In August 2025, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store faced what many analysts are calling the most significant brand crisis in its 56-year history. A bold identity refresh—removing the beloved “Uncle Herschel” figure from its logo and replacing its signature rustic décor with a sleek “modern farmhouse” aesthetic—was intended to attract younger diners and revitalise the brand. Instead, it sparked a viral backlash that erased nearly $100 million in market value within 72 hours (Booth, 2025; Statista, 2025).

Although the company has reversed many of the changes, the damage to consumer trust—and internal confidence—was already done. This was not just a matter of poor design; it was a failure of change governance: modernising a heritage brand without a credible ‘why’, without visible co-creation with loyalists, and without narrative control. The outcome was culture-war framing, a public backtrack to the old logo, and a pause on remodels—decisions that quell outrage but deepen doubts about leadership. 

WHAT HERITAGE BRANDING REALLY MEANS

Cracker Barrel has long embodied a specific kind of Americana nostalgia—complete with checkerboard tablecloths, vintage signage, front porch rocking chairs, and the instantly recognisable “Old Timer” logo. This was not just decor. It was a sensory and emotional environment that customers associated with family road trips, comfort food, and simpler times (Thompson & Tian, 2008).

In brand theory, heritage is not about being old—it is about symbolic continuity. It shows that a brand has origins, values, and a story that lasts across generations (Urde, 2007). When brands modernise, the challenge is: how do you stay relevant without weakening what people love most about you?

Rebranding typically involves updating visual identities, messaging, and customer experiences to align with new strategic objectives (Kotler et al., 2022). However, when emotional capital is deeply embedded in your brand elements, you must proceed with caution. The Cracker Barrel misstep illustrates how heritage can both serve as an advantage and pose a potential hazard.

WHY CRACKER BARREL’S 2025 REBRAND FAILED: A MULTI-LENS ANALYSIS

Q: What caused the backlash to Cracker Barrel’s rebrand?

To understand why the plan unravelled, we must differentiate between symptoms and causes: the design was the initial trigger, but the systems maintained the problem. Four forces—technology, economics, culture, and governance—have shrunk the change window and removed narrative control; we begin with the technological driver.

1. TECHNOLOGICAL LENS: VIRALITY AND THE COLLAPSE OF CONTROL

In the pre-digital age, a brand overhaul might have been received gradually, shaped by press coverage and customer feedback over several months. In 2025, rebranding choices are judged in real-time. Within hours of unveiling its new wordmark, Cracker Barrel became a punchline across TikTok and X (formerly Twitter), with memes mocking the new look as “beige, bland, and betrayal”. 

Cracker Barrel became a punchline across social media within hours of unveiling its new wordmark.

Algorithmic amplification not only speeds up feedback but also strips away context. The reasoning behind the shift in design never truly settled in. What the company presented as modern simplicity was immediately seen as corporate sanitisation.

In the digital age, storytelling must come before design changes. You cannot afford a delay between rollout and explanation. Brands must develop content ecosystems—such as videos, customer journeys, and stakeholder testimonials—that anticipate potential backlash and clearly explain the “why” in emotionally resonant terms.

2. ECONOMIC LENS: EMOTIONAL EQUITY HAS A DOLLAR VALUE

Cracker Barrel’s share price dropped by 7.2% after the backlash, resulting in a US$94 million loss—more than the company’s usual quarterly marketing spend (Statista, 2025). However, the financial strain did not end there. Replacing signs, reprinting menus, updating digital assets, and retraining staff added unplanned costs. Internally, energy was shifted from long-term strategic goals to damage control.

Cracker Barrel lost nearly $100M in market value in just 72 hours.

More importantly, the debacle damaged the long-term brand reputation—a factor that is hard to measure but easy to feel. Analysts observed a notable decline in customer loyalty metrics, particularly among long-standing customers in the American South, the brand’s traditional stronghold.

Emotional brand assets are not just “soft power”—they are financial assets. Like any other asset, they need valuation, protection, and investment. Even well-meaning disruptions can instantly devalue them.

3. CULTURAL LENS: NOSTALGIA AS EMOTIONAL CURRENCY

Cracker Barrel has always sold more than just food—it sells memories. For millions of customers, the “Old Timer” figure and store interiors serve as cultural symbols of tradition, comfort, and Americana. This is especially impactful during times of societal change, when people look for emotional reassurance.

This phenomenon is not unique to Cracker Barrel. In times of uncertainty, brands rooted in cultural nostalgia—such as Tim Tam in Australia or Yakult in Southeast Asia—often experience increased loyalty. As sociologist Svetlana Boym argues, nostalgia acts as “a defence mechanism against the accelerated pace of change” (Holt, 2004).

Removing the Old Timer was more than just a graphic update. To many, it felt like losing an anchor.

The implication for marketers is that nostalgia cannot be “updated” like a font. It must be carefully curated. Modernisation efforts should complement—not erase—the emotional core.

4. ETHICAL AND POLITICAL LENS: THE CULTURE WAR TRAP

What might have remained a design controversy quickly took on political overtones. Conservative commentators accused Cracker Barrel of “erasing Southern heritage,” while progressive critics framed the redesign as pandering to a trend-chasing minimalist aesthetic. The company, unprepared for either narrative, found itself under attack from both sides.

In a polarised media landscape, every aesthetic choice can be ideological. Moreover, brands with culturally specific roots are especially vulnerable.

What this means: Brand decisions today must include political and ethical scenario planning. Even well-intended updates need to be reviewed through a culture-war lens. This is especially relevant in the APAC region, where brands often navigate complex racial, cultural, and colonial histories that vary by market.

Q: HOW SHOULD HERITAGE BRANDS MODERNISE WITHOUT LOSING EMOTIONAL LOYALTY?

Several compounded decisions led to Cracker Barrel’s refresh becoming a reputational crisis.

