Confession: I’ve been wanting to talk to an archeologist for a while for this newsletter. I’m fascinated by the communications challenge they face: they’ve got to explain to the public why very, very old stuff is important. They’ve also got a huge advantage: they see how humans have told stories since our earliest days. Might one have some ancient tips I could use?

The universe delivered when Portuguese archaeologist and science communicator Sara Cura commented on one of my articles. I reached out, and we had an inspiring, vulnerable discussion about podcasts, politics, and the past. If you think it’s hard explaining B2B SaaS to someone, try explaining deep time…

• Fill the space, or someone else will. Rigorous, careful people like scientists tend to be quiet by nature, but if you don’t talk about your discipline, ideologues will fill the silence. Just look at archaeological pseudoscience and the political coopting of history…

• Context or die! Whether it’s 400,000-year-old fire or any expert subject, people won’t connect to dates or data if we don’t connect it to their lives.

• Remember that technology has always been a duality. The spear fed and the spear killed. We shouldn’t forget this lens when it comes to AI, either.

Our conversation, edited for clarity and brevity, below.

Tell me about your career — how did you get into archaeology and science communications?

In my little village in central Portugal there was an association of amateurs doing research, collecting artifacts, and making small exhibitions. I started as a volunteer around 12 or 13 years old. I loved history, but I also loved going into the field, being close to nature, and getting a profound knowledge of the territory. I realized this was my calling.

When I moved to Lisbon to study, I already had a big advantage over my colleagues, and I already knew what I wanted to study deeply: prehistory. I find deep history and human evolution thrilling. After I finished my studies, including my masters, I had a long career as a researcher, teacher, and working in a museum.

How did you start working in communications?

Our professional lives go side by side with our personal lives — it’s a story of a career, but it’s also a story of a personal history. I had a serious alcohol addiction that nearly destroyed my life. I spent eight months in a recovery center, decided to give up my permanent position and to have nothing to do with archaeology anymore. The profession was mingled with all the pain.

I started working as a science manager in the school of communication, and then went back to university to study science communication. The second I started that masters program, I realized I couldn’t fool myself. I loved science communication, and I loved doing it with archeology.

During my masters, I started a prehistory-themed podcast. I was lucky because they had a studio at school and I could record with the help of a professional team. Two years after starting, my podcast won the award for best science podcast in Portugal.

I tried being an independent freelancer in science communication in archaeology for two years, but I realized there isn’t yet space in Portugal to do this full time. There’s a lack of resources, a lack of money to pay for my services. In the research world, most people don’t think about paying a professional to do it because there is always a lack of funding in projects. Some do value the relevance, but don’t have budget.

Nevertheless even with a very small budget I got a couple paid collaborations going on. This will change in the future. Now I do this as a side job, including the podcast, and I am starting a permanent position as a science manager again.

How is archaeological communication and science communication different from communication in other disciplines?

No matter if it’s physics or archeology, we’re trying to tell people stories about our work, make it relevant to their lives, and get support for our work. Also, we want to give tools to people.

In the archeology I do, we don’t have written texts. We have objects. We excavate these objects, analyze them, interpret them, and then try to tell a story about them. We have to have a lot of imagination, but we also have constraints: what does our data allow us to say?

That creates an interesting tension. We have to tell engaging stories because people will absorb content if it resonates with their emotions. But we also have to stick to rationality, what the data allows us to say. In a polarized world, where people overreact and react on their most basic emotions, this rationality can be a good thing.

What about the challenges that you face in communications?

For me, working on prehistory, one of the biggest challenges is communicating deep time. It’s very difficult for a lay audience to grasp what one million years, two million years is. People usually can only imagine as far as the Pharaohs, roughly 5,000 or 6,000 years ago.

It’s a challenge we share with paleontology. Although for paleontology, Hollywood is a big help. Dinosaurs are in people’s minds, so they are less difficult to grasp.

How can you help people understand timescales that are totally beyond us?

Don’t just give a date, a number, but make it relevant for the present and the future. That’s one of the things archeology sometimes fails at: our communication stays in the past.

Let’s talk about the example of humans and fire, hundreds of thousands of years ago. How would you explain to me why this story is important today?

We’re pretty sure people were making fire around 400,000 years ago. I’d start like this: fire is responsible for the body you have now. Because if you have fire, you start cooking food, and if you start cooking food, it’s easier to digest and it feeds your brain’s high energy demands. So your gut gets smaller, and your jaws get smaller, and your brain develops more. It has a direct connection to you today.

And then I’d say it shaped the way we engage with each other. Fire gave us extra hours of light at the end of the day, where you couldn’t do much more than talk. We started having language, then we developed narrative, and then storytelling and fiction. We came up with myths in prehistory. When we were painting all those wonderful caves in France and making art, we already had important fictions and myths.

What was the importance of those stories and myths?

They do one very basic thing that we still absolutely need today: deal with uncertainty. We are vulnerable beings. All biology is conservative, but human beings are conservative in the sense that we always seek comfort and security. Myth and religion help us deal with the things we can’t explain and find some comfort. We’re still the same.

What else can archaeology help us understand about ourselves today?

If you look deep into our history — into human evolution, and also into historic times — using the methods of archeology, we very soon realize that we are all a beautiful, wonderful mix.

There’s no such thing as race. There’s no such thing as a pure, original nation. In the deep past, different species of humans were interbreeding. It shows you that racism is absolutely bogus.

But the past is always manipulated by political systems. The Portuguese dictatorship constructed a mythical past for the Portuguese that never existed, based on archeological finds and historical buildings. Nazism created a fictional Aryan race, and they went as far back as prehistory to prove it.

Political appropriations of the work we do is one of the reasons we should engage much more in communication. If we don’t fill the space with the rigor and seriousness of our work, other people will fill it and say all kinds of crazy things.

How do we push back against that kind of ideology, especially now that we see so much pushback against scientific ideas?

The best way to deal is just to talk. Go to social media and tell your truth. Engage more, because people want to hear from archeologists — they love archeology.

People have misconceptions about our field — that we excavate dinosaurs, that we work like Indiana Jones, the caveman — but these misconceptions are doors. Behind the misconception lies an interest. You can engage with that interest and say, “Here’s the way it really works.”

To fight these ideologies, we have to be more present. If we don’t occupy the space we still have, they will occupy it. But it’s a lot of work, because, for one thing, we’re sometimes not technically prepared to do this communication work. We’re often more rigorous, more discreet, so being loud is not really our nature. But staying silent is not the best solution.

I see so many people around me who are smart — serious researchers, serious professionals — and they’re also timid about speaking or writing in public. You’re so right: the loud voices are often the voices of ideologues. They get heard.

Someone will fill the space. At university researchers should learn basic communication techniques, and we have to have professional support. That’s where the role of the science communicator comes in — a kind of broker who prepares, helps, and supports the scientists.

Scientists are doing very important, serious work, and then they tell their story online and get attacked. I understand why people don’t want to do that. But you can learn how to deal with it and to communicate in a way that you’re not so exposed to those attacks. And remember that communication is not only about social media — you can reach people in different ways, sometimes more transformational and profound ways.

How can someone start?

Start with a sentence — the essential message, the one sentence that says it all. Then you go from that sentence all the way to more complicated things.

And it’s not only to communicate with lay audiences. We all need to know a bit of communication to succeed among peers. You go to congresses and hear about important science, and the talk is so boring, because it’s not crafted in a way that’s clear, understandable, and objective. These are basic skills that are useful in every part of the work.

I want to come back to technology. AI is a huge debate today, and you said that you have limits to think the technology should be used for, while also being an adopter. What can the past teach us about technology?

I think human evolution is the most fascinating story there is to tell, because it’s a tale of survival. We survived because we came up with tools, with technology, but also because we were very socially developed — our social bonds were very strong. An original combination of technology and care.

It’s always a duality. You come up with a spear, the spear hunts the animal and you feed the group, but the spear can also kill another human being. So it’s about human choices. I do believe there are many dangers in technology nowadays — this is not new — but the overall thing is still very much motivated by care.

That’s a fundamental insight.

You have people coming up with technologies for warfare, of course, I’m not going to deny that. But there’s such a big quantity of scientists and scholars who come up with technology to find solutions for health problems, for climate change, to increase food security, to help with mobility and so forth and sometimes we don’t talk about that so much. We tend to focus more on the negative, the disruptive and dangerous. But the story of the human species is a story of care, of protecting each other. We can be violent, but ultimately we need each other to survive.

Is there a place in your own work where you feel that tension — where the tool starts to cost us something?

Visual elements are absolutely crucial in archeology, and the work of illustrators goes hand in hand with our work. Imagine someone looking at ruins — they can’t make the reconstruction in their own minds.

I’m an early adopter of AI, but I am completely against illustrations made by AI in archaeology. It breaks my heart to see colleagues asking ChatGPT to do it rather than a real illustrator. It’s a fascinating process: the scientist says, “How can you make a drawing of this?” They work to create a reconstruction beyond what the data can tell you, but still within the limits. It’s incredible.

Sara’s recommendations for prehistoric sites in Portugal

• Côa Valley rock engravings. “They were discovered in the late 90s and were supposed to be submerged by the construction of a dam. It mobilized the whole Portuguese society, and we saved them. There’s a beautiful museum now where you can learn the whole history of the engravings of the hunter-gatherers. It’s absolutely marvelous.”

  

• Gruta da Figueira Brava. “This cave in front of the sea tells a beautiful story. We have this idea that Neanderthals were big meat eaters, but this cave shows that human species and Neanderthals, when they were in a territory where fish was widely available, were fishing too. It challenges the idea that fish consumption was very specific to our own species — that Neanderthals didn’t have the resources to capture this kind of food, and that this food, specifically the fatty acids in fish, was important for our higher intelligence.”

Further learning, reading, and listening

• Follow Sara’s Substack and her podcast

• For more of a discussion about technology and care, Sara recommends UK philosopher Tom Chatfield’s Wise Animals

See you next week! If you’re not signed up yet, subscribe below.

Subscribe now

I write to think, but I also write to attract opportunity. There’s nothing more exciting than getting a DM from a kindred spirit who has read your words and wants to collaborate or just chat over coffee. Those conversations then lead to the next piece…and on and on.

When Takuro Nuruki, the London-based founder of travel magazine Polaris, talked to me about the publication as a “space,” a “vehicle,” and a “think tank,” I knew he saw writing and publications like I do. The Japanese-English journal, on its third proper issue, has pulled a group of collaborators into its orbit, and it feeds the strategic design studio he runs alongside it.

Polaris tells stories from the world’s “borderlands,” providing “a crucial perspective needed in an intolerant era.” Reading it, there’s a sense of wandering — like catching a warm gust of air, or the rustle of leaves in a forest somewhere. The stories are ordinary but powerful; they never resolve into a tidy narrative. And they’re held to an exacting standard of design.

We talked about what prisons taught him about design, the difference between UK and Japanese design thinking, and why he likes to be a hands-off editor-in-chief.

1. A magazine is a space. It’s more than a pile of paper, it’s a place for stories and collaborations to happen. A magazine is also a magnet. Takuro describes Polaris as a kind of magazine think tank, where the publication brings in opportunities for new projects and work.

2. Use an acupuncture needle to have impact. Instead of looking for a huge solution to a huge problem, find the small place where you can intervene for maximum impact.

3. Quality creates deeper communication. High-quality design and editorial is the catalyst for deeper communication, and what separates a project from being dismissed as just another hobby project. Polaris, for example, is printed by a top-tier independent printer in Tokyo and the gorgeous layout and graphics jump off a bookstore shelf.

Our conversation, edited for brevity and clarity below.

How did you start making Polaris?

My bachelor’s was in journalism, but I switched to advertising and worked at the Japanese advertising agency, Hakuhodo. Then one day, I came across an event held by a professor about the Institute of Innovation, a kind of design school, but not for designers, started by Japanese art university Musashino.

My job title at Hakuhodo was “strategic planner,” but the professor told me my job description should be “strategic designer.” In Europe or America, that’s a real title, but in my mind, a designer was a graphic designer. In Japan, design is about styling. It’s very surface-level, about aesthetics. In the US and the UK, it’s more strategic, more about human-centered design.

I started my master’s at Musashino. In my studies, I was asking questions like, “What’s the value of a paper magazine in modern society?” and “What’s the alternative value of travel?”

Why those topics?

My dream was to be a novelist. I like traveling. I like magazines. I didn’t mean travel in the “Instagrammable” sense — but travel being about encountering something new, touching someone’s life, seeing a different perspective.

I’m Japanese — Japan is geographically and culturally an isolated country, so travel means a lot. Travel isn’t just about physical moving. Travel means changing myself.

With Polaris, we travel to borderland areas, listen to people’s ordinary narratives, and try to interpret them and find value. There aren’t many media doing this. It’s not storytelling, it’s not dramatic. It’s not about entertainment.

How did you come to the UK?

The first [Polaris] was only in Japanese, and it was like a zine. An RCA professor came to my university, saw it, and said he wanted to distribute it in the UK. I thought, “Let’s do a bilingual magazine.”

The professor’s name is Judah Armani, and he runs a music label in prison called InHouse Records. His talk was so inspirational that I wanted to study with him or do some project with him, so I emailed him and traveled to Brighton.

What do prisons have to do with design? What did you learn from Judah?

Judah thought the work experience programs meant to prevent reoffending weren’t designed effectively. So he did music education as a volunteer in UK prisons and tried to understand prisoners through music.

He saw that it wasn’t a lack of education or work experience that was causing repeat offenses. When prisoners are released, they try to do something new in the community, but they experience discrimination, and they end up in their former community — that’s the main driver of reoffending.

So he created the music label to give a new community and new sense of belonging to prisoners and ex-inmates. After their release, ex-inmates belong to the music label as artists. I thought this was such a creative project when I saw it, and that’s why I moved to the UK. I enrolled at the RCA for an M.A. in Service Design in 2022.

Do you consider yourself a designer now?

I don’t think so. I don’t have design skills, I don’t have graphic skills. “Marketing” is maybe too commercial. And I don’t think I’m an editor — I know many professional editors, and I don’t have an editorial practice. A CEO, or a representative, and that’s enough for me.

Today I had a meeting with a Japanese media outlet. They were like, “Oh, you’re a design agency,” and I was like, “Not really.” They see us as design people, and I don’t like it — design sometimes creates a boundary.

I think I’m good at making context — behind the art, behind the objects. So I’d probably call myself a strategic planner. A strategist, if needed.

So you continued Polaris when you came to the UK for your studies?

I continued the magazine, and it became kind of like an artist collective. Now we have six or seven core members. We’re also always open to open submissions. We have eight chapters in the latest issue, but half of them are from open submissions.

You write in both Japanese and English, which is rare.

There are people arguing that the design industry in Europe and America should think more carefully and take in different ways of thinking — from Asia, the Global South, South America. They frame it as “decolonization.” I don’t like that word. To me it sounds like it will invite discrimination again. But this magazine is very much about putting Asian and Japanese design thinking next to European design thinking.

This paper magazine isn’t really profitable. But when people see it in the bookstores, in some gallery, they DM me, and say, “Let’s do a project.” So we do exhibitions, conferences, also some research projects with enterprises and the social sector. We’re kind of a magazine think tank. I’m also running a marketing studio.

You talked about magazines as something that can have impact and change society. Why do you think that?

We’re collecting people’s very fragmented, ordinary narratives. We can get new perspectives and new insights from that. Big media — digital media, or a commercial magazine — can’t do that, because they need profit, they need big money, they need scalability. Only an independent magazine can meet people physically and try to find something new in their ordinary lives.

If this were a novel, we’d need a plot. We’d need the narrative, something linear. But a magazine has chapters. If you’re interested in all the chapters, go deep. Just one chapter, that’s fine. Some people might like the front cover and just display it on a shelf. That’s enough. A magazine has all these alternatives. Artists and designers can join, and I can create something complex.

For me, a paper magazine is a space, a vehicle — many people, diverse people, people with different backgrounds can join.

But you still have a theme for each edition…how do you arrive at this?

Many magazines have a very linear decision-making system. The editor-in-chief says, “This is the core theme, now let’s look for contributors.”

We are the complete opposite. We collect open submissions, and we travel and meet people. If we collect three or four pieces of content, then we have a meeting and come up with a tentative theme. After we collect all the chapters, we change the theme again. We aren’t really committed to one thing in particular, but rather we focus on how we can use this medium as a space to collect many people’s voices.

This approach really resonates for me. I feel like a lot of media collects stories from their desks. We need more media that goes to the gemba — talking to real people and going to real places to gather precious insights that no machine can copy. You said you wanted to be a novelist when you were younger — you write for the magazine too?

I edited all the chapters, and I wrote two or three chapters in the latest issue. But my dream in this project is “autonomous design.” I don’t really like being an editor-in-chief — “This is my media, I’m the head person.” I don’t really like that.

It’s funny — I feel like many editors and writers now are being pushed to be a star — to build their brand, have their newsletter, their podcast. And it’s interesting that you’re saying, “No, I want it to be equal. I want this to be a space, a group.”

I want to see something different. I want to make friends — that’s my passion. That’s the reason I moved to the UK.

But that doesn’t mean that the quality of the design and the quality of the content aren’t really high. I don’t want to make a “zine.” If I’m going to make something, I’m going to do it well. And if you publish some ordinary stories in a low-quality fashion, people are just going to think, “Oh, this is just someone’s hobby.” But we’re serious.

Do you use AI for writing or for the magazine? Or for your design studio?

I use AI, but not for writing. For example, when we do large-scale interviews — 30 people, 40 people — we use Gemini for a very rough synthesis. 50% of the answer is very wrong, and 50% might be correct, but AI gives us a starting point and saves us long meetings.

The important thing with AI is that only people who have experience can make that judgment about what’s correct.

You talked about a movement toward having more varied perspectives on design — from South America, Asia, Africa. What do you think is the Japanese perspective that you bring, living in the UK? How have you felt different — seeing things in a different way than designers here?

Japanese culture, Japanese design, finds value in things more than human, like nature. UK design culture is more about industrial design, commercial innovation. They’re trying to hack people’s behavior — like cognitive science. But the Japanese focus, my focus, is not only about humans. It’s the relationship between human and others — human and human, human and nature, human and community, human and society.

The UK, the US design industry often talks about problems — what’s the solution?

We talk a lot about pain points. I definitely feel that when we talk about design in tech.

There are many pain points, but as a designer, we can’t change everything. Let’s be honest. We’re just humans. The most important capability of the designer is to find the intervention point — like an acupuncture needle. A small intervention, a critical impact that is big. That’s the thing I learned from Japanese design culture.

The prison project is the same, and that’s the reason I really like that project. And the magazine is also this — a small-scale project, but a critical intervention. An acupuncture needle.

Why do you think people are interested in zines and magazines now? I have so many friends in Japan selling zines at the Literary Flea Market.

In Japan, zines are getting more and more popular. People don’t have a space to raise their voices on social media. People are tired of algorithms, and they are looking for new places.

But I think it’s our responsibility to be well designed, to collaborate with a lot of people — that’s really important. Zines don’t really have this sense of responsibility — you’re just doing what you like.

Substack is kind of like the zine of the UK. Everyone’s like, “I started a Substack, I started this newsletter,” but often it is amateur.

We’re also going to start a Substack. But the important thing is, first we have the magazine. The magazine is a symbol, a showcase.

It attracts people, like a magnet.

Yes, it’s a magnet. Many zines or newsletters are just communicating in one direction. But this magazine is physical, high-quality. That’s important. This works as a catalyst to deep communication, whereas online communication is can be superficial.

• Find stockists for Polaris magazine around the world or order a copy online on their website.

• I’m running the inaugural Founder-Writer Collective event this Tuesday with in London. The event is closed to registrations given how many sign-ups we’ve had, but follow our Luma calendar so you can get updates about the next event.

Thank you for reading! Enjoy the rest of your weekend. 🌻

Subscribe now

Happy June! I spent the last two weeks tracing the vestiges of the Silk Road through Uzbekistan and hit the ground running the day after my return at SXSW London. So this edition is a grab bag: stories from my trip that inspired how I’m thinking about writing and narrative, plus some thoughts from the conference.

Fun announcement: Journalist and kindred wordsmith spirit and I found the most uncool spot at SXSW—the LinkedIn lounge—to hatch the coolest of plans. We’re starting the Founder-Writer Collective to bring together founders who write and writers who build in London. Our first event will be on June 16 — stay tuned for details. And check out Alys’s always excellent UK 2.0 newsletter.

