1. The Impact of Medical KOLs on Tiktok

Medical KOLs on TikTok are often healthcare professionals (doctors, residents, nurses…) or medical students who share simplified health content. As early as 2021, there were an estimated 3.8 million healthcare professionals active on TikTok. Influencer doctors like Dr. Noc, Dr. Youn (plastic surgeon), and DermDoctor (dermatologist) each have millions of followers (source: everybodyagency.com), highlighting the public’s interest in medical voices on social media. Their videos cover a wide range of topics: prevention, explanation of diseases, debunking of treatments, personal testimonies, responses to viral health trends, etc.

This strong presence helps democratize medical knowledge. Some physicians manage to reach young audiences usually disconnected from traditional channels. For instance, medical student Joel Bervell became known as a « medical mythbuster », garnering over 140 million views with his educational videos tackling myths and inequalities in healthcare (source: aamc.org).

Others, like epidemiologist Katrine Wallace, use TikTok to debunk misinformation. Her account, aimed at reassuring the public during COVID-19, quickly gained 280,000 followers and actively combats conspiracy theories by directing viewers to reliable sources (CDC, health authorities) (source: healthline.com).

Through these KOLs, TikTok can serve as a platform for health education and even improve health literacy among some users.

However, their influence isn’t always positive. TikTok’s viral format (short, punchy videos) allows both accurate and misleading content to flourish. Alarmingly, health-related videos from non-health professionals receive five times more views on average than those by qualified creators (source: everybodyagency.com).

Researchers from the University of Chicago found that nearly 50% of the health videos analyzed on TikTok contained inaccurate information, most of it coming from non-expert influencers (source: biologicalsciences.uchicago.edu).

Algorithms prioritize engagement and sensationalism, enabling unproven tips or controversial opinions to go viral. For example, putting potatoes in your socks to “detox” your body may seem harmless, but other trends are dangerous, like drinking diluted borax (a detergent) as a supposed miracle cure, which is highly toxic (source: biologicalsciences.uchicago.edu).

The effects on public opinion and health behaviors are real. An increasing number of users take TikTok advice at face value. Nearly 1 in 5 young people say they trust health influencers more than their local medical professionals and turn to TikTok before visiting a doctor (source: everybodyagency.com).

Moreover, 33% of Gen Z prefer getting health information from TikTok and YouTube over their primary care physician (source: tell.health).

This trust stems from the approachable, relatable tone used by online KOLs, “it’s more accessible, affordable, and less judgmental,” report young users (source: everybodyagency.com).

But it can lead to poor health choices. In 2022, a survey showed 1 in 5 Americans consulted TikTok before seeing a doctor, and the same number trusted online advice more than their local health professionals (source: everybodyagency.com).

Users may change behaviors (e.g., taking supplements, asking for or dropping a treatment) based on viral videos.

In short, medical KOLs on TikTok are becoming new conduits of medical knowledge, with significant influence on public perceptions and health decisions. Their impact can be beneficial (raising awareness, destigmatizing mental health, sexuality, chronic illnesses…), but viral misinformation presents a major challenge. This double-edged nature of « MedTok » demands close monitoring by healthcare stakeholders.

2. Reputational Risks for Pharmaceutical Companies

The rise of TikTok as a medical forum has consequences for pharmaceutical companies and other healthcare stakeholders. Erroneous information or viral controversies can damage a product’s reputation in days. Even positive viral trends can spiral out of control, affecting product messaging and availability.

The Ozempic Case: A standout example is Ozempic, an injectable antidiabetic (semaglutide) with a side effect of weight loss. By late 2022, Ozempic became TikTok’s weight-loss darling, with videos promoting it as a “miracle drug”. The hashtag #Ozempic amassed over 600 million views (source: euronews.com).

Celebrities endorsed it, and thousands shared personal use stories, misusing a treatment meant for type 2 diabetes. The viral trend triggered a global off-label demand surge, leading to drug shortages.