• The removal of the logo was total. Instead of a gradual transition, the complete erasure of the Old Timer symbolised a rupture. Customers felt the loss as disorientation rather than a sign of modernisation.
• Interior redesign co-occurred. The shift to “clean farmhouse” interiors aligned with the logo drop—doubling the visual and emotional impact.
• Messaging was out of sync. CEO Julie Masino claimed that early feedback was “overwhelmingly positive” (Masino, 2025), but a wave of negative sentiment quickly contradicted this, resulting in mistrust.
• Testing tools failed to measure emotion. Pre-launch research indicated favourability but failed to capture emotional attachment.
• Lack of phased roll-out. No pilot markets, no soft launch, no A/B testing. The abrupt, nationwide rebrand left no room for controlled feedback loops.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS: A PLAYBOOK FOR HERITAGE BRANDS

Modernisation is unavoidable; the challenge is how to adapt without breaking the bonds that keep a heritage brand meaningful to its loyal followers. The playbook below converts these lessons into practical steps—starting with the first non-negotiable: honour the emotional foundations.

HONOUR EMOTIONAL FOUNDATIONS

Logos, colour schemes, and even scents are not superficial—they are anchors of trust. If change is needed, keep the core intact. Could the Old Timer have been reimagined instead of wiped out?

CONDUCT EMOTIONALLY-DRIVEN RESEARCH

Go beyond “Do you like this?” and ask, “What does this remind you of?” Use qualitative tools—story circles, customer diaries, and co-design sessions—to explore how symbols hold meaning.

PHASE CHANGE STRATEGICALLY

Test new branding in smaller regions or digital-first environments to gauge its effectiveness. Learn from McDonald’s Japan, which piloted retro-modern redesigns in select stores before going national—blending modernity with local nostalgia.

NARRATE THE CHANGE

Visuals alone are not enough. Use storytelling to show how change reflects—not rejects—your values. Explain the shift not just through strategy, but through shared meaning.

PLAN FOR POLITICAL REFRAMING

Even neutral changes can become politicised. Build cross-functional teams—comprising marketing, legal, and risk management—to craft narratives that remain true to the brand’s purpose, not its politics.

REGIONAL RESONANCE: LESSONS FOR APAC BRANDS

While Cracker Barrel’s story is set in the U.S., the lessons resonate across the Asia-Pacific.

In Southeast Asia, family-owned food brands (e.g., BreadTalk or Marigold) navigate similar heritage challenges. A change in packaging or outlet design can risk alienating long-standing customers unless it is clearly linked to cultural continuity.

Across the region, consumer trust is often built over decades. Rapid or opaque changes can undermine this trust faster than any marketing spend can restore.

Cracker Barrel’s crisis is not just a warning—it is a masterclass in what to avoid when updating a legacy brand. In a time of rapid change, the real challenge is not choosing between tradition and modernity—it is blending the two with empathy, intelligence, and strategic discipline.

The brands that will succeed are those that see heritage as an active element, not a limitation. They will invest not only in design systems but also in emotional diagnostics, stakeholder storytelling, and ethical foresight.

For heritage brands across the Asia-Pacific, the way forward is through evolution, not erasure—and by recognising that loyalty is rarely rational. It is emotional. Moreover, in branding, emotions are everything.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Heritage branding requires emotional sensitivity and stakeholder alignment.
• Visual updates should be supported by clear storytelling and phased implementation.
• Emotional capital is measurable — and financially consequential.
• Scenario planning must include potential culture-war responses, especially online.
• Brands in APAC must localise heritage storytelling without erasure.

---

References (APA Style)

• Booth, M. (2025). Cracker Barrel’s brand redesign triggers $100M backlash. Business Insider.
  Note: Placeholder — verify exact publication and link.
• Holt, D. (2004). How brands become icons: The principles of cultural branding. Harvard Business Press.
• Kotler, P., Keller, K. L., & Chernev, A. (2022). Marketing management (16th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Masino, J. (2025). Cracker Barrel CEO responds to brand backlash. CNBC.
  Note: Placeholder — confirm the date and link to official CNBC interview or coverage.
• Micu, C. C., & Plummer, J. T. (2010). Measuring emotional meaning in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 50(2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0021849910091255
• Statista. (2025). Cracker Barrel market valuation and brand perception data.
  Note: Placeholder — source data likely from proprietary Statista dashboard or news release.
• Thompson, C. J., & Tian, K. (2008). Reconstructing the south: How heritage brands articulate cultural myths of the American South. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3), 350–364. https://doi.org/10.1086/518530
• Urde, M. (2007). The corporate brand identity matrix. Journal of Brand Management, 15(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550104

In a Tom’s Guide experiment, a journalist created an entire brand kit—from logo to promotional video—in under an hour using Lovart, an AI-powered design agent. What previously took days of design work across multiple tools was condensed into a single prompt and a few clicks. This wasn’t just about speed—it signified a shift in brand creation where the prompt itself acts as the brushstroke of identity, shaping not only how brands look but how they emerge and evolve.

FROM PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS TO GENERATIVE POSSIBILITIES

For decades, brand visuals were shaped by a limited set of tools. Photography could only capture what was physically staged. Graphic design relied on established rules of composition, typography, and illustration. Stock libraries offered variety but often lacked originality and cultural nuance.

Generative AI breaks down these barriers. The prompt now functions as the casting call, lighting plan, and art direction all in one act of linguistic creativity. Instead of rummaging through stock archives for “diverse team in a modern office,” a brand can accurately describe its vision:

“A team of architects and engineers of various ages and ethnicities, gathered around a holographic model of a sustainable city, illuminated by a golden sunrise through loft windows—conveying innovation and optimism”.

