It all began with the jacket. Giorgio Armani twisted and bruised the angular piece of clothing tearing out the padding, adjusting the proportions, moving the buttons until he was left with something supple as a cardigan, light as a shirt.
“Removing all rigidity from the garment and discovering an unexpected naturalness,” as he put it years later. “It was the starting point for everything that came after.”
His 1970s reimagining of the jacket a study in nonchalance was to be his statement of purpose as a fashion designer.
Elegance, he argued, meant simplicity. That principle, applied to great acclaim over a five-decade-long career, would produce bestselling minimalist suits and turn his eponymous brand into a vast conglomerate producing haute couture, prt--porter, perfumes and home interiors.
Known to industry admirers as “Re Giorgio” King Giorgio Armani became synonymous with Italian style, helping to dress a generation of successful women, as well as men who wanted less stuffy attire.
He combined the flair of the designer with the forensic attention to detail of the executive, running a business that generated billions of dollars in revenue each year and helping to make contemporary Italian fashion into a global phenomenon.
Despite being one of the world’s top designers, he carefully guarded his own privacy and kept a tight grip on the company he created, maintaining its independence and working with a small and trusted group of family members and long-term associates.
Armani, a handsome man with piercing blue eyes and silver hair, often said that the point of fashion was to make people feel good about themselves – and he railed against the rigid, fussy lines that traditionally defined high tailoring.
“That’s a weakness of mine that affects both my life and my work,” he told “Made in Milan”, Martin Scorsese’s documentary about him, in 1990. “I’m always thinking about adding something or taking something away. Mostly taking something away.
“I can’t stand exhibitionism.”
Armani has died, aged 91, the Armani company said of its founder and CEO on Thursday, without giving a cause of death. “He worked until his final days, dedicating himself to the company, the collections, and the many ongoing and future projects,” the company said. The funeral would be held privately, it added.
TO MILAN
Giorgio Armani was born in 1934 in Piacenza, a town in the industrial heartland of northern Italy, close to Milan, one of three children of Ugo Armani and Maria Raimondi.
His father worked at the headquarters of the local Fascist party before becoming an accountant for a transport company. His mother was a homemaker.
Despite their limited means, his parents possessed an inner elegance, Armani told “Made in Milan”, and Maria’s sense of style shone through in the clothes she made for her three children. “We were the envy of all our classmates,” he said. “We looked rich even though we were poor.”
As a boy he experienced the hardships of World War Two. In his autobiography, “Per Amore” (“For Love”), he tells of how he dived into a ditch and covered his younger sister Rosanna with his jacket when a plane began firing overhead.
The family moved to Milan after the war. The city seemed very cold and big to him at first, though he soon came to appreciate its discreet beauty, he told Scorsese.
It would be the start of a lifelong association. In Milan, he developed a love for cinema that later influenced his career. Eventually he would lead his fashion group from there, helping to turn the unglamorous, industrial city into Italy’s fashion capital.
Armani studied to become a doctor, but dropped out after two years at university and then did his military service.
He took his first steps in fashion which he never formally studied when he was offered a job at renowned department store La Rinascente to help dress the windows.
His first big break came with an invitation to work for Italian designer Nino Cerruti in the mid 1960s. There he began to experiment with deconstructing the jacket.
“I started this trade almost by chance, and slowly it drew me in, completely stealing my life,” he told trade publication Business of Fashion in 2015.
‘WORK IS A KIND OF ORGASM’
As a designer he quickly tapped into two important trends in Western society in the late 20th century – a more prominent role for women and a more fluid approach to masculinity.
“I had the feeling of what actually happened – women getting to the forefront in the workplace, men accepting their soft side – early in my career, and that was the base of my success,” Armani said in an interview with Esquire magazine to mark his 90th birthday, in 2024.
Armani debuted his first menswear collection in 1975 and was soon popular in Europe. Five years later, he won the hearts of the U.S. glittering class when he dressed Richard Gere for the 1980 film “American Gigolo”, beginning a long association with Hollywood.
That same year, luxury department store Bergdorf Goodman became the first U.S. retailer to launch an in-store Armani women’s boutique, securing the designer’s transatlantic reach.
In 1982, Time magazine featured him on its cover under the headline “Giorgio’s Gorgeous Style”.
A self-confessed perfectionist, the designer oversaw every detail, from advertising to models’ hair. He often said he couldn’t wait for weekends to end so that he could get back to work.
“I’ve never taken drugs, yet for me the surge of adrenaline I get from my work is better than any hallucination or artificial high. It’s a kind of orgasm (if I may use this expression),” he wrote in “Per Amore”.
He told Italy’s Corriere della Sera newspaper in October 2024 that he planned to retire within the next two or three years, having just turned 90.
Hospital treatment for an undisclosed condition forced him to miss fashion shows for the first time in his career in June and early July of this year.
‘HE MADE ME SEE THE BIGGER WORLD’
Armani set up his business with his romantic partner Sergio Galeotti, whom he had met during a summer weekend at the Tuscan resort of Forte dei Marmi in 1966.
“It was Sergio who believed in me,” Armani told GQ magazine in 2025. “Sergio made me believe in myself. He made me see the bigger world.”
Galeotti, who had AIDS, died in 1985 at the age of 40, leaving a distraught Armani to run the business alone, with the help of his family and of long-term associate Leo Dell’Orco.
“I did not hesitate, though it was daunting, and I knew I would have to learn new skills,” he told Britain’s The Times in a 2019 interview. “It worked out all right,” he added, with understatement.
Armani, the company, was one of the first Italian fashion brands to expand into new makets, building a strong presence in Asia, and branching out with new fashion lines, such as the less expensive Emporio, to capitalise on an already famous name.
Other fashion houses such as Prada and Dolce&Gabbana would eventually follow a similar strategy.
Armani also diversified, moving away from thousand-dollar gowns to new products, spanning hotels to chocolates, as well as interior design pieces.
As the business grew, so did the scrutiny it attracted. In 1999, the New York Times questioned the Guggenheim’s decision to host a retrospective of the designer’s work just months after he had become a major benefactor to the New York-based museum. The museum denied any quid pro quo.
In 2014, the fashion house paid 270 million euros to settle an Italian tax dispute, newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore reported.
Ten years later, an Italian court placed under judicial administration an Armani-owned business accused of indirectly subcontracting production to Chinese companies that exploited workers.
Armani’s unvarnished statements also sometimes generated controversy. Speaking at Milan fashion week in 2020, Armani said: “I think it’s time for me to say what I think. Women keep getting raped by designers.”
He clarified what he meant – that he opposed fashion trends that sexualised women and limited their style options. The use of the word rape nevertheless shocked many.
‘AN ARMANI AFTER ARMANI’
His work having made him fabulously wealthy, he indulged in luxury real estate. He had homes in Milan, as well as in nearby Broni in northern Italy, the southern island of Pantelleria, where he liked to spend August, and Forte dei Marmi. He also had properties in New York, Paris, on the island of Antigua, as well as in St. Moritz and Saint-Tropez.
