 |
|
|
|||||
My work across decades has spanned sectors, geographies, and cultures, focusing on exploration, discovery, and innovation. My husband and I have defined our work across business, nonprofit, and philanthropy simply: “We invest in people and ideas that can change the world.” I spend much of my time exploring and sharing exciting developments that hold great promise. This work has taken me from building the Internet revolution, to working in villages and cities across the globe and America’s 50 states, to the boardroom of the National Geographic Society, where I just completed a decade of service as Chairman of the Board. It has been a true privilege to lead these efforts, and we have made a real impact in many ways. But this work can be difficultmy years of engagement in brain cancer research highlighted what an unknown frontier the brain represents. The work can also be complexlike rolling out initiatives across diverse geographies and communities, but it continues to energize and engage me. At nearly every turn, technology has been central to our quest to “find a better way,” and it has played an important part in every one of the success stories in our portfolio. But here, as we close out 2025, the reality is stark: while technology can still bring hope and promise on many fronts, the underbelly of its excessive use has become painfully clear. Americans now spend over seven hours a day looking at screens. Meanwhile, rates of anxiety, depression, isolation, and loneliness have skyrocketed, particularly among young people. Our brains are being rewired in ways none of us asked for, and the health and wellness of the population more broadly are seriously at risk. And sadly, the promise of technology to bring communities together that animated so many of us in our early tech careers has instead led to rising divisions between people and places. What can be done? So, what can be done here to address this worrisome trend? Well, it turns out a solution that might hold great promise was hiding plainly in sight: indeed, the answer doesnt lie in abandoning technology, but rather in the simple act of logging off and getting out in nature. Thats right. It turns out nature is a powerful medicine. Recent research validates what many of us intuitively know: a Stanford meta-analysis of 449 studies found that nature exposure significantly improves mental health outcomes, including mood, stress, and anxiety. Perhaps most encouraging, researchers found that just 20 minutes in a parkeven without exercisingpeople reported feeling better, while repeated nature exposure of as little as 10 minutes yields measurable benefits for those with mental illness. But the benefits extend far beyond individual wellness. These aren’t marginal improvementsthey’re prescription-strength results from the most accessible medicine on Earth. The barrier to entry is often just putting on a pair of sneakers or hopping on a bike. The beauty of outdoor engagement is its democratic accessibility. Unlike expensive gym memberships or specialized equipment, stepping outside costs nothing and requires no particular skill. So whether you walk around the block, walk for 20 minutes in your neighborhood, or find a way to hike in a city, state, or national park, walking delivers measurable health benefits. A fork in the road We stand at an inflection point. We can continue accepting digital isolation and declining physical and mental health as inevitable byproducts of technological progress, or we can recognize that the human experience began outdoors, in communities, solving problems togetherand that our health depends on experiences no app can replicate. This isn’t about returning to some romanticized past. It’s about balance. It’s about making outdoor, screen-free time as routine as checking email. It’s as simple as taking a walk, encountering neighbors or nature at a park or in your community. Where getting outdoors is the default, not the exception. The screen will always be there when you return. But the opportunity to rebuild America’s health and social cohesion by getting outdoors requires intention. We need individuals choosing strolling over scrolling, employers encouraging outdoor breaks as part of a productive workday, healthcare providers prescribing park time, and local leaders who prioritize walkable communities that enable us to meet and greet each other and Mother Nature. The question isn’t whether you have time for outdoor connectionit’s whether you can afford not to make time for the wellness program hiding in plain sight.