By summer 2022, Ozempic appeared on the FDA’s essential drug shortage list, prompting health authorities in Australia and Europe to restrict prescriptions to diabetic patients (source: euronews.com).

Novo Nordisk acknowledged that social media-driven off-label use had worsened the shortage and invested $1.6 billion to boost production (source: mmm-online.com).

Despite efforts to clarify the drug’s official indication and ramp up supply, the company suffered reputational damage—accusations from diabetic patients, criticism for perceived prioritization of profit over patient health, etc. TikTok acted as a catalyst for a societal obsession with rapid weight loss, leaving the company struggling to contain the narrative.

Another reputational issue is the spread of negative or fear-based testimonials. For example, on TikTok, the most popular videos about IUDs (intrauterine devices) often highlight painful or problematic user experiences (source: medschool.duke.edu).

These emotional personal stories garner engagement and may deter potential users, creating distrust in a medically safe product. The manufacturer faces a subtle crisis: the product’s reputation is eroded not by data, but by public sentiment. During COVID-19, waves of misinformation (e.g., “ivermectin cures COVID,” “vaccines cause infertility”) emerged on TikTok, forcing companies and health agencies to issue debunking statements.

TikTok has also hosted dangerous medication-related challenges. One infamous example: the “Benadryl Challenge”, where teens ingested high doses of the antihistamine Benadryl to hallucinate and posted videos of it. In the US, several landed in the ER, and at least one died (source: drugfree.org).

In September 2020, the FDA issued a warning urging TikTok to remove these videos and highlighted the fatal risks of diphenhydramine overdoses (source: drugfree.org).

For Johnson & Johnson, Benadryl’s manufacturer, this was a PR nightmare, its product associated with a deadly social media trend. The company had to work with authorities to contain the crisis and remind users of the drug’s proper use. Other viral stunts include cooking chicken in NyQuil or using eye drops to whiten teeth—each time, TikTok exposes pharma companies to dangerous product misuse.

How are labs responding? Most are still in a learning phase. Some take legal or regulatory action (e.g., pressing TikTok to remove harmful content or alerting health authorities). Others launch communication campaigns to reassure the public and correct misinformation. When anti-vaccine content went viral, Pfizer and Moderna ramped up their online presence, explaining vaccine safety and supporting pro-science influencers. We’re also seeing a direct presence of pharmaceutical companies emerging on TikTok: 5 of the 25 largest pharmaceutical companies now have a verified TikTok account where they share patient stories, prevention messages, or behind-the-scenes footage (source: everybodyagency.com).

While promotion remains limited by regulations, their presence shows a growing recognition that the information battle happens on social media. Collaborations with credible KOLs are also emerging—some labs involve influencers in educational campaigns (e.g., dermatologists talking about skin conditions and treatments). Monitoring TikTok discussions helps labs anticipate emerging crises (such as sudden spikes in mentions of side effects or off-label use) and react promptly to protect their e-reputation.

3. Self-Prescription and Self-Diagnosis Under TikTok Influence

One of the harmful effects of TikTok’s popularity in health is the rise in self-diagnosis and self-medication. Users, especially young people, use TikTok as their primary health resource. A 2023 survey found that 1 in 3 Gen Z individuals consider TikTok their main health information source (source: healthline.com).

Without professional interpretation, this leads to misdiagnoses. TikTok users often describe symptoms and ask for crowd-sourced diagnoses in the comments, using hashtags like #ADHD or #anxiety. This led to cases where users self-identify as ill based solely on online content. During the pandemic, psychologists observed a rise in functional tics among teenage girls—symptoms mimicking Tourette syndrome after watching influencers with tics on TikTok. In fact, 100% of these patients had consumed such content. The hashtag #tourettes had over 5.2 billion views, creating a unique form of psychic contagion through screens (source: psychiatryonline.org)

TikTok is also flooded with “5 signs you have [X condition]” checklists. Be it ADHD, depression, or hypothyroidism, simplistic symptom lists prompt users to wrongly identify with a disorder. The double risk: missing a real diagnosis or taking inappropriate treatments. In the U.S., the rise of #ADHDTok paralleled an increase in stimulant prescriptions (Ritalin, Adderall), with some people obtaining them via telemedicine based on self-diagnoses—leading to shortages and health risks. A survey showed 9% of young people suffered health issues after following TikTok advice (source: healthline.com).

