Podcasts about ipr

The call for better measurement in public relations is not new. For decades, leaders in the field have warned that counting impressions, likes, and advertising value equivalents is not enough. Yet here we are, still leaning on the same empty numbers while the C-suite is asking for proof of outcomes that matter.  The urgency has been with us for years, but too often the industry has not listened to its own advice.  We aren't listening to ourselves! Now, as budgets are cut and communications teams risk being sidelined, the pressure to finally get measurement right has never been greater. Richard Bagnall is recognized as one of the world's foremost experts in PR measurement, past chair of AMEC, and co-creator of the Integrated Evaluation Framework. He has worked with global organizations from NATO to the World Bank and continues to remind practitioners that vanity metrics will not protect their budgets or their jobs.  Listen For4:48 Why does PR measurement matter now?7:27 What are outputs, outtakes, and outcomes?11:41 How do you measure with no budget?14:05 What is “crawl, walk, run”?18:40 Jonathan Mast's answer to last episode's question?Guest: Richard BagnallX | LinkedIn   Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Search is changing faster than most PR professionals realize. For years, SEO was about keywords and backlinks. Now, with AI-driven tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity shaping how people find information, the game is shifting to AEO (Answer Engine Optimization).Instead of tricking algorithms, brands need to prove expertise, authority, and trustworthiness at every turn. To stay discoverable, we need to craft smarter prompts, produce content that actually engages, and choose the right AI tools for visibility. AI is rewriting the rules of credibility and your PR efforts might get left behind. Listen For5:32 What's the difference between SEO, AEO, and GEO?8:32 Is Google losing its dominance in the search space to tools like ChatGPT?11:24 Can AI-generated thought leadership be trusted?13:28How should PR professionals train AI tools to deliver better content results?18:19 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Susana MendozaGuest: Jonathan MastWebsite | Email | X | Facebook Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Health insurance expert Pete Damiano shares what is at stake for healthcare as it is wrapped up in a Congressional impasse. Also, IPR's Isabella Luu gives the latest on the Ian Roberts case.

Getting Hispanic communications wrong is not just a slip. It can cost brands credibility, trust, and millions in wasted campaigns. Too often, companies think a simple translation is enough, only to find their carefully crafted message falls flat or even offends the very audience they are trying to reach. With more than 65 million Hispanics in the United States, representing one of the fastest growing and most influential communities, PR professionals cannot afford cultural blind spots.In this episode Susana Mendoza, who helps brands authentically connect with Hispanic audiences, shares where campaigns most often go wrong, how to segment messaging without stereotypes, and why understanding generational and cultural nuances is critical to success. From Univision and Telemundo to influencers and radio, Susana lays out the media landscape and offers practical insights for PR teams navigating sensitive issues such as immigration, healthcare, and public safety.Listen For4:38 Translation Traps & Cultural Missteps 8:27 The Power of Spanish-Language Radio 11:17 Can ChatGPT Really Translate Culture? 15:38 Build Trust Before the Campaign Starts 17:21 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Jackson Wightman Guest: Susana MendozaLinkedIn Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

What do Tylenol, Jimmy Kimmel, and Disney all have in common? They're all caught in the crosshairs of public opinion this week. On this episode hosts David Gallagher and Doug Downs are joined by B2B PR powerhouse Michelle Garrett to dissect a week of PR minefields. From President Trump's dangerous misinformation about Tylenol and pregnancy, to the backlash and brand gymnastics following Jimmy Kimmel's controversial monologue.  The trio also touches on the shifting global perception of American brands and how companies can (and must) navigate reputational risk in polarized times.  Listen For5:42 What did President Trump say about Tylenol? And how should PR teams respond to misinformation?14:52 Why did Jimmy Kimmel get pulled off the air, and what does it say about Disney's PR strategy?26:33 How can political polarization affect brand trust and corporate reputation?Special Guest Michelle GarrettWebsite | Email | X | LinkedInThe Week Unspun is a weekly livestream every Friday at 10am ET/3pm BT. Check it out on our YouTube Channel or via this LinkedIn channelWe publish the audio from these livestreams to the Stories and Strategies podcast feed every Friday until Sunday evening when it's no longer available. Folgate AdvisorsCurzon Public Relations WebsiteStories and Strategies WebsiteRequest a transcript of this livestream Support the show

