Perspectives: Why the GCC’s creative evolution matters more than ever

Digital culture hasn't killed narrative: our need for stories that make sense of the world endures. Timeless techniques still create opportunities - including in financial communications - and the greater power that technology gives us also creates greater responsibility.

We like reading at Ashbury, which delights me because I've always believed that the best communicators are also people who read widely and regularly. Advisers and writers need to consume much more than news; they also need to be learning about influence, engagement, and meaning in the broadest sense through immersion in culture in all its forms.

So I was intrigued when a colleague mentioned in the office that she had read a book called The Crisis of Narration by the Korean-German philosopher, Byung-Chul Han, and I decided to read it. Han argues that what he calls "Phono Sapiens" has lost the ability to create narratives that connect people and give meaning to the world.

It's hard to disagree with the notion that rich narratives have declined in our screen-addicted society. Many of us prefer curating our image on social media to telling, or listening to, a real narrative. I'm sure fewer of us have the attention span to listen to a long tale than in the days of ancient Greece, for example, when teams of performers would recite the whole of the Iliad and the Odyssey from memory. Some academics think that the Iliad alone would have been performed over three nights in sessions of four to six hours each.

Homo Fabularum

That doesn't mean narrative is dead, though, or that good narratives have lost their power. Whether we like it or not, we still need their structure to make sense of reality. Or, as Han puts it, "turning being-in-the-world to being-at-home-in-the-world." While we may be addicted to being Phono Sapiens, I think that we're frustrated Homo Fabularum, or story people. Real, deep, and fulfilling stories are what we're looking for - but rarely find - when we're scrolling.

Han thinks that real narratives are quite distinct from mere storytelling, which he sees as a tawdry, superficial, and commercialised activity.

"Through storytelling, capitalism appropriates the narrative and submits it to consumption. Storytelling produces narratives in a consumable form. It charges products with emotion. It promises unique experiences. We buy, sell, and consume narratives and emotions. Stories sell. Storytelling is storyselling."

I think Han is dead right in one way here, but is also ignoring one colossally important fact that makes his distinction between narratives and stories meaningless.

He's right that stories sell. They always have and they always will. Our minds are designed to hold on to stories and use them as an interpretive key to more complex realities. Philosophy and psychology may seem distant from everyday financial communications, but they are not. Storytelling is in fact essential to commercial influence. Let me give you some simple examples.

I listened recently to Rwandan officials talking to prospective investors about the new Formula One circuit they are building near Kigali for the African Grand Prix. There's a planned luxury hotel that will look out over the track. You'll be able to look out over it from the hotel's infinity pool. Because of the area's landscape - rolling hills around a lake - you will have the impression while sipping your cocktail in the pool that the Formula One cars are heading straight at you, before they dip down and turn away. It's a lovely, simple story that I'd bet has been repeated by many people who heard it. That story will surely help to attract investment to the project.

A friend who attended a presentation that a world-famous asset management CEO gave to a group of private investors told me how this individual reacted when one investor asked why he'd never heard of the company and what they really did. The CEO replied with something like: "All you really need to know about us is this. From the moment you wake up, you're using assets that we own. The electricity from your kettle comes from power stations we own. We own the cellphone network you use to make calls. We own the railway you use to go to work. If you invest in our fund, you can own them too."

Even well-chosen metaphors are simple stories that stay with audiences as cognitive keys. Another asset management CEO I know introduces her firm - which owns a number of different brands - as the Louis Vuitton of asset management. It always gets a laugh and it's immediately memorable.

Changing conditions

What Han misses, though, is just how much the world has changed since communities were held together by narratives told by firesides and charged with mysteries, gods, and otherness. There were no brands or multinational corporations in Homer's day (or were there, if you consider the polities, rulers, and pantheons of the time? Answers on a postcard, please). Very few people could read. The technology available for publishing narratives was therefore simple: communication was in person and oral.