This includes drug interactions from folk remedies or delayed care, for example, someone treating heart symptoms as anxiety based on TikTok advice. TikTok also spread cheap “miracle” alternatives, like the “Budget Ozempic” trend, where creators suggested using over-the-counter laxatives for weight loss when Ozempic became scarce and expensive. This trend caused a laxative shortage in the U.S. in late 2023 (source: healthline.com).

Health experts warned this approach is dangerous, it causes dehydration, electrolyte imbalances, and heart rhythm problems. Yet the hashtag “budget Ozempic” went viral regardless. Other harmful trends include high-dose vitamin cocktails, unapproved supplements like berberine (called “natural Ozempic”), or high-dose vitamin cocktails — even though their actual effectiveness is questionable and their risks are poorly understood.

In other cases, TikTok encourages preventive self-medication: trends like “I take this medication when I have a headache or feel stressed” are spreading, normalizing the use of substances without medical advice. Some users internationally have started buying prescription medications online, influenced by testimonials on TikTok (for example, young women obtaining metformin for its supposed effects on skin and weight, or hormones without any medical supervision). These behaviors carry significant risks, uncontrolled side effects, dangerous interactions, dependencies, and more.

We’ve also seen anti-science movements, like “vaccine detox”, where TikTokers promote purges or iodine intake after getting vaccinated, which can be harmful and discourage proper vaccination. Another example is the emergence of an “anti-sunscreen community” on TikTok, where influencers advise against using any sunscreen in the name of “purity” or alleged chemical dangers. Dermatologists have had to step in to remind people that not protecting oneself from the sun dramatically increases the risk of skin cancer (source: wxyz.com).

These dangerous tips spread rapidly before they’re debunked — and in the meantime, they can reach millions of people.

Ultimately, TikTok’s influence on users’ medical decisions is a double-edged sword. While the platform can empower individuals to take an interest in their health (encouraging them to seek information and connect with others in similar situations), it can just as easily lead to self-prescription and false diagnoses with serious consequences. Healthcare professionals are expressing concern about seeing patients come in after starting inappropriate treatments or convinced they have a certain condition based solely on what they saw on TikTok. This trend highlights the urgent need to regulate the spread of reliable medical information online.

4. Why Digital Monitoring Is Essential for Healthcare Stakeholders – Recommendations

The examples above show that social media, especially TikTok, can rapidly influence a health product’s reputation, public trust, and even therapeutic behaviors. For pharmaceutical companies and health organizations, proactive digital monitoring is now essential:

• Early detection of weak signals: Good monitoring makes it possible to identify emerging topics related to a brand or therapeutic area early on. For example, spotting a hashtag in its early stages that links a medication to off-label use, or noticing a rise in negative stories about a treatment (side effects, fear of a vaccine, etc.). It’s better to be proactive than to react in a crisis: by monitoring TikTok, a pharmaceutical company could have detected the growing buzz around Ozempic and communicated earlier with healthcare professionals to prevent unjustified prescriptions. Similarly, detecting a dangerous challenge involving their product allows them to alert platform moderators before any accidents occur. Effective monitoring relies on tools (keywords, AI-based sentiment analysis) to scan relevant mentions on TikTok and other social platforms in real time.