What happens when your newsfeed becomes a battlefield?In the US and UK, political leaders trade accusations, social media thrives on outrage, and communities are left simmering in distrust. What used to be disagreements over policy now look more like open hostility, with violence creeping closer to the center of public life. Attacks on lawmakers, threats to schools, and the killing of high-profile figures are no longer shocking outliers but part of a troubling pattern.This episode asks a difficult but urgent question: how much of this violence is rooted in the way we communicate? Words frame identities, assign blame, and sometimes push people toward radical action. Sticks and stones may break bones… but in today's world, it's the words that are drawing blood. Listen For3:17 Identity-Based Polarization6:22 How Algorithms Divide Us10:20 The Rush to Blame14:49 Messaging That Can Prevent Violence19:33 Teaching Kids to Resist Radicalization and DisinformationGuest: Amy PateEmail | Website | X Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Google Search still holds about 90% of global search volume as of mid‑2025, but change is underway as more users begin turning to AI. AI search is rewriting the rules of discovery, and PR needs to adapt. With ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity each scraping different corners of the web, the old focus on big-name publications is no longer enough. The most influential sources may now be niche review sites, specialized forums, or content hubs you have never pitched. Knowing what each Large Language Model (LLM) values and how to optimize for it, is becoming a core PR skill.In this episode, we explore how Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) is reshaping PR. From the rise of “dual websites” for humans and bots to the ethical tensions between LLMs and media outlets, we discuss how PR teams can rethink targeting, adapt content, and position clients for visibility in an AI‑first world. Listen For5:49 Dual Websites: One for Humans, One for Machines8:39 LLMs as New Media Channels11:38 What AI Tools Scrape (and Why It Matters)14:45 Can Bots Get Past Paywalls? The Legal and Ethical Minefield17:01 Answer to Last Episode's Question From Heather Blundell Guest: Jackson Wightman, Founder Proper PropagandaWebsite | Email | LinkedIn  Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Francois Daost is a W3C staff member and co-chair of the Web Developer Experience Community Group. We discuss the W3C's role and what it's like to go through the browser standardization process. Related links W3C TC39 Internet Engineering Task Force Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) Horizontal Groups Alliance for Open Media What is MPEG-DASH? | HLS vs. DASH Information about W3C and Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) Widevine PlayReady Media Source API Encrypted Media Extensions API requestVideoFrameCallback() Business Benefits of the W3C Patent Policy web.dev Baseline Portable Network Graphics Specification Internet Explorer 6 CSS Vendor Prefix WebRTC Transcript You can help correct transcripts on GitHub. Intro [00:00:00] Jeremy: today I'm talking to Francois Daoust. He's a staff member at the W3C. And we're gonna talk about the W3C and the recommendation process and discuss, Francois's experience with, with how these features end up in our browsers. [00:00:16] Jeremy: So, Francois, welcome [00:00:18] Francois: Thank you Jeremy and uh, many thanks for the invitation. I'm really thrilled to be part of this podcast. What's the W3C? [00:00:26] Jeremy: I think many of our listeners will have heard about the W3C, but they may not actually know what it is. So could you start by explaining what it is? [00:00:37] Francois: Sure. So W3C stands for the Worldwide Web Consortium. It's a standardization organization. I guess that's how people should think about W3C. it was created in 1994. I, by, uh, Tim Berners Lee, who was the inventor of the web. Tim Berners Lee was the, director of W3C for a long, long time. [00:01:00] Francois: He retired not long ago, a few years back. and W3C is, has, uh, a number of, uh. Properties, let's say first the goal is to produce royalty free standards, and that's very important. Uh, we want to make sure that, uh, the standard that get produced can be used and implemented without having to pay, fees to anyone. [00:01:23] Francois: We do web standards. I didn't mention it, but it's from the name. Standards that you find in your web browsers. But not only that, there are a number of other, uh, standards that got developed at W3C including, for example, XML. Data related standards. W3C as an organization is a consortium. [00:01:43] Francois: The, the C stands for consortium. Legally speaking, it's a, it's a 501c3 meaning in, so it's a US based, uh, legal entity not for profit. And the, the little three is important because it means it's public interest. That means we are a consortium, that means we have members, but at the same time, the goal, the mission is to the public. [00:02:05] Francois: So we're not only just, you know, doing what our members want. We are also making sure that what our members want is aligned with what end users in the end, need. and the W3C has a small team. And so I'm part of this, uh, of this team worldwide. Uh, 45 to 55 people, depending on how you count, mostly technical people and some, uh, admin, uh, as well, overseeing the, uh, the work, that we do, uh, at the W3C. Funding through membership fees [00:02:39] Jeremy: So you mentioned there's 45 to 55 people. How is this funded? Is this from governments or commercial companies? [00:02:47] Francois: The main source comes from membership fees. So the W3C has a, so members, uh, roughly 350 members, uh, at the W3C. And, in order to become a member, an organization needs to pay, uh, an annual membership fee. That's pretty common among, uh, standardization, uh, organizations. [00:03:07] Francois: And, we only have, uh, I guess three levels of membership, fees. Uh, well, you may find, uh, additional small levels, but three main ones. the goal is to make sure that, A big player will, not a big player or large company, will not have more rights than, uh, anything, anyone else. So we try to make sure that a member has the, you know, all members have equal, right? [00:03:30] Francois: if it's not perfect, but, uh, uh, that's how things are, are are set. So that's the main source of income for the W3C. And then we try to diversify just a little bit to get, uh, for example, we go to governments. We may go to governments in the u EU. We may, uh, take some, uh, grant for EU research projects that allow us, you know, to, study, explore topics. [00:03:54] Francois: Uh, in the US there, there used to be some, uh, some funding from coming from the government as well. So that, that's, uh, also, uh, a source. But the main one is, uh, membership fees. Relations to TC39, IETF, and WHATWG [00:04:04] Jeremy: And you mentioned that a lot of the W3C'S work is related to web standards. There's other groups like TC 39, which works on the JavaScript spec and the IETF, which I believe worked, with your group on WebRTC, I wonder if you could explain W3C'S connection to other groups like that. [00:04:28] Francois: sure. we try to collaborate with a, a number of, uh, standard other standardization organizations. So in general, everything goes well because you, you have, a clear separation of concerns. So you mentioned TC 39. Indeed. they are the ones who standardize, JavaScript. Proper name of JavaScript is the EcmaScript. [00:04:47] Francois: So that's tc. TC 39 is the technical committee at ecma. and so we have indeed interactions with them because their work directly impact the JavaScript that you're going to find in your, uh, run in your, in your web browser. And we develop a number of JavaScript APIs, uh, actually in W3C. [00:05:05] Francois: So we need to make sure that, the way we develop, uh, you know, these APIs align with the, the language itself. with IETF, the, the, the boundary is, uh, uh, is clear as well. It's a protocol and protocol for our network protocols for our, the IETF and application level. For W3C, that's usually how the distinction is made. [00:05:28] Francois: The boundaries are always a bit fuzzy, but that's how things work. And usually, uh, things work pretty well. Uh, there's also the WHATWG, uh, and the WHATWG is more the, the, the history was more complicated because, uh, t of a fork of the, uh, HTML specification, uh, at the time when it was developed by W3C, a long time ago. [00:05:49] Francois: And there was been some, uh, Well disagreement on the way things should have been done, and the WHATWG took over got created, took, took this the HTML spec and did it a different way. Went in another, another direction, and that other, other direction actually ended up being the direction. [00:06:06] Francois: So, that's a success, uh, from there. And so, W3C no longer works, no longer owns the, uh, HTML spec and the WHATWG has, uh, taken, uh, taken up a number of, uh, of different, core specifications for the web. Uh, doing a lot of work on the, uh, on interopoerability and making sure that, uh, the algorithm specified by the spec, were correct, which, which was something that historically we haven't been very good at at W3C. [00:06:35] Francois: And the way they've been working as a, has a lot of influence on the way we develop now, uh, the APIs, uh, from a W3C perspective. [00:06:44] Jeremy: So, just to make sure I understand correctly, you have TC 39, which is focused on the JavaScript or ECMAScript language itself, and you have APIs that are going to use JavaScript and interact with JavaScript. So you need to coordinate there. The, the have the specification for HTML. then the IATF, they are, I'm not sure if the right term would be, they, they would be one level lower perhaps, than the W3C. [00:07:17] Francois: That's how you, you can formulate it. Yes. The, the one layer, one layer layer in the ISO network in the ISO stack at the network level. How WebRTC spans the IETF and W3C [00:07:30] Jeremy: And so in that case, one place I've heard it mentioned is that webRTC, to, to use it, there is an IETF specification, and then perhaps there's a W3C recommendation and [00:07:43] Francois: Yes. so when we created the webRTC working group, that was in 2011, I think, it was created with a dual head. There was one RTC web, group that got created at IETF and a webRTC group that got created at W3C. And that was done on purpose. Of course, the goal was not to compete on the, on the solution, but actually to, have the two sides of the, uh, solution, be developed in parallel, the API, uh, the application front and the network front. [00:08:15] Francois: And there was a, and there's still a lot of overlap in, uh, participation between both groups, and that's what keep things successful. In the end. It's not, uh, you know, process or organization to organization, uh, relationships, coordination at the organization level. It's really the fact that you have participants that are essentially the same, on both sides of the equation. [00:08:36] Francois: That helps, uh, move things forward. Now, webRTC is, uh, is more complex than just one group at IETF. I mean, web, webRTC is a very complex set of, uh, of technologies, stack of technologies. So when you, when you. Pull a little, uh, protocol from IETFs. Suddenly you have the whole IETF that comes with you with it. [00:08:56] Francois: So you, it's the, you have the feeling that webRTC needs all of the, uh, internet protocols that got, uh, created to work Recommendations [00:09:04] Jeremy: And I think probably a lot of web developers, they may hear words like specification or standard, but I believe the, the official term, at least at the W3C, is this recommendation. And so I wonder if you can explain what that means. [00:09:24] Francois: Well. It means it means standard in the end. and that came from industry. That comes from a time where. As many standardization organizations. W3C was created not to be a standardization organization. It was felt that standard was not the right term because we were not a standardization organization. [00:09:45] Francois: So recommend IETF has the same thing. They call it RFC, request for comment, which, you know, stands for nothing in, and yet it's a standard. So W3C was created with the same kind of, uh thing. We needed some other terminology and we call that recommendation. But in the end, that's standard. It's really, uh, how you should see it. [00:10:08] Francois: And one thing I didn't mention when I, uh, introduced the W3C is there are two types of standards in the end, two main categories. There are, the de jure standards and defacto standards, two families. The de jure standards are the ones that are imposed by some kind of regulation. so it's really usually a standard you see imposed by governments, for example. [00:10:29] Francois: So when you look at your electric plug at home, there's some regulation there that says, this plug needs to have these properties. And that's a standard that gets imposed. It's a de jure standard. and then there are defacto standards which are really, uh, specifications that are out there and people agree to use it to implement it. [00:10:49] Francois: And by virtue of being used and implemented and used by everyone, they become standards. the, W3C really is in the, uh, second part. It's a defacto standard. IETF is the same thing. some of our standards are used in, uh, are referenced in regulations now, but, just a, a minority of them, most of them are defacto standards. [00:11:10] Francois: and that's important because that's in the end, it doesn't matter what the specific specification says, even though it's a bit confusing. What matters is that the, what the specifications says matches what implementations actually implement, and that these implementations are used, and are used interoperably across, you know, across browsers, for example, or across, uh, implementations, across users, across usages. [00:11:36] Francois: So, uh, standardization is a, is a lengthy process. The recommendation is the final stage in that, lengthy process. More and more we don't really reach recommendation anymore. If you look at, uh, at groups, uh, because we have another path, let's say we kind of, uh, we can stop at candidate recommendation, which is in theoretically a step before that. [00:12:02] Francois: But then you, you can stay there and, uh, stay there forever and publish new candidate recommendations. Um, uh, later on. What matters again is that, you know, you get this, virtuous feedback loop, uh, with implementers, and usage. [00:12:18] Jeremy: So if the candidate recommendation ends up being implemented by all the browsers, what's ends up being the distinction between a candidate and one that's a normal recommendation. [00:12:31] Francois: So, today it's mostly a process thing. Some groups actually decide to go to rec Some groups decide to stay at candidate rec and there's no formal difference between the, the two. we've made sure we've adopted, adjusted the process so that the important bits that, applied at the recommendation level now apply at the candidate rec level. Royalty free patent access [00:13:00] Francois: And by important things, I mean the patent commitments typically, uh, the patent policy fully applies at the candidate recommendation level so that you get your, protection, the royalty free patent protection that we, we were aiming at. [00:13:14] Francois: Some people do not care, you know, but most of the world still works with, uh, with patents, uh, for good, uh, or bad reasons. But, uh, uh, that's how things work. So we need to make, we're trying to make sure that we, we secure the right set of, um, of patent commitments from the right set of stakeholders. [00:13:35] Jeremy: Oh, so when someone implements a W3C recommendation or a candidate recommendation, the patent holders related to that recommendation, they basically agree to allow royalty-free use of that patent. [00:13:54] Francois: They do the one that were involved in the working group, of course, I mean, we can't say anything about the companies out there that may have patents and uh, are not part of this standardization process. So there's always, It's a remaining risk. but part of the goal when we create a working group is to make sure that, people understand the scope. [00:14:17] Francois: Lawyers look into it, and the, the legal teams that exist at the all the large companies, basically gave a green light saying, yeah, we, we we're pretty confident that we, we know where the patterns are on this particular, this particular area. And we are fine also, uh, letting go of the, the patterns we own ourselves. Implementations are built in parallel with standardization [00:14:39] Jeremy: And I think you had mentioned. What ends up being the most important is that the browser creators implement these recommendations. So it sounds like maybe the distinction between candidate recommendation and recommendation almost doesn't matter as long as you get the end result you want. [00:15:03] Francois: So, I mean, people will have different opinions, uh, in the, in standardization circles. And I mentioned also W3C is working on other kind of, uh, standards. So, uh, in some other areas, the nuance may be more important when we, but when, when you look at specification, that's target, web browsers. we've switched from a model where, specs were developed first and then implemented to a model where specs and implementing implementations are being, worked in parallel. [00:15:35] Francois: This actually relates to the evolution I was mentioning with the WHATWG taking over the HTML and, uh, focusing on the interoperability issues because the starting point was, yeah, we have an HTML 4.01 spec, uh, but it's not interoperable because it, it's not specified, are number of areas that are gray areas, you can implement them differently. [00:15:59] Francois: And so there are interoperable issues. Back to candidate rec actually, the, the, the, the stage was created, if I remember correctly. uh, if I'm, if I'm not wrong, the stage was created following the, uh, IE problem. In the CSS working group, IE6, uh, shipped with some, version of a CSS that was in the, as specified, you know, the spec was saying, you know, do that for the CSS box model. [00:16:27] Francois: And the IE6 was following that. And then the group decided to change, the box model and suddenly IE6 was no longer compliant. And that created a, a huge mess on the, in the history of, uh, of the web in a way. And so the, we, the, the, the, the candidate recommendation sta uh, stage was introduced following that to try to catch this kind of problems. [00:16:52] Francois: But nowadays, again, we, we switch to another model where it's more live. and so we, you, you'll find a number of specs that are not even at candidate rec level. They are at the, what we call a working draft, and they, they are being implemented, and if all goes well, the standardization process follows the implementation, and then you end up in a situation where you have your candidate rec when the, uh, spec ships. [00:17:18] Francois: a recent example would be a web GPU, for example. It, uh, it has shipped in, uh, in, in Chrome shortly before it transition to a candidate rec. But the, the, the spec was already stable. and now it's shipping uh, in, uh, in different browsers, uh, uh, safari, uh, and uh, and uh, and uh, Firefox. And so that's, uh, and that's a good example of something that follows, uh, things, uh, along pretty well. But then you have other specs such as, uh, in the media space, uh, request video frame back, uh, frame, call back, uh, requestVideoFrameCallback() is a short API that allows you to get, you know, a call back whenever the, the browser renders a video frame, essentially. [00:18:01] Francois: And that spec is implemented across browsers. But from a W3C specific, perspective, it does not even exist. It's not on the standardization track. It's still being incubated in what we call a community group, which is, you know, some something that, uh, usually exists before. we move to the, the standardization process. [00:18:21] Francois: So there, there are examples of things where some things fell through the cracks. All the standardization process, uh, is either too early or too late and things that are in spec are not exactly what what got implemented or implementations are too early in the process. We we're doing a better job, at, Not falling into a trap where someone ships, uh, you know, an implementation and then suddenly everything is frozen. You can no longer, change it because it's too late, it shipped. we've tried, different, path there. Um, mentioned CSS, the, there was this kind of vendor prefixed, uh, properties that used to be, uh, the way, uh, browsers were deploying new features without, you know, taking the final name. [00:19:06] Francois: We are trying also to move away from it because same thing. Then in the end, you end up with, uh, applications that have, uh, to duplicate all the properties, the CSS properties in the style sheets with, uh, the vendor prefixes and nuances in the, in what it does in, in the end. [00:19:23] Jeremy: Yeah, I, I think, is that in CSS where you'll see --mozilla or things like that? Why requestVideoFrameCallback doesn't have a formal specification [00:19:30] Jeremy: The example of the request video frame callback. I, I wonder if you have an opinion or, or, or know why that ended up the way it did, where the browsers all implemented it, even though it was still in the incubation stage. [00:19:49] Francois: On this one, I don't have a particular, uh, insights on whether there was a, you know, a strong reason to implement it,without doing the standardization work. [00:19:58] Francois: I mean, there are, it's not, uh, an IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) issue. It's not, uh, something that, uh, I don't think the, the, the spec triggers, uh, you know, problems that, uh, would be controversial or whatever. [00:20:10] Francois: Uh, so it's just a matter of, uh, there was no one's priority, and in the end, you end up with a, everyone's happy. it's, it has shipped. And so now doing the spec work is a bit,why spend time on something that's already shipped and so on, but the, it may still come back at some point with try to, you know, improve the situation. [00:20:26] Jeremy: Yeah, that's, that's interesting. It's a little counterintuitive because it sounds like you have the, the working group and it, it sounds like perhaps the companies or organizations involved, they maybe agreed on how it should work, and maybe that agreement almost made it so that they felt like they didn't need to move forward with the specification because they came to consensus even before going through that. [00:20:53] Francois: In this particular case, it's probably because it's really, again, it's a small, spec. It's just one function call, you know? I mean, they will definitely want a working group, uh, for larger specifications. by the way, actually now I know re request video frame call back. It's because the, the, the final goal now that it's, uh, shipped, is to merge it into, uh, HTML, uh, the HTML spec. [00:21:17] Francois: So there's a, there's an ongoing issue on the, the WHATWG side to integrate request video frame callback. And it's taking some time but see, it's, it's being, it, it caught up and, uh, someone is doing the, the work to, to do it. I had forgotten about this one. Um, [00:21:33] Jeremy: Tension from specification review (horizontal review) [00:21:33] Francois: so with larger specifications, organizations will want this kind of IPR regime they will want commit commitments from, uh, others, on the scope, on the process, on everything. So they will want, uh, a larger, a, a more formal setting, because that's part of how you ensure that things, uh, will get done properly. [00:21:53] Francois: I didn't mention it, but, uh, something we're really, uh, Pushy on, uh, W3C I mentioned we have principles, we have priorities, and we have, uh, specific several, uh, properties at W3C. And one of them is that we we're very strong on horizontal reviews of our specs. We really want them to be reviewed from an accessibility perspective, from an internationalization perspective, from a privacy and security, uh, perspective, and, and, and a technical architecture perspective as well. [00:22:23] Francois: And that's, these reviews are part of the formal process. So you, all specs need to undergo these reviews. And from time to time, that creates tension. Uh, from time to time. It just works, you know. Goes without problem. a recurring issue is that, privacy and security are hard. I mean, it's not an easy problem, something that can be, uh, solved, uh, easily. [00:22:48] Francois: Uh, so there's a, an ongoing tension and no easy way to resolve it, but there's an ongoing tension between, specifying powerful APIs and preserving privacy without meaning, not exposing too much information to applications in the media space. You can think of the media capabilities, API. So the media space is a complicated space. [00:23:13] Francois: Space because of codecs. codecs are typically not relative free. and so browsers decide which codecs they're going to support, which audio and video codecs they, they're going to support and doing that, that creates additional fragmentation, not in the sense that they're not interoperable, but in the sense that applications need to choose which connect they're going to ship to stream to the end user. [00:23:39] Francois: And, uh, it's all the more complicated that some codecs are going to be hardware supported. So you will have a hardware decoder in your, in your, in your laptop or smartphone. And so that's going to be efficient to decode some, uh, some stream, whereas some code are not, are going to be software, based, supported. [00:23:56] Francois: Uh, and that may consume a lot of CPU and a lot of power and a lot of energy in the end. So you, you want to avoid that if you can, uh, select another thing. Even more complex than, codecs have different profiles, uh, lower end profiles higher end profiles with different capabilities, different features, uh, depending on whether you're going to use this or that color space, for example, this or that resolution, whatever. [00:24:22] Francois: And so you want to surface that to web applications because otherwise, they can't. Select, they can't choose, the right codec and the right, stream that they're going to send to the, uh, client devices. And so they're not going to provide an efficient user experience first, and even a sustainable one in terms of energy because they, they're going to waste energy if they don't send the right stream. [00:24:45] Francois: So you want to surface that to application. That's what the media, media capabilities, APIs, provides. Privacy concerns [00:24:51] Francois: Uh, but at the same time, if you expose that information, you end up with ways to fingerprint the end user's device. And that in turn is often used to track users across, across sites, which is exactly what we don't want to have, uh, for privacy reasons, for obvious privacy reasons. [00:25:09] Francois: So you have to balance that and find ways to, uh, you know, to expose. Capabilities without, without necessarily exposing them too much. Uh, [00:25:21] Jeremy: Can you give an example of how some of those discussions went? Like within the working group? Who are the companies or who are the organizations that are arguing for We shouldn't have this capability because of the privacy concerns, or [00:25:40] Francois: In a way all of the companies, have a vision of, uh, of privacy. I mean, the, you will have a hard time finding, you know, members saying, I don't care about privacy. I just want the feature. Uh, they all have privacy in mind, but they may have a different approach to privacy. [00:25:57] Francois: so if you take, uh, let's say, uh, apple and Google would be the, the, I guess the perfect examples in that, uh, in that space, uh, Google will have a, an approach that is more open-ended thing. The, the user agents has this, uh, should check what the, the, uh, given site is doing. And then if it goes beyond, you know, some kind of threshold, they're going to say, well, okay, well, we'll stop exposing data to that, to that, uh, to that site. [00:26:25] Francois: So that application. So monitor and react in a way. apple has a more, uh, you know, has a stricter view on, uh, on privacy, let's say. And they will say, no, we, the, the, the feature must not exist in the first place. Or, but that's, I mean, I guess, um, it's not always that extreme. And, uh, from time to time it's the opposite. [00:26:45] Francois: You will have, uh, you know, apple arguing in one way, uh, which is more open-ended than the, uh, than, uh, than Google, for example. And they are not the only ones. So in working groups, uh, you will find the, usually the implementers. Uh, so when we talk about APIs that get implemented in browsers, you want the core browsers to be involved. [00:27:04] Francois: Uh, otherwise it's usually not a good sign for, uh, the success of the, uh, of the technology. So in practice, that means Apple, uh, Microsoft, Mozilla which one did I forget? [00:27:15] Jeremy: Google. [00:27:16] Francois: I forgot Google. Of course. Thank you. that's, uh, that the, the core, uh, list of participants you want to have in any, uh, group that develops web standards targeted at web browsers. Who participates in working groups and how much power do they have? [00:27:28] Francois: And then on top of that, you want, organizations and people who are directly going to use it, either because they, well the content providers. So in media, for example, if you look at the media working group, you'll see, uh, so browser vendors, the ones I mentioned, uh, content providers such as the BBC or Netflix. [00:27:46] Francois: Chip set vendors would, uh, would be there as well. Intel, uh, Nvidia again, because you know, there's a hardware decoding in there and encoding. So media is, touches on, on, uh, on hardware, uh, device manufacturer in general. You may, uh, I think, uh, I think Sony is involved in the, in the media working group, for example. [00:28:04] Francois: and these companies are usually less active in the spec development. It depends on the groups, but they're usually less active because the ones developing the specs are usually the browser again, because as I mentioned, we develop the specs in parallel to browsers implementing it. So they have the. [00:28:21] Francois: The feedback on how to formulate the, the algorithms. and so that's this collection of people who are going to discuss first within themselves. W3C pushes for consensual dis decisions. So we hardly take any votes in the working groups, but from time to time, that's not enough. [00:28:41] Francois: And there may be disagreements, but let's say there's agreement in the group, uh, when the spec matches. horizontal review groups will look at the specs. So these are groups I mentioned, accessibility one, uh, privacy, internationalization. And these groups, usually the participants are, it depends. [00:29:00] Francois: It can be anything. It can be, uh, the same companies. It can be, but usually different people from the same companies. But it the, maybe organizations with a that come from very, a very different angle. And that's a good thing because that means the, you know, you enlarge the, the perspectives on your, uh, on the, on the technology. [00:29:19] Francois: and you, that's when you have a discussion between groups, that takes place. And from time to time it goes well from time to time. Again, it can trigger issues that are hard to solve. and the W3C has a, an escalation process in case, uh, you know, in case things degenerate. Uh, starting with, uh, the notion of formal objection. [00:29:42] Jeremy: It makes sense that you would have the, the browser. Vendors and you have all the different companies that would use that browser. All the different horizontal groups like you mentioned, the internationalization, accessibility. I would imagine that you were talking about consensus and there are certain groups or certain companies that maybe have more say or more sway. [00:30:09] Jeremy: For example, if you're a browser, manufacturer, your Google. I'm kind of curious how that works out within the working group. [00:30:15] Francois: Yes, it's, I guess I would be lying if I were saying that, uh, you know, all companies are strictly equal in a, in a, in a group. they are from a process perspective, I mentioned, you know, different membership fees with were design, special specific ethos so that no one could say, I'm, I'm putting in a lot of money, so you, you need to re you need to respect me, uh, and you need to follow what I, what I want to, what I want to do. [00:30:41] Francois: at the same time, if you take a company like, uh, like Google for example, they send, hundreds of engineers to do standardization work. That's absolutely fantastic because that means work progresses and it's, uh, extremely smart people. So that's, uh, that's really a pleasure to work with, uh, with these, uh, people. [00:30:58] Francois: But you need to take a step back and say, well, the problem is. Defacto that gives them more power just by virtue of, uh, injecting more resources into it. So having always someone who can respond to an issue, having always someone, uh, editing a spec defacto that give them more, uh, um, more say on the, on the directions that, get forward. [00:31:22] Francois: And on top of that, of course, they have the, uh, I guess not surprisingly, the, the browser that is, uh, used the most, currently, on the market so there's a little bit of a, the, the, we, we, we, we try very hard to make sure that, uh, things are balanced. it's not a perfect world. [00:31:38] Francois: the the role of the team. I mean, I didn't talk about the role of the team, but part of it is to make sure that. Again, all perspectives are represented and that there's not, such a, such big imbalance that, uh, that something is wrong and that we really need to look into it. so making sure that anyone, if they have something to say, make making sure that they are heard by the rest of the group and not dismissed. [00:32:05] Francois: That usually goes well. There's no problem with that. And again, the escalation process I mentioned here doesn't make any, uh, it doesn't make any difference between, uh, a small player, a large player, a big player, and we have small companies raising formal objections against some of our aspects that happens, uh, all large ones. [00:32:24] Francois: But, uh, that happens too. There's no magical solution, I guess you can tell it by the way. I, uh, I don't know how to formulate the, the process more. It's a human process, and that's very important that it remains a human process as well. [00:32:41] Jeremy: I suppose the role of, of staff and someone in your position, for example, is to try and ensure that these different groups are, are heard and it isn't just one group taking control of it. [00:32:55] Francois: That's part of the role, again, is to make sure that, uh, the, the process is followed. So the, I, I mean, I don't want to give the impression that the process controls everything in the groups. I mean, the, the, the groups are bound by the process, but the process is there to catch problems when they arise. [00:33:14] Francois: most of the time there are no problems. It's just, you know, again, participants talking to each other, talking with the rest of the community. Most of the work happens in public nowadays, in any case. So the groups work in public essentially through asynchronous, uh, discussions on GitHub repositories. [00:33:32] Francois: There are contributions from, you know, non group participants and everything goes well. And so the process doesn't kick in. You just never say, eh, no, you didn't respect the process there. You, you closed the issue. You shouldn't have a, it's pretty rare that you have to do that. Uh, things just proceed naturally because they all, everyone understands where they are, why, what they're doing, and why they're doing it. [00:33:55] Francois: we still have a role, I guess in the, in the sense that from time to time that doesn't work and you have to intervene and you have to make sure that,the, uh, exception is caught and, uh, and processed, uh, in the right way. Discussions are public on github [00:34:10] Jeremy: And you said this process is asynchronous in public, so it sounds like someone, I, I mean, is this in GitHub issues or how, how would somebody go and, and see what the results of [00:34:22] Francois: Yes, there, there are basically a gazillion of, uh, GitHub repositories under the, uh, W3C, uh, organization on GitHub. Most groups are using GitHub. I mean, there's no, it's not mandatory. We don't manage any, uh, any tooling. But the factors that most, we, we've been transitioning to GitHub, uh, for a number of years already. [00:34:45] Francois: Uh, so that's where the work most of the work happens, through issues, through pool requests. Uh, that's where. people can go and raise issues against specifications. Uh, we usually, uh, also some from time to time get feedback from developers and countering, uh, a bug in a particular implementations, which we try to gently redirect to, uh, the actual bug trackers because we're not responsible for the respons implementations of the specs unless the spec is not clear. [00:35:14] Francois: We are responsible for the spec itself, making sure that the spec is clear and that implementers well, understand how they should implement something. Why the W3C doesn't specify a video or audio codec [00:35:25] Jeremy: I can see how people would make that mistake because they, they see it's the feature, but that's not the responsibility of the, the W3C to implement any of the specifications. Something you had mentioned there's the issue of intellectual property rights and how when you have a recommendation, you require the different organizations involved to make their patents available to use freely. [00:35:54] Jeremy: I wonder why there was never any kind of, recommendation for audio or video codecs in browsers since you have certain ones that are considered royalty free. But, I believe that's never been specified. [00:36:11] Francois: At W3C you mean? Yes. we, we've tried, I mean, it's not for lack of trying. Um, uh, we've had a number of discussions with, uh, various stakeholders saying, Hey, we, we really need, an audio or video code for our, for the web. the, uh, png PNG is an example of a, um, an image format which got standardized at W3C and it got standardized at W3C similar reasons. There had to be a royalty free image format for the web, and there was none at the time. of course, nowadays, uh, jpeg, uh, and gif or gif, whatever you call it, are well, you know, no problem with them. But, uh, um, that at the time P PNG was really, uh, meant to address this issue and it worked for PNG for audio and video. [00:37:01] Francois: We haven't managed to secure, commitments by stakeholders. So willingness to do it, so it's not, it's not lack of willingness. We would've loved to, uh, get, uh, a royalty free, uh, audio codec, a royalty free video codec again, audio and video code are extremely complicated because of this. [00:37:20] Francois: not only because of patterns, but also because of the entire business ecosystem that exists around them for good reasons. You, in order for a, a codec to be supported, deployed, effective, it really needs, uh, it needs to mature a lot. It needs to, be, uh, added to at a hardware level, to a number of devices, capturing devices, but also, um, uh, uh, of course players. [00:37:46] Francois: And that takes a hell of a lot of time and that's why you also enter a number of business considerations with business contracts between entities. so I'm personally, on a personal level, I'm, I'm pleased to see, for example, the Alliance for Open Media working on, uh, uh, AV1, uh, which is. At least they, uh, they wanted to be royalty free and they've been adopting actually the W3C patent policy to do this work. [00:38:11] Francois: So, uh, we're pleased to see that, you know, they've been adopting the same process and same thing. AV1 is not yet at the same, support stage, as other, codecs, in the world Yeah, I mean in devices. There's an open question as what, what are we going to do, uh, in the future uh, with that, it's, it's, it's doubtful that, uh, the W3C will be able to work on a, on a royalty free audio, codec or royalty free video codec itself because, uh, probably it's too late now in any case. [00:38:43] Francois: but It's one of these angles in the, in the web platform where we wish we had the, uh, the technology available for, for free. And, uh, it's not exactly, uh, how things work in practice.I mean, the way codecs are developed remains really patent oriented. [00:38:57] Francois: and you will find more codecs being developed. and that's where geopolitics can even enter the, the, uh, the play. Because, uh, if you go to China, you will find new codecs emerging, uh, that get developed within China also, because, the other codecs come mostly from the US so it's a bit of a problem and so on. [00:39:17] Francois: I'm not going to enter details and uh, I would probably say stupid things in any case. Uh, but that, uh, so we continue to see, uh, emerging codecs that are not royalty free, and it's probably going to remain the case for a number of years. unfortunately, unfortunately, from a W3C perspective and my perspective of course. [00:39:38] Jeremy: There's always these new, formats coming out and the, rate at which they get supported in the browser, even on a per browser basis is, is very, there can be a long time between, for example, WebP being released and a browser supporting it. So, seems like maybe we're gonna be in that situation for a while where the codecs will come out and maybe the browsers will support them. Maybe they won't, but the, the timeline is very uncertain. Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Media Source Extensions [00:40:08] Jeremy: Something you had, mentioned, maybe this was in your, email to me earlier, but you had mentioned that some of these specifications, there's, there's business considerations like with, digital rights management and, media source extensions. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about maybe what media source extensions is and encrypted media extensions and, and what the, the considerations or challenges are there. [00:40:33] Francois: I'm going to go very, very quickly over the history of a, video and audio support on the web. Initially it was supported through plugins. you are maybe too young to, remember that. But, uh, we had extensions, added to, uh, a realplayer. [00:40:46] Francois: This kind of things flash as well, uh, supporting, uh, uh, videos, in web pages, but it was not provided by the web browsers themselves. Uh, then HTML5 changed the, the situation. Adding these new tags, audio and video, but that these tags on this, by default, support, uh, you give them a resources, a resource, like an image as it's an audio or a video file. [00:41:10] Francois: They're going to download this, uh, uh, video file or audio file, and they're going to play it. That works well. But as soon as you want to do any kind of real streaming, files are too large and to stream, to, to get, you know, to get just a single fetch on, uh, on them. So you really want to stream them chunk by chunk, and you want to adapt the resolution at which you send the stream based on real time conditions of the user's network. [00:41:37] Francois: If there's plenty of bandwidth you want to send the user, the highest possible resolution. If there's a, some kind of hiccup temporary in the, in the network, you really want to lower the resolution, and that's called adaptive streaming. And to get adaptive streaming on the web, well, there are a number of protocols that exist. [00:41:54] Francois: Same thing. Some many of them are proprietary and actually they remain proprietary, uh, to some extent. and, uh, some of them are over http and they are the ones that are primarily used in, uh, in web contexts. So DASH comes to mind, DASH for Dynamic Adaptive streaming over http. HLS is another one. Uh, initially developed by Apple, I believe, and it's, uh, HTTP live streaming probably. Exactly. And, so there are different protocols that you can, uh, you can use. Uh, so the goal was not to standardize these protocols because again, there were some proprietary aspects to them. And, uh, same thing as with codecs. [00:42:32] Francois: There was no, well, at least people wanted to have the, uh, flexibility to tweak parameters, adaptive streaming parameters the way they wanted for different scenarios. You may want to tweak the parameters differently. So they, they needed to be more flexibility on top of protocols not being truly available for use directly and for implementation directly in browsers. [00:42:53] Francois: It was also about providing applications with, uh, the flexibility they would need to tweak parameters. So media source extensions comes into play for exactly that. Media source extensions is really about you. The application fetches chunks of its audio and video stream the way it wants, and with the parameters it wants, and it adjusts whatever it wants. [00:43:15] Francois: And then it feeds that into the, uh, video or audio tag. and the browser takes care of the rest. So it's really about, doing, you know, the adaptive streaming. let applications do it, and then, uh, let the user agent, uh, the browser takes, take care of the rendering itself. That's media source extensions. [00:43:32] Francois: Initially it was pushed by, uh, Netflix. They were not the only ones of course, but there, there was a, a ma, a major, uh, proponent of this, uh, technical solution, because they wanted, uh, they, uh, they were, expanding all over the world, uh, with, uh, plenty of native, applications on all sorts of, uh, of, uh, devices. [00:43:52] Francois: And they wanted to have a way to stream content on the web as well. both for both, I guess, to expand to, um, a new, um, ecosystem, the web, uh, providing new opportunities, let's say. But at the same time also to have a fallback, in case they, because for native support on different platforms, they sometimes had to enter business agreements with, uh, you know, the hardware manufacturers, the whatever, the, uh, service provider or whatever. [00:44:19] Francois: and so that was a way to have a full back. That kind of work is more open, in case, uh, things take some time and so on. So, and they probably had other reasons. I mean, I'm not, I can't speak on behalf of Netflix, uh, on others, but they were not the only ones of course, uh, supporting this, uh, me, uh, media source extension, uh, uh, specification. [00:44:42] Francois: and that went kind of, well, I think it was creating 2011. I mean, the, the work started in 2011 and the recommendation was published in 2016, which is not too bad from a standardization perspective. It means only five years, you know, it's a very short amount of time. Encrypted Media Extensions [00:44:59] Francois: At the same time, and in parallel and complement to the media source extension specifications, uh, there was work on the encrypted media extensions, and here it was pushed by the same proponent in a way because they wanted to get premium content on the web. [00:45:14] Francois: And by premium content, you think of movies and, uh. These kind of beasts. And the problem with the, I guess the basic issue with, uh, digital asset such as movies, is that they cost hundreds of millions to produce. I mean, some cost less of course. And yet it's super easy to copy them if you have a access to the digital, uh, file. [00:45:35] Francois: You just copy and, uh, and that's it. Piracy uh, is super easy, uh, to achieve. It's illegal of course, but it's super easy to do. And so that's where the different legislations come into play with digital right management. Then the fact is most countries allow system that, can encrypt content and, uh, through what we call DRM systems. [00:45:59] Francois: so content providers, uh, the, the ones that have movies, so the studios here more, more and more, and Netflix is one, uh, one of the studios nowadays. Um, but not only, not only them all major studios will, uh, would, uh, push for, wanted to have something that would allow them to stream encrypted content, encrypted audio and video, uh, mostly video, to, uh, to web applications so that, uh, you. [00:46:25] Francois: Provide the movies, otherwise, they, they are just basically saying, and sorry, but, uh, this premium content will never make it to the web because there's no way we're gonna, uh, send it in clear, to, uh, to the end user. So Encrypting media extensions is, uh, is an API that allows to interface with, uh, what's called the content decryption module, CDM, uh, which itself interacts with, uh, the DR DRM systems that, uh, the browser may, may or may not support. [00:46:52] Francois: And so it provides a way for an application to receive encrypted content, pass it over get the, the, the right keys, the right license keys from a whatever system actually. Pass that logic over to the, and to the user agent, which passes, passes it over to, uh, the CDM system, which is kind of black box in, uh, that does its magic to get the right, uh, decryption key and then the, and to decrypt the content that can be rendered. [00:47:21] Francois: The encrypted media extensions triggered a, a hell of a lot of, uh, controversy. because it's DRM and DRM systems, uh, many people, uh, uh, things should be banned, uh, especially on the web because the, the premise of the web is that the, the user has trusts, a user agent. The, the web browser is called the user agent in all our, all our specifications. [00:47:44] Francois: And that's, uh, that's the trust relationship. And then they interact with a, a content provider. And so whatever they do with the content is their, I guess, actually their problem. And DRM introduces a third party, which is, uh, there's, uh, the, the end user no longer has the control on the content. [00:48:03] Francois: It has to rely on something else that, Restricts what it can achieve with the content. So it's, uh, it's not only a trust relationship with its, uh, user agents, it's also with, uh, with something else, which is the content provider, uh, in the end, the one that has the, uh, the license where provides the license. [00:48:22] Francois: And so that's, that triggers, uh, a hell of a lot of, uh, of discussions in the W3C degenerated, uh, uh, into, uh, formal objections being raised against the specification. and that escalated to, to the, I mean, at all leverage it. It's, it's the, the story in, uh, W3C that, um, really, uh, divided the membership into, opposed camps in a way, if you, that's was not only year, it was not really 50 50 in the sense that not just a huge fights, but the, that's, that triggered a hell of a lot of discussions and a lot of, a lot of, uh, of formal objections at the time. [00:49:00] Francois: Uh, we were still, From a governance perspective, interestingly, um, the W3C used to be a dictatorship. It's not how you should formulate it, of course, and I hope it's not going to be public, this podcast. Uh, but the, uh, it was a benevolent dictatorship. You could see it this way in the sense that, uh, the whole process escalated to one single person was, Tim Burners Lee, who had the final say, on when, when none of the other layers, had managed to catch and to resolve, a conflict. [00:49:32] Francois: Uh, that has hardly ever happened in, uh, the history of the W3C, but that happened to the two for EME, for encrypted media extensions. It had to go to the, uh, director level who, uh, after due consideration, uh, decided to, allow the EME to proceed. and that's why we have a, an EME, uh, uh, standard right now, but still re it remains something on the side. [00:49:56] Francois: EME we're still, uh, it's still in the scope of the media working group, for example. but the scope, if you look at the charter of the working group, we try to scope the, the, the, the, the updates we can make to the specification, uh, to make sure that we don't reopen, reopen, uh, a can of worms, because, well, it's really a, a topic that triggers friction for good and bad reasons again. [00:50:20] Jeremy: And when you talk about the media source extensions, that is the ability to write custom code to stream video in whatever way you want. You mentioned, the MPEG-DASH and http live streaming. So in that case, would that be the developer gets to write that code in JavaScript that's executed by the browser? [00:50:43] Francois: Yep, that's, uh, that would be it. and then typically, I guess the approach nowadays is more and more to develop low level APIs into W3C or web in, in general, I guess. And to let, uh. Libraries emerge that are going to make lives of a, a developer, uh, easier. So for MPEG DASH, we have the DASH.js, which does a fantastic job at, uh, at implementing the complexity of, uh, of adaptive streaming. [00:51:13] Francois: And you just, you just hook it into your, your workflow. And that's, uh, and that's it. Encrypted Media Extensions are closed source [00:51:20] Jeremy: And with the encrypted media extensions I'm trying to picture how those work and how they work differently. [00:51:28] Francois: Well, it's because the, the, the, the key architecture is that the, the stream that you, the stream that you may assemble with a media source extensions, for example. 'cause typically they, they're used in collaboration. When you hook the, hook it into the video tag, you also. Call EME and actually the stream goes to EME. [00:51:49] Francois: And when it goes to EME, actually the user agent hands the encrypted stream. You're still encrypted at this time. Uh, encrypted, uh, stream goes to the CDM content decryption module, and that's a black box well, it has some black, black, uh, black box logic. So it's not, uh, even if you look at the chromium source code, for example, you won't see the implementation of the CDM because it's a, it's a black box, so it's not part of the browser se it's a sand, it's sandboxed, it's execution sandbox. [00:52:17] Francois: That's, uh, the, the EME is kind of unique in, in this way where the, the CDM is not allowed to make network requests, for example, again, for privacy reasons. so anyway, the, the CDM box has the logic to decrypt the content and it hands it over, and then it depends, it depends on the level of protection you. [00:52:37] Francois: You need or that the system supports. It can be against software based protection, in which case actually, a highly motivated, uh, uh, uh, attacker could, uh, actually get access to the decoded stream, or it can be more hardware protected, in which case actually the, it goes to the, uh, to your final screen. [00:52:58] Francois: But it goes, it, it goes through the hardware in a, in a mode that the US supports in a mode that even the user agent doesn't have access to it. So it doesn't, it can't even see the pixels that, uh, gets rendered on the screen. There are, uh, several other, uh, APIs that you could use, for example, to take a screenshot of your, of your application and so on. [00:53:16] Francois: And you cannot apply them to, uh, such content because they're just gonna return a black box. again, because the user agent itself does not see the, uh, the pixels, which is exactly what you want with encrypted content. [00:53:29] Jeremy: And the, the content decryption module, it's, if I understand correctly, it's something that's shipped with the browsers, but you were saying is if you were to look at the public source code of Chromium or of Firefox, you would not see that implementation. Content Decryption Module (Widevine, PlayReady) [00:53:47] Francois: True. I mean, the, the, um, the typical examples are, uh, uh, widevine, so wide Vine. So interestingly, uh, speaking in theory, these, uh, systems could have been provided by anyone in practice. They've been provided by the browser vendors themselves. So Google has Wide Vine. Uh, Microsoft has something called PlayReady. Apple uh, the name, uh, escapes my, uh, sorry. They don't have it on top of my mind. So they, that's basically what they support. So they, they also own that code, but in a way they don't have to. And Firefox actually, uh, they, uh, don't, don't remember which one, they support among these three. but, uh, they, they don't own that code typically. [00:54:29] Francois: They provide a wrapper around, around it. Yeah, that's, that's exactly the, the crux of the, uh, issue that, people have with, uh, with DRMs, right? It's, uh, the fact that, uh, suddenly you have a bit of code running there that is, uh, that, okay, you can send box, but, uh, you cannot inspect and you don't have, uh, access to its, uh, source code. [00:54:52] Jeremy: That's interesting. So the, almost the entire browser is open source, but if you wanna watch a Netflix movie for example, then you, you need to, run this, this CDM, in addition to just the browser code. I, I think, you know, we've kind of covered a lot. Documenting what's available in browsers for developers [00:55:13] Jeremy: I wonder if there's any other examples or anything else you thought would be important to mention in, in the context of the W3C. [00:55:23] Francois: There, there's one thing which, uh, relates to, uh, activities I'm doing also at W3C. Um. Here, we've been talking a lot about, uh, standards and, implementations in browsers, but there's also, uh, adoption of these browser, of these technology standards by developers in general and making sure that developers are aware of what exists, making sure that they understand what exists and one of the, key pain points that people, uh. [00:55:54] Francois: Uh, keep raising on, uh, the web platform is first. Well, the, the, the web platform is unique in the sense that there are different implementations. I mean, if you, [00:56:03] Francois: Uh, anyway, there are different, uh, context, different run times where there, there's just one provided by the company that owns the, uh, the, the, the system. The web platform is implemented by different, uh, organizations. and so you end up the system where no one, there's what's in the specs is not necessarily supported. [00:56:22] Francois: And of course, MDN tries, uh, to document what's what's supported, uh, thoroughly. But for MDN to work, there's a hell of a lot of needs for data that, tracks browser support. And this, uh, this data is typically in a project called the Browser Compat Data, BCD owned by, uh, MDN as well. But, the Open Web Docs collective is a, uh, is, uh, the one, maintaining that, uh, that data under the hoods. [00:56:50] Francois: anyway, all of that to say that, uh, to make sure that, we track things beyond work on technical specifications, because if you look at it from W3C perspective, life ends when the spec reaches standards, uh, you know, candidate rec or rec, you could just say, oh, done with my work. but that's not how things work. [00:57:10] Francois: There's always, you need the feedback loop and, in order to make sure that developers get the information and can provide the, the feedback that standardization can benefit from and browser vendors can benefit from. We've been working on a project called web Features with browser vendors mainly, and, uh, a few of the folks and MDN and can I use and different, uh, different people, to catalog, the web in terms of features that speak to developers and from that catalog. [00:57:40] Francois: So it's a set of, uh, it's a set of, uh, feature IDs with a feature name and feature description that say, you know, this is how developers would, uh, understand, uh, instead of going too fine grained in terms of, uh, there's this one function call that does this because that's where you, the, the kind of support data you may get from browser data and MDN initially, and having some kind of a coarser grained, uh, structure that says these are the, features that make sense. [00:58:09] Francois: They talk to developers. That's what developers talk about, and that's the info. So the, we need to have data on these particular features because that's how developers are going approach the specs. Uh. and from that we've derived the notion of baseline badges that you have, uh, are now, uh, shown on MDN on can I use and integrated in, uh, IDE tool, IDE Tools such as visual, visual studio, and, uh, uh, libraries, uh, linked, some linters have started to, um, to integrate that data. [00:58:41] Francois: Uh, so, the way it works is, uh, we've been mapping these coarser grained features to BCDs finer grained support data, and from there we've been deriving a kind of a, a batch that says, yeah, this, this feature is implemented well, has limited availability because it's only implemented in one or two browsers, for example. [00:59:07] Francois: It's, newly available because. It was implemented. It's been, it's implemented across the main browser vendor, um, across the main browsers that people use. But it's recent, and widely available, which we try to, uh, well, there's been lots of discussion in the, in the group to, uh, come up with a definition which essentially ends up being 30 months after, a feature become, became newly available. [00:59:34] Francois: And that's when, that's the time it takes for the, for the versions of the, the different versions of the browser to propagate. Uh, because you, it's not because there's a new version of a, of a browser that, uh, people just, Ima immediately, uh, get it. So it takes a while, to propagate, uh, across the, uh, the, the user, uh, user base. [00:59:56] Francois: And so the, the goal is to have a, a, a signal that. Developers can rely on saying, okay, well it's widely available so I can really use that feature. And of course, if that doesn't work, then we need to know about it. And so we are also working with, uh, people doing so developer surveys such as state of, uh, CSS, state of HTML, state of JavaScript. [01:00:15] Francois: That's I guess, the main ones. But also we are also running, uh, MDN short surveys with the MDN people to gather feedback on. On the, on these same features, and to feed the loop and to, uh, to complete the loop. and these data is also used by, internally, by browser vendors to inform, prioritization process, their prioritization process, and typically as part of the interop project that they're also running, uh, on the site [01:00:43] Francois: So a, a number of different, I've mentioned, uh, I guess a number of different projects, uh, coming along together. But that's the goal is to create links, across all of these, um, uh, ongoing projects with a view to integrating developers, more, and gathering feedback as early as possible and inform decision. [01:01:04] Francois: We take at the standardization level that can affect the, the lives of the developers and making sure that it's, uh, it affects them in a, in a positive way. [01:01:14] Jeremy: just trying to understand, 'cause you had mentioned that there's the web features and the baseline, and I was, I was trying to picture where developers would actually, um, see these things. And it sounds like from what you're saying is W3C comes up with what stage some of these features are at, and then developers would end up seeing it on MDN or, or some other site. [01:01:37] Francois: So, uh, I'm working on it, but that doesn't mean it's a W3C thing. It's a, it's a, again, it's a, we have different types of group. It's a community group, so it's the Web DX Community group at W3C, which means it's a community owned thing. so that's why I'm mentioning a working with a representative from, and people from MDN people, from open Web docs. [01:02:05] Francois: so that's the first point. The second point is, so it's, indeed this data is now being integrated. If you, and you look, uh, you'll, you'll see it in on top of the MDN pages on most of them. If you look at, uh, any kind of feature, you'll see a, a few logos, uh, a baseline banner. and then can I use, it's the same thing. [01:02:24] Francois: You're going to get a baseline, banner. It's more on, can I use, and it's meant to capture the fact that the feature is widely available or if you may need to pay attention to it. Of course, it's a simplification, and the goal is not to the way it's, the way the messaging is done to developers is meant to capture the fact that, they may want to look, uh, into more than just this, baseline status, because. [01:02:54] Francois: If you take a look at web platform tests, for example, and if you were to base your assessment of whether a feature is supported based on test results, you'll end up saying the web platform has no supported technology because there are absolutely no API that, uh, where browsers pass 100% of the, of the, of the test suite. [01:03:18] Francois: There may be a few of them, I don't know. But, there's a simplification in the, in the process when a feature is, uh, set to be baseline, there may be more things to look at nevertheless, but it's meant to provide a signal that, uh, still developers can rely on their day-to-day, uh, lives. [01:03:36] Francois: if they use the, the feature, let's say, as a reasonably intended and not, uh, using to advance the logic. [01:03:48] Jeremy: I see. Yeah. I'm looking at one of the pages on MDN right now, and I can see at the top there's the, the baseline and it, it mentions that this feature works across many browsers and devices, and then they say how long it's been available. And so that's a way that people at a glance can, can tell, which APIs they can use. [01:04:08] Francois: it also started, uh, out of a desire to summarize this, uh, browser compatibility table that you see at the end of the page of the, the bottom of the page in on MDN. but there are where developers were saying, well, it's, it's fine, but it's, it goes too much into detail. So we don't know in the end, can we, can we use that feature or can we, can we not use that feature? [01:04:28] Francois: So it's meant as a informed summary of, uh, of, of that it relies on the same data again. and more importantly, we're beyond MDN, we're working with tools providers to integrate that as well. So I mentioned the, uh, visual Studio is one of them. So recently they shipped a new version where when you use a feature, you can, you can have some contextual, uh. [01:04:53] Francois: A menu that tells you, yeah, uh, that's fine. You, this CSS property, you can, you can use it, it's widely available or be aware this one is limited Availability only, availability only available in Firefox or, or Chrome or Safari work kit, whatever. [01:05:08] Jeremy: I think that's a good place to wrap it up, if people want to learn more about the work you're doing or learn more about sort of this whole recommendations process, where, where should they head? [01:05:23] Francois: Generally speaking, we're extremely open to, uh, people contributing to the W3C. and where should they go if they, it depends on what they want. So I guess the, the in usually where, how things start for someone getting involved in the W3C is that they have some

