a plan.

Reform Needed When Spending Is Limited

The government has inherited a challenging fiscal environment. Public debt is high, borrowing costs remain above the levels of the 2010s, and public services require investment. Fiscal rules limit flexibility.

But fiscal constraints do not prevent growth. They simply change its source.

If the state cannot spend, private capital must. That requires a regulatory, administrative and investment environment that enables businesses to deploy capital at speed. The UK has world-class regulators, but processes are often slow, fragmented or outdated.

To unlock growth within fiscal limits, the UK needs to focus on:

• Planning reform

• Capital Markets Modernisation

• Faster regulatory approvals

• Improved talent mobility

• Local investment flexibility

• Unlocking corporate and family-owned capital

The 2025 Budget did not pursue these at the scale required.

Five Structural Barriers to Growth

1. Slow planning and land use decisions

Clean energy developers, lab operators, manufacturers and housing providers all face multi-year approval timelines. A fast-track route for nationally significant projects would unlock billions in private investment.

2. Uncompetitive capital markets

The UK continues to lose listings to New York and Amsterdam. There were no reforms to dual-class shares, listing friction, or pension fund investment rules.

3. Fragmented regulatory processes

In areas such as medicines approvals, energy permitting, AI governance and environmental regulation, firms face slow and complex processes. Faster decisions require modern workflows rather than lower standards

4. Talent and visas remain a bottleneck

Science, engineering and technology firms need faster access to skilled workers. The Budget made no progress on talent mobility or training system modernisation.

5. Local partners lack investment tools

Local authorities cannot borrow or co-invest flexibly.

Local authorities cannot borrow or co-invest flexibly. Unlocking regional investment could drive growth far beyond the Oxford-Cambridge-London corridor, supporting clusters in the West Country, the Midlands, Manchester and Scotland.

In each case, reform would be low-cost but high-value.

The Gap Between Slogans and Policy

One of Reeves’s most repeated lines was: “If you build here, Britain will back you.”

Business leaders welcomed the sentiment but emphasised that building in Britain requires predictable conditions, access to capital and a regulatory system that supports speed.

Investors and founders echoed the same message. They also pointed out that without growth, fiscal headroom will not last. Representatives from private capital noted that avoiding damaging tax changes was positive, but long-term support for EIS, VCT and share option schemes must be part of a much larger growth plan.

The pattern is consistent. The government has been strong on messaging, but so far weak on mechanisms and bringing everything together. Without mechanisms in place, confidence erodes, and companies inevitably look abroad for scale.

The UK remains an excellent greenhouse for innovation. The problem is that scale often happens elsewhere.

Untapped CVC and Family Capital

Corporate Venture Capital is one of the fastest-growing sources of global innovation funding. The United States, Japan and South Korea use it to accelerate commercialisation and industrial transformation.

The UK has not built the framework needed to support CVC investment. The Budget could have:

• introduced incentives for corporate investment in UK innovation

• allowed CVC investments to offset part of the corporate tax

• supported corporate university partnerships

• encouraged family-owned businesses to join regional investment clusters

These measures would have mobilised billions in private capital at no cost to the taxpayer. Their absence weakens the Industrial Strategy, because missions cannot be delivered without financing systems that match their ambition.

Private Capital Ready, Government Not

Following the Budget, several high-profile industry leaders responded publicly. Their messages varied in detail, but all reflected the same concern.

• Some welcomed short-term fiscal stability and the avoidance of more severe tax changes.

• Others emphasised the need for investment pathways that support scaling firms.

• Financial analysts pointed out that increased headroom does not create long-term growth.

• Several noted that the UK risks becoming uncompetitive if it does not act soon.

These statements collectively show that private capital is aligned with the government on the need for stability, but is not seeing the parallel reforms that create opportunity. In other words, the investment community is not resisting the government’s plans. It is waiting for the government to match ambition with action.

Again, an issue of the time it takes to share the ambition and establish policy incentives that free and reward businesses to invest in earmarked sectors.

Fiscal Stability Is Not Growth

Tax rises alone cannot solve the UK’s economic challenge. Fiscal consolidation may be necessary, but it is insufficient.

Without structural reform, regulatory streamlining, modern planning systems, capital markets reform and incentives for corporate and family-owned investment, the UK risks missing its growth opportunity.

The 2025 Budget brought stability but not renewal. It raised revenue but did not unlock investment. It offered ambition in language but not in delivery.

