MEMBERS BLOG

Managing the Political Message in a Cost-of-Living Crisis

By Mike Medeiros

Earlier this month, the American midterm elections delivered a historic defeat for the governing Republican Party. Democrats won control of both chambers of Congress, flipping seats in states and districts that had long been considered Republican strongholds. The result was a significant rebuke of Donald Trump and his administration.

There are several explanations for such an electoral drubbing, but one stands out: the cost of living.

Across much of the world, citizens are struggling with the rising cost of everyday essentials. Housing, groceries, transportation, and other necessities have become increasingly expensive, while household incomes have struggled to keep pace. For many, the economic recovery celebrated by governments and financial markets has yet to translate into an improvement in their everyday lives.

This presents a particularly difficult challenge for incumbent governments. They are in charge and are therefore held responsible for the economic conditions facing their citizens. Even when external circumstances are largely beyond their control, voters are not necessarily interested in hearing excuses. They are upset at their lives becoming more difficult.

Recent elections illustrate this challenge. Viktor Orbán’s government in Hungary suffered a crushing defeat in April 2026 after 16 years in power, amid dissatisfaction with inflation, living standards, and public services. In Serbia, economic grievances formed part of broader public frustration with corruption and government accountability. New Zealand’s governing coalition also faced significant electoral pressure, with affordability remaining an important concern.

The lesson is familiar: it is difficult for incumbents to campaign against an elephant in the room. But we should be more precise about what that elephant actually represents.

It’s the Economy, but Whose Economy?

There is a famous saying in American politics, popularized during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign: “It’s the economy, stupid!”

The expression captures an important reality of electoral politics. Economic conditions matter, often enormously. However, it can be misleading to interpret the economy exclusively through macroeconomic indicators.

GDP growth, stock market performance, and unemployment figures provide valuable information about a country’s economic health. But they do not necessarily tell us how citizens feel about their personal financial situation.

A country can experience economic growth while households struggle to pay their bills. The stock market can reach record highs while younger generations find homeownership increasingly unattainable. Inflation can fall while grocery prices remain substantially higher than they were a few years earlier.

Voters do not necessarily evaluate the economy by looking at quarterly GDP figures. They evaluate it through their own experiences: the grocery bill, the rent payment, the mortgage renewal, and the money left at the end of the month.

In other words, economic voting is not simply about economic performance. It is also about perceptions of economic performance. Positive economic statistics are unlikely to resonate with people whose everyday financial experiences tell them that they are worse off.

Three Ways to Survive a Cost-of-Living Crisis

If economic dissatisfaction is such a powerful electoral force, how do some incumbents manage to overcome it? Three examples offer interesting lessons.

1. Turkey 2023: The Opposition’s Credibility Problem

In 2023, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan secured another presidential term despite a severe economic crisis, exceptionally high inflation, and declining purchasing power.

The economic conditions should have been extremely unfavourable for an incumbent. Yet Erdoğan defeated opposition candidate Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu.

One important factor was the opposition’s difficulty convincing voters that it could manage the economy more effectively. Many voters remained unconvinced that the opposition offered a better alternative. Economic dissatisfaction does not automatically translate into support for an alternative. Voters must also believe that the alternative can deliver something better.

This is an important lesson: criticizing an incumbent’s economic record is not enough. Opposition parties must establish their own economic credibility and convince voters that they have the competence to deliver on their promises.

2. Brazil 2026: Connecting Economic Security to Broader Concerns

Brazil’s October 2026 presidential election offers another interesting example. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva secured re-election by defeating Flávio Bolsonaro, son of former president Jair Bolsonaro, with 51.79% of the vote.

Lula’s victory came despite persistent concerns about affordability. Brazil’s economy had performed relatively well during his term, with unemployment falling, real incomes increasing, and poverty declining. Yet many households continued to feel financially squeezed. A September 2026 survey found that most Brazilians believed their incomes had either stagnated or failed to keep pace with the cost of living.

Lula’s campaign sought to connect economic security to a broader political narrative. Protecting social programmes and improving living standards remained important, but so did defending democratic institutions and Brazil’s sovereignty. Trump’s trade measures and political interventions also provided an opportunity to frame the election around national independence and resistance to foreign interference.

The campaign also benefited from considerable mobilization, both online and in the streets, particularly during the runoff. Lula ultimately brought together voters motivated by different concerns, from economic security to opposition to the Bolsonaro political movement.

His re-election illustrates a key point: even when economic dissatisfaction persists, incumbents can broaden the political debate by connecting material concerns to wider questions of identity, democracy, and national sovereignty.

3. Canada 2025: Changing the Political Conversation

Canada’s 2025 federal election provides another interesting example, particularly for Canadian communicators.

For much of the preceding period, the governing Liberal Party appeared headed towards a historic defeat. Affordability, housing costs, and dissatisfaction with the government’s economic record had created favourable conditions for the Conservatives.

Then, Donald Trump began threatening Canada with tariffs and repeatedly questioning the country’s sovereignty.

The political conversation changed dramatically. The election was no longer exclusively about affordability or the Trudeau government’s economic record. It increasingly became about Canada’s relationship with the United States, economic sovereignty, and the country’s ability to stand up to an increasingly aggressive American administration.

Mark Carney’s arrival as Liberal leader reinforced this shift. A former governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, he brought an economic background particularly relevant to the emerging debate.

The Liberals ultimately won the election. Carney’s economic credentials helped position him as the candidate best equipped to confront Trump’s threats, manage economic uncertainty, and improve Canadians’ financial circumstances.