Every Friday we scan the PR Mega Chat and pick the stories that actually shaped the week. What happens when narrative control collides with tragedy, misinformation, and an unfiltered digital age?In the second episode of The Week Unspun, hosts Farzana Baduel, David Gallagher, and Doug Downs dive into the breaking news of political commentator Charlie Kirk's shocking shooting and the volatile aftermath, both online and off. From exploring how disinformation spreads faster than facts to how leadership (or lack thereof) shapes national reaction, the trio offer PR-savvy analysis of crisis communication, media ethics, and the real-world consequences of social media. They also explore surprising connections between gender inclusion, menopause in the workplace, and how ageism and AI are reshaping the public relations industry.  Listen For4:07 The Vacuum of Information and Divisive Reactions7:58 Unfiltered Violence: Children, Social Media, and Emotional Fallout18:53 Menopause in PR: The Silent Career Killer?24:33 The Great Unbundling of PR Talent30:15 Are Reputations Still Vulnerable in the Teflon Age?The Week Unspun is a weekly livestream every Friday at 10am ET/3pm BT. Check it out on our YouTube Channel or via this LinkedIn channelWe publish the audio from these livestreams to the Stories and Strategies podcast feed every Friday until Sunday evening when it's no longer available. Folgate AdvisorsCurzon Public Relations WebsiteStories and Strategies WebsiteRequest a transcript of this livestream Support the show

