WHEN ETHICS GO UNSEEN

In 2023, a leading global consultancy came under international scrutiny over its role in enabling questionable practices when senior partners misused confidential Australian government tax information. 

This case is often cited as an example of ethical blindness, where profit motives and internal pressures overshadow ethical judgment. Despite having internal policies and a public pledge to integrity, senior leaders overlooked—or failed to challenge—decisions that caused systemic harm. The problem wasn’t malicious intent, but something far more dangerous: ethical blindness.

This prompts a deeper question: How do ethical lapses happen in organisations that appear to be doing everything “right”?

The answer is not so much about corruption but about a failure to see the ethical impacts of decisions from the start.

WHAT IS ETHICAL BLINDNESS?

Ethical blindness is a temporary, often subconscious inability to see the moral side of a decision or action. Unlike intentional misconduct, it is marked by a gap between what is intended and what happens. It is a failure to recognise the ethical importance of everyday business choices.

This isn’t an uncommon phenomenon. In complex environments where performance metrics are prioritised, values can gradually shift. Over time, a practical decision may hide moral responsibility. Ethical blindness often appears in cultures where short-term results are valued over long-term consequences or challenging authority is culturally risky.

This lack of awareness, rather than deliberate malice, renders ethical blindness such a serious concern.

PSYCHOLOGICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF ETHICAL BLINDNESS

To understand why ethical blindness happens, we must look into the psychological decision-making framework. 

Several cognitive biases act as silent accomplices that dull our ethical awareness.

COGNITIVE BIASES

1. Confirmation Bias
   People often look for evidence supporting their beliefs while ignoring information that disputes them. This selective perception can cause decision-makers to miss warning signs that challenge their preferred story.
   
2. Framing Effects
   When a choice is presented as a business or financial decision, its ethical considerations can become less noticeable. For example, reducing headcount might be seen only as a way to save costs, ignoring its human impact.
   
3. Slippery Slope Effect
   Minor ethical compromises can often lead to more serious ones. If small instances of bending the rules go unchallenged, the organisation becomes desensitised, which increases the likelihood of more serious outcomes.

ORGANISATIONAL AND SOCIAL DRIVERS

Ethical blindness is rarely just a personal failure — it often stems from broader structural issues.

1. Performance Pressure
   High pressure to achieve targets or shareholder returns can lead to unethical shortcuts. When success is narrowly defined, ethical considerations are regarded as less important.
   
2. Toxic Organisational Culture
   Cultures that normalise ambiguity, prioritise results over process, or penalise dissent foster blind spots. Ethics erode when leaders overlook how something is achieved in favour of what is achieved.
   
3. Diffusion of Responsibility
   In large or siloed organisations, individuals often assume that someone else is responsible for moral oversight, which diminishes personal responsibility and accountability.
   
4. Obedience to Authority
   Hierarchical structures can suppress ethical questioning. Employees may defer to their leaders’ directives, assuming alignment with broader values, even when they are not.
   
5. Groupthink and Conformity
   The desire for cohesion often overrides ethical instincts. People suppress concerns, fearing isolation, social rejection, or retribution, to maintain group alignment.
   
6. Lack of Psychological Safety
   Employees will remain silent when raising concerns is met with punishment or indifference. Silence becomes their only option.

EIGHT ORGANISATIONAL STRATEGIES TO PREVENT ETHICAL BLINDNESS

Ethical blindness does not disappear on its own. To build ethical resilience, businesses must implement systemic safeguards.

FOSTER A SPEAK-UP CULTURE

Companies must set up clear and confidential ways to raise ethical concerns and, more importantly, safeguard those who use them. An ethical culture flourishes when speaking up is met with listening, not punishment. 

MODEL ETHICAL LEADERSHIP

Ethical leadership isn’t just about statements; it’s about actions. Leaders must embody the values they expect from others, not just selectively, but consistently. When integrity is evident at the top, it becomes believable at every level.

INTEGRATE ETHICS INTO DECISION-MAKING

Embed ethical reflection into all strategic and operational processes. Regular pause points, impact assessments, and stakeholder reviews should be routine, not just crisis response mechanisms.

SET ALIGNED AND REALISTIC GOALS

Performance targets should reward both outcomes and methods. Unrealistic KPIs can lead to ethical compromises. Aligning incentives with the organisation’s stated values ensures people do not have to choose between results and integrity.

INVEST IN ETHICS TRAINING

Beyond compliance modules, ethical training should promote moral reasoning and courage. Case-based learning, peer discussion, and scenario rehearsal (e.g., “Giving Voice to Values”) are more effective than memorising policies.

PROMOTE PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY

Create space for dissent. When team members can question, challenge, and disagree without fear, blind spots become visible. Both innovation and ethics depend on curiosity, not merely compliance. Ethical cultures start where curiosity outweighs fear.

Psychological safety means individuals can express themselves honestly, make mistakes, ask questions, or voice dissent without fearing punishment, humiliation, or rejection. When psychological safety exists, people feel secure enough to present their whole selves, take interpersonal risks, and engage in learning-oriented behaviours. This safety is not about comfort or avoiding challenges, but about trust. It indicates that a person’s voice is valued, even when it disrupts consensus or exposes vulnerability.

Importantly, psychological safety builds through consistency—when people repeatedly find that speaking up does not lead to negative consequences, their sense of safety grows. Encouraging empathy, recognising effort over just outcomes, and quickly addressing exclusionary behaviours are vital steps that foster a trusting environment.

EMBRACE DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

Diverse teams break groupthink by bringing in wider experiences, values, and worldviews that challenge uniform thinking and automatic agreement. When people from different cultural, professional, or personal backgrounds work together, it becomes harder for biased or unethical assumptions to go unexamined. This mental variety encourages critical thinking, better risk awareness, and more innovative problem-solving. Therefore, inclusion is not just a moral duty—it improves decision-making by ensuring different voices are heard and respected. By creating an environment where dissent is possible and welcomed, diverse teams lead to more ethical, resilient, and effective results.