If the government wants businesses to build in Britain, it must back them with policy, not words.

The UK has the institutions, talent and scientific strengths to lead globally. Unlocking that potential now depends on freeing businesses to grow.

Why Is Trust Now the Hardest Currency in Corporate VC?

Companies pursuing investment often assess venture capital, corporate venture capital and private equity as if they offer broadly similar value. They do not. Traditional VCs specialise in capital allocation, pattern recognition and portfolio discipline, while PE firms excel at operational rigour and late-stage scaling. Corporate venture capital occupies a different and increasingly important space. CVCs can validate technologies in real commercial environments, open supply chains, accelerate go-to-market pathways and provide deep sector insight long before a product gains market traction. These are advantages VCs and PE firms simply cannot replicate. For companies preparing for their next phase of growth, recognising that distinction is central to choosing the right partners.

The latest State of CVC 2025 report by Silicon Valley Bank and Counterpart Ventures places this in stark relief. The industry is becoming more selective, more dependent on strategic clarity, and far more exposed to the reputational strengths and weaknesses of both the fund and the corporate parent. Behind the data sits a bigger story: the next competitive frontier for CVCs will not be fund structure or AI deployment. It will be trust. How CVCs are perceived by founders, LPs, corporate leaders and government stakeholders will determine deal access, partnership quality and the long-term value created for the corporate.

In a market where most CVCs target similar sectors, geographies and early-stage opportunities, reputation has become a core differentiator. The CVCs that win will be those trusted to deliver more than capital; they will be seen as strategic partners that help de-risk innovation, accelerate commercialisation and open networks that traditional investors cannot.

What the 2025 Data Tells Us About the Future of Corporate Venturing

The report shows an industry entering a more disciplined, strategically grounded phase.

1. Early-stage investing continues to dominate

Two-thirds of all CVC-backed deals now occur at seed or Series A/B, up from 55 percent in 2015. This means CVCs are shaping companies earlier and exerting more influence on commercial strategy. At this stage, trust and perception matter enormously because founders rely on their investors for guidance, networks and credibility.

2. AI now defines the investment agenda

AI represents a record 28 percent of all CVC-backed deals, with 69 percent of CVCs naming it their top technology priority. When almost every fund is chasing the same theme, differentiation comes not from the thesis but from trust, expertise and execution capability.

3. Independence is rising, but internal friction remains

A quarter of CVCs have considered moving off the corporate balance sheet, yet only 11 percent have successfully done so. Many face resistance from their corporate parent, reflecting a reputational and perception gap that CVC leaders must navigate.

4. Corporate leaders often misunderstand VC norms

Half of CVCs say their executive sponsors lack familiarity with the investment process, while others encounter unrealistic expectations around timelines and outcomes. This internal disconnect can undermine progress and reputation.

5. Secondaries are becoming essential to liquidity

Fifty-seven percent of CVCs have used or are considering secondaries, up from 52 percent last year. As pressure builds to demonstrate DPI and realise returns, financial credibility becomes central.

6. Bureaucracy is still the enemy

Half of CVCs cite speed and efficiency as major challenges, alongside corporate prioritisation and bureaucratic decision-making. CVCs must therefore project clarity, predictability and discipline if they are to maintain credibility with founders.

Why Trust, Reputation and Credibility Now Matter More Than Ever

Every insight from the report highlights one conclusion: corporate VCs no longer compete on capital alone. They compete on how credible, trusted and aligned they appear to founders and stakeholders.

1. Founders choose investors they trust, not investors that pay the most

The report shows founders often value the investor brand even more than the cheque size: 79 percent of strategic CVCs rely heavily on the corporate logo to win deals.

But brand is not enough. Founders are increasingly asking critical questions that determine a deal's success: Will this CVC actually help us access markets, or will they slow us down? Can they be trusted to navigate corporate politics that might block future rounds, and will they follow on to protect the startup from dilution? Trust and deal-flow are won or lost on the answers to these fundamental concerns.

2. CVCs must win trust inside their own corporates

The perception challenge often begins at home. Many corporate sponsors misunderstand risk, timelines or the purpose of early-stage investment. CVCs that communicate clearly, educate executives and align expectations build internal trust, which in turn unlocks independence and flexibility.

Where this trust is absent, CVCs face slower cycles, constrained mandates and reputational drag.

