Roku just launched a brand new subscription service, and it looks nothing like the streamers youre used to.
Howdy, which was unveiled on August 5, is an ad-free subscription service for viewers on a budget. Whereas an ad-free subscription to popular options like Netflix and Hulu would cost $17.99 per month, Howdy is just $2.99 per monththe trade-off being that it comes with a smaller library of available content. In an interview with USA Today, Roku confirmed that Howdy will initially be available only on Roku devices, but is set to roll out on mobile and other platforms in the near future.
Roku appears to be positioning Howdy as a disruptor in a streaming space that has become increasingly preoccupied with implementing more stratified subscription tiers and premium offerings. While streaming services initially lured viewers of pay TV away with the promise of an adless experience, by May of last year, Netflix, Disney+, Peacock, Paramount+, and HBO Max had all added a lower subscription tier with ads, coaxing subscribers to pay more to avoid commercials.
To break into the saturated streaming space, Howdy is betting on both a unique business model and a unique look thats pretty unmissable on the Roku homepage. The brand has embraced a retro wordmark and a color palette of red and yellowan overall aesthetic thats more evocative of a classic diner than a media platform.
A name designed for warmth, comfort, and connection
Howdys branding was designed in-house by Rokus Creative Studio, with assistance from the L.A.-based firm Compadre on the logo animation and sonic. Damon Van Deusen, Rokus VP of brand & creative, says the effort started by letting the unique product positioning of the service shape the brands personality. The actual brand name itself is inspired by Roku founder and CEO Anthony Wood, who frequently uses howdy as a greeting in the office, van Deusen says.
Bottom line, we chose Howdy because it is a feel-good word that radiates warmth, comfort, and connectionwhat we want audiences to experience when they tune into the familiar comfort programming that will be available on our new service, van Deusen says.
That playfulness and familiar charm is echoed in the brands custom wordmark, which was adapted from several existing wood cut and western typefaces. The letters have been inflated for a soft, cushion-like feel, while cut-outs in the characters h, d, and y come together with the words o shapes to evoke a winking face in the animatic versions of the mark. The chunky, rounded, sans-serif font has a 70s feel thats recently come back into style, appearing in other recent work like Burger Kings rebrand and Glossiers pop-up brand logo.
[Image: Roku]
Howdy branding goes full ketchup and mustard
Perhaps most eye-catching, though, is the brands red and yellow color scheme, which viewers probably associate most closely with the food and beverage spacemore specifically, McDonalds.
Our ‘Chili and Pineapple’ colors are part of a visual identity that feels upbeat, friendly, and accessible, van Deusen says. While they may feel loosely familiar from other beloved consumer brands, we liked that these colors would be a proven attention-grabber within streaming and give us a playful and unmissable contrast that helps the brand stand out and connect instantly.
In a streaming landscape thats flooded with blue logos, including Paramount+, HBO Max, Amazon Video, and Disney+, Howdys color palette speaks for itself, drawing on innate consumer nostalgia while still carving out a new space in the category.
We leaned into an unexpected palette that felt both emotionally vibrant and visually distincta combination that wasnt being used, and now cant be ignored, van Deusen says.
At some point in your professional life, you will be asked to do something that makes you scowl, Are they serious? A 6 p.m. brainstorming session. An important client dinner on the night of your kids recital. A weekend retreat that promises team bonding but really means you will miss your kids birthday and end up sharing a bunk bed with Carl from compliance.
You want to say, Im not available, but what comes out instead is an overly apologetic word salad: I am so sorry. My kid has this thing . . . I mean, Ill figure it out. I can join from the parking lot. Or the bathroom. Ill mute!
Lets just stop right there. Sorry I cant. I will be attending my daughters play is not a weak excuse. Its a sentence. Its a boundary. Its a full stop on the guilt spiral and research backs it up.
{"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2015\/08\/erikaaslogo.png","headline":"Girl, Listen: A Guide to What Really Matters","description":"Ericka dives into the heat of modern motherhood, challenging the notion that personal identity must be sacrificed at the altar of parenting. ","substackDomain":"https:\/\/erickasouter.substack.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}}
The Science of Saying No
A 2022 report by McKinsey & LeanIn.org revealed that 42% of working mothers were often or always burned out, compared to 32% of working fathers. And one of the major contributors? Lack of boundaries and unrealistic workplace expectations. Women, especially moms, are more likely to feel they need to do it all, which often means dealing with invisible labor at home and being endlessly available at work.
Even worse is when they do set limits, they fear being penalized. During interviews, many women told me that when they requested flexible work arrangements, they were seen as less committed and less likely to be promoted even if they were top performers.
Let that sink in. The system isnt just biased, its allergic to boundaries.
But heres the twist: employees who have boundaries are actually more productive. According to research from Harvard Business School, employees who detach from work during nonwork hours report higher job satisfaction and lower burnout, which leads to better performance over time. So no, you are not derailing your career by opting out of that 7 p.m. status meeting. You are preserving your energy, so you dont melt down during your 9 a.m. presentation.
A Cultural Shift Has Begun
For decades, parenting at work has been treated like an embarrassing rash. You know, something to conceal and apologize for. But the tide is turning. Post-pandemic, weve seen a rise in what organizational psychologists call boundary management, and companies are finally starting to get it. Policies like flexible scheduling and no meeting Fridays are gaining traction.
In short, boundaries are the new black.
Still, the social pressure is there. When a parent leaves early for a kid event, some colleagues still view them as just not committed enough. To that I say, let them think what they want. Your job is to be committed to your prioritiesnot to someone elses broken expectations.
Scripts for the Modern Parent (or who I like to call the Professional Boundary Badass)
You dont owe anyone a 10-minute monologue. Try these instead:
Im unavailable that evening due to family obligations.
Happy to contribute ahead of time, but I wont be able to attend live.
That time doesnt work for me. Can we find another slot?
Notice whats missing? Overexplaining. Apologies. A promise to clone yourself.
We really must stop treating parenting like a professional liability. Its a masterclass in multitasking, crisis management, and emotional regulation. Honestly, parents should be running most things. (Well, except silent meditation. I cant remember the last time I sat in silence.) So, the next time someone raises an eyebrow when you decline after-hours obligations or say no to a third Zoom call that couldve been an email, hold your ground. Because Sorry I cant. Im a parent isnt about what you wont do. Its about what you refuse to sacrifice. That not weakness. Thats leadership in a minivan.