A sports fan, he owned the Olimpia Milano basketball team.
He wrote that he trusted only a few people and fiercely guarded the independence of his business.
Over the years the group received several approaches from potential investors, including one in 2021 from John Elkann, scion of Italy’s Agnelli family, and another from Gucci when Maurizio Gucci was still at the helm, but Armani always ruled out any potential deal that would have diluted his control of the company.
He also refused to follow peers such as Prada into listing his company on the stock market.
“Success for me has never been about accumulating wealth, but rather the desire to say, through my work, the way I think,” he wrote in GQ Italia in December 2017.
That independent stance leaves a question about what will become of his business in a luxury industry dominated by heavyweight groups.
Armani’s heirs are expected to include his sister Rosanna, two nieces and a nephew working in the business, long-term collaborator Dell’Orco and a foundation.
Silvana and Roberta, the daughters of his late brother Sergio, as well as his nephew, Andrea Camerana, who is Rosanna’s son, worked with him in the Armani group. Dell’Orco is also considered part of the family.
In “Per Amore” he vowed that his company would endure, curated by the people who had surrounded him.
“There will be an Armani after Armani,” he wrote.
Additional reporting by Claudia Cristoferi and Elisa Anzolin
Giulia Segreti and Keith Weir
Ever since 1988, when Walt Stack ran across the Golden Gate Bridge in Nike’s first commercial, Just Do It has been the tagline and philosophy that propelled Nike to become an iconic global brand.
Now almost 40 years later, Nike is aiming to remind a new generation what Just Do It actually means. The brands newest campaign is called Why do it?, and it takes aim at the pervasiveness of cringe culture, which often frames earnest effort as uncool.
Those three words mean so much to us, but we can’t just be holier-than-thou about it, says Nike chief marketing officer Nicole Graham. We have to make sure that those three words are resonating with each generation.
Narrated by Tyler the Creator, the new campaigns marquee ad features LeBron James and Caitlin Clark, Philadelphia Eagles Saquon Barkley, Real Madrid and Brazil soccer star Vini Jr., skateboarder Rayssa Leal, and more. As these athletes line up shots, attempt moves, and push themselves, Tylers voiceover asks: Why do it? Why would you make it harder on yourself? Why chance it? Why put it on the line? With so much at stake. With so much room to fail. Why risk it? Why would you dare? Seriously, why?! You could give everything you have and still lose. But my question is, what if you dont?
That last question is a valid one, and one Nike is looking to answer itself as it battles recent sales dips, and defends its top dog brand status among teens as competitors like On and Adidas continue to gain market share.
Carlos Alcaraz [Photo: Nike]
Competing with cringe
Cringe has become a defining attitude associated with Gen Z. It takes traditional self-conscious uncertainty and injects it with the steroids of social media and meme culture. This is where Graham sees an opportunity to put new meaning behind Nikes holy words.
Fear of failure and fear of trying, and terms like, Don’t be a try-hard, You’re so cringe, are all reserved for anyone who is showing passion for something, she says. So we wanted to take those three words and make sure were contemporizing the values of what they mean.
Tara Davis-Woodhall [Photo: Nike]
Asking “Why Do It?” is using the language of the brand to create new meaning, turning cringe on its head, and showing that earnest effort is actually not cringe at all.
It has never been about a trophy or a win. It has always been about celebrating those who are brave enough to do it. It might mean just take the step out there. It might mean just lace up for the first time. It might mean trying to make the team, she says. We felt like it was time to just remind people to just take the step out there.
Rayssa Leal [Photo: Nike]
Shifting gears
The Swoosh has been working on a major turnaround for the past two years, trying to reverse losses inflicted by a failed shift to direct-to-consumer back in 2021. Graham was named CMO in late 2023, and Elliott Hill was named new CEO in September 2024.
In June, the company reported that 2024 Q4 sales dropped by about 12% to $11.10B from $12.61B a year earlier. Nike has said that 2025 would be a transition year for the company, and its stock is up by almost 2% year-to-date.
Graham says this new campaign is just one part of a broader global effort, as the company shifts back to dividing itself into teams focusing on specific sports. Under former CEO John Donahoe, Nike’s strategy to grow its lifestyle business was to segment its business by womens, mens, and kids. The company announced on August 28th that it expected to layoff about 1% of its corporate staff, as a result of the realignment.
Shreyas Iyer [Photo: Nike]
I see already how quickly that success can happen, and the momentum right now is insane, she says. The running team was the first, and then the football team, now basketball and cricket. We have made this large company feel very, very small and intimate, so I’m incredibly excited and optimistic.
Going deep on each sport is the lens through which the brands overall philosophy is filtered. Thats where this new campaign comes in. That attitude is meant to have what Graham calls three different gears: Showing up at live sports, being a part of big sport moments that are important to fan sub cultures, and being present in the communities where consumers live and play.
This translates to everything from major leagues, to putting on local events like the recent One Global tournament in NYC or the Mamba League Invitational in LA. Or having fun in big moments, like taking the cupcakes out of Columbus bakeries to show that the Ohio State vs. Texas football game wasnt an easy, early season cupcake game.
Nike has to be at the global stage, but we also have to be at the street corner at the same time, says Graham.
You can start your new year with a cupcake, or you can put it all on the line. Texas and Ohio State know their choice. pic.twitter.com/Z8bArQq0WK— Nike Football (@usnikefootball) August 29, 2025
Everyday greatness
Why Do It? has great potential to both combat the impacts of cringe. It could also help Nike create balance between celebrating the giants of sport and highlighting the heroics of the everyday athlete. After all, Walt Stack wasnt a household name.
Some of Nikes most creative work hasnt featured a single pro athlete. For every Its Gotta Be The Shoes there is Jogger. The latter, narrated by Jude Law, is a 2012 spot that is just a kid jogging along an empty road. No hype soundtrack. No eye-catching visuals. Just the sound of shuffling feet, and a masterclass in advertising copywriting.
Nike has always done an incredible job of intertwining everyday people into the fabric of its epic sports stories. With Why Do It? the brand has an opportunity to tap back into the emotions involved in trying a new sport, or lacing up day-in and day-out when no one is watching.
We have to make sure that we’re heroing our biggest athletes and making them feel accessible, but we also have to take accessible individuals and make them feel like heroes, says Graham. We need to always be playing that balance.
Small businesses are committing more money to marketing this year than last, but surprisingly few have any confidence that their investment is paying offeven as more report using new tools like artificial intelligence to help boost their efforts.
The latest State of Small Business Marketing report from Constant Contact finds that just 18% of small business owners are very confident that their marketing is effective, down from 27% in 2024. Thats despite the fact that 37% of the more than 2,500 businesses surveyed said they had increased their marketing budgets for the year.
Small businesses feel optimisticand under pressure
Small businesses are under real pressure to see positive results from their marketing, but many feel like they are doing more without getting more back, said Smita Wadhawan, chief marketing officer at Constant Contact, in a statement.