What once demanded an expensive shoot can now be done in minutes. This shift is more than just visual—it is transforming long-standing workflows. Photographers who used to scout locations, cast talent, and set up elaborate lighting for a campaign now face a new reality: their craft is no longer the default way to create marketing visuals.

However, as history shows, adaptation is possible. When film gave way to digital and darkrooms transitioned to Lightroom, photographers adapted by embracing new tools while keeping their core skills intact. Today, their trained eye for light, composition, and storytelling can be repurposed into prompt engineering—creating AI descriptions based on photographic principles and then refining results for realism, coherence, and emotional impact.

In this way, the photographer acts as a strategic visual architect—not merely capturing images but directing a hybrid environment where AI efficiency and human artistry blend to maintain authenticity.

TECHNOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: THE PROMPT AS INTERFACE

AI image generators—like DALL·E, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and Lovart—convert linguistic subtlety into visual detail. Small wording changes (“sunlit” vs “golden hour”) can completely alter mood and texture.

Advanced prompting techniques are emerging, including:

• Negative prompting to exclude unwanted elements (“no text overlay,” “avoid pastel tones”).
• Iterative refinement to evolve images over multiple versions, much like a photographer experimenting with different angles.
• Structured prompting frameworks like ACAI (Karnatak et al., 2025), which break requests into thematic panels—branding, audience, mood—minimise the risk of off-brand results.

These tools make the prompt the most essential creative interface. It is where brand strategy and technical execution come together. In skilled hands, a prompt is more than just a description — it is a set of instructions that balance artistic vision and production efficiency.

Economic Perspective: Efficiency with Caveats

For small and medium-sized businesses across the APAC region, the appeal of generative AI is clear. The cost of engaging an agency or organising a photoshoot can be high—especially in markets with fluctuating currency rates, talent shortages, or regional logistical issues that push expenses up. With AI, a polished campaign can be developed internally in hours instead of weeks, enabling marketing teams to respond more swiftly to market shifts.

A clear example is Needle, a Singapore-based AI-powered marketing platform that recently raised US$1.2 million in pre-seed funding to assist e-commerce brands in optimising campaigns with generative AI. Although not tied to a specific seasonal campaign, Needle’s platform enables businesses to quickly produce tailored marketing visuals and copy variations—allowing them to A/B test messaging, adapt creative for different markets, and scale campaigns at a pace that would be difficult with manual workflows.

This kind of capability replaces what once required entire design teams and lengthy production schedules. A regional retailer, for example, can now produce multiple promotional ad variations for different markets—such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia—within a single day, tailoring cultural references, colours, and copy tone to suit each audience segment.

The risk lies in rushing without proper checks and verification. Accepting the first AI result can lead to generic, low-impact visuals that lack visual appeal. Brandality (2025) recommends a blended approach—utilising AI for quick prototyping and asset creation, then having people refine it to maintain brand uniqueness, creative quality, and cultural nuances. Efficiency should support creativity, not replace it.

CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE: AUTHENTICITY AND CONVERGENCE

One of AI’s key strengths is its ability to quickly adapt visual storytelling to reflect cultural shifts. A brand can produce a Lunar New Year visual for the Singapore market and a Diwali-themed version for India in minutes, each customised to local visual cues and preferences.

However, this agility brings a risk: convergence. If everyone uses the same popular models, prompt styles, and visual tropes, brands risk becoming visually indistinguishable from one another. The Branding Journal (2025) warns that over-optimisation for algorithmic visibility can reduce visual identity to a set of predictable, low-risk choices.

An example of balancing AI efficiency with cultural authenticity comes from Mezzanine Makers, a Hong Kong-based soft drink brand, working with Vpon Big Data Group. The team used Vpon’s “InVnity” AI visualisation system to generate a large number of ad design concepts—up to ten times faster than traditional methods—while ensuring each creative included imagery and references from Hong Kong’s street culture and consumer preferences. By combining AI-generated elements with culturally specific design motifs, Mezzanine Makers avoided the uniform look that often results from purely model-driven content.

This approach shows that AI can act as a catalyst without erasing local identity—so long as brands deliberately include cultural references and authentic visual cues in their prompts and curation processes.

ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE: RESPONSIBILITY IN EVERY PROMPT

Every prompt carries ethical considerations. AI models trained on skewed datasets can unintentionally reinforce stereotypes or underrepresent certain groups. For brands, ethical prompting isn’t just a moral choice but also a way to safeguard their reputation.

Key principles include:

• Specifying diversity in race, gender, age, and ability.
• Avoiding clichés, tokenism, or exoticisation.
• Ensuring outputs are culturally sensitive for each intended audience.

With the EU AI Act and updated APAC advertising standards emerging, the disclosure of AI-generated content may soon become mandatory. Forward-thinking brands are already preparing compliance frameworks, keeping prompt logs, and establishing internal review processes to ensure visual outputs meet both legal and ethical standards.

THE ROLE SHIFT: FROM MAKER TO CURATOR

Generative AI is changing the way creative work is done. The “prompt engineer’ role is emerging, combining strategy, linguistics, and visual sense—turning brand vision into detailed prompts that unlock AI’s creative power.

Designers, art directors, and brand strategists are shifting from hands-on production to a more orchestral role:

• Defining narrative direction.
• Crafting ethically aware, strategically aligned prompts.
• Curating AI outputs for brand fit and storytelling cohesion.

In this context, creativity is no longer about controlling every production detail — it’s about shaping the ecosystem where ideas are generated, refined, and brought to life.

AUTHENTICITY AND ORIGINALITY IN THE AI ERA

When an AI model produces a stunning visual, where does the creativity originate—from the training data, the algorithms, or the human prompt? Understanding this is important because consumers are increasingly seeking transparency. A brand that hides AI involvement risks losing trust.