Lessons for Communications Professionals

These examples offer several lessons that extend beyond electoral politics.

1. Understand the difference between economic indicators and lived experience.

Communicators should not assume that positive statistics automatically generate positive perceptions. If people are struggling financially, telling them that the economy is doing well can actually undermine credibility. Effective communication begins by acknowledging people’s experiences.

2. Offering an alternative matters as much as criticizing the incumbent.

Erdoğan’s victory illustrates that economic dissatisfaction does not automatically translate into electoral support for the opposition. Voters must also be convinced that the alternatives can manage the economy more effectively. For communicators, the lesson is that identifying a problem is only half the battle; you must also convince your audience that you have a credible solution.

3. Understand your audience.

Lula’s campaign demonstrated the importance of recognizing how economic insecurity affects different segments of the population. A message about protecting social programmes can resonate particularly strongly with households that depend on them. One-size-fits-all messaging rarely works.

4. Context can change the conversation, but leadership gives it credibility.

Canada’s 2025 election shows how an external event can fundamentally reshape the political environment. Trump’s threats created an opportunity for the Liberals to reposition the election around sovereignty and economic security. However, the shift was also facilitated by having a new leader whose experience and qualifications aligned with the challenges facing the country. Carney’s economic background helped make the Liberal message more convincing. Changing the conversation is important but having a credible and qualified leader capable of delivering on the new narrative is equally essential.

The cost-of-living crisis illustrates the challenges of crisis management. It is tangible, personal, and constantly reinforced through people’s everyday experiences. It cannot simply be managed through statistics, slogans, or carefully crafted talking points. Nor can communicators expect to make the problem disappear by shifting public attention elsewhere.

As the examples illustrate, changing the conversation can buy political breathing room, but it does not resolve the underlying crisis. Effective crisis management requires acknowledging people’s concerns, understanding how they experience the problem, and demonstrating that those in charge have both the competence and the willingness to address it.

Ultimately, effective communication can help build confidence in the proposed solutions to a crisis. But when a crisis affects people’s everyday lives, they need more than reassuring messages. They need credible leaders who offer a clear path forward and give them reason to believe that things can improve.

Mike Medeiros is a political scientist and communications specialist with expertise in political psychology, public communication, and audience behaviour. He holds a PhD in Political Science and recently completed the Strategic Public Relations program at the University of Toronto.

Beyond the Synthetic Flood, Why Human-Led Authenticity Is Communications’ Most Valuable Currency for 2027

By Oluwayemisi Mafe

The communications profession is approaching a defining moment. For years, we have measured progress through our ability to produce more content, reach wider audiences, respond faster, and adopt increasingly sophisticated technologies. In 2026, artificial intelligence accelerated that transformation, making it possible to generate articles, speeches, social media posts, campaign concepts, and stakeholder communications in seconds.

Yet, as we look toward 2027, a paradox is emerging: the easier it becomes to produce communication, the harder it may become to earn attention, credibility, and trust. We are entering an era of synthetic abundance, where polished messages are everywhere, but authentic human connection risks becoming increasingly scarce. For communications professionals, this raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: If technology can generate the message, what unique value do we bring?

After more than two decades working across strategic communications, public affairs, healthcare, technology, and sustainability, I believe the answer lies not in our ability to produce content but in our capacity to exercise judgment, understand people, navigate complexity, and build relationships that technology cannot replicate. In 2027, the most valuable communications currency will not be content, it will be credibility.

There is a synthetic flood, when more communication creates less connection as artificial intelligence has undoubtedly transformed communications workflows. Tasks that previously required hours can now be completed in minutes. Research synthesis, content development, audience segmentation, and campaign planning have become more efficient.

These advances offer enormous opportunities, particularly for communications teams managing increasing expectations with limited resources. But efficiency comes with a challenge. When organizations can generate unlimited content, volume stops being a meaningful competitive advantage.

Audiences are already navigating crowded information environments, competing narratives, misinformation, and declining confidence in institutional messaging. AI-generated content adds another layer of complexity, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish thoughtful communication from automated production.

The risk is not simply that audiences will encounter more artificial content. It is that organizations may mistake communication activity for communication effectiveness.

A perfectly written statement does not automatically inspire confidence. A compelling campaign does not necessarily change behaviour. A carefully optimized message cannot compensate for an organization whose actions contradict its promises.

The challenge for communications leaders is therefore shifting from how much can we communicate to why should anyone believe us?

Authenticity is no longer a writing style, it is an organizational behaviour. Authenticity has become one of the most frequently used words in corporate communications. Organizations promise authentic storytelling, authentic leadership, and authentic stakeholder engagement, but authenticity cannot be manufactured through conversational language, emotional imagery, or carefully crafted narratives. Authenticity is demonstrated when an organization’s words, decisions, and actions consistently align.

In healthcare communications, for example, credibility depends on more than presenting accurate scientific information. It requires understanding public concerns, acknowledging uncertainty, respecting lived experiences, and communicating with empathy.

Similarly, in public affairs and sustainability, stakeholder trust cannot be secured through polished commitments alone. Communities, policymakers, regulators, and advocacy groups increasingly expect meaningful engagement and evidence that their perspectives influence decisions.

These lessons extend across industries. Employees want leaders who communicate honestly, particularly during uncertainty. Customers want organizations that honour their commitments. Communities want to be heard before decisions affecting them are finalized. Technology can help organizations understand these expectations, but it cannot independently fulfil them. That responsibility remains fundamentally human.