Overall, the report found that the majority of small business owners in the U.S. are most likely to say they are not confident at all that their marketing efforts are producing results.
The findings stands somewhat in contrast to the most recent NFIB Small Business Optimism Index: It found that small business sentiment in the country increased last month, with many owners expecting positive business conditions and opportunities in the coming months.
AI may be case for optimism
Those using AI may be faring slightly better when it comes to their marketing, however: The report found that nearly half of all the small businesses in the study are using AI to some extent in their marketing efforts, including using the tech to help with copywriting, emails, and creating visual content for social media feeds.
And while some 50% of small businesses in the U.K. and Australia and New Zealand are deploying AI, only 37% of U.S.-based firms arethe lowest percentage of any country polled in the report.
That finding syncs with other reports into how American businesses are using AIor perhaps more accurately, not using it.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Technology Engagement Center (C_TEC) recently released a report that found 44% of small businesses in the U.S. used generative AI in some fashion. Tech and financial services companies, unsurprisingly, had the highest levels of adoption.
How to bridge the confidence gap
So why arent more firms using AI to help reach more customers? Some possible explanations for the low adoption rate are a lack of expertise or guidance in using the tools, or a failure to see how, exactly, AI might be useful in a given setting or organization.
Yet interest in AI and spending more on it to help with marketing is only set to grow among small business owners, despite the confidence gap.
Small business owners are working harder than ever, said Wadhawan, but without the time, expertise, or data to guide them, many are still guessing about what will resonate with their customers.
Nick Cleggs stint as Metas president of global affairs ended earlier this year. Now, in his book How to Save the Internet, he outlines what he thinks needs to change in tech. The reception hasnt been kind, with some calling the book baffling and unsatisfying. But buried in the otherwise thin prose are a few surprising anecdotes and arguments.
Clegg once sparred with his deputy in MMA
Mark Zuckerbergs reinvention as an MMA enthusiast is well documented. Less known is how he encouraged his senior executives to join him. Marks commitment to MMA is so strong that he insisted one morning, during a management offsite, that some of his most senior executives join him for a training session, Clegg writes. Thats how he ended up on the mat, straddled by his deputy Joel Kaplan (who would later replace him), in a manoeuvre apparently known as the Domination Mount, which Clegg admits was too close for comfort.
Politics accounts for just 6% of the Facebook feed
Clegg makes a spirited, if not always convincing, attempt to address the claim that Meta has harmed public interactions and polarized politics. Most people dont really use social media to engage in politics, he writes. Political content, he claims, makes up less than 6% of what people see on Facebook. If you want to assign blame for political discourse, he suggests, look instead to X (formerly Twitter).
Social media has changed democracy
According to Clegg, social media has transformed democracy, but it hasn’t destroyed it. Undoubtedly it has [changed democracy], he writes, describing it as a disruptive and messy change. He argues it will take time to understand the full implications but insists there are benefits alongside the well-documented problems.
Clegg suspended Donald Trumps account in 2021
One underexplained section covers Metas response to Donald Trumps role in the January 6 Capitol riots. Trump was banned from Facebook apps, a decision later reversed after his suspension ended. Trumps support for those protesting at the Capitol, and his refusal to condemn the violence of the insurrectionists, was tantamount to inciting further violence, Clegg writes, adding that Mark Zuckerberg made clear that the decision would be mine. Clegg ultimately chose to suspend Trumps access to Facebook and Instagram.
How AI will change our world
Clegg thinks generative AI can help address the Wests stagnating productivity. The implicit promise of capitalism is that the next generation will be better off than the last, with hard work rewarded by economic security and decent public services to provide a safety net when tragedy or misfortune strikes, he wrote. That promise, he argues, has broken down: younger generations are overworked, underpaid, and overstressed.
Clegg believes AI can help. Im not suggesting AI is a silver bullet that will suddenly reverse decades of gradual decline, he wrote. But the developed world badly needs a productivity boost.
Clegg wasnt a fan of the AI Safety Summitor AI doomers
Clegg recounts his experience at the AI Safety Summit in Bletchley Park in November 2023, attended by Kamala Harris, Rishi Sunak, and Ursula von der Leyen. Clegg claims he told a story about a hypothetical woman, called Mrs. Miggins, who lived just down the road from the summit. He writes: I can guarantee, I said, that shes more terrified of AI now than she was before this summit started two days ago.
Little surprise, then, that he also dismisses doomsday scenarios of AI domination. Were merely in the foothills, debating the perils we might find at the mountaintop, he writes.
Shares in French drugmaker Sanofi fell more than 10% on Thursday, wiping nearly $13 billion off its market value, after late-stage trial data for its experimental inflammatory disease drug amlitelimab disappointed Wall Street.
The company said amlitelimab, which it is developing for atopic dermatitis, a severe form of eczema, met all main goals in the Phase III study, showing statistically significant improvements in skin clearance and disease severity compared with placebo after 24 weeks.
But the data looked weak against Dupixent, Sanofi’s best-selling medicine, which treats the same condition and is due to lose patent protection in 2031.
The company has billed amlitelimab as a potential successor to Dupixent, and Barclays analyst Emily Field told Reuters investors had viewed amlitelimab as Sanofi’s lead pipeline asset to follow on from that drug ahead of the data release.
“That’s why we’re seeing a big reaction in the stock, because of the concern that Sanofi is not going to have enough in its pipeline to replace Dupixent after patent expiry,” Field said. “This is increasingly looked at as a cliff stock.”
Shares were down 10.3% at 0950 GMT, making Sanofi the biggest faller on Europe’s blue-chip STOXX 600 index.
Dupixent, which Sanofi jointly developed and co-owns with drugmaker Regeneron, is approved not only for eczema but also for other immune-related conditions, including severe asthma. With the patent expiry looming, Sanofi has doubled down on immunology, making amlitelimab a pillar of that effort.
JPMorgan said the data confirmed the drug is less effective than Dupixent, which brought in about 13 billion euros ($15.22 billion) in sales for Sanofi in 2024.
Analysts at Jefferies said the Phase III results fell short of its earlier trial and of rival biologic drugs, though the drug’s safety profile and convenient 12-week dosing could still support its use.
UBS called the drug’s efficacy solid despite it being weaker than Dupixent, adding that this could be countered by the advantage of amlitelimab’s less frequent dosing, which some injection-averse patients may prefer.
($1 = 0.8542 euros)
Maggie Fick, Reuters
On Wednesday, September 3, Figma released its first earnings report since going public in July, bringing with it a significant change in tide.
The collaborative design software platform had an incredible initial public offering (IPO), which saw its stock price rise 250%. In contrast, Figmas shares (NYSE: FIG) have now plunged about 15% in after-hours and premarket trading on Thursday.
So, what brought Figmas stock down?
Revenue-wise, the company grew 41% year-over-year (YOY), reaching $249.6 million. The figure beat Wall Streets predicted $248.8 million, according to consensus estimates cited by CNBC.
Figma further said it expects 2025 revenue between $1.02 billion and $1.03 billion, beating an estimate of $1.01 billion cited by Reuters.