The strongest creative strategies balance AI efficiency with human authenticity:

• AI for rapid ideation, non-core touchpoints, and concept testing.
• Human creativity for flagship campaigns, emotionally rich visuals, and brand-defining moments.

This hybrid model not only delivers efficiency but also ensures that brand storytelling stays unique and emotionally engaging.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS FOR BRAND LEADERS

Brand leaders in the APAC region navigating this shift should:

1. Invest in Prompt Literacy
   Equip teams with the language skills and visual awareness needed to craft effective prompts—this is today’s equivalent of mastering Photoshop in the early 2000s.

2. Embed Ethical Protocols
   Develop prompt checklists that account for representation, bias mitigation, and brand safety.

3. Build a Prompt Library
   Catalogue prompts that have delivered strong results for specific campaign types—product launches, seasonal events, or reactive marketing.

4. Leverage Hybrid Workflows
   Balance AI-generated ideation with human-led refinement to safeguard distinctiveness.

Use AI for Real-Time Testing
Test multiple visual concepts rapidly before committing to large-scale campaigns.

LOOKING AHEAD: THE EVOLVING BRUSHSTROKE

As AI models progress, prompts may focus more on expressing broad creative goals rather than micromanaging details. A future brand manager might say: ‘Design a visual that inspires sustainable innovation for our electric vehicle campaign, appealing to environmentally conscious urban professionals.’

The AI, utilising brand guidelines, audience data, and cultural context, can generate multiple polished options—each aligned with the brand tone and market expectations—without needing step-by-step instructions.

The rise of generative AI is more than a technological leap — it’s a creative and linguistic revolution. The prompt now defines brand storytelling, offering unmatched speed, accuracy, and reach. But mastery is crucial. Those who see prompting as both art and responsibility will shape the visual language for the next era — painting not just what can be seen, but what is felt.

---

References (APA Style)

• Bilalic, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008). Why good thoughts block better ones: The mechanism of the pernicious Einstellung (set) effect. Cognition, 108(3), 652–661.
• Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., & Ranganath, C. (2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84(2), 486–496.
• Kashdan, T. B., & Silvia, P. J. (2009). Curiosity and interest: The benefits of thriving on novelty and challenge. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 367–374). Oxford University Press.
• Page, S. E. (2007). The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton University Press.
• Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organisational behaviour: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 501–524.
• Gino, F. (2018). Rebel Talent: Why It Pays to Break the Rules at Work and in Life. Dey Street Books.

BEYOND THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL

Economic turbulence, climate disruption, technological acceleration, and geopolitical tension—when volatility becomes the norm, our instinct is to seek stability. In the face of complexity, we aim for the familiar. We tend to fall back on what feels certain and within our control, hoping it will keep the ground steady beneath us.

This reaction offers comfort. Certainty makes decision-making easier, strengthens our sense of identity, and creates a strong illusion of control. But it’s not just a modern preference—it’s an ancient survival tool. Our brains evolved to focus on immediate threats and cut through uncertainty. Pattern recognition and quick actions were once vital for survival.

Today, the same neurological wiring can deceive us. In complex, fast-changing systems, our instinct to depend on familiar strategies might limit our perspective. We cling to old frameworks even when the situation requires new thinking. What once helped us survive now risks keeping us stuck, unable—or unwilling—to adapt.

Organisational responses to uncertainty often follow a predictable routine: forecast more accurately, act quicker, and tighten control. But these approaches, although reassuring, are no longer sufficient. They tackle symptoms, not root causes. In today’s environment, success may rely not on reducing uncertainty but on exploring it—by asking better questions before rushing to solutions.

This shift—from problem-solving to problem-finding—requires a more curious mindset. It also calls for us to re-engineer our organisational systems to prioritise curiosity as a vital strategic asset.

CONCEPT DEFINITION – CURIOSITY AS A STRATEGIC COMPETENCY

Curiosity is more than just a personal trait; it’s a systemic capability. On an individual level, curiosity broadens perception and fuels learning. For organisations, it fosters responsiveness, adaptability, and innovation. It is how we identify new problems worth solving and how we future-proof our decisions.

Rather than seeing curiosity as a simple skill, we should recognise it as a core element embedded in culture, systems, leadership practices, and learning frameworks. Especially in Asia-Pacific markets where volatility and change are common, integrating curiosity into business strategy has become vital. It’s a necessity.

MULTI-PERSPECTIVE ANALYSIS

To fully understand how curiosity functions as a strategic asset, it is necessary to examine it from multiple perspectives. Each sheds light on different pressures, constraints, and opportunities for fostering curiosity on a larger scale.

1. TECHNOLOGICAL LENS – DISRUPTION DEMANDS DISCOVERY

Digital transformation across the APAC region has surpassed many traditional organisational planning models. AI, automation, and platform changes are reshaping industries faster than they can be mapped. When answers become outdated before implementation, the strategic edge goes to those who ask better questions—sooner.

Platforms like Grab, Shopee, and Canva did not succeed solely through predictive certainty but rather through iterative learning and user-focused experimentation. Their teams practised “discovery over delivery”—using curiosity at every stage of product design, not just during strategy formulation.

In practical terms, this means encouraging engineering curiosity within digital teams, including hypothesis-driven sprints, user shadowing, and ‘what-if’ analysis, which are part of agile routines. Technology doesn’t eliminate uncertainty— it magnifies the effects of not exploring it.

2. ECONOMIC/BUSINESS LENS – CERTAINTY BIAS IN STRATEGIC PLANNING

In rapidly changing markets like Indonesia or Vietnam, five-year plans can become outdated within 18 months. Yet many companies cling to rigid forecasts, driven by the illusion of control. This is the “certainty bias”—a psychological preference for familiar frameworks, even when evidence indicates they are no longer suitable.