Category:
E-Commerce
AI is forcing every leader into a choice they cant dodge: do you believe your people are fundamentally creative and motivated, or lazy and in need of control? Most leaders wont want to answer that honestly, but their AI strategy already has. The AI mandates. AI-blamed layoffs. So-called AI-enabled bossware. The truth is in the tools: many leaders prefer synthetic employees they can control, and will treat human beings much the same way until they can be replaced. Sound hyperbolic? Just look at recent headlines. Klarnas CEO famously bragged about AI replacing his staff after the company fired or lost 22% of its workforce a year earlier (this blew up in his face, of course). Duolingo effectively announced a hiring freeze with the introduction of AI. Elijah Clark, a CEO who advises other CEOs on AI, quipped to Gizmodo, AI doesnt go on strike. It doesnt ask for a pay raise as he expressed excitement about laying off employees in favor of AI. A 2024 review found that more than two-thirds, 68 percent, of U.S. workers report experiencing at least one form of electronic monitoring on the job. There are actual billboards running that say, Stop hiring humans, while a new survey found that 37% of employers would prefer hiring a robot or AI over a recent college graduate. It isnt just that AI is replacing workers (it is), its that AI is reinforcing our dimmest view of workers in the process. Generation X Douglas McGregor was a social psychologist and MIT Sloan professor who, in 1960, argued that leaders dont just manage from goals and objectives; they manage from hidden assumptions about human nature. He called one cluster of assumptions Theory X: the belief that people dislike work, avoid responsibility, and need tight control and incentives to perform. The contrasting Theory Y assumed that, given the right conditions, people will seek responsibility, exercise self-direction, and bring far more creativity and judgment than most organizations ever tap. When leaders push AI in ways that amplify surveillance, shrink autonomy, or quietly replace judgment with automation, they arent just modernizing, theyre hard-coding Theory X into the operating system of work. Heres the thing about Theory X/Y: McGregor wasnt arguing which was right, whether employees were fundamentally lazy or capable, but that managerial beliefs become self-fulfilling. How you think about your employees determines how theyll act. Bossware, productivity scoring, keystroke tracking, sentiment analysis of employee chats, all of it sends the same signal: we assume you wont do the right thing unless were watching. These tools teach people that initiative is risky, creativity is irrelevant, and trust is conditional. And once those assumptions are embedded in tools, dashboards, and performance reviews, they stop being a management preference and start being the default culture. It doesnt matter that not every CEO or leader sees employees this way, enough vocal Theory X proponents will shape the narrative for everyone else. Ultimately, the more that human beings are placed in head-to-head competition with AI, the more that the workforce will respond with fear, mistrust, loafing, and even cheating. Y Not A Theory Y AI tool starts from the premise that people want to do good work when the system around them makes that possible. Unfortunately, the market isnt offering a lot of Theory Y AI right now. We need more tools here, more competition, more billboards blaring an alternative worldview. Imagine a tool, for example, that spots duplicated efforts early. Or one that learns from and simplifies decision-making and governance over time. That helps teams compare options, highlights trade-offs, and develops their strategic thinking muscles. That could create shared situational awareness by showing how changes in one team affect others in real time. Instead of secret dashboards used to police performance, Y-style tools could give workers ownership of their data and use it for growth, not punishment. They could make invisible contributions visiblementorship, relationship-building, problem-preventionso the whole texture of teamwork gets its due. In short, they could expand autonomy with guardrails, rather than constrict it with algorithms. Asking the Wrong Question The real question isnt how much productivity we can squeeze out by replacing people with AI or treating them like imperfect machines. Its how much potential weve never tapped because the modern workplace was built on bureaucracy, compliance, and risk-avoidance. For decades, weve constrained the very things that make humans extraordinarycreativity, judgment, curiosity, connection, the spark that happens when people riff on each others ideas. Those capacities have never been fully measured, let alone optimized, because most organizations designed them out of daily work. AI could help us reverse that. Not by automating humans out, but by clearing away the sludge that has buried human capability for a century: redundant approvals, performative documentation, meetings that exist because the calendar said so, processes created for a world that no longer exists. The opportunity isnt a marginal gain from policing employees harderits the exponential upside from finally unleashing the talent you hired in the first place. The leaders who will win the next decade arent the ones who solely bet on synthetic workers, but the ones who use AI to build the first truly human organizationsplaces where people can think, make, collaborate, and surprise you again.