ESTABLISH INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT

Internal ethics committees, third-party audits, and whistleblower protections are essential structural tools. They detect risks and demonstrate that ethics are a core business metric.

CASE STUDY: WELLS FARGO AND THE COST OF ETHICAL BLINDNESS

Between 2011 and 2016, Wells Fargo generated over 3.5 million unauthorised bank accounts to meet aggressive sales targets. Facing pressure to hit unrealistic quotas, employees engaged in dishonest practices, though many did not initially view their actions as unethical.  

What failed?  

Psychological safety was absent, and ethical framing was suppressed by performance-focused language. Leadership rewarded results without scrutinising the process, reinforcing self-serving bias and obedience to authority.  

This was not just an example of a few bad apples; instead, it reflected a cultural and structural failure.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS: FROM AWARENESS TO ACCOUNTABILITY

Addressing ethical blindness requires businesses to shift from reactive to proactive ethical governance. This involves embedding moral reflection into daily practices.:

1. Structure: ethics committees, anonymous reporting, and oversight mechanisms.
   
2. Culture: celebrating moral courage, not merely quarterly wins.
   
3. Leadership: integrity as a behavioural standard, not merely a branding message.
   
4. Measurement: Tracking not just compliance, but ethical climate indicators (e.g., trust, transparency, voice).

Ethical resilience is a competitive edge. Stakeholders—especially employees and consumers—are increasingly scrutinising authenticity. A transparent and responsive ethics framework builds loyalty, boosts reputation, and supports long-term sustainability.

STAYING AWAKE IN THE GREY

Ethical blindness is not about bad people; it is about systems that fail to foster ethical awareness. As Harvard ethicist Max Bazerman writes, “Most unethical behaviour is driven not by bad intentions, but by unconscious biases and pressures.”

To build ethical businesses, companies must expose the unseen and recognise the gradual erosion of integrity before it becomes a scandal.

This means asking better questions:

1. What assumptions are we not challenging?
2. Who isn’t being heard?
3. What outcome are we privileging, and at what cost?

It means treating ethics as more than a compliance checkbox or a PR stunt. Ethics must develop into an operational rhythm—something practised, supported, and authentic. The real danger isn’t malevolence; it’s the ethical fog that settles when we cease to look.

In business, as in life, the most dangerous failures are the ones we do not see coming.

FROM SEARCH TO CERTAINTY

In May 2024, Google launched its AI Overviews feature, which received mixed reviews. One thing was clear: search was no longer just about finding content; it was about getting answers. At the same time, generative AI platforms like ChatGPT and Perplexity AI quickly became the preferred tools for students, professionals, and consumers in a variety of situations, offering curated, personalised answers rather than just a list of links.

This shift is important because it goes beyond changes in search behaviours; it concerns what many now call the Answer Economy. The Answer Economy is characterised by instant access to information, AI-driven problem-solving, and AI-supported decision-making. For organisations willing to adapt, the potential for new business models and opportunities has never been higher.

The Answer Economy is redefining prominence, trust, and differentiation.

UNDERSTANDING THE ANSWER ECONOMY

Over the past several years, the number of industries, sectors, and uses of digital services has grown significantly, driven by the digitalisation of knowledge, skills, behaviours, products, and services. The Answer Economy describes the digital landscape where economic value increasingly depends on those who can deliver relevant, reliable, timely, and contextual answers rather than just content or products. In this context, being relevant through first-page rankings on Google is less important, while providing the answer a consumer needs via voice assistants, chatbots, and AI-generated summaries is much more significant.

The Answer Economy exists independently of any specific approach, platform, or industry. It includes generative AI models, large language systems, vertical search engines, voice interfaces, and expert networks. Today, whether Lululemon’s ReChair provides customised compliance answers through a legaltech tool, Amazon’s AI-enabled medical diagnostics in their health services, or a retailer’s use of chatbots, it increasingly focuses on immediacy, credibility, and personalised solutions.

The changing behaviour can be attributed to a combination of:

1. Information Overload – with the vast amount of online content and review sites like Yelp or TripAdvisor, search results are no longer helpful, and searches become overwhelming (Haider, 2022).
   
2. AI Maturity – the development of large language models, context-aware generative AI, and the ability to deliver conversationally relevant, summarised responses at scale that have nothing to do with search (OpenAI, 2023).

3. Consumer Behaviour Changes – frictionless matters more to consumers: quick and easy will guide their decisions in their buying, learning, or deciding behaviour (Gartner, 2024); and

4. Platform Dynamics – Platform owners have designed platforms to be more focused on providing answers rather than just results, which affects their visibility and discoverability.

Hence, the Answer Economy represents a shift from producing a large volume of content to understanding the context and providing relevant answers.

TECHNOLOGICAL LENS: FROM RETRIEVAL TO RESOLUTION

Traditional search engines operate by indexing billions of pages and producing ranked lists of results. In the Answer Economy, the process is not based on indexes but on resolution. AI is adopted to understand intent, extract relevant meaning from large datasets, and generate a confident answer. It is often done without pinpointing the source of the answer.

This has two important implications.

Content may become somewhat detached from its source—when a Large Language Model (LLM) generates an answer, the visibility of original publishers and experts can be overlooked entirely. However, while this could harm traditional traffic models based on SEO, backlinks, and content marketing (Kleinberg & Mishra, 2023), SEO remains a vital part of the Answer Economy.

The other key point is that the authority of answers depends on the training data and model design, not on brand reputation. A startup with a sophisticated vertical AI model trained on niche legal or medical data could outrank established institutions in perceived credibility, not necessarily because it is more trustworthy, but simply because it responds more quickly.

This increases the visibility and accessibility of some expertise; however, it also raises concerns about misinformation, bias, and the erosion of expertise authority.

BUSINESS LENS: WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE

For businesses, the emergence of an Answer Economy impacts three key areas.