Yet these conditions were changing centuries before smartphones arrived, thanks to the movable printing press (around 1440) and its successor technologies: newspapers (1605, depending on what you call a newspaper), radio broadcasts (1906), TV broadcasts (1926), and the Internet (the first website went live in 1990).

Economic structures were transformed by joint-stock companies (since 1553), publicly-traded companies (1602), banks (early 1400s), central banks (late 1600s), and limited liability companies (early 1800s) among many other developments. Printed advertising itself may be a thousand years old: a copper printing plate advertising a Liu's needle shop in Jinan, including a rabbit logo and slogan, dates back to China's Northern Song dynasty (960-1276).

What this meant, first in Europe and then over centuries in the world beyond, was that business became bigger and often more international, brands became more prevalent, and societies became more urbanised.

In 2026, many of us will see dozens, if not hundreds, of advertisements a day. And while research on this is patchy and dated, it's possible that over half of the editorial media coverage we consume has been influenced by public relations professionals. I'd be surprised if it wasn't more in business and finance news.

So Han may be right about the decline of classical narrative, but the fact is that the conditions that supported the kind of communication he valorises have been disappearing for centuries. For better or worse, we storysellers have replaced the bards. We intermediate a big part of what counts as narrative in today's world. So what does that mean for us?

Story lessons

First, we shouldn't forget what we can learn from the great traditions of narrative. How did bards manage to hold people's attention night after night for six hours at a time? Strong characters, whether relatable or extraordinary. Dramatic tension. Memorable tropes. Surprises. All these techniques are available to us today.

This is why we do executive profiling and encourage CEOs to develop their presence on LinkedIn. It's why we might juxtapose a bold strategy or idea with the consensus view. It's why we reassure audiences with familiar wording (growth opportunities in Asia, anyone?). It's why we love stories about 150-year-old banks launching products based on cutting-edge technology. The scene changes and the centuries roll past, but a lot about narrative remains the same. That's hardly surprising: channels and formats may change, but our neurological make-up and essential psychology don't.

Second, we shouldn't lose sight of the power that comes from creating an image in the mind's eye. Stories that can do this stay with people, like the racetrack and the cars heading straight into the infinity pool, or being the Louis Vuitton of asset management.

Finally, companies with long histories also have a particular advantage in fulfilling the traditional purpose of narrative, which is to give people a hold on the world. When any organisation has been around for centuries, its particular story maps onto a recognisable arc of history more generally. It can be a constant over generations, part of a shared patrimony. And longevity itself can acquire an aura: if a company has been in business for so long, there must be a reason for it. Long histories can have drawbacks too, but on balance they are invaluable reputational assets.

Power and responsibility

We should recognise that intermediating reality to audiences is a serious responsibility. Communicators' duty to act responsibly has only increased along with our relative power. Narratives used to take years to spread, constrained by the tyranny of dangerous seas, bad roads, and illiteracy. Abundant data and the analytical power of artificial intelligence (AI) mean that we can now be more targeted, more relevant, and more influential than ever before, while achieving impact in seconds.

If we're honest, communicators have not been very consistent in acting with integrity throughout history. Too many have succumbed to the temptation to use the power that comes with creating narrative to mislead and manipulate others. Today's data- and AI-enabled communicators need to do better, for all our sakes.

I'm confident that the author of The Crisis of Narration would dismiss the idea of responsible storyselling in financial communications as an impossibility. Han gives the impression that we humans are powerless to resist the way that digitalisation is reducing us and robbing us of meaning. I think he's seriously underestimating people's ability to create narrative and the extent to which we continue to seek out real narrative in spite of digitalisation. And I think he's underestimating the immutability of narrative power, and its ability to transcend new channels and formats.

Smartphones and social media aren't likely to be the final word in the way we communicate in the financial context or any other. New forms and mechanisms will emerge - and I see no reason why narrative won't adapt to these too.

Narrative isn't in crisis; it's just moving with the times. That's in its nature because narrative is deep in ours. Financial communicators need to grasp this, make intentional use of techniques developed over millennia and sell stories responsibly.