This week, we examine the first half of the '80s to ask the question - which artists had the best run during that span? Bringing us the funny sugar in this episode is our friend Jack (where our fellow '60s music nerds at?!?). That's right, Jack Rabid, publisher/writer for The Big Takeover magazine and drummer for '80s New York hardcore band Even Worse and dreamy '90s indie band Springhouse is our Third Lad this week. And we had such a fab time that this one is a two parter! Part two will be dropping in a few days, so stay tuned... Springhouse released two albums of sparkling, melancholy guitar pop for Caroline Records in the early '90s - 1991's Land Falls and 1993's Postcards From The Attic. They were the first major label signed, nationally touring U.S. "shoegaze" band, with the 'Layers' video getting MTV airplay, and sharing stages with the likes of House of Love, The Chills, Psychedelic Furs, Belly, and the Lemonheads. In 2008, the band returned for a melodic, orchestral-pop masterpiece on Independent Project Records, From Now To OK. Originally released on limited edition CD only, it has now been reissued as a deluxe edition on vinyl, CD, and digital, and presented in a beautiful package from IPR co-owner/master designer Bruce Licher. ⁠https://springhouse.bandcamp.com⁠ The Big Takeover is a bi-annual music magazine founded by Jack Rabid and Dave Stein in May 1980, originally as a fanzine for New York punkers The Stimulators. For over 45 years, Rabid and Big T contributors have been thrilling alternative music fans with in-depth interviews, coverage of lesser known artists, and a huge review section - including Jack's always entertaining "Top 40" section. ⁠https://www.bigtakeover.com⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