Human judgment is becoming a strategic differentiator as AI assumes more transactional communications tasks, with the value of professional judgment becoming increasingly visible. Consider a situation where an organization faces public criticism over a policy decision. An AI tool might produce an articulate response within seconds. It could identify likely stakeholder concerns, recommend messaging, and suggest appropriate channels. But should the organization respond immediately? Should leadership first engage affected stakeholders privately? Is the criticism rooted in misinformation, a legitimate grievance, or a deeper breakdown of trust? Could a technically accurate response worsen an already sensitive situation? These are not simply writing decisions. They are strategic judgments shaped by context, experience, ethics, organizational culture, and an understanding of human behaviour.

This is where experienced communications professionals demonstrate their greatest value. Our responsibility is not merely to make organizational decisions sound better. It is to help leaders understand how those decisions may be received, identify reputational risks, and recognize when the most effective communication begins with listening rather than speaking.

AI can accelerate the production of a message, human judgment determines whether that message should be delivered, how, when, and sometimes whether the organization needs to change its course first.

The measurement shift from outputs to trust and organizational impact is noteworthy because for too long, communications success has been disproportionately associated with outputs; media mentions, impressions, engagement rates, website traffic, content volume. These indicators have value, but they rarely tell the complete story. An organization can achieve millions of impressions while experiencing declining stakeholder confidence. A campaign can generate significant engagement without influencing understanding, attitudes, or behaviour. As AI makes content production increasingly scalable, output-based metrics will become even less sufficient as evidence of strategic value. The next evolution of communications measurement must place greater emphasis on outcomes. Did our communication improve stakeholder understanding? Did it strengthen confidence in leadership? Did it influence behaviour, support a policy objective, reduce misinformation, or improve relationships with priority audiences? These questions require more sophisticated measurement approaches, including stakeholder feedback, perception research, behavioural indicators, relationship assessments, and evidence of organizational impact.

Throughout my career, measuring communications effectiveness has reinforced an important lesson; what organizations choose to measure ultimately shapes what they prioritize. If we reward content volume, we encourage production. If we measure understanding, trust, and meaningful outcomes, we encourage strategic communication. For senior communications leaders, this shift is also an opportunity to demonstrate business value in language executives understand.

Looking toward 2027, I believe communications professionals must increasingly position themselves as strategic trust architects; from content producers to strategic trust architects. This requires three deliberate shifts; first is to move from message management to decision influence. Communications leaders must be involved early enough to shape decisions, not merely explain them afterward. Stakeholder intelligence, reputational considerations, and public expectations should inform organizational strategy from the outset.

Second, move from automated efficiency to responsible AI stewardship. Organizations need clear principles governing how AI is used in communications. These should address accuracy, transparency, privacy, bias, human oversight, and accountability. The question should not be whether AI belongs in communications workflows, it already does. The more important question is whether its use strengthens or undermines stakeholder confidence.

Third, move from audience reach to relationship depth. Communications strategies must prioritize listening, dialogue, accessibility, and meaningful engagement. Technology can help identify patterns and improve responsiveness, but trust grows through relationships in which people feel respected, understood, and genuinely considered. This is especially important when engaging communities whose perspectives have historically been overlooked in organizational decision-making.

As organizations prepare for another year of technological change, I would encourage communications leaders to focus on five practical priorities:

Audit trust, not just channels; assess stakeholder confidence, organizational credibility, and gaps between institutional promises and lived experiences.

Establish responsible AI governance by defining where automation adds value, where human oversight is essential, and who remains accountable for communications decisions.

Strengthen executive communication; prepare leaders to communicate with clarity, empathy, transparency, and consistency, particularly when answers are incomplete.

Measure outcomes that matter; complement reach and engagement metrics with evidence of understanding, trust, behavioural change, and organizational impact.

Bring stakeholder perspectives into decision-making; ensure engagement informs strategy rather than simply validating decisions already made.

These priorities are not alternatives to technological innovation; they are the foundations that make innovation credible and sustainable.

The future belongs to communicators who understand people and as we close 2026, the communications profession has every reason to embrace technological progress. AI offers opportunities to improve efficiency, expand capabilities, and free professionals to focus on higher-value strategic work but we must resist the temptation to equate faster communication with better communication.

The defining challenge of 2027 will not be whether organizations can produce enough content, it will be whether they can communicate in ways that deserve people’s attention and trust. For communications professionals, our greatest competitive advantage will remain the qualities that make our work fundamentally human; empathy, ethical judgment, contextual intelligence, cultural awareness, and the courage to advise leaders when listening or changing direction matters more than publishing another message. In a world increasingly flooded with synthetic content, authenticity will not be what organizations claim. It will be what stakeholders experience and that is where the future value of strategic communications will be determined.

Oluwayemisi Mafe, MCIPR, ACIM, MNIMN, ANIPR, is a strategic communications and public affairs leader with more than 15 years of experience helping organizations build trust, strengthen stakeholder relationships, and navigate complex reputation and policy issues across Africa and Canada. She specializes in corporate communications, public affairs, health advocacy, stakeholder engagement, and inclusive communications.

 

Presidents Message 

Kudos to national CPRS and its leadership council and Leger for presenting some fantastic PD recently.

What resonated with me in that research was how AI use in crafting leadership messaging is not particularly popular. And certainly, erodes trust in leadership.

I do not use AI to write anything, including the books we have published. And I did not use it to write this brief missive.

And I did not use it to prepare assignments nor mark when I was on the academic side of things.

But I do use it many times daily with questions as I read my way through the day and have many conversations.

