Latest / The Pulse of Politics / EP#12 - From Newsroom to Boardroom: Communications, Public Affairs & AI with Ursula Nötzli
Transcript
- Silvan: Politics moves faster than ever. And uncertainty is the new normal. Welcome to The Pulse of Politics, the podcast about public affairs and how to navigate an unpredictable world. Each episode brings you real cases, best practices, and a look at how AI is reshaping policy work. Let's get started. Here's your host, Sylvan. Ursula, a very well welcome to the Pulse of Politics podcast. It's a pleasure and an honor to have you with us as a guest today. Thank you for joining. Thank you, Silvan, for the invitation. Very pleased to be here. So am I. You have a lot of experience to talk about because I'm gonna introduce you with your former roles and all the things that you have already done in your career. So you are currently equity partner at Hitzelnef Schmidt Consulenten. Probably most reputable firm in Switzerland when it comes to public affairs and strategic corporate communications. But you also have a vast experience in the industry. So you're the former chief communication and sustainability officer and part of the group executive board at TX Group. You were the former head of communications at ABB Switzerland, former head of group strategic content at Crediswisse, and you also Actually, run you're the co-program director at the CAS Corporate Communications with AI and CAS for in German Strategisches Communications Management mit KI at the University of Applied Sciences in Zurich, HWZ, where we also had the pleasure of presenting our solution already. It's incredible what you have done and what experience you bring to the table. So I want to directly start sort of At the beginning of your career. You actually started your career as a business journalist before you moved into corporate communications, where then also public affairs became part of your daily work throughout. And I wonder what made you want to move from observing organizations from the outside to shaping how they communicate and engage with their environment? Because that's a very interesting shift that you did right there. Well, let's put it like that. I mean, I really love to be a journalist. I'm a very curious person, and you know you never know what to expect from the day. So that really actually is a very good match to my personality. But I started very young at the NZZ. At that time, I was just like 25 years old. And that was an extraordinary privilege, I had to say. As a young journalist, you suddenly had. Access to people you would otherwise never have met. I could ask them how their business worked, why they made certain decisions, and what they thought was going wrong. That gave me a very early understanding, in fact, of the Swiss economy and its relationship also to the politics. It really showed me a little bit what's going on behind the doors. But I couldn't really imagine. To stay a journalist or to do the same thing more or less for the next 30 or 40 years of my career. And I also really wanted to find out how it is to be in an organization, to be responsible for the decisions, to be responsible for people. Leadership was always a topic that I was very interested in. And that's why I decided very early on also. To change the side and to start within a communication department in the financial services at that time. I absolutely love that. And now you have seen all the different sides, right? You've worked across financial services in the industry, in media, now in consulting. If you look back, what has sort of stayed consistent about communications, but maybe also public affairs? across all those sectors. Is there a common denominator across all these areas that sort of holds the glue together? Yes, I think unfortunately a lot of organizations still underestimate how important it is to do a strategic communication and a strategic public affairs. They underestimate the reputation until it really becomes a problem. And I've seen that in all kinds of settings and all kinds of various organizations. Communication and also public affairs often is still treated as a service department. You know, they do our slides, they polish our messaging, they talk to the politicians, but often this is already too late. actually, you know, when you really would start early on and really have a strategy behind. I think you could do much better in many situations. Often it is actually too late when communication or public affairs really gets involved. Yeah, it's it's often like when you go to the doctor, you know it's too late. But maybe you should have started a bit earlier than going to the doctor when you're sick. But that's sometimes hard to to understand or or to get active. At the TX group, your responsibility is brought together also very different areas from communications to investor relations, public affairs, but also sustainability. So I wonder when you look back at your role there. Where do you see the strongest connection between those functions and where should they r also remain separate and not intersect too much, maybe? Well, for me, I have to really admit that was a actually a very ⁓ optimal setup. It was very effective. And you really, you know, especially all the communications and communication close functions. And were under my responsibility, so it was easy to really define one message and then obviously to prepare it properly for each audience. But like that, I could ensure that we really all speak the same language and go out to the market with one voice. And that was obviously very efficient. ⁓ for example, when you take ⁓ restructuring in a media company, that was unfortunately ⁓ the case for in the