3. Governments and regulators are watching frontier tech more closely

AI, cybersecurity, fintech and defence-related investments carry regulatory and geopolitical scrutiny. CVCs must therefore demonstrate responsible innovation, transparent governance and clear alignment with societal and regulatory expectations. This is now a core part of reputational risk management.

This is no longer simply about venture performance. It is about geopolitical credibility.

4. CVCs are increasingly judged on how they manage risk

Financial funds must show DPI through secondaries. Strategic funds must show that their investments genuinely accelerate commercialisation.

In both cases, transparent communication, consistency and a disciplined investment narrative underpin trust.

CVCs Deliver Far More Than Capital – But Only When They Are Trusted

The report highlights that strategic funds primarily invest to accelerate commercialisation, source technology and unlock new markets. Their true value lies in offering crucial advantages like market access, customer introductions, regulatory navigation, real-world pilots, and technological validation. But founders only benefit from these advantages if they trust the CVC and its parent organisation to deliver

But founders only benefit from these advantages if they trust the CVC and its parent organisation to deliver.

Financial funds, on the other hand, bring sharper risk assessment, more consistent follow-on capital strategies, and deeper exit planning discipline. However, they only influence founders if they are perceived as reliable and transparent. When trust is strong, CVCs can de-risk innovation better than almost any other investor category. When trust is weak, founders treat CVCs as slow, political, or strategically fickle, and choose traditional VC instead.

But they only influence founders if they are perceived as reliable and transparent. When trust is strong, CVCs can de-risk innovation better than almost any other investor category.When trust is weak, founders treat CVCs as slow, political, or strategically fickle, and choose traditional VC instead.

How Startups Should Position Themselves Before Engaging CVCs

For founders seeking CVC investment and the assocaietd sector knowledge, the findings highlight several critical steps.

1. Build credibility early

Early-stage deals dominate the market. That means founders must communicate:

• a clear problem thesis

• a credible product roadmap

• alignment with corporate pain points

• a realistic commercialisation pathway

2. Understand the CVC’s mandate

The report is clear: 38 percent of funds are strategic, 44 percent hybrid, and 18 percent financial. Each behaves differently.

A founder must know:

• Does this CVC invest for insight, M&A optionality or pure returns?

• Does the corporate parent matter to the relationship?

• Will the CVC follow on?

3. Manage perception internally

Corporate parents talk. A founder must assume:

• Internal championing matters

• Politics can derail a deal

• Clear, consistent communication reduces internal risk

4. Be prepared for rigorous due diligence

The data shows that even strategic funds now reserve IC approval in 92 percent of cases . Consistency in messaging, data and governance builds trust fast.

What CVCs Must Do to Strengthen Trust and Reputation

The report highlights several internal dynamics that weaken reputation if unmanaged: slow decision cycles, executive misalignment, unclear mandates and inconsistent follow-on strategies.

To address this, CVCs should focus on the following.

1. Build executive-level understanding and alignment

With half of sponsors lacking familiarity with the investment process, CVC leaders must engage proactively. They must:

• Educate executives on norms

• Align expectations on exit horizons

• Clarify ownership targets and follow-on strategy

Internal trust creates external confidence.

2. Communicate a clear and credible investment narrative

CVCs need a narrative that explains:

• Their investment mandate

• The value they bring

• Their speed and decision-making process

• How they work with founders post-investment

A consistent narrative closes perception gaps.

3. Professionalise operations to reduce friction

Speed remains a major point of criticism from founders and co-investors. Funds with a reputation for slow response times lose high-quality deals.

Streamlining IC processes, clarifying BU involvement and setting predictable timelines strengthens operational trust.

4. Develop a proactive reputation and communications strategy

Most CVCs still rely implicitly on their parent company’s brand. But the report shows that this influence rarely extends to governance or decision-making.

CVCs need their own identity.

• A trusted, independent voice

• A track record of value creation

• Transparent communication on performance and lessons learned

This is where strategic communications becomes critical.

Recommendations Summary

For CVCs

1. Establish a clear, credible investment narrative.

2. Educate corporate leaders to close knowledge gaps.

3. Improve speed, transparency and operational discipline.

4. Strengthen post-investment support that founders can rely upon.

5. Communicate strategic alignment without signalling corporate interference.

6. Position yourself as a responsible, trusted investor in AI and frontier technologies.

For Startups

1. Tailor your engagement to the type of CVC you approach.

2. Build clarity around commercialisation and regulatory pathways.

3. Maintain interest from other VCs to manage timing and leverage.

4. Link your value proposition directly to the corporate’s strategic challenges.

5. Maintain consistent, disciplined communication to build trust.

Trust Is Now a Strategic Asset in CVC

The State of CVC 2025 report paints a picture of an ecosystem becoming more selective, more specialised and more strategically important. But the report also makes it clear that operational friction, misaligned expectations and corporate bureaucracy remain significant barriers.