The highlight of my SXSW was leading an hour-long discussion on AI and writing with 25 people from advertising, content, consulting and television. Takeaways:

• Generational friction is real. One attendee who runs her own communications firm shared that her younger staff are resistant to using AI when in her view, the case for tech — it would help them take on more work and increase revenue — was clear. She’s struggling to make the case for AI to them.

  • An early-career attendee said that she often had imposter syndrome about her own abilities after being pushed to use AI by her bosses. Could she really achieve the same level of output with her brain alone?

• People are thinking hard about their edge over AI. One attendee said he’s giving staff at his consultancy coaching on topics like public speaking and how to sell their ideas because he sees that as their “moat” against AI. Another writer said they believe their moat is getting decisions made with others. Another attendee said that understanding culture and dialects is his differentiator.

• Hacking your own brand guidelines can reveal lazy AI use. One Googler shared that Google’s guidelines for UX writing discourages using periods or punctuation. So his internal AI tell is when someone shares punctuated text!

• Receipts = less anxiety, more honest conversations. One young woman about to start her career told me after the session that she felt less anxious about AI after hearing about concrete ways in which people were using it.

  • Another person who works in television said that she started using AI after hearing about it at SXSW last year and deciding it wasn’t as scary as it seems.

  • This supports my view that showing our receipts and having more forums for tech and creatives to come together fosters healthier conversations about what AI is and isn’t helpful for and deescalates the emotion around it.

Uzbek embroidery and imperfection

In Uzbekistan, you cannot throw a stone without hitting a suzani. Originally sewn by women as part of their dowry, these large works of embroidery are still being made today for use as wall decorations, pillow covers, and clothing. Suzani masters deliberately leave a mistake in each work: an unsymmetrical flower, the wrong color thread, lines unconnected. The goal is twofold. First, to show that they are not trying to imitate God’s perfection and second, that our lives are still not finished.

We have a complicated relationship with perfection. We worship perfection, yet we find too much of it off-putting. When I interviewed Victor Riparbelli, CEO of AI video company Synthesia, on stage at SXSW, he mentioned how the avatars that the company produces need to have some imperfections or human viewers find them creepy. Some people are now leaving spelling mistakes in their work to prove it’s not AI-generated, but that feels like a losing game.

The suzanis I saw made me wonder if there is a smarter way to deliberately incorporate imperfections in creative work, one that’s not defined in opposition to an enemy and instead in relation to humility or spirituality. Maybe the more interesting imperfection is a strange metaphor or word, something only a human mind would reach for.

How to kill 5% of the world and come back a hero

When Uzbekistan gained independence in 1991, its leaders decided that the fledgling country needed a hero to unite its diverse inhabitants. They settled on conqueror Amir Temur, who lived from the 1320s to 1405.

Let’s look at his hero creds. The good: he built a vast empire stretching from parts of modern-day Turkey to India and the frontier of China and used his riches to build schools and mosques. The not so good: he destroyed cities that defied him, killed roughly 5% of the world’s population at the time, and still managed to curse nations more than 500 years after his death. Nonetheless, he has been resurrected as a hero, and there are now giant statues of him in Tashkent, Samarkand, and his birthplace, Shahrisabz.

It reminded me of a conversation I had with an early editor of Wired who said the publication succeeded because they had a clear hero: the tech geek. Readers adored the publication for pulling pale nerds out of their basements and giving them god-like cover treatment. Even better had they constructed Timur-sized monuments! (Or are tech bros saving that for their next chapter???).

A great exercise in telling the story of any community — a country, a publication, even a company — is to ask yourself who your hero is. Do you have an answer?

Thank you for reading! We’ll be back next week with an interview with a talented communicator of ancient times. In the meantime, enjoy some of the absolutely insane stories about Timur that will make you shaketh in your boots.

Subscribe now

If we are to believe Google, the vibes really got going around 2015.

In the middle of the last decade, the ’v word’ came to mean more than a physical place or the specific energy of a person. It became a diffuse atmosphere — summer vibes — or something performed — hot girl summer vibes. Now, we’ve even allowed this ephemerality to replace hard-coded foundations. With AI-powered vibe coding, technical novices don’t even need code to create their own apps.

Vibes float in the air like a virus or a perfume — impossible to avoid. The LinkedIn feed. The collection of bestselling books on display at the bookstore. When something we’ve never wanted sparks FOMO in us, as my investor friend confided to me:

“We hear investor A or investor B is considering a deal, and though nothing about the company in question has changed, suddenly we think, ‘Maybe we should take a look…’”

Vibes reveal the consensus, but they also cause us to see credibility where there is no proof — an investment that might be better to skip. They cause us to see a trend when there is no line.

I’ve worked in tech and VC, where the vibes seem to be permanently stuck on 11, partially because the manipulation of perception is the only way you raise capital.

This is also why I’ve always been skeptical of vibes. Instead of being swayed by what’s outside, I’ve been trying to trust what’s inside: my own emotions. Spending time training and giving weight to my emotional responses helps me be a better writer, editor, and thinker. Because good writing trusts its gut.

Enjoyment and tradwriting

Emotions can be immediate and specific. That’s why they are such a good litmus test of the diffuse and approximate nature of vibes. Envy at someone else’s accomplishment. Anxiety about the future of my industry. Frustration when there’s no customer service number to call. What are all these telling us?

The emotion I’ve been trying hardest to listen to lately is enjoyment — because in an era when everyone is competing for attention and survival, enjoyment is the first thing we sacrifice.

I was using my second boyfriend Claude frequently for editing help—Is the thesis of the piece clear? How can I tighten this paragraph? But I was finding that I didn’t even remember what I edited. I had a vague sense of always being pressed for time, and felt none of the satisfaction that comes with a job well done.

So I’ve returned to what I call “tradwriting.” Like flipping a switch, enjoyment returned.

I find pleasure when I untangle someone’s mangled prose, or suggest the perfect kicker to an opinion piece, all mined from my own brain. Which, on a good day, gives me much quicker results to these kinds of writing puzzles than AI.

I am in a privileged position to be able to focus on enjoyment in my career. That is why I guard it even more closely.

Enjoyment is also a clue about where we're headed because of what it says about human motivation. I don’t enjoy the kind of tinkering that a lot of the more advanced AI tools currently require to work. So to anyone who tries to convince me again why every yoga studio and independent bakery owner will vibe code their own inventory analysis tool, bringing an AI revolution to small businesses, I respond: “No, because that’s not what they enjoy. They enjoy teaching movement. Or making a great croissant.”

A small anti-vibes guide

I have a handful of principles that I use to stay honest with my gut when the vibes are pointing my brain in many different directions. Good writing and good work come from that honesty.

• Trust your emotional response to the world around you and to what you’re making. If something moves you, that’s a signal. If something bores you, that’s also a signal. And if your own writing bores you, it’s not good enough yet. That’s the hardest one to admit, which is why I’ve gotten so much from working with a writing coach and enrolling in a fiction-writing course. They hold me accountable for going the extra 10%.

• Be wary of opinions, including your own, that contradict how something made you feel. Don’t let vibes overwrite your gut. This is a twist on some sound advice from the jazz critic and music historian Ted Gioia. He writes, “You can feel your response to music…long before you formulate an analytical or verbal interpretation of it. This is the ultimate aesthetic reality…Nobody falls in love with anything because of a reason.”

• Get bored on purpose. Vibes sneak in when you’re trying to fill all your empty time with input. Boredom is a chance for your mind to clear itself and new ideas to emerge. (There is even research that boredom makes us more creative.)

• Like what you like. It doesn’t have to be cool. Some of the best writers in the world are writing about deeply unfashionable things with total conviction, and that conviction is what makes them a pleasure to read. The most interesting conversations don’t happen on the bandwagon.

• When you can’t tell whether you really care about something or just feel like you should, write something else. The thing you’re avoiding is usually the thing worth writing. This week, I started writing an essay that I thought sounded smart but I kept coming back to this idea of emotions. That’s what I needed to write.

The vibes are telling you what to feel. Listen to what your gut tells you. Then create great things.

Thank you for reading! I’ll be off for a few weeks as I travel to a land-locked central Asian country. If you missed it and want to read more of my writing, I published a piece this week in Every on why humans are still better at asking good questions than AI and how good questions can surface the best stories. It includes my second favorite Werner Herzog story after that time he got shot on camera and brushed it off (“It’s not significant.”).

It feels right that Eight Words or Fewer, a book about micropitches, undercuts its own rule in the title…by half.

The slender thesis is the baby of Emma Ketterer and her husband, Adam, B2B tech branding and positioning specialists who argue that the difference between a brand and its rivals should be distillable into a tight, memorable tagline. At a moment when people are using AI to produce so much content that CEOs are begging their staff to be concise, it’s a refreshing take.

Emma cut her teeth at legendary B2B agency Velocity Partners, before stints leading content for pharma clients at an agency and in-house at Philips. She’s now global lead editor at Celonis, one of Europe’s most valuable private companies. She kindly agreed to chat about what she thinks B2B brands are doing wrong, her favorite taglines, and why AI writing still falls short.

• B2B brands should be less worried about being boring and more worried about grabbing audience attention. That’s why you need to be able to distill yourself into a micropitch.

• Ketterer’s Law states that copy will spill into whatever word count you set. Commit yourself to concision.

• The fear that “everything’s been said” is wrong. Strong opinions are getting rarer, and an original take is more valuable now, not less. So write that LinkedIn post or that book you’ve been meaning to!

  Subscribe now

What’s the core problem that you were seeking to address with this book?

A lot of B2B companies do a good job of figuring out what they stand for and how they’re different from competitors. They have good answers to the big questions: What problem do we solve, what are we enabling for our customers, what does the future look like? Then they capture that in long form, whether that’s through positioning docs, slide decks or whatever — but when it comes to distilling all of that down to one, memorable message, these positioning exercises fall short.

In a lot of places I’ve worked, we get 99% of the way there. Adam had the same experience, so that’s how the book came about.

If you look at how B2B business communications has changed, why do you think that distillation has become a problem now?

I think there was a time when the challenge in B2B was to not sound boring. You’d try to stand out by having an exciting voice or even sounding like a B2C brand.

But being able to stand out now is so difficult because everyone’s saturated with messages all day, every day. You’d be lucky to even have the opportunity to bore your audience. If you’ve bored a reader, then you’ve done a great job — they’ve stuck with you long enough to be tired of your content. 99% of brands don’t have that opportunity. Someone’s scrolling past you, and you’ve got one second to wow them. So boredom is so far down on the list of problems.

You need distillation because you’ve got a few seconds to make that first impression, and that’s only going to get harder over time.

You’ve made me think that we’re in an era of maximizing things. Looksmaxxing or Londonmaxxing, using AI to create a whole document instead of three bullet points. So running the other way and saying, “How can I shape this down into the single most compelling thing” becomes a differentiator.

Exactly.

What do a lot of B2B tech brands get wrong about their positioning and the way they talk?

There’s a tendency to become too introspective. A lot of material might work well within the team that created it, but sometimes that work gets lost when you have to communicate it across a business and have everybody else communicate it well in the right places, on the right channels, for the right audiences.

Tech is complicated. It’s easy to create messaging that everyone internally — people who are hands-on with the product — can grasp. Things that might seem commonsensical or intuitive to you may not be to a cold audience.

That connecting thread between the foundational work and making sure it’s being executed in the real world — I think that’s sometimes also what’s missing.

Who do you think does this distilling really well?

I’m a big fan of Entrepreneur First and their tagline: “Found, don’t follow.” It says, “If you want to found a company, create the dream team, move fast, get to Silicon Valley, then these are the guys for you.” You don’t want to move slowly. You don’t want to go the traditional route.

I’m also a Stripe fangirl. I go to their marketing and try to steal whatever inspiration I can because they always nail it. Their mission statement, “Increasing the GDP of the Internet,” is such a fun, creative line. You have to unpack it for a second to understand it, but it’s such a compelling line that you make that effort to understand.

Speaking of Stripe, the founder of Every, the company I work for, interviewed someone from Stripe on our podcast, and one of the first things he said was to reference that tagline. That’s the ultimate comms success — when the people interviewing you parrot back the line.

That’s the goal. When you have that micro pitch, if you nail it, it’s what people repeat. When someone asks, “Hey, what does X company do?” they default to your line.

Does it have to be eight words? Is this a challenge or a hard and fast rule?

If you set it as a soft limit, things tend to expand. There’s a famous observation called Parkinson’s Law: Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. We’ve created an equivalent we’re calling Ketterer’s Law: Copy will spill into whatever word count you set as a limit.

With eight words or fewer, you’ve got enough room to get in the key ingredients. But there’s zero chance of being waffly at that length.

There have been some interesting studies on how many words people can remember when they see them for the first time. Eight words or fewer seems to be this magic sweet spot.

Do you use AI in your work at all? If so, how?

I use it for research a lot. Sometimes, if I’m going to interview somebody, I ask it to give me a download on the person. Sometimes I chuck a bunch of notes and ask it to summarize them.

For actual writing, I’ve tried — I really have. What I find AI really misses comes down to conviction. It doesn’t do a great job of having a unique perspective that it seems to feel strongly about. It might be authoritative in the tone it’s written in, but I don’t feel like this person really believes what they’re saying. I do when a human writes something. As much as I’ve tried to get it to ghostwrite for me, it doesn’t quite nail it. It doesn’t feel like an argument I would actually make.

Outside of writing specifically, I’m experimenting with a few things. One is refining and accelerating the early stages of the positioning process — that point where you’ve gathered input from a wide range of parties in a wide range of formats, and want to condense that down into consolidated notes, see where the synchronicity — or discord — occurs, and whether a pattern is emerging that can be mapped to whatever framework you’re working with. I’m also experimenting with using AI for content strategy and review — looking at things like persona fit, regional fit, industry fit, and so on.

How do you see the shortcomings of AI?

I read an article in State of Brand about the “great flattening” of writing. It’s so true. LLMs are giving everybody the statistical average of everything that’s been written. They’re making everybody sound like everybody else. You get this dulling of tone.

AI is so new, relatively speaking, and the fact that we’re already recognizing this gives me a bit of hope. People already see the shortcomings. I can only hope that people who actually write for a living and love it and want to protect it will defend that for as long as possible.

If you really strongly believe in something, then the writing part is kind of half done because you already know how you feel. You already know what you want to say. You already know what your point of view is, and how strongly you feel about it, and that comes out in how you write it. You can’t be dull if you believe in something strongly. AI doesn’t literally have feelings yet.

I loved getting the book in the mail. I read it in bed, highlighted stuff. It seems like the kind of thing I can keep on my desk and go back to and be inspired by. Why did you decide to do it as a book versus a series of LinkedIn posts, a video, or something else?

When we started writing it, we weren’t sure what it was going to become. It just turned out to be the length it is. We considered doing a long-page scroll, but it’s nice to have something physical in your hands.

Print to me is still really precious. There’s so much being said about B2B marketing online, so it’s nice to break away and have a physical format. We saw it as almost a pocket or field guide. Something you can always come back to, highlight, annotate.

Tell me about the process of writing the book.

We have two little kids, so we put them to bed, then depending on how much energy the two of us have, we hash out these things in conversation. One of us writes something, then the next day the other one comes back to it, reads what the other person wrote, and tweaks it.

Every sentence in that book has been written by both of us, so we’ve had to find a tone of voice that represents us both. End to end was probably about six months of doing that — revisiting, rethinking, trying to get something we both love and feel is coming from us, but is also this middle ground between our two tones of voice.

It’s like you have a couple’s style guide. That’s the most romantic thing ever.

Or cringiest! I’m not sure which.

What’s been the response to the book?

The feedback has been really positive, and it’s encouraged us to try and write more things down.

It’s intimidating sometimes when you’re scrolling a social media feed or looking at blogs. You go on LinkedIn, and a million people are talking about AI and marketing. You think, “Everything’s been said already. How can I have a unique take on this?” But you can. It’s surprising how many organic ideas you really can have.

With this flattening, real strong opinions are becoming rarer. The idea we wrote about is something that doesn’t seem to have been covered before. We’re already talking about what we might write next.

Here are a few things I highlighted in Emma and Adam’s book:

• “Good writing is good manners and good business.”

• “If you can only be clear or clever, be clear.”

• “Never use a verbose Latinate term when a lean Germanic word will do nicely.”

Thank you for reading! If you haven’t yet joined me, subscribe below.

Subscribe now

Everyone’s jealous of taste right now. It seems to be the one thing AI isn’t threatening to make part of the “permanent underclass,” and it’s annoyingly hard to define. But if anyone can give it some shape, it’s Esther Moisy-Kirschbaum.

I found Esther while looking for writers who think seriously about where culture is going. She writes and edits Magma, a paid business publication where she analyses emerging markets and early signals across industries in French.

Her personal newsletter on trends, Oblique Forecasting, is sharp, informed by her background living in Istanbul, London, Berlin, Vilnius, Dubai, and now Paris…you will read it and walk away with at least one new opinion. Which is, it turns out, what taste requires.

• Taste can't be faked, and tech knows it. The new tech ruling class is looking for a shortcut to cool. But taste inherently takes time to develop and requires confidence and humility.

• Taste is about standards, not aesthetics. You need to have built a voice or a set of references before you sit down with AI, otherwise, you don’t have the discernment to know when the answer is good enough.

• Writing’s edge is precision and portability. You can skim it, go deep, copy a paragraph into your Notion, forward it to a colleague with one section highlighted. A podcast gives you a vibe, but a newsletter gives you a plan and the data to make it happen.

You wear many hats—you run Magma, your own Substack. Tell me about how you spend your time.

My official title is Head of Content for Magma, a paid business publication — I'd compare it more to an online magazine than a newsletter. The readership is mostly entrepreneurs, individual investors, and VC funds.

Every issue we explore three emerging verticals and give specific business opportunities linked to each one. We're not just saying "this field is interesting" — we're saying there's a white space here, and here's how to act on it. I'm the only full-time person, and I commission experts in their own fields rather than journalists. Each brings real depth, but I'm the generalist who holds it together.

What is key to getting those insights before anyone else?

A lot of it is me being attuned to everything — subscribing to a million newsletters and podcasts — but also having real conversations with people who are deeper in their lanes than I am. I still need to be knowledgeable enough to understand them when they pitch me an idea so I know a little bit about a lot of things.

That’s why the network of experts matters, like my food and beverage person, for example. I’m not immersed in that world 24/7, whereas she has a small consulting business and gives me emerging trends as she sees them in hospitality.

Orso Media, which owns Magma, is famous for its podcasts in France, but Magma is the only text-based product in its lineup. In the age of five-hour podcasts, what do you think writing’s edge is?

With podcasts — whether audio or video — you’re confronting different points of view in conversation. It’s almost like a journey you take together. But unless you’re taking notes as you listen, what you come away with is more of a general vibe than an action plan.

The advantage of the written word is that you can copy-paste something into your notes or your Notion, or you can forward an email to your business partner with one paragraph highlighted. If I were to give you a market size figure in a video — say, this market is $3 billion in 2026 but is estimated to reach $15 billion by 2030 — most people can’t hold that in their head. When you read it, however, your brain sees the multiple.

And then there’s skimmability — you can read something quickly, pick out what’s relevant, or follow the links and go deeper. You can’t zoom in and out in the same way with a long-form podcast.

Everyone’s talking about taste right now, especially in relation to AI. Having taste is an important part of your job — it’s necessary to identify upcoming opportunities. How do you cultivate taste?

You usually only say someone has good taste when they have similar taste to you. You’re never going to walk up to someone who only dresses in Versace when you only dress in Issey Miyake and say, “You have great taste.” So taste is almost a bit of a fake concept — you’re looking for someone who’s similar enough to you, but who you’ve elected as having elevated that shared world to the maximum. That person is deemed someone with good taste.

In my opinion, this obsession with taste, driven by the tech world, is symptomatic of a power reversal. 20 years ago, culture — fashion, music, movies — was king, and tech people were seen as uncool nerds. Whereas today, they’re the ruling class in many ways. And they’re trying to find a shortcut to cool, just like AI can be a shortcut to many things. But taste inherently takes time to develop; you can’t fake it, otherwise it stays a surface-level aesthetic.