{"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2015\/08\/erikaaslogo.png","headline":"Girl, Listen: A Guide to What Really Matters","description":"Ericka dives into the heat of modern motherhood, challenging the notion that personal identity must be sacrificed at the altar of parenting. ","substackDomain":"https:\/\/erickasouter.substack.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}}
Katherine, a talented up-and-coming leader at a high-growth technology company, was eager to be promoted, but specific development areas were getting in her way. Sarah conducted a 360 review that yielded largely expected results. Unanticipated and surprising, however, were the comments about Katherines technical prowess and that people viewed her as visionary and strategic.
For many, blind spots represent a failure to recognize the weaknesses or biases that get in the way of performance. In an effort to improve, they may hyper-focus on those areas for development. In Katherines case, she had a blind spot for her strengths.
The skills not in the job description
Like many leaders, Katherine was aware of the skills that were closely tied to her job description, but didnt have the full picture of the value she was bringing to the organization. Her sole focus had been on developing the areas that were impeding a potential promotion.
In our work with leadersbrand development (Rebecca) and executive coaching (Sarah)weve noticed parallels between business owners and organizational leaders. Regardless of their field, both groups can fail to recognize the very traits that others deeply appreciate.
When a talent comes naturally, without deliberate effort, we often dont recognize it as a strength. Skills like critical thinking, problem solving, or strategic insight can feel so effortless that we dont notice them in ourselves. Or sometimes, we assume others are equally adept at the same skills, and dismiss their value.
Self-perception is only one piece of the puzzle though. Its equally important to understand how colleagues or clients see you, and what they value most. Uncovering the true essence of your unique contribution can be an illuminating process that strengthens your personal brand and boosts your leadership effectiveness.
Whether you lead a team or run a business, the principle holds: you cant act on strengths you dont recognize.
Recognizing your secret strengths
When you see your most intrinsic strengths clearly, everything changes. Heres what becomes possible:
Personal brand differentiation: Tuning into the attributes others consistently recognize gives you clarity on what matters most to the people who influence your career or business, and how those skills differentiate you from others. That insight can help sharpen your positioning and messaging, making it easier to attract aligned opportunities with clients, projects, or promotions.
Greater influence: Owning and leveraging your key strengths can increase your confidence, clarity, and credibility, making you more magnetic and influential.
Faster decision-making: When you’re anchored in what you do best, you dont second-guess as much. You make decisions faster and with more conviction, because you’re not wasting energy trying to be someone you’re not.
Fuel for innovation: Unearthing strengths like vision, creativity, or strategy, can give you permission and embolden you to step outside your lane, challenge the status quo, speak up with new ideas, and pursue opportunities you may have previously dismissed.
If youre not sure if youre seeing your full value, there are several ways to uncover how others experience you.
360 Feedback
A 360 provides feedback from multiple perspectivesusually direct or indirect reports, peers, your manager, and senior leaders. The process is typically confidential and designed to provide a well-rounded view of a leader’s performance. Two common approaches include qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and third-party quantitative assessments. Both can provide a leader with data on how they are perceived in the organization, helping to surface key strengths and pinpoint areas for growth.
Client Interviews or Surveys
Business owners, check in with your clients! You may know theyre happy with your service, but what about it makes them happiest? One to two-question surveys are helpful if youre merely seeking something like a Net Promoter Score, but to really uncover strengths, youll want to go deeper. Here are some of the questions Rebecca asks when she conducts interviews on behalf of her clients, adapted for your use:
Why did you choose me over other [service providers]?
Have you worked with other [service providers] before? / If yes, How was this experience different?
Is there anything that has surprised you about this experience?
What have been some of the key benefits youve gained from our work together?
If a friend of yours were looking for [XYZ service], what would you want them to know about the experience?
Conversational Inquiries
Asking colleagues to list three to five words they would use to describe you can yield rich insights. And, when coupled with an example of that strength or trait in action, will provide you with robust data to hone in on your points of differentiation. For example:
Im working on identifying my personal strengths and overall brand. When you think of me, what are the first three to five words that come to mind?
When have you seen me demonstrate any of the above? What was I specifically doing or saying?
This gives you real examples of how your strengths show up and helps you spot the traits others consistently associate with you.
Keep a Brag Book
You likely receive emails or Slack messages from colleagues or clients thanking you for work youve done. Save the notes! Better yet, copy them to an online file or go analog with a notebook. Over time, youll see themes emerge about how youre perceived and which traits others most value in you. (Added bonus: The brag book offers a confidence boost if you happen to be having a rough day.)
Integrating the uncovered strengths
Once weve uncovered these talents, its up to us to integrate them into our activities and positioning in a way thats intentional rather than accidental.
For business owners, that may mean shifting your positioning and value proposition so that it better aligns with what your target audience values most.
Consider Rebeccas brand client, Mark, a data analytics consultant serving small business owners. He had built his brand around his ability to analyze disparate stores of data to inform marketing strategy. But when Rebecca interviewed his clients, a different pattern emerged: they also praised Marks ability to see the big picture, is deep network, and his effortless ability to connect them with the right experts for their goals. These qualities hadnt even been on Marks radar as part of his value proposition, but for small business owners with lean teams, these traits turned out to be a tremendous source of value.
Mark now has the opportunity to use this new knowledge as a point of differentiation in his brand: data-minded and a connector.
For leaders in organizations, the integration of this new information may involve speaking up more, raising your hand for cross-functional initiatives, or mentoring others in areas where your strengths are emerging.
In the case of Sarahs client Katherine, recognizing the strengths she had been overlooking shifted her mindset. Clarity on her value to the organization gave her more confidence as a leader and helped bolster the other areas she was working on. She realized that she had been emphasizing the wrong things, possibly to her detriment. With a more balanced view of how people experienced her, she began speaking up in executive meetings and reframed her development plan to include her strategic strengths. That shift in visibility and positioning led to two promotions over two years.
It takes effort to see yourself in a new light. We often assume our value lies in how neatly our strengths align with our job description. But clients and colleagues may value something else entirely. If youre not asking, youre probably missing it.