And I took Martin Waxman’s advice of some years ago – always say please and thank you when using AI. Etiquette is important with that interface, as it is with many in our daily lives. Perhaps a future PR session? What do you think?

We intend to deliver more PD on AI this year so please stay tuned. As well as on other topics. And we are planning a few parties as well.

Please reach out to me and our board with ideas and questions that will enhance your CPRS membership experience.

And I am open for a “live” coffee or brunch chat if any of you want to make the journey to Newmarket. There is a Wimpey’s near our condo.

Please stay safe.

Sincerely,

Mark Hunter LaVigne, MA, APR, FCPRS, LM

President, CPRS Toronto

Q&A with Jasleen Singh: CPRS Toronto’s New Communications Co-Chair

By Samiha Fariha

 

As we settle into a new season at CPRS Toronto, we are excited to introduce Jasleen Singh as the new Communications Co-Chair. With experience across sports, gaming, entertainment, and hospitality, Jasleen brings a diverse perspective to communications, along with an interest in storytelling, creative ideas, and building connections. He currently works as a freelance PR and communications consultant, partnering with restaurants, hospitality businesses, and emerging brands.

Jasleen’s connection with CPRS Toronto dates back to his days as a PR student, when attending CPRS events gave him opportunities to meet and learn from professionals across the industry. Now, he is looking forward to becoming more involved in the community, sharing fresh ideas, and creating opportunities for members to connect and learn from one another.

We caught up with Jasleen to learn more about his journey in communications, what inspired him to take on this role, and the ideas he is most excited to explore. From people-focused storytelling to the changing role of AI in public relations, here is what he had to share.

What motivated you to put your name forward for this role?

My connection with CPRS Toronto goes back to when I was a PR student. I attended several CPRS events, which gave me opportunities to meet and learn from professionals across the industry.

What motivated me to put my name forward was the opportunity to become more involved in the PR community and contribute to an organization I have learned from over the years. For me, it is also a great way to stay connected with what is happening in the industry, understand how it is evolving and the pace at which things are changing.

I also saw the role as an opportunity to bring fresh ideas, challenge myself creatively, and continue learning from and building connections with people across Toronto’s PR community.

Can you share a bit about your career journey in communications and how it has led you to this point?

My journey into communications actually started while I was recovering from a sports injury. I couldn’t stay away from the field, so I started creating sports content, interviewing players, and managing social media. From there, I began volunteering with professional sports clubs, events, and local businesses.

I kept experimenting, learning, and building my network, which eventually led to some exciting opportunities across different industries. More recently, I have been working with restaurants and emerging brands as a freelance PR and communications consultant.

My goal is to keep building diverse experience and eventually work in an agency environment, where I can work across different clients and industries. Every experience so far has taught me something new about audiences, storytelling, relationships, and adaptability.

What excites you most about supporting CPRS Toronto’s communications and helping shape how the organization connects with its members?

What excites me most is the opportunity to make our communications feel even more connected to the people who make up Toronto’s PR community.

There are so many interesting professionals, students, agencies, campaigns, and ideas within the CPRS Toronto network. I have personally learned a lot from these conversations and built meaningful connections through them. I would love to help create those same opportunities for others.

You shared some thoughtful ideas during the selection process. Without giving too much away, what areas or opportunities are you most eager to explore in this role?

I am interested in creating more people-focused and interactive content. There is a great opportunity to showcase the personalities and stories behind Toronto’s PR community through member features, event content, and industry conversations.

I am also interested in exploring communications trends, career development, AI, and campaign strategy. Ultimately, I want us to create content that members genuinely want to read, engage with, and participate in.

How do you see strong communications playing a role in member engagement, retention, and community-building within professional associations like CPRS?

Strong communication can help turn an organization into a community where people feel connected and involved.

It starts with understanding what members find valuable and giving them reasons to stay involved, whether that is learning something, finding an opportunity, meeting someone new, or attending an event.

It should also be a two-way conversation. Listening to members, asking questions, and celebrating their work can create a stronger sense of community and belonging.

Are there any communications or marketing trends you are particularly interested in bringing into CPRS Toronto’s work?

I am particularly interested in the shift toward more authentic storytelling and creative content. Audiences connect more with content that feels human rather than overly polished or corporate.

I am also interested in how AI is changing PR. There are important conversations happening around creativity, efficiency, ethics, and authenticity, and I think CPRS Toronto can be a great place for professionals to explore these changes together.

What skills or perspectives do you hope to bring to the Communications portfolio as Co-Chair?

I hope to bring creativity, curiosity, and a willingness to experiment.

Working across different industries has taught me that there is no single approach that works for every audience. I enjoy trying new ideas, learning from what works and what doesn’t, and adapting along the way.

I hope to bring that mindset to CPRS Toronto while listening to our members and finding new ways to connect with them.

Outside of work and volunteering, what’s something members might be surprised to learn about you?

Sports have been part of my life for much longer than communications. I started competing at a young age in soccer, roller hockey, and badminton, including at provincial and national levels.

I am still an avid sports fan, but I also have a strong connection with animals and nature. One of my long-term goals is to use my time and communications experience to support wildlife welfare and conservation.

Final thoughts

I am grateful for the opportunity to join CPRS Toronto as Communications Co-Chair. I am looking forward to meeting more people across Toronto’s PR community, bringing fresh ideas to our communications, and learning from the people around me.

Samiha Fariha is the Communications Chair on CPRS Toronto’s Board. She is a Senior Associate at Golin Ketchum, a global public relations agency, and a professor at Toronto Metropolitan University’s G. Raymond Chang School of Continuing Education, where she teaches media relations in the Public Relations certificate program.