Taste takes both confidence, to stand for things even when they’re not the consensus, but also humility and curiosity, to be open to new things and sometimes change your mind.

You've just described taste as almost impossible to define — and yet you're asking people to trust your eye when they follow your newsletters. How do you make that case?

I’m often described as a chameleon — that’s good and bad. It’s good in the sense that I can be in a lot of different rooms. But I’m not fully part of any of them. I’m too classic for my fashion friends, too fashion-y for the business people, and too balanced — I still enjoy a martini — for my longevity circles.

People turn to me because I can bridge the gap between industries, geographies, and generations. But that’s also what makes me hard to market, because it’s hard to put me in a box. It’s harder to sell myself with a quick elevator pitch.

Can you give me an example of that bridging — where the cross-generational, cross-industry view changed your opinion about a trend?

We can all agree that dating apps, as they currently exist, are failing us. But a lot of people commenting on these apps — whether they’re proposing new app concepts or completely new approaches — don’t really go back to the root of the problem.

Millennials are the last generation to have dated without dating apps. We started our adult lives without them, and they progressively took over. Whereas Gen Z came of age when Tinder and Bumble were already there.

Today, a lot of new apps try to recreate that first social contact: the feeling of meeting someone in real life. But for the new generation, that’s not a lived experience they’re missing. I see a lot of millennial founders trying to solve a dating problem through their own generational framework, and that’s not actually how social life works for younger people. There needs to be one generation that adapts massively to a new concept before it trickles down. And I don’t think that’s being taken into account enough in category and startup creation.

What about AI? Do you use it in your work?

I do. And when I interviewed for my current job, they asked if I used AI. When I said yes, it was clearly a plus. If you’re going to be speaking to people at the cutting edge of their fields, you also have to be curious enough to explore new tools yourself.

A big part of my job is pattern recognition and bridging different things. Sometimes I’ll be stumped — I’ll have notes, links to different things, names of a few companies — and I can sense there’s a connection, but I can’t quite see it. AI helps me structure it. My analogy is that it’s like dumping the contents of a bag onto someone’s desk and saying: What does this add up to? But I’m not accepting the first answer I get. It’s always a conversation. I’m challenging it, pushing back, saying we’re close but not there yet.

And that goes back to taste. If you’re going to be writing, generating images, whatever, you do need that elusive sense of taste. You need to have already crafted a voice or an eye or a set of references before you sit down with AI. Otherwise, you don’t have the discernment to know when the answer is good enough.

Even if you have that discernment, it feels like it’s getting harder and harder to stand out as a writer or a thought leader.

Exactly. And it goes back to what I was saying — every good thing is also a hard thing. If you want to establish yourself as a leading voice, you also have to do the promotion work that a PR team might have handled for you before. The good news is you can do it. The hard news is that you have to.

You look at trends across geographies. Is there anywhere Europe is actually setting the agenda rather than following the US?

Right now, contrast therapy — sauna and ice bath — is the hottest thing in Paris. Two new places have just opened, both essentially replicas of Othership, which started in Canada and then New York.

But here’s the thing: being late to business trends almost gives France an edge. We can see what worked elsewhere and what didn’t — and then adapt it, because the cultural differences are real. In the US, effort and the process of longevity is the status symbol. People walk around in their Lululemons in LA, they talk openly about their routines. In France, you don’t show the sweat. The status symbol is the outcome — you looking toned, youthful, gorgeous. You can’t just import a concept wholesale.

Where Europe genuinely leads is luxury. France and Italy are still the best in the world at it — the care, the eye for beauty, the quality. When you lean into that, you create something with a real competitive advantage versus the US. That’s not going away.

If you want to go further and read Esther’s writing, here are a few of my favorite posts of hers:

• Esther’s fitness and health journey — a masterclass in business writing meets personal essay.

• An investing experiment that cleverly reveals why consumers can’t get a financial slice of the most habit-forming brands today.

If you haven’t subscribed, join me.

Subscribe now

Sadly, few people put “good writer” on the list of what makes a great CEO. Ted Merz thinks that’s about to change.

Ted was the 15th newsroom hire at Bloomberg and spent 32 years in the most rigorous newsroom in finance, first as a reporter and editor, and subsequently running the news product team. Then, at 57, he was laid off.

Unsure of what to do next, Ted started writing on LinkedIn. Soon, he had 40,000 followers, and executives were sliding into his DMs asking to steal some of his content magic. Now, he runs a ghostwriting agency helping CEOs and founders tell their stories online — a need, he says, that reflects the fact that social platforms are just as important a forum for communication today as traditional media for leaders.

• Good writing has to be memorable. The ingredients for something that sticks are specificity, people, and surprise.

• Anecdotes are powerful tools. The best narratives are built around concrete stories that become metaphors for what sets you apart. Ted spends a lot of time with people extracting these stories.

• CEO content is where public speaking was 30 years ago. Executives who write online and tell their own stories are setting the standard everyone else will eventually have to meet. Watch what Mark Zuckerberg, Satya Nadella, and Jamie Dimon are doing.

Our conversation, edited for clarity and brevity, below.

What did having both perspectives — running editorial coverage, then building the products that delivered it — teach you about storytelling?

When you’re thinking about storytelling, whether you’re a journalist, a novelist, or writing on social media, the first question has to be: is this memorable?

There are a few things that go into that. The most important, for me, is specificity. Bloomberg was very strong on this. When I first covered markets, you could never say, “It was a big day in the stock market.” You’d say it was the biggest one-day decline in 33 months. In 1990, that wasn’t standard practice in financial journalism, partly because most outlets didn’t have the tools to calculate it. Bloomberg reporters did, and it pushed them toward real precision.

Next, you need action, and you need people. I put a huge emphasis on writing about people. Think about how much you read online that is completely devoid of any human beings.

The last thing is surprise. You want something that makes the reader think: “I didn’t see that coming.”

You talk a lot about the importance of anecdotes. Can you say more about that?

Think about how you understand Elon Musk’s work ethic. You understand it because he used to sleep on the factory floor. That anecdote carries enormous weight. It’s not the same as saying, “He works hard.” It’s a specific, concrete image that tells you something about who he is.

Most people don’t recognize the significance of those moments in their own lives. They don’t see the world the way a writer does. What is a throwaway detail to them is, potentially, the whole story.

That connects to something I think about a lot: the ability to excavate those details and stories from someone. That feels like a skill that LLMs are still bad at.

Absolutely. The natural tendency of an LLM is to summarize and provide an overview. And what it leaves out, almost universally, is everything I want as a writer. It leaves out all the details.

There’s a great example. Josh Kushner, who runs Thrive Capital, told a story about being robbed at gunpoint in Guatemala when he was in college on Patrick O’Shaughnessy’s podcast. They didn’t take his watch because he was wearing a cheap Swatch. Ever since then, he’s worn the same model watch. That evocative detail says something about how a formative experience shapes you for the rest of your life. But that story will not be in the LLM summary of that podcast.

Most people won’t surface those anecdotes on their own, because they don’t realize they’re significant. That’s the role of the writer — helping people find and tell their story by asking the right questions.

As you spent more time thinking about this, you developed a bigger thesis about what’s happening in communications. What is it?

For most of my career — the last 50 years, really — if you wanted to get your message out, you hired a PR firm and tried to get the Wall Street Journal to write about you, or you bought an advertisement. Earned media, paid media. Those were the options.

Legacy media has shrunk and moved behind paywalls. Getting quoted in the Journal still matters, but it’s harder to earn and reaches fewer people. Meanwhile, the demand for visibility kept growing.

At the same moment, distribution became free. Not cheaper: free. You used to pay Edelman to get you into the Journal. Now LinkedIn exists. The cost shifted entirely to content creation. You have to make something worth reading.

This phenomenon is less than 10 years old. And most companies, most CEOs, haven’t fully engaged with it. The people who are already doing it — tech founders, Silicon Valley venture capital, a handful of vocal executives — are very visible. But if you look at how many S&P 500 CEOs are actively creating content as a strategy, it’s almost none. They may have a handle, but they’re not in the game.

My term for this kind of person is a “writing-first practitioner,” someone who uses writing as their edge. But it’s a big ask to tell every CEO they need to become one.

I’d compare it to public speaking. Thirty years ago, CEOs were not regularly up on stages giving speeches. At some point, that became not just acceptable, but beneficial. Then, Steve Jobs made it a competitive advantage. His product demos changed what everyone expected from a CEO on stage. The people who rise to CEO today are disproportionately people who can command a room.

What I see happening now is that people who write and communicate effectively online have a disproportionate advantage, because they control their own narrative. They don’t need Edelman.

I want to be clear: when you give a big speech, you might have a speechwriter, you might get coaching and practice. Writing online is no different. You can have an editor, a communications team. But at the end of the day, your name is on it.

I look at what Satya Nadella and Sundar Pichai have started doing on LinkedIn: handcrafted earnings recaps, written in their voice. These are not reposted press releases. They’re a masterclass in how a CEO should write for that context. Virtually no other CEOs do this.

How do you help the people you work with unlock this writing?

I ask a lot of questions, and they answer them — they tell me stories. Then we rank them. We pull out the strategically risky ones — there are great stories you don’t want to tell publicly — and we write the ones that are both compelling and useful.

I have clients I write for entirely, and I have clients I coach through writing themselves, because they want to develop the skill. For all of them, though, when you go through the process and see results — when someone writes something and gets a meeting, or an investor connection, or meaningful responses from people they respect — that’s what generates momentum. They start to understand why it’s worth doing.

My prediction is that in five to seven years, this is just something everyone does. Right now, most people look at it and think it’s optional. It’s not going to stay optional.

Other than those doing earnings posts you mentioned, what else are you watching as signals that this is becoming the norm?

The earnings call analogy is a good one. When I was a reporter in the nineties, CEOs were almost never on earnings calls because it was considered beneath them. At some point, that changed, and now the CEO not being on an earnings call is a problem. Communications teams put enormous work into preparing them: scripts, practice, message discipline.

I think that’s exactly what’s going to happen with content. If you don’t write, people will notice. If you write badly, that will also reflect on you. The standard is rising.

With video, I’d say the turning point was Mark Zuckerberg — and not the wakeboarding video. He started posting a Reel shot on an iPhone with every new product launch. No CNBC appearance, no press release. Just a Reel.

Then Jamie Dimon, who has written his annual letter for 25 years, did a video this year for the first time on LinkedIn. Casual shirt, talking directly to the camera. When Jamie Dimon and Mark Zuckerberg communicate that way, that’s what everyone’s going to do.

But I still see so many companies struggle with being too promotional on channels like LinkedIn.

It’s in their DNA. They can’t help it. And you have to be direct with them: promotional content is dead on arrival on social media. It doesn’t work. There are other channels for that — advertising, earned media — and those work the way they work for a reason. Social is a new channel with different rules.

You’ve talked a lot about LinkedIn, and that’s where you’ve found success, but what about other platforms?

LinkedIn is where I tell clients to start, because that’s where the professional audience is. But I try to be clear that this is not only about LinkedIn. It’s about creating visibility online. That could be X, Substack, Threads, Bluesky, or something that launches next year. The storytelling principles are consistent across all of them: write something memorable, be specific, write about people, and don’t be promotional. A good story is a good story on any platform.

What is changing is the dynamics of each platform, faster than most companies want to deal with. Long-form on X has exploded since January. Substack has added comments, and now it’s a place people actually hang out and have conversations, not just read. You have to stay nimble, and that’s genuinely hard for organizations that want to plan years ahead.

How does AI fit into your workflow as a ghostwriter?

The single biggest thing, honestly, is transcripts. Immediate, accurate transcripts of conversations. Before AI-powered transcription, you were recording on a device and typing everything out. That was brutal.

For ghostwriting specifically, if I’m trying to capture someone’s voice, I can search a transcript corpus for idiosyncratic expressions, phrases, and speech patterns and use those. AI hasn’t replaced writing the story, but it’s remarkable for capturing how someone actually talks. That’s what you want: for the writing to sound like them.

The other application is that if you work with someone extensively and accumulate many transcripts, you can ask questions of that whole body of material. What do they say a lot? What do they believe? What haven’t they talked about yet? You can interrogate the corpus in a way that just wasn’t possible before.

Thank you for reading! If you want more, read Ted’s writing on his LinkedIn and his blog. And if you’re not a subscriber yet, join me:

Subscribe now

If you’ve ever read about astrology in places like Cosmopolitan, Teen Vogue, or Refinery29, chances are you have come across Narayana Montúfar’s writing. Named one Vogue’s 13 astrologers to follow in 2021, she was senior astrologer for Astrology.com and Horoscope.com from 2011 to 2023 and has published two books. Her insights have reached millions — an achievement few writers can claim.

I’m fascinated by writers who make technical subjects feel personal, especially when writing for wide audiences. Narayana describes herself as a bridge between the celestial and the earthly — and in practice, that means translating the mathematical language of planetary cycles into something that helps people understand their own lives. That’s a skill that goes far beyond astrology, and her experiences have lessons for any communicator.

We talked about her path from Mexico City to California, translation as empowerment, and how personal writing has helped her understand herself better.

• Astrologers are translators. Astrology is technical! One of the reasons people shy away from the practice is that the complex and technical terms make them feel disempowered. In any field, good communicators and practitioners translate the hard stuff into something people can use.

• Writing is a window to figuring yourself out. The reflection behind a personal essay cracked open a chapter of Narayana’s life she hadn’t truly understood.

• Write the thing that doesn’t exist yet. Narayana couldn’t find a book on planetary cycles, one of the foundations of astrology, so she wrote one. If you’re looking for something that isn’t out there, that’s your signal.

How did you go from Mexico City to the US, from writing about music to writing about astrology?

Love brought me to San Francisco — my first husband. When I got there, I wasn’t sure what I wanted to do with my career. I ended up landing an internship with the people doing California Home+Design and 7x7 magazine. That led me to the music industry — I love music, I go to shows all the time, and I have a record collection. I did some editorial work — I was at Spin for a while, covering the Latin American music scene here in San Francisco, interviewing musicians. When that fell through, I asked myself: Do you really want to continue in this industry? I saw a job looking for a bilingual editor for Horoscope.com. I decided I was going to get that job.

I found out later that they had already decided on another editor and that they interviewed me as a courtesy. But because I went in knowing I was going to get that job, I got it. That was 2011, and that’s what started my journey in astrology.

I spent years editing and translating content, slowly absorbing the subject. Then one day, I realized the company offered $1,000 a year for education, and most people didn’t use it. So I started going to school on the weekends to study astrology.

That decision changed my life. All of a sudden, this world opened up. It was like touching something I already knew. Everything made sense — my life, my childhood, my trauma. Everything clicked.

At that time, I was a managing editor. I’d climbed the ladder in corporate America, and it was good, but strange. I was always dealing with people who didn’t understand astrology. Developers, managers, suits. When I first started that job, the owner of the company didn’t even believe in astrology. There was constant pushback, but by the time I left, 13 years later, everybody knew their Big Three. Everybody could tell you, “I’m a Virgo Sun, Leo Moon.” The culture had shifted.

But I didn’t like where media was going. Everything was about SEO, about superficiality. So I decided to switch titles, to go from managing editor to senior astrologer. And for the first time in my life, I felt like I was doing something that matters, that’s helping people. I felt alive.

Have you seen a broader change in people’s receptiveness to astrology?

I’ve seen people waking up: to their gifts, to their desires, to their powers. And I think it’s going to continue. We had to do a lot of work to unplug from what previous generations taught us, but today’s children don’t have to do as much work.

It’s amazing to see people questioning their lives. “Why am I doing this? Is this making me happy? Do I want to get married? Do I want to have children?” That’s part of my job — to help people understand themselves and their own conditions.

You’ve written for publications with millions of readers. When you sit down to write for that audience, how do you make something feel personal when it’s going out to everyone?

It was a learning curve. I’m a big nerd. Because I’d studied with very technical people, I was starting to write for other astrologers. And people would tell me, “Not everybody’s an astrologer. You have to translate it.”

Astrology is a language. People think it’s a predictive art, and yes, you can predict a lot of things, but it’s really about understanding how the cosmos works — the astral weather, I call it. When astrologers are writing, we’re looking at symbols. We’re reading the mathematical relationships between the planets. So we’re translators, really. We’re translating symbols into words.

Writing for lifestyle publications like Parade and Cosmopolitan really helped me develop that skill. I approach the planets as archetypes — it’s a little bit Jungian, even though I don’t consider myself a Jungian astrologer. I try to inspire people to see the planet within themselves.

A lot of people don’t like astrology because they feel like they’re giving their power away — and the problem is, we’ve had a lot of astrologers practicing that way. Someone has a Saturn transit, and the astrologer says, “Life is going to suck for the next two years.” That’s disempowering.

If you stay in technical language and don’t translate, people feel shut out of their own journey. So I try to be honest about what’s happening. If you’re going to have a Saturn transit for the next two years, you need to embody your inner Saturn. Saturn is the sage, the inner teacher, the great rewarder. Books get published during Saturn transits. People get married — or leave broken marriages. So, how are you going to prepare? How can you make the best of that storm?

When I’m writing a horoscope, I inspire reflection, and I inspire empowerment — through the archetypes.

That’s such a good lesson for anyone communicating anything. You’re not just speaking in one direction — you’re helping the reader take the wisdom you’re sharing and do something with it.

Exactly. And I tell people: whatever you read, whatever you see — look it up. Even what I say. Don’t take it as done. Fact-check it.

I always tell my clients: if there is one single moment, even a tiny one, where you feel disempowered by a spiritual practice, reconsider it. Your body knows. That’s the moment where spirituality gets used as a tool of control.

As a bilingual person, how do you navigate writing about astrology across two languages and cultures?

While I’ve written astrology in Spanish extensively in the past, these days I focus more on English since I’ve been living in California since 2007. But yes — Latinos have always been much more into astrology and the esoteric arts due to our deep cultural roots. In some form or another, we’ve been exposed to tarot, magic, astrology, shamanism. For us, it always made sense that the cosmic forces aren’t random and that there is a method to the celestial madness we live in.

When it comes to astrology going mainstream, American culture is the one that has shifted the most in the past decade, which has been amazing to watch. Overall, humans are reclaiming their connection to spirituality in a self-empowering way. And this doesn’t seem to be a trend — it’s a true rekindling of ancient knowledge.

You’ve also written two books — what made you feel like a book was the thing you needed to write?

In 2020, a friend and colleague said, “Somebody wants me to write a book, but I can’t. I’d like to recommend you.” I was competing with another astrologer who had a much bigger following, but they ended up giving it to me.

The process of giving birth to a book is something so special. It’s like a baby. Especially because the world is moving into reels and three-minute, five-second things, giving birth to something that long and deep is really meaningful.

I got fascinated with the process and decided I didn’t want to be a one-book author. The moon book was a collaboration with the publishing company — we settled on the subject together. But it's very different working with someone else on an idea versus having your own idea, which is what happened with my second book, Written in Your Stars, which just received the Indies Foreword Nomination for 2025's best book in Body, Mind, and Spirit.

One of the things I always struggled with was finding a book that talked about planetary cycles, which is one of the foundations of astrology. So I wrote the book I wished I’d had when I started studying astrology.

I enlisted the help of my husband, who’s an aerospace engineer, for the technical and astronomical parts. And I did all the art direction myself, because I care about that.

What does writing unlock for you as an astrologer?

Writing is something magical. The more I dig into spirituality, the more I see there’s a power in the pen.

You’re able to get off your chest so many things that you wouldn’t even be able to tap into otherwise. I’ll give you an example. An editor assigned me to write my Saturn Return story. Saturn Return is one of the most well-known concepts in astrology, that moment when you truly become an adult, around age 29. I had downplayed mine because I have a good relationship with Saturn.

But when I started going back into emails and photos to write that article, I ended up sobbing. Writing helped me realize how important that moment was. The article was ultimately called, “My Saturn Return Brought More Than Adulting; It Was About Starting a New Career and Leaving a Broken Marriage.” Because right before I got the Horoscope.com job, my first marriage was falling apart. Everything felt like it was falling apart, but it was because I was about to start the next thing.

Writing that article was a deeply personal exercise. It was an assignment, but it became so much more. That’s what writing does — it’s a window to figuring yourself out.

Thank you so much for reading! You can discover more about Narayana on her personal website. See you next week.