Behavioural economics supports this idea. Threats limit our cognitive capacity (Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981), making us revert to previous strategies even when they are no longer suitable. In contrast, curiosity reactivates our learning brain. Research shows that curiosity improves memory, creativity, and problem-solving by engaging the brain’s reward system and decreasing the impact of fear (Gruber, Gelman, & Ranganath, 2014).

In business terms, this means gaining a competitive edge. Teams that adopt a learning mindset—exploring scenarios, questioning assumptions, and engaging different perspectives—respond more quickly and effectively to emerging risks and opportunities.

3. CULTURAL/SOCIAL LENS – THE ROLE OF CURIOSITY IN COLLECTIVE LEARNING

Curiosity is not just a personal trait; it is a social phenomenon. Research indicates that when leaders show curiosity, it spreads to others (Kashdan & Silvia, 2009). A single person’s naive question can shift an entire team’s dynamic from mere performance to genuine exploration.

In culturally diverse APAC settings, where hierarchy and saving face often limit open discussion, the leader’s role is crucial. Leaders who say “I don’t know, let’s find out together” foster psychological safety. They transform meetings from reporting sessions into collaborative learning spaces.

Furthermore, diverse teams work best when they also encourage question diversity—not just identity diversity (Page, 2007). That includes including voices that notice anomalies, challenge orthodoxy, and dare to ask, “What if we’re solving the wrong problem?”

4. ETHICAL/REGULATORY LENS – NAVIGATING AMBIGUITY RESPONSIBLY

From data ethics to sustainability and AI governance, businesses today face complex ethical challenges. There are no straightforward solutions—only evolving questions. Curiosity becomes an ethical habit: the humility to listen, the courage to question, and the discipline to learn.

Curiosity enables organisations to anticipate stakeholder concerns instead of just reacting to them. It shifts compliance from simply ticking boxes to gaining a real understanding, moving from a reactive to a proactive stance. In this way, curiosity becomes not only a mental skill but also a form of accountability.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS – DESIGNING FOR PROBLEM-FINDING

Turning curiosity into strategy requires more than just a mindset—it’s about implementing structural change. These organisational shifts embed curiosity into daily operations, making problem-finding not just possible but expected.

Reframe Performance Reviews: by including “learning achieved” alongside deliverables. Value thoughtful failure, not just perfect execution.

Design Curious Meetings: Introduce question rounds, assumption audits, and rotating perspectives to foster a culture of curiosity. Allocate time for exploration—not just status updates.

Shift Leadership Habits: Encourage leaders to openly demonstrate curiosity. Ask questions aloud. Admit uncertainty. Reflect visibly.

Develop Temporal Curiosity: Encourage teams to think across different time horizons: What needs to be decided now? What experiments can we conduct? What signals should we monitor for the future?

Promote Post-Expertise Identity: Support professionals in releasing outdated expertise. Encourage cross-functional immersion, reverse mentoring, and beginner’s mind practices.

HABITS OF CURIOSITY-LED LEADERS IN ASIA

Curiosity-led leadership is gaining momentum across Asia, especially in organisations adapting to rapid technological, demographic, and regulatory shifts. These leaders don’t just accept uncertainty—they turn it into action. Their habits shape the cultural blueprint for teams focused on learning.

1. THEY NORMALISE NOT KNOWING

In hierarchical cultures common in Asia, admitting uncertainty can be viewed as a weakness. Curious leaders challenge this by openly modelling “I don’t know—let’s find out.” This shifts organisational norms from performance to discovery.

2. THEY ASK CATALYTIC QUESTIONS

Rather than defaulting to status updates, they begin meetings with questions like “What surprised you this week?” or “What assumptions are we making?” These questions foster reflection and uncover hidden risks and opportunities.

3. THEY ESTABLISH ‘LEARNING ZONES’

At companies like DBS Bank in Singapore, leaders allocate space for innovation through labs and “safe to fail” pilots. These are not just side projects—they are key to testing strategy.

4. THEY PRACTICE REVERSE MENTORING

From tech founders in Indonesia to policy leaders in Vietnam, many are encouraging younger or cross-functional staff to challenge their thinking. This flattens authority and introduces diverse perspectives to strategic decisions.

5. THEY HOLD STRATEGIC CURIOSITY REVIEWS

Instead of quarterly reviews that focus only on results, these leaders ask: What did we learn? What might we rethink? What blind spots have emerged? Over time, this helps cultivate a culture of reflective agility.

Curiosity-led leadership isn’t gentle—it’s sharp. In Asia’s fast-changing landscape, these leaders aren’t just managing change; they’re adapting quicker than it happens.

CURIOSITY AS EVOLUTION, NOT DISRUPTION

In a world obsessed with innovation, the boldest step might be to ask older, deeper questions. What do we truly not understand? Which questions are we avoiding? What assumptions feel too sacred to challenge?

The shift from problem-solving to problem-finding isn’t a rejection of skill—it’s a renewal. The future belongs to those who can unlearn effortlessly, ask smarter questions, and see uncertainty not as a threat but as a chance for discovery.

In uncertain times, curiosity isn’t just helpful—it’s crucial.

---

References (APA Style)

• Bilalic, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008). Why good thoughts block better ones: The mechanism of the pernicious Einstellung (set) effect. Cognition, 108(3), 652–661.
• Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., & Ranganath, C. (2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84(2), 486–496.
• Kashdan, T. B., & Silvia, P. J. (2009). Curiosity and interest: The benefits of thriving on novelty and challenge. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 367–374). Oxford University Press.
• Page, S. E. (2007). The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton University Press.
• Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organisational behaviour: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 501–524.
• Gino, F. (2018). Rebel Talent: Why It Pays to Break the Rules at Work and in Life. Dey Street Books.