This is a trust problem. One that cannot be solved with capital alone.

To win the best deals, influence innovation strategy and deliver value to their corporate parents, CVCs need to invest as much in their own reputation and perception as they do in early-stage AI companies.

In a world where founders have choice, governments have power and markets move fast, trust is the real competitive advantage.

And it is the CVCs that understand this, who build credibility deliberately and communicate strategically, that will shape the next decade of corporate innovation.

---

For organisations and corporate venture capital companies looking to strengthen their narrative, build message discipline or shape how the yare perceived internally and in the innovation sector, I would be pleased to discuss how my experience can support you

Why Reputation Risks Rise in the Age of Creators

For decades, corporate and government communications relied on a stable, if sometimes adversarial, relationship with established media. Reputation management strategies, crisis playbooks, and legal protections were designed for this world, a world with editorial gatekeepers, predictable news cycles, and a shared, if often contested, understanding of journalistic standards.

That world is rapidly receding. In fact, it has been changing for the last 10-15 years. A new report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, 'Mapping News Creators and Influencers in Social and Video Networks,' provides the data to confirm what many of us in advisory and reputation management have observed: the landscape of public information has fundamentally changed, with many organisations not having adapted their public and private communications processes to manage better how they are perceived.

If the viewer does not load, open the PDF in a new tab.

The report, which analyses data from 24 countries, reveals that news creators and influencers operating in social and video networks have become a ‘significant source of news in recent years,’ often eclipsing traditional news brands in terms of attention. This shift presents a profound challenge to the traditional reputational guardrails of governments and companies. The old playbooks that boards, C-suites, Chiefs of Staff or Political Advisors know are no longer sufficient.

The New Influential: How Creators Reshape Public Debate

The Reuters Institute report is not merely about celebrities posting lifestyle content. It identifies a diverse and robust ecosystem of individuals who command massive audiences and directly influence public opinion on politics, current affairs, and civic issues.

The report defines ‘news creators’ as ‘individuals (or sometimes small groups of individuals) who create and distribute content primarily through social and video networks and have some impact on public debates around news and current affairs,’ noting they are ‘independent from wider news institutions for at least some of their news output.'

Their influence is not a niche phenomenon. The report finds that across a set of markets, including Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and the United States (as well as Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa), news creators are having a very significant impact. In most of these markets, people say they pay more attention to creators and influencers than to mainstream news brands on social media.

The report helps us understand the different kinds of challenges and opportunities these creators represent:

1. Commentary: This is the most frequently mentioned category, dominated by often partisan, mostly male online political talk show hosts like Tucker Carlson (USA) and Joe Rogan (USA). The report notes this commentary is ‘unconstrained by regulation or norms around impartiality that may exist for television and radio.'And the issue is that, while they are based in the USA, their views and opinions reach international markets, many of which use English as a core language. In effect, they reach and influence without any control, regardless of their views being verifiable.

2. Explanation: Creators like France’s HugoDécrypte (Hugo Travers) have millions of followers by explaining complex news topics in simple, accessible ways for younger consumers. The report states that ‘this category of creators is taking attention away from traditional media, which often struggle to connect with younger audiences.'

3. Specialism: Individuals like football transfer reporter Fabrizio Romano or former journalist Taylor Lorenz build powerful niche communities, often going deeper on a subject than traditional media can.

4. News & Investigation: While less common due to resource constraints, some creators and citizen journalists break news or conduct investigations on matters of public interest, such as Palestinians reporting from Gaza or citizen journalists in Kenya documenting police brutality.

Perhaps most critically for reputation managers, the report also details a vast 'news-adjacent' sphere of satirists, infotainment podcasters, gamers, and lifestyle influencers who, due to their massive audiences and built-up trust, can be drawn into political and cultural debates with significant impact.

The Core Challenge for Reputation Management

Traditional communications systems are built for accuracy and accountability, while social platforms reward speed and emotional engagement. As the Reuters Institute notes, creators ‘have been more adept than media companies in moulding their storytelling and tone to the requirements of social platforms,’ particularly among Gen Z and millennial audiences.