Subscribe now

Want to set a writer off on a tirade? Ask them about the death of reading. We love to moan about how smartphones and social media have made it impossible for us to digest anything longer than a few lines. For some, this regression is the bellwether of a civilizational crisis.

This is why I found non-fiction writer Inada Toyoshi’s latest book, The People Who Can No Longer Read (本を読めなくなった人たち), so refreshing. Inada has been a full-time author for over a decade — his livelihood depends on people paying him for his words — yet he approaches reading’s decline with curiosity and fairness, not dismissal.

The book is only available in Japanese for now, so I'm excited to introduce his thinking to a global audience. His conclusion: not reading is a rational adaptation to a world that prioritizes efficiency, where video is readily available, and text is expected to be free.

• Some smart people don’t read books. We need to put aside our assumption that people who don’t read are not intellectually capable — reading might not fit their lifestyle or the way they like to consume information.

• Reportage is an extremely valuable skill for writers in today’s age. How can you give readers information that’s not already on the internet somewhere?

• Writers and books must evolve. The publishing and media industries need to provide formats that fit the lifestyles and preferences of a modern audience, instead of complaining that their audience isn’t consuming the same old thing.

What was the motivation for this book and for tackling this theme?

There were several reasons, but the biggest one was that, as someone who makes a living selling writing, I felt acutely that the economic value of writing was declining. The internet is fundamentally a place where people read for free, so the habit of paying for writing has disappeared. So in one sense, I was holding a magnifying glass over my own wound.

On top of that, there’s the long-discussed decline of the publishing industry and the global shift toward video over text for getting information. I wanted to bring all of that together, including my own experience, into one book.

The book is called The People Who Can No Longer Read. How would you define this population of people?

When someone watches a five-minute video instead of reading a two-thousand-word article, they’re not being lazy — they’re being rational. That’s the phenomenon I needed a word for, so I coined “hi-doku” (非読). Japanese already has a neutral term for “not reading” (不読), but “hi-doku” carries a judgment: that reading itself has become an irrational act, something that feels pointless. People may not articulate it that way, but society is gradually moving in that direction.

This used to be a small group, but it’s been growing, starting with young people and spreading to working professionals. In response, the media is making more videos.

Within that shifting environment, people adapted — and in adapting, they lost the ability to read. They no longer needed to use that muscle. So “the people who can no longer read” includes people today who struggle with long texts, as well as middle-aged and older people who used to be able to read but gradually stopped as they consumed more internet content. It’s not that they lack the ability — they lost it as a consequence of fitting into society.

One of the things that sets the book apart is that you didn’t just rely on third-party surveys or data to assess this trend; you did group interviews with university students and young people. How did you conduct those?

It’s become a staple of my reportage writing. I start by approaching professors I know and asking them to introduce students.

I could have gone to a large lecture hall and asked for volunteers, but that’s not a good approach. The people who raise their hands tend to be the ones who are already engaged with media theory, so you get a skewed sample.

You might ask whether a written survey would be simpler, but this connects to the very theme of the book: most people can’t accurately express their ideas in writing. What they can do is talk. I press them — “What about this?” “Why do you think that?” — and draw things out through rapid back-and-forth. There’s information that only emerges through that kind of conversation.

As for why groups rather than one-on-one: some people simply won’t talk without others around. They get nervous alone, but when someone else in the group brings up a topic, it triggers something — “Oh, now that you mention it, I felt that way too.” Group discussion can surface things that don’t come out when someone is generating ideas solo.

One more crucial point: I never let the professor who introduced me sit in. If the professor is present, students worry about being evaluated and give model-student answers.

What did the group interviews show that didn’t show up in statistical data?

The biggest finding was that there are intellectually sharp kids who don’t read books. It’s a truth that readers are reluctant to accept — we assume that someone who doesn’t read can’t possibly be smart.

What I could only have learned through face-to-face interviews was that students with no reading habit were remarkably sharp in conversation. They gave answers that were right on target. Their communication skills were strong. Communication ability is arguably the most valued skill in business today, and I found it has very little to do with whether someone reads books.

There’s obviously a kind of intelligence you gain from books, but there’s also intelligence that comes from other sources. I wasn’t exactly devouring literary novels as a kid — I was consuming manga, anime, and games — and I developed a certain intelligence through those things that the older generation found hard to accept. But this has been said in every era. When cinema appeared, people probably said that watching movies makes you stupid.

As you said, the truth that people who don’t read can also be intellectual is a hard one for people to accept. But what about the actual quality of the content that is being read? Some people prefer novels, some prefer business books.

In the book, I distinguish between “readers” and “consumers.” Consumers are trying to extract information from books. They think in terms of cost-performance — I paid this much, so I should get this much information in return. Readers, on the other hand, find meaning in the act of reading itself. They read to keep their brain working.

It’s like weight training. What matters in training is the time you spend pushing your muscles. The longer you do it, the stronger you get.

To use food as an analogy, consumer-style reading is like eating carbohydrates — you eat it, and five minutes later, you can move. Reader-style reading is more like eating slow-absorbing food — meat, cheese, protein. You don’t get energy from it immediately. It takes time and effort — combined with something like exercise — to build your body. I’m not saying one is better than the other. But if you want reading that stays with you in the long run, you need the slow kind. Otherwise, it won’t truly nourish you.

How does the work of being a writer change in the context of a world where reading has become irrational for some people?

Writers are in a similar position to craftspeople who lost livelihoods during the Industrial Revolution. Some people appreciate the quality of what a craftsperson makes, but their numbers keep shrinking. More people don’t care whether something was written by AI or a human, and writing itself is losing value.

To survive, therefore, requires creating writing born of a powerful personal impulse — because I’m this particular person, I had no choice but to write it. Nobody will pay for something that’s merely well-written or well-organized.

We cannot change the fact that people don’t want to pay for text, so writers need to write something that can’t be read for free. Everything that generative AI can assemble from information across the internet is effectively free. Anything you can produce sitting at a desk is meaningless.

What’s left is the kind of thing you get from group interviews — listening to real people in person. Information that doesn’t come up in a search. Everything a famous person has ever said is already on the internet, so celebrity quotes have no value — unless you’re asking them something they’ve never been asked before. But when, say, a grandmother in rural Aomori says something remarkable, I’m the only one who heard it. That’s where the value is.

So reporting skills become enormously important. This is good news for me as a journalist!

Exactly. Pounding the pavement and the ability to draw things out of people. Only writers with exceptional communication skills will survive.

In the old days, a writer could be an introvert and make it. But now you have to behave like an extrovert to survive as a writer. Show up in person, be charming, and engage with people on social media.

Speaking of social media, people in publishing and traditional media tend to look down on platforms like TikTok and X. But what you’re saying is the opposite: to succeed as a writer, you need to make content that’s at least as engaging as what’s on TikTok.

Whether the content on social media is trashy or sophisticated is a separate question. But the presentation techniques are something everyone should study. The editing is so well-crafted that viewers are never bored. In fact, TV editing is already converging toward YouTube and TikTok-style editing.

The same applies to writing. Old-guard writers look down on internet-style writing that puts conclusions up front. But a piece that meanders endlessly before getting to the point no longer fits the times. It’s like opera or old-style musicals that ran for five hours. That doesn’t match modern lifestyles. Even movies — sitting in the same seat for two or three hours is increasingly at odds with how people live, and yet the format hasn’t changed in decades.

There must be ways to preserve the density and depth of the content while changing the presentation. The physical format of books hasn’t changed either — the same size, the same 200 to 300 pages. But who says that’s right? Maybe a much larger format would be better, or maybe a much smaller one. Nobody decided how many characters should be on a page. The industry has gone decades without experimenting, and I think it’s been left behind.

I’m taking a fiction writing course, and we’re told that you have to hook the reader from page one. If someone picks up the book at a bookstore and looks at the first page, how can I make sure they walk out having bought it?

I was conscious of this with my book, too — the preface is about ten pages long, and I frontloaded all the most interesting material there. You can read just those few pages and get a sense of what the whole book is about.

The old approach to a preface was to tease — “Something interesting is about to begin!” But that’s not enough anymore. I’ve been doing this intentionally, and the result is that people read the opening and think “This looks interesting.” I think that makes for writing that fits the current era. Writers need to do this, and publishers need to as well.

Thank you so much for reading! I’ll be taking a break next week for Easter and will be back in early April. As always, any comments are appreciated.

Subscribe now

The tech gender gap is already showing up in AI tools, which women are adopting at a 25% lower rate than men. Around me, I see women who are both intimidated by “technical” tools and unable to find the time to get started. Playing around with ChatGPT gets pushed down on the to-do list — then falls off entirely.

Nina Willdorf and Shoshana Berger want to turn that on its head. Nina is a former travel magazine editor turned brand strategist who has worked at Coinbase and Airbnb; Shoshana was also an editor who has had senior roles at IDEO and Notion. Their partnership started at a mutual friend’s birthday party, where they got chatting about AI and discovered they had the same boyfriend: Claude. (Who also happens to be my boyfriend, but I will not air my jealousy here.)

Now they’re using a classic gendered trope — the Tupperware party — to gather women 40-plus around wine and cheese and get them playing with AI. They call it the Aged Intelligence Society.

We chatted about why women should be natural AI power users, what happens when you show someone AI in person for the first time, and what kind of writing actually matters right now.

• Use AI to deal with the annoying life admin. Do the things you like in life — writing, painting, coaching — and let AI deal with the admin.

• Don’t prompt, volley. The biggest mistake people make is treating AI like a search engine: one shot, one answer. You have to have a back and forth.

• Embrace the wabi sabi. AI gives everyone access to the same polished language. What breaks through now is beautiful roughness, writing that shows lived perspective, and a point of view only you can have.

Our conversation, edited for clarity and brevity, below.

What is the Aged Intelligence Society?

Nina: We were both obsessed with AI, so we decided to gather some women and do some events around a dinner table. It took us about three events to figure out what the arc would be.

One, how do we create a feeling of “I’m with my people” with people you don’t know? So we really curate who’s at the table. In many ways, it’s an editorial exercise — what are the characters that make for a good story?

And then, what are the beats of an evening? How do we leave people walking away with a feeling, as well as inspiration and information? There’s usually someone who comes in as a skeptic: “I love to write, and I don’t want AI to write my emails.” Then by the end, they’re like, “It can do that? I had no idea.” That little spark in the eye — it’s incredibly gratifying.

Shoshana: I would describe it as two women who have long been in tech circles and understand what it looks like when women are excluded from the conversation.

Midlife is a tricky time to navigate. Women are dealing with relationship changes, career pivots; they still have dependent kids and are also starting to care for increasingly fragile parents or relatives. There’s a big administrative load. We want women to understand that you can put down some of that load if you use these tools.

I don’t think people understand that part of AI. The conversation has been around productivity and optimization — how can we do more, how can we replace basic skills? But it’s the opposite. It’s about how we do more in less time so that we have time to do the things we love, rise to a higher altitude, and do purpose-driven work.

We are taking a tool that is known to be a solitary, one-to-one interaction and making it a group activity — something we can all have conversations about, laugh about, kick the tires on, and think about how, as women, we can shape its use.

Nina: There was a big unlock we had: especially as women 40-plus, 45-plus, who wear so many hats — it’s exhausting. You’re the CEO of your life, but also the CIO, the CMO, the CRO. How many of those do you want to be, and what would you like to outsource?

That is a choice we get to make now that we didn’t have a few years ago. You can confidently outsource certain things. So if you’re a writer, write. Do your craft. And outsource the invoicing, the scheduling, all the other things to AI. We don’t see AI as replacing the magic skills we’ve built. It’s creating more space for that.

So in contrast to the fear and FOMO-driven narrative around AI, you’re telling a very different story — one at the micro level, about what’s really useful for women, every day.

Nina: The thing we’re constantly thinking about is: where does the magic of the human blend with and add to the magic of the machine? We have so many years of experience living in the world, and we bring that to the machine.

For example, we were brainstorming about a trip Shoshana is taking with her daughter. I’m a former travel magazine editor, so I thought about the places in New York that are my absolute favorites for sample sale shopping. This is something you cannot find online.

She took that into Notion AI, and it turned it into a detailed itinerary and walking tour that also flagged when some of the places would be closed. It took it one level further, but the inputs would not have been there without the human.

Shoshana: Exactly. The food recommendations came from a friend who’s a food writer. And then I had the AI look up the best times to go.

What about in your professional lives — how has AI shown up there?

Shoshana: When I was starting out as a consultant, Nina kindly shared a lot of her paperwork with me — how she deals with proposals and all of that. I used ChatGPT to create proposals and tiers of engagement for my initial clients. I had a “70% there” proposal done. I fed it into Claude and said, “Make this an easy yes.” Claude came back and said, “You’re not charging enough money.”

I was like, “Wait—I’m not charging enough?” Classic female problem, right? I asked, “How should I adjust this?” And it said, “Start by doubling your rates.” I took the advice and sent it to the client. They did not bat an eye.

What’s that lightbulb moment for women who come to your gatherings?

Nina: We have a moment we call “library time,” where we give people 10 minutes alone to mess around after we’ve given some general guidance. We prance around the table and help people.

Usually, they’ll type a prompt and be disappointed. For example, one person was dealing with a friend who had gotten very politicized. Her other friends had abandoned this friend, but she didn’t want to, and she was trying to figure out how to navigate the relationship. After getting feedback from Claude that was very surface-level, she said, “See, it doesn’t work.”

I asked her why the feedback didn’t feel right, and typed everything she said into Claude. You have to tell it, “This isn’t resonating for me. I know all of this already.” Talk to it like you would talk to a person — except you don’t need to worry about its feelings.

What we do is demonstrate what Shoshana originally called a “volley.” It’s a tennis match, not a one-shot thing.

That reminds me of learning in business school that women are actually better negotiators because of how we’re socialized to look for outcomes that benefit all stakeholders — the same back-and-forth, dialoguing skills apply here.

Nina: And there's a through-line to voice here. In those moments at the table, the women are saying things out loud to me, and I'm typing exactly what they say into the context window. Your natural voice — the way you talk — is going to get you the best results. You don't need to write the perfect prompt.

Shoshana: I’ve learned so much from Nina’s chatting style, because she really does chat with her AIs like she’s chatting with a friend, where you pull no punches. She’s like, “No, you got this totally wrong. What’s wrong with you?”

Nina: I act like I’m from 1940s Brooklyn.

You both have children — how do you see AI impacting them?

Shoshana: We have a lot of the same reservations that other people have about how kids are adopting the tool. I had a conversation last night with my kids about the best way to learn something: read a book or use AI.

My kids open up AI and say, “Tell me everything about the American Revolution for my test tomorrow.” They get a response in two minutes, and think, “If I had to read the whole book, it would take me days, if not weeks.”

I told them that there is something about the interaction of reading words on a page and appreciating the way an author has put the story together, the discursive way in which the information is revealed to you, that is rich and dimensional in a way that AI will never be. If you don’t read books and take in the stories that way, you will have a very flat and shallow appreciation of things.

They heard me, but I had to lay it on thick. They don’t necessarily want to be history majors, so they think, “Why wouldn’t I just use this shortcut?”

I told them, “If you ever want to get a job, you must be able to write and tell stories and communicate.” Scott Galloway says this all the time. You have to be able to show up without the AI in life. That takes work, and you learn how to do it by reading and practicing.

Nina: We hear from women in our community that some teenagers actually don’t like AI. My younger one, for example, is anti.

But I like to show them different things. For example, with college applications, my daughter and I were brainstorming in the car, and she was coming up with super disjointed ideas for what she might write about. I said, “Take all of those notes, dump them into Claude, and say, ‘What are some potential angles I could take? What questions could you ask me to tease out some of these ideas?’”

She did all the writing and used the AI as a thought partner — almost taking the place of those editors we had growing up who pushed us as thinkers.

Let’s come to words and effective stories. There are so many stories being blasted at us right now. How do you tell an effective story? Can you break through?

Nina: Our instinct comes back to detective work — figuring out what is fundamentally human and resonant, and what gets people to feel something. That is the job of a writer, an editor, a marketer, a communicator. You have to get underneath people’s motivations and understand how you can connect them with what they’re trying to achieve.

It’s awesome that everybody has access to knowledge and information, but it’s creating a flattening. People are getting increasingly annoyed by it.

We don’t write our newsletter using AI. We sit side by side with espresso and our laptops. Shoshana is better at writing at night, I’m better in the morning, and we pass things back and forth.

One of the things Shoshana unlocked yesterday that I think is so apt is this notion of wabi sabi — this beautiful roughness. Right now, in writing and communicating, what you want to show is that you’ve thought about it. Writing is just an embodiment of thinking. When people get annoyed with AI writing, they’re saying: “Don’t be lazy. Put some thought into it, because otherwise you’re wasting my time.” If you don’t demonstrate that you’ve thought about it, it’s an insult.

Shoshana, what would you add?

Shoshana: You know that phrase, “You can’t write this shit”? It’s true. You cannot write this shit — what it feels like to be a human in the world. It is wonky and rough-edged and full of broken things that none of us know how to deal with. AI does not have that experience, no matter how many times it reads the internet and no matter how much we feed it. It does not have embodied experience. And that’s where the most delightful stories come from.

There is something about lived experience that is very hard for AI to approximate. Especially for people who have been working at the craft of writing for a long time, you understand that it’s all about that frictive point of view. It’s not linear. It’s surprising. It works on pattern recognition, but unlike AI, it’s the pattern recognition of someone’s subjective point of view. Nobody sees like you see.

Nina: You know how everyone and their mother wants to be a thought leader? In order to be a thought leader, you have to have a thought. And the uncomfortable truth is that 99% of people do not.

Words indicate a perspective. The perspective that gives you a feeling. Sometimes it makes you uncomfortable, sometimes it gives you pause, sometimes it just makes your brain click on in a different, interesting way. That is what writing can do.

I think we’re all getting annoyed because there’s so much out there that doesn’t make you feel anything. So the value of real writing is just going to increase. English majors, unite.

If you want to learn more about Nina and Shoshana’s work, check out their newsletter.

Have you ever vibe coded with wine? How have you taught someone else about AI? Reply and tell me about it.

Subscribe now

I helped Bek Ventures’ investment team surface a bunch of thinking about their work, and I often come back to the framework they use when a founder comes with an issue. One of the first questions the team asks is, “Is this a communications issue?”

It sounds simple, but I’d go so far as to say the majority of problems in organizations stem from a failure of communications—strategy not clear, expectations not spelled out, or information not shared between teams. The effect of poorly written emails and Slack messages can reverberate. This is why people who are great at internal comms fascinate me.

This week, I spoke to Dublin-based internal communications expert Joanna Parsons. She led crisis comms for Ireland’s national police force during the pandemic and developed an internal comms strategy for employees across 25 countries at Teamwork. She now runs her own consultancy and a membership community for internal comms professionals.

• Communication doesn’t equal dissemination. Sending something out is not enough. You have to understand your audience and have a clear objective to get employees to behave the way you want.

• AI is more than a content marketer. Use it to stress-test your ideas, role-play as your leaders, turn data into stories for your boss, and set measurable goals.

• Curiosity is the difference between someone tactical and someone strategic. If you’re not asking questions, you’re delivering purely what stakeholders tell you. Ask questions, and you can tap into what they really need.

Walk me through your career—how did you get into internal communications?

I didn’t even know internal comms was a thing until I fell into it. It’s the kind of profession many people fall into and then quickly fall in love with it—that’s certainly what happened to me. My background is in sociology, which turned out to be the best possible foundation for this work, even if I didn’t realise it at the time. Sociology is fundamentally about understanding how people behave in groups, how power operates, how narratives form. That academic background has been very helpful to me in the world of internal comms.

What’s your definition of internal comms, and what does it cover?

Internal comms is kind of the glue that holds a company together. If a company can communicate well and develop a shared understanding of what matters, then this can really help the company succeed. We’ve probably all worked somewhere that had crap communication, and it can be a huge problem in companies to the point where people quit, projects fail, and money is wasted.

What does good internal communications look like? What do companies get wrong about it?

Companies often assume that if we send something out, then the communication is done. Box ticked. But of course, communication does not equal dissemination. Communication requires audience understanding and action. So we need to be thinking about who our audience is, what we need them to do, what understanding they already have on this topic, whether they are likely to resist and why, and what we need to communicate in order to drive the desired behaviour change.