Finally, the company also announced a series of new products, including Figma Make, an AI-powered design tool, and Figma Sites, which lets users publish websites from the platform.
While its earnings numbers are positive, the company’s explosive IPO stock growth may have meant that some investors had unrealistically high expectations, Reuters notes.
‘Significant investments in our AI efforts’
In an earnings call, Figma cofounder and CEO Dylan Field noted how AI growth might negatively impact profits.
You should expect to see significant investments in our AI efforts because we believe AI will be critical to how software development workflows evolve moving forward,” Field said. “This means that we expect margins to come down in the near term as we invest in the long term.
Another consideration for the drop in share price might stem from their availability. When the stock market closes on Thursday, September 4, the lockup period will end for 25% of shares owned by employees. This change means that a significant number of shares will enter the public market, potentially diluting the existing shares’ worth.
This story is developing…
If youre sick of tech companies hogging the IPO spotlight, youre in for a refreshing change of pace. Black Rock Coffee Bar Inc. is expected to list on the Nasdaq as soon as next week. Heres what you need to know about Black Rock Coffee Bar and its initial public offering.
What is Black Rock Coffee Bar?
Black Rock Coffee Bar is based in Scottsdale, Arizona, but was originally founded in Beaverton, Oregon, in 2008. The companys first store was a humble 160-square-foot drive-thru location.
Since then, Black Rock Coffee Bar has expanded to more than 150 stores across seven states, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Texas, and Washington.
Black Rock Coffee Bars menu consists of coffees, teas, and energy drinks, as well as a selection of all-day breakfast menu items. Its major competitors are the much larger coffee chains Starbucks and Dutch Bros.
One of Black Rock Coffee Bars current weaknesses also leaves room for growth opportunities.
In a recent Form S-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the company notes that its current brand awareness within its existing markets stands at just 47%. Thats compared to the 83% brand awareness that Dutch Bros enjoys and the sky-high 97% brand awareness that Starbucks enjoys.
[Photo: Black Rock Coffee Bar]
Black Rock Coffee Bar says it is leveraging several types of marketing to increase its brand awareness, including via online advertising on platforms owned by Meta and Google, and through organically driven influencer marketing campaigns.
The company also has plans to greatly expand its store footprint into new markets. It says it expects to grow its store count to 1,000 stores by 2035. For comparison, Dutch Bros hit that milestone earlier this year.
Black Rock Coffee Bar by the numbers
According to the companys SEC filing, Black Rock Coffee Bars most salient metrics include:
158 locations across 7 states.
Store revenue of $179 million for the 12 months ending June 30, 2025.
1.8 million loyalty members.
10.1% same-store sales growth for the six-month period ending June 30, 2025.
Average unit volume of $1.2 million for the three months ending June 30, 2025.
Annual store growth rate of 20%.
For the three months ending June 30, Black Rock Coffee Bar had a net loss of $1.1 million, its SEC filing reveals. That is double the net loss of $522,000 from the same period a year earlier.
When is Black Rock Coffee Bars IPO?
Black Rock Coffee Bar has not officially announced a date for its initial public offering. However, Nasdaqs IPO calendar listing date says the offering is expected to take place on Friday, September 12.
Fast Company has reached out to Black Rock Coffee Bar for more details on the timeline.
What is Black Rock Coffee Bars stock ticker?
Black Rock Coffee Bars stock will trade under the ticker BRCB.
What exchange will Black Rock Coffee Bars shares trade on?
Black Rock Coffee Bar shares will trade on the Nasdaq Global Market.
What is the IPO share price of BRCB?
According to the companys most recent Form S-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), dated September 2, Black Rock Coffee Bar says it expects BRCB Class A shares to IPO for between $16.00 and $18.00.
How many BRCB shares are available in its IPO?
Black Rock Coffee Bar says it is making 14,705,882 shares of Class A common stock available in its IPO.
How much will Black Rock Coffee Bar raise in its IPO?
With Black Rock Coffee Bars offering of 14.7 million shares at $16 to $18 apiece, the company is seeking to raise up to $265 million in its IPO, Reuters notes.
How much is Black Rock Coffee Bar worth?
Black Rock Coffee Bar is on target to be worth about $860.7 million based on its current IPO numbers, reports Reuters.
A change of flavor from the tech-heavy IPO scene
One interesting thing about about Black Rock Coffee Bars IPO is the industry in which the company operates.
Most of the major initial public offerings in 2025 have been in the tech sector. Black Rock Coffee Bars IPO represents a decided change in flavor compared to 2025s other headline-grabbing IPOs. So far, those have included listings from Chime, Circle, Figma, eToro, and Bullish.
It will be interesting to see how investors react to such a low-tech initial public offering, as their appetite for Black Rock Coffee Bar could play a significant factor in other consumer-oriented, non-tech companies choosing to go public in the remainder of the year.
The last major coffee chain to go public was Dutch Bros (NYSE:BROS) in September 2021. The company debuted on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) for $23 per share.
As of yesterdays market close, BROS shares were trading at above $71 eacha rise of more than 120% since its IPO date.
This time its different.Those four words, the official slogan of every economic bubble, have been weaponized in the age of AI. Theyre the rallying cry of utopians and evangelists insisting the technology will reshape every corner of life, and that the financial gains surrounding it are therefore excusable. At the same time, those same boosters, along with their critics, wield the phrase as a cudgel in their endless sparring.The AI conversation now feels as fracturedand as split-screenas debates over politics or the economy. Every new headline becomes ammunition, seized on to reinforce whatever larger argument someone wants to make. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman captured it rather well in August: Are we in a phase where investors as a whole are overexcited about AI? My opinion is yes,” he said at the time. “Is AI the most important thing to happen in a very long time? My opinion is also yes.Of course, only the first part of the quote got aggregated into countless even Sam Altman says AI is a bubble stories.Predicting whether we are or arent in a bubble is a fools game, and I wont play it. But what Altman effectively elides is that the financial frenzy part risks the most important thing to happen part.The greed is endangering the good.You dont need to talk to a chatbot until it induces psychosis; you just need to follow the money in AI.In this Premium piece, youll learn:
How the insatiable appetite for elite AI talent is breaking the social contract of startup creation
What the race to build ever larger data centers to power AI use is really about
Why you should closely watch the use of special purpose vehicles (SPVs) to buy and sell shares in AI startups
This time is different: Whatever happens in AI will not be exactly what happened to inflate and then pop the dotcom bubble in 2000 (though, naturally, SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son has costarring roles in each drama). So lets go through the events of just the last three months or so and you decide what the hell is going on.
Sama-Jony-ding-dong
Just before Memorial Day, OpenAI acquired Jony Ive’s io AI hardware company, which has never released a product or even announced one. But the potential riches if you build what my colleague Mark Wilson dubbed the fourth great computing interface are such that the startup commanded $6.5 billion in OpenAI stock.The nine-minute video that accompanied the news reportedly cost $3 million.Weeks later, a startup named iyO, which is also making AI-powered hardware, sued OpenAI alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition, saying that iyO met with OpenAI and Ives LoveFrom as far back as 2022 and as recently as spring 2025 sharing its vision and tech for screenless natural language human-computer interaction.A judge ruled iyO made enough of a case to merit a hearing and ordered OpenAI not to discuss the io brand. OpenAI then took down the video.