In recent years, many mental health NGOs across Southeast Asia have been adopting digital transformation strategies to enhance service delivery and broaden their reach. These digitalisation efforts usually involve using the cloud to store counselling records, implementing AI-based triage tools for cases, and creating online training modules to boost volunteer engagement. While these ambitions are noble, the implementation of such strategies can often lead to unforeseen tensions.

Frontline case workers may push back on the new system, claiming that increased administrative workloads and less human nuance in care detracts from their job; volunteers may disengage from their essential roles in the NGO, as a result of failing to establish a more personal bond with the virtual mode of service delivery; and, once-fervent leadership teams begin wondering what the return on their investment might lead to, because they cannot identify measurable outcomes.

More often than not, the struggles stem from a deeper issue: we have prioritised strategy over purpose. In the rush to digitally innovate, the most important question gets lost in all the changes: what are we trying to achieve?

GOALS VS STRATEGY

The non-profit sector often feels pressure to “do more with less.” The constant threat of limited resources endangering survival can foster a culture of busyness, often without clear purpose. As a result, operational plans become driven by strategies, and the line between goals and strategy becomes blurred. This distinction is vital: goals are the organisation’s core reason for existence; strategy explains how, and for what purpose.

In a corporate environment, market competition and shareholder value usually set clear objectives based on financial measures or return on investment indicators. For non-profits, success is less straightforward to quantify. Therefore, there is a greater need to be deliberate when establishing a goal. A strategy without goals is a waste of effort; it focuses on performing purposes rather than achieving them (Ebrahim, 2019).

So, if a significant number of non-profit organisations are still drawn to start with strategy, what is the reason?

IMPACTS OF TECHNOLOGY: TOOLS WITHOUT TARGET

The advances of the digital age are giving organisations unprecedented capacity to scale, gain insights from data, and automate processes. However, they can also tempt organisations to move quickly, often faster than their mission can genuinely progress. Non-profits that rush into strategic action without clearly defining their end goals and focus only on which tools (platforms or outreach methods) to use or how to change risk, unintentionally diverting organisational resources towards features instead of core functionality. 

Implementing a CRM system might enhance tracking engagement with donors; however, if the primary goal is not to attract more donors but to create greater community impact, then this investment could be futile. 

Understanding the important difference between goals and strategies is especially important in multi-cultural Southeast Asian contexts where community expectations, family dynamics, or spiritual beliefs are central. Staff and volunteers might have very personal motivations for their work within an organisation. Without clear organisational goals to guide their motivations, they may face confusion in a vague situation, where many conflicting social narratives are already at play.

A youth mentor in Jakarta might see their commitment as part of their faith; a climate action advocate in Vietnam might view it as a duty to their ancestors. The work is the same, but the meanings could not be more different. Without organisational goals in place, these internal perspectives are not supported. They may lead to dissonance, disconnection, or inaudible disengagement from staff and volunteers, which will impact the strategies used by the non-profit to make an impact.

THE ETHICAL LENS: ACCOUNTABILITY, NOT CLARITY

Nongovernmental organisations operate in the public interest, offering valuable assistance to vulnerable communities. These groups have ethical duties to account not only for how their resources are used but also for what is achieved with them. Ethical accountability involves clear and well-defined goals or objectives set by nonprofit organisations.

When a nonprofit has a plan with strategic activities but lacks clarity about who will be served, what change the organisation aims to achieve, and how and when, a gap emerges where success or failure cannot be adequately assessed. This can ultimately result in a form of tokenism: activities are recorded, outputs are celebrated, and impact is assumed rather than proven (Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014).

Goal-based planning offers clarity (goal) for ethical claims. It provides clarity to stakeholders (clients, funders, staff), not just about what is being achieved but also regarding potential risks.

THE GOVERNANCE LENS: DECISION-MAKING BY DEFAULT

A less noticeable but significant consequence of not having clear goals is the impact on governance. Boards and Leadership Teams tend to process information based on urgency rather than making decisions with a clear direction. The absence of concise, well-defined goals results in limited operational thinking, such as hiring solely around funding cycles, forming partnerships based on opportunity rather than mission fit, and offering services driven by demand instead of actual need.

All of these actions contribute to a governance culture of “accidental strategy” (Bradshaw, 2022). Without a clear purpose as a guiding anchor, even the most well-meaning leadership team can drift towards short-term priorities. Additionally, the checks and balances of accountability often break down. When no single person has ultimate responsibility (and thus no one does), it becomes difficult to hold a governing body accountable.

For governance bodies in Australia and Southeast Asian nations where regulation surrounding nonprofit accountability is tightening, having clearly articulated goals is not just best practice; it is a form of risk management.

THE ECONOMIC LENS: DONOR LOGIC VS. MISSION LOGIC

Many nonprofit organisations have either consciously or unconsciously adapted their objectives to align with their donors’ and funders’ expectations. Since philanthropic capital is linked to metrics, deliverables, and timelines, it can easily override an organisation’s natural tendency to work backwards from the funder’s strategy – asking “What will funders want to fund?” instead of “What is truly important?”.

This is more than just a budgeting challenge; it is a matter of sovereignty. Adjusting the organisation’s objectives to meet external funder criteria – without initially aligning their frameworks with the mission – creates a form of structural dependency. In the short term, such arrangements might satisfy operational needs, but they ultimately compromise the organisation’s identity and mission. Often, as long as funders are supportive, the organisation can reshape itself to fit the funders’ objectives (Frumkin, 2020).

In Southeast Asia, this challenge is significant because many nonprofit organisations operate within a development aid framework where external metrics often determine success. Nonprofits may be assigned indicators such as gender parity, digital equity, or climate mitigation and are not required to define these terms within their own context. In the worst cases, some organisations are agile but fragile regarding their own goals when they align resources to donor priorities.