Taking the time to uncover those overlooked strengths can sharpen your personal brand, differentiate you in a crowded field, and accelerate your career by helping you lean into the talents that matter most.
Imagine its April 2025 and youre the owner of a small but fast-growing e-commerce business. Historically, youve sourced products from China, but the president just announced tariffs of 145% on these goods. Do you set up operations in Thailandrequiring new investment and a lot of workor wait until theres more clarity on trade? What if waiting too long means you miss your chance to pull it off?
This isnt a hypotheticalits a real dilemma faced by a real business owner who spoke with one of us over coffee this past spring. And shes not alone. As of 2023, of those U.S. companies that import goods, more than 97% of them were small businesses. For these companies, tariff uncertainty isnt just frustratingits paralyzing.
As a family business researcher and a former deputy administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration and entrepreneur, we hear from a lot of small-business owners grappling with these challenges. And what they tell us is that tariff uncertainty is stressing their time, resources, and attention.
The data backs up our anecdotal experience: More than 70% of small-business owners say constant shifts in trade policy create a whiplash effect that makes it difficult to plan, a recent national survey showed.
Unlike larger organizations with teams of analysts to inform their decision-making, small-business owners are often on their own. In an all-hands-on-deck operation, every hour spent focusing on trade policy news or filling out additional paperwork means precious time away from day-to-day, core operations. That means rapid trade policy shifts leave small businesses, especially, at a disadvantage.
Planning for stability in an uncertain landscape
Critics and supporters alike can agree: The Trump administration has taken an unpredictable approach to trade policy, promising and delaying new tariffs again and again. Consider its so-called “reciprocal tariffs. Back in April, Trump pledged a baseline 10% tariff on imports from nearly everywhere, with extra hikes on many countries. Not long afterward, the administration hit pause on its plans for 90 days. That period just ended, and it followed up with a new executive order on July 31 naming different tariff rates for about 70 countries. The one constant has been change.
This approach has upended long-standing trade relationships in a matter of days or weeks. And regardless of the outcomes, the uncertainty itself is especially disruptive to small businesses. One recent survey of 4,000 small-business owners found that the biggest challenge of tariff policies is the sheer uncertainty they cause.
This isnt just a problem for small-business owners themselves. These companies employ nearly half of working Americans and play an essential role in the U.S. economy. That may partly explain why Americans overwhelmingly support small businesses, viewing them as positive for society and a key path for achieving the American dream. If youre skeptical, just look at the growing number of MBA graduates who are turning down offers at big companies to buy and run small businesses.
But this consensus doesnt always translate into policies that help small businesses thrive. In fact, because small businesses often operate on thinner margins and have less capacity to absorb disruptions, any policy shift is likely to be more difficult for them to weather than it would be for a larger firm with deeper pockets. The ongoing tariff saga is just the most recent example.
Slow, steady policies help small-business owners
Given these realities, we recommend that the final negotiated changes to trade policy be rolled out slowly. Although that wouldnt prevent businesses from facing supply chain disruptions, it would at least give them time to consider alternate suppliers or prepare in other ways. From the perspective of a small-business owner, having that space to plan can make a real difference.
Similarly, if policymakers want to bring more manufacturing back to the U.S., tariffs alone can accomplish only so much. Small manufacturers need to hire people, and with unemployment at just over 4%, theres already a shortage of workers qualified for increasingly high-skilled manufacturing roles.
Making reshoring a true long-term policy objective would require creating pathways for legal immigration and investing significantly in job training. And if the path toward reshoring is more about automation than labor, then preparing small-business owners for the changes ahead and helping them fund growth strategically will be crucial.
Small businesses would benefit from more government-backed funding and training. The Small Business Administration is uniquely positioned to support small firms as they adjust their supply chains and manufacturingit could offer affordable financing for imports and exports, restructure existing loans that small businesses have had to take on, and offer technical support and education on new regulations and paperwork. Unfortunately, the SBA has slashed 43% of its workforce and closed offices in major cities including Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, New Orleans, and Los Angeles. We think this is a step in the wrong direction.
Universities also have an important role to play in supporting small businesses. Research shows that teaching core mangement skills can improve key business outcomes, such as profitability and growth. We recommend that business and trade schools increase their focus on small firms and the unique challenges they face. Whether through executive programs for small-business owners or student consulting projects, universities have a significant opportunity to lean into supporting Main Street entrepreneurs.
Thirty-five million small businesses are the engine of the U.S. economy. They are the job creators in cities and towns across this country. They are the heartbeat of American communities. As the nation undergoes rapid and profound policy shifts, we encourage leaders in government and academia to take action to ensure that Main Streets across America not only endure but thrive.
The authors would like to thank Gretchen Abraham and Matt Sonneborn for their support.
Peter Boumgarden is a professor of family enterprise at Washington University in St. Louis.
Dilawar Syed is an associate professor of instruction at the Department of Business, Government, and Society at The University of Texas at Austin.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
President Donald Trump is again attacking the American pressthis time not with fiery rally speeches or by calling the media the enemy of the people, but through the courts.
Since the heat of the November 2024 election, and continuing into July, Trump has filed defamation lawsuits against 60 Minutes broadcaster CBS News and The Wall Street Journal. He has also sued The Des Moines Register for publishing a poll just before the 2024 election that Trump alleges exaggerated support for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and thus constituted election interference and fraud.
These are in addition to other lawsuits Trump filed against the news media during his first term and during his years out of office between 2021 and 2025.
At the heart of Trumps complaints is a familiar refrain: The media is not only biased, but dishonest, corrupt, and dangerous.
The president isnt just upset about reporting on him that he thinks is unfair. He wants to redefine what counts as libel and make it easier for public officials to sue for damages. A libel suit is a civil tort claim seeking damages when a person believes something false has been printed or broadcast about them and so harmed their reputation.
Redefining libel in this way would require overturning the Supreme Courts 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, one of the most important First Amendment legal rulings in American constitutional history
Trump made overturning Sullivan a talking point during his first campaign for president; his lawsuits now put that threat into action. And they raise the question: What happened in Sullivan, and why does it still matter?
What Sullivan was about
As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on free expression.
In 1960, The New York Times published a full-page advertisement titled Heed Their Rising Voices. The ad, which included an appeal for readers to send money in support of Martin Luther King Jr. and the movement against Jim Crow, described brutal and unjust treatment of Black students and protesters in Montgomery, Alabama. It also emphasized episodes of police violence against peaceful demonstrations.