 

 

As public relations continues to intersect with politics, business and public opinion, communicators are increasingly expected to anticipate issues, build trust and understand the communities they serve. For November’s In Conversation With blog series, we connected with Howard Brown, president and founder of Brown & Cohen Communications & Public Affairs, the longest-serving Canadian partner in PROI Worldwide.

With extensive experience collaborating with 300 organizations, Howard brings a perspective shaped by public relations, government relations, marketing and an early career in journalism. We spoke with Howard about the evolving relationship between PR and journalism, the importance of proactive issues management, how public opinion influences decision-making and why curiosity, creativity and strong relationships remain essential to the profession.

How has your role as a PR practitioner evolved in recent years?

I think today, you cannot separate business from politics or public opinion. A decision made in a boardroom can quickly become a matter of public debate. We’re inundated with information, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we’re getting a better understanding of what’s happening.

That’s why I think the relationship between public relations and journalism is more important than ever. Newsrooms are leaner, the news cycle never stops, and journalists need people they can rely on for accurate information. It’s not enough to simply put information out there. You have to understand the story, recognize what makes it newsworthy and offer journalists something that genuinely advances their reporting.

And that understanding becomes even more important when you’re dealing with government. Roughly 40% of the marketplace depends on public-sector funding, so understanding how governments make decisions is enormously important. I’ve learned over the years that having the right people in the room isn’t always enough. You can have an excellent proposal, but governments have to consider more than the merits of an idea. You need public opinion with you, and you can’t afford to wait for the parade to form.

What major shifts have you seen in the PR profession, and how are they shaping your work today?

The shift I think about most is the pace at which a local issue becomes a public conversation. Something that once played out over a week now plays out in an afternoon, and the organizations that come through it well are the ones that did their thinking early. That shifts the real work upstream, to well before a story reaches the media. That means taking a proactive approach: getting the facts straight, anticipating where an issue might lead and preparing to answer difficult questions before they’re asked.

The second shift is the way in which people research organizations. Audiences are better informed and more discerning, and they want to know where an organization’s information comes from. Someone weighing a partnership, a purchase or a policy decision will look at everything published about that organization over the years, and increasingly they do it through AI tools that summarize it for them. What has been said about a client, and by whom, carries weight long after the news cycle moves on, so the test for every message is whether it will stand up years from now.

Looking ahead, what trends or changes do you think will define the role of PR practitioners in the future?

With more information at their fingertips than ever before, people are increasingly engaged in the issues that affect their lives. For PR practitioners, that makes our ability to understand what people are thinking, and why, all the more valuable.

That starts in our own communities. Look at our recent municipal elections: people were paying attention to what was happening around them, and we need to be doing the same. Do you know who your city councillor is? Your MPP? Your MP? More importantly, do you know what people in your community are concerned about? In my experience working with government, I’ve learned that even a very good idea does not get far without public support.

Looking ahead, the future of PR belongs to the people who stay curious. They follow the politics, pay attention to what people are talking about, and aren’t afraid to have an opinion.

What is your biggest piece of advice for PR practitioners moving forward?

Throughout my career, from my involvement in politics to building an agency that became Canada’s only representative in PROI Worldwide, I’ve learned that some of the most valuable relationships are with people who see things differently.

I have said since day one, our business is about bringing people and ideas together. But you can’t build relationships only when you need them. You have to invest in them long before there’s an issue on the table.

And I think that lesson extends to business leaders. We need to encourage leaders to get out from behind their desks, explain their decisions and hear what people have to say. Public trust begins with those conversations.

About CPRS Toronto’s In Conversation With blog series

Once a month, the In Conversation With series spotlights voices from across the communications field, featuring leaders and rising professionals who share their perspectives on industry trends, the future of the profession, and their own career journeys. These conversations aim to inspire, inform, and highlight the diverse experiences shaping the future of public relations.

If you would like to share your story or nominate a colleague, please contact us at communications@cprstoronto.com.

AI Slop & Small Businesses: Why Small Businesses Embrace AI Slop and What It Means To Their Bottom Line?

By Sanjeev Wignarajah

AI is a tool, not a replacement.

AI is here and it has changed the way we work and consume content, even if it’s off-putting as the film industry takes a hard stance on the use of Generative AI. We see Generative AI Slop that small businesses use the minute we scroll on Instagram or TikTok. The same can be said for vendors at the CNE with Generated AI imagery. It does raise ethical concerns and raises questions on why small businesses use AI.

Why AI?

AI can be used for administrative purposes from payroll to taxes, saving hundreds of hours of work. Unfortunately, the same can be used to generate images of advertised products. I get it. Small businesses have a lot on their plate. They have to pay rent, insurance, supplies, etc. Yet they couldn’t afford to hire a marketing team to make their brand visually appealing. That’s where Generative AI comes into play. It saves them money.

Concerns and backlash

When a small business uses Generative AI images, it puts a distrust between customers and businesses as it comes across as inauthentic and disingenuous. Whether it’s a social media post or entering the establishment with AI imagery shown inside. How would a small business win back the trust of loyal customers? If they chose cost-saving measures over authenticity. The ball is in their court.

The Bottom Line

Although AI can be useful as a tool to save hundreds of hours of administrative work. It cannot be used to create content, whether it’s food marketing or jumping on a social media trend to stay relevant in a creative way. There are so many content creators who are willing to work with small businesses not just for portfolio purposes, but for the spirit of human collaboration, ingenuity, and spirit. That and recognition.