There’s a lot of good, deep thinking and planning that goes into comms, far beyond “just send it out”. Good comms starts with a clear objective and links to business priorities, not with tactics or tasks.

What are the attributes of good writing in internal comms?

I’m not sure there’s one clean answer here because your writing will always be different depending on the audience you’re targeting. It’s easy to say “you should always write like XYZ” or “best practice is ABC,” but it’s nuanced and subjective in reality.

Some audiences will appreciate brevity, others want more depth and context. Some audiences won’t tolerate any acronyms, and others may think you’re dumbing it down without using their familiar acronyms. So again, it’s always about knowing your audience and thinking about how to communicate effectively with them.

How do you use AI, and how do you advise internal comms professionals to use AI?

Use it as a sparring partner or a thinking partner, get it to review your ideas and point out holes in your concepts. Get it to role-play as your leaders or members of your target audience. Use it to help set measurable objectives, annual goals, or reporting dashboards. Use it to turn your data into stories targeted at your boss or your leaders. It’s a whole world of possibilities, and I encourage everyone to experiment with it.

What skills do you think internal comms professionals need in the future?

Curiosity is the superpower I think all effective internal comms pros need to master. Ask questions, then ask some more. Observe deeply and get curious about what’s really happening and what the actual business need is. This helps you move beyond operating as a pair of hands and into the strategic space. Asking questions will help you shift from delivering what stakeholders want (“I want a poster”) to understanding what stakeholders really need (“I need employees to stop doing X and to do Y instead”).

Indulging your curiosity will make you more valuable and impactful in the business, and anyone can do it. You don’t need a budget, you don’t need to take a course, you just need a bit of guts to be the one in the meeting to say, “What problem are we trying to solve?” or “Can we clarify our objective here?”

Joanna's point that communication isn't dissemination got me thinking about how important writing is in getting the right message across. I think obsessively about how I’m writing for things as small as Slack messages, because it’s in those little interactions that information gets lost or our intention doesn’t come across. Here’s what I’ve been reading to write better recently:

• Research has shown that articles that counter reader assumptions are seen as more interesting and hold attention; Joanna explains how to harness this in writing in the workplace.

• Former Facebook exec Molly Graham (most famous for the “give away your Legos” framework) believes the most counterintuitive thing needed to scale past 50 employees is communications. Love this: “Always craft your comms for the person who just started this week.”

• Entrepreneur Wes Kao lists the words to delete to make you sound more positive, authoritative, and warmer. Cannot agree more with her advice to delete “just”—I am hacking this word out of my messages to colleagues all the time.

• Software engineering leader and writer Will Larson talks about Barbara Minto’s The Pyramid Principle as a path to clear business writing. (Fun fact: I met Barb at a networking event in London, and she chided me both for not being married and for living in Shoreditch.)

✨ One more thing

This week, I published a piece in Every about it’s more important to show true expertise as AI enables more automation. But how do you demonstrate that expertise? One answer is portfolios—think what creative professionals have always had, but for knowledge workers. Given the amount of feedback, the piece has struck a chord. Wonder what my readers think…Reply and let me know.

Subscribe now

Getting press coverage used to be one of the more straightforward parts of working in communications. As a journalist writing about startups, I saw it from the other side—companies pitched, we wrote, and everyone was happy. Now, newsrooms have tight budgets and and tight agendas. Brands are choosing to tell their stories themselves—with a little help from AI. The old playbook is dead.

So what comes next? This week’s guest, Kim Oguilve—a marketer and comms professional with a decade of experience in retail, beauty, tech, and energy—has some ideas. She is currently head of marketing and communications at Synergi, a Finnish energy startup.

Kim believes earned media is much bigger than press coverage. She thinks if you’re an early-stage company, your messaging should change often. If it doesn't, you're not learning fast enough. And she makes a case for humanness over speed and staying calm when change accelerates.

• Good comms writing is egoless. The output is never just yours—it's the result of input from many people.

• AI can make you a better writer. Don't feel shame about it. If it helps you communicate more clearly for your audience, use it.

• Earned media is bigger than press coverage. It’s everything other people say about you. Now, audiences are migrating to smaller, trusted communities.

• Your comms team has a sixth sense. Let them use it. They are tuned in to every stakeholder in the company, and can see a crisis before you do.

How did you get into comms and marketing?

My dad was a marketing, economics and business professor in Costa Rica, so I grew up with a lot of marketing talk, but from the academic, theoretical perspective.

When I moved to Finland, I was exposed to applied marketing and comms for the first time through internships as part of my studies and then when I started working at startups.

It’s also connected to my passions as a teenager. I loved writing—writing lyrics, specifically, because I was very into music. I loved coming up with sentences that worked nicely together and had a nice sound to them.

Do you think you have to be a good writer to be a comms person?

When you study marketing or comms, nobody actually teaches you to write. That skill comes through practice, through making mistakes, through learning from more senior people in the workplace. You don’t need to be a Nobel Prize winner, but you have to be decent. You also need strong judgment about what makes good writing in a business context, how you interpret information for different audiences and how you make it easy to understand for them.

Another important aspect: humbleness. Even the best writers get edited.

It’s especially true in communications where the output isn’t just your output; it’s the result of input from so many different people.

Exactly. You have to take your ego out of it. My work is not about having my own personality or my own way of doing things. It’s about integrating input from different functions and people on the team and making sense of it all. That’s very different from, say, fiction writing, where it’s more about your personal vision.

I love getting feedback on my work, because I feel like it’s not for me—it’s for everyone else.

Let’s talk about the difference between marketing and comms, because they’re often treated as one function.

Traditionally, marketing is more about product and selling, and comms is more about positioning your company and building its reputation. If marketing is about the “what,” then comms is about the “feeling.” Of course, you can still add “feeling” to the “what” to show differentiation.

The reason we see these two functions coming together is simply about consistency. Why have teams sitting in silos when you can orchestrate a campaign that leverages all the different marketing and communication channels at your disposal and delivers one consistent message?

You’ve always worked in multicultural environments—Finnish companies, international companies. You speak three languages. How does that impact how you think about comms?

I always want to dig a little deeper. When you have to craft messages for different audiences, it’s important to recognize that there might be biases in how you’re approaching something. That international experience has taught me to question whether what I’m crafting has the right values behind it.

Working internationally also teaches you to change contexts and learn different practices. Take media relations, for example. Building relationships with the press in Finland versus Mexico, the US, or Japan—they’re all different. Press releases are different across all these markets.

How does AI help you specifically with writing and crafting communications?

Quite a lot. It helps me make texts flow better. I used to feel a bit of shame about that, because we work in comms, we’re supposed to be good at writing. But I heard a journalist say recently: you should use AI, because if it’s going to help you communicate things better, why not? Why would you restrain yourself from using something that helps you do something better for your audience? It’s the same way an author gets their book edited by an editor.

Let’s talk about the startup side of things. What do startups or fast-growing companies get wrong about messaging and positioning?

Startup messaging and positioning is supposed to change frequently and should always be questioned and validated. If it doesn’t, it means you’re not learning enough about your audience and how your product is finding its fit in the market.

At Synergi, we’ve changed our messaging many times. It usually changes based on what we learn at events from our ideal customer profile. When people come to our stand, I’ll ask them: “What brought you here? Is there something in the booth that caught your attention?” Then they’ll mention a specific word, which confirms what we thought would resonate is resonate. Or sometimes it isn’t, and we adjust.

Have you seen this play out in your own career?

I joined Synergi as the first in-house marketing person, and I’ve learned that I can use journalist responses to improve future pitches, fine-tune the process, and analyze which successful pitches turned into coverage. At Synergi, PR has been our number one user acquisition channel in Finland. Nothing else has come close. But we’ve also learned the shortcomings of relying on it.

Like the fact that getting media coverage is so much harder now than when we started in tech! And audiences are overwhelmed with content. How are you navigating that?

Synergi has existed for three years. At the beginning, it was easy because we were doing something novel. We had credibility because we were showing the numbers. But within the past year, it’s gotten a lot harder. Newsrooms have stricter topic agendas. They’re becoming pickier about featuring the same companies over and over. If you’re a small company, journalists may not want to give you as much space compared to companies that bring in more readers.

So now, instead of pitching Synergi specifically, I have to think on a larger scale—show big changes in the world, bring data points from other companies to show there’s real traction and change in the industry.

On the audience side, people are moving toward small creators. As mistrust in mainstream media grows, there’s a natural shift towards safe spaces where you know the person, you’ve been following them for a while, and you trust them. Brands who thrive amid these changes will embrace authenticity and getting into smaller, more curated communities.

What does that mean for credibility? Traditional media coverage was a mark of credibility. Do those smaller communities provide that?

I don’t think media outlets will disappear or lose credibility entirely. It’s more about diversifying your comms and marketing strategy and not relying on third-party coverage as the main thing.

Earned media is not just getting featured in the press. It’s about everything other people are saying about you—earning the right to be discussed publicly.

What else has changed about your job as a comms and marketing person over the course of your career?

The speed of change. Sometimes a little unbearable! How do you adapt and handle everything? There’s also more risk. There is more to lose for brands and there’s more to learn.

But I’ve worked in companies where I’ve had to build from zero with a tight budget and figure things out amid constant uncertainty and volatility. I think people with startup experience are in a really good place to tackle work life in the future, because of the skills that will be required: resilience, flexibility, and the ability to contextualize for many different situations.

What skill do you think is underrated in comms?

One skill I think is quite underrated in the comms world is creativity. And I don’t mean creativity in the sense of making a flashy campaign. I mean using creativity to navigate complexity. How do you problem-solve when you have XYZ restrictions?

Also, creativity in the sense of doing something you haven’t been doing before, because that’s how brands can continue to get noticed— by trying to do the unexpected. That’s going to be a challenge for corporates that have a lot to lose. But at some point, you need to take risks.

How have you been creative about problem-solving at Synergi?

In our case, creativity means asking: how can we take small bets and test doing things differently? For example, right now we’re selling electricity contracts for other companies under the Synergi brand and trying to validate whether this is an interesting growth model. We need to figure out the best way to position the brand in this situation—If we’re more present, does that help us sell more?

Are there any other skills comms people need?

I think the most important qualities are learning ability, proactivity, and curiosity—the drive to explore new technologies and take on future challenges. Ultimately, thriving in the future will be about your ability to humanize a brand, to keep it relevant and authentic for your audiences, while navigating global complexity in a calm, thoughtful and reflective way. These are all critical strengths for future comms teams because they translate into the qualities that will set brands apart and drive their success.

There is so much AI-generated content that you need to differentiate at all levels so future comms people will need to bring human voices forward. At the same time, they will need a calm mindset.

I like the word “reflective.” When everything seems to be falling down, comms people need to be the ones who force everyone to take a step back and think for a minute.

Not everyone necessarily learns crisis preparedness in school. But since things are changing so rapidly and the world is getting more complex, comms people need to prepare for when things go wrong. Because they will. You can’t avoid a crisis, especially at bigger companies that operate in many different markets and are making decisions tied to what’s happening politically. Everything is so connected. Comms people have to be more aware of everything happening in the world and how it affects their companies.

It goes back to being the voice of reason in that moment.

Exactly. And I wish that leaders would trust their comms people more. We’re really tuned into everything that’s happening in the world. I see so many crises happening and think: I’m sure their comms team could see this coming from miles away. So why did it happen?

We have to work with pretty much every single stakeholder in the company, including external ones. We have this sixth sense about what is going to happen next. So, listen to your comms team before it’s too late!

👩🏻‍💻Kim’s research on media relations

Kim’s master’s thesis, published last year, tackles a gap she noticed in her own career: the PR industry sells media relations as a tool for brand awareness and credibility, but that’s not how early-stage startup founders think.

“What founders want to hear in the early stages is how something impacts the growth of the company,” she says.

Her thesis repositions media relations as a validation tool. Instead of coverage being the end goal, the process itself becomes valuable: how journalists respond to your pitch, which parts of your story they choose to feature, how many customers coverage actually drives.

“Through that exercise of validation, you learn how to leverage media relations as a tool for growth in the future.”

Early-stage startups should treat media relations as an experiment that helps them build better with each iteration.

📖 Read the full thesis

Thank you for reading! How has the playbook changed in your career or specialism? How have you responded? Message me on LinkedIn or reply to this email.

Subscribe now

Wikipedia. Your teachers barred you from citing it. But now it’s one of the frequently cited sources by LLMs. Which means if you work in comms or marketing, you will inevitably be asked to conjure up a Wikipedia page. I usually answer, “Commit a heinous crime today—then you can have one tomorrow!”

Most people assume it’s a piece of cake to insert themselves in its digital pages. What they don’t know is that its 66 million articles (spanning roughly 300 languages) are maintained by volunteers who check content against strict standards. Nothing stays that does not have reliable sources to back it up. Getting in is harder than finding unicorn poo—to borrow the words of my esteemed guest this week.

James Lawrie is a Wikipedia editor and page creator who makes a living creating entries for clients who meet a very high bar. In one of the most hilarious conversations I’ve had for this newsletter, we chatted about paid editing on the encyclopedia, the art of boring writing, and his proudest Wiki moment.

• Don’t try to advertise on Wikipedia. James says his first job with most clients is convincing them that posting promotional content disguised as encyclopedia entries will backfire.

• The best Wikipedia writing is invisible: bland, meditative, encyclopedic prose designed to serve the platform’s mission.

Our conversation, edited for clarity and brevity, below.

How did you get into the Wikipedia business?

Completely by accident. I was doing my MA in creative writing, and I always thought my writing would go down the fiction route. I took creative nonfiction as my secondary subject and got really into the research aspect of writing. I enjoyed doing deep dives, rooting through archives, information, documents—getting to the core of a subject.

In 2018, I started taking copywriting jobs on Upwork. Most of them were awful.

What’s the worst one you had to do?

My first Wikipedia gig—it was $30. It was for a guy from Newcastle who had tried to make his own Wikipedia page, but it had been nominated for deletion, and he brought me in to fix it.

I did have some experience with Wikipedia because I was editing in areas that interested me—music and mountain biking—but no paid editing experience. I went in there and gave it my all. And of course, the page got deleted.

He gave me five-star feedback anyway because he saw I’d given it my all. The next day I had an inquiry: “I see you do Wikipedia stuff?” And I thought, ‘Sure, why not?’ Gradually I started to get better.

Then in June or July 2018, I got an email from the Rhodes Trust—the people who run the Rhodes Scholarship. This was in the wake of the Rhodes Must Fall scandal.

Did you take the job?

I had no idea what the Rhodes Scholarship was. Who Cecil Rhodes was. I’m just a hillbilly from Shropshire, right? So I go down to Oxford to pitch to them. And I got the project.

That was my first major client, and it was a baptism of fire. I couldn’t fake it anymore. I threw myself into it, learned the ropes, learned how to edit a Wikipedia entry in a way that was low-impact, that didn’t give the game away. It took off from there.

How many clients do you work with in a month?

Five or six? It all depends. I’m very picky about who I take on. I get a lot of inquiries, but only about 2% of inquiries are viable. Viable clients are as rare as unicorn poo.

This is exactly what I try and explain to companies! It’s really hard to get on Wikipedia. Could you explain what you need to get a Wikipedia page?

Most people who come to me haven’t invested in a PR campaign, or if they have, the press hasn’t been interested in them. And they think I can somehow make them famous by typing them onto Wikipedia. It’s just wishful thinking.

If you’re doing a PR campaign, you’re probably going to want to spend about ten years on that campaign, getting featured in places like Sifted, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times. You need to build up independent secondary sources, because a Wikipedia entry is a tertiary source—it’s one step along in the food chain. A lot of people come to me thinking that they can take the Wikipedia shortcut to fame, and most of them end up disappointed.

What kind of clients do you work with—businesses, individuals?

Just about every sort of business. Universities, overfunded tech startups—though that line of work has pretty much dried up. Nowadays, a lot of the businesses are quite established. They’ve been around for 30 or 40 years. A lot of them are pretty boring, but they have somehow managed to get themselves featured in The Sunday Times, The Financial Times, or The Guardian and build up the press they need to make an interesting encyclopedia entry.

What do those businesses want to get out of having a Wikipedia article?

They want to post content on Wikipedia that looks like it’s been posted by the public, that looks organic, like it’s part of the encyclopedia’s ecosystem.

My first job is to convince them that that’s really not in their best interests. Native advertising—using Wikipedia or Reddit or any user-generated platform for advertising—it’s going to make you look bad. My role is basically to save my clients from themselves.

This is often the role of someone in comms, a field I’ve worked in, too. A bit like that meme of the soldier protecting the sleeping child...

I make it very clear: I cannot cite your website, your press releases or your boilerplate. We even have to be pretty careful when we’re citing interviews—even if it’s published via a reliable source.

I come up with something that uses their secondary source material and resembles an encyclopedia entry. I’ll share that with the client on Google Docs. Then the client will then have a narcissistic meltdown.

Yep. We have all been there.

When people see their whole career condensed down to 200 words on a blank page, their brains can’t handle it. They’ll leave a load of abuse in the comments, and then we’ll have a good fight. We’ll go back and forth for several months: “Can we cite this website? Can we cite this press release?”

The worst is when they say, “Well, our rivals’ Wikipedia page says this.” And I’m like, “Well, they have completely different sources. They might have been around for 30 years longer.”

There’s usually a lot of conflict involved with the client. But eventually, they capitulate. They just want the Wikipedia page. They realize that a new page creation is all about just creating a page that A) shows the subject is notable via reliable secondary sources, and B) complies with Wikipedia’s content policies, guidelines, and manual of style.

Then once that’s done, I code the page in Wikitext and upload it to Wikipedia from an account with new page creation rights. I never submit my drafts through the slush pile or the articles-for-creation process.

Interesting! When I did this process once, we used an agency that told us the article would have to be submitted to a slush pile that the Wikipedia editors would review before it was published. Is there a difference between disclosed and undisclosed paid editing?

A bit of Wikipedia history. The site begins in 2001, grows in popularity. Round about 2006, 2007, Wikipedia comes onto the radar of PR. The most infamous case was Bell Pottinger—they got busted editing Wikipedia pages of politicians and things. That’s when Wikipedia realized that paid editing was a thing.

One public relations professionals inside Wikipedia’s community, a gentleman by the name of William Beutler, held a conference with a few big shots from the PR industry and a handful of people in the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia’s broader community wasn’t consulted—that’s important to keep in mind.

They decided that if you’re going to do paid editing on Wikipedia, you shouldn’t edit your client’s page directly unless you’re just making minor edits. Instead, you should put in edit requests via the talk page. And if you’re creating a new page from scratch, you should create it in draft mode and submit it via the articles-for-creation process.

What’s the problem with this approach?

That works great for the white-hat paid editors [editors who disclose their conflict of interest and submit proposed changes for review by volunteer editors], because they charge by the hour. And because they’ve got this agreement with Wikipedia, they’re like, “We’re the legitimate ones.”

I’ve tried white-hat editing, and I found that when you put in your edit request on behalf of the client, or you submit your page to the slush pile, because most of Wikipedia’s community is opposed to paid editing—very anti-business—they’re not going to help you. Why would a volunteer take time out of their day to implement edit requests or clean up a page that somebody else is being paid to do?

What about the style of editing you do? You directly edit, correct?

There is another school of thought in paid editing that basically says that paid editing, if done properly, should be invisible.

If you went on Wikipedia now, you would not be able to spot my work. I write in a bland, encyclopedic style. If it sounds boring, then that means I’m doing my job properly. I have a creative writing background, but what I do is the opposite of creative writing. I have never received a compliment on my writing.

I do a very low-impact style of writing that contributes to the encyclopedia and its mission to document the entire sum of accepted human knowledge. My clients may not be happy that they don’t get to advertise on Wikipedia, but at the end of the day, they’re getting a page on Wikipedia. They’re getting listed in a very exclusive website that only a fraction of businesses get listed on. The Wikipedia Club is a very exclusive club.

I like the writing style, because it’s very meditative and bland. I like the structure, the manual of style, the fact that there are all these little rules and conventions and policies on absolutely everything. The part of Wikipedia that the public see—that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

It’s rare now to see something on the internet that is the result of this kind of consensus, sustained purely by volunteers.