last few years. Then for employees, the immediate question are deeply personal. What happens to my job? Will I still have a job? What happens to my team? And all that kind of worries come up. And also for the politicians, especially for a media company, cutting down journalists again. That can be very ⁓ worrying. And then you had the whole discussion about journalism and democratic debate, but also it was mostly a very negative message. And then you had the investors. The investors they really care for the data, for the numbers. They want to see how your performance is. So a restructuring can also be something more positive. ⁓ so you you had one message, but you could really articulate it and formulate it very very different with the stakeholders. And that was a very big advantage. But in fact, the biggest advantage ⁓ with my role at TX Group was to be part of the executive board, ⁓ because then you really could act as I explained before on a strategic level. I mean it was part of my job to work Or to prepare the strategy for the board of directors, and that helped a lot to also influence communication already very early on. And I have to say, I mean, no matter if you are part of the exp, but to at least sit in the meetings of the exp, this is a great advantage for. ⁓ chief communication officer or also for somebody who needs to influence the politicians. That sounds so fascinating. I I absolutely am like, wow, this is so interesting. When you look at public affairs, does that same logic also apply there with the same message, but sort of prepared for the right stakeholders at the right time, I guess? Because you've worked in very different environment so to speak, right? Finance, industrial companies, media. So I wonder how does the public affairs change there depending on the industry, or is the core of public affairs the same, but you just adapt it slightly to the industry you're working in? How how do you experience that? Well, I mean the core obviously it is kind of the same, ⁓ because ⁓ especially public affairs is a lot about relationship. It's as said before about the strategy. But yeah, it is very different in in what it really is. I always would start by asking why that industry matters politically. In finance, ⁓ there is a lot about stability. ⁓ everybody wants to know, especially here in Switzerland, how do we deal with our banking? As it is a very important part of our economy. In industry, I think the discussions were more about innovation. About do we still have jobs here in Switzerland or are they all in China? Also, the the whole discussion around energy was very important. And in media, there is actually an additional aspect as for the direct democracy as we have it here in Switzerland, it plays obviously a very important role. So the media politik ⁓ is quite sensitive and quite difficult, ⁓ as on one side it is important for our democracy. On the other side, I think it is important that a media company is independent, so they have also a role to control the politician, and that made it very attractive ⁓ but also very difficult. So you see, there are very different aspects, whereas the base how you approach the work in public affairs, I think is common all over the different sectors. And you already see that there is sort of an intersection between the two worlds, right? There's the the media world or the the communication world and there's the political world, the the public affairs world. So often companies treat them as very separate entities. You have a corporate communications team, they care about the storyline when you have a a a new quarterly result that you communicate. You want to see what the media says about you, you need good relationships with the journalists. And they are usually very isolated. And then on the other side you have the public affairs teams that try to lobby and to build some influence on the political level to explain to the decision makers and the politicians why something should pass or should not pass and what it means. Where do they sort of intersect? Should they intersect at all? Should you have a more holistic approach to sort of let them work together? Or does it actually make sense because the disciplines are still quite different? To separate them and not have them too close to each other. I think it's a little bit of both sides, you know. ⁓ At the end, I think it needs to have a common goal what you want to reach with the media work but also with the public affairs work. And that's why I actually like your system de los analytics so much. It is based on the issues. And that's exactly where we need to work on from all kinds of perspectives. And you have the media, obviously, they need to deal with the issues when they come up in the press, or they need to probably also proactive and place something in the media. And the same thing the public affairs department should do in the politics. So there is really this common base. But you do it from a very different angle, let's put it like that. But I think it's not interchangeable because also your stakeholders, I mean the journalists and the politicians, they are very different. They have different responsibilities, they have different incentives, they have different ways of working. But the people handling those relationships inside a company need a shared understanding of what They really want to reach and how they can reach that. Yeah, a hundred percent. That's very, very well said. And also it it's probably the mix, right? Because what I also see in practice is then sometimes pops up on the on the media level. And if those two teams don't talk to each other, you lose a two or three month advantage because then the political