• Crisis management and responsiveness: In the case of a confirmed bad buzz, the speed at which content spreads on TikTok demands an immediate response. It’s recommended to designate an internal “e-reputation” team, including both communications professionals and medical experts, ready to act 24/7. This team should develop a strategy adapted to the fast-paced format of social media: publishing an educational statement in the form of a short video or infographic, directly addressing users’ concerns in the comments, or even partnering with trusted influencers to amplify the correction. For example, during the “Benadryl Challenge,” an appropriate response could have been a TikTok from the brand’s official account or a partner pharmacist, explaining in one minute the dangers of antihistamine overdose (source: drugfree.org). What matters is setting the record straight on the same platform where the misinformation is spreading and providing a reassuring presence. Saying nothing means leaving the field open to rumors. Every pharmaceutical company should therefore have a digital crisis management plan built into their overall crisis communication strategy.

• Platform & regulator collaboration: Healthcare stakeholders would benefit from working hand in hand with TikTok and regulatory bodies. TikTok itself has a vested interest in not being seen as a hub for dangerous misinformation. In fact, the platform announced in 2023 that it would ban content promoting irresponsible weight loss (such as hashtags linked to off-label Ozempic use) and continues to strengthen its policies against medical misinformation (source: businessoffashion.com). Pharmaceutical companies can actively report illegal or misleading content related to their products and request its removal. In parallel, public-private partnerships are emerging: in 2024, the WHO launched an official collaboration with TikTok to produce verified content and counter health misinformation (source: who.int). Such initiatives also involve medical societies, health authorities (ministries, FDA, EMA, etc.), and even trustworthy health influencers. By joining these efforts, pharmaceutical companies demonstrate their commitment to providing accurate, helpful information to patients, a move that ultimately benefits their public image.

• Mobilize positive KOLs and educate: Rather than seeing KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders) as an uncontrollable threat, companies can turn them into allies. Supporting creators of reliable medical content, by providing them with high-quality scientific information, for example helps ensure that accurate messages are being shared. A pharmaceutical company might, for instance, invite doctor-influencers to visit its R&D centers or engage in discussions with in-house experts, so they can later explain a disease or innovative therapy on TikTok. This approach has two key benefits: it fills the media space with correct content and leverages the credibility and relatable tone of these KOLs to reach the public effectively. The WHO has already recognized this by creating its “Fides” health influencer network to promote evidence-based information (source: who.int). Similarly, a pharmaceutical company could build a panel of digital ambassadors, healthcare professionals or well-informed patients, trained on its products and ready to speak out online during times of controversy. When done ethically, this strategy helps restore balance in the conversation and counteract the influence of less responsible content creators.

• Transparency and continuous education: Finally, adopting a proactive presence on TikTok (or at the very least on the web) to explain how a medication works, its proper indications, and to answer frequently asked questions can help prevent many misunderstandings. A short official video explaining why a particular drug isn’t harmless and should only be prescribed by a doctor, or clarifying the true versus false uses of a treatment, can provide users with trustworthy reference points amid the flood of content. It’s important to use the language and codes of the platform, short videos, possibly with humor or educational challenges to capture the attention of the target audience. This kind of ongoing digital education is part of the social responsibility of healthcare companies in the age of social media.

In conclusion, the influence of medical KOLs on TikTok is an undeniable phenomenon that is reshaping the landscape of health information. Their content can just as easily support prevention and the spread of good practices as it can, unintentionally, promote risky advice or spark viral controversies.

For the healthcare industry, ignoring TikTok would be a mistake: it’s one of the spaces where the opinions of tomorrow’s patients are being shaped. An effective digital monitoring strategy combining technological tools and human insight is essential to anticipate trends, respond quickly to crises, and contribute to the conversation with expertise.

Pharmaceutical companies have every reason to invest in this space for dialogue, working hand-in-hand with healthcare professionals and platforms to promote a culture of reliable scientific information. As the WHO puts it, social media are now “important sources of information that influence health decisions” and it’s crucial to be part of that space to help ensure those decisions are as informed and safe as possible.

Take advantage of the Opinion Act by JIN’s expertise in digital monitoring and pharmacovigilance to stay ahead in this evolving landscape.