ARRrrrgh
Cursor, the buzzy AI code editor (or vibe coding app), announced in June that it had raised $900 million at a $9.9 billion valuation. The company also claimed its annualized recurring revenue (ARR) hit $500 millionup from the $100 million milestone it bragged about in February, which at the time made it the fastest company ever to get there, in just 12 months.
But ARR is a slippery metric. Its calculated by taking a single month of revenue (almost always the companys best) and multiplying it by 12. The result is a gaudy number that implies annual revenue without actually being annual revenue.
Cursors record quickly became the AI industrys version of the four-minute mile. In July, rival AI coding startup Lovable crowed that it hit $100 million ARR in only eight months.
Not to be overshadowed, Anthropic (OpenAIs nerdier LLM competitor) reportedly hit $3 billion ARR in May, $4 billion in June, and $5 billion in July. By years end, it says it will reach $9 billion ARR.
Yet even if you take those claims at face value, the companys real revenue pencils out closer to $4.3 billion on a back-of-the-envelope calculation. That didnt stop Anthropic from raising at a $183 billion valuation, or roughly 42.5 times this guesstimate of its 2025 revenue.
While ARR is soaring, so too are concerns that AI companies negative gross margins, meaning it costs more to do what it does than it makes from selling it, will not easily be reversed.
But hey, number go up, right?
Building the Avengers of AI
In June, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg paid $14.3 billion for 49% of Scale AI, a company which provides model makers with training data. Scale cofounder and CEO Alexandr Wang and some other Scale employees moved over to Meta to set up the social media giants new Superintelligence Labs (MSL).The move raised questions about whether Big Tech was yet again deploying a clever workaround to federal regulatory scrutiny for a large acquisition by spending a large sum for a stake in the company while its most valuable employees join the investor. Good questions!
Even more so after Meta rivals, which had been Scale customers, backed away, and in July Scale laid off 14% of its staff, 200 people, and ended relationships with 500 contractors.Soon the tumult came for Meta itself, with Meta in August instituting an AI hiring freeze, doing a reorganization of the AI teams it had just organized (the fourth reorg in six months, but whos counting), and some of those high-profile hires changing their mind once they had to show up towork at Meta.At least all this took place over the leisurely cadence of about two and a half months.
Choppy Surf
The drama over the acquisition of the AI coding app Windsurf played out over just 72 hours, across a mid-July weekend.This too looked like a company being raided for its leadership and top talent (this time by Google). In the heat of a summer Friday news dump, it appeared those 40-plus Windsurf poachees were leaving their former colleagues high and dry while they reaped a share of $2.4 billion.AI, whether because of the opportunity, the resources required, or just the guaranteed money, was shattering the heretofore understood premise that founders, like sea captains, went down with the ship.But with Big Tech offering yachts, not lifeboats, startups became just another manifestation of I got mine, with founders now at the front of the line to get theirs.On the Monday after the Friday talent raid, Cognition, yet another AI software engineering tool (!), took the heros mantle, acquiring the rest of Windsurf and promising to make the employees whole.Cognition CEO Scott Wu wrote that the deal includes Windsurfs world-class people, some of the best talent in our industry, whom were privileged to welcome to our team.Those good vibes lasted all of three weeks, when Wu confirmed that he had offered those world-class Windsurf people buyouts, citing Cognitions extreme performance culture that translates to many of us literally live where we work. The note implied that Windsurf perhaps didnt share that oh-so-healthy work culture and allowing that its employees hadnt signed up to grind themselves into dust.The only greater privilege than welcoming Windsurf to the team was showing them the door.
Mines bigger
Stargate: Its not just a sci-fi franchise but also a joint venture to fuel OpenAIs data center expansion, an AI infrastructure company. Stargate launched in January with help from SoftBank, Oracle, and others. According to OpenAI, Stargate intends to invest $500 billion over the next four years” and this infrastructure will secure American leadership in AI, create hundreds of thousands of American jobs, and generate massive economic benefit for the entire world. (Emphasis mine.)The first Stargate project in Texas, which started operating while still under construction, is promising 357 full-time jobs once construction has finished, according to Bloomberg, which added that thats a little more than the average Walmart Supercenter. If we interpret hundreds of thousands as, say, 200,000, we only need to build another 560 data centers to fulfill that goal.Gotta start somewhere, I guess, but in truth, OpenAI got to that jobs number through the usual economic impact sleight of hand, adding in short-term construction roles and indirect jobs like manufacturing and local service roles.Good American jobs, AI supremacy over the world, whatever. Lets not lose sight of whats important here: Sam Altmans data center was larger than Elon Musks xAI Colossus data center, consuming 300MW of power to Colossuss 250MW. The tech site Toms Hardware proclaimed, Its the worlds largest single building.Fear not, though, Colossus 2 is underway in Memphis. Sure, both of these projects threaten the stability of the electric grid, and Colossus may or may not be poisoning the residents of Memphis while you read this, but no matter: Musk simply must prove his is bigger.You didnt think Meta CEO Mark Cage Fighter Zuckerberg was going to sit this out, right? In July, he announced Prometheus and Hyperion (nicknamed The Beast), his data center projects that promise multi-gigawatt power consumption. As Zuck bragged, Just one of these covers a significant part of the footprint of Manhattan.SoftBanks Masayoshi Son, although already involved with Stargate (with money he doesnt actually have), was not deterred by those realities from reportedly pitching a $1 trillion industrial campus in Arizona devoted to building AI and robotics, dubbed Project Crystal Land.Cant help but wonder if these guys are compensating for something here.
Its the money, stupid
Of course, the hot AI summer of 2025 hasnt just been about bragging rights. Its about money, which can be converted into bragging rights.To wit:
In July, former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati raised a record $2 billion seed round for her Thinking Machines Lab AI startup.
As of mid-August, arguably a lifetime ago in AI time, the analyst firm CB Insights calculated that there were 498 AI unicorns, with an aggregate value of $2.7 trillion, leading CNBC to conclude, AI is creating new billionaires at a record pace. On paper, at least.
Thankfully theres a way for the founders (and maybe even the unwashed AI rank and file actually doing the work) to cash in that doesnt involve abandoning their startups: secondary share sales to investors clamoring to get a piece of these companies. In August, OpenAI reportedly initiated a $6 billion offering (or maybe its $8 billion) to investors (including, naturally, SoftBank), which would value the company at $500 billion. OpenAI currently has a $13 billion ARR (see above!). So lets call this maybe 50 times revenue, with, again, accelerating losses.
Elite AI researchers and 10x engineers spent the summer changing teams like college football stars in the transfer portal, with Zuckerberg reportedly offering $300 million, four-year deals to woo them to Meta. The coup de grace was hiring away Apples head of AI models with a compensation package that dwarfed that of Apple CEO Tim Cook.