team could already anticipate and say, ⁓ this is actually big on the media part. Probably it's gonna be a a become a political topic in two or three months from now. And then you have a head start compared to teams that just work in pure isolation that then only get the political business when it's actually on the agenda. So I I really like this. They both have their separate areas, but they should collaborate to get the best result for the company. Totally agree. I think that is really the best case, and that's why I also like the structure at Takes Group so much. I had the responsibility for both so I could really, you know, let's say really go through the whole process. Either it started at the media side or at the political side, but you knew there will be also ⁓ be a coverage on the other side. Yeah. I love that. Coming back to your experience at at TX Group, because you were also sitting on the on the board there, so When a company suddenly finds itself facing a politically sensitive or a reputational issue that gets dragged out in the media, what do you think that the leadership teams most often misunderstand how they should respond? Because that's then often also a board level topic, I can imagine. And with a lack of experience, some people might make the wrong call or don't know how to handle such a situation. What do they often get wrong in your experience? ⁓ I think if it's a really a reputational issue, if it's really a sensitive topic, ⁓ a lot of leadership persons, a lot of organization still treat it as an argument they need to win right at the beginning. So the first instinct is always to explain, to rationalise, that's why we have decided that and so on. But if the people are frightened, angry or directly affected, they first want to know whether you understand what it means for them. It actually triggers a lot of emotions. And I think in the first instance you really need to deal with these emotions. It's very hard to really just put out your rational arguments. ⁓ when the whole all your stakeholders are very emotional. So in my experience it is often just a apology or ⁓ yes, we understand how you feel, or a thank you, or something like that that matters most at the beginning. And obviously, as an organization, you need to stick to your facts and you need to rationalize again. But I think in the first moment this is very often difficult because there is this whole emotions in whatever happened. So I think as said, I think it is very important to show off this understanding for the people and also to listen properly. And to really take the concerns they have seriously. And yeah, afterwards, obviously, we need to get back to what really is the fact base and to explain what's behind and to really make it transparent. ⁓ Another thing I like to mention here is also that it is important that the person delivering the message needs to really Stand behind the message. The authenticity aspect is very important in this in such situations. Because people will notice when a leader is hiding hiding kind of behind the prepared language, especially in such emotional situations as we just have mentioned. So, in the first few hours, it is really, I think, very important that you show That you're with the people, that you understand what's going wrong, and that you also show that in a very authentic way. You you really sort of just put a quote in my head, you know. I I think what you're saying, it it's very beautiful because you cannot win an emotional discussion with rational arguments. Exactly. I think this is such a good reminder that many people think, no, I have to be right. I have to prove that I'm right. And they completely communicate past the group that they actually want to save or that they want to reach. Exactly. And in my experience, really it's mostly the first phase, you know. And everybody needs to articulate their emotions and you need to be there. And afterwards, obviously, you get back to a rational fact base and can bring your arguments again. But I think this is ⁓ something I very often see. I mean, it is obviously also in a very difficult situation, much easier to just bring the facts, ⁓ because obviously everybody is. on tour also the people who have to communicate. ⁓ but the only thing that is needed actually is an understanding and also kind of an emotional reaction. Exactly. I also like like the the authenticity that you mentioned before. I think that is really, really crucial. And what what I learned, you know, you go to university and everything is black and white. It's right or wrong what you're doing. That's sort of what you learn to then get the grades and pass the tests. But then you go out to the world and you you realize the world is not really black and white. It's actually grey. Everything is sort of gray. You can look at it from the left or from the right or from the top or from the bottom. So if you then try to convince someone with with the rational arguments, it can work later on in the discussion, but the emotional part is very gray and you have to to fix that first because otherwise they're not even open to hear your rational arguments. Absolutely. I totally agree on that. ⁓ And I think the authenticity actually this is really the key message I tr I bring in my ⁓ in my you know, ⁓ you mentioned it, I'm also a program director, and that's one of the key messages I want the students to take with them, how important it is to really be authentic in today's communication world. Absolutely. I want to talk about the shift, the next shift in your career, where you actually switched from being in the leadership roles in large companies yourself to becoming a consultant, an equity partner