The implications are strategic. Younger audiences no longer go directly to official sources; they are influenced by intermediaries who reframe and reinterpret information through personal narratives. As algorithms amplify sensational content, reputational risk multiplies: a single influencer clip can drive a global perception shift overnight. This new dynamic demands that both governments and corporate leaders rethink how they build, protect, and sustain public trust.

The fact is that the rise of the creator economy that we’ve been living through for a good number of years has created three fundamental problems for communications and those working and advising in reputation management.

The Velocity of Reputational

The report highlights that creators are ‘extremely responsive to ever-shifting audience preferences and behaviours.’ Their content is optimised for speed and engagement, not for fact-checking or legal review. A claim made by a prominent creator can achieve viral scale in hours, sometimes minutes, far outpacing the internal response mechanisms of most large organisations. While a company might prepare a statement over several hours, the narrative is already set and cemented in the minds of millions.

The Erosion of Guardrails

Our established systems are built for a different media environment. Issuing a press release, requesting a correction from a news outlet, or leveraging legal frameworks for defamation are processes designed for entities that have structures, assets, and a recognised set of rules.

As the report makes clear, many top creators are independent operators. They are ‘independent from wider news institutions’, meaning they lack the traditional editorial oversight and legal cover that act as a buffer and a point of contact for corporations and governments.

The report notes that ‘many of the biggest names in political commentary... used to work as journalists but are now highly critical of the mainstream media. They relish the freedom to express their true opinions.’ This freedom often comes without the traditional journalistic guardrails, making them potent and unpredictable actors.

The Algorithmic Amplification of Sensationalism

The platforms where these creators thrive are designed to maximise engagement. The Reuters Institute report explicitly states that 'algorithmically driven platforms are pushing both creators and audiences towards more sensational and partisan approaches.’

Content that is emotionally charged, polarising, or controversial travels further and faster than nuanced, balanced reporting. This creates an inherent incentive structure that can reward the rapid dissemination of mis- and disinformation, which poses a direct threat to corporate and governmental reputations.

The report finds that 'online influencers may be attracting more attention but at least some of their content is considered unreliable by audiences..., with well-documented cases of false or misleading information around subjects such as politics, health, and climate change raising important questions about what this might mean for our democracies.’

The Demographic Shift: Reaching the Audience of Tomorrow

The challenge is compounded by a stark generational divide. The audiences for these creators are disproportionately young, representing the future consumers, voters, and stakeholders for every organisation.

The data is clear: 'Under-35s who use social media are more likely to consume news from creators (48%) than from mainstream media (41%). Those 35 and over pay more attention to mainstream media (44%) than creators (35%).’

If your reputation management strategy doesn’t engage the platforms and personalities shaping this generation’s worldview, you’re not just fighting today’s fire, you’re forfeiting tomorrow’s trust. And this is a difficult position to be in, because managing reputations through media engagement and management is, generally, an exercise that, aside from the cost of PR and communications professionals and that of communications agencies, carries no direct cost. Yet influencers, and access to them, well, require a pay-to-play engagement and communications model.

A Strategic Roadmap for Businesses And Governments

Acknowledging this new reality is the first step. The next is to adapt. Here is a strategic framework for leaders and Chief Communications Officers to better protect and build their reputations in the age of news creators.

Move from Monitoring to Mapping and Engagement

Simply monitoring for brand mentions is no longer enough. Organisations must actively map their influence ecosystem.

Governments need to recognise that the content and opinions which reach and influence audiences form part of the wider information ecosystem, and are therefore an element of their geopolitical terrain. As a result, Governments should map not only their domestic media landscape but also transnational influence flows. After all, as the report shows, political ideas and influencers cross borders, especially from the U.S. into other English-speaking countries.

• Identify Key Voices: Beyond traditional journalists, identify the commentators, explainers, specialists, and even news-adjacent influencers in your sector. The most advanced organisations are creating ‘network maps’ of who influences perception in their industry, including critics, advocates, and neutral observers.

• Understand Motivations: Analyse what drives these creators. Are they motivated by building a community, promoting a specific ideology, or simply a commercial opportunity? This understanding is crucial for strategic or tactical management, not just of your reputation but also of building trust.

• Build Authentic Relationships: Proactively and authentically engage with credible creators. Offer them access to subject matter experts, provide early briefings on complex initiatives, or invite them to participate in roundtables. The goal is to become a trusted resource, not just a source for press releases.