L’article The Influence of Medical KOLs on TikTok and the Impact on the Healthcare Industry est apparu en premier sur JIN, Agency in Europe (France, UK, Germany...).

Today, however, power seems to be caught up in a culture of immediacy. The performative deluge of rhetoric in the first 100 hours of Donald Trump’s presidency, as well as J.D. Vance’s speech in Munich, reveal a preference for urgency. According to this new American leadership, there is an imperative to assert dominance, to impose its agenda, whether political, economic, technological, or geopolitical, at breakneck speed.

The politics of speed

Disrupting the intellectual comfort of the “End of History”, transactional leadership has found its way into the gaps of liberal democracy, which had long remained complacent in an almost aristocratic vision of liberalism. The new modulus operandi is to act swiftly and decisively on unfolding events without restraint, care, or elegance.

Breaking with the virtue of moderation (which Albert Camus saw as an essential ethic for European pluralism), Trump cuts the Gordian knot of a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world–one that seems impossible to control. For him, anything is possible if one catches the world off guard and reduces political action to a business transaction.

The strategy is to become the director of a never-ending spectacle. This involves blending different communication techniques: Tony Blair’s agenda-setting tactics, linguistic triangulation to blur ideological lines, and the normalization of performative rhetoric to shape reality itself. 

Trumpist rhetoric primarily seeks narrative victories because everything depends on one core strategy: the rapid internalization of a new American imperialism. This is a form of narrative “blitsscaling”–a concept borrowed from the tech world, where speed is prioritized to dominate vast markets.

A possible backlash?

Mario Draghis’ February 19 speech in Brussels, the recent Macron-Trump meeting over Ukraine peace talks, and Friedrich Merz’s push for European defense autonomy all indicate that Europe has taken note of the Trumpist playbook.

But in the face of the dangers and violence of political speed, can Europe still hold on to its “quiet strength” when everything seems to be on the verge of collapse? On one side, we see a global show of American moral and military rearmament; on the other, Europe as the guardian of balance. However, resisting also means not rushing. It means knowing when to act, when to stay silent, when to prepare. Choosing the right timing across short-term, structural, and long-term scales.

Faced with an endless flood of information thrown around to control every agenda, the philosophy of Zeno, with its emphasis on moral fortitude, resilience, and constancy, might prove useful.

Already, words like “shutdown” and “recession” are surfacing in the American debate. Let’s not forget: Trump’s political theater is also playing out internally. Just one month after his inauguration, an Ipsos-Reuters poll already showed mixed American public opinion, particularly regarding the economy. Disruptions, uncertainties; this narrative of speed and dominance creates vulnerabilities that could ultimately turn against the United States.

Camille Fumard, Strategy Consultant & Special Advisor to President Edouard Fillias, JIN agency.

L’article The New American Political Playbook: Speed, Spectacle, and the Risk They Create est apparu en premier sur JIN, Agency in Europe (France, UK, Germany...).

The time has come to prove, with figures to back it up, the real impact of communication.’ Caroline Faillet, GM of JIN.

The Barcelona Principles: the foundations of communication evaluation

The International Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communication has established the Barcelona Principles, an internationally recognised reference framework to guide communication professionals in their evaluation processes. The Barcelona Principles 3.0, updated in 2020, focus on :

• Setting clear objectives: Planning, analysis and evaluation must be based on clear and measurable objectives.
• Distinguishing between different levels of results: It is crucial to differentiate between outputs (what is created and disseminated), outcomes (how messages are received), results (the changes brought about in stakeholders) and impact (the consequences of these changes for the organisation).
• The importance of considering all stakeholders: The evaluation must take into account the impact on stakeholders, society and the organisation.
• The combination of qualitative and quantitative measures: It is necessary to use a combination of quantitative data (figures) and qualitative data (perceptions, opinions) for a complete understanding.
• The abandonment of Advertising Value Equivalents (AVEs): AVEs are not considered a valid measure of the impact of communication actions.
• Measuring all channels: The evaluation must include all relevant channels, both online and offline.
• Integrity and transparency: Measurement must be conducted with integrity, recognising the need for transparency about context and potential bias.