at highness. And often what what I just know from my own experience is when I look at other people's businesses or I talk to other people, it's often easier for me to see what they should be doing and to give advice from the outside. Compared to when I'm in the weeds myself and I have the same problem or it's my company. So I wonder what became clearer or maybe also easier to see regarding corporate decision making once you started looking at the organization from the outside? Did something change for you? Well, yeah. I mean it was more a confirmation of what I have already already experienced when working in a in a corporate role. ⁓ I always liked to have external sparing partners and this is now what what I'm I'm actually acting on from ⁓ my role now. ⁓ I think yes, ⁓ it is useful to have some distance. It can be very useful and helpful, and it just brings in a different perspective. When you live with an issue or a topic every day, you know all the history, you know why an earlier option was rejected, why somebody is sensitive about a particular phrase or a particular problem, why a decision has taken so long. After a while, the internal story can dominate really this discussion. And I think in such a situation it is so helpful to have somebody who is really shaking you and telling you, hey, ⁓ there is there is another world outside. Just step back and consider it from a different angle. You know, actually just need somebody who is really asking straightforward questions. What would someone who knows none of this decide? Or can you really get put the real ka problem or something like that? So distance is definitely one of the things ⁓ that helps when you're in my role now. ⁓ And then the second thing I want to mention, I mean, yes, the distance is one of the advantages you have as a external consultant. ⁓ but I also think you don't have any internal politics. You are kind of not not depending on the organisation and this is or this is or this can be very helpful. So normally you can really be much bolder than when you are directly involved in something that gets decided. ⁓ And at the same time you are independent and you really can ⁓ say what you really think. Although obviously I know they are also our clients and you don't want to use your clients. But still I think the binding is a little bit different. Makes sense. And I also wonder in in that sort of other direction, there are a lot of consultants out there in the world, but there are very, very few who bring the experience, the executive board experience and the different industry experience that you have accumulated over the years to the table. So I wonder to what extent is it also useful or even necessary That you sat yourself inside the executive board at a certain point in your career to now also be able to actually consult them and and work at the highest level. That is that sort of a prerequisite that you have been in that role yourself to be able to consult them well? I would say it is a very big advantage because you really know what it means to carry a decision after the meeting is over. Another Isaac can recommend something, but he's then out again. And when you are in the company, you really need to make it work afterwards. You need to explain it to your people and live with the consequences. And you know it, there is ⁓ almost no decision that everybody likes. So you still have to walk in to the office the next morning and face the team, no matter what. And that experience gave me a lot, and I think this is also really adding value to how I consult now. ⁓ you are very conscious of the trade-offs, you also could put it like that. You always know there is a negative side and a positive side, and ⁓ this balance or to know this balance or how to balance decisions is a very important experience that I have made in my life. yeah. At the end it is the greatest value added ⁓ for my job now, I think. Mm-hmm. I'm pretty sure. It's very rare to find that holistic experience that you bring to the table. If you look at public affairs specifically, we often hear, ⁓ you just need to know the right people, you need to have access to the right politicians. So the relationships, but of course, also the experience are really important. But there's also an increasing, maybe pressure, at least development that says we need to make public affairs more systematic. There needs to be a better methodology behind it and also more evidence, like a data-driven approach. How do you balance These stakeholder intelligence approaches where you say I need to have the right network and I right relationships with the data and the intuition that you bring to the table. Mm-hmm. ⁓ honestly, that is exactly what I always loved to do. On one side, I'm a very analytical person, and on the other side, I'm a really a relationship person. I always need to have people around me. And I think this is actually such a great advantage of our job. And I definitely think these two worlds need to challenge each other. You know, I work a lot with data. I all have my Excel sheets and now obviously with the whole AI development it is great. I mean you can generate data, you can ⁓ put the data into your LLMs and ⁓ test your assumptions and create scenarios or whatever. But at the end I'm going out there and talking to people and finding out is this evidence really correct? Is it the right timing? Is it the right sentiment? And what could go wrong? What do people really think about the issues or the data or the evidence at the moment? So for me, these two worlds come together. And I think that is really the greatest thing of my job that you really have the database on one side and the relationships on the other