It is a rare thing. And Wikipedia is in a difficult place because it’s got all these existential threats. Governments don’t like it. If they’re not overtly trying to shut it down, they say, “Well, you can’t trust Wikipedia—it’s written by volunteers.” They’re not aware of its peer review system, the fact that we’re constantly checking each other’s work, the fact that the Wikipedia page on a corrupt politician has gone through way more editorial verification than the kind that happens at British tabloids that put out rubbish. The lengths we go to to protect the privacy of Wikipedia’s living subjects and the integrity of people…we’re not supposed to publish anything about anybody unless a reliable secondary source has already published it.

I also feel that this suspicion towards Wikipedia has something to do with authority. People are used to authority coming from one entity or person, instead of a community. How can you trust a huge, nebulous group of people?

One of my favorite essays is David Foster Wallace’s “Authority and American Usage,” [a review of a usage dictionary] in his book Consider the Lobster. He talks about that very thing. Who decides? Whoever puts themselves forward, whoever volunteers for the job—that’s who decides.

But we’re not writing anything original on Wikipedia. We’re not coming up with any original thought or conventions. We’re just taking the knowledge that’s already out there and compiling it.

Have you had clients who want a Wikipedia article specifically because Wikipedia is now a big source for AI tools?

Last year, there was a period where ChatGPT was surfacing a lot of Wikipedia results. Whether it’s always going to be that way is another question.

I’m speaking from the viewpoint of an English-speaking Wikipedian who only operates on the English Wikipedia. But the other Wikipedias—say, the Welsh Wikipedia or the Gaelic—they are the largest corpuses of those languages online. If you want to learn Gaelic with ChatGPT or whatever, there’s a chance that chatbot is basing its knowledge of Gaelic on the Gaelic Wikipedia.

What’s something you’re really proud you got on Wikipedia?

One of my first Wikipedia pages, the page for my local mountain biking trail: Eastridge Mountain Bike Trail Centre. I went out and took all the photos myself on a bike ride, and pieced it together from bits of press I found here and there.

This is so cool!

It actually caused a bit of local controversy because all the dog walkers and horse riders and boomers read this Wikipedia page and thought, “What’s this about unofficial mountain bike trails?” So they called a meeting, and the BBC showed up and reported on the “scourge of unofficial mountain bike trails” at Eastridge. That’s how the controversy section of the Wikipedia page came about.

Knowledge making new knowledge. That’s the beautiful thing about epistemology— knowledge is constantly expanding. You put knowledge out there in the form of an encyclopedia, people pick up on it, they read it, they go away, they make something new, and then that becomes knowledge. It’s like a nuclear reaction. It’s beautiful and terrifying.

📖 James’s reading list

David Sedaris: “His view of British society, the way he sees us, it’s just wonderful.” If you haven’t read him, start with Me Talk Pretty One Day.

Laurie Lee, Cider with Rosie and As I Walked Out One Midsummer Morning: Lee’s memoir of growing up in rural Gloucestershire reminds James of his own home in the Shropshire Hills, and on the latter, he says, “Every Englishman can relate to legging it to Spain.”

Etgar Keret: James discovered the Israeli writer through the indie film Wristcutters: A Love Story (based on Keret’s novella) and fell for his tiny, page-or-two-long stories.

🎧 James is also a big audiobook evangelist: “It frees up the mind to visualize things a bit more...it’s a nascent art form that hasn’t quite come into full fruition.”

What do you think will happen to projects like Wikipedia in the AI age? Message me on LinkedIn or reply to this email.

Subscribe now

I don’t remember when or how I stumbled on Loris Colantuono’s newsletter. But I kept reading because it felt like I had finally found a kindred spirit. Someone who believed that writing and strategy were equally important—and had articulate, original things to say on the topic.

So many of the startups and VCs I’ve worked with don’t understand that narrative—how you tell your business’s story—is core to their survival. Writing is strategy. When AI makes everything look the same, this is even more true.

Loris understands this intimately. He’s helped founders and leadership teams clarify the problem they solve and express it as a narrative that drives everything from sales to product development and worked with companies like Decathlon, Sephora, Mazda and Veolia.

Our conversation gets into why differentiation is overrated, why creatives have lost their seat at the decision-making table, and what AI means for anyone who defines themselves by a skill. There’s so much here—buckle up, bookmark it, bring your notebook.

• Storytelling isn’t a layer of paint, it’s the architecture. When you get the narrative right, everything else (sales, content, product) gets easier.

• Brand the problem, not the solution. In a market with 10,000 options, owning the problem is what makes you stand out.

• AI is accelerating an identity crisis for creatives. Stop defining yourself by a skill; start defining yourself by the problem you solve.

How would you describe the work you do today?

I work at the intersection between strategy and storytelling. I help founders and leadership teams clarify what problem they truly solve, then help them express that in a story that lines up with the product and the growth strategy.

When you have your narrative right, everything gets easier. Sales cycles get shorter. Content gets easier. Product development gets easier.

How did you get here?

About 10 years ago, I was studying cultural and social anthropology at university in Lausanne. My master’s thesis was about how belief systems and narratives shape the amplification and adoption of new forms of money—digital currencies like Bitcoin. I thought my ideas were interesting, and that I would be invited to discuss my ideas by people in the industry. But I had no traction, no interest.

I had ideas, but I couldn’t make people care. And an idea that doesn’t travel doesn’t exist. It’s invisible.

There were two paths to learn how to make my ideas interesting enough that people cared: become a novelist—someone who can make you read 300 pages about an idea—or go into communications and advertising. I chose advertising because I wanted to get paid, and that’s where I rapidly discovered the most powerful tool to make an idea interesting: storytelling.

How did you go from storytelling within advertising to understanding storytelling as strategy?

I don’t remember the exact moment, but I remember working with a startup in the solar tech space—the first time I’d ever worked on a startup fundraise. They were fundraising 5 million Swiss francs but were stuck at 1 million.

Their pitch was dry and very technical: “This is our amazing technology. Give us your money.” So I crafted a story about the future instead of the past: What is the context? What’s the problem? What is changing? What new market is being born? And why is this startup the best to lead that new market?

We raised 7.7 million in three weeks.

That story became more than the pitch. It was the framework for how we thought about everything: the sales funnel, the ads on Meta and the radio, branding. It was a strategy.

It’s a great example of how companies need to inspire their audience and provoke emotion, making people believe that they can go somewhere together. On the flip side, what do companies get wrong?

They think storytelling is like a layer of paint. You build your house, and then storytelling is the paint—something tactical you add at the end. That’s incorrect. Storytelling is the architecture. It’s the design of the house.

Can you give me an example?

I worked with a direct-to-consumer company. My vision was to transform them into a media brand and position them in the landscape, but they just wanted to ship more. So we created storytelling sales pages, storytelling emails, storytelling everything...

Sometimes it worked, and other times it didn’t, but they didn’t know why. Because they were just shipping. You can’t have feedback if you don’t have strategy behind it. Build your story and it will build your strategy.

This reminds me of a mistake I see many technical founders make. They think they don’t have to tell a story because their product is so great that customers will flock to them.

I think engineers need stories the most because they think the product sells itself. They also think they need to cram all the features into the narrative, like when I was doing a strategy workshop with a crypto startup recently. They wanted to talk about exchanges, payment gateways, this and that.

I asked them: do you want to propose a menu with everything? Or a recipe, where every ingredient is essential? Your recipe is your moat—you link every ingredient together to create something original. Then, they understood.

Your clients lead real lives and don’t spend all day thinking about your product like you do. They only care if there’s a good story that can change something about their life.

You mentioned originality. When I went to business school, we learned that branding and marketing was all about differentiation, which is one way of being original. But you argue that standing out is about clearly articulating the problem you’re solving.

I understood this from working with clients. When you have 10,000 products to choose from, and you try to package yours in a different way, sure, it might have a bit of impact, but only a little.

When a market is too heterogeneous, we actually perceive it as homogeneous. Too much difference is like no difference. Think of the shampoo aisle in the supermarket.

I found a beautiful solution to this: brand the problem, not the solution. You explain the problem but reframe it in your terms: “Everyone thinks this, but the real problem is this.” And when you reframe the problem, you de-position the competition and become unique.

There’s a famous story about elevators. In the mid-20th century, people found the lifts in a building too slow, so they hired lots of expensive engineers to find a solution. And then somebody said: “Maybe the problem isn’t the journey time. It’s the perception of time. What if we just put something that could accelerate the perception of time like a mirror?” That’s reframing the problem to find new solutions.

I think that this also explains why big agencies are facing such a crisis. They aren’t reframing the problem. They’re still focused on making a new brand of shampoo look a bit different from all the others.

In the old agency model, there were big clients with very clear briefs who knew what they wanted. Strategists translated the brief, and creative just executed.

But most companies don’t have a strategy. They aren’t unique. So when they come to an agency for help expressing their uniqueness, the creatives at the agency are forced to invent something artificial.

What I do now with narrative strategy is I reveal, I don’t invent. I do a bit of benchmarking on competition, but not market research. I tell founders, “You’ve been in this industry for 10 years. Your insights—what you understand from living in this industry—are more valuable than data. Forget whiteboards and brainstorming. Let’s take a moment, maybe over a glass of wine, and discuss your ideas.” Why pay massive fees for that?

When you do true branding strategy, you end up doing business strategy, because positioning is business.

How does AI affect this kind of narrative positioning?

People introduce themselves in terms of their skills: “I’m a copywriter, I’m a writer, I’m a journalist. What I do is I write.” Tomorrow that might be the wrong framing because writing—or execution in general—is perceived as cheap due to AI. Even if I don’t think you can get beautiful text from AI, perception is reality. We have to act accordingly.

So the first shift for us creatives is an identity shift: stop defining yourself by a skill, and instead identify with a problem. Obsess over a problem that you own—the hole that your clients or your audience want to get out of.

But maybe AI isn’t really changing things so much as accelerating something. In the past, creatives like us—Leo Burnett, David Ogilvy—had a seat at the executive table where decisions were made.

How did you feel that in you work?

When I was working in an agency, I didn’t speak with clients. I did a campaign for Mazda—I worked on strategy, text, everything. Then I met the CMO of Mazda Switzerland and introduced myself. “I’m the copywriter.” “Copy... what?” he replied. He was very happy with the campaign, but he didn’t know my title existed.

Creatives are not at the decision table anymore. And if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu. You will get eaten—by other people and by AI.

So creatives have to find a way to have a more strategic relationship with clients, to be invited to the table. That requires developing a more strategic mind, not just focusing on execution.

One thing that came to my mind while you were speaking was about specialization versus generalism. A lot of people say now that we need to be generalists, because execution is easy—you need to know how to pull many different things together. But while you were talking about positioning ourselves as a solver of a problem, I wonder how generalist or specific that positioning needs to be.

This is a question I struggle with myself. I would love to be a generalist, but it’s difficult because you’re a generalist in your own way. And then you have to explain to clients why your generalism is unique. I don’t like specialization either, because it bores me, and I’m not creative when I’m bored.

So I think it’s not specialization, it’s specificity. Be specific about the problem, about your methodology, and about the path you take the client through. Be clear about how you do things, and why. When you’re specific in that way, you can actually be more of a generalist.

Do you have an example of this?

I worked with a consultant who had helped independent hotels with dynamic pricing for 10 years. He had a good network and always had work, but he felt he could do something more.

So we spent a whole day together, and we realized that the real problem he’s solving isn’t about pricing. It’s that independent hotels are not really independent. They’re not part of franchises like Hilton or Marriott, but they’re dependent on big platforms like Booking.com and Airbnb.

So now, he’s developed a methodology to help hotels be really independent—or at least less dependent—on the big platforms. He’s doing more than just dynamic pricing. He’s doing branding, consulting on client onboarding—a complete ecosystem.

So paradoxically, he’s doing something more specific but less specialized. He’s hiring two people because almost all his current and past clients said yes to his offering immediately. They said: “This is our biggest problem, but nobody is talking about this.”

But then some pure skills are still important, no? I believe writing is my superpower.

A strategy or a business plan, in order to be understood and executed, has to be well written. So our skill is incredibly important, and it will be more and more important with AI. People think it’s easy to write, so they delegate their thinking—because writing is thinking.

But you have to sell that skill in a strategic way. Not just, “I will write you 10 posts on LinkedIn.” You have to sell your point of view, a proprietary methodology.

What’s interesting is that if you develop a proprietary methodology, you can then use AI to make it more accessible. You can offer simple AI tools for people who can’t afford the full service, or who just want to taste your methodology.

You could say: “Here’s my framework for writing a strategy document. Play with it on ChatGPT, but if you really want to go deeper, then come work with me.” I actually saw an executive coach do this for his end-of-year reflection document.

You just have to find the sweet spot where it’s not so easy that the user can do everything themselves—they should get maybe 70%. And if they love it, they can book a one-to-one session.

And as writers, I think we also have to raise our ambition.

Our competition is not just our competitors in the market. Our competition is the immortals—the best of the best that existed in the past. We should be trying to create work that lasts.

Resources

🔗 Subscribe to Loris’s newsletter (in French). It’s full of the kind of case studies and narrative thinking we discuss above.

📖 If Loris’s thinking resonated, revisit the original masters he references: David Ogilvy’s Ogilvy on Advertising and anything on Leo Burnett’s philosophy of finding the “inherent drama” in every product.

🧠 Try Loris’s reframing exercise on your own work: instead of describing what you do, describe the problem you solve. What changes?

When has writing helped your company’s strategy? Message me on LinkedIn or reply to this email.

Subscribe now

Every few weeks, I will be mixing up my regular interviews with some personal thoughts of my own. This week’s I’m sharing two musings: one about learning to love the blank page, the other about why writing still hasn’t been disrupted by AI. I’ll be taking a break next week while a friend visits London. See you in mid-Feb! ✨

Last week, the nature of flight schedules across the Atlantic bestowed upon me an extra day in Panama post-company offsite. I scoped out the closest place to my hotel with good coffee and grabbed my laptop, delighted to have an uninterrupted chunk of writing time alone.

Wifi off, phone away, I had the best writing session I’ve had in a while. It felt fun and effortless; the words flowed. Each sentence led me to a new idea. It was as if the blank page was a road opening up before me.

The blank page doesn’t often feel this good. It’s usually scary, an “existential crisis.” It’s why journaling is hard. And it’s why when I ask people about writing with AI, many say, “I love it because it solves the blank page problem.”

Can we please stop flogging the blank page? With the empty canvas comes infinite possibility, and the opportunity to create something completely original, outside of any template that tech could reproduce. Great writers and people who use writing to build their careers—I call them writing-first practitioners—understand this. But they also do a lot of work before they sit down at their computer to make the leap easier.

I’ve gotten a lot of questions from readers about how to get started with writing and sustain it, and it’s these pre-writing steps that make the difference and get you over the blank page hump.

Understand what your body needs

Our creativity is linked to our physical well-being. When I sat down to write in Panama, I’d done an hour hike in the morning and was riding on a wave of endorphins. I remember a former colleague and brilliant journalist at the Wall Street Journal who said she used to write better when she felt nauseous. More power to her. Ideas flow when our body is in the right state.

Give yourself time to mull

I had spent a few days turning ideas over in my mind before sitting down, so a few threads were already starting to converge. Let ideas roll around in your head, and they will subconsciously congeal.

Reading is your edge in writing

Regular reading makes writing easier. I know a top crisis comms consultant who sits down every Sunday with the physical newspapers and reads them front to back. Just by taking the time to absorb the information fully, he is putting himself ahead of his peers, many of whom only skim information now. When you take the time to fully digest articles or newsletters, you will find connections in the writing that make the things you are already munching on in your brain come together more quickly.

Input 100 to get out 1

To follow up on the above, you need a lot of input if you’re going to birth original ideas. I always characterize the ratio between the amount of things—articles, books, podcasts, conversations—I need to consume in order to produce something of quality as 100:1. Hot take: What you consume does not need to be directly related to the topic you are trying to write about.

Use routine so you can’t run away

When I was trying to post regularly on LinkedIn, I put a 30 minute hold in my diary three days a week and forced myself to squeeze something out in those times. Currently, I try and reserve at least three, two-hour writing sessions in my diary a week. Putting those in my diary on Sunday evening is one of my personal KPIs.

Thinking and writing are a muscle. You need to stretch it before working out!

Final thoughts on writing and disruption

Can someone please tell the people unloading software shares this week because Anthropic released some plugins to just chill? The core of my job—extracting ideas from brilliant people and turning them into compelling narratives—remains stubbornly un-AI-ifiable. Most knowledge work involving original thought hasn’t been disrupted yet.

AI works brilliantly for templatable tasks like routine emails or LinkedIn posts where “good enough” has clear parameters. Codifying how a specific person thinks and sounds, or my editorial taste, on the other hand, is still near impossible.

Tech companies keep missing the mark. They’re trying to “solve” the blank page problem I just spent several paragraphs celebrating. A great AI-powered writing product would give room to roam, not rails. It would understand that the discomfort of starting is part of the creative process.

To truly disrupt writing, a tool also needs seamless integrations. In the past few weeks, I’ve developed newfound respect for Grammarly, which has spent years nailing hundreds of micro-decisions with near-perfect precision and manages to seamlessly integrate into any page on your browser. When I use Claude to write and edit, I still have to open a new window next to Google Docs.

The tools are coming. Coding has been disrupted. But I hope AI labs don’t just chase the easy wins—building for developers because the workflows are clearer and the revenue is obvious. Writing tools that actually work will require understanding writers’ actual needs and workflows, not just applying the coding playbook. I think we can confidently say writing has been disrupted when something dethrones Google Docs. I’ve seen promising experiments (you know who you are!), but we’re nowhere close.

How much of your job has been disrupted by AI? What parts of your job do you think can be automated? Which require judgment? Message me on LinkedIn or reply to this email.

Subscribe now

So far, this newsletter has mostly concerned itself with people who write for an audience: wealth managers for clients, priests for congregations, journalists for readers. But equally important is the writing we do only for ourselves.

I have many dogeared notebooks at home, the contents of which are highly correlated with whether or not “shit was going down” in my life at the time that I filled them. Definitely not for public consumption. They did, however, help me process things.

That’s why I was excited to speak with Berlin-based Meera Innes, a writer and facilitator using journaling as a tool to help people connect more deeply with themselves—and show up more fully for their communities. We discussed her transition from tech, feeling strange calling herself a “writer” when she had mostly been writing for herself, and why journaling is the easiest form of self-care to avoid.

I’m traveling to Panama this week for work, and I have a notebook tucked in my bag with some of Meera’s prompts (see the bottom of this newsletter) jotted down.

• Journaling is a difficult, but rewarding form of self-care. You might be able to spend a yoga class distracted, but you can’t avoid yourself on the page. Because journaling can be daunting, Meera starts people with freewriting.

• The more deeply connected we are to ourselves, the more deeply we can connect to one another. Even if our notebooks are just for us, journaling translates to a richer life off the page.

• People are craving experiences and communities off their screens. Meera predicts journaling will become a more important practice, and notes that people at her workshops love to stay and connect even after the pens are down.

Transition from tech to writing

Tell me about your career and how you came to writing.

I’ve been working in tech and startups for a long time—over a decade at this point. Eight years ago, I moved into VC with a focus on organizational health and cultural development, with a view to supporting founder mental health.

Ironically, I had a huge burnout. I was trying to support other people, but I didn’t have any support. There’s something I always say about working in tech: every startup is a Neverland, and every startup looks for a Wendy to take care of the Lost Boys. Usually that Wendy caretaker role gets assigned to a woman by default, whether or not she’s in a leadership position. I leaned into that role fully, but I wasn’t thinking about what I needed.

Then I started freelancing for Google for Startups—that’s when I got into writing full time. It took me a long time to start writing professionally because I brought it as a skill set to all my work until then, but it was just something I did. It didn’t occur to me to take it seriously as a professional avenue.

I’ve always had a narrator in my head. Now, through a neurodivergent lens, I understand that was maybe my brain’s way of helping me process—by explaining everything to me the same way I would read a book. So storytelling has always come naturally to me—everything happening around me was always a story.

I also have a narrator in my head, too. I met someone recently who does not have one, and it freaked me out! So you had always written but it took a while for you to accept that your job was writing.

When I started freelancing, I didn’t call myself a writer. Then I asked a friend of mine for advice—he’d been through a major career shift—and he said, “Well, the first thing you have to do is start calling yourself a writer, because no one’s going to employ you until you do.”

It can feel like such a lofty title.