To quote Martin Scorsese, “The most personal is the most creative.”

Sanjeev Wignarajah is a freelance writer and photographer working with select clients and publications. He has a background in journalism and public relations from Centennial College.

When the Brand Is Missing: Lessons from Non-Partisan Elections

By Mike Medeiros

 

Ontarians head to the polls next week to elect mayors, councillors, and school board trustees. But when voters look at the ballot, one familiar guide to a candidate’s political identity will be missing: the political party.

While elections without political parties are relatively uncommon around the world, Canada offers several examples. At the territorial level, candidates in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories run without party labels. Non-partisan elections are also the norm at the municipal level across the country, where candidates generally run without formal party affiliations.

There are a few exceptions. Municipal political parties operate in Quebec and British Columbia, whereas Alberta allowed, for the first time in 2025, political parties to participate in municipal elections in Calgary and Edmonton.

The absence of political parties matters because they serve important functions. They recruit political leaders, organize political competition, and bring different interests together under broader political programmes. They also help voters decide whom to support.

For voters, a recognizable party label is a useful shortcut. It communicates the candidate’s political identity and likely policy preferences. Voters do not need to examine candidates’ positions in detail; they can rely on their existing understanding of a party to make an informed, if imperfect, judgement.

Psychologists call this a heuristic: a mental shortcut that helps people make decisions without processing every available piece of information.

Without party labels, voters lose an important cue. They must work harder to understand who candidates are, what they stand for, and how they might govern.

Candidates face a similar challenge. They must communicate their identity and political outlook without relying on an established party brand. The challenge is not simply to communicate a message. It is to convey the information that a party label would otherwise provide.

So How Do Voters Decide?

Voters can use voter advice applications, such as Vote Compass for the municipal elections in Ontario, to see which candidates’ positions most closely align with their own.

But research on non-partisan elections suggests that voters also rely on other cues.

Name recognition is one of the most important. In low-information elections, familiar names have an advantage. Voters may recognize candidates from previous campaigns, local news, or community activities. When they know little about the candidates, familiarity itself can become a reason to vote for someone.

Incumbency can therefore provide an advantage. Existing officeholders are more likely to be recognized, as well as have a public record on which voters can base their decisions. Without party labels to distinguish candidates, experience and familiarity can become important cues.

Endorsements are another important signal. Support from a respected community organization, union, or newspaper can indicate a candidate’s values and priorities. Such endorsements lend credibility to a candidate, especially when voters have little other information to guide their choice.

Ideology also matters. Removing party labels does not make voters apolitical. They continue to draw on broader ideological preferences, using signals beyond party labels to guide their choices. Candidates’ positions on housing, development, taxation, and public services can all help voters infer where they stand.

Non-partisan elections do not eliminate political divisions; they change how candidates signal their political views and how voters interpret them.

What Does This Mean for Communication Professionals?

The absence of party labels makes political communication more challenging, but it also highlights some basic principles of effective communication.

Be, or Become, Known

Voters are unlikely to choose a candidate they have never heard of. Candidates need to build visibility well before election day through traditional and social media, community events, public meetings, and direct engagement.

Also, voters should be able to connect a candidate’s name with a recognizable identity and clear priorities. Repetition matters, but so does consistency. This is particularly important for challengers, who lack the built-in recognition that comes with incumbency.

Define Yourself Clearly

Without a party label, candidates must explain not only what they propose to do, but also what they believe and what distinguishes them from their opponents.

Ideological descriptions such as “progressive” or “pro-business” can provide shorthand, as can clear positions on local issues. Candidates can draw on their professional backgrounds, community involvement, and personal experiences to communicate what they represent.

Candidates can also position themselves in relation to well-known political figures. In Ontario, for example, Doug Ford often serves as an ideological reference point, helping voters interpret a local candidate’s political positions.

Visual branding, colours, and slogans can also make a message more recognizable. But they are useful only when they reinforce a substantive identity. A memorable slogan cannot replace a clear explanation of what a candidate wants to achieve.

Build Coalitions and Use Endorsements

Without formal party organizations, community networks become especially important for building recognition and credibility. Candidates seek support from neighbourhood associations, unions, civic organizations, and other groups whose members may trust their judgement.

These relationships do more than provide volunteers or access to new audiences. They can signal credibility. An endorsement tells voters that someone they recognize or trust considers the candidate worthy of support.

However, not all endorsements carry equal weight. Their value depends on the organization’s reputation, its relationship with the community, and whether voters share its priorities.

Make The Issues Tangible

Municipal responsibilities can be technical and poorly understood. Candidates need to connect policy positions to everyday experiences: housing affordability, traffic, transit, recreation, public safety, and the quality of local services.

Concrete explanations help voters understand what is at stake and distinguish between competing proposals. They also allow candidates to demonstrate their knowledge of local problems rather than relying on broad political identities.

Lessons Beyond Politics

These lessons extend well beyond elections. Organizations without a powerful, widely recognized brand face a similar challenge: they must communicate who they are, what they stand for, and why people should trust them.

A familiar brand reduces the information people need to make a decision. Without it, reputation, consistent messaging, endorsements, and visible relationships become more important. People rely on signals from others, previous experience, and the clarity of the message itself.

Non-partisan elections remind us that communication is not just about delivering information. It is also about helping people interpret it. Candidates may have detailed platforms, sound policy proposals, and strong qualifications; but those qualities matter only if voters can recognize and understand them.

Political parties normally do some of this work. They provide an established identity, a recognizable set of values, and a ready-made connection with voters.

