Firstly, my humble apologies. I have been missing in action getting a few new initiatives off the ground and celebrating what some people call a ‘landmark’ birthday, and which others refer to as the first step of a long decline. Either way, I now get free travel on Transport for London – once I get around to applying for it – so every cloud, eh?

So what’s new?

I have some events to announce, and other initiatives are brewing under the surface.

The fourth Corporate Affairs Summit London returns on 7 October. In the interests of transparency, I should point out that – for the second year running – a competing event is taking place on the same day. It’s run by a little known company called Haymarket. And I’ve had a peek at what it’s offering…

Its original blurb read thus: ‘Master the value creator mindset by accessing an exclusive, off-the-record inner circle of senior peers. Attendees gain a competitive edge through critical ‘blind spots’ audits on emerging 2026 threats and walk away with proven reporting templates that translate complex reputation management into high-level boardroom financial metrics.’

Copilot deciphered it as ‘borderline gobbledegook rather than total nonsense’, but that’s artificial intelligence for you! However, if you find yourself drawn to that sales pitch, and really want to spend between £479 and £729 for a ticket, please feel free.

Or, alternatively, you can sign up today for this year’s summit for just £125 using the discount code Earlybird26, rising to £200 closer to the date, and trust that I will create an agenda that really does help you in your working life – even if it doesn’t master the ‘value creator mindset’, whatever that might be! (Sadly, only open to senior in-house communications professionals.)

You can buy tickets here…

Although I have previously promoted our upcoming Cyber Unpacked event on 2 June, the full details are now online. It really is a great programme, including a simulation from our friends at Polpeo, with a particular focus on the internal communications aspect of preparation because your people are both the first line of defence and your biggest vulnerability.

I had been promised the warts and all story of a cyber attack from a past victim, and if they come back and confirm – then they’ll be added to the programme. It all takes place on 2 June – which is very soon, I know – and for one week only, tickets are discounted by £50 to just £150 using the very complex discount code: OneWeekOnly.

And finally, the CorpComms Awards are open for entry.

We are opening (and closing) for entries a little earlier this year, and bringing forward our gala dinner as a result. For various reasons, we’ve shuttered the Corporate Reporting Awards, taking its key categories into the CorpComms Awards, as well as adding three new categories.

• Best GEO initiative

• Best social impact initiative (which brings together corporate partnership and community initiative)

• Industry change maker

The early bird deadline is 12 June 2026, and entries until that date will be priced at £350+VAT after which they jump by £100 to £450+VAT until the final closing date of 26 June.

Anyway, that’s the sales pitches over… let the games begin!

Is the corporate affairs function fit for purpose?

That’s a question I’m hearing a lot in recent months. Configured at a time when traditional media dominated and controlling the narrative was viewed as key, the current structure seems clunky and out of kilter in today’s fast-moving, polycrisis world.

It’s a theme I’m keen to explore at the Corporate Affairs Summit, but in the meantime, a new report from GlobeScan and Said Business School, entitled Corporate Affairs in Turbulent Times, found that 17 per cent of almost 300 comms professionals surveyed believe the function should be radically revised.

In fact, three in four believe some sort of revision is required. As one respondent put it, corporate affairs is largely set up as a one-stop shop with multiple elements given equal weighting. A rebalance is needed, with new specialisms and a focus on areas of most value.

The survey reiterates the prevailing view that if corporate affairs wants to be viewed as business critical, it needs to up its game with a clearer strategy, focus and priorities. And while 71 per cent of respondents view innovation, digitalisation and AI as offering opportunities for business, it is not surprising that one in four respondents believe that corporate affairs’ approach to impact measurement, data and AI capabilities needs revision.

The respondents recognise that the function will continue to be seen as a cost centre rather than a profit generator if it doesn’t prove that it is more than a firefighter but is instead innovative with commercial acumen.

Despite this, the majority of respondents – 79 per cent – believe that corporate affairs has either ‘some’ or ‘significant’ impact on creating and protecting business value, while a surprisingly high 14 per cent attribute a ‘low or no impact’ to their activities.

Of those who do see value in their work, 32 per cent believe that their ability to forecast risk and manage crises as key to creating value while 30 per cent believe the role corporate affairs plays in protecting and promoting reputation is also key.