side. Well, you're you're definitely in the right spot then, in the right place right now. when we take a specific example, it it can be for public affairs, but it it also applies for for corporate communications or strategic communications where you're like, I have this stakeholder or many, many different stakeholders that I can choose from. How do you determine who actually matters out of the vast majorities of people and stakeholders that you could talk to and engage with? So that the organization you work with actually focuses its attention and energy in the right spot because the energy is limited, the the stakeholders probably as well, but I think the stakeholders are immensely greater than your resources and your time that you can spend on them. Well also here I really like to structure the problem first. So I I really develop maps and Excel sheets and I really write down all the stakeholders, all I need to know about the stakeholders, and all kind of information that could be useful. So who makes the decision, who shapes the opinions, who has to implement it, and all that stuff. And I also think obviously with the mapping, it is very important to understand who has the formal authority and who has the non-official decision making role. Because these can diff be very different persons, and you know you need to know to Who to influence to really reach your your goals at the end. But I think already the mapping out helps down to narrow down the priorities. And normally it really comes down to a few stakeholders which you then really need to approach and to convince of your opinion to really get a step further. Makes sense. It it sounds like this discussion to narrow it down and to really lay out the possibilities and then prioritize, that's the important step. Otherwise you can get lost in the jungle. Totally. I totally agree on that. And I think it really helps if you just write it down. Right. When you see it. And obviously you also can challenge it today with the AI. But Yeah, to have the overview and also it can be dynamic. I mean it can change so then you can adapt it and you see the whole ⁓ history, how people also probably changed their opinion. Exactly. You mentioned AI multiple times, so I now wanna dive a bit deeper into that specific topic. You co-lead the postgraduate program at HWZ. We already briefly talked about that. It's Focused on communications and AI. I think really the topic of not only the hour, but probably the the the decade in where we are active now. When you design these programs, which capabilities did you actually consider essential for communications but maybe also public affairs professionals today? What was sort of your focus there? What were you thinking? Hey, this is missing and this is something while we need this program and where we can add value. Well, I mean in the programs we have obviously all the kind of disciplines they will learn, but I think from the skills I consider ⁓ it very important that people know how to curate and to judge in today's world, in today's communication or public affairs world. Because you know, ⁓ today it is so Easy to produce content, to produce analysis, to produce scenarios, but to really curate what is important or to judge which ⁓ really what does really make sense. ⁓ this is a discipline we all have to learn and which I think is becoming much more important in the future. ⁓ Secondly, I also want to mention the strategic foundation. As ⁓ said several times before, I think communication and also public affairs need to be considered as a strategic function within an organization, not just a delivery function. So this is ⁓ a very big focus of our programmes. And then obviously, thirdly, they also need the technology. They need a certain understanding of how an AI or a large language model works, what is the logic behind, and obviously they also need a practical experience with the technology. And last or or I have two more things I want to mention. One is the ethics. I think it is also in today's world very important to have your own ethics. ⁓ I think you need to know how far you wanna go with certain things, especially in communication, and where you say, ⁓ this is really not what I wanna do. I had this actually several times in my career where I said, Okay, now I have a very clear Order to communicate something, but ethically I cannot really stand behind. And I think this is very important that you know where is really the borderline for yourself. What do you then do in this situation, if I may ask? Because then you have a clear conflict between you as an individual and the organization and what they want to have you do. I I first of all I was trying to speak to my boss, obviously. And I had twice in my career then ⁓ left the job. it's as they say, right? Either you ⁓ accept it or you change it. If both don't work, you have to leave it. Absolutely. And I think I really try to stick to that, but I for me the ethics was always very important and for me it was more important that I can sleep well and to do everything and that I was not comfortable with. Yeah. Right. And I think you wanted to add one last point. Yes, exactly. yes, lastly I I really think it is and it goes very close together with the ethics. you need to have a very strong personality because I think it is very important as a communication person that you really say or speak up if you think we now try to communicate something we shouldn't or that is not correct. Yeah, easier said than done, I would say. You're already a a vivid user of AI yourself. So I wonder in in your daily work life, where does AI generally improve the work that you do? Not not just make something that was already there