The ad was not entirely accurate in its description of the behavior of either protesters or the police.
It claimed, for instance, that activists had sung My Country Tis of Thee on the steps of the state capitol during a rally, when they actually had sung the national anthem. It said that truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas had ringed a college campus, when the police had only been deployed nearby. And it asserted that King had been arrested seven times in Alabama, when the real number was four.
Though the ad did not identify any individual public officials by name, it disparaged the behavior of Montgomery police.
Thats where L.B. Sullivan came in.
As Montgomerys police commissioner, he oversaw the police department. Sullivan claimed that because the ad maligned the conduct of law enforcement, it had implicitly defamed him. In 1960 in Alabama, a primary defense against libel was truth. But since there were mistakes in the ad, a truth defense could not be raised. Sullivan sued for damages, and an Alabama jury awarded him $500,000, equivalent to $5,450,000 in 2025.
The message to the press was clear: criticize Southern officials and risk being sued out of existence.
In fact, the Sullivan lawsuit was not an isolated incident, but part of a broader strategy. In addition to Sullivan, four other Montgomery officials filed suits against The Times.
In Birmingham, public officials filed seven libel lawsuits over Times reporter Harrison Salisburys trenchant reporting about racism in that city. The lawsuits helped push The Times to the edge of bankruptcy. Salisbury was even indicted for seditious libel and faced up to 21 years in prison.
Alabama officials also sued CBS, The Associated Press, The Saturday Evening Post, and Ladies Home Journalall for reporting on civil rights and the Souths brutal response.
The Supreme Court decision
The jurys verdict in favor of Sullivan was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 1964.
Writing for the court, Justice William Brennan held that public officials cannot prevail in defamation lawsuits merely by showing that statements are false. Instead, they must prove such statements are made with actual malice. Actual malice means a reporter or press outlet knew their story was false or else acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
The decision set a high bar.
Before the ruling, the First Amendments protections for speech and the press didnt offer much help to the press in libel cases.
After it, public officials who wanted to sue the press would have to prove actual malicereal, purposeful untruths that caused harm. Honest mistakes werent enough to prevail in such lawsuits. The court held that errors are inevitable in public debate and that protecting those mistakes is essential to keeping debate open and free.
Nonviolent protest and the press
In essence, the court ruling blocked government officials fromsuing for libel with ulterior motives.
King and other civil rights leaders relied on a strategy of nonviolent protest to expose injustice through public, visible actions.
When protesters were arrested, beaten, or hosed in the streets, their goal was not chaosit was clarity. They wanted the nation to see what Southern oppression looked like. For that, they needed press coverage.
The Supreme Court recognized this danger.
Public officials treated differently
Another key element of the courts reasoning was its distinction between public officials and private citizens.
Elected leaders, the court said, can use mass media to defend themselves in ways ordinary people cannot.
The public official certainly has equal if not greater access than most private citizens to media of communication, Justice Brennan wrote in the Sullivan ruling.
Trump is a perfect example of this dynamic. He masterfully uses social media, rallies, televised interviews, and impromptu remarks to push back. He doesnt need the courts.
Giving public officials the power to sue over news stories they dislike could well create a chilling effect on the media that undermines government accountability and distorts public discourse.
The theory of our Constitution is that every citizen may speak his mind and every newspaper express its view on matters of public concern and may not be barred from speaking or publishing because those in control of government think that what is said or written is unwise, Brennan wrote. In a democratic society, one who assumes to act for the citizens in an executive, legislative, or judicial capacity must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and criticized.
Why Sullivan still matters
The Sullivan ruling is more than a legal doctrine. It is a shared agreement about the kind of democracy Americans aspire to. It affirms a press duty to hold power to account, and a public right to hear facts and information that those in power want to suppress.
The ruling protects the right to criticize those in power and affirms that the press is not a nuisance, but an essential part of a functioning democracy. It ensures that political leaders cannot insulate themselves from scrutiny by silencing their critics through intimidation or litigation.
Trumps lawsuits seek to undo these press protections. He presents himself as the victim of a dishonest press and hopes to use the legal system to punish those he perceives to be his detractors.
The decision in the Sullivan case reminds Americans that democracy doesnt depend on leaders who feel comfortable. It depends on a public that is free to speak.
Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin is the Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs at Boise State University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
As the Trump administration ramps up mass deportations, impacting businesses across numerous sectors, the American Business Immigration Coalition (ABIC) is advocating for policy reform. Rebecca Shi leads the organization that’s made up of 1,400 current and former CEOs, trade group leaders, and others who rely heavily on an immigrant workforce. She shares how uncertainty over immigration has disrupted daily business and affected the bottom line, while also expressing optimism that this moment could lead to some long-needed changes in U.S. immigration policy.
This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Bob Safian, the former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode.
This country’s relationship with immigration is so complicated because, of course, we all came here as immigrants at different times in different ways, and it’s been a great advantage to the businesses and the economy of the U.S. to have sort of fresh, young talent be part of it. And yet there’s also this anxiety, this fear that new people are going to take away what we have. How do you square thatthose two different sides of this?
If you look at history, the last time that our immigration levels pushed 15% to 19% was in the 1910s. And around that time, also, there was huge backlash, and the economy wasn’t doing well. And so then the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed. And for nearly 50, 60 years, up until the Voting Rights Act of 1965, there was almost zero immigration. So that number of foreign-born [residents] was reduced to about 3% to 4%. And we kind of experienced the same thing these last few years when, for the first time, our foreign-born population pushed up to 18% to 19%. And we are experiencing a similar backlash.
But again, we are in the economy of 2025 and no longer in 1965. So we really should have a different response. We saw the jobs report last week, and the job growth in July is 74,000. And nearly all economists say that we need at least 100,000 jobs created in order just to keep this economy moving.
And the main reason is because we’re short about a million workers over the last four monthspeople who have either been detained or deported, or people who fear being sent to a different country and have self-deported. And so it is something that we’re going to have to deal with head-on, but I think we’re encouraged by what the president has said recently, and he’s a businessman. He knows what the workforce requires, and to your point, the hunger of immigrants and those foreign-born is necessary for any company or any economy to be fully competitive.