Key takeaways

• Narrative is adapting, not disappearing. Channels and habits change, but people still seek stories that connect them and help them make sense of the world.

• Traditional storytelling techniques still work. Strong characters, dramatic tension, familiar tropes, and surprises remain valuable tools for corporate communicators.

• Make complex ideas memorable. Vivid mental images and simple, relatable examples help audiences understand, retain, and share a story.

• Put organisational history to work. A long history can connect a company to a shared past, offering continuity and strengthening its reputation.

• Greater influence demands greater responsibility. Data and artificial intelligence increase the speed and precision of communication, making integrity and the avoidance of manipulation more important than ever.
  
  

Adam Harper founded Ashbury in January 2020. He was previously Head of Communications for Greater China at HSBC, where he was also Regional Head of Communications for Global Banking and Markets, Asia-Pacific.

Before joining HSBC, Adam was a Vice President in Credit Suisse's Asia-Pacific Corporate Communications team and Asia Editor at EuroWeek. He has worked in Asia since 2004 and is a graduate of the University of Cambridge.

Read more from our columnists in The Earned View

84 per cent of senior communications leaders say their organisations consider political factors when deciding whether to speak publicly, while 61 per cent prefer to stay quiet on potentially divisive issues even when they could authentically speak up, according to the Ipsos Reputation Council Report 2026, Life After Predictability.

The 19^th edition of the report draws on 200 one-to-one conversations between Ipsos Corporate Reputation and senior communications and corporate affairs leaders, conducted between March and June 2026.

The findings suggest that geopolitical uncertainty, AI, and increasingly fragmented stakeholder expectations are shifting the value of communications from message-making towards strategic judgement and organisational decision-making.

Political pressures drive strategic silence

The report found that 35 per cent of Reputation Council members said their organisations had stayed quiet on issues over the previous 12 months that they would previously have addressed publicly, including sensitive topics such as ESG and DEI .

However, only 17 per cent agreed that strategic silence constitutes corporate cowardice. According to Ipsos, organisations are increasingly weighing their public positions against business principles, stakeholder expectations, and potential reputational risks.

This trend was particularly evident in the US, where 53 per cent of communicators said their organisations had remained silent on issues they would previously have addressed, compared with 28 per cent in Europe. The report attributed this difference to varying political pressures across markets.

Milorad Ajder, Global Service Line Leader, Corporate Reputation at Ipsos, said: "For many organisations, Strategic Silence has become a deliberate response to a more fragmented, polarised and unpredictable environment. The challenge for communicators today is exercising judgement: knowing which issues to engage with, which battles to fight, and how to help organisations make sound decisions when certainty is unavailable."

Volatility and fragmented audiences complicate decisions

The report identifies geopolitical tensions, economic uncertainty, regulatory changes, and political polarisation as ongoing features of the business environment rather than temporary disruptions.

Communications leaders are increasingly expected to anticipate risks, consider multiple scenarios, and advise organisations operating under uncertainty.

Stakeholder consensus is also becoming harder to achieve, with 46 per cent of Council Members agreeing that populism represents a material risk to their organisation.

As customers, employees, investors, and regulators hold increasingly conflicting expectations, communicators are being challenged to maintain consistent organisational principles while adapting their approaches across different markets.

According to Ipsos, the task is shifting from finding messages that satisfy everyone towards helping organisations manage unavoidable trade-offs.

AI adoption rises as governance falls behind

AI is increasingly acting as an intermediary between organisations and stakeholders, drawing on corporate websites, earned media, and third-party information to generate responses that influence how organisations are understood.

Daily AI use among Council Members increased from 57 per cent in 2025 to 76 per cent in 2026, while meaningful AI use rose from 43 per cent to 76 per cent.

However, only 12 per cent agreed that existing ethical policies in business are sufficient for AI adoption, while 76 per cent disagreed.

The report also found that 78 per cent of Council Members believe fake news and disinformation pose a material threat to their business.

According to Ipsos, these developments reinforce the need for human oversight and judgement when evaluating AI-generated information, managing reputational risks, and determining how technology should be used.