Without that support, candidates must build these connections themselves. They need to become known, explain what they stand for, and establish why they deserve voters’ trust.

The broader lesson is straightforward: when an established brand cannot do the work of communicating identity and credibility, those perceptions must be built deliberately through consistent messages, recognizable priorities, and visible evidence of trustworthiness.

Mike Medeiros is a political scientist and communications specialist with expertise in political psychology, public communication, and audience behaviour. He holds a PhD in Political Science and recently completed the Strategic Public Relations program at the University of Toronto.

Presidents Message

 

What is old is new again.

Sorry, I went to a lovely wedding recently and this was top of mind.

I was last president of CPRS Toronto 24 years ago. And I am excited and honoured to have been asked back to CPRS Toronto, Canada’s oldest society, celebrating 78 years.

CPRS Toronto is still going strong with a most impressive board of directors, a diverse group of very talented practitioners.

While technology has changed immensely, and we are in the most major technological shift of our human experience, many things have not. PR is very much the fifth estate, trying to keep it all together, in the middle of an increasingly disparate modern experience in a global village that is recognizing our city and country as at its apex.

We are planning to increase professional development immensely this year, calling upon the expertise of many of our PR family in this amazing city to help us. Please reach out to enable this mission.

We are in very exciting times. With many challenges, but if we work together we will prosper. I have always referred to CPRS as my professional family. I am delighted to back on our board and to be fully part of the family again for an exciting year.

Sincerely,

Mark Hunter LaVigne, MA, APR, FCPRS, LM

President, CPRS Toronto

Your audience is bored. That’s a PR problem.

 What entertainment can teach communicators about writing people actually want to read

 By Matthew Celestial

I have spent a lot of my career trying to convince people to watch things: films, television shows, animated series, games, characters you have never met and stories you did not know existed until someone decided they were worth putting in front of you. It is one of the things I have always loved about working in entertainment: you can spend months building a campaign, perfecting the messaging and arguing over precisely how something should be introduced to the world, but eventually it reaches an audience that was not in any of those meetings and has no obligation to care about how hard you worked on it.

They either pay attention or they don’t.

Entertainment teaches you that lesson quickly, and sometimes brutally. Nobody owes you the next episode. Nobody has to finish the trailer. Nobody is required to understand why your film matters, fall in love with your character or read the interview you worked incredibly hard to place. There is always another show, another creator, another notification, another story and, increasingly, an entire internet waiting one thumb movement away.

Which is why I have been thinking about something happening in professional communications.

Our writing is getting flat.

Not necessarily bad. In fact, much of it is technically very good. It is grammatically correct. “Strategically aligned.” Appropriately punctuated. The key messages are there, the executive quote has been approved really quickly and everyone who needed to see it has seen it.

Open LinkedIn on almost any morning and you will find organizations thrilled to announce something, executives excited to share something else and companies proud to partner with another company that is, presumably, equally proud to partner with them.

“The Great Flattening”

 Naturally, it would be convenient to blame artificial intelligence for all of this. However, corporate  writing has always been interchangeable even before we started integrating ChatGPT within our communications plans.

There have always been forces pulling professional language toward the middle. Legal needs to review it. Marketing has terminology it wants included. Leadership has preferences. Someone wants another key message in the second paragraph. Someone else thinks a sentence sounds too strong. The writer changes it, sends it back, changes it again and, after enough rounds of revisions, the final version arrives at that magical place where nobody is particularly offended by it.

Nobody is particularly moved by it either.

Generative AI didn’t create that instinct, but it has made the conversation much more interesting because we can now produce an astonishing amount of perfectly acceptable language almost instantly. A reasonably good prompt can produce a respectable news release, executive quote, newsletter introduction, LinkedIn post or corporate statement before most of us have finished making coffee.

For communicators, that should be both exciting and slightly terrifying.

Because if competent writing becomes abundant, competence alone becomes less valuable. The differentiators start becoming the things that are considerably harder to manufacture at scale: a surprising observation, a distinctive voice, cultural literacy, humour, judgment, specificity, curiosity, reporting, taste and the ability to recognize when something technically works but simply isn’t interesting. Above all, there is the increasingly rare quality of actually having something to say.

DOES ANYONE CARE?

One of the reasons I have loved working across animation, film, television and games is that entertainment operates under an unusually unforgiving condition: the audience can leave whenever it wants.

Think about how much information a trailer is expected to communicate in a matter of minutes. It has to introduce a world, establish tone, give us characters worth following, create an emotional response and leave enough unanswered that we want more. A poster might get a few seconds of someone’s attention. A show’s premise needs to survive being reduced to a sentence.

Behind all of those decisions is essentially the same question:

Why would anyone care?

It sounds almost embarrassingly obvious, but it is a ruthless editorial test. What’s the hook? Who is this actually for? What haven’t they seen before? Where is the tension? What should they feel? What might they remember tomorrow? Why would they tell someone else about it? These aren’t exclusively entertainment questions. They’re questions communications professionals must face.

ATTENTION IS FADING

This is where I think communications has to become much more realistic about the environment in which our work actually exists.

We might categorize a CEO announcement as executive communications, a news release as media relations, an annual report as corporate communications and a LinkedIn post as social content, but the person encountering those things does not organize their attention according to our communications plans.

Their LinkedIn feed contains your carefully approved executive statement beside someone’s promotion, a creator’s video, an advertisement, a former colleague’s career announcement and a post they profoundly disagree with. Their phone contains your newsletter beside Netflix, TikTok, YouTube, Spotify, Reddit, sports highlights, breaking news, text messages and the group chat they would almost certainly rather be reading.  That is the actual competitive environment.