More women are now leaving the PR industry because of perimenopause and menopause than because of childbirth. That's a staggering, often invisible, that's shift happening right at the top. It's not burnout or work-life balance pushing them out, but a phase of life that's rarely acknowledged and even more rarely supported.This episode is an unflinching conversation about the real pressures senior women face. Why is menopause still a taboo topic at work? How misunderstood are its impacts on confidence, performance, and retention? And what must organizations and agencies do to support their best talent before they quietly walk away? Listen For4:22 The Invisible Workplace Crisis7:01 The “Rush Hour” of Women's Lives10:01 Emotions, Gender, and Professionalism13:37 Finding Balance in Psychological Safety18:53 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Fred CookGuest: Heather Blundell, CEO GraylingWebsite | X | LinkedIn | EmailStories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

PR really is at a crossroads… we've got old playbooks and new players coming in who want to change the rules. In its report Mind the Gap, USC's Center for Public Relations reveals sharp divides between Gen Z and older professionals on everything from AI and hybrid work to media influence and corporate purpose.  While Boomers and Gen X cling to the belief that human creativity will always be irreplaceable, Gen Z is charging ahead, optimistic about technology, eager for flexibility, and expecting brands to stand for something more than just profit. But will that energy survive once they step into leadership — or will they, too, get swallowed by the system?In this episode, we sit down with Fred Cook, Director of USC's Center for Public Relations and author of the Mind the Gap report, to explore whether we're training young professionals for a world that no longer exists. Are we too obsessed with purpose and not focused enough on performance? Are old myths about PR holding us back? And most importantly — can Gen Z avoid the mistakes their predecessors made, or are they destined to repeat them? Listen For3:04 The Weight on Gen Z's Shoulders5:15 Communicating Across Generations in a Fragmented Media Landscape8:08 Polarization as a Business Model12:02 The Death of Corporate Purpose?17:56 Answer to Last Episode's Question From Guest Ayeni Samuels Guest: Fred Cook, Director USC Center for Public RelationsEmail | X | LinkedIn Mind the Gap StudyStories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Ayeni Adekunle Samuel argues that Africa is often misunderstood or reduced to oversimplified stereotypes by global brands, agencies, and even tech platforms.  Despite Africa's complexity, diversity, and economic importance, key decisions — including PR, marketing, and tech strategies — are still shaped in places like New York and London, often without African expertise or context. Ayeni shares his personal journey as a Nigerian entrepreneur building a pan-African and international PR firm, highlighting both the structural barriers (like bias, access to capital, lack of representation) and the opportunities (especially in areas like AI and local innovation).Listen For4:15 The Africa Strategy Mistake Global Brands Keep Making7:41 The Case for Local Advisors12:36 PR Prejudice: The Hidden Hurdles African Firms Face Abroad16:30 Africa Has Talent, But Not Opportunity17:10 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Guest David GallagherGuest: Ayeni Adekunle SamuelWebsite | Email | InstagramStories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

IPR's Natalie Krebs shares how the Iowa's abortion law may be driving some physicians out of the state. Plus, unpacking the latest news on the West Nile virus, worker safety issues, regulatory failures at a pork processing facility and more.

IPR de Goioerê data: 17/08/2025

Why is the PR industry still having the same tired conversation? Year after year, event after event… while the world moves on without us? We talk about getting a seat at the table, then sit quietly when we do. We debate metrics like we haven't had decades to solve them. We celebrate awards for campaigns that often say nothing and change even less.We hold events that are same panel conversations… different year.Somewhere along the way, the industry built for cultural leadership got stuck in a cycle of repetition, imposter syndrome, and comfort. David Gallagher of Folgate Advisors is a veteran voice who's seen the industry from the inside and isn't afraid to say what others won't. It's time to stop outsourcing our thinking and start redefining what this industry is actually for. Listen For4:58 Are We Really as Dynamic as We Claim?10:22 Why PR Avoids True Innovation11:34 How PR Lost Its Science-Driven Edge17:43 Following the Wrong Model: PR as Advertising's Shadow19:30 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Guest Bill Welser Guest: David Gallagher, Folgate AdvisorsEmail | LinkedIn | Folgate LinkedIn Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

The Truth About Aligners, Airway & Occlusion—From a Guy Who Practices in Two CountriesIn this episode, I sit down with my good friend, Dr. Bruce McFarlane—one of the most respected names in digital orthodontics and someone who's mastered the art of practicing seamlessly in two different countries. We dive deep into clear aligners, digital efficiencies, occlusion philosophy, and why airway awareness in children is no longer optional.Whether you're just starting to build your aligner practice or you're scaling your ortho empire, Bruce's insights will challenge what you think you know about clinical protocols, patient care, and long-term outcomes. This isn't fluff—it's a masterclass in doing ortho the right way.QUOTES"The teeth will tell you what they need—so stop asking aligners to do things they weren't designed to do."— Dr. Bruce McFarlane"If you're not at least assessing the airway in children, you're not practicing 2025 orthodontics."— Dr. Glenn KriegerKey TakeawaysIntro (00:00)Bruce's dual-country practice model & digital workflow (04:10)The evolution of clear aligners from 1997 to today (13:17)Why he avoids excessive IPR and attachments (16:12)The digital boutique model vs. the big-box practice (23:17)How Bruce designs treatment from anywhere in the world (25:16)His 3 biggest aligner treatment rules (19:48)Airway awareness and its clinical impact on kids (30:02)The future of occlusion & the ModJaw revolution (36:25)Why poor occlusion is often behind the cases that keep you up at night (39:05)If you're ready to rethink how you approach aligners, occlusion, and the future of digital ortho, this episode is your roadmap.

What does it take to rebrand an entire nation? Not just a logo or slogan—but the name itself. Gökhan Yücel helped lead the campaign to officially shift the international name from Turkey to Türkiye.  It's a move that goes far beyond semantics—touching diplomacy, identity, and global perception. Gökhan pulls back the curtain on how such a monumental change has been communicated to the world and why it matters more than most of us think. But this conversation goes even deeper. From repositioning Türkiye as the “nexus of the world” instead of merely a bridge between East and West, to attracting the next generation of global investors, to reshaping the way governments confront disinformation and how strategic storytelling can reshape the image of an entire country. Listen For3:06 Renaming a country… where do you even start?6:53 How “country as brand” became a global strategy9:42 “Hype is the new narrative” 13:57 Branding Türkiye for audiences in the West16:33 From SEO to AEO — marketing in the AI era18:15 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Guest Bill Welser IVGuest: Gökhan Yücel, Campaign Designer Hello Türkiye Country Rebranding CampaignEmail | X | LinkedIn Hello Türkiye Campaign (YouTube)Türkiye Century Campaign (Official Site) Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