THE EVOLUTION OF SEO AND CONTENT MARKETING MODELS

As LLMs answer specific questions, it might be tempting to dismiss SEO as irrelevant or outdated. SEO remains just as important as ever, but the focus has shifted from simply ranking well in search results to shaping how AI models perceive, analyse, and transcribe information.

LLMs like GPT-4 and Google’s Gemini do not fabricate facts – they source facts from well-organised, credible, evidence-based references. In other words, both humans and machines consult reputable and trustworthy content (Kleinberg & Mishra, 2023).

THREE STRUCTURAL CHANGES

1. Structure is Strategic

Schema, metadata, and structure are now vital to how AI assesses relevance and rankings (and ultimately results). Content must be understandable by both human readers and algorithms.

2. E-E-A-T is Still Important.

Experience, expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness continue to be the foundations of AI outputs and Google results. Unique content from experts is most likely to be trusted and cited (Google Search Central, 2023).

3. SEO Supports AI Visibility

SEO supports AI rather than competing with it, and improves models, citation potential, and reading depth when users look beyond the answer.

Basically, AI needs answers, but it also depends on trustworthy sources: users rely on AIs to give correct information. Companies that optimise content for both human understanding and machine readability will lead in the Answer Economy.

TRUST AND AUTHORITY

As users stop verifying sources and begin trusting outputs, the credibility of brands within AI ecosystems needs to be reassessed. This requires becoming part of the data used to train, inform, and refine these systems. For example, Google’s AI Overviews highlight sources with high E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authority, and Trust); however, these sources are still separate from an AI output.

Companies need to move beyond brand recognition to brand embedment, which involves being cited, referenced, or encoded into the AI knowledge systems’ knowledge base. This may involve partnership and licensing deals with vertical AI, as well as creative opportunities to contribute to public or open data sources in strategic ways.

CULTURAL AND ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES: CONVENIENCE COSTS

The speed and accuracy of the Answer Economy also come with a higher cost in cultural and ethical compromises.

1. A Crude Reduction of Complexity

An answer makes understanding easier. The problem is that not all questions have simple answers. When AI produces conclusions through nuanced models that effectively turn complexity into simplicity, we risk reducing complex issues to easy insights – and that can be dangerous in any field of knowledge, especially those that impact humans, such as mental health, legal advice, or even the more interpretative aspects of history.

2. Loss of Source Recognition

What is the purpose of the Answer Economy when it commodifies insight for users who stop engaging with the source? That source could be a journalist, a scholar, or a small business. The landscape of the Answer Economy might commodify insights at the expense of the ecosystem that creates them. As Metz and Roose (2023) pointed out, “AI does not just use the internet – it devours it.

3. Bias, Hallucination

AI-generated answers are only as reliable as their training data and the learnings developed by the algorithms from that dataset. Just like users, businesses need to consider not only accuracy but also oversee the models that represent them. However, users often treat these outputs as absolute, which creates a false sense of certainty, especially when AI provides incorrect answers with confidence and assertiveness.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS: ONBOARDING FOR THE ANSWER ECONOMY

For organisations to succeed in the Answer Economy, they will need to shift from creating content to curating and licencing knowledge. This requires strategic investment in the following areas:

KNOWLEDGE ARCHITECTURE

Building and understanding all structured knowledge bases that AI can harvest and use effectively. AI might be able to read web content optimised for schema, but it will not be able to read internal tools used by your customer service reps, FAQs, etc.

CONVERSATIONAL INTERFACES

Investing in AI-enabled assistants that reflect your company’s voice and domain expertise. These assistants should not only answer questions but also understand ambiguity, escalate intelligently, and learn from user inputs.

AI PARTNERSHIP STRATEGY

Consider partnering with AI service providers to access or license data, which can help improve training datasets or customise their knowledge networks with domain-specific expertise. Just as a company’s SEO strategies adapt to Google’s algorithm, the landscape of the Answer Economy will grow alongside AI ecosystems.

DIGITAL TRUST MANAGEMENT

Create a system to manage trust across platforms by regularly checking the accuracy of AI-generated answers that mention your brand—and by monitoring how your business appears in real time through chatbots, search engines, and smart devices.

The Answer Economy is not just about how consumers seek information using various methods — it is also a new way for people to understand information. In this rapidly evolving landscape, information is not inherently powerful; it only becomes meaningful when communicated with clarity, context, and care.

For businesses, this presents a strategic and philosophical dilemma – is the business just providing information, or does the business help people understand what counts most?

Companies that respond early by codifying knowledge, offering trust, or providing human meaning where AI cannot will significantly influence the next chapter of the digital economy.

---

[1] Forrester. (2024). Marketing in the Era of Generative AI: New Challenges, New Playbooks. Forrester Research.

[2] Gartner. (2024). Future of Customer Experience: Answer Engines and the Death of Search. Gartner Insights Report.

[3] Haider, J. (2022). Information Overload in the Digital Age: Navigating Knowledge Scarcity in a Content-Rich World. Oxford University Press.

[4] Kleinberg, J., & Mishra, S. (2023). Authority without Attribution: How Generative AI Rewrites the Rules of Online Visibility. Stanford Digital Society Review, 12(3), 44–61.

[5] Metz, C., & Roose, K. (2023). The Internet Is Disappearing Into AI: The New York Times, December 15.

[6] OpenAI. (2023). GPT-4 Technical Report. OpenAI Research. https://openai.com/research/gpt-4

Non-profit mergers are becoming increasingly common as organisations seek to scale their impact, enhance efficiency, and ensure long-term sustainability. However, unlike corporate mergers, non-profit combinations focus not on profits or shareholder value but mission alignment, community needs, and operational synergy. A merger carried out effectively can create influential, resilient organisations. Conversely, a poorly executed merger can squander resources, damage reputations, and erode trust.

While mergers can be transformative, they are complex ventures. They impact people, systems, governance, and public trust. To navigate this landscape effectively, non-profits should approach mergers not as mere administrative reshuffles but as strategic, relational, and cultural redesigns. Below are five essential considerations for non-profits contemplating a merger.