However, when nonprofits set their goals based on their objectives and mission, funders become stakeholders rather than just applicants. Instead of working against each other, funders can understand their responsibilities to work together towards a shared purpose, as reflected in funding from stakeholder or partner funders. This alignment is beneficial because it deepens the relationship from a simple, linear one-to-one based on mutual accountability.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

The implications for boards, executive teams, and program planners are quite simple:

1. Begin with questions, not templates: strategy should guide mission — not the reverse.

2. Define success internally first: if your organisation cannot define what success looks like, then no consultant, software, or grant will help you.

3. Let your goals anchor your flexibility: paradoxically, we can become more adaptable when we have clear goals. We understand what we can shift and what we cannot shift.

4. Strategy is a translation: once goals are set, strategy serves as a language to turn the vision into tactics or values into results.

5. Prioritise participatory goal setting: involve clients, staff, and communities in establishing purpose. This helps build buy-in and ensure alignment from the outset.

In short, goals are not the next step to planning—they are planning.

A DISCIPLINE OF INTENTIONALITY

In the current environment where nonprofits are continually faced with the need to be more effective, transparent, and scalable, there is a tendency to rely on frameworks, plans, and tools. Purpose cannot be reverse-engineered.

Prioritising goals at an initial stage is a management practice grounded in intention. It helps prevent organisational drift, fosters internal cohesion, and turns strategy into action. It also ensures that impact remains through the complexity of being genuine and not just rhetorical.

Those who start with the question “what are we really here to do?” will be best placed to answer the question “are we doing it?”

---

References (APA Style)

• Bourne, S. (2023). Digital Strategy for Nonprofits. Oxford Nonprofit Press.
• Bradshaw, P. (2022). Governance without direction: The risks of accidental strategy. Third Sector Quarterly, 48(2), 193–210.
• Ebrahim, A. (2019). Measuring Social Change: Performance and Accountability in a Complex World. Stanford University Press.
• Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2014). What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance. California Management Review, 56(3), 118–141.
• Frumkin, P. (2020). On Being Nonprofit: A Conceptual and Policy Primer (2nd ed.). Harvard University Press.
• Lim, H., & Goh, S. (2023). Goal Ambiguity and Burnout in Australia’s Community Sector. Centre for Social Impact, UNSW.

INTRODUCTION: TWO BEASTS, TWO VISIONS

In the fast-paced world of startups, two compelling archetypes have emerged: the Unicorn and the Zebra. While both promise innovation and growth, they represent fundamentally different visions of success. For entrepreneurs, marketers, and investors—particularly in high-growth, values-driven ecosystems like Australia and Hong Kong—understanding the difference is no longer optional but a strategic necessity.

Unicorns have long shaped the startup story with their billion-dollar valuations and viral growth. However, as disillusionment with unsustainable models increases, an alternative has appeared: Zebra, a profitable and purpose-driven company growing with integrity rather than speed.

This article explores the key differences between these models, why the divergence matters, and how Zebra thinking is gaining prominence in Asia’s innovation economies.

WHAT ARE UNICORNS AND ZEBRAS?

UNICORNS

A term coined by venture capitalist Aileen Lee in 2013, it refers to privately owned startups valued at over $1 billion. Their growth is usually driven by substantial venture capital funding and a strong drive for rapid expansion. Their aim? To dominate markets, achieve quick exits through Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) or acquisitions, and deliver maximum returns for early investors.

ZEBRAS

Introduced in 2017 by a group of female founders, Zebras represent a conscious shift away from the Unicorn ethos. They are “black and white”—both profitable and purposeful. These companies address genuine issues, often at the crossroads of social and economic needs, and focus on sustainability, collaboration, and stakeholder engagement.

THE UNICORN PLAYBOOK: SPEED, SCALE, AND DISRUPTION

Unicorns have become symbols of ambition. Their defining traits include:

1. Exponential Growth: Rapid scaling and industry disruption through technology or innovative business models.
   
2. Heavy reliance on venture capital: Success depends on securing multiple investment rounds, often at the expense of profitability.
   
3. Winner-Takes-All Mentality: Market share dominates, even if it involves burning cash or sidelining ethics.
   
4. Valuation Over Revenue: Valuations typically indicate potential instead of established business fundamentals.
   
5. Exit-Oriented: The main aim is a high-stakes exit that benefits investors more than the long-term stability of the ecosystem.

Unicorns represent dynamic environments for marketers where metrics like viral growth, complex user acquisition, and market visibility are key priorities.

THE ZEBRA ALTERNATIVE: SUSTAINABILITY MEETS PURPOSE

Zebras challenge the notion that bigger is always better. Their main characteristics are:

1. Dual Bottom Line: Profitability is attained alongside a social or environmental mission 
   
2. Steady Growth: Business development aligns with operational maturity and has a long-term impact.
   
3. Alternative Capital: Zebras frequently bootstrap or collaborate with impact investors, prioritising alignment over rapid growth.
   
4. Ethical Operations: Promoting inclusive leadership, maintaining ethical supply chains, and prioritising collaboration over competition.
   
5. Embedded Impact: Zebras reinvest in the communities they serve, often putting profits back into local initiatives.

Authenticity remains the cornerstone of marketing Zebra ventures. Campaigns revolve around storytelling, community, and communicated impact.

WHY THE DIFFERENCE MATTERS

BUSINESS MODEL RESILIENCE

Unicorns are built for speed but often lack the structural strength to survive storms. Cases like WeWork and Theranos show the dangers of inflated valuations and poor governance. Zebras are naturally more resilient and rooted in real revenue and mission integrity.

SOCIETAL ALIGNMENT

While Unicorns often concentrate value and risk, leading to social harm, Zebras are closely connected to real-world issues—education, climate, and inequality. This focus on societal relevance is a strength, not a sacrifice, in a region as diverse and developmentally complex as Asia.