Meanwhile, investor demand has gotten so frenzied that
1) companies like Meta are using financial instruments known as special purpose vehicles (SPVs) to finance data center investments off its books, obscuring the risk from its stock investos
2) OpenAI warned investors that unauthorized
sales of OpenAI equity;
investments in SPVs that own OpenAI equity;
tokenized interests in OpenAI equity (as Robinhood launched earlier in the summer, starting in Europe) and promised or an SPV holding OpenAI equity; and
forward contracts and other forms of purported economic interests as violating its terms and could result in those shares being invalidated
3) OpenAIs investing arm launched its sixth SPV, mere weeks before warning investors about SPVs offering its own shares, to invest outside of its main fund, seeking another $69.5 million
4) VCs are buying into each others SPVs with high fee structures to get any kind of exposure to these those private AI high-fliers. As Javier Avalos, cofounder and CEO of Caplight, a secondary deal tracking platform, explained to TechCrunch, Buying units of the SPV means [VCs] wont own shares in the actual company; theyll technically be an investor in another investors fund. Of course they can then mark up those investments and sell them to a greater fool high-net-worth investor, so everythings fine.
These are the kinds of things that happen when the smart money convinces itself that this time is different.The next crash will be different, and it may well not be caused by AI. (It could be private credit! Or crypto! So many possibilities.)Yes, every single one of these actions this summer has some kind of perfectly logical explanation. Why wouldnt you bet 1 or 2% of your company to have a shot at owning the next iPhone, being the dominant player in the fourth industrial revolution, or controlling data centers, the railroads of the 21st century?Then again, everything looks shiny if youre living inside a gossamer sphere floating into the atmosphere.Stay careful out there, folks. If anyone offers you a chance to buy into an SPV, maybe take all your money and put it in something tangible and safe, like Labubus.
Managing a team with clashing personalities can be one of the toughest challenges for any leader, but it’s entirely possible to navigate interpersonal conflict and build cohesion among team members with different points of view. Here, experts in team management and organizational psychology offer proven methods for fostering collaboration and productivity among a group with differing personalities.
Create Ritual and Name the Storm
Conflict is not a red flag. In healthy, high-performing teams, it is a sign that people are engaged and care about the outcome. The real challenge is not avoiding conflict, it’s knowing how to move through it without damaging trust.
One of the most effective approaches we use is teaching leaders to create ritual and name the stormnot just more meetings or surface-level check-ins.
Ritual, in this case, means building a steady, predictable space on the calendar where teams can name what is working, what is hard, and what they need from each other. These moments become an outlet, a way to lower the pressure before it turns into resentment. They also create psychological safety and permission to tell the truth.
But ritual alone is not enough. Leaders also have to name the storm when it hits. That means calling out what is being felt, even if it is uncomfortable. If tension is building, say it. If something feels off, bring it forward. People do not need every answer, but they do need honesty, presence, and leadership that does not avoid the hard part.
In one team, two high-performing colleagues were consistently clashing. Their conflict was showing up in meetings, in Slack messages, and in how others tiptoed around them. We introduced a shared practice and helped them kick it off. Each person filled out three prompts:
What am I working on that you may not fully see or understand?
What do I appreciate about how you work?
What is the one thing that would help us work better together?
After a brief facilitated start to break the ice, they took it from there. There was no pressure to agree, just space to be honest. That first conversation shifted everything. The issue was not really personality; it was stress, misread intentions, and both of them feeling unseen. Once the story underneath the conflict was named, the energy changed.
The strongest cultures are not built on agreement. They are built on rhythm, repair, and the courage to face what is real. Ritual provides structure. Naming the storm offers relief. Together, they create the kind of trust that holds when things get hard.
And trust is not a soft skill; it is the foundation of every healthy culture and every company that intends to grow.
Lena McDearmid, Founder & CEO, Wryver
Use a 3-Step Process for Personality Clashes
I am very skeptical of personality testing, but I do think most people are self-aware of their own personality “types.” So, when my clients or teams have had persistent personality clashes, we resolve them in a three-step process.
The conversation is done in a group, but everyone knows the questions in advance. Each person answers a set of questions about themselves, their strengths, weaknesses, and triggers (see the list below). We all answer each question before going to the next so that at each step everyone dwells within that topic together.
Others in the group may ask questions during that process. They may also point out when someone is being dishonest (like by saying their weakness is working too hard or some other deflecting nonsense).
Then each person identifies a way in which they are likely to annoy or trigger someone else. This can be very specific and personal. One person may say, “I have a bad habit of interrupting. It probably annoys John.”
Next, everyone identifies a strategy for getting themselves “un-hooked” when someone else in the group annoys them. For instance, John from the example above might say, “I will allow the interruption and then finish my thought and point out that I prefer not to be interrupted.”
And finally, everyone commits to a specific strategy for reducing or stopping the behavior they have learned is most irksome to one or more peers. The person above might say, “I will focus on letting others complete their thoughts and catch myself before interrupting.”
The process works on lots of levels. Everyone learns more about each other and themselves. Plus, each person is equally vulnerable when they identify some trait of their own that is annoying or discourteous. That shared humanity creates more charitable feelings toward each other. And of course, the strategies to both be less annoying and less annoyed help with the ongoing conflicts.
Pretty soon, they are jumping in to help each other succeed in their behavior change goals. After all, most of us have annoying traits or habits. It’s easier to change yourself if everyone is working on their own bad habits with you.The questions to ask:
What is your greatest strength as a person and professional?
What are your greatest weaknesses personally and professionally?
What three behaviors (in others) most annoy or trigger you?
What habit or behavioral trait of yours is most likely to annoy or frustrate others?
Amie Devero, President, Beyond Better Strategy and Coaching
Apply Improvisation to Foster Team Cohesion
One of the most effective and unexpectedly transformative approaches we’ve found for navigating interpersonal conflict and strengthening team cohesion is applied improvisation. As a firm championing collaborative methods, we seek tools that foster deeper connections across diverse teams. Applied improv is an underutilized approach that consistently surprises leaders with its impact.
Unlike traditional conflict resolution strategies, improv invites team members to engage in low-stakes, playful activities encouraging listening, empathy, and trust. Through exercises rooted in “Yes, and . . .” thinking, participants suspend judgment, build on ideas, and stay presentskills that lead to effective communication and collaboration.
In one engagement, we worked with a leadership team where two department heads had long-standing tension. Rather than forcing another structured mediation, we led a short improv session exploring shared dynamics. One exercise where each person added a line to a spontaneous story shifted the atmosphere. Laughter replaced tension, and both leaders later reflected that it helped them “hear each other without the baggage.” From there, communication opened and collaboration followed.
The beauty of applied improv lies in its simplicity and emotional intelligence. It fosters psychological safety, invites creativity, and models inclusive behaviors that drive strong teams. In a world where diverse perspectives are a company’s greatest asset, improv helps people move past personal differences to co-create something greater.