A version of this essay has been published by firstpost.com at https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/shadow-warrior-from-crisis-to-advantage-how-india-can-outplay-the-trump-tariff-gambit-13923031.htmlA simple summary of the recent brouhaha about President Trump's imposition of 25% tariffs on India as well as his comment on India's ‘dead economy' is the following from Shakespeare's Macbeth: “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. Trump further imposed punitive tariffs totalling 50% on August 6th allegedly for India funding Russia's war machine via buying oil.As any negotiator knows, a good opening gambit is intended to set the stage for further parleys, so that you could arrive at a negotiated settlement that is acceptable to both parties. The opening gambit could well be a maximalist statement, or one's ‘dream outcome', the opposite of which is ‘the walkway point' beyond which you are simply not willing to make concessions. The usual outcome is somewhere in between these two positions or postures.Trump is both a tough negotiator, and prone to making broad statements from which he has no problem retreating later. It's down-and-dirty boardroom tactics that he's bringing to international trade. Therefore I think Indians don't need to get rattled. It's not the end of the world, and there will be climbdowns and adjustments. Think hard about the long term.I was on a panel discussion on this topic on TV just hours after Trump made his initial 25% announcement, and I mentioned an interplay between geo-politics and geo-economics. Trump is annoyed that his Ukraine-Russia play is not making much headway, and also that BRICS is making progress towards de-dollarization. India is caught in this crossfire (‘collateral damage') but the geo-economic facts on the ground are not favorable to Trump.I am in general agreement with Trump on his objectives of bringing manufacturing and investment back to the US, but I am not sure that he will succeed, and anyway his strong-arm tactics may backfire. I consider below what India should be prepared to do to turn adversity into opportunity.The anti-Thucydides Trap and the baleful influence of Whitehall on Deep StateWhat is remarkable, though, is that Trump 2.0 seems to be indistinguishable from the Deep State: I wondered last month if the Deep State had ‘turned' Trump. The main reason many people supported Trump in the first place was the damage the Deep State was wreaking on the US under the Obama-Biden regime. But it appears that the resourceful Deep State has now co-opted Trump for its agenda, and I can only speculate how.The net result is that there is the anti-Thucydides Trap: here is the incumbent power, the US, actively supporting the insurgent power, China, instead of suppressing it, as Graham Allison suggested as the historical pattern. It, in all fairness, did not start with Trump, but with Nixon in China in 1971. In 1985, the US trade deficit with China was $6 million. In 1986, $1.78 billion. In 1995, $35 billion.But it ballooned after China entered the WTO in 2001. $202 billion in 2005; $386 billion in 2022.In 2025, after threatening China with 150% tariffs, Trump retreated by postponing them; besides he has caved in to Chinese demands for Nvidia chips and for exemptions from Iran oil sanctions if I am not mistaken.All this can be explained by one word: leverage. China lured the US with the siren-song of the cost-leader ‘China price', tempting CEOs and Wall Street, who sleepwalked into surrender to the heft of the Chinese supply chain.Now China has cornered Trump via its monopoly over various things, the most obvious of which is rare earths. Trump really has no option but to give in to Chinese blackmail. That must make him furious: in addition to his inability to get Putin to listen to him, Xi is also ignoring him. Therefore, he will take out his frustrations on others, such as India, the EU, Japan, etc. Never mind that he's burning bridges with them.There's a Malayalam proverb that's relevant here: “angadiyil thottathinu ammayodu”. Meaning, you were humiliated in the marketplace, so you come home and take it out on your mother. This is quite likely what Trump is doing, because he believes India et al will not retaliate. In fact Japan and the EU did not retaliate, but gave in, also promising to invest large sums in the US. India could consider a different path: not active conflict, but not giving in either, because its equations with the US are different from those of the EU or Japan.Even the normally docile Japanese are beginning to notice.Beyond that, I suggested a couple of years ago that Deep State has a plan to enter into a condominium agreement with China, so that China gets Asia, and the US gets the Americas and the Pacific/Atlantic. This is exactly like the Vatican-brokered medieval division of the world between Spain and Portugal, and it probably will be equally bad for everyone else. And incidentally it makes the Quad infructuous, and deepens distrust of American motives.The Chinese are sure that they have achieved the condominium, or rather forced the Americans into it. Here is a headline from the Financial Express about their reaction to the tariffs: they are delighted that the principal obstacle in their quest for hegemony, a US-India military and economic alliance, is being blown up by Trump, and they lose no opportunity to deride India as not quite up to the mark, whereas they and the US have achieved a G2 detente.Two birds with one stone: gloat about the breakdown in the US-India relationship, and exhibit their racist disdain for India yet again.They laugh, but I bet India can do an end-run around them. As noted above, the G2 is a lot like the division of the world into Spanish and Portuguese spheres of influence in 1494. Well, that didn't end too well for either of them. They had their empires, which they looted for gold and slaves, but it made them fat, dumb and happy. The Dutch, English, and French capitalized on more dynamic economies, flexible colonial systems, and aggressive competition, overtaking the Iberian powers in global influence by the 17th century. This is a salutary historical parallel.I have long suspected that the US Deep State is being led by the nose by the malign Whitehall (the British Deep State): I call it the ‘master-blaster' syndrome. On August 6th, there was indirect confirmation of this in ex-British PM Boris Johnson's tweet about India. Let us remember he single-handedly ruined the chances of a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine War in 2022. Whitehall's mischief and meddling all over, if you read between the lines.Did I mention the British Special Force's views? Ah, Whitehall is getting a bit sloppy in its propaganda.Wait, so is India important (according to Whitehall) or unimportant (according to Trump)?Since I am very pro-American, I have a word of warning to Trump: you trust perfidious Albion at your peril. Their country is ruined, and they will not rest until they ruin yours too.I also wonder if there are British paw-prints in a recent and sudden spate of racist attacks on Indians in Ireland. A 6-year old girl was assaulted and kicked in the private parts. A nurse was gang-raped by a bunch of teenagers. Ireland has never been so racist against Indians (yes, I do remember the sad case of Savita Halappanavar, but that was religious bigotry more than racism). And I remember sudden spikes in anti-Indian attacks in Australia and Canada, both British vassals.There is no point in Indians whining about how the EU and America itself are buying more oil, palladium, rare earths, uranium etc. from Russia than India is. I am sorry to say this, but Western nations are known for hypocrisy. For example, exactly 80 years ago they dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, but not on Germany or Italy. Why? The answer is uncomfortable. Lovely post-facto rationalization, isn't it?Remember the late lamented British East India Company that raped and pillaged India?Applying the three winning strategies to geo-economicsAs a professor of business strategy and innovation, I emphasize to my students that there are three broad ways of gaining an advantage over others: 1. Be the cost leader, 2. Be the most customer-intimate player, 3. Innovate. The US as a nation is patently not playing the cost leader; it does have some customer intimacy, but it is shrinking; its strength is in innovation.If you look at comparative advantage, the US at one time had strengths in all three of the above. Because it had the scale of a large market (and its most obvious competitors in Europe were decimated by world wars) America did enjoy an ability to be cost-competitive, especially as the dollar is the global default reserve currency. It demonstrated this by pushing through the Plaza Accords, forcing the Japanese yen to appreciate, destroying their cost advantage.In terms of customer intimacy, the US is losing its edge. Take cars for example: Americans practically invented them, and dominated the business, but they are in headlong retreat now because they simply don't make cars that people want outside the US: Japanese, Koreans, Germans and now Chinese do. Why were Ford and GM forced to leave the India market? Their “world cars” are no good in value-conscious India and other emerging markets.Innovation, yes, has been an American strength. Iconic Americans like Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Steve Jobs led the way in product and process innovation. US universities have produced idea after idea, and startups have ignited Silicon Valley. In fact Big Tech and aerospace/armaments are the biggest areas where the US leads these days.The armaments and aerospace tradeThat is pertinent because of two reasons: one is Trump's peevishness at India's purchase of weapons from Russia (even though that has come down from 70+% of imports to 36% according to SIPRI); two is the fact that there are significant services and intangible imports by India from the US, of for instance Big Tech services, even some routed through third countries like Ireland.Armaments and aerospace purchases from the US by India have gone up a lot: for example the Apache helicopters that arrived recently, the GE 404 engines ordered for India's indigenous fighter aircraft, Predator drones and P8-i Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft. I suspect Trump is intent on pushing India to buy F-35s, the $110-million dollar 5th generation fighters.Unfortunately, the F-35 has a spotty track record. There were two crashes recently, one in Albuquerque in May, and the other on July 31 in Fresno, and that's $220 million dollars gone. Besides, the spectacle of a hapless British-owned F-35B sitting, forlorn, in the rain, in Trivandrum airport for weeks, lent itself to trolls, who made it the butt of jokes. I suspect India has firmly rebuffed Trump on this front, which has led to his focus on Russian arms.There might be other pushbacks too. Personally, I think India does need more P-8i submarine hunter-killer aircraft to patrol the Bay of Bengal, but India is exerting its buyer power. There are rumors of pauses in orders for Javelin and Stryker missiles as well.On the civilian aerospace front, I am astonished that all the media stories about Air India 171 and the suspicion that Boeing and/or General Electric are at fault have disappeared without a trace. Why? There had been the big narrative push to blame the poor pilots, and now that there is more than reasonable doubt that these US MNCs are to blame, there is a media blackout?Allegations about poor manufacturing practices by Boeing in North Charleston, South Carolina by whistleblowers have been damaging for the company's brand: this is where the 787 Dreamliners are put together. It would not be surprising if there is a slew of cancellations of orders for Boeing aircraft, with customers moving to Airbus. Let us note Air India and Indigo have placed some very large, multi-billion dollar orders with Boeing that may be in jeopardy.India as a consuming economy, and the services trade is hugely in the US' favorMany observers have pointed out the obvious fact that India is not an export-oriented economy, unlike, say, Japan or China. It is more of a consuming economy with a large, growing and increasingly less frugal population, and therefore it is a target for exporters rather than a competitor for exporting countries. As such, the impact of these US tariffs on India will be somewhat muted, and there are alternative destinations for India's exports, if need be.While Trump has focused on merchandise trade and India's modest surplus there, it is likely that there is a massive services trade, which is in the US' favor. All those Big Tech firms, such as Microsoft, Meta, Google and so on run a surplus in the US' favor, which may not be immediately evident because they route their sales through third countries, e.g. Ireland.These are the figures from the US Trade Representative, and quite frankly I don't believe them: there are a lot of invisible services being sold to India, and the value of Indian data is ignored.In addition to the financial implications, there are national security concerns. Take the case of Microsoft's cloud offering, Azure, which arbitrarily turned off services to Indian oil retailer Nayara on the flimsy grounds that the latter had substantial investment from Russia's Rosneft. This is an example of jurisdictional over-reach by US companies, which has dire consequences. India has been lax about controlling Big Tech, and this has to change.India is Meta's largest customer base. Whatsapp is used for practically everything. Which means that Meta has access to enormous amounts of Indian customer data, for which India is not even enforcing local storage. This is true of all other Big Tech (see OpenAI's Sam Altman below): they are playing fast and loose with Indian data, which is not in India's interest at all.Data is the new oil, says The Economist magazine. So how much should Meta, OpenAI et al be paying for Indian data? Meta is worth trillions of dollars, OpenAI half a trillion. How much of that can be attributed to Indian data?There is at least one example of how India too can play the digital game: UPI. Despite ham-handed efforts to now handicap UPI with a fee (thank you, brilliant government bureaucrats, yes, go ahead and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs), it has become a contender in a field that has long been dominated by the American duopoly of Visa and Mastercard. In other words, India can scale up and compete.It is unfortunate that India has not built up its own Big Tech behind a firewall as has been done behind the Great Firewall of China. But it is not too late. Is it possible for India-based cloud service providers to replace US Big Tech like Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure? Yes, there is at least one player in that market: Zoho.Second, what are the tariffs on Big Tech exports to India these days? What if India were to decide to impose a 50% tax on revenue generated in India through advertisement or through sales of services, mirroring the US's punitive taxes on Indian goods exports? Let me hasten to add that I am not suggesting this, it is merely a hypothetical argument.There could also be non-tariff barriers as China has implemented, but not India: data locality laws, forced use of local partners, data privacy laws like the EU's GDPR, anti-monopoly laws like the EU's Digital Markets Act, strict application of IPR laws like 3(k) that absolutely prohibits the patenting of software, and so on. India too can play legalistic games. This is a reason US agri-products do not pass muster: genetically modified seeds, and milk from cows fed with cattle feed from blood, offal and ground-up body parts.Similarly, in the ‘information' industry, India is likely to become the largest English-reading country in the world. I keep getting come-hither emails from the New York Times offering me $1 a month deals on their product: they want Indian customers. There are all these American media companies present in India, untrammelled by content controls or taxes. What if India were to give a choice to Bloomberg, Reuters, NYTimes, WaPo, NPR et al: 50% tax, or exit?This attack on peddlers of fake information and manufacturing consent I do suggest, and I have been suggesting for years. It would make no difference whatsoever to India if these media outlets were ejected, and they surely could cover India (well, basically what they do is to demean India) just as well from abroad. Out with them: good riddance to bad rubbish.What India needs to doI believe India needs to play the long game. It has to use its shatrubodha to realize that the US is not its enemy: in Chanakyan terms, the US is the Far Emperor. The enemy is China, or more precisely the Chinese Empire. Han China is just a rump on their south-eastern coast, but it is their conquered (and restive) colonies such as Tibet, Xinjiang, Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, that give them their current heft.But the historical trends are against China. It has in the past had stable governments for long periods, based on strong (and brutal) imperial power. Then comes the inevitable collapse, when the center falls apart, and there is absolute chaos. It is quite possible, given various trends, including demographic changes, that this may happen to China by 2050.On the other hand, (mostly thanks, I acknowledge, to China's manufacturing growth), the center of gravity of the world economy has been steadily shifting towards Asia. The momentum might swing towards India if China stumbles, but in any case the era of Atlantic dominance is probably gone for good. That was, of course, only a historical anomaly. Asia has always dominated: see Angus Maddison's magisterial history of the world economy, referred to below as well.I am reminded of the old story of the king berating his court poet for calling him “the new moon” and the emperor “the full moon”. The poet escaped being punished by pointing out that the new moon is waxing and the full moon is waning.This is the long game India has to keep in mind. Things are coming together for India to a great extent: in particular the demographic dividend, improved infrastructure, fiscal prudence, and the increasing centrality of the Indian Ocean as the locus of trade and commerce.India can attempt to gain competitive advantage in all three ways outlined above:* Cost-leadership. With a large market (assuming companies are willing to invest at scale), a low-cost labor force, and with a proven track-record of frugal innovation, India could well aim to be a cost-leader in selected areas of manufacturing. But this requires government intervention in loosening monetary policy and in reducing barriers to ease of doing business* Customer-intimacy. What works in highly value-conscious India could well work in other developing countries. For instance, the economic environment in ASEAN is largely similar to India's, and so Indian products should appeal to their residents; similarly with East Africa. Thus the Indian Ocean Rim with its huge (and in Africa's case, rapidly growing) population should be a natural fit for Indian products* Innovation. This is the hardest part, and it requires a new mindset in education and industry, to take risks and work at the bleeding edge of technology. In general, Indians have been content to replicate others' innovations at lower cost or do jugaad (which cannot scale up). To do real, disruptive innovation, first of all the services mindset should transition to a product mindset (sorry, Raghuram Rajan). Second, the quality of human capital must be improved. Third, there should be patient risk capital. Fourth, there should be entrepreneurs willing to try risky things. All of these are difficult, but doable.And what is the end point of this game? Leverage. The ability to compel others to buy from you.China has demonstrated this through its skill at being a cost-leader in industry after industry, often hollowing out entire nations through means both fair and foul. These means include far-sighted industrial policy including the acquisition of skills, technology, and raw materials, as well as hidden subsidies that support massive scaling, which ends up driving competing firms elsewhere out of business. India can learn a few lessons from them. One possible lesson is building capabilities, as David Teece of UC Berkeley suggested in 1997, that can span multiple products, sectors and even industries: the classic example is that of Nikon, whose optics strength helps it span industries such as photography, printing, and photolithography for chip manufacturing. Here is an interesting snapshot of China's capabilities today.2025 is, in a sense, a point of inflection for India just as the crisis in 1991 was. India had been content to plod along at the Nehruvian Rate of Growth of 2-3%, believing this was all it could achieve, as a ‘wounded civilization'. From that to a 6-7% growth rate is a leap, but it is not enough, nor is it testing the boundaries of what India can accomplish.1991 was the crisis that turned into an opportunity by accident. 2025 is a crisis that can be carefully and thoughtfully turned into an opportunity.The Idi Amin syndrome and the 1000 Talents program with AIThere is a key area where an American error may well be a windfall for India. This is based on the currently fashionable H1-B bashing which is really a race-bashing of Indians, and which has been taken up with gusto by certain MAGA folks. Once again, I suspect the baleful influence of Whitehall behind it, but whatever the reason, it looks like Indians are going to have a hard time settling down in the US.There are over a million Indians on H1-Bs, a large number of them software engineers, let us assume for convenience there are 250,000 of them. Given country caps of exactly 9800 a year, they have no realistic chance of getting a Green Card in the near future, and given the increasingly fraught nature of life there for brown people, they may leave the US, and possibly return to India..I call this the Idi Amin syndrome. In 1972, the dictator of Uganda went on a rampage against Indian-origin people in his country, and forcibly expelled 80,000 of them, because they were dominating the economy. There were unintended consequences: those who were ejected mostly went to the US and UK, and they have in many cases done well. But Uganda's economy virtually collapsed.That's a salutary experience. I am by no means saying that the US economy would collapse, but am pointing to the resilience of the Indians who were expelled. If, similarly, Trump forces a large number of Indians to return to India, that might well be a case of short-term pain and long-term gain: urvashi-shapam upakaram, as in the Malayalam phrase.Their return would be akin to what happened in China and Taiwan with their successful effort to attract their diaspora back. The Chinese program was called 1000 Talents, and they scoured the globe for academics and researchers of Chinese origin, and brought them back with attractive incentives and large budgets. They had a major role in energizing the Chinese economy.Similarly, Taiwan with Hsinchu University attracted high-quality talent, among which was the founder of TSMC, the globally dominant chip giant.And here is Trump offering to India on a platter at least 100,000 software engineers, especially at a time when generativeAI is decimating low-end jobs everywhere. They can work on some very compelling projects that could revolutionize Indian education, up-skilling and so on, and I am not at liberty to discuss them. Suffice to say that these could turbo-charge the Indian software industry and get it away from mundane, routine body-shopping type jobs.ConclusionThe Trump tariff tantrum is definitely a short-term problem for India, but it can be turned around, and turned into an opportunity, if only the country plays its cards right and focuses on building long-term comparative advantages and accepting the gift of a mis-step by Trump in geo-economics.In geo-politics, India and the US need each other to contain China, and so that part, being so obvious, will be taken care of more or less by default.Thus, overall, the old SWOT analysis: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. On balance, I am of the opinion that the threats contain in them the germs of opportunities. It is up to Indians to figure out how to take advantage of them. This is your game to win or lose, India!4150 words, 9 Aug 2025 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/subscribe

What if the most powerful tool in public relations isn't a pitch deck or media list, but your own story? In this episode, we're joined by technologist-turned-storytelling-evangelist William Welser IV, founder of Lotic, a platform that uses artificial intelligence to help people uncover the data hidden inside their own narrative. From his days building satellites to his unexpected pivot into behavioral science, Bill shares why he believes personal storytelling isn't just therapy, it's strategy. The most powerful communication connects the head and the heart, the human and the machine and yes, the PR and the AI. Listen For4:36 Why Story is the Richest Data Set 6:34 What lotic.ai Actually Does 12:15 Why PR Pros Need Self-Awareness Tools 17:28 How lotic.ai Makes Money (Hint: It's Not Your Data) 21:09 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Guest Brett FarmiloeTry lotic.ai for yourself, FOR FREEGuest: Bill Welser, LoticWebsite | Email | X | Instagram Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Superstar pianist Lang Lang first heard "Rhapsody in Blue" on the radio as a child and refined his performances with help from jazz greats Herbie Hancock and Chick Corea. He'll perform it with Interlochen's World Youth Symphony Orchestra this weekend. He visited IPR to share his experience with teaching young musicians, from his classroom initiatives around the world to Interlochen students to his own son. What does a young classical musician need to succeed in the 21st century?