1. MISSION COMPATIBILITY

The most critical factor in any non-profit merger is mission alignment. For-profit companies may merge for market access or financial gain, but non-profit organisations exist to serve a mission. If two organisations diverge on fundamental purposes or values, a merger will likely create internal friction and confuse stakeholders.

Before entering intensive negotiations, both boards must consider the following: Are our missions truly aligned? Do we serve the same communities? Do we agree on fundamental values, goals, and strategies?

Surface-level similarities can be misleading. For example, two organisations involved in youth development might have different philosophies—one emphasising sports-based engagement while the other prioritises academic achievement. Without a shared vision, merged operations can become disjointed and ineffective.

Boards must hold joint sessions with leadership teams to identify value alignment or discrepancies. They should also review strategic plans, program models, and theory of change documents to assess compatibility.

Mission alignment must consider future direction, not just current operations. Strategic questions such as “Where do we want to be in five years?” and “How do we see our role evolving in the sector?” assist in forecasting the long-term compatibility of missions.

“Mergers between non-profit organisations are most successful when mission fit is high and organisational cultures are compatible” (La Piana Consulting, 2018).

2. GOVERNANCE & LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE

Mergers inevitably raise governance questions: Who will lead the new entity? How will the board be structured? Will one organisation effectively be “absorbing” the other, or is this a merger of equals?

In non-profits, leadership is not just a management issue—it also encompasses trust, representation, and stakeholder confidence. Ineffective management of these aspects can lead to power struggles, leadership exits, or disillusionment among donors and staff.

Ideally, the merged organisation should have a governance structure honouring both legacies while establishing a clear path forward. This involves defining:

• Board composition (e.g., equal representation vs. newly formed board)
• Executive leadership roles
• Decision-making protocols
• Conflict resolution mechanisms

Addressing leadership identity and continuity is also crucial. Co-CEO models are often considered during the interim, although they can introduce their own complexities. Early planning for leadership transitions and succession in the merger process ensures continuity and boosts morale.

“Boards must be intentional in addressing leadership succession and power-sharing during a merger to prevent the erosion of organisational trust” (McLaughlin[1], 2010).

3. Cultural Integration

Culture often determines the success or failure of a merger. Even if missions align and leadership supports the initiative, incompatible organisational cultures can undermine integration. Culture includes communication norms, attitudes towards risk, hierarchy, and innovation.

Organisations should assess and compare their cultures before merging. Consider questions like:

• Are we collaborative or top-down?
• How do we handle conflict?
• What are our attitudes toward evaluation and accountability?
• How do we engage communities and stakeholders?

Cultural differences do not necessarily imply that a merger should not occur; however, they necessitate a deliberate effort to bridge the gaps. Overlooking this step can result in staff disengagement, decreased productivity, and confusion regarding identity.

Conducting a cultural audit before the merger and developing intentional integration plans—like joint retreats, culture champions, shared rituals, and cross-team collaboration—can help facilitate a smoother transition.

In particular, involving frontline staff in the design of the cultural integration process fosters a sense of ownership and conveys that culture is not imposed from the top down.

“Cultural misalignment is a leading cause of post-merger failure in the non-profit sector” (Bugg & Dering[2], 2011).

4. Financial Health and Liabilities

Like the private sector, financial health is crucial in a non-profit merger. However, the focus is not on maximising shareholder returns but on sustainability and fiduciary responsibility.

Every organisation must conduct thorough financial due diligence, which includes the following:

• Audited financial statements
• Asset and liability breakdowns
• Grant obligations and donor restrictions
• Pending legal or HR issues
• Long-term funding projections

One organisation may have greater financial strength, while the other offers programmatic depth or community trust. This is not necessarily a deal-breaker. However, complete transparency is essential. No one wants to discover hidden liabilities or structural deficits after the merger.

Donors and funders will also scrutinise the financial rationale behind the merger. Be prepared to demonstrate how the merger enhances sustainability, operational efficiency, or fundraising capacity.

Post-merger, the new entity should formulate a consolidated financial strategy that embodies its unified mission and capitalises on new economies of scale.

“Financial due diligence is not about eliminating risk, but understanding and managing it strategically in pursuit of mission goals” (BoardSource, 2021).

5. Stakeholder Communication and Buy-In

Even the best-planned merger can fail if key stakeholders are uninformed. Non-profits serve communities and are accountable to their funders, staff, volunteers, and the individuals they assist. Mergers raise both emotional and practical concerns for each of these groups.

• Staff may worry about job security or cultural shifts.
• Funders may question the merger’s purpose or lose confidence.
• Clients or community members may feel confused or betrayed if changes are not explained.

Transparent, proactive communication is essential. Start early. Share the “why” behind the merger, the anticipated benefits, and how changes will unfold. Hold listening sessions to address concerns and incorporate feedback.

This is not just PR – it is crucial for maintaining trust and minimising disruption. Rather than bailouts or hostile takeovers, mergers framed as growth opportunities have a better chance of long-term success.

Consistent updates via newsletters, town halls, and one-on-one engagement can transform potential resistance into advocacy.

“Effective communication during a merger fosters confidence and preserves essential human and financial capital. ” (Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2020).

Mergers as Strategic Tools, Not Last Resorts

Non-profit mergers should not be seen as desperate measures to prevent failure. When approached thoughtfully, they can function as strategic tools to expand reach, improve services, and manage donor resources responsibly.

However, successful mergers require more than good intentions; they demand thorough planning, open communication, and a clear grasp of each partner’s contribution.

The five areas outlined above—mission alignment, leadership structure, culture, finances, and stakeholder communication—are not simply checkboxes. They represent dynamic, interconnected systems that determine whether two organisations can become one.

As the non-profit sector faces increasing demands for collaboration, sustainability, and measurable impact, mergers may become less of an exception and more of a norm. With the proper groundwork, a merger can be more than just a survival strategy—it can be a bold move toward greater impact, a shared vision, and sector-wide transformation.