Category:
E-Commerce
Over the past several years, the art of the rebrand has increasingly become a spectacle sport. From cultural institutions like the Philadelphia Art Museum, which reportedly fired its CEO over a poorly received rebrand this year, to the furniture brand La-Z-Boy, which was widely praised for its modern revamp, the internets attention economy has meant that almost no notable rebrand is safe from social media’s deluge of hot takes. In 2025, that was more true than ever. Brands that rolled out a new look this year were scrutinized for everything from their font and color choices to the potential ideological implications of their visual pivots. In September, after the design firm Pentagram received major flack for its official branding of the city of Austin, partner DJ Stout told Fast Company, Its because of social media. Back when I first started about 40 years ago, nobody even knew what an identity system was. To close out the year, Fast Company asked seven design experts to choose one rebrand thatfor better or worsewill be remembered as the most influential of 2025, shaping both design and discourse in the months ahead. Heres what they told us: Cracker Barrels woke rebrand In a testament to the major impact of Cracker Barrels rebrand, two of the seven designers we contacted identified the brand as their top pick. News of Cracker Barrels rebrand initially emerged in mid-October, when the company unveiled a new color palette, typography, and plans to revamp its restaurant interiors. But what really stood out to fans was the brands new logo, which removed the former rendering of an older man leaning on a barrel, known as Uncle Herschel or the Old Timer, in place of a more modernized look. [Images: Cracker Barrel] In the hope of presenting a more contemporary image to the world and attracting younger and more affluent customers, they eroded the brand’s identity and character (literally: goodbye Uncle Herschel), says Matt Boffey, chief strategy officer at Design Bridge and Partners in the UK and Europe. Online, right-wing commentators framed the swap as a radical, woke move, with everyone from conservative activist Robby Starbuck to President Trump himself weighing in with increasingly negative takes. The backlash was so severe that Cracker Barrel lost nearly $100 million in market value in the following days (though it later rebounded). It publicly walked back the rebrand, reinstating Uncle Herschel and assuring customers that it would no longer move forward with restaurant renovations. [Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images] According to Stout of Pentagram, the unwanted attention around Cracker Barrels rebrand actually had ripple effects for the reception of his teams City of Austin identity, which was unveiled around the same time and similarly became the target of criticism for what he calls the logo mob. To be fair, I think the Cracker Barrel identity rebrand was nicely done and a much needed evolution, Stout says. The effort was unfairly judged by merely comparing the before and after versions of a single element (the logo) of the comprehensive identity system, which is the typical online parlor game of rebrand criticism these days. The complete identity system is smart and exactly what I would have donewhich is why I may need to think seriously about retiring. Stout adds that, in his opinion, the worst part of the whole fiasco was the fact that Cracker Barrel chose to revert to their dated, out-of-touch identity. That spineless decision by the parent company didnt acknowledge the months of thoughtful deliberation and work that went into the development of their new identity systemand it threw their design partner under the bus, Stout says. This knee-jerk reaction and the online mob mentality it has stoked is a concerning trend and detrimental to my industry moving forward. Walmart takes a trip into the archives Undoubtedly the largest company to rebrand this year was Walmart. The brand got its first update in two decades, courtesy of the design firm Jones Knowles Ritchie (JKR), which gave it a subtle facelift that amplifies its blue and yellow color palette and sprinkles in some callbacks to the companys 60s and 70s archives. [Image: Walmart] My favorite part is how that custom typeface is put to work, says Delta Murphy, an associate partner at Pentagrams Austin outpost. It nods to their past while still giving them room to grow, and that kind of balance is incredibly hard to pull off. Im not sure Id call it a trend as much as a principle of design I appreciate, but I get excited when rebrands tie into meaningful heritage and push into modernity, especially through typography. [Image: Walmart] Murphy adds that the Walmart rebrand actually hit a similar note as Cracker Barrels new identitythe difference being that Cracker Barrel got tangled up in politics and internet outrage, which stalled the roll-out before it could ever get off the ground. If I had one wish for the future of graphic design and branding, Id wish for more curious conversation and a lot less cynicism, she says. Cash App is not your moms