In all the news about immigration raids, we don’t hear very much about employers facing consequences for hiring people without proper documentation. Why is that? Might that change with more onus being put on businesses?
I think you’re starting to see that change. So there was that large raid at a meat processing plant in Nebraska, and that meat processor actually was E-Verify compliant. He did E-Verify, and ICE came and detained and removed about 90 workers. And his response, and he is right, is that this E-Verify system is a really flawed system. Sometimes it will mistake people’s names, catch people who are U.S citizens, or just completely misidentify people.
It’s important to recognize that one of the key reasonsdrivers of why immigrants are in this countryis because somebody gave them a job. And so it is one of the reasons why our coalition and our employers have really taken upon themselves to really push for a solution so that they can come out of the shadows and work legally. And that’s actually good and protects every American worker when we don’t have a second-class system. When we don’t have an easily exploitable group of people because they’re in the shadows and living in fear, you ensure that their rights and wages are protected, not just for them, but for every American worker as well.
I mean ABIC came together looking for a lasting long-term reform to immigration policy. And I wonder, is that possible in an environment that’s so charged? And I know you’re optimistic about it, but why is this all so hard?
I think it’s hard because it’s easy to play up the fears and it’s easy to blame, to point fingers. But I think at the same time, the majority of Americans do believe in steps forward and especially for people who have been here and have earned that legal statusthat the everyday American is a lot smarter than the professional politicians, that they don’t need all or nothing. Something like a legal work permit, like the president has said, is something that’s broadly supported. And then I think the other piece is just that politicians, for some of them, have to run every two years. And so it’s very easy to run and add, calling something amnesty even when it isn’t to try to score cheap political points.
So what’s at stake from here for businesses? For all of us?
A lot of research has been done about this enforcement-only approach, this removal, say up to a million people a year, and what it can cost the economy. It’s ahead of $350 billion. It’s about up to 3 1/2 percentage in terms of job and GDP. It can also translate to up to 2.5 million job losses for American workers. The work that immigrants do, and Americans do, tends to be complementary. Immigrants are, say, milking a dairy cow while American workers are the foremen or the managers of the farm. In a restaurant, the immigrants are the busboys or they’re washing the dishes, and Americans prefer roles at the front of the house in terms of waitressing or hosting or bartending.
And so then when you remove that back of the house where there isn’t sufficient labor in the back of the house, that impacts the work of everyday Americans. And then the other thing is just inflationary and food prices. We had a dairy farmer in Wisconsin who talked to his neighbors about how, if they continue down this road, are they willing to pay $30 for a gallon of milk? Or even worse, are we okay with milk not being domestically produced and having to be imported? So I think that those are some of the consequences that we might face.
The pendulum on things like immigration tends to swing from one end to the other. And certainly during the Biden administration, maybe the doors were open too much, and maybe the doors are closed too much now. Where do you feel like the pendulum is right now?
I think it’s swung the other way. And I think Americans, like the latest Gallup poll shows, welcome immigrants and find immigration more favorable, at 79%. Which is the highest since the pandemic, since we called immigrant workers essential because, when the rest of us could quarantine safely, they were still working and picking crops. So yeah, I think the American attitude is definitely a reaction to the current more-restrictive policies. And I think that bdes well, too, for solutions that give some cover and support for particularly Republicans and the administration to move forward, especially if they want to keep power in 2026.
And so you’re not relying on the Democrats retaking power to be able to get these changes through.
Well, in the last 20-some years I’ve been at this, Democrats have had full control of both chambers and the White House three times, and nothing was done. And same with Republicans, right? Also, Republicans have had their chance to get something done, and we haven’t, and we see this president having just incredible influence over the Congress. And so I think employers will keep pushing.
Bree Groff is a company culture, engagement, and leadership consultant, and serves as a senior adviser to the global consultancy SYPartners. She has guided executives at companies including Calvin Klein, Google, Hilton, Microsoft, and NBCUniversal.
Whats the big idea?
Bree remembers sitting in the waiting room at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center with her mom, hoping desperately that her moms oncologist could give her every last day possibleand then talking to a friend from work, telling her she couldnt wait for the week to be over. The different attitudes toward the value of our days were striking. It became very clear: when we wish away the workweek, we wish away our lives. What would it take for us to look forward to Monday?
Below, Bree shares five key insights from her new book, Today Was Fun: A Book About Work (Seriously). Listen to the audio versionread by Bree herselfbelow, or in the Next Big Idea App.
[Photo: Next Big Idea Club]
1. Most work, most days, should be fun.
So much about the working world is patently ridiculous. Its not normal to be too busy to eat. Its not normal to look at email before you look at the partner lying beside you every morning. Its not normal to choose being high performing over happy. And its definitely not normal to enjoy 2/7ths of our lives each week.
So no, I dont believe work needs to be drudgery. I also dont believe it needs to be our religion or identity or the sum of our fulfillment. That end of the spectrum, while sometimes invigorating, is an easy recipe for burnout. Work can, instead, simply be fun! A nice way to spend our time on the planet.
Because work, at its simplest, is fundamentally enjoyable! We dont get paid because work is painful. We get paid because we create value. The pain is entirely optional. Its fun to create something others appreciate. To show off our skills, learn, experiment, and build next to people we like.
Sure, not every day will be fun, but when we falsely equate struggle with greatness, weve guaranteed were either happy or successful but never both. Consider Kati Kariko, the famed mRNA researcher whose work led to the development of the COVID-19 vaccines. As she would dash off to the lab, her husband would tell her, You are not going to workyou are going to have fun. Or take Milton Glaser, the renowned designer of I <3 NY fame, who, when asked why he kept working at age 87, replied, I do it because its so pleasurable for me. I derive this deep, deep satisfaction that nothing else, including sex, has ever given me. Thats a strong endorsement for fun at work.
2. Your brain works whether youre wearing a suit or stretchy pants.
We need to lose the notion that we must be super profesh. Somewhere along the way, we decided to equate being professional with being well-dressed and well-groomed, rather than doing high-quality work, on time, with respect. Weve confused being professional with looking professional.