---

[1] McLaughlin, T. A. (2010). Nonprofit mergers and alliances: A strategic planning guide (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons

[2] Bugg, R., & Dering, T. (2011). Merging wisely: A guide for nonprofit leaders. National Council of Nonprofits

Google’s decision to end call-only ads represents a significant shift for businesses, particularly those that depend on phone calls to attract new customers. Call-only ads previously allowed customers to easily reach businesses without visiting their websites.

Now, businesses must explore alternative ways to connect with customers. While this change might appear challenging, there are strategies for adapting and even discovering new opportunities.

What Are Call-Only Ads, and Why Are They Going Away?

Call-only ads allow users to call businesses directly from search results. They don’t link to websites, which benefits industries such as call centres, locksmiths, and healthcare clinics.

Google hasn’t shared why they’re ending call-only ads, but it might be due to changes in how people use ads and the rise of AI in advertising.

Risks of Not Adapting

If businesses don’t change their advertising strategy, they’ll face several problems:

• Fewer direct phone calls: Ads that currently direct users to a website might lose those who want an immediate conversation.
• Increased bounce rates: If a user lands on a site but doesn’t find a clearly visible phone number, they may leave without engaging.
• Higher cost-per-lead: With more steps between the ad click and the phone call, conversion efficiency could decrease, making leads more expensive.
• Lost competitive edge: Businesses that pivot quickly can capture leads from competitors who are slower to adjust.

Why It Matters for Businesses in General

Ending call-only ads is significant for many businesses. It will particularly impact local service providers and industries that rely on phone calls.

• Local service providers: Think plumbers, electricians, cleaning companies—anyone whose customers typically seek a quick phone interaction.
• Healthcare and legal services: These services often require a conversation before an appointment can be booked, and trust-building starts with voice contact.
• Older demographics: Many users, especially older adults, prefer to make a phone call rather than navigate a website.

While these changes will impact businesses in general, they will particularly impact B2C Companies and non-profit organisations.

The Impact on B2C Companies

B2C companies will be affected differently depending on their product or service:

• High-touch B2C services (e.g., personal finance services, home improvement, travel bookings) will feel the impact most. These services often involve questions, custom quotes, or scheduling over the phone.
• Retail and e-commerce companies focusing on online transactions won’t see much impact because most of their conversions occur on-site, not via phone.

Still, losing a direct-to-call ad format introduces more friction for B2C brands that rely on calls for support, sales inquiries, or quote requests.

The Impact on Non-Profit Organisations

Non-profit organisations, especially those with helplines or community support, have lost a simple way to connect. The removal of call-only ads affects:

• Hotlines and immediate support services (e.g., mental health support, crisis centres, domestic abuse helplines).
• Programs where intake begins with a phone call, not an online form.
• Older or underserved audiences who may not be tech-savvy or comfortable filling out digital forms.

Without call-only ads, non-profits may experience a drop in call volume from users who would have otherwise tapped and connected directly, especially on mobile.

How to Minimise the Impact for B2C Companies and Non-profit Organisations

Even without call-only ads, companies and organisations can still generate phone calls through other advertisements. They need to adopt a more strategic approach. Here are some key steps companies can take to stay ahead.

1. Shift to Call-Enabled Search Ads with Extensions

Google isn’t removing the ability to make phone calls from ads. Businesses can still run search ads and include call extensions—a clickable phone icon that appears alongside the ad.

While not as prominent as call-only ads, these can still drive phone calls if optimised well:

• Use call extensions on all relevant ad groups.
• Set up scheduling to show call buttons only during business hours.
• Write ad copy that invites a call, like “Call Now for a Free Quote” or “Speak to an Expert Today.”• Track calls as conversions in Google Ads to measure effectiveness.

With the right approach, businesses can transform this challenge into an opportunity to strengthen their digital strategy and build a more robust lead pipeline.

2. Optimise Landing Pages for Click-to-Call

If your ad directs users to a landing page instead of initiating a call directly, that landing page must be frictionless. This means:

• A prominently placed call button (especially on mobile).
• A clearly visible phone number at the top of the page.
• Click-to-call functionality for all numbers (no copy-pasting).
• A page design that loads quickly, is mobile-friendly, and does not distract from the call action.

Consider the landing page the new “middleman” between your ad and the phone call. Depending on how well it is designed, it can either enhance or hinder your conversion rate.

3. Test Call Campaigns on Other Platforms

If Google is removing a format that works well for your business, consider alternative ad platforms:

• Meta (Facebook/Instagram): Their “Call Now” ad button still works well for local service industries.
• Microsoft Ads (Bing): They still offer call extensions and sometimes have less competition.
• Yelp or Local Directories: For specific industries, platforms like Yelp or Thumbtack may provide click-to-call ads or facilitate lead generation through phone calls.

Don’t rely solely on Google—diversify your lead sources to avoid being caught off guard by future changes.

4. Use Google’s Newer Campaign Types Wisely

Google is pushing more businesses toward Performance Max and responsive search ads. These formats are designed to reach users across multiple channels—Search, YouTube, Gmail, and Maps—with AI-driven placements.

While they may not be ideal for businesses that want a tight focus on phone calls, you can still adapt:

• Include “phone calls” as a conversion goal in your campaign settings.
• Monitor where leads are coming from and adjust targeting.
• Use location assets and call extensions to encourage local engagement.

These newer formats offer reach but must be tightly managed to deliver the right leads.

5. Enhance Call Tracking and Reporting

As you shift to new ad formats, it becomes increasingly important to understand what drives phone calls. Use tools like:

• Google Ads call tracking (via forwarding numbers).
• CallRail or other third-party platforms to track source, call duration, and call quality.
• CRM integration to monitor what happens after the call—did the lead convert?

This data helps you identify which campaigns or ad groups are genuinely effective, allowing you to focus on what works best.