These principles form the basis of any serious evaluation process are a reminder that measurement should not simply be a collection of data, but a source of learning and continuous improvement.

Overview of existing communication indicators

There are three types of indicator used in business communications, each with its own specific characteristics and limitations.

Indicators on the strategic objectives to be achieved (brand tracking, reputation monitoring, awareness)

• These indicators are derived from ad hoc studies carried out once or several times a year.
• They are described as strategic and easy to understand for General Management.
• They measure the long-term impact of actions, but are not actionable because they do not reveal the reasons why objectives are not achieved.
• They are top-down, as they use questionnaires to measure whether the public’s representation of the company is in line with expectations, by means of closed or open questions based on criteria determined in advance and therefore not spontaneous.

KPIs for actions taken :

• These indicators come from the agencies and are limited to spin-offs: media clippings (PR), reach and views (influencers), visitors and leads (websites), followers, fans and engagement (social networks), open rates and click-through rates (campaigns), and so on.
• They are considered to be operational rather than strategic, and therefore difficult for senior management to understand.
• They are considered actionable but within a family of levers (PR, websites, social networks, campaigns, emails) and are oriented by what the agency wishes to highlight.
• They are purely quantitative.
• As they do not take into account all the channels, they make it possible to monitor the actions carried out in each lever, but do not provide an overall view of the performance and contribution of the lever to the company’s overall objective.

Target behavioural data :

• This data comes from social listening, research and analytics tools: volumes of searches on the brand, volume of quotations from the brand, tone of voice on social network mentions, most visited sections on the site, number of forms filled in, and so on.
• They are both quantitative and qualitative, as they can also be used to track the spontaneous expressions of targets (verbatim, keywords most searched for on the site or on Google, etc.).
• They are considered to be technical, non-strategic and difficult for General Management to understand, apart from lead generation.
• This data is considered actionable, but within a family of contact points, and bottom-up because it provides insights to help decision-making.
• With the exception of e-commerce, where the bottom of the tunnel is conversion, these indicators do not provide an overall view of communication performance.

General limitations of current reporting

An analysis of these three categories of KPI highlights several important limitations:

• Lack of overall vision: Indicators are often compartmentalised by tool or by data source, preventing an overall view of communications performance.
• Difficulty in linking actions to impact: It is difficult to understand how the actions taken (the means) really contribute to achieving the strategic objectives (the impact).
• Vision too fragmented: Technical indicators do not provide a vision of the value and ROI of communication.
• Indicators that are too ‘top-down’ or ‘bottom-up’: strategic indicators are top-down, i.e. they only assess what you want to look at, whereas behavioural data are bottom-up, i.e. they only provide a source of insights without helping to guide action.

In summary, each of these three types of indicator has advantages, but also limitations that underline the need for a more integrated, strategy-led approach. The Impact Factor by Jin methodology seeks to fill these gaps by providing a more holistic and actionable view of communications performance, focusing on impact objectives and linking actions to results.

The Impact Factor approach: an innovative method

The Impact Factor, developed by JIN, offers an innovative approach to measuring the ROI of communications by structuring the strategy around an impact objective, sub-objectives and resources.

The originality of the Impact Factor lies in :

• An impact-focused approach: this allows you to move away from a vision limited to the tool and concentrate on concrete results.
• A structured method: this provides a clear framework for defining objectives, sub-objectives and resources, enabling communication initiatives to be better managed.
• Hybrid measurement: cross-referencing all sources of data for a global, multi-channel view of performance.
• The introduction of qualitative measurement: this uses artificial intelligence to create new types of indicators that are truly specific to the company and cannot be substituted, by working qualitatively on the messages and the reactions expected from the target communities.
• Insightful’ indicators: it also uses AI to create new indicators that are not limited to measuring performance, but also help to understand what is not working.
• A collaborative approach: its cross-functional approach and initial methodology ensure that all teams are aligned with the strategy and work together.