Interlochen's Advanced High School String Quartets recorded Beethoven's String Quartet op. 18, no. 6 in IPR's Studio A. Movement 1: Allegro con brio Halyn Kim, violin, Porter Ranch, CA Alex Gemeinhardt, violin, New York, NY Kasinda Willingham, viola, Hamilton, OH Natalie Helm, cello (faculty coach) Movement 2: Adagio ma non troppo Hannah Schweiger, violin, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA Jiles Defosse, violin, Annapolis, MD Ashton Carter, viola, Memphis, TN Noah Scharback, cello, Eden Prairie, MN Lenny Schranze, faculty coach Movement 3: Scherzo: Allegro - Trio Karis Shin, violin, Incheon, South Korea Kieran Niska, violin, Mason, OH Lake Weeks, viola, Powell, OH Albert Lee, cello, Harrington Park, NJ Tim Shiu, faculty coach Movement 4: La Malinconia: Adagio – Allegretto quasi Allegro - adagio - Allegretto - Un poco adagio - Prestissimo Julia Lee, violin, Ellicott City, MD Evie Chow, violin, Edina, MN Preston Elliot, viola, Kansas City, MO Jisoo Park, cello, Troy, MI Mark Rudoff, faculty coach

What if the expert quote you just read in a news article wasn't written by a human — but by AI? That's already happening.  A PR tool called Synapse is selling agencies the ability to fire off automated expert pitches to journalists, complete with research, personal-sounding anecdotes, and polished email copy — all with minimal human input. It promises one person can do the work of five and crank out twenty media pitches an hour.  But is this innovation, or is it a warning sign for the future of public relations? In this episode, we're unpacking what Synapse means for PR and media. We'll explore why this kind of automation raises ethical alarms, how journalists are likely to respond, and what PR professionals need to do right now to protect trust, credibility, and the real value we bring to the table.  Listen For6:12 Creepy or Clever? How Synapse Targets Reporters7:48 Fabricated Experts: Ethical Red Line Crossed10:35 Should the PR Industry Be Regulated?11:16 How Journalists Will Fight Back With Closed Networks22:40 Don't Blame the AI—Blame OurselvesStories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

In today's media landscape, journalists are drowning in pitches while PR professionals scramble for attention—often missing the mark entirely. But what if the problem isn't the story, but the way it's being told—and the tools we're using to tell it? In this episode, we sit down with Brett Farmiloe, the revivalist behind Help a Reporter Out (HARO), to unpack why this once-iconic platform fell off the radar, how he brought it back to life, and what it now takes to genuinely stand out in a journalist's inbox.Listen For5:56 Why Journalists Are Still Drowning in Spam7:05 The HARO Pitch Formula: Helpful, Authentic, Relevant, On-Time10:20 Is the Definition of “Journalist” Changing?14:05 What Journalists Really Want from PR People20:15 Answer to Last Episode's Question From Guest Graham Goodkind Guest: Brett FarmiloeWebsite | Email | X | LinkedIn | HARO LinkedInStories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

① China has rejected NATO chief Mark Rutte's warning that Brazil, China and India could be hit by secondary US sanctions if they maintain trade with Russia. Why is Rutte's remark unhelpful to ending the Ukraine crisis? (00:55)② China has established partnerships with over 80 countries and regions in intellectual property cooperation over the past five years. We take a look at what China has achieved in IPR protection during its 14th five-year plan. (13:27)③ We speak to Benjamin Wong, Head of Transport & Logistics and Industrials at InvestHK, on how Hong Kong is positioning itself as a global supply chain hub. (24:59)④ Israel has launched heavy airstrikes on Syria, claiming to defend Druze minorities. What could happen next? (34:03)⑤ What has prompted the Trump administration to revoke federal funding for California's high-speed rail project? Do high-speed railways fit America's economic conditions? (42:12)

What if everything you've been taught about pricing your work—tracking time, logging hours, justifying effort—was wrong? What if the real value of what you do isn't how long it takes, but what impact it has? In a world where generative AI can draft press releases in seconds and churn out strategy decks before your coffee cools, PR professionals face a crossroads: race to the bottom by charging less for faster work—or redefine what clients are actually paying for.In this episode, Graham Goodkind, founder and chairman of Frank, one of the UK's most creatively disruptive PR agencies challenges how we think about pricing, pitching, and protecting our creative value—because if you're still selling time, you're selling yourself short.Listen For3:25 Why Time Is Not Your Currency in PR 4:49 Building Frank PR on Selling Ideas Not Hours7:57 Frank PR Revenue and Profitability Stats10:37 AI's Role in Creativity and Workflow17:42 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Lauren Passell21:17 Graham's Best Advice for Starting in PR Guest: Graham Goodkind, Frank PRWebsite | Email | LinkedIn  Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestSupport the show

What if the smartest pitch you ever sent didn't sound smart at all—but sounded real? In a world where inboxes are flooded with AI-polished messages, Lauren Passell makes a strong case for going the other way: writing like a human, listening like a fan, and leading with a story—not a sales hook. This episode unpacks how to stand out by showing up differently, not louder.Listen For6:44 Authenticity: Real or Just a Buzzword?9:43 The Empathy Wake-Up Call for PR Pros”10:59 Pitching as Love Letters, Not Spam12:00 Tink's Radical No-AI Policy18:34 Why PR Has a Reputation Problem21:53 Answer to Last Episode's Question From Guest Bradley Davis  Guest: Lauren Passell, Tink MediaWebsite | Email | X | LinkedIn | Instagram | You Tube | SubstackPodcast the Newsletter Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Your reputation is your most valuable asset — but also the most fragile. In today's world, a single tweet, leaked email, or bad headline can trigger a crisis faster than you can hit "refresh." But reputation isn't just about avoiding scandal — it's about building trust, culture, and resilience before anything goes wrong. In this episode, we speak with Emma Woollcott, one of the UK's top legal experts in reputation protection, about what organizations need to know now to prepare for the headlines they hope they never make. Listen For4:42 Reputation Redefined: It's About Feeling, Not Thinking7:54 Avoidable Crises: Most Disasters Don't Come Out of Nowhere9:38 Simulate the Storm: Why Crisis Drills Are Gamechangers12:56 Crisis Command: Cutting Through Chaos and Ego17:19 Rise of the Newsfluencers: The New Media Landscape20:23 Answer to Last Episode's Question From Guest Mark Burey  Guest: Emma WoollcottWebsite | Email | LinkedIn  Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

A state lawmaker from northwest Iowa has died of pancreatic cancer. State auditor and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rob Sand kicks off a 100 town hall tour. The first GOP candidate has entered the race for Iowa's 4th congressional district, and IPR health reporter Natalie Krebs reports on research into concerns about environmental causes of cancer in Iowa.

Interproximal Reduction, When, Why, and How | 9 MINUTE SUMMARY In this episode, I dive into the fundamentals of interproximal reduction(IPR) when to use it, why it matters, and how to do it effectively.We'll cover how much IPR can safely be carried out, compare differentclinical protocols and their pros and cons, and take a critical look at howaligner software plans IPR (and where it may fall short).This summary is based on Dr. Flavia Artese's insightful lecture at therecent American Association of Orthodontists Annual Session in Philadelphia,along with insights from my own clinical research and experience. How much IPR is possible? Recommended amount ½ to 1/3 of outer enamel Estimate with periapical radiographs are inaccurate, under-estimateas well as over estimate Meredith 2017 Brine 2001  Quantity of the enamel each interproximal surface Kailasam2021 systematic review, with an excellent table created by Bosio in 2022 highlightingthe enamel present and hypothetical safe reduction, ranging from 0.3-0.7mm,with 5-10% greater enamel on the distal surfaces  Can all teeth have IPR?·     Triangular teeth are idealo  Large interradicular distance, roots canapproximate with no issue·     Square shaped teeth not idealo  Reduced interradicular distance, rootapproximation of 0.8mm = loss of crestal bone Taera 2008  Are we accurate with IPR? Johner 2013 AJODO·     Manual strips Vs rotary disc Vs oscillatingstrips = all underperformed IPR by up to 0.1mm Protocols: Small Vs Large ·     0.1-0.2mm manual strips·     0.3mm+ larger reduction ·     Polishing required – If not = 25 um furrows retainplaque Jack Sheridan1989  Separation posterior region·     Separator – Requires measuring of premolarbefore and after·     Bur – needle buro  Parallel occlusal planeo  Recontour tooth surface to create contact point·     No separator -  requires contact point to be broken, advantageis the measurement of the IPR site is accurate   Bolton's analysis·     Based on excess, rather than tooth removal Proportionality·     Width o  Canine 90% of central incisoro  Lateral 70% of central incisor  IPR planningBolton's discrepancy + Tooth proportionality= whento add or remove tooth structure However·     “Don't do pre-emptive stripping for balancingtooth mass ratios between arches. Chances are it will work out just fine” Jack Sheradin 2007 JCO Method of use for 4 mm of IPR:·     Posterior to anterior – Jack Sheridano  Posterior IPR first, followed by distalisation,e.g. 4-5 first, distalise 4o  Maintain arch length with stops etc, maintainanchorage·     Anterior to posterior – Farooq o  Anchorage preserving o  Tony Weir 2021 the most common site in clinicalpractice was the lower anterior segment  IPR on overlapping teeth·     Not possible to achieve ideal anatomy withmotorised IPR instruments ·     Posterior IPR first, distalise, followed byanterior alignment and IPR – Flavia·     Use of handstrips is possible on overlappingteeth - Farooq Limits of IPR·     4-5mm, although Sheridan described possible 8.9mm,technically challenging·     IPR is not a possibility for sagittaldiscrepancy: Greater Bolton's discrepancies in class 3 and class 2malocclusions, SR 53 studies Machado 2020, greater in class 2 and 3 casesalbeit a small difference of 0.3-0.8%  Retained primary 2nd molars·     Idealise occlusion·     Consider root morphology divergence, as post IPRspace may not closeo  If divergence greater than crown, reconsider asspace closure unlikely  Why do we need to use IPR with aligners? Dahhas 2024·     Alogrythm reduces the number of aligners·     More IPR rather than saggital correction·     IPR staged inappropriately with large IPR whilstcontact point overlap, which is difficult to perform adequate anatomicalreduction

Is your media diet making you smarter? Or just more stubborn? In this episode, we sit down with senior communicator and former journalist Mark Burey to explore how the collapse of shared truth is reshaping public relations. From the erosion of local journalism to the rise of AI-generated content. What does media literacy really looks like today? And what role do PR professionals play in rebuilding trust? Listen For7:33 What media literacy means in 202510:13 The decline of local journalism and its ripple effects11:08 How PR has absorbed the watchdog role13:39 What to do when misinformation feels like fact15:43 Appreciative inquiry: changing minds without confrontation21:23 Answer to Last Episode's Question From Guest Bradley Davis Guest: Mark BureyWebsite | Email | LinkedIn  Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Meet IPR's latest Sound Garden Project ensemble in residence and hear about how they're bringing the sounds of the saxophone quartet to northern Michigan this week. Members Roberto Campa, Laura Ramsay, Kyle Kato and Samuel Dishon visited IPR's Studio A to talk about how they're taking their Fischoff Award-winning sounds from the concert hall to the public, with performances at gas stations, campgrounds, coffee shops and other unexpected places across the region. Music performed in IPR's Studio A Karalyn Schubring, Ambivert: I. Extrovert Edvard Grieg, Holberg Suite, II. Sarabande

John Quinn is joined by Caleb Harris, Co-Founder and CEO of &AI, a startup focused on using artificial intelligence to transform patent litigation.   They discuss how &AI uses AI to accomplish complex patent litigation tasks such as invalidity and infringement analysis, dramatically reducing the time and cost associated with these traditionally labor-intensive efforts.  The service features four components: searches for prior art or infringing products, in-depth legal analysis (including creating claim charts), drafting litigation-ready documents like invalidity contentions or IPR petitions, and automating workflows using AI agents that operate independently.Patent litigation is particularly well-suited to AI because so much of the underlying data—such as patent filings, litigation histories, and prosecution records—is publicly available.  &AI continuously updates its data sets and can provide summaries, detailed claim charts, and customized drafts in as little as 10 minutes.  Unlike generative AI tools, &AI minimizes hallucinations by relying heavily on document retrieval rather than generation, and by providing verified citations in its output.The platform can also help streamline early-stage litigation decisions, such as assessing the strength of a patent portfolio or evaluating potential infringement claims in the marketplace.  It also helps defense teams efficiently assess and respond to weak claims, including those from patent trolls, by producing tailored response letters and evidence.&AI uses AI agents—AI that develops multi-step plans to accomplish tasks and automatically adjusts those plans based on how the work is progressing.  This allows the user to focus on the end product they want rather than the steps needed to get there.  AI agents will enable faster, more scalable, and more economically viable litigation, especially patent litigation.  This may lead to a boon for litigators as more lawsuits are filed and resolved quickly.  Although human performance will remain crucial in areas like persuading a jury or a judge, law firms may gain a competitive edge by pairing their expertise with firm-specific AI tools trained on the firm's proprietary data and preferred styles.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Most PR strategies still focus on the big three: social, legacy media, and search. But while everyone's watching the headlines, the real conversations—the ones shaping trust, behavior, and brand reputation—are happening in people's ears. Podcasts aren't just a trend or another content format. They're a strategic intelligence channel, and if you're not monitoring them, you're missing critical signals. In this episode of Stories and Strategies, we talk to Bradley Davis, co-founder and CEO of Podchaser, the platform often called the “IMDb of podcasts.” From how global brands like Starbucks and Amazon use podcast data to shape campaigns, to why the most valuable audience insights aren't public-facing at all,  PR pros need to know what they can no longer afford to ignore.Listen For1:29 The Crackle That Started It All3:33 Podchaser: IMDb for Podcasts5:25 Podcasting as a Third Dimension of Analytics8:20 Guest Pitching vs. Starting a Podcast10:32 How Rogan, Newsom & Trump Changed the Game13:05 Key Messages Out. Vibe Is In.21:09 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Guest Irene LunguGuest: Bradley Davis, Co-Founder & CEO, Podchaser Podchaser | LinkedIn | Instagram | X | About BradleyRate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestSupport the show