6. Train Staff to Capture Leads Effectively by Phone

It might seem obvious, but with more ads now routing through websites, when a user does call, that call is more valuable than ever. Make sure:

• Calls are answered quickly.
• Staff are trained to qualify leads and book appointments or sales.
• Missed calls are returned promptly.

Improved phone handling can increase your lead-to-customer conversion rate, compensating for any decrease in call volume.

A Change in Tactics—Not the End of the Road

The end of Google’s call-only ads means businesses must rethink their lead generation strategies. However, it’s not the end. Companies and non-profit organisations can stay ahead by utilising call extensions, enhancing landing pages, exploring new platforms, and training staff.

Advertising continually evolves, and every update presents an opportunity for improvement. With the right approach, businesses can transform this challenge into an opportunity to strengthen their digital strategy and build a more robust lead pipeline.

A psychographic profile aims to reveal what people value, how they make decisions, and what narratives they connect with.

A mobile app gamification strategy involves integrating game-like elements into a non-gaming mobile application to enhance user engagement, retention, and motivation.

The term “free speech” is being co-opted as a defence for spreading extremist content, misinformation, and hate speech.

Non-profit organisations face increasing pressure to demonstrate accountability, impact, and alignment with funder priorities in today’s competitive funding climate. The days of good intentions are long past, and while non-profits have traditionally reported on outputs, government funders are increasingly requesting reporting against outcomes. Outputs are usually quantitative, for example, the number of clients assisted or the number of workshops held. Outcomes often include outputs, but the emphasis is on the long-term impact of a program. Outcomes focus on the overall impact on participants or the community and report changes in behaviour, knowledge, or actions.

The emphasis on outcomes requires a shift in thinking from simply counting services to considering the planning, structure, impact and evidence of a program or service. This is where program logic becomes essential, as it is the tool that connects all four aspects and enables a non-profit organisation to report on the effectiveness of its services.

Many non-profit organisations, even large non-profits, do not fully understand the power of social media to help them reach their goals. Nor do they understand the power of integrating social media metrics into their program logic. As a consequence, they are missing out on reporting on the full impact and power of their service delivery.

This article explains what program logic is, why it matters, how social media fits into it, and how to utilise social media metrics to enhance non-profit efforts.

What is Program Logic?

Program logic is a planning and evaluation framework that maps how a program’s activities are expected to lead to desired outcomes. It’s often presented in a diagram or table, showing the logical sequence from inputs (resources) to activities, outputs, outcomes, and ultimately, impact.

The basic structure of a program logic model includes:

● Inputs: Resources such as staff, funding, tools, or partnerships.
● Activities: What the program does — for example, workshops, outreach, training sessions.
● Outputs: Direct products of these activities, such as the number of events held or the number of people trained.
● Outcomes: Short- and medium-term changes or benefits, including increased knowledge, behavioural changes, or improved access to services.
● Impact: Long-term changes or societal improvements — for instance, reduced poverty, improved community health, or greater civic engagement.

A strong logic model not only helps design and manage a program, but it also clarifies how to measure success. It keeps everyone focused on what matters: change.

Why Has Program Logic Become So Important?

In today’s funding environment, nonprofits must not only demonstrate what they do but also show how it makes a difference. Donors, governments, and stakeholders are increasingly demanding accountability, transparency, and measurable results. Program logic provides the structure to demonstrate this.

Some of the reasons why program logic has become so important are:

1. Clarity and Focus: It forces organisations to think critically about how their work leads to change.

2. Evaluation: It sets the foundation for monitoring and assessing outcomes.

3. Strategic Planning: It helps teams prioritise activities aligned with goals.

4. Communication: It allows organisations to explain their value to funders, boards, and the public.

5. Adaptability: It provides a framework for adjusting strategies when outcomes aren’t being met.

In short, program logic connects mission to method, and method to measurement. As non-profits operate in increasingly complex environments, having that structure isn’t a luxury — it’s a necessity.

How Does Social Media Fit into a Program Logic Model?

Social media has become a vital component of how nonprofits communicate, engage, and deliver their services. However, it’s often treated as a separate add-on, rather than being fully integrated into the organisation’s theory of change.

In a modern program logic model, social media can play multiple roles:

● Inputs: Social media tools (e.g., platforms, content teams, social media managers) are resources.
● Activities: Campaigns, posts, live events, and engagement efforts are program activities.
● Outputs: These might include the number of posts, impressions, likes, shares, or videos produced.
● Outcomes: This may involve increased awareness, behavioural change, or greater participation in programs resulting from online exposure.
● Impact: Over time, the social media-driven activities can contribute to broader goals, such as improved community knowledge, mobilisation, or policy change.

Rather than treating social media as a promotional tool alone, program logic helps integrate it as a meaningful component of service delivery and impact generation.

What social media metrics should be collected in a program logic model?

Collecting data on Reach, Engagement, Conversion, and Sentiment is essential for building a strong program logic model, as these metrics provide concrete, measurable evidence that supports each stage of your program’s theory of change. Here’s how they align with and strengthen a logic model:

1. Reach

These metrics show how far your message is traveling:

● Followers/subscribers

● Impressions

● Unique reach

● Page visits

Why it matters: 

Reach metrics, such as followers and impressions, help demonstrate the scope and visibility of your efforts.

In the logic model: 

These data points demonstrate the effectiveness of your program in disseminating messages and content, key outputs that reflect the implementation of activities.

Example: If one of your strategies is awareness-raising, high reach indicates that your target audience is seeing your materials.

Program logic connects mission to method, and method to measurement. As non-profits operate in increasingly complex environments, having that structure isn’t a luxury — it’s a necessity.

2. Engagement – Outputs and short-term outcomes

These show how your audience interacts with content:

● Likes, reactions

● Shares/retweets

● Comments/replies

● Click-throughs

● Average watch time (for videos)

Why it matters: 

Engagement indicates that your audience isn’t just viewing your content—they’re actively interacting with it.

In the logic model: 

Engagement reflects short-term outcomes, such as increased interest, knowledge, or connection to your cause. It also shows whether your content is meaningful or relevant to your audience.