Up until that point, I was just writing for me. Whenever I introduced myself as a writer, people asked me if they may have read something I’d written, and I had to reply, “Well, nothing, but I’m still a writer.” A lot of what I’ve written hasn’t seen the light of day. So it felt really presumptuous to call myself a writer when there are certain ideas attached to that—expectations I was afraid I couldn’t live up to.

Journaling as a career

I can totally understand this. I feel strange calling myself a novelist when my novel hasn’t been published, but calling myself that forces me to step up and believe in myself. How did you go from freelance writing to becoming a journaling coach?

When my freelance work was wrapping up, I was asking myself a lot of questions, catalyzed by world events of the past two years: How did we end up here? How have we descended into such violence and lack of compassion, lack of humanity? What did we lose that made us so disconnected?

I think tech has a lot to do with that, especially social networks. It’s created all these pockets in this vast online universe where we can supposedly find like-minded people, but all it’s doing is creating more division. Instead of working in tech, I wanted to spend my life exploring what it is to be human.

My theory is that the more deeply connected we are to ourselves, the more deeply we can connect to one another. We have to take more responsibility for ourselves before we can think about taking responsibility for the collective. For me personally, journaling has been the best way to do that. There are other ways—I’m not saying journaling is the cure-all—but it’s what I know how to do. It’s the contribution I can make.

How long have you been journaling?

Just over 10 years, I think. It started as a form of self-interrogation because I wanted to understand myself better.

I have also used tools like meditation and breathwork, but I found they keep me inside myself. They aren’t for externalizing and examining. Putting it on the page is like getting a box of puzzle pieces, dumping it out, then sorting through everything so I can more clearly see the picture.

You’ve said that we’re all good writers. Why do you believe that?

For me, the most important aspect of being a writer is having your own voice. It’s not about skill, it’s not about vocabulary. It’s: how clearly and simply can you articulate what it is that you’re trying to say? As soon as we start overthinking it, we’ve already lost it.

When a friend of mine lost her mum, she wrote a really lengthy caption about who her mum had been and what her mum had been to her. It was so beautiful because she felt so strongly and clearly about her mum—she knew exactly what she wanted to say.

That’s what I think makes a good writer—when we tap into what we feel most strongly about and what we have the most clarity about. It doesn’t matter who challenges us on it. That’s how we feel.

Journaling feels like a way to let go of that overthinking. There are no expectations.

Yes, in theory. But one of the reasons I started this is because people are so uncomfortable about journaling. They find it really daunting to sit with themselves, express themselves, and see themselves mirrored back on a page.

It’s the easiest self-care practice to avoid, even harder than meditation and breathwork. We can numb and self-soothe with other practices, but we can’t avoid ourselves on the page. Writing is literally black and white.

The actor Dax Shepard did a podcast episode a few years back on breaking his sobriety, because that’s a cornerstone of his brand and identity. He said looking back, the first sign that he was relapsing was that he stopped his daily journaling practice. This had been his personal accountability tool, but at some point he thought he didn’t need it anymore. He stopped holding himself accountable.

Getting started with journaling and growing in your practice

How do you help people get started?

The very first tool I use is freewriting, because it helps build that muscle of writing without thinking. The idea is to take the judgment and the criticism and the thinking out of the writing process. Every single thing that comes into your brain—put it straight on the page and don’t stop.

A lot of people feel pressure to write something meaningful or profound. I’m like, “It doesn’t have to be remotely profound. It can be the most mundane stream of consciousness. You can talk about your breakfast. You can talk about how you slept. You can talk about the fact that your foot’s falling asleep right now.” Observe the sounds happening around you.

The amazing thing is that usually, when you’re in that flow of just talking about absolutely nothing without overthinking, something meaningful does filter through. Something that was buried suddenly surfaces, and then you can write through that.

How do you help people progress from there?

If I’m working one-on-one with people, we usually talk through a situation they’re in or a goal they’re working towards, and I use very prescriptive prompts. This is where I rely on my intuition to know which questions are going to take us a little bit deeper into surfacing whatever might be holding them back from answers.

I emphasize that I don’t have any answers for anyone. We all have our own answers. What I do is provide the questions and hold the space to help you dig deeper into those answers.

What are some prompts that you use to get people started?

I’ll share one of my favorites. I tell a story about my best friend who went on a date and got stood up. She was telling her best friend about it, and her best friend was like, “Why are you even surprised? You’re not pretty. He wouldn’t have found you attractive. You’re boring, you’re not a good conversationalist.”

People are shocked when I say that, “What a shit friend,” they say. And I say, “What if I told you that was actually her talking to herself?” The things we say to ourselves, we would never, ever say to another person. Why is it that we have different standards for talking to ourselves versus our friends?

Then the prompt is: think about a situation you’re in right now and write about it in the encouraging and supportive voice of your best friend or someone who really loves you. What would they tell you?

That’s often a very emotional practice for people. We realize that the compassion and support that we don’t show ourselves usually was there all along and is easy to access when we’re thinking about it through someone else’s lens.

Do you have a special notebook or pen that you like?

I like soft, paper-bound notebooks that I can just throw into a coat pocket. My journals get really beat up because I use them constantly. Moleskine do these great skinny, paper-bound ones that you can buy in packs of three.

I don’t buy myself nice journals, but for the last couple of Christmases and birthdays, a good friend of mine has been buying me these Louis Vuitton notebooks. The pages are monogrammed and so beautiful.

For pens, I always use the Pentel EnerGel. They come in lots of different colors and you can buy refills for them. I really like the burgundy one—I sort of switch between black, brown, and burgundy.

People looking for analog experiences and community

How do you feel being an entrepreneur in this space in 2026? To many people, what you’re doing might look really risky—and brave.

It feels early, but I’m used to feeling like this. When I first moved to Berlin eight years ago and was talking about founder mental health, no one was talking about it here yet, though it was a big conversation in Silicon Valley.

I feel like that’s happening again now. I can see how important journaling is going to be as a tool. Fortunately, when I really believe in something, I find it easy to commit to. But there’s a lot for me to learn as well.

You must also get good feedback from the workshops you’ve been doing.

Bringing these communities together has been so meaningful. Afterwards, people always stay for an hour and a half or so and talk to the people they were journaling with—people they’ve never met before.

I’ve been doing some informal writing groups to stay accountable, and the same thing happens. People stay, talk about what they’re writing, and it naturally becomes a support group. People are craving this.

Exactly. That’s where it’s going. People are going to crave more cultural spaces where there’s no screens, where you can’t replicate the experience on a screen.

A lot of people are not rejecting tech per se, but trying to look beyond it. I think what we’re going to find when we look beyond it—it’s going to be a homecoming. We’re going to come back to ourselves.

This is one of the reasons why I’ve started this journaling initiative. I think we will see a return to analog, and when we do, being able speak for ourselves from a place of connection is going to be an incredibly important tool to have.

✨ Meera’s recommended prompts

• When was the last time you screamed? If the urge has been heavy lately, I invite you to do it on the page. Take a freewriting approach to releasing any tension you’ve been internalising. Don’t worry whether it’s valid, what anyone else thinks, or how it sounds—we’re going for pure catharsis here, so let loose. And for goodness sake, don’t mind your language. Just unleash; stop when you run out of steam.

• How was your 2026? We’re going to fast-forward to a rearview. They say hindsight is 20/20—today, let’s make it 2026. Start by dating your page [today’s date], 2027 and then reflect on this year as if it already happened. What does your best 2026 look like? What are the challenges you can anticipate—and how would you approach them accordingly? This practice is a great shortcut to clarity we didn’t know we already had.

• Reflect on the events of the past week. As you do so, observe your voice. Is it neutral? Or is it critical? If you observe an inner critic, be curious. Is it yours? Is it true? As you go about your day, put some distance between yourself and the voice every time it comes up. Make witnessing it a daily practice; note your observations regularly and see if your experience changes with your lens.

For more, check out Meera’s IG.

Thank you for reading! Do any of you have journaling practices? Favorite prompts? Anyone prefer a computer for journaling? Message me on LinkedIn.

Subscribe now

One of my long-term “investment theses” is what I call writing-first practitioners: individuals who use consistent public writing to sharpen their thinking, build networks, and attract opportunity.

AI makes content creation trivially easy (have you looked at your LinkedIn feed recently?). But the discipline and original thinking required to write well will only increase this archetype’s competitive edge. It’s hard to fake.

Wealth manager Jan Voss started posting his takes on LinkedIn in 2023 and grew from a few thousand to 20,000 followers. Now he runs Cape May, a wealth management firm for single family offices in Germany, and his newsletter is core to how he builds his brand and wins clients.

We talked about what it takes to make writing work for your business—and how words and insights can help you punch above the Goldman Sachs and JPMorgans of the world.

• You don’t have to invent a framework to own it. Jan’s most impactful pieces have been about an investing framework he didn’t create, but by writing about it consistently, he’s become synonymous with it.

• Transparency can be a powerful competitive tool. By sharing knowledge openly, you give potential clients a ruler to measure their existing advisors against. You might just come out ahead.

• You don't need to write a magnum opus. Share a Bloomberg article with your take. As long as it's your opinion and view, people will listen.

• Build on rented land, then move. Start on LinkedIn or X to build an audience, then migrate them to a platform you control and where your posts have staying power.

Q: How did you start writing?

I’ve always read a lot, but my first attempts at writing were in 2021-2022 when I started posting articles on LinkedIn that I found interesting.

Then in 2023, I made the move from being a head of family office into self-employment. I knew that when I was trying to reach and work with clients, I would need materials. I could prepare materials in advance and let them sit in a drawer, or scramble to prepare everything ad hoc before meetings—neither felt efficient. Good ideas need time to ripen.

So I figured—why not just write about what our clients find interesting, what I find interesting, and share it with the public on LinkedIn? Luckily in 2023, the LinkedIn algorithm still really liked that. I saw explosive growth in my follower numbers—from 1,500-2,000 followers to almost 20,000. People wanted to hear what I had to say.

But the LinkedIn algorithm, like any social media algorithm, changes. 2023 was a very good year, 2024 was a very bad year. I started to realize I was hitting limits there.

The issue is that social media is so fast-paced and there’s so much content, so stuff that I wrote more than two weeks ago is essentially gone forever. Even my most loyal readers don’t see everything I post on LinkedIn. So I needed a place where I could start writing long-form content, where these posts have staying power.

That’s when, in the beginning of 2024, I decided to turn this into a newsletter, and it’s slowly evolved ever since.

Q: How many subscribers do you have? Or are numbers even your focus?

Right now I’m at about 2,200, which compared to other newsletters may feel small. But this is a niche publication, since we focus on affluent investors with net worths in the millions, and when I look into the subscriber list, some of the most famous, well-known investors and individuals in Berlin and elsewhere are on there.

I think the underlying metrics—how much AUM [assets under management] is reading this newsletter, or how many people are taking the time to read this newsletter again and again—have a bit more depth than just the subscriber figure.

Q: How has long-form writing and the writing you did on LinkedIn helped you push your thinking forward as an investor and wealth manager?

One thing that’s been very interesting is—and this is probably some sort of selection bias—the people we work with really like this idea that they can take the time and sit down and read one of these posts to understand something better.

I call it “Finance 201” as opposed to “Finance 101.” There are a lot of sources out there about “how should I buy my first ETF?” But when you evolve past that—“How do I optimize my ETF portfolio? Should I invest into private equity? How do I build the perfect venture capital portfolio?”—there are very few resources. And the banks and GPs that have this knowledge are not very willing to share it publicly unless you work with them.

Being willing to share this knowledge has resonated well. We don’t want to be gatekeepers to the secrets of investing.

There are probably some people out there who take these recommendations and don’t reach out to us because it’s enough for them. But a much larger group reaches out saying, “I’m not going to put this into action myself. Can you help me?”

Q: I felt this kind of gatekeeping behavior in venture capital as well, when actually the benefits you get from transparency can be far more beneficial for your brand.

It also provides people with a benchmark: How do I work with a wealth manager? When should you not work with a wealth manager? People use our insights as the ruler with which they measure their existing relationships. And very often, we come out well in this comparison against many of the banks.

Q: What themes or individual pieces have really resonated—things that people reference time and time again?

It’s definitely the Aspirational Investor Framework.

To preface a little: Today, when you go to a bank for help managing your wealth, they ask, “How are you feeling today— Conservative, moderate, aggressive? Do you want private equity or not?” And they give you a model portfolio. That’s a good approach—we do this too. But if you’re not a pension fund or insurance company, it’s hard to think about how this translates to you, the human behind the portfolio.

When I started out, I didn’t just want to focus on these very stiff asset allocation models. I wanted to find something more approachable. And I found the Aspirational Investor Framework, which is not my invention—although funnily enough, some people think so—but was invented by the former chief investment officer of Merrill Lynch Wealth Management.

He was focused on “goals-based investing”—not just “How much do you want to invest in hedge funds?” but “What are you trying to achieve with all of your investments? How much of a safety buffer do you need? How much money do you need for retirement?” And he then translated this into a portfolio for clients.

I’ve written about this many times on LinkedIn and in the newsletter, and somehow this has been my most lasting impact on this German wealth scene. I meet clients who hadn’t met me before but who have read about the framework and implemented it.

There’s a group of entrepreneurs here, all with high double-digit net worths who meet up once a quarter to show each other their portfolios and discuss what’s going well, what’s not. Because of my writing, they’ve also made it one of their steps to outline their portfolios according to this Aspirational Investor Framework.

It’s starting to propagate itself without my involvement—people tell their friends about it.

Q: That’s when you know a story or a narrative is powerful—when other people tell other people about it. What’s your writing process? How much time do you spend per week on the newsletter?

It depends on the week. Writing the newsletter, getting it polished, and turning it into a longer LinkedIn post—probably takes a maximum of four hours on a good week.

But a friend pointed out to me: “Maybe the process takes you four hours, but you’re probably spending half of your time reading articles anyway, or listening to podcasts at the gym.” That’s probably true. It’s a bit hard to measure.

Q: Do you use AI in your writing at all?

Very little so far, but I am trying to use it more. I don’t want to get to the point where I use it to write newsletters. People want to read human thought. They want to know what we think and how we’ve applied things in practice.

But I want to use it to refine the process—maybe using it as a writing coach, checking if I’m missing anything, helping me think about how I can use this content elsewhere, such as reusing it as a white paper. That’s one of my to-dos for this year.

Q: Many people ask me how to get started writing. What would you recommend?

I often see people get started, spend a week writing the perfect LinkedIn post, get like three likes, and give up. But writing is tough in the beginning, and it takes time to build an audience. Just like with anything in life—whether it’s going to the gym or getting into a new hobby—you just need to commit to it for a certain amount of time and stick with it.

One thing I’ve learned is that it has to be the right balance of quantity and quality. You don’t need to write massive blog posts. In the end, people value your original thought. It can be as simple as sharing an article on LinkedIn with your take. This is what I was doing back in 2023—taking Bloomberg articles and sharing my spin. Do I agree with it? Why do I think this one transaction might set precedent for something else? That really helped me build a brand.

Get started on any of these platforms—whether it’s LinkedIn or X—and start building a following there. Once you have an audience, try to bring them onto another platform where people are more captive to you, whether it’s Beehiiv, Substack, or any of these other tools.

Q: It’s so cool to see how far you’ve come in not a very long period of time!

Three years to overnight success, right? It really has helped with brand building and thought leadership. It’s cool when I walk into a conference and somebody says to me, “I love your newsletter,” and I have no idea who that person is.

I’m always surprised when people reach out to us saying, “I don’t need what Goldman or JPMorgan are saying, I like what you have to say.” We’re punching above our weight. Now we need to make sure that we can satisfy the expectations we’ve set by putting ourselves out on the internet.

📚 Jan’s reading list:

Finance and investment

• Matt Levine (Money Stuff)—“The absolute star. He’s made a living out of taking very complex financial matters and turning them into something people enjoy reading daily.”

• Road to Carry (penewsletter.com)—A private equity newsletter that finds the sweet spot between entertainment and business. “His last issue was about how a PE fund did a roll-up in bail bonds in the US—a business model I didn’t even know existed.”

• Sven Lorenz (Undervalued Shares)—“An icon in the value investing community.”

Writing

• Snow Leopard: How Legendary Writers Create A Category Of One—One of Jan’s two go-to recommendations for anyone asking how to get started with writing.

• The Art and Business of Online Writing: How to Beat the Game of Capturing and Keeping Attention—His second recommendation for aspiring writers. On finding an audience, building a process, and what to focus on.

  ---

Know a writing-first practitioner I should talk to? Do you consider yourself one? Reach out to me on LinkedIn.

Subscribe now

🧱 AI is a powerful tool without a defined use case. Use ChatGPT…but to do what? Creatives are finding out. They're poking at AI, asking what it can really do—and whether we should be afraid.

🎭 One of them is renowned theater director Natalia Korczakowska, who is artistic director of STUDIO teatrgaleria, one of the most important experimental theatre spaces in Poland.

⚪️ Her work, AlphaGo_Lee. Theory of Sacrifice, developed in collaboration with Google DeepMind, reconstructs the 2016 match between DeepMind’s AlphaGo program and Korean Go champion Lee Sedol. AI had already long bested the best chess players at the time, but Go was a far harder problem. AlphaGo’s victory represented a historic moment that once again shifted the balance between human and machine. Natalia talked to me about the inspiration behind the piece and her views on AI.

Takeaways from our conversation:

• The blank page is the point, not a pain point. Go is art because because two players create something from an empty board, and Natalia argues that struggle is where magic happens. When AI does it for you, you lose the friction that drives creativity.

• We need new definitions of evil for the AI age. Natalia used Gemini to help craft the play’s final monologue—a journalist trying to define evil after witnessing AlphaGo’s victory. The AI suggested “efficiency” as the new face of evil.

• Theatre can disarm dangerous tools. Natalia treats the stage as a laboratory for examining technologies that are risky in real life.

The match as spectacle

Q: How did you come across the AlphaGo match and why did you want to explore it through art?

One of the topics in my work is control and power. My fear is that these tools can be used to censor art and to control it. Art needs to be free to exist—creativity itself is, by definition, crossing borders and norms. I was looking for a performative way to analyze that.

Every time people talk about the history of AI, the AlphaGo match is the Holy Grail moment for the industry. I had an intuition that if I reconstructed this particular match in theater, it would be a metaphor for much more than just the game.

For me, this game was like a public execution of the image of the hero in a tragic sense, executed before the eyes of the crowd. A similar structure exists in Guy Debord’s book The Society of the Spectacle. These things fascinate me.

[DeepMind CEO] Demis Hassabis was a chess player before he started working on AI, and, through Parmy Olson’s book Supremacy, I learned that [Google co-founders] Sergey Brin and Larry Page used to play Go at Stanford. Then there was this brilliant idea for AI to beat the brightest human mind in a huge media spectacle as a demonstration of power in the AI market. The event was watched by 200 million people, and was organized at the Four Seasons hotel in Seoul, which is basically a temple for the richest people in the world.

For Page, it was an opportunity to get back into China. [Google] had been thrown out because they didn’t agree to cooperate with the government on censorship, and they desperately wanted back in.

In Demis Hassabis, I see a figure reminiscent of Odysseus in Greek tragedy, a diplomat who creates this kind of mega-spectacle, which is the symbolic execution of human intelligence. It echoes what James Lovelock wrote in his book Novacene; before this match we were in the Anthropocene, and after, we entered the Novacene—an epoch in which we humans are no longer the strongest intelligence on Earth, and we need to give up and let AI lead us, trusting the big tech companies.

As a leader of STUDIO teatrgaleria in Warsaw, I feel the crisis of the art market. The institutions that used to be places for art to flourish are very corrupt. It’s hard to find something truly powerful in the modern art market, and the audience is looking for other forms of art. Just as the street art and digital art was a way for art to free itself from institutions, for me, Go is similar—living outside institutions. I was obsessed both with Go itself and the whole political spectacle happening in the background.

AI's double edge

Q: You talked about AI as something that can exercise power, control, and censorship—how does this happen in practice?

AI is a technology, a tool. You can use it in a good way or a bad way.

In theater, there’s hope that digital art in general, including AI, can serve the way electricity did in the 1930s when Bertolt Brecht, the experimental German artist and playwright, changed theater. When electricity was introduced, Brecht accidentally directed the light towards the backstage, so the machinery became visible. Then he directed it toward the actor, and the actor became this shining, not-realistic person. That’s when he had the brilliant idea of the “alienation effect,” which changed our work as directors and artists from creating an imitation of reality to creating something which is art. Theater is no longer a mirror of reality but a critical part of reality.