For teams exploring this approach, it’s key to start with the right mindset. Improv in’t about fixing conflict; it’s about creating shared experiences that build trust. Framing sessions as a chance to play and grow together helps lower defenses.
Simple activities like collaborative storytelling or mirroring break the ice quickly. These aren’t about performance; they’re about presence, support, and attunement. What starts as laughter often uncovers deeper dynamics in a way that feels safe to explore.
Leaders should embrace discomfortit signals authentic engagement. When they model vulnerability and playfulness, others follow. Reflecting afterward on how the experience felt and what lessons apply to daily work helps cement lasting change.
In sensitive cases, a skilled facilitator ensures the space remains supportive. But in nearly any setting, applied improvisation offers something rare: a joyful, humanizing path to stronger teams.
Tyler Butler, Founder, Collaboration for Good
Leverage Group Activities to Bridge Generational Gaps
Leadership often tests you in uncertain ways. Clashing personalities within teams can be most challenging. It becomes even more complex when you factor in generational differences. Approximately 70% of our workforce is Gen Z, with the remaining 30% being millennials. Interestingly, we have talented young leaders heading entire teams.
Now, when it comes to differences in handling teams, Gen Zers tend to value immediate feedback, rapid decision-making, and direct communication. Millennials often prefer more structured processes and elaborate planning. For instance, when a 23-year-old team lead wants to pivot a product strategy based on user feedback, and a 32-year-old senior developer pushes for more comprehensive testing phases, you get real friction.
Most companies default to HR interventions or formal one-on-ones when these conflicts arise. But here’s what I’ve discovered: Those sterile conference room discussions rarely address the underlying issue, which is often just a lack of genuine understanding between different working styles. Instead, we’ve built our conflict resolution around sports and wellness. We often organize group runs and yoga sessions, and quarterly, we participate in marathons as a company. Here’s why this works better than traditional approaches.
During our weekend 10K runs, I’ve watched that same Gen Z team lead and millennial developer naturally start discussing their different perspectives. Without the pressure of deadlines or the formality of meeting rooms, they began understanding each other’s motivations. The younger lead realized that the developer’s cautious approach came from having seen rushed launches fail spectacularly. The developer understood that the lead’s urgency was driven by genuine user pain points.
Physical activity releases endorphins, reduces stress hormones, and creates positive shared experiences. People return to work having seen each other as humans first, colleagues second. What traditional team-building misses is that it’s still work-adjacent. The result? The two individuals now collaborate seamlessly, with the developer’s thoroughness balancing the lead’s speed. Real understanding beats formal intervention every time.
Anjan Pathak, Co-founder, Vantage Fit
Reframe Conflicts to Facilitate Team Understanding
Clashing personalities on your team can be a tough challenge for even the most experienced leader. The field of counseling and psychology can provide some insightful approaches to help navigate this often challenging team dynamic. One of the most simple yet powerful interventions that a leader can implement to help facilitate cohesion and respect is the ability to reframe.
All business leaders know that stories are immensely powerful; they can help you sell a computer, negotiate a contract, and build lasting relationships. Your ability to “reframe” an interpersonal conflict on your team allows you to take control of the narrative and create a picture that can offer more cohesion and assist your team as a whole.
I am a board member of a team that consists of a lead engineer and an attorney. Both are strong and opinionated personalities in their own right, and there was an instance where we were all on a fundraising call and the attorney was hesitant to answer a question, which left the engineer livid. After the call, the two of them went at itdismissing one another and criticizing the other’s approach. They were both telling themselves “a story” that the call was a disaster. It was evident to me that they were coming from two different perspectives and that all three of us were feeling the pressure to succeed.
I drew upon my experience as a psychotherapist and was mindful not to “split” or take sides and instead find a creative way to reframe this situation. So, I chose to reframe that instead of “being a disaster,” this interaction was exactly what the prospective funder needed to hear. I specified, “He needed to hear that our engineering team was on point and ready to roll, and that our legal team was a risk management superpower and that both voices were critical in ensuring trust, efficacy, and overall professionalism, even if the two perspectives were seemingly ‘at odds’ with one another.”
Although this reframe did not repair every emotion that they were experiencing, or create a Zen circle of transcendent bonding, it did allow both of them to come back to the table and continue creative problem-solving together.
Louis Laves-Webb, LCSW-S, LPC-S, Psychotherapist/CEO, Louis Laves-Webb, LCSW-S, LPC-S & Associates
Study Behavioral Patterns Beneath Personality Clashes
When people talk about “clashing personalities,” they’re usually describing something else. In my experience, it’s often a lack of shared language around pressure and power, and sometimes even belonging.
I tell others not to rush to resolve the tension but to study it. Look for the behavioral loops playing out beneath the conflict. Observe those roles people are unconsciously taking on (e.g., the protector, the performer, the fixer, or the ghost), and the threat they’re responding to. Once you see that, the clash becomes a pattern, and patterns can be interrupted.
One approach I’ve used is to pause the task and invite each person to describe how they’re experiencing the room but not what they think of each other. That alone shifts the dynamic from judgment to self-awareness.
Sometimes someone will say, “I feel like I’m being evaluated,” or, “I don’t know how to contribute without stepping on toes.” I tell them these aren’t personality traits. They’re more like survival strategies.
Cohesion isn’t built by getting people to like each other. It’s more often built when people stop performing and start participating. And that only happens when the system makes space for complexity and when leaders make it safe to be wrong, to not know, and to shift roles.
My mindset? If it feels messy, you’re probably on the right track. Clarity doesn’t come before discomfort.It comes after. That isn’t intuitive. It’s hard. But the best strategies usually are.
Stephen Belenky, Co-founder & Chief Solutions Architect, Hiddn LLC
Shift Focus from Ego to Shared Purpose
Managing clashing personalities isn’t just about resolving conflict but rather about unlocking collective potential. One approach I’ve found effective is shifting the conversation from “Who’s right?” to “What do we need to create together?” That small shift reframes the dynamic from ego to purpose.
A few years ago, I led a cross-functional, multicultural team in developing an extensive executive master class. None of us had worked together before, the project was brand new, the timeline was tight, and we were fully remote. Let’s just say the personality mix wasn’t smooth. The lead designer was fast-moving and visionary. The content strategist was deeply reflective and needed space to process. The graphics designer was opinionated and on their own creative clock. Tension wasn’t just expected; it arrived early and loudly.
I realized the risk wasn’t open disagreement, but one voice dominating and others retreating. So instead of pushing through or trying to fix personalities, I hit pause. We ran a no-nonsense values alignment session where each person named what they needed to do their best work. That surfaced something powerful. We all cared deeply about excellence and success, but had radically different definitions of what that meant.
From there, we co-created team agreements. These weren’t platitudes, but real, operational norms such as “share early, polish later,” “ask before assuming,” “silence doesn’t mean agreement,” and so on. Within two weeks, the friction transformed into flow. People understood each other’s rhythms, respected communication preferences, and trusted that everyone brought something vital to the table. We delivered ahead of schedule, but more importantly, we built a culture that didn’t just tolerate differences but thrived on them.