The recipients of this year's Dr. and Mrs. R. Schilling Award from the Grand Traverse Musicale are vocalist Cecilia Balog, a St. Francis High School senior, and violist Konrad Kuzma, a TC Central High School senior. They recently visited IPR's Studio A to perform and to talk about what it means to be the top scholarship recipients. Music performed in Studio A Cecilia Balog, voice, with pianist Jamie Hardesty W. A. Mozart, "In uomini, in soldati" from "Cosi fan tutte" Konrad Kuzma, viola Max Reger, Suite for solo viola, II. Vivace

What does public relations look like in a country where radio is still growing, social media still exploding, and communication reaches from rural villages to global platforms?  In this episode, we take a closer look at Zambia — a nation with a vibrant, evolving PR landscape shaped by both tradition and innovation.  Irene Lungu is one of Zambia's leading voices in public relations and a board member of the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management. She joins us to talk about ethics, communication trends, and the responsibilities that come with influence in today's media environment.  We explore how Zambian practitioners are navigating rapid change, and what global conversations they're helping to shape. Listen For3:50 Why Zambia Regulated Its PR Industry6:14 Resistance and Discomfort: Who Pushed Back8:00 Is PR Regulation a Threat to Free Speech?14:36 Global Standards, Local Contexts16:14 The World's #1 Risk: Misinformation18:52. Answer to Last Episode's Question from Guest Olivia FajardoGuest: Irene LunguLinkedIn | Global Alliance Board Profile  Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Listen on: Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Google Podcasts | Spotify | PandoraWe're celebrating our 30th Anniversary on the road, and this week, we make our fourth stop in Iowa City in partnership with IPR. We talk to bakers, chefs, restaurateurs, and farmers about the food of the heartland. First up, Shae and Anna Pesek of Over the Moon Farm and T.D. Holub of The Garden Oasis Farm talk about their personal experiences with farm life, from agricultural challenges to sustainability and the community and passion that contribute to the success and drive of a farm. Then, we talk to Jamie Powers, owner and executive chef of Deluxe Bakery, and Carrie and Andy Schumacher, owners of the restaurant Cobble Hill, about opening their restaurants in Iowa and how building community is the most important part of their businesses.Broadcast dates for this episode:May 30, 2025 (originally aired)Celebrate kitchen companionship with a gift to The Splendid Table today.

Employee engagement is evolving — and the old assumptions no longer hold. Today, workers want more than a paycheck. They want growth, flexibility, and to feel like their voices matter. In this episode, we unpack surprising new research on what really drives engagement, retention, and belonging inside organizations. Olivia Fajardo joins us to explain why internal communications has become mission critical — and how companies can move from simply talking to truly connecting. If you care about building teams that stay and thrive, this conversation is for you. Listen For4:14 PR: As Stressful as Firefighting5:05 Why Communicators Feel More Purpose6:34 Career Stagnation: The Hidden Threat9:27 The Hybrid Challenge for Internal Comms12:05 The Listening-Action Gap12:10 Olivia's Strategies to Build Trust and Accountability20:05 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Guest Helena HumphreyGuest: Oliva Fajardo, Director of Research, Institute for Public RelationsLinkedIn | Instagram | FacebookLink to IPR Study Employee Engagement in the Communications Industry Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

More Americans are turning down the volume on domestic news — and turning up British voices instead. From BBC to The Guardian, outlets across the Atlantic are reshaping how U.S. audiences see their own country. Why is this happening? And what does it say about trust, tone, and the global conversation? Listen For3:48 British Media's Rising Credibility in the U.S.7:23 Could BBC Influence U.S. Culture?12:29 Feminism, TikTok, and the Tradwife Dilemma18:47 Femininity and Power Around the World21:32 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Guest Sarah Waddington Guest: Helena Humphrey, BBCEmail | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Feeling stuck or stressed at work? You might just need to GROW your way out. Executive coach Sarah Waddington shares the power and practicality of the GROW model — Goal, Reality, Options, Way forward — in transforming workplace performance, especially within high-pressure environments like PR. Sarah breaks down how this deceptively simple coaching framework fosters self-awareness, reduces stress, builds resilience, and helps individuals and teams move from dependency to interdependency. From managing difficult clients and workplace lethargy to unlocking mindset shifts for career advancement, this conversation offers actionable tips to leaders and middle managers alike on how to introduce coaching into fast-paced and demanding cultures.Listen For5:15 Why GROW works for both work and life7:04 Applying GROW in the pressure cooker of PR11:52 Nightmare client scenario: Using GROW in real-time challenges14:40 Resilience in PR: Avoiding burnout with GROW16:37 — Baby steps for senior leaders to start using GROW19:20 Answer to Last Episode's Question From Guest Mark Borkowski Guest: Sarah Waddington, CBEWebsite | Email | X | LinkedIn | Wadds Inc. #FuturePRoof Community https://www.futureproofingcomms.co.uk/ Socially Mobile https://www.sociallymobile.org.uk/  Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

In Game Notes 043, we sit down with South Dakota official Jesse Stricherz for a reflective and educational IPR breakdown. Jesse, who began officiating at age 15, brings decades of experience and humility to the table as he shares the highs and challenges of managing competitive games. One of the standout moments in this episode is Jesse's discussion around coach interactions, particularly navigating a heated sideline exchange with a calm but firm response. The episode dives deep into his decision-making, signals, positioning, and ability to match the energy of emotional coaches without losing composure—an essential skill for any official climbing the ranks.This episode is a goldmine for officials seeking practical tools and game-ready insights. Topics include anticipating secondary defenders, traveling violations, the art of stepping down, patient whistles, communication cues, crew dynamics, and tactical rotation philosophy. Jesse's vulnerability and growth mindset shine through, as does our supportive community surrounding him on the call. Whether you're new to officiating or a seasoned vet, this conversation will leave you feeling more connected to the craft—and inspired to serve the game with purpose.

Reputation is often treated like an invisible asset—vital but fragile. And while we insure everything from homes to art collections, very few think to protect their name. In this episode, we speak to PR pioneer Mark Borkowski about a bold new product: crisis insurance for individuals. It's not just an idea—it's a rethinking of how we prepare for the worst-case scenario in a world where reputation can be destroyed with just one social media post.Listen For4:10 The Power of Optimism Bias10:33 Delivering Bad News to Powerful Clients13:25 Why Killing Your Ego Matters18:12 What Is Reputational Risk Insurance?21:39 Building an Insurance Product for Reputation22:50 Answer to Last Episode's Question From Guest Jo Carr Guest: Mark BorkowskiWebsite | Email | X | LinkedIn See the LONGER FULL INTERVIEW on our YouTube ChannelYou TubeRate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with us:LinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

What makes a workplace culture truly thrive—especially in the pressure-cooker world of creative agencies? Can you REALLY be tough on the work but kind to your people without compromise?Jo Carr, co-founder of Hope and Glory and President of Women in PR breaks down the complexities of workplace culture, empathy-driven leadership, and how to create spaces where people—and their diverse lives—can flourish. From crafting policies that acknowledge the full spectrum of life's moments to challenging outdated hiring mindsets, Jo brings wisdom, warmth, and a welcome dose of honesty. She shares how high standards and human kindness aren't mutually exclusive, why culture should be additive rather than restrictive, and what it takes to keep women in the leadership pipeline. Listen For4:27 Culture = Environment + Experience8:15 The House Metaphor: Building Structure, Allowing Individuality9:17 From Culture Fit to Culture Add16:57 How Do You Build Culture With Cultural Diversity?19:13 Women in PR: From Majority to Minority in Leadership23:09 Presence Over Perfection: Being Fully There, Wherever You Are23:26 Answer to Last Episode's Question From Guest Suhel SethGuest: Jo Carr, founder Hope & Glory PR, Women in PRWebsite | Email | X | LinkedIn | Women in PR Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

In an age where opinions form faster than facts and headlines spark outrage before understanding, how do brands, leaders, and storytellers stay credible? Is your opinion truly yours? Or just an echo of your tribe?In this episode, Suhel Seth unpacks the transformation of communication in the era of attention deficit — from the collapse of nuance to the rise of instant outrage, and why the art of thoughtful messaging might just be the most urgent skill of our time. Listen For3:07 The Cult of Immediacy: A Communication Crisis7:59 The Lost Art of Contextualization12:26 Social Identity & Tribal Thinking14:32 Why Modern Society Fears Disruption19:14 India: A Market or a Civilization?23:57 Why India Didn't Create Google or Facebook24:50 Answer to Last Episode's Question From Guest Andy Coulson Guest: Suhel SethWikipedia Page | X | LinkedIn | Instagram | FacebookStories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations Web siteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

What happens when the man behind the headlines becomes the headline?  Former tabloid editor and Downing Street comms chief Andy Coulson opens up about his very public fall from grace — from resignations and scandal to serving time in prison — and how he rebuilt his life and career in the shadow of cancel culture.  With raw honesty and sharp insight, Andy talks about the realities of recovery, the myth of reinvention, and why consistency and character matter more than ever in a world obsessed with outrage. Listen For10:57 How to Recover from Cancellation: Strategy Over Reinvention15:45 Attention Deficit and the New Rules of Reputation17:48 Crisis Management vs. Political Strategy: Don't Follow the Trump Playbook20:28 In a Polarized World, How Do You Define Good and Bad?23:16 Answer to Last Episode's Question From Guest Tina McCorkindale, PhD Guest: Andy CoulsonWebsite | Instagram | LinkedIn | Wikipedia Page Andy's Podcast Crisis? What Crisis? Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

The media landscape is changing – and fast. In this episode, Tina McCorkindale, President and CEO of the Institute for Public Relations, breaks down the shift away from traditional news and the rise of emerging media. Drawing on insights from a recent survey with PepperCom, she explores how trust in media is evolving and what that means for public relations. From the rise of podcasts and influencers to the decline of legacy outlets, Tina offers essential strategies for communicators in today's fractured media world. Listen For6:54 The New Media Relations Battlefield8:56 The Rise of News Avoidance14:22 Broccoli vs. Mars Bar: Explaining News to a Teen19:59 The Power of Owning Your Channels20:55 Answer to Last Episode's Question From Guest Sue HeumanStudy with Peppercom Navigating a Changing Media Landscape | Institute for Public RelationsGuest: Tina McCorkindale, PhDWebsite | LinkedIn | Google Scholar ProfileCheck out the IPR Video Series In a Car with IPR Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

The public relations industry has long been recognized as a female-dominated field, with women making up approximately two-thirds of the workforce. However, when it comes to leadership, women remain significantly underrepresented, comprising just one-third of top-tier roles. This disparity raises critical questions about the systemic barriers that prevent women from rising to senior leadership positions in PR agencies and organizations.In this episode, we examine the challenges faced by women in their careers, the personal and societal factors that hinder their progress, and the strategies they've employed to overcome these obstacles. Sue Heuman is a strong female leader in the PR industry, a designated Master Communicator through IABC, Past Chair of the IABC Global Communication Certification Council, and an executive leader. Listen For7:35 Where Are the Mentors?9:38 Too Harsh or Too Soft? The Impossible Standards for Female Leaders12:23 Sue's Jaw-Dropping Boardroom Story14:23 The Confidence Gap: Why Women Don't Apply22:48 Answer to Last Episode's Question From Guest Carmine Gallo  Guest: Sue Heuman, IABC Fellow, Master CommunicatorWebsite | LinkedIn  Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations websiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Curzon Public Relations CEO, Farzana Baduel, joins the world's most-listened-to PR podcast, as Guest Resident Co-Host!Alongside host Doug Downs, SCMP and producers Emily Page and David Olajide MPRCA, this season will explore PR through a truly global lens—tackling industry challenges, leadership insights, and the evolving media landscape.

On this Newsbuzz episode we check in with a state government reporter on the first legislative hurdle, and follow up on reporting from IPR staff.

In this throwback episode Kevin and Zach discuss the importance of communication and managing patient expectations throughout the Invisalign process, from initial consultation to final results. Key Takeaways: Verbal skills are crucial: Effectively communicating with patients about the Invisalign process, including attachments, IPR ("slenderizing"), and potential refinements, is key to ensuring satisfaction. Manage expectations early: Clearly explain the process, including potential discomfort, dietary changes, and the need for retainers, to avoid surprises and disappointment later. Address objections proactively: Have answers prepared for common concerns like the appearance of attachments, the need for IPR, and the duration of treatment. Use visual aids: Models, photos, or videos can help patients understand the process and visualize the expected outcomes. Don't fight the "mostly satisfied": If an adult patient is happy with their results, even if not perfect, respect their decision and avoid pushing for further refinements. Be prepared for the "never satisfied": Some patients may have unrealistic expectations or hyper-focus on minor imperfections. Patience, clear communication, and gentle guidance are essential. Address noncompliance: Reiterate the importance of wearing aligners as prescribed and address non-compliance directly, but ultimately, patients are responsible for their own choices. Invest in a good Invisalign manager: A dedicated team member can handle patient communication, manage expectations, and provide support throughout the process. Remember the positive: While negative experiences tend to be more memorable, the majority of Invisalign patients are satisfied with their results. Very Clinical is brought to you by Zirc Dental Products, Inc., your trusted partner in dental efficiency and organization. The Very Clinical Corner segment features Kate Reinert, LDA, an experienced dental professional passionate about helping practices achieve clinical excellence.  Connect with Kate Reinert on LinkedIn: Kate Reinert, LDA  Book a call with Kate: Reserve a Call  Ready to upscale your team? Explore Zirc's solutions today: zirc.com