I am surprised, however, that not one respondent views effective lobbying as a way to protect business value, down from a measly two per cent a year earlier, when some of the big ‘wins’ that corporate affairs directors often highlight to me relate to their work arbitraging upcoming regulations or, indeed, successfully lobbying against those that would negatively impact the business.

But the results also indicate a sense of confidence. While just five per cent felt able to influence business decisions across the value chain last year, today that number has risen to 15 per cent.

When asked what would be the foundations of a future-proof function, three aspects shine through: strategic planning and direction (implying greater focus and discipline than in the past), adoption and integration of AI and technology (there’s no place for Luddites) and, finally, talent acquisition and upskilling staff. Is it a data scientist you need or another media spokesperson?

I view these results as indicative of a function at a crossroads. It can continue with the status quo, a function developed in the last century dealing with this century’s demands, and gripe about never getting a seat at the table. Or it can grab this opportunity – and become the catalyst that turns complexity into actionable insights.

MEDIA RELATIONS

How not to conduct a media interview

I must confess that I had not heard of GameStop until it recently unveiled its audacious $56 billion bid for eBay. Nor, I must confess, had I heard of that bid until I was alerted to a disastrous interview by its chief executive Ryan Cohen on CNBC Squawk Box.

In the UK, CEOs are increasingly loath to talk to business journalists who can’t distinguish their Ebitdas from their interest margins. Cohen’s interview looked like he was the one struggling to understand business.

Asked – and I love this question – ‘how does the math math?’, Cohen referred the interviewer to information on GameStop’s website, adding ‘it’s half cash, half shares’. ‘Can you help our audience understand?’ pushed the journalist. ‘Which part exactly?’ came the reply.

The interviewer’s confusion was obvious. GameStop is currently valued at $11 billion, with $9 billion in cash on its balance sheet. A Canadian bank has indicated that it may offer $20 billion in debt financing – but that leaves a whopping $16 billion shortfall. ‘We’ll see what happens,’ Cohen retorted. Pushed further, he reiterated ‘half cash, half stock’, adding: ‘I don’t understand the question.’

It’s a 16-minute interview filled with awkward silences, bemused journalists and a CEO who, at one point, justifies his credentials by pointing out that CNBC predicted the demise of GameStop ‘multiple times’ but it’s still here. Where’s a media trainer when you need one? Not that Cohen would likely have listened.

In the aftermath of Cohen’s interview, GameStop’s share price dropped ten per cent. Cardinal40, which recently produced a report quantifying the value of high quality CEO thought leadership, estimates that each word spoken by Cohen during his appearance cost his shareholders approximately $1 million.

The share price has since recovered, but remains below where it stood when Cohen first opened his mouth on CNBC – and at least one investor has sold its stake in GameStop, citing the interview. Who says talk is cheap?

MEDIA RELATIONS

Are the wrong culprits being blamed?

As regular readers will attest, I am not one for complaining. (Stop laughing at the back.) I may rant about irrelevant press releases, but I do try to offer constructive advice to those sending them or politely ask to be taken off their distribution lists.

On occasion, they reject my request. I was once told by a rather insistent PR man that, contrary to what I had stated, I was indeed interested in news about printing companies, because their media intelligence (using the word loosely here) service told them so. And, so he would continue sending such releases to me - and I would continue deleting.

And therein lays the problem. I regularly get asked to ‘update’ or ‘submit’ my details to existing or new media databases, to which I always decline. I have been told that if I then receive irrelevant releases, I only have myself to blame - which seems rather unfair.

But when I have ‘updated’ in the past, it has merely unleashed a tidal wave of irrelevant press releases from new sources – and the merry-go-round of unsubscribing starts again.

There is one particularly bad service – for legal purposes, I will not name them – and I always take great delight in offering my reason for unsubscribing as ‘Because [name redacted] is s**t.’

But last week, when I hit the unsubscribe button to a press release from a different distributor, the message came back: ‘You don’t have the right to do so’. I had, instead, to email the company directly to ask for permission.

The response: ‘Thank you. Your answer was taken into account’, which could be translated as ‘We’ll the judge of what is appropriate to send you’. Give me strength.