Work is, in many ways, performative. No one really knows what theyre doing, and yet our ability to get things done rests on other people believing that we do. So, weve created symbols of professionalism that we use to telegraph our competency. We wear tailored suits to look like what society tells us businesspeople look like. Or we use buzzwords and jargon to obscure our lack of clear thinking. Its silly. Can we all decide that the new professionalism means being respectful and doing good work, whether or not were wearing a zipper?
Weve confused being professional with looking professional.
Also, its really no fun. Who wants to be (literally) buttoned up and proper all day long? Why should work be a costume party? When we get dressed for work in the morning, the last thing most people want to put on is a business mask: that way of being that allows us to be seen as palatable, presentable, and acceptable within the dominant business culture. An employee I interviewed at one client said, The feedback was focused on delivery, not content. Weve gotten better but have work to do around embracing people, their styles. And another said, There shouldnt be one template of what a successful leader is.
You might think, Sure, some tech startup or creative agency can be casual and spunky and fun, but serious business demands proper professionalism. But consider perhaps the most serious of all workplaces: the operating room. Dr. Peter Attia, author of Outlive and former Johns Hopkins surgeon, recounts, Surgeons are often listening to music in the OR, but we only listened to that CD [of Napoleon Dynamite clips]. For an entire month we never stopped laughing at this thing. People always ask when I tell this story, Did it compromise the outcomes? And I will say that there was a period of three days when we did 13 kidney transplants: every one of those patients had a remarkable achievement outcome. If surgeons are having fun while peoples lives are on the line, you can have fun in your next budget meeting.
3. Shoveling shit is fun if you like your co-shovelers.
Loads of research shows that friendship at work drives business outcomes. Im far more interested in the argument that friendship at work drives Im enjoying my life outcomes. Because what good is a strong bottom line if everyones miserable? If we know relationships are the secret to long-term human happiness, why do we pretend its different at work? You should like the people you spend your days with. Plain and simple.
What good is a strong bottom line if everyones miserable?
In the show The Office, the imaginary organization Dunder Mifflin is a paper sales companya brilliant choice for its extreme dullness. The point of the show was not to showcase purpose at work, or passion, or that work sucks. It was to show that, even without purpose and passion, work doesnt suck because of the people.
The office workers at Dunder Mifflin all kind of hated each other (except for a few notable romances), but they made their own fun, nonetheless. From the dullest of scenesHR presentations and fire safety protoolscame all kinds of hilarity. Im very aware that some of the jokes didnt age well. But I think the sentiment remains: Work is fun if we, together, make it that way.
4. Make brilliant workdont let busyness and conformity sabotage you.
We should do brilliant work because it drives business. Because it creates value. But even cooler than either of those reasons is that doing brilliant work makes us feel alive! Its a cool part of being a human that we get to play around on the planet and try to make stuff that makes others happy. Were all just big kids shouting, Hey, watch this! Look what I can do! Its simply fun. And yet, two things get in the way: busyness and conformity.
Busyness can be a strategy problem. You arent prioritizing what drives your business and are making yourself busy with too many side quests. It can be a power problemthat managers need to constantly coordinate and are therefore making workers attend 17 status meetings a week. Or it can be a psychology problem: It feels good to be busy because busy means Im in demand, Im needed. It can also be an escape from the rest of life.
Brilliance requires spaciousness. Busyness is fight or flight, while brilliance is sitting in the meadow, dreaming about your innovative new shelter. What does it take for us to simply sit and think once in a while?
Busyness is fight or flight, while brilliance is sitting in the meadow, dreaming about your innovative new shelter.
Conformity is equally dominating and alluring. Making our work look like everyone elses work is a form of safety. Its Im just doing it how weve always done it. Dont blame me! But what happens when we honor our own instincts first and lead with creative confidence? Take the acclaimed and non-conforming screenwriter Stanley Kubrick. Someone once asked him if it was usual for a director to spend so much time lighting each shot. He said, I dont know. Ive never seen anyone else light a film. He trusted in himself.
You may not want a whole organization filled with Stanley Kubricks who are definitely not getting their expense reports done on time. But truly anyoneanyone!can learn to be brilliant in at least some aspect of their work: whether theyre a barista making latte art, an HR manager creating trainings, or a CEO setting a strategy, there is always some opportunity for human expression. And thats the fun stuff.
5. Get good at life, not just work.
The trouble with work is that it can be greedy. Sometimes you may work too much because thats what the job requires. Other times it might be because you find it fun and even addicting. But either way, theres a cost, and it cant be avoided. When you overwork, you underlive. And thats no fun.
Our time is finite, and if more is spent working, less is spent on date nights, crossword puzzles, your health, or many other parts of your life that are important to you. Under no circumstances should you take your laptop on your date night in a quest to have it all. You are more important than you think to those who love you. You are less important than you think to those who employ you. Even leaders of nations are replaceable! But it can be hard to keep overworking tamped down if we dont see how much there is to gain.
We were at the beach one day when my husband, Brad, said to a friend of ours, It was so nice to have a day to do nothing. Our friend responded, Nothing?! When was the last time you had lobster for lunch and swam so vigorously in the sea? You did everything! Of course, Brad was referring to having done no workthe measure of how productive we are for business or society. When I think of a day I did everything, I used to think of a day when I ran around hyper-efficiently getting things done. But thats not the kind of everything-life I want now.
I want the kind of everything-life where I have time to sing the ridiculous wake-up song to my daughter in the morning. Where I belly laugh with colleagues instead of getting right down to business. Maybe some everything-days are grand and filled with lobster and the sea, while some are small and sweet and filled with time to read and walk and cook with my family and totally mess up the recipe, but it doesnt really matter. I want that kind of everything-life. Perhaps you do too? The kind of life where I curl up at night and think: Today was fun.
This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
Artificial intelligence is transforming the way companies workeven at the top. C-suite executives now rank AI literacy as the No. 1 skill needed to navigate business change, according to a recent LinkedIn report. In fact, 88% of leaders surveyed in this report said speeding up their businesses adoption of the technology is a priority this year.
Although business leaders across many sectors agree AI is important, some acknowledge it can be difficult to know how and when to implement it, especially since it is constantly changing.
Its still an early technology, in terms of its capabilities, says Heather Redman, cofounder of the venture firm Flying Fish Partners and board member at several companies. Were all watching with both anticipation and trepidation as to how good it gets.