The findings also point to the renewed importance of press releases and earned media as sources of information for AI-generated answers, highlighting their role in GEO.

ESG communications become more selective

49 per cent of Council members disagreed that the term ESG accurately describes their organisation's activities, while 61 per cent said their ESG communications had become more targeted.

Meanwhile, 22 per cent acknowledged consciously under-communicating credible ESG progress in the previous year.

According to Ipsos, sustainability remains a strategic priority for many organisations, but communications are increasingly focused on business resilience, competitiveness and tangible outcomes, with greater emphasis on demonstrating progress rather than making broad commitments.

Communications takes on a greater strategic role

The report found that 67 per cent of Council Members agreed that their job responsibilities had become harder to manage, as communicators are increasingly expected to provide stakeholder intelligence and strategic counsel beyond traditional messaging.

However, demonstrating reputation's commercial value remains challenging. Almost half (49 per cent) reported some connection between reputation and remuneration, including 29 per cent with a direct link and 20 per cent with an indirect link.

Ipsos highlights that reputation is shaped by factors beyond communications, including customer experience, operational performance, and leadership behaviour, requiring greater collaboration across business functions.

What communications professionals need to know

Drawing on its findings, Ipsos identifies five priorities for the future communications function.

• Invest in judgement rather than content production: Strengthen the ability to interpret complex information, assess trade-offs, and support informed decisions as AI makes content creation faster and more accessible.

• Develop communications as an intelligence capability: Improve horizon scanning, stakeholder research, and issues monitoring to identify emerging risks and support business decisions before problems escalate.

• Become comfortable with trade-offs: Help leaders navigate conflicting stakeholder expectations, determine which organisational principles are non-negotiable, and assess the potential consequences of difficult decisions.

• Reskill for the next era of communications: Develop AI fluency, data literacy, commercial awareness, and resilience, alongside established strengths such as storytelling and relationship building.

• Earn a role in decision-making: Position communications as a source of strategic counsel by helping leaders understand stakeholder expectations, navigate ambiguity, and evaluate reputational consequences.

Ipsos concludes that as uncertainty becomes a lasting feature of the business environment, communications professionals will increasingly be valued for their judgement and ability to help organisations make informed decisions, rather than simply the messages they produce.

Marketing and communications teams have never had more information, but too few can say what it changed. Most teams do not have a data problem. They have a decision-making problem.

Dashboards are full of reach, engagement, sentiment, media coverage, website traffic, search demand, advertising performance, and customer behaviour. The data is collected, presented, and discussed, but it often has very little influence over what the team does next.

If a metric does not change a decision, it is not an insight. It is reporting overhead. The gap appears because teams often treat measurement, analysis, and strategy as though they are the same thing.

Measurement tells us what happened, analysis helps explain why it happened, and strategy determines what we will do differently because of it.

A dashboard can tell you that something moved. It cannot tell you whether that movement matters.

A large number is not automatically a good result

Consider a campaign that generates a 40 per cent increase in engagement. That sounds positive, but the number alone tells us almost nothing.

Did the message resonate, or were people confused? Did the campaign reach the audience capable of influencing the outcome? Did engagement lead to greater trust, stronger consideration, or any meaningful action?

Now place that engagement result alongside other information.

Search queries show people repeatedly looking for clarification. The campaign landing page has a high exit rate. Customer service teams are receiving the same question. Enquiries and conversions have not moved.

The engagement was real, but it did not necessarily represent approval or intent. It may
have represented friction.

That changes the decision. The team may need to clarify the message, address the
unanswered question, improve the supporting information and then test whether behaviour changes.

Reporting the engagement increase without examining what followed it would produce the wrong conclusion.

The same applies to media coverage. More coverage is not automatically better coverage.
Share of voice is not useful if the conversation is being driven by the wrong issue. Positive
sentiment can hide concerns within a smaller but commercially or reputationally important audience.

A campaign does not become valuable simply because it generated a large number.