My hope is that digital arts, including AI, can be this kind of game changer, because they can open our perspective. But there are negative things, too. AI makes it possible to generate a lot of bullshit—a lot of fake art that pretends to be art, a lot of imitation. It’s difficult to see authentic art in a trashy field of pieces that pretend to be art but aren’t. It creates confusion and crisis.

Second, AI makes it easier to censor artists if they’re saying things that contradict your political narrative. Censorship is a huge danger for us. It always was, and now it’s coming back.

One of your questions was about how my Polish background is crucial here. My father, who was a songwriter, used to tell me about the censorship during the Communist regime and how they tried to deal with it. Now, I see censorship coming back.

Q: Censorship with AI potentially creates an environment where art cannot thrive, right?

Yes, exactly. Aldous Huxley described art as sensory concerts in Brave New World—not really art, just something designed to bring you pleasure. If you read statistics about how using ChatGPT transforms the human brain, you can see another danger: people will not need art anymore because they’ll be satisfied with pretentious fakes.

I experienced it in Tokyo—I went to one of those immersive experiences, teamLab. They tell you it’s an art gallery, but it’s not. It’s just like a theme park.

The blank page problem

Q: I wanted to ask you specifically about Fabula, the experimental AI screenwriting tool that DeepMind built. I’ve also tried to work with similar tools and have had positive and frustrating experiences.

I wanted to meet and talk with the DeepMind engineers who created the AlphaGo program—or at least those who witnessed its development. Piotr Mirowski helped me with that, for which I am very grateful, as it allowed me to evaluate the program in a more realistic and honest way.

Even though the play was already finished, he asked me if I wanted to test Fabula, so, we conducted some tests during a rehearsal open to the audience at the Battersea Arts Centre in London, but none of it was included in the final play. Everything I know about the tool is from sessions with him when we worked on things together.

My observations are these: First, it’s impressive. I appreciate the engineers’ efforts. But the problem is they fed the program books about writing that are not current anymore. Theater needs to reflect the reality here and now. I think this is why they decided not to let the tool be accessible to everybody yet.

Another observation: it’s very strange that you don’t start your writing process from an empty page anymore. The empty page is a pain, but at the same time, it stimulates your creativity. It’s like how for children, being bored is the best way to become creative. You sit in front of the empty page and feel an existential crisis. You need to use all your intuition, and that’s magic.

Similarly, Lee Sedol said that the Go game is an art form because two players start from an empty board, and everything arises from nothing. It’s the creation of art between two players. In chess, you don’t start with nothing—you start with two armies that control each other. But in programs like Fabula, the empty page is eliminated. The feeling you get is that everything was already written, and you can just make changes. You enter a prompt and get a comprehensive draft of a play with scenes, characters, the answers, and the questions you want to ask the audience. You can change things through the process, but you don’t start from nothing.

Q: Tech startups always look for the pain point. But why is the blank page the pain point? It shouldn’t be the enemy.

Yes, exactly. When I traveled to Seoul, I met with KAIST Professor Chihyung Jeon, who was a witness of the match. His essay “The Alpha Human versus the Korean: Figuring the Human through Technoscientific Networks,” was one of my inspirations. My entire play is told by the AlphaHumans—starting in 2030 and reconstructing the mythological events that started a new religion.

It took Lee Sedol ten years to digest what happened at the Four Seasons. In a recent lecture at Seoul National University, he said that Go used to be a creative act between two players based on intuition. But now all players study AI moves, memorize them, and repeat them on the board.

It’s inspiring and dystopian. It’s like the King Midas story: you touch everything and it changes to gold, but then you touch your food and it changes to gold too, and you touch your daughter and she changes to gold. So you die of hunger, lonely.

Who sees whom

Q: Tell me about the structure of your piece. You also play with how the action is shown to the audience.

In my play, the audience is divided into a VIP and a regular audience. Only VIPs can see the game close-up, and the main audience can only see through screens.

The VIP audience represents those who were in the game room at the Four Seasons—big tech chiefs and their families. The main audience represents those in the ballrooms, where sportscasters gave commentary to swarms of journalists—English-speaking and Korean-speaking, and the 200 million watching on screens. That’s the structure of power: who sees whom, who controls whom.

Redefining evil

Q: What does this match tell us about the future of humanity?

The reconstruction of the match wasn’t merely about the game of Go, but about everything. AI experts estimate a 30% risk of human extinction caused by AI. It’s like they’re entering your home, putting a gun to your child’s head, and playing Russian roulette.

I had an amazing two-hour chat with the chief of the Chess Forum in New York City after entering thinking to buy a Go game for myself. He told me that to this day, on Wall Street, they test if someone has the potential to become a big manager by playing games with them. In American companies, they play chess; in Japanese ones, they play Go. In his opinion, the AlphaGo match was testing tools for the real world.

My play starts with the match in Seoul and ends with a scene where a character inspired by Peter Thiel is interrogated by a journalist, and we realize this is all about testing tools to sell them for real war. The truth is they use the same system of algorithms to create autonomous weapons already used in Gaza.

At the end of the play, the journalist watches AI’s victory on the screen at the airport, with big tech companies celebrating. We can read her thoughts as she waits for her flight, trying to put this intense, emotional, exhausting experience together into a new idea of evil.

Q: And you worked on that moment with Google Gemini?

Yes, that’s the main example of how I’ve used AI as a creative tool for writing.

I described the scene: the journalist, a modern version of Hannah Arendt, coming back from the match and looking for a new definition of evil. Hannah Arendt created the idea of “banality of evil” by observing the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem. I started feeding Gemini different inspirations: the legend of the Grand Inquisitor from the Brothers Karamazov, The Society of the Spectacle by Debord, Discipline and Punish by Foucault.

I got some material, worked on it, gave it back, and went back and forth like that. I loved it. The system suggested the idea of “efficiency” as the new definition of evil in the digital age. I love the perversion of working with AI to create a new definition of evil; we need to change our definitions given these tools.

But to do this, you need to create the character based on Hannah Arendt and know her books. You need to know all the other books I mentioned—classic books that are critiques of power structures—and guide the AI precisely to get what you want.

And I didn’t copy and paste what I got—I wrote it. Gemini, in this context, was like a perfect digestion tool. It read a lot of stuff and concepts and digested it, which sped things up.

But it was so inspiring. I remember very well the moment I was considering whether to take on AI as the topic of my play. I had this feeling of exhaustion: “Oh my god, you middle-aged woman, you need to learn all these new tools. Why?” But I went through the Driving Innovation with Generative AI course at MIT, all these books, travels, entering DeepMind, testing tools, Seoul…everything. At the end, I had this moment of awe. For me, the final monologue is precisely that.

Q: Do you really feel that the ideas you got from working with Gemini are really new? Do you think it pushed you?

Yes, absolutely. To understand AI and our new epoch, we need new definitions of basic philosophical questions. One of the most basic is the definition of evil. Should we keep the old definition, or should we redefine it so we can better understand what’s happening and where the dangers are?

Q: Do you think you’ll use AI in the future? You had this experience with Gemini where you had a specific goal—redefining evil while working on a play about AI, so the tool fit perfectly. Would you try to recreate this process?

It’s very hard to answer because it’s all very fresh, and I need to digest the experience properly. I had a lot of doubt when I started using it, but I’m very happy that I did. I treat theater and playwriting as a space to play with tools that are dangerous in reality, but when you put them on stage, you can disarm them.

Want to deepen your study? Here is a compilation of some of the resources that informed Natalia’s work:

📚 Books: Supremacy by Parmy Olson | Novacene: The Coming Age of Hyperintelligence by James Lovelock | The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord | Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault | The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky (specifically the “Grand Inquisitor” chapter) | Brave New World by Aldous Huxley | Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt

✍️ Essay: “The Alpha Human versus the Korean: Figuring the Human through Technoscientific Networks” by Professor Chihyung Jeon (KAIST)

📖 Course: Driving Innovation with Generative AI (MIT)

Thank you for reading! If you were forwarded this email, join us below:

Subscribe now

Greetings from a dive bar in New York City that hosts non-stop Broadway sing-alongs from 4 p.m. into the wee hours! For this newsletter’s last edition, I am sharing some reflections on tech, media, and the micro, alongside images of some favorite memories from the past 12 months.

Reflection 1: Writing is still hard—and AI can’t fix this

This year reminded me again that good writers are hard to find, and poor writing is often more a problem of logic than anything else. Generative AI text-generation tools may be able to help with the simple generation of prose, but given that they are probability machines, they cannot solve the logic issue.

I recently edited an article that opened with a hypothetical anecdote about a company firing one of its software vendors. The descriptive and gripping anecdote was precisely the kind of spice needed to make an article about software sales compelling. But it didn’t work.

I finally realised it was because the anecdote was written from the point of view of the customer, while the article was written for software vendors. Once this misalignment was fixed, it flowed. AI did not—and could not—have caught this.

The good news is that this means the arbitrage still exists for what I call “content-edge individuals”—people who use writing to build an edge in their industry. I’ve profiled a few of those individuals here, such as investor Sarah Drinkwater and founder David Jarvis.

What I’m watching ahead:

AI will make content-edge individuals more valuable, not less. In venture, AI is commoditizing data processing and pattern recognition. When everyone has those capabilities, your personal network and the access it provides become the real differentiator. Not only does writing help you clarify thinking, it helps you build your network.

Reflection 2: More media fragmentation; find your tribe

Commoditized news and journalism financed by digital advertising are taking their last breaths. We’ll continue to see a bifurcation between large, general news outlets (I believe only 4-5 large ones will eventually survive in English) and niche publications run by journalists, but also commentators, creators, and influencers.

This makes media relations a lot more difficult for all but the biggest companies, so I have been counseling founders and investors to leverage those niche communities through collaboration.

One caveat: production quality matters. Many of these smaller outlets don’t have the polish of traditional media. I’ve seen VC tie-ups with emerging creators where the poor production—bad lighting, rough audio—actually hurt the VC’s brand. My advice: if you’re partnering with a newer publication, offer to cover production costs. A good studio and proper equipment benefit both sides.

What I’m watching ahead:

As traditional media fragments, companies will have to deliver their message themselves. That makes me bullish on LinkedIn despite the slop. Substack still feels creative, but watch for it to turn corporate as comms teams discover it. Nike already launched on Substack earlier this year.

Also, if you want to make some money, become a B2B software influencer on YouTube in 2026. YouTube videos are strong feeders for citations in LLMs, so companies want to place their stories there. Plus, few traditional media outlets cover B2B SaaS from a product angle anymore.

Reflection 3: Good times continue

I had lunch with GW this week, who works in the energy industry and has attended a few data center conferences this year. He described a two-day blowout that included a golf tournament, a boat party…and only six hours of actual content. How can I get a ticket?

The debt financing these blowouts and buildouts has started to raise alarm bells, but the party is likely to continue for a while because there’s demand and revenue to justify loans. Whether these are good assets is a question for later.

Meanwhile, the real signal for AI’s value isn’t infrastructure—it’s usability. And usability doesn’t depend on billions in data center spend. It also doesn’t depend on models that are that much better than they are now. It starts with individuals: people figuring out how to make these tools actually work for them, day to day.

Prediction

Natural language was supposed to democratize AI, but prompting is still counterintuitive, and most people don’t have the skills to work with agents. When do we get truly intuitive and simple ways for people to automate their work? I mean as simple as buttons.

Reflection 4: Where the real story is

I have over-indexed on interviews with women in this publication for obvious reasons. This focus has revealed an important but overlooked trend: more women, even those who might not have seen themselves as entrepreneurs, using AI to scale themselves and their businesses.

Since I started working in venture in 2018, people have been talking about how the tools to build a business were cheaper than ever. Now, I feel like the cost of building has been truly leveled with tools like Claude Code and Loveable. Will we see any VCs with “women vibecoding” theses? I wish!

The interviews here have also given me something else: inspiration. Creatives like games translator Lucile Danilov are advocating for themselves in a world that has devalued creativity and quality. These are the stories I want to continue to follow in 2026.

Thank you to everyone who sent me comments and thoughts—I love hearing from you. Gratitude to Thomas, James, Éanna, Anisah, Olly, Kim, Anais, Matt, and all the others who looked at drafts or helped me brainstorm.

I will pick back up again in early January after some much-needed rest!

Subscribe now

UK graduates are facing the toughest job market since 2018. Desperate US job seekers are applying to flag traffic in the hot sun.

AI has taken a lot of the blame for the tough jobs market as tools like ChatGPT have turned job applications into a volume game. The number of applications on LinkedIn has risen 45% on year—or a shocking 11,000 applications per minute. 42% of respondents to a recent survey blamed AI directly for their loss of trust in hiring.

As usual, I went looking for the writing angle…and found Kathryn Hall. She is a board member of the British Association of CV Writers—an organisation that tests and certifies writers of the document we all hate updating—and a career coach and CV writer herself. Kathryn has spent three decades in HR and retail management and set up her own coaching business in 2019. Since then, she’s reviewed hundreds of CVs.

The Takeaway:

• We’d like to blame our applications disappearing into the void on some AI conspiracy—bots scanning our CVs and spitting them back out. But “there is no bot,” Kathryn says. We’re still writing for humans.

• This matters beyond CVs. Slop is everywhere. But the end reader—whether it’s a recruiter, a client, or your newsletter subscriber—can tell when something was written for them versus at them. Clarity, specificity, and a voice that sounds like you put you at the top of the pile.

One of the questions that keeps coming up from my readers is: What about writing CVs? Despite all the tech in the world, this document endures. This is how I came to the BACVW and to you. How did you start your business after many years in HR?

When I had my little boy, I decided to take a career break because I didn’t want to put him into nursery full-time. My husband is self-employed too, so it would have meant juggling childcare from Sunday night to Saturday morning. But when he was about three, I wanted to go back to work, but not full-time employment.

A couple of people I knew were looking for roles. I thought, “Let’s try the CV thing.” I helped them, they got jobs, and I thought, “Maybe I could do this.” That was how the business started. I haven’t looked back since.

How are you seeing AI impact your job, CVs, and LinkedIn?

I am starting to see CVs coming through that are AI-created, and I can spot them from a mile away: the sentence formation, the use of obvious words like “spearheaded” and “championed.” They’re bland. They don’t tell the story.

That said, there’s no reason why you can’t use AI to help form a sentence. But you’ve got to make sure it’s got your stance.

Sometimes clients have forgotten what they’ve done, and they’ve never put it into their CV. We’re talking through things, and they go, “Oh, actually, I’ve got this example.” AI can’t catch that.

Why do you think the CV format has been so lasting, even with the rise of LinkedIn and digital technology?

It gives that snapshot, that initial overview to help recruiters—whether internal or agency—get an understanding. That’s why it’s been lasting.

I say to clients: it’s not about putting everything into your document. It’s about making sure what’s in there is the right level.

That first page is that golden nugget. The personal profile is the elevator pitch that says: who are you? What value can you bring to my business? It draws the recruiter to look at the next section, key skills, in which I recommend you should include an example of where you’ve demonstrated competence. This particularly helps if you have relevant experience, but it was more than 10 years ago.

By doing that, you’ve said on the first two-thirds of the first page: this is me, this is what I’ve done, and this is what I can deliver for this particular role. It’s about how you can jump out of the pile when they’ve potentially got 100-plus applications.

That’s so true. At the business school, I remember thinking: how can this top school be telling us to use this really boring CV format? [Note: Download INSEAD’s template here.] But it was exactly as you said—elevator pitch at the top, then relevant experience. They also pushed us to find a metric to quantify every accomplishment we had.

Most people don’t like selling themselves. I’m not suggesting being big and boastful—that’s not most people. But by using metrics, you can show the value you’ve added. Think about it in terms of “so what”, how have you made a difference? That’s where my career coaching comes in as well to help people arrive at those metrics.

Someone could set a career coach-esque tool in ChatGPT to get to some of those details, then feed that into your CV. But I wonder if it would catch if people are selling themselves short or what they’ve forgotten, as you’ve said.

I always recommend that people regularly track their achievements. You can do it on the Notes app on your phone, a Word document, in Excel, or in a journal.

It also helps you in your performance reviews at work. When you’re asked, “What have you delivered?”, you’ve got the examples. You can also use it to create a reflection post on LinkedIn for what you’ve done in the past month.

It’s cross-purposing it, rather than seeing your CV as one thing and internal processes as a different thing.

What’s your most controversial opinion about CVs?

There’s this whole thing about putting stuff in white font behind text because it will get picked up by a system—that doesn’t work. The majority of applicant tracking systems in the UK are used purely as what I call a ‘locker.’ When you apply for a role, it creates a little record for you with your CV so the recruiting manager can look at it.

That’s what the systems were when I was in HR, and they still are. They don’t scan your CV. There’s no bot that reads it. When you create your CV, it’s about creating it for a human.

Why is LinkedIn also important, alongside the CV?

Since COVID and cost-of-living pressures, a lot of organisations and their internal recruiters would rather do their own search on LinkedIn Recruiter rather than going to an agency that could charge up to 40% in fees. So it’s important to have a fully completed profile.

When you set up your profile, LinkedIn will just pull your job title and current company as your headline. That doesn’t add any value. You’ve got 220 characters for your headline, where you can show added value. The About section is another elevator pitch that helps put you in context.

What do you think about the future for CV writers?

I think people want help from CV writers because they realize the recruitment market is complicated. If you’re not sure about your finances, you go to an accountant. If your printer’s broken, you see an IT specialist. If you don’t know how to put all your experience onto paper, you talk to someone who can help unpick it and find those golden nuggets that really help say who this individual is and what value they can bring.

Often, the job is not just about creating the document; it’s about giving confidence back to somebody. You flip the little imposter gremlin. I tell clients: you haven’t got an imposter gremlin now; you’ve got Kathryn on your shoulder with little pom-poms, cheerleading away.

Why do you think recruiting is so complicated right now?

You see all the negative narratives across social media, but it’s hard to pinpoint one thing. Recruiters have a hard job, especially external recruiters—they’re often stuck between the candidate and the business. If they’re not getting feedback from the business, it’s difficult to give candidates feedback.

I talked to a recruiter a couple of weeks ago who said, “We had 100 people for one role, and 75 of them weren’t suitable because they didn’t have the experience, right to work, or qualifications.” That’s where CVs can get missed.

You can find jobs on all the major platforms, from Indeed to LinkedIn Jobs, but always apply directly from the company page, then follow up the next day. By phoning up to say, “Can I check you’ve received my CV? When’s the closing date?”—and then following up after the closing date, you’re pushing yourself a bit more above the rest. You’re showing that you’re keen. Also, you own your data.

Any final thoughts on AI and CVs?

AI isn’t going to go away. When I first started in HR, we didn’t have systems. If we wanted to advertise a role, we had to create it and fax it to the local newspapers before a certain time on a certain day to get it into that week’s edition.

Systems have evolved. AI is just another system that’s going to do things differently. It’s about how you adapt to it—not seeing it as this big white elephant in the room. It’s about how you can embrace it without feeling like it’s going to take over your life.

CVs and career documents are about you. There’s a limit to how much that tool can help because it doesn’t have insight into you. If you use a CV writer, they will ask you the right questions to get this information there.

That personal experience still can’t be copied by a machine.

Your pathway is your pathway. You want it to be different from somebody else. Even if you’ve got similar job titles, you’re going to have different upbringings, different education, different experiences at work, different projects. It’s about pulling all of that lovely stuff into your document to say: this is what value I can bring to a business. And having that confidence to shout about it—in an honest, ethical way, so that you feel comfortable with what’s out there.

📚 Reading this week

• Write to escape your default setting

• Hiring platform CEO says talent acquisition is in an ‘AI doom loop’

• Pinterest is calling glamoretti, poetcore and scent stacking as trends for 2026

• Important piece from former Eleanot.es interviewee about how “shame—one of the deepest and most embodied human emotions—cannot be read or encoded by machines.”

• If you haven’t read that New Yorker piece about AI writing this week, you should.

🇺🇸 Will be in New York City from next week! Next week’s edition will include my takeaways and reflections from the year. Also putting on my end of year to-do after my chat with Kathryn…update my LinkedIn!

If you aren’t yet signed up, subscribe below.

Subscribe now