With AIs momentum showing no signs of slowing, here are the key things board members and the people who advise them are keeping in mind when it comes to integrating AI into businesses.
Focusing on where is AI actually usefuland where its just hype
Before adding AI to the business, whether internally or externally, those who advise board members on new technology say the most important thing is not to get caught up in the hype surrounding AI. Instead, they tell board members to think about how the technology could truly benefit the businessfor example, finding new uses for AI that set a company apart from competitors.
You dont want to neglect your core business because youre shifting everything towards AI, says Christoph Wollersheim, AI consultant at the leadership advisory firm Egon Zehnder.
To cut through the noise, many board members are focusing their conversations about AI around four main questions: where does AI fit into the companys strategy? What regulations govern the new technology? How can the company use it responsibly? And how will it change the workforce?
Communicate plans with the rest of the company
With so many questions to consider with AI, its easy for boards to get bogged down. However, Redman urges companies to take time to really nail down their AI strategy so they dont hold employees back from innovating.
People tend to fixate on the technology, and I think we need to also be thinking about the human side as well as the strategy in the business side, Redman says. Were seeing a lot of surveys now where employees are incredibly nervous but also incredibly eager to use the technology, and the senior levels of the company are sometimes holding them back.
To overcome this indecision and learn to communicate more effectively about AI, some leaders are looking at how peers in their businesss competitive landscape are using the technology and trying to imagine similar uses in their own work.
In my past six months of conversation with board members, many of them have become AI savvy, says Beena Ammaneth, executive director of the Deloitte Global AI Institute. But they also want to learn more about what others in the industry are doing. They’re looking for those best practices.
Some best practices, Ammaneth says, are thinking of how to use AI to set your company apart, empowering managers to innovate quickly, staying ahead of emerging risks and regulatory changes that will impact AI, and creating a structure of governance around AI initiatives.
Balance the risks and opportunities AI brings
Once boards decide that bringing AI into the company is worthwhile, there are still lots of risks and opportunities to consider. Especially since the technology is both new and always changing, many of its risks are still unknown.
When it comes to any new technology or innovation, I think the immediate reaction among board membersand its for good reasonis . . . trying to understand what potential risks it introduces, says Dylan Sandlin, program manager of digital and cybersecurity content at the National Association of Corporate Directors. With new technologies, it always offers a potential to impact your strategy in a way you didnt anticipate.
So far, inside the boardroom, Redman estimates only 1% to 2% of boards are actively using AI. However, she says it can be a great way to get some non-human bias in the room, eliminating some biases in human decision making. For example, board members may be swayed by recency bias, or a bias toward trying solutions that worked in the recent past instead of exploring other options. An AI tool trained on a variety of solutions may pick one that was used less recently but may be better suited for the current situation. Still, Redman warns against AI being used in a way that could expose sensitive data or information that is not meant to be public.
Outside the boardroom, there are similar risks. AI programswhether internal or client-facingcan hallucinate and generate misleading or harmful information. As the technology continues to change, leadership teams will need to be prepared to change with them.
The boards going to need to maintain an appropriate oversight that matches the scale of the impact of this technology, Sandlin adds.
Start small with implementation
Since there are risks associated with AI programsand it is time-consuming and costly to implement themsome boards are inclined to take it slow when it comes to introducing AI to the workplace.
The biggest issue isnt so much bringing AI into the boardroom, Redman says. Its to get your whole board to feel comfortable [with AI].
To help bridge the gap in comfort and get projects moving, some board advisors suggest bringing an AI expert onto the board or starting with an AI workshop to help leadership teams understand the technology and its uses.
Others suggest starting by implementing smaller AI projectssuch an internal AI program with a relatively narrow scope, such as one automating marketing or finance processesto build confidence and support across the business before moving onto larger and more impactful uses for AI.
Not using AI is not an option, Ammanath says. You have to use AI no matter what business or what domain you are inand thats not just true from a business perspective, but also from a job perspective.
Continuous education
Above all, board members looking to implement AI in their companies are working to educate themselves about the technology as much as possible. With constant education, they hope to be prepared for the next questions that the tool brings to their governance.
AI shouldnt be a topic that one expert knows everything about, Wollersheim says. Its a core strategic topic that everyone should know something about.
Discomfort is common in leadership training, but its especially palpable when you walk into a room of police commanders and ask them to say Yes, and…
Thats the scene I step into regularly as part of my work with the Policing Leadership Academy at the University of Chicago Crime Lab. These sessions bring together leaders from some of the most high-risk, high-pressure precincts in the country. At first, theres skepticism. Arms crossed. Blank faces. Theres a quiet but unmistakable undercurrent: What is this? Why are we here?
Then, something shifts.
Within 30 minutes, theyre not just participating; theyre connecting. Theyre not just answering; theyre listening. And whether they realize it or not, theyre building the skills of an improviser: agility, curiosity, presence, and trust.
The challenge facing law enforcement leadership
Police leadership today demands far more than operational expertise. Commanders are expected to be strategic communicators, culture builders, and community connectors, all while navigating constant scrutiny, high-stakes decision making, and immense public pressure.
Yet many of these leaders rise through the ranks without ever receiving formal training in communication or emotional agility. Their development often emphasizes tactics, not trust. And that leaves a gap between what their roles require and what theyve been prepared to do.
This isnt a critique of individuals. Its a systemic truth. And it mirrors challenges in other industries: elevated expectations without the human-centered training to meet them.
Why improv is the unexpected solution
Improvisation is often misunderstood as spontaneous silliness. But at its core, improv is structured practice in navigating the unknown with others. Its the skillset of presence. Of curiosity. Of listening before reacting.
At Second City Works, we use applied improvisation to help professionals build real-world capabilities, ones that align perfectly with the demands of modern leadership. Skills like:
Yes, and: A mindset that builds momentum rather than shutting it down. It trains leaders to acknowledge others ideas while adding their own, creating space for collaboration, not control.
Intentional listening: Listening not to respond, but to understand. Its a discipline that reduces conflict and strengthens relationships.
Agility in complexity: The ability to make clear, grounded decisions without a script. Something every leader (especially in law enforcement) needs daily.
As my colleague Kelly Leonard often says, Improv is yoga for your social skills. It stretches our empathy, it strengthens our communication skills, and it builds the kind of flexible resilience that todays workplaces demand.