Channel data only tells part of the story

Marketing and communications teams often report within their own channel boundaries.

PR reports on coverage and sentiment. Social teams report on reach and engagement. Paid media teams report on ROAS and conversions. Website teams report on traffic and
behaviour. Sales and customer service hold another set of information entirely.

Each team may be reporting accurately while the organisation still misses what the customer is doing.

Channel reports show how channels behaved. Strategy needs to show how people behaved.

At PH Digital, we often find the most useful information in the relationship between different data sources. Media attention may create search demand. Paid activity may generate qualified traffic. Website behaviour may reveal a point of confusion. CRM and sales data then show whether any of that interest became commercially valuable.

Looking at one source in isolation can lead to the wrong response.

If reach is strong but conversion is weak, the business may not need more awareness. It
may need a clearer offer, stronger proof, or a better customer journey. If website traffic is falling but conversion remains strong, the issue may be demand generation. If customers purchase once but do not return, the greatest opportunity may sit in retention rather than acquisition.

Each is a different problem requiring a different investment.

Start with the decision

The usefulness of the data depends on the quality of the question being asked. Before opening a dashboard, teams should define the decision they are trying to make.

Are we trying to determine which audience matters most? Why a message failed to land?
Where budget should be directed? Whether communications activity is needed at all?

Without a clear question, reporting becomes a search for numbers that make the activity
look successful.

Every meaningful finding should be translated through three steps:

• The signal: What changed, for whom and compared with what?

• The meaning: Why do we think it changed, and what other evidence supports that
  conclusion?
  
  

• The decision: What will we stop, start or change as a result?

The decision should have an owner, a timeframe, and a way to test whether it worked. That is the difference between reporting data and using it.

Data must be allowed to challenge the plan

The most valuable data is often the information that contradicts what the team expected to see.

Perhaps the audience cares about a different issue. Perhaps the message intended to build confidence created more questions. Perhaps a stakeholder group assumed to be important had little influence over the outcome.

The job is not to make the data fit the strategy. It is to change the strategy when the
evidence tells us we were wrong.

This is difficult in organisations where reporting is treated primarily as proof of success. Conflicting evidence gets explained away, positive metrics are elevated and the next
campaign follows the same structure.

Strong teams create enough space to say, "We expected this, but the evidence is showing us something else." They then act on it.

Sometimes the correct decision is that marketing or communications cannot solve the
problem. If dissatisfaction is being caused by pricing, product quality, service delivery or an operational failure, more promotion may amplify the issue.

The business may need to fix the source of the problem before asking the communications team to change the story around it.

Change the report

Closing the translation gap does not require another platform. It requires a different reporting conversation.

Every report should answer:

• What did we learn?

• Why does it matter?

• What are we changing?

• How will we know whether that decision worked?

Metrics that cannot inform one of those questions should be moved out of the main
discussion. Reporting should not be an archive of activity. It should be a tool for deciding where the organisation places its next dollar, hour, and message.

AI will continue to make data faster to collect, summarise and compare. It will not remove the need for commercial context, critical thinking, human judgement, and strategy.

The teams creating the most value will not be those with the biggest dashboards. They will be the ones that can look at the information in front of them and make a better decision because of it.

Perspectives is a Telum Media submitted article series, where diverse viewpoints spark thought-provoking conversations about the role of PR and communications in today's world. This Perspectives piece was submitted by Christine Kearney, Partner & Chief Executive Officer at PH Digital, a specialist digital growth agency working with ambitious brands across retail, fashion, beauty, lifestyle, hospitality, and professional services.

Christine leads PH’s commercial and strategic direction, helping businesses connect performance marketing, search, customer behaviour and revenue data to make stronger growth decisions. She is particularly focused on closing the gap between reporting and action, ensuring data is used to identify commercial problems, test assumptions and direct investment towards the areas capable of generating meaningful returns.

Christine is also a regular commentator on digital performance, business growth and leadership, drawing on more than 15 years of experience building brands and scaling businesses across the globe