Your annual report is probably not competing with another annual report for someone’s attention.

That doesn’t mean the annual report should suddenly have a cliffhanger, or that every CEO needs to become a content creator, or that a serious piece of public-interest communication should be rewritten like the season finale of Succession. There are moments when communications should be deliberately straightforward, restrained and even boring. But we should be much more respectful of what we are asking from people when we ask them to pay attention.

When you think about it, attention is not the final outcome of communication. Typically, it is the admission price. Before somebody can understand our message, trust our organization, reconsider an issue, remember a fact or take action, something considerably more basic has to happen first. They have to keep reading.

WE NEED TO BORROW THE WRITERS’ ROOM TEST

I don’t think communicators need to turn every communications department into a writers’ room, but I do think we could borrow some of its instincts. The next time something is almost ready to leave your desk, forget for a moment how difficult it was to get approved and read the opening again.

Would you keep watching? Does the first paragraph genuinely earn the second, or does it spend 150 words clearing its throat before getting to the interesting part? Then ask the question entertainment people are almost annoyingly obsessed with: what’s the hook?

Not the key message, not the organizational objective and not the thing leadership most wants included. What is the idea that makes another human being lean forward rather than move on?

A hook does not have to be sensational. It can be a surprising fact, a useful insight, an unresolved problem, a contradiction, a human story or simply a genuinely important piece of information presented clearly. What matters is that there is a reason for someone to continue.

Then ask who you are actually talking to.

“Stakeholders” is not a person. Neither is “the general public.”

What does this particular reader already know? What are they doing when they encounter this? What might they misunderstand? What do they care about that has absolutely nothing to do with your organization?

Entertainment companies can become almost obsessive about audiences because their survival depends on understanding them. Communications professionals should probably be just as obsessive.

And then there is the test I have increasingly come to love: Could anyone else have written this?

Take the company name out of the announcement and replace it with its closest competitor. Change the executive’s name. Leave everything else untouched. Does it still work?

If the answer is yes, you may not have a writing problem so much as a specificity problem.

Words like innovative, transformative, authentic, purpose-driven and industry-leading are not inherently meaningless, but they become close to meaningless when everyone can plausibly use them. Specificity is harder. Specificity requires knowing what is actually different, finding the detail that proves it and trusting the audience enough to let that detail do some of the work.

Finally, ask the question that the entertainment industry ultimately lives or dies by: Will anyone talk about this afterwards? 

Not necessarily online. Not necessarily publicly. But is there a fact, an idea, a sentence or a story worth carrying into another conversation? Because being read is good, yes. However, we want to be remembered considerably.

WRITING ISN’T THE DECORATION AT THE END OF THE STRATEGY

There is a tendency in communications to treat writing as the final layer of the work. The strategy happens first. Objectives are established, stakeholders are mapped, messages are developed, risks are considered and approvals begin moving through the organization. Somewhere toward the end, a writer is handed all of this and asked to make it sound good.

But writing isn’t the wrapping paper around communications strategy. Writing is part of the strategy.

The strongest key message in the world has limited value if nobody reaches the paragraph containing it, just as the most carefully developed organizational narrative cannot do much if it sounds indistinguishable from the narrative of every other organization in the category.

And this is where I think generative AI ultimately makes the future of writing much more interesting rather than less.

For years, one of the practical challenges facing communications teams was production: How do we make enough content? How do we feed all of these channels? How do we write another version of this? How do we turn this announcement into five other things?

Technology is rapidly making that problem easier. The challenge is that we have to ask ourselves if our content is worth someone’s attention. We, now, must become editorial directors of our own work.

MAYBE WE NEED TO ENTERTAIN A LITTLE MORE 

I can already imagine the objection to all of this: public relations isn’t entertainment. It isn’t.

A crisis statement is not a screenplay. A public-health advisory does not need a plot twist. An employee who needs information about their benefits should not have to make it through three acts to find it. Sometimes the best writing is simply clear.

But I think entertainment understands something about communication that becomes more valuable with every additional thing fighting for our attention: you cannot force an audience to care. But you can give them a reason to.

I’ve spent years around people trying to make audiences care about characters that don’t actually exist. When you think about it, that is a fairly extraordinary communications challenge. Somehow, a collection of drawings, pixels, performances or words can become meaningful enough that someone quotes a character twenty years later, buys something with their face on it, makes art inspired by them, travels to a convention to celebrate them or introduces that same story to their children.

That kind of connection isn’t created because somebody found the perfect synonym for innovative. It comes from specificity, character, emotion, surprise and craft. An understanding of the audience and, perhaps most importantly, respect for the fact that their attention has to be earned.

Public relations does not need to become entertainment, and every organization certainly does not need to start behaving like a media company. But our profession could borrow some of entertainment’s respect for the person sitting on the other side of the screen.

They can scroll past. They can close the tab. They can delete the email. They can stop watching. They can stop reading. And in a world where producing more words has never been easier, perhaps our job isn’t simply to produce more of them. Maybe, just maybe, it is to give people a reason to stay.

So before we ask whether the next piece of communication is approved, optimized, aligned and on-brand, I think there is one more question worth asking.

Would I keep reading? 

Matthew Celestial is a Toronto-based writer and communications professional covering media, culture, entertainment and the ideas shaping how we communicate. He has spent more than a decade working across animation, film, technology and consumer brands, and is Managing Partner at Rhetor.