faster ⁓ or a a bit better, but where do you actually see a real core advantage? Do you have a specific use case or an area where AI is really changing the way that you work? Mm-hmm. I mean, for me, it has changed everything. I mean, obviously not the relationship management. ⁓ but I mean I just had a discussion yesterday at lunch. I always have like two large language models working when I'm ⁓ drinking a coffee or I may basically the whole day. And I think I got ⁓ much more ⁓ multitasking because I always have my two language models, one working on that project, the other one on that. ⁓ but no, I think really from the use case, I think the most extreme thing I have done or I have seen before is that you really do a whole market research actually with your large language model. And I mean before, I mean you know, with yourself it is ⁓ such a cost intensive thing to do to really a do a good market research. And ⁓ obviously there are a lot of considerations behind before you decide to do a market research. And for less critical issues or problems today, I really can do it myself. I just ⁓ tell the large language model to collect data and to create personas and then do the whole market research. And this is for me a use case that is incredible and So these kind of things are also the thinking in scenarios or also I mean in the political discussion, you know, you have the call whole documents for example for a consultation and you just can put them or upload it in your long large language model and ⁓ do all kinds of scenarios and really ask them how the vote will be in the parliament and ⁓ obviously this is not the final vote but at least it gives you a very good ⁓ image of what could could happen. And I think such ⁓ use cases it's it's great and I think you really should use them in our profession. Definitely. And you you can do a lot of stuff. Vogue prediction as you just said, market research, monitoring of specific stuff. Where do you feel that it's great to give the task to AI and to automate it as much as possible? And which parts should remain very, very much human led or human control at least? Well, I actually have a very clear rule. The more sensitive a situation or an issue is, the more closely a person needs to be involved. I think for ⁓ If you take the classical example of a crisis communication, I mean obviously the monitoring, also the writing of a media release, you can use your language model. But at the end you need to be there. You need to ⁓ closely monitor and to you need to take the decision at the end. so that is really the more sensitive it is, the more people somehow need to be involved. And then I mean, generally speaking, I probably can say obviously we all need to check the facts, we need to ⁓ really see if the language model took the right sources, if there was ⁓ if it's really correct, you need to approve the things, you need to have regular checks in your ⁓ process where the humans are involved. And but still I mean there is a lot of things you can automate and ⁓ that makes your life ⁓ much easier. And I also I would I really would summarize it's the sensitive things I wouldn't delegate and also obviously the relationship management. A hundred percent important. We we don't have our agents talking to each other just yet. Who knows maybe one day yet, but yeah. Let's see. I I also wanna look at the the consulting business as a whole, because AI is obviously fundamentally changing that. So that's a bit of a just a follow-up question on what you said. When you see you can do a market research yourself instead of spending weeks and needing a team to do that, what does that do to your business model? Because your experience and AI is an incredible combination. ⁓ Consultants or agencies who don't adapt AI or who lack the experience that you bring to the table will probably not be able to produce the same quality results as you do. So do you see a a general shift in the market that people say, I want to pay less for consulting because now you can also get more done with less? Or I want to pay more because the best people generate even better results, or they switch from a product pricing to a monthly retainer, or What is sort of the shift happening in terms of the agency and the consulting business model? Well, I think we are still at the beginning, I have to say. I think we don't see everything yet, but ⁓ honestly, as you know, ⁓ Hirzeln Schmidt is really just a partnership. I mean, we don't really have ⁓ other people's ⁓ ne other people next to the partners, so we do everything ourselves. And obviously, this business model I think is ⁓ a perfect fit for the AI world because today I can do a lot of things ⁓ only with ⁓ the AI, where I used a whole team before. So I think the challenge will really be how. To integrate the team going forward for a classical agency. Yeah, the other aspects, the pricing and so on, I think yes, we need to reconsider how to price our services and our consultancies. Because obviously, I think the outcome is really what counts. Not the hours you put in, and how you get to the outcome. I think this has a very different approach nowadays than probably five years ago. And ⁓ I really think we are positioned very well because we act as pairing partners often, and I think that is exactly needed in a world where there is endless content. And ⁓ as mentioned before, the creation and the judgment is ⁓ much more important and I think will become even more important going forward. Yeah, I agree because everyone can prompt and get sort of an overview, right? But then to have better judgment, you actually need experience and the experience that all of your partners have is very unique. ⁓ no AI