Develop a 'Crisis Speed' Response Capability

You need to understand that the 24-hour news cycle has been replaced by the 60-minute viral cycle. This is the world that governments and companies need to acknowledge and rebuild themselves for. Your response protocols must keep pace, and to do this, you need to:

• Build trust ecosystems, not message hierarchies: Develop and pre-approve key messaging frameworks for potential crises that can be adapted and deployed within minutes and/or hours, not days. Companies can build relationships with explanatory creators, subject-matter experts, and credible commentators, not just media outlets.

• Empower Digital-First Teams: Ensure your social media and digital communications teams have the authority to respond quickly in a crisis, using authentic, platform-native language (short-form video on TikTok, YouTube and Instagram). And remember that whatever you share needs to be designed using language that engages your current stakeholders as well as audiences of influencers that are part of your own ecosystem.

• Embrace transparency as a defensive asset: In a world where ’many creators are turning themselves into mini-businesses and brands,’ audiences expect similar authenticity from companies, which is why there is a growing need to embrace and openly acknowledge uncertainty, explaining decisions, and engaging directly with sceptics can mitigate polarisation and rebuild credibility.

• Practice for a Creator-Led Crisis: Include scenarios in your crisis simulations where the trigger is a viral video from an influencer, not a newspaper investigation.

Invest in Explanatory and 'Prebuttal' Content

If explanation is a key creator strength, it should become a core competency of your communications team.

• Become Your Own Explainer: Use your owned channels to produce clear, engaging, and visual content that explains complex policies, products, or issues. Adopt the storytelling techniques that make creators successful. The report notes that media companies have the opportunity to 'copy creator storytelling techniques to make content more accessible.’

• Practice 'Prebuttal': Anticipate misinformation and proactively create content that addresses potential criticisms or false narratives before they gain traction. Feed this content to both trusted creators and your own audiences.

Rethink Legal and Regulatory Strategies

While legal action remains a tool, it is often blunt and can be ineffective against a decentralised network of creators. Instead, focus on platform partnerships and proactive transparency.

• Weigh the Streisand Effect: Legal threats can often amplify the original content, a phenomenon known as the Streisand Effect. Consider this carefully before acting.

• Focus on Platforms: Invest in building relationships with platform trust and safety teams to understand their policies and reporting mechanisms for harmful misinformation.

• Promote Media Literacy: Consider supporting or partnering with organisations that promote digital and media literacy, helping the public better identify unreliable information.

Collaborate with Caution and Clear Purpose

Some news organisations are now looking to 'collaborate with creators by bringing content (labelled) into their platform.’ This is a potential model for corporations and governments, but it must be handled with care.

• Define the Terms of Engagement: Any collaboration must be transparent. Audiences should know the nature of the relationship.

• Respect Creator Authenticity: Micromanaging a creator's content can seriously backfire. The value is in their authentic voice and how they are perceived by their own community. Provide them with information and context, not a script.

• Focus on Value Exchange: Successful collaborations are based on mutual benefit. What unique access or insight can you provide that adds reputation or even indirect financial value to the creator's audience?

Reputation in the Age of the Algorithm

The Reuters Institute report highlights that 'the professional and creator worlds are converging.’ This is not a temporary trend but a permanent structural shift in the wider landscape of how people consume media and content. The 'unruly information space' is the new normal.

For leaders and Chief Communications Officers, the new environment that they must recognise is one where they can no longer rely solely on reputation management processes designed for a media environment from the 20th century. The speed, scale, and nature of the threat and opportunity presented by news creators demand a new agile playbook where companies and governments better understand their direct and indirect audiences.

This demands a shift from reactive defence to proactive engagement. It means listening to new voices, speaking on new platforms, and telling your story in ways that resonate.

By understanding the creator ecosystem and adapting with speed and intelligence, governments and companies can protect reputation and build the trust that defines their future. By understanding the creator ecosystem mapped in this report, and by adapting your strategies with speed and intelligence, you can not only protect your reputation but also build deeper, more authentic connections with the audiences that will define your future.

---

Reputation has never moved faster. If you’d like to discuss how to protect and grow yours, let’s talk.

You can also stay connected through my Reputation Matters newsletter for insights on trust, strategy, and influence.

Follow Reputation Matters on LinkedIn

Stay ahead on trust, strategy, and influence. New editions for senior leaders and communications professionals.

Read & Subscribe