Example: If part of your program aims to change attitudes, growing engagement signals early success.

3. Conversion – Intermediate Outcomes

These track whether users take desired actions:

● Sign-ups

● Downloads

● Donations

● Event registrations

● Petition signatures

Why it matters: 

Conversion metrics track behaviour change, which is often a key outcome in logic models.

In the logic model: 

These are clear indicators of intermediate outcomes—actions people take as a result of exposure and engagement, such as signing up, donating, or joining a campaign.

Example: If your program seeks community mobilisation, event registrations or petition signatures are measurable signs of progress.

4. Sentiment – Quality of outcomes and feedback

These help measure how people feel about your brand or message:

● Positive vs. negative comments

● Brand mentions

● Tone analysis (through social listening tools)

Why it matters:

Sentiment data adds qualitative depth to quantitative metrics. It reveals how your message is being received emotionally and socially.

In the logic model:

Sentiment analysis can be used to refine your approach, identify unintended consequences, and monitor public perception, thereby informing both the quality of outcomes and ongoing improvements.

Example: Positive sentiment toward your campaign suggests alignment with community values; negative sentiment might reveal gaps or risks.

Together, these metrics:

● Ground your logic model in real-time, evidence-based feedback.

● Help assess whether your activities are leading to desired outcomes.

● Support adaptive learning—allowing you to adjust your strategies based on what

works or doesn’t.

● Enhance your ability to report the impact to stakeholders and funders effectively.

HOW CAN SOCIAL MEDIA METRICS SUPPORT AN ORGANISATION’S PROGRAM LOGIC

Social media metrics can do more than prove activity — they can help drive and improve your programs. Here’s how:

1. Measuring Awareness

If the organisation’s goal is to raise awareness about an issue, social media reach and engagement data help demonstrate whether that’s happening. For example, a campaign on mental health might track impressions and shares of an educational video as indicators of awareness raised.

2. Understanding Your Audience

Analytics reveal who is engaging — age, location, interests — which can guide program design. If your youth campaign is mostly reaching people over 40, you’ve got a targeting problem. Social data helps you fix it.

3. Improving Content and Messaging

By tracking what gets clicks or shares, you learn what resonates. This can inform future messaging across channels, not just online.

4. Driving Participation

Social media often serves as a funnel into other program activities, including events, volunteering, and donations. Metrics like click-throughs and sign-ups indicate how effectively you’re guiding people from awareness to action.

5. Informing Strategy

Over time, analysing trends across campaigns helps you refine your communication and outreach strategies. It helps move from “we think this works” to “we know this works.”

6. Real-Time Feedback

Unlike many evaluation tools that report after a program has ended, social media provides instant data. This can inform tweaks mid-campaign or help address problems quickly.

Program logic provides nonprofits with a roadmap from action to impact. Social media, when used intentionally and measured correctly, is more than just a nice ad — it’s part of that roadmap. By embedding social media metrics into logic models, nonprofits not only demonstrate that they’re keeping up with the times, but they also create more transparent, stronger, and more accountable pathways to achieving their mission.

In a world flooded with information, those who plan with logic and measure with purpose stand out. Social media isn’t separate from the work — it i s part of the work. And when organisations treat it that way in their program logic, they give their organisation a more innovative, sharper edge.

One thing brands and non-profit organisations have in common is dealing with the backlash of negative publicity when something goes wrong. In this era of social media, negative publicity spreads quickly and often gains traction. The consequences for both brands and non-profit organisations can be disastrous in terms of reputational damage, loss of revenue, and clients or customers.

Social silence refers to an organisation’s failure to communicate or engage on social media and other digital platforms. This failure includes activities such as:  

• Not posting or sharing content regularly.  

• Ignoring customer comments, questions, or feedback.  

• Failing to address industry trends, crises, or social issues.  

• Avoiding participation in relevant cultural or business discussions.  

Silence is often an organisation’s first response when things go awry. This reaction typically stems from internal crises, fear of backlash, lack of resources, or uncertainty about the appropriate messaging. However, it is crucial to understand that social silence is more than just the absence of communication – it conveys a message in itself, and consumers or clients pick up on this unspoken sentiment, which can lead to negative consequences for the brand.

This article explores social silence’s impact on a brand or non-profit organisation and other practical options they can consider. 

Social Silence is not a new phenomenon.

Social silence isn’t a new phenomenon; however, with the rise of social media, it has become a significant challenge for brands and non-profit organisations. Previously, brands and non-profits managed their messaging through traditional media like television, radio, and print. With these conventional forms of marketing, there was minimal direct interaction with customers or clients. The emergence of real-time digital communication has fundamentally transformed consumer engagement expectations and how businesses, in turn, must respond.

How consumer engagement expectations have changed.

Facebook launched in 2004, Twitter in 2005, and Instagram in 2010. These platforms provided consumers with direct access to brands, and as a result, they began to expect immediate responses to their inquiries, complaints, and trends. Brands that failed to respond swiftly were perceived as unresponsive and uncaring.

First major PR Crises

In the 2010s, the first major social media PR crises emerged, compelling brands to recognise the dangers of silence. For instance, in 2017, a video went viral showing a passenger being dragged off a United Airlines flight, and a delayed response from the airline resulted in a severe backlash that not only damaged their reputation but also led to a drop in their stock price of $1 billion. In 2018, Dolce and Gabbana faced severe criticism over an ad perceived as racist. D & G remained silent while the criticism escalated, resulting in a loss of credibility that took the brand years to recover.

Brand Activism

In 2017, the #MeToo movement emerged, and in 2020, Black Lives Matter gained prominence. These social movements and ongoing climate activism have heightened consumer expectations for brands to take a stand on social issues. A failure to do so is viewed as apathy or complicity. 

Pepsi and CrossFit faced backlash in 2020 due to their silence on social justice issues. Pepsi lost credibility for its lack of commentary on Black Lives Matter, while competitors like Coca-Cola took active stances on these issues. Similarly, CrossFit’s silence led to thousands of gyms severing their affiliations, damaging the brand’s long-term reputation.