banking app One undersung branding hero of 2025 is Cash App, according to Kimia Fariborz, senior designer at the global creative agency Further. [Image: Cash App] In March, Cash App introduced a new set of brand guidelines that brought playful motion elements and expressive graphics to the brand, making it feel more like an artsy, design-centric brand than a baking app. These broadened guidelines, Fariborz says, helped pave the way for Cash App to roll out new features throughout the year that represent how the modern customer is actually banking, like through bitcoin payment options and an AI assistant named Moneybot. [Image: Cash App] What I appreciated most is that Cash App embraces its reality instead of posturing as a traditional bank, Fariborz says. It recognizes the unconventional ways people use it and builds a tone that reflects that world. That honesty gives the brand permission to be vibrant and layered in a category that often defaults to seriousness. Grammarly gets a new name Nearly two decades after its founding in 2009, Grammarly traded its brand name in October in favor of Superhuman, the name of a younger, less well-known AI company that it recently acquired. The swap came alongside a massive brand overhaul designed to signal Grammarlys shift into a new era focusing on agentic AI. [Image: Superhuman] David Placek, CEO and cofounder of the firm Lexicon Branding, believes the change is bound to pay off. He notes that weve seen other companies reverting back to a component of their old name or debuting a new iterationlike MSNBC to MS NOW and Gannett to USA Todaybut Superhuman’s naming shift was by far the boldest. [Image: Superhuman] I expect this to be influential because Grammarly is extremely widely used today, but their name has always held them back a bit, Placek says. I think its a great call to action for companies to reflect on whether their brand name is stunting their growth and if so, to rebrand. Apple TV loses the + If Superhuman represents a major brand name swap done right, then Apple TV+s new identity as Apple TV, which was revealed in October, is an example of a small identity tweak that actually makes sense. [Images: Apple] When streaming first emerged as a new way to consume content, the Plus symbol became a ubiquitous way to let consumers know what kind of service a brand was offering. Today, though, streamers like Disney+ and Apple TV+ are recognizable without the extra punctuation tacked onso, Apple made the decision to simplify things by taking it out altogether. A month later, the company also unveiled a new Apple TV branding system created using practical effects. [Image: Apple] Matt Sia, executive creative director at the design firm Pearlfisher, says the update will have an impact on branding moving forward because it demonstrates a future-facing truth: when categories become cluttered, clarity becomes the differentiator. Instead of proliferating sub-brands and product names, adding bells, whistles (or ‘+’s), Apple pulled everything into one coherent idea, Sia says. He believes that consolidation will spark a wave of simplification across the industry, as others begin to question how they can reduce noise in their own positioning. Apple crafted an identity that feels more visceral and immediate. It doesn’t rely solely on software animation to convey emotion, but ensuring the logo, typography, and graphic system hold expressive power on their own, Sia says. Filming in an entirely practical way without relying on CGI sends a message that human touch and crafting experiences, using process and materials, still hold value. Gap gets its groove back This year, one iconic American company didnt rebrand in the traditional sense, but it did manage to completely turn its brand perception around: Gap, the apparel purveyor that, mere months ago, may have seemed like an outdated relic, but is now the fashion darling of Gen Zers everywhere. Gap x Sandy Liang [Photos: Gap] Gaps brand resurgence into the cultural lexicon this year wasnt a story of refreshing identity but one of reclaiming ethos, says Alexa DePasquale, head of strategy at the design agency CBX. The brand focused less on overhauling aesthetics and more on doing things in the world that doubled down on the core equities that once made it so iconic: essential silhouettes, American optimism, and visual language engrained in memory. Stand-out moves from Gap this year include aligning with Zac Posen, partnering with designer Sandy Liang, and bringing back the y2k jean through a collaboration with the pop group Katseye. All of these moves have resurrected the brand from the back of your childhood closet to the front of the cultural zeitgeist. Brands are recognizing that distinctiveness matters far more than novelty, and Gaps confident return to what only it can do proves why it is a staple, DePasquale says. Im loving the clarity that comes from the brands conviction to buck trends. More legacy brands will realize the power that comes from moving forward without abandoning the DNA that once made them inevitable.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||