ORGANISATIONAL HEALTH

The “grow or die” culture of Unicorns often results in founder burnout and toxic workplaces. On the other hand, Zebra companies tend to focus on wellness, values-led leadership, and team cohesion—a shift especially relevant in the post-pandemic period.

CAPITAL MODELS

Venture capital mainly targets quick growth and short-term investment returns. Zebra-friendly models—such as revenue-based financing or community co-ops—support more patient and meaningful growth. This also opens doors for diverse founders who might not fit the traditional venture capital mould.

THE ASIAN CONTEXT: WHY ZEBRAS BELONG

Although originally coined in the West, Zebra’s values align with many Asian cultural and economic norms.:

1. Collectivism over Individualism: Many Asian cultures prioritise community well-being over personal gain, fitting well with a Zebra-style business.
   
2. Long-term stewardship is a hallmark of family-run businesses and generational values across Asia. Zebras’ sustainable ethos resonates strongly in this context.
   
3. Government alignment: Through active public-private partnerships (e.g., Singapore’s Smart Nation), startups often function within system-oriented frameworks—an ideal environment for Zebras.

This convergence indicates that Asia may adopt and evolve the Zebra model substantially and regionally uniquely.

CASE STUDIES: SINGAPORE AND HONG KONG

SINGAPORE: ECOSYSTEM FOR ETHICAL GROWTH

Singapore’s government is increasingly favouring sustainable, impact-driven enterprises. Supportive policies around ESG, social finance, and green innovation create a fertile ground for Zebras.

1. Stability and Diversification: Zebra companies promote economic resilience by expanding the startup ecosystem beyond major tech firms.
   
2. Impact-Driven Investment: A growing interest in measurable social benefits attracts capital outside traditional VC channels (Happiness at Work Experience).

HONG KONG: A SHIFT TOWARDS PURPOSE

Though traditionally recognised for high finance and rapid-growth ventures, Hong Kong is beginning to support startups focusing on social innovation, environmental health, and public resilience.

1. Local Impact, Long-Term Value: Zebras foster lasting relationships with customers and staff by meeting real needs.
   
2. Funding Diversity: Impact bonds, revenue-based models, and community investment promote a more inclusive environment.

ZEBRAS STARTUPS IN ACTION

Three standout examples—Bettr Barista, Green Monday, and Wateroam—demonstrate what this looks like in practice.

BETTR BARISTA (SINGAPORE)

Founded in 2011, Bettr Barista is a certified B-Corporation and social enterprise that uses coffee to uplift marginalised communities. Its coffee academy trains at-risk women and youth in barista skills and emotional development, creating long-term employment pathways. Over the years, it has grown into one of Singapore’s most respected specialty coffee brands, combining retail, training, and impact. Bettr avoids the hypergrowth tactics typical of startups; instead, its expansion is grounded in community need and quality delivery. Investors and partners—including socially aligned funds—support its mission, proving that profitability and purpose coexist. The measure of success is not just cups sold but lives changed.

GREEN MONDAY (HONG KONG)

Launched in 2012 by David Yeung, began as a movement to promote plant-based eating. It has since evolved into a powerful social enterprise platform blending business with advocacy. Its profit-generating arms include Green Common (plant-based groceries and restaurants) and OmniFoods (meat alternatives), while its foundation focuses on education and climate initiatives. Despite securing substantial funding, including AU$70 million in 2020, Green Monday stays true to its mission. Every product launch or new outlet supports its environmental aims. Collaborating with schools and businesses helps shift behaviours and markets, with success measured by carbon emissions saved and habits changed, rather than just revenue growth.

WATEROAM (SINGAPORE)

Founded in 2014, Wateroam develops portable water filtration systems for rural and disaster-affected areas. It collaborates with NGOs and humanitarian organisations to provide clean water to underprivileged communities, aiming to reach 30 million people by 2030. Wateroam exemplifies the zebra model by merging technical innovation with a strong social commitment. Its business model ensures sustainability: filtration units are sold at affordable prices, and profits are reinvested to extend reach and improve effectiveness. Instead of chasing trendy pivots or wealthy markets, Wateroam expands only when it benefits more people by giving them access to safe water. Impact is central, not secondary, to its strategy.

These startups demonstrate how zebra companies grow differently. Bettr Barista expands its training as demand for skilled baristas increases. Green Monday aligns its growth with education to maintain credibility. Wateroam innovates to reach those most in need. All three are profitable and scalable, yet they resist the temptation to grow at any cost. In doing so, they exemplify a new kind of entrepreneurship: success is measured by the depth of impact, not just the speed of scale.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS FOR MARKETERS AND FOUNDERS

The emergence of Zebra startups does not critique Unicorns but signifies a necessary shift. Both models play vital roles in ecosystems like Singapore and Hong Kong, where innovation links with policy, identity, and sustainability. 

1. For Unicorns: Marketers must excel in fiercely competitive, data-rich environments, quickly generate broad awareness, and optimise for substantial growth.
   
2. For Zebras: Marketers become storytellers and bridge-builders, crafting narratives that connect values, foster community, and demonstrate tangible impact.

For founders, the key question shifts from “How fast can we grow?” to “What are we growing—and for whom?”

CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE BELONGS TO BOTH

A single model does not dominate a vibrant startup scene but embraces diversity. Unicorns challenge what is achievable, while zebras remind us of what truly matters. Together, they create a lively tension—innovation with integrity and speed balanced by substance.

In Asia, where the future is being shaped through social innovation, digital transformation, and cultural renewal, Zebras are ready to survive and prosper. They are redefining what success means—not by escaping gravity, but by building companies that stand the test of time.

The choice is not simple for the next generation of entrepreneurs in Singapore, Hong Kong, and beyond. The call is to build boldly—but with eyes wide open, feet firmly grounded, and values intact.

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.