The Pandemic and Digital Acceleration

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of clear and consistent brand communication. Customers expected brands to keep them informed regularly about closures, safety measures, and support initiatives, and the rise of cancel culture made it riskier for brands to remain silent. These expectations have persisted even after COVID.

Social silence became a strategic concern for brands in the 2010s. However, its significance has surged in recent years due to the emergence of digital activism, heightened crisis response expectations, and real-time social media interactions. Today, silence is seldom neutral—it can safeguard or harm a brand or non-profit, depending on its context and strategy.

Why is social silence still used when dealing with a crisis?

Given the damage social silence can do to a brand in terms of consumer backlash, reputational damage and financial losses, it is a strategy that needs careful consideration to be used effectively. In many situations, it is the default strategy. This can be for several reasons, such as:

1. Fear of making the situation worse.

Brands and non-profit organisations are fearful that any response could escalate a crisis rather than resolve it. This fear is understandable in hyper-connected work where missteps go viral. This fear often revolves around the tone of the message and how to express it, particularly when the issue is politically or socially divisive.

Organisations often delay any response because they fear that a poorly constructed apology or an apology perceived as an excuse will lead to further outrage, making silence the default position.

2. Lack of Crisis Management Preparedness

Some brands and many non-profit organisations have failed to develop risk management strategies, leading to a lack of policies, procedures, or plans for sensitively and effectively managing crisis communications. Without established PR strategies, brands and organisations scramble for a response, resulting in delayed or ineffectual communication or communication that is rushed, ineffective, or exacerbates the situation.

In 2020, Snapchat remained quiet for too long after facing backlash over a racist Juneteenth filter. This delayed response indicated a lack of internal awareness and management’s readiness to address cultural sensitivities.

The emergence of real-time digital communication has fundamentally transformed consumer engagement expectations and how businesses, in turn, must respond.

3. Belief the crisis will “blow over”

Organisations will often hunker down, banking on the consumer’s short-term memory and the likelihood that they will move and be distracted by other things. If this gamble doesn’t pay off, it can harm a brand or business in the long term.

Bunkering down and hoping things will blow over overlooks the consequences of cancel culture. Cancel culture is another factor that makes social silence incredibly risky. Social media platforms amplify the effects when something is being cancelled, making it all too easy for the situation to go viral. When a brand stays silent amid an unfolding controversy, it risks losing control of the narrative, allowing critics to shape public perception. 

Another aspect of cancel culture that organisations overlook is that it doesn’t just respond to current events; it also brings to light past mistakes the brand may have made. If a company has never addressed practices or issues from the past, the current silence makes those past controversies even more damaging in the present.

4. Legal and Compliance Concerns

Some crises carry legal risks, where saying the wrong thing could lead to lawsuits, regulatory issues, or breaches of contract. Lawyers may advise brands and companies to remain silent or issue vague statements until they can adequately assess the situation. Examples include product recalls or instances of employee misconduct. In these scenarios, the brand or company must follow the legal advice it receives.

Alternative strategies to social silence

Given that social silence is a risky strategy, there are alternative strategies that allow brands and organisations to maintain credibility and trust without taking a firm stance. Here are some of those strategies:

1. Acknowledge without Aligning

Instead of ignoring the situation, an organisation can acknowledge the issue without taking a strong position for or against it. This is about showing awareness without making a commitment that might not align with the brand or non-profit’s values or audience. Here’s an example of a statement that could be made:

“We recognise this is an important conversation for many. As a brand/non-profit, we focus on supporting our employees, customers, and communities in meaningful ways.”

2. Shift focus to core brand values

An organisation can avoid divisive conversations by upholding its long-standing mission or values. This keeps messaging consistent and prevents accusations of opportunism or performative activism. For example, the following statement could be made:

“At (brand or non-profit name), our mission has always been (insert core value). We stay committed to making a positive impact through our mission.”

3. Offer support without making a political statement

An organisation can act without making public declarations. For example, an organisation could:

• Make Donations to relevant charities without publicising them extensively.

• Set up employee well-being initiatives that create a positive internal impact.

• Promote mental health resources rather than engaging in direct activism.

Some organisations have provided employees with mental health days during intense political debates instead of taking a public stance.

Alternatively, organisations may positively contribute to initiatives that benefit local communities and foster long-term positive changes without making any public statements on divisive or politically charged issues.

4. Prioritize Customer and Employee Dialogue

When a brand or organisation needs to respond but is uncertain about what to say, it can listen to and engage with customers and employees. For example:

• Conducting internal discussions with staff before making public statements.

• Engaging with customers through direct messages rather than issuing a broad public announcement.

• Hosting roundtable discussions or surveys to understand different perspectives better.

These actions showcase a genuine willingness to listen and engage with customers and clients meaningfully.

Situations where it may be appropriate to maintain silence

While maintaining social silence is often a risky strategy, there are certain situations where it may be appropriate. For instance:

• During a rebranding or repositioning, it is essential to ensure the message aligns with the new brand or positioning before making a public statement.

• If responding could escalate a minor issue into a major PR crisis.

• To avoid performative activism, where a brand or organisation attempts to boost its social capital without being genuinely committed to taking real action or supporting the cause.

When a brand or organisation chooses to remain silent, it is crucial to be transparent and honest. For instance, the organisation could say, “We recognise this is an important conversation. While we don’t have all the answers, we are committed to learning and growing as an organisation.”

Being open and transparent avoids alienating customers and prevents forced or insincere messaging.

Social silence isn’t the only option for brands and non-profit organisations that want to avoid becoming caught in a controversy. By acknowledging, listening, supporting, and reinforcing core values, they can maintain trust and credibility without diving into controversy. The key is communicating strategically and authentically to avoid appearing indifferent or out of touch.

Just like Matryoshka dolls, the story of DeepSeek is one wrapped in another, telling multiple tales at once.