Diverse personalities aren’t a problem to fix; they’re the foundation of a thriving team. But diversity alone isn’t enough. Trust and respect must be earned, and that only happens when each person brings meaningful value to the table. When someone doesn’t contribute, it’s not a personality issue but a clarity and accountability one. The key is creating a culture where every voice is heard, every strength is activated, and everyone understands what we’re building together.
Maria Papacosta, Co-founder, MSC Marketing Bureau
Design for Friction in Team Dynamics
One thing I’ve learned is that you can’t fix personality clashes, but you can create conditions where they don’t get in the way of progress.
I manage both marketing and sales teams, which are typically driven by very different personalities, and once we had a situation where two team leads from those respective teams just fundamentally rubbed each other the wrong way. Every cross-functional sync became a turf war, even when they were both technically right.
Trying to mediate doesn’t always work on people. What worked instead was reworking the structure of how they interacted. We reduced direct one-on-one confrontation, shifted their collaboration into shared documents and asynchronous updates, and made KPIs [key performance indicators] the neutral ground. Instead of trying to get them to like each otherwe aren’t in elementary schoolwe focused on letting them work effectively despite the tension.
Over time, that asynchronization lowered the emotional temperature. Their styles never matched, but they could respect each other’s results. The team dynamic improved not because we solved the clash, but because we stopped forcing harmony and started designing for friction.
Andrew Byzov, CMO & HOS, AcademyOcean
Clarify Roles to Prevent Misunderstandings
One thing I do at the start of every project is have everyone write down what they think their job is, and then what they think everyone else should be doing. Then we sit around and read it all aloud. It sounds weird and awkward, I know, but how incredibly revealing it is totally compensates for everything.
I had one campaign a few months ago where a strategist and copywriter kept butting heads. She thought he was stepping on her toes, and he felt like she was micromanaging him. When we did this exercise, we found they both thought they were supposed to create the messaging framework. Nobody had ever actually said who was handling what, so they were both doing the same work and getting frustrated.
Once we talked it through, everything calmed down. We figured out who would handle the framework and who would execute it, and agreed to touch base after the first draft, instead of just passing documents back and forth with no real communication.
This takes extra time up front, but it prevents weeks of people working against each other. I’ve done it with design teams, SEO folks, and even video crews. It lets everyone get their expectations out in the open before things get stressful.
And the funny thing is, people are usually relieved when you do this. Everyone’s been wondering about the same boundaries, but nobody wants to be the one to bring it up.
Austin Heaton, Head of Content, Rise
Establish Minimum Viable Alignment for Progress
Minimum viable alignmentI borrowed this concept from Adam Grant, who insists that people don’t need to agree on everything. They just need to agree on what matters most.
Two of our content strategists couldn’t agree. One was obsessed with user data and couldn’t help keeping tabs on Google Search Console and Hotjar. The other was more instinctive. She cared more about the tone and wanted to rely on her gut feeling.
They had the same KPIs but completely different approaches. Monday meetings were passive-aggressive, and it started getting out of hand. I asked them, “If this project were to go south, what would you blame it on?” One said ignoring data. The other said over-optimizing. I asked them to give me a shared list of three non-negotiables.
Two months later, we got better content for our website. Yes, they still disagreed, but this time it was productive. Their list gave us the best-performing blog series we had ever published. Get people to agree on enough to move forward and leave the rest.
Andrew Juma, Chief Executive Officer, CustomWritings.com
Observe Unspoken Cues in Team Interactions
I always pay close attention to what is not being said. Reactions, subtle shifts, and silence often reveal what wods do not.
During a recent huddle, several issues surfaced at once. The project manager was trying to show initiative and push the team forward. The developer, who was new to the project, didn’t have space to speak and shut down. The manager jumped in and took over the conversation. That was the moment I stepped in and paused the meeting.
I brought everyone back to where we actually stood in the project. I asked the PM to explain why those features were important to her. Then I turned to the developer and asked directly for his perspective. When he got interrupted again, I stopped the conversation and said, “I asked for his opinion.”
That shifted the tone in the room. From that point on, the team communicated more openly and respectfully.
I stay emotionally present and aware. I watch how people react, not just what they say. When I sense tension or someone being shut down, I force a pause, set structure and boundaries, and make sure people have the space to contribute. That’s what creates clarity, safety, and trust.
Lila Diavati, Managing Director, Momencio
Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., but a long-standing and effective anti-smoking ad campaign that brought that number down is now ending.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Tips From Former Smokers” ads will stop airing at the end of September due to a reorganization that eliminates or reassigns the agency’s work on chronic disease, according to CBS News, which first reported the ad campaign’s upcoming discontinuation. The CDC did not respond to a request for comment.
Launched in 2012, the “Tips From Former Smokers” public service announcements featured testimonials from real-life former smokers who shared their personal experiences. Their heartfelt calls to action encouraged viewers that they could quit too, like the message from Terrie, a North Carolina woman who spoke with the assistance of an electronic voice box. The former smokers in the PSAs opened up about health issues that resulted from years of smoking: cancer, gum disease, heart disease, HIV complications, and stroke. They were convincing.
[Image: CDC]
A rare combo: effective and universally liked
The first ads in the series aired for just four months, at a cost of $48 million, but they had a high return on investment. The CDC says about 1 million people successfully quit because of the campaign, making its cost only $480 per smoker who quit. The campaign was estimated to have saved $7.3 billion in healthcare sector costs and prevented 129,100 premature deaths by 2018.
The ads are also popular. An August Ipsos poll found 72% of Americans believe “television, online, and print advertisements aimed at reducing smoking or encouraging people to quit smoking are important,” though that varies by party affiliation. Democrats (82%) and Republicans (71%) are more likely to say they’re important than independents (67%). Still, a majority of those polled in each party agreed that such advertisements are important.
[Screenshot: CDC]
The Federal health system’s budget up in smoke
The end of the CDC’s anti-smoking PSAs will come amid major downsizing and reorganization at the agency, which is seeing layoffs, firings, and mass resignations over anti-vaccine policies under Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Former CDC director Susan Monarez was fired last week after opposing Kennedy’s vaccine policy changes, and other top CDC officials have resigned, too, saying Kennedy is endangering Americans’ health.
The end of “Tips From Former Smokers” isn’t the only thing the U.S. health system is losing under the second Trump administration. A new HHS budget makes cuts to primary care; care for mental and behavioral health, HIV/AIDS, environmental health, and maternal and child health; and the health workforce. And last month, the National Crime Prevention Council began selling “Take a Bite Out of DOGE” merch featuring McGruff the Crime Dog in order to raise money after Department of Government Efficiency cuts forced the nonprofit organization to put a public service announcement on hold amid an anti-fentanyl campaign.
The anti-smoking campaign’s end, though, is great news for tobacco companies. A study published in the Journal of Smoking Cessation in 2022 found “Tips From Former Smokers” wasn’t only good at convincing people to stop smokingit also helped former smokers from relapsing.