can d directly replace that. So you need that experience to make better judgment and leveraged with AI, you then have a much better end result. Exactly. But I want to challenge one thing you said. Everybody can prompt. I think it's also a art how to prompt. That's true, but I I experienced that the better the models get, the more close they get to natural language. So I feel this whole prompt engineering topic that people say, ⁓ I need to learn how to prompt. That will become obsolete because the models get better and they will just understand your natural language closer and closer. I agree, but I also had the experience. I mean, when you lead a team, you also need to address the team members in a certain way that they really understand what you want. And I guess this is quite similar to a language model. Exactly. Yeah. It it is a challenge, don't get me wrong, but I do feel that the trend is very clear where at the beginning you exactly needed to know how to prompt to get the result. And now even if you're not spot on, you still get the same result. So I do feel that the models get better in that in that sense. Absolutely. Yeah. Totally agree on that. Yeah. I if we look a bit into the future, I know it's it's very difficult these days to predict the future, but if you just think about let's say the next four, four and a half years. Let's look forward to twenty thirty. What do you think will change most about the way that companies understand and and manage their political, media and stakeholder environment? I honestly think it will be as already mentioned before, it will become very important that they think of these things more strategically. And I think they are kind of forced to that. ⁓ because there will be so much content and so much ⁓ average. Things that you really need to think how to differentiate. And this, you know, when you look now at certain platforms or certain social media channels, ⁓ I mean, you see so much things that you clearly can tell, okay, that was written by AI. And I think for the companies to do so, that is a certain risk. Because people see it and it's really average, and that really doesn't help your credibility or your reputation. So you need to really consider very well how you can differentiate and what is your tone of voice, how you want to do that, and how you can use the AI but still be different from the other ones. And this is something that will come and it will be a challenge because it's so easy to produce everything. ⁓ but to produce unique stuff, it's a discipline that you have to learn. 100%. And I feel it also comes back and closes the circle a bit with what you said at the beginning. It it is about authenticity. Because that's really the thing that stands out, because no one can really compete with you being authentic, but you can scale your authenticity, maybe if you do it the right way with AI to a certain degree. But the authentic part, that's the the core that you should probably focus on. Absolutely. I totally agree on that. My my last question for you before we head to some rapid fires. If there was only one capability that you would advise a young person starting their career, maybe studying right now, with a strong interest in communications but also public affairs, what would you recommend to start developing now? Well, it's not really a capability. it's really start to build up your network as early as possible. ⁓ because obviously I think the network and the relationship management will be or will become even more important than today. And when we come back to the capability, it's ⁓ more of the same. You need to learn to defend the recommendation in a room full of people who are more senior than you. So be bold. Love that. That's a beautiful ⁓ tip or recommendation. So also for the end, I have some rapid fire questions for you. I give you a quick question or different options to choose from. And ideally you have to answer in one sentence. You ready? Mm-hmm. Let's see. Journalist instinct or communicator instinct? Journalist instinct. I'm such a curious person. I also want to know what happened, and that's always first. Love that. Relationships or data, what's more important? Relationship. ⁓ especially the listening and the trust behind it. And what is one thing that companies still consistently get wrong about stakeholder communication? they start with what they want to say before asking what people need to understand or decide. That's so good. It's like a startup, you know, they want to talk about the features, about all the beautiful things they developed instead of thinking about the value they bring to the user. Inside out instead of outside in. Exactly. My last question for you today. In one sentence, what separates a good strategic communicator from an exceptionally good one? I think the exceptional con communicator communicators are willing to be uncomfortable. They are really say no when they think we shouldn't write one thing away. This is exactly what you did multiple times in your career. Yeah, I try to, but it's not always easy. Yeah. Mm-hmm. That's it, that's true. Well, the work never stops, but that was a very, very great conversation. Ursula, thank you so much for your time and for all your support. ⁓ really appreciate you sitting down with us today and I wish you all the best and lots of success. And ⁓ curious to see what else you're cooking with AI and ⁓ where the world is headed. Yes, me too. Thank you very much. It was a very interesting conversation and I'm looking forward to listening it again. You've been listening to The Pulse of Politics, a Delos podcast about navigating uncertainty in public affairs. For more insights, visit Delosanalytica.com.