What happens when police leaders learn to improvise
These skills arent just interesting, theyre effective.
A 2023 study published in Science Direct found that participants in improv-based training improved their adaptability, confidence, and clarity under stress. In high-pressure environments, those outcomes arent optional. Theyre essential.
At the Policing Leadership Academy, Ive seen those outcomes firsthand. In nearly every session, theres a moment when one participant turns to the group and names what everyone is feeling: that this work matters. That shift in energy is immediate. The room leans in. And more often than not, the person making that statement is later chosen by their peers to deliver the graduation speech. In every case, theyve referenced our session as a turning point.
And the data backs this up. A 2024 review in the International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology found that leadership programs emphasizing communication, teamwork, and conflict resolution led to increased officer safety, fewer misconduct reports, and stronger public perception.
Similarly, a two-year study involving 101 first-line supervisors in the ILEA School of Police Supervision program found that service-oriented leadership rose from 63% to 77% after training. Among those who reported communication gains, that number jumped from 35% to 93%.
The lesson is clear: When we train for communication, trust, and presence, whether through improv or other human-centered methods, we dont just make better leaders. We make safer, more connected communities.
What every industry can learn from this
The conditions that challenge law enforcement (uncertainty, complexity, rapid change) arent exclusive to policing. Theyre everywhere.
Across sectors, leaders are being asked to connect across differences, navigate conflict with empathy, and make quick decisions that carry real consequences. Theyre also leading teams that are more dispersed, more diverse, and more stressed than ever before.
And yet, many industries still treat communication and relational skills as secondary, if theyre addressed at all.
Thats a mistake. According to Gallup, business units with higher employee engagement (which is closely linked to better communication and leadership) see up to 23% increases in profitability and 18% higher sales. And in that same Science Direct study, individuals who participated in improv training saw meaningful increases in creative self-efficacy and self-esteem. These two qualities are essential for innovation and confident leadership.
The message is simple: The workplace doesn’t need more perfect scripts. It needs more people who can lead without one.
Why now
We are living in a time of disruption. New technologies, new expectations, and new ways of working are reshaping the workplace faster than most organizations can adapt.
But some truths remain constant: People want to feel heard. They want to feel understood. They want to follow leaders who can communicate clearly, respond flexibly, and model confidence under pressure.
Improv doesnt just help you react; it helps you relate.
And whether youre commanding a precinct or running a board meeting, those are the skills that make leadership work.
Tyler Dean Kempf is creative director of Second City Works.
For as long as weve imagined the future, weve imagined computers that talk with humans. From the calm, ever-listening computer in Star Trek to J.A.R.V.I.S. in Iron Man, voice-enabled AI has been the centerpiece of sci-fi and a symbol of technological advancement.
Well, that future is now. And voice AI is in the middle of a gold rush.
Voice AI interactions have evolved from clunky text-to-speech tools with voices that sound like robots to new conversational voice AI technology that resembles human speech so closely its eerie. We can talk to ChatGPT and get voice responses that feel thoughtful, funny, and authentic. Googles AI search can now talk to you while searching the web and answer questions like a well-briefed assistant. These voicebots dont just talk, they converse. They demonstrate that they actually understand what were saying while closely mimicking real spoken communication with pauses, inflection, emotion, context, and tone.
And this is only the beginning. Without a doubt, voice is AIs next frontier. But its progress depends on the quality and integrity of the voice data on which its trained.
The real gold? Voice data
Whats powering this new generation of voice AI isnt just better codeits voice data on which voice models are trained. More specifically, its massive datasets of high quality and diverse human voices, representing the range of human speech in all its complexityacross languages, dialects, vocabulary, patterns, emotions, inflections, and context.
Now that the industry sees where AI is headed, its understanding the mission-critical value of voice data, and everyone wants access to this data. Tech giants and startups are scrambling to collect, license, or build it from scratch. Everyone wants to create the next, most lifelike talking AI, and they need the voice data to fuel it.
This is the voice data gold rush.
But just like the original gold rushes of the 1800s, the current frenzy comes with risk and consequence.
If you dont have permission, its stealing
I firmly believe that to build voice AI the right way, technically and ethically, the data training your voice AI models needs to satisfy three criteria. The data must be
High quality: Clean, extremely high-fidelity human voice recordings that are free from background noise or distortion, represent diverse voices and speech patterns, and offering rich emotional and linguistic content.
High volume: Enough data to meaningfully train a model.
High integrity: Ethically-sourced with clear licenses and proper consent for use in AI training.
Many existing datasets can meet one or two of these requirements. Getting data that hits all three is the hard part.
Dont take shortcuts
I dont hear many companies talking about how theyre building AI ethically, or clearly stating the sources or permissions behind the data used to build their voice AI. Yes, theyre able to move fast. Many voice AI startups go to market within months. But when theyre able to produce life-like voices that quickly and with very limited capital, I cant help but wonder: Where did all their training data come from?
To save time and cut costs, companies are taking shortcuts by scraping audio off the internet, relying on datasets with murky or unknown ownership, or using data thats licensed for AI training, but fails to meet the quality standards needed to train convincing voice models.
This is the fools gold of AI: data that looks shiny, but cant stand up to legal scrutiny or meet the appropriate quality standards.
The reality is that voice AI is only as good as the data its trained on. And if youre building a voice model meant to reach millions of users, the stakes are high. Your data needs to be clean, consented, licensed, and diverse. Just look at the headlines: AI voiceover company stole voices of actors, New York lawsuit claims. Companies are being called out and sued for cloning and using voices without permission.
When you take the unconsented route, youre not just risking a PR headache; you open the door to lawsuits, reputational damage, and most importantly, you risk a major loss in customer trust.
Build AI that lasts
Were entering a new era of human-to-computer interaction, one where voice is the default interface. AI that talks will soon become the standard way we shop, learn, search, work, and even forge relationships.
But for that future to be truly useful, human, and trustworthy, we need to build it on the right foundation. Were still relatively early in the generative AI boom, and navigating the legal landscape around training data rights and licenses is complex. If theres one thing we know for sure, any lasting, successful AI voice product will rely on quality data obtained the right way.
The gold rush is here. The smart players arent just chasing shiny things. Theyre building voices that last.
Jay OConnor is CEO of Voices.com.