Impact Factor is an innovative solution for companies wishing to assess the ROI of their communication in a rigorous way, based on the Barcelona principles, relevant indicators and a structured approach. It’s time to move on from communication based on tool indicators to communication based on concrete results and impact on the organisation.

L’article ROI in communications: no more blurred KPIs, thanks to the Impact Factor est apparu en premier sur JIN, Agency in Europe (France, UK, Germany...).

Yet, amid this chaos, businesses appear surprisingly as beacons of stability. According to a recent 2024 study by Odoxa, 56% of French people now believe that businesses are the most capable of driving change. This expectation places corporate leaders in a key position: they are seen both as agents of transformation and as guiding figures for a society searching for direction.

However, this trust appears betrayed by a disconnect between business leaders’ concerns and public opinion. In fact, 60% of corporate leaders’ social media posts focus on environmental issues. While this topic is undeniably important, it ranks only ninth among the issues most discussed by the French public. Instead, online debates revolve around pressing topics such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the fight against the far right, and the taxation of superprofits.

So why, in an era that demands clear commitments to build trust, does the communication from business leaders seem to lack resonance?

Breaking free from corporate imperatives

Despite what is often suggested on social media, businesses are far from being universally despised. However, the way corporate leaders communicate online amplifies the perception of detachment. Their messages, often highly conventional, appear carefully crafted to align with institutional communication constraints or regulatory requirements.

A staggering 98% of executives’ posts adopt a positive, even overly positive tone, avoiding any strong stances. But this excessive optimism makes their statements feel hollow, stripping them of the impact needed to foster genuine engagement. In a world craving authenticity and sincere commitment, such sanitized messaging fails to connect.

Giving leaders back their voice by listening

A company, through the voice of its leader, must take action in response to civil society’s demands. So how can business leaders reinvent themselves to transcend corporate constraints and truly engage with contemporary concerns?

First, by addressing public expectations beyond economic or regulatory needs. French citizens want businesses to make real commitments, not just in response to financial imperatives. This trust places a greater responsibility on corporate leaders to demonstrate tangible actions that benefit society, whether to external audiences such as customers, partners, and civil society, or internal ones such as employees, who increasingly seek purpose-driven workplaces.

Second, by engaging in dialogue with communities. Communication is not just about broadcasting information in a one-way, top-down manner. Platforms like LinkedIn offer a unique opportunity to create authentic, constructive exchanges with various communities. Engaging in conversations within a company’s digital ecosystem helps leaders strengthen their role in society, showing that they respond to community expectations rather than simply following media-driven timelines.

Third, by choosing the right battles. No company can solve all the world’s problems, and no leader should attempt to comment on every issue. Instead, leaders should carefully select causes aligned with their company’s mission and champion them with clarity, relevance, and true engagement. A leader’s activism should be identifiable and legitimate, focused on issues where their voice and company can make a tangible impact.

The end of corporate-speak for business leaders

The era of corporate-style communication from executives is over. In a world where expectations for businesses have never been higher, leaders have a historic opportunity: to become true agents of change, aligned with public aspirations and fostering meaningful dialogue. We must not let this opportunity slip away.

Edouard Fillias, CEO of JIN agency, and Anne Le Brouster, Managing Director of the Leadership team at JIN

L’article Talking Without Meaning: Putting an End to Empty Corporate Speak from Executives est apparu en premier sur JIN, Agency in Europe (France, UK, Germany...).

Artificial intelligence is set to profoundly transform the communications professions, yet investment in this technology is struggling to keep pace. A study carried out by JIN in collaboration with E-CERCLE, a network of digital corporate communication professionals, highlights this paradox: although communication directors recognise the major impact of AI on their sector, few of them are allocating significant budgets to its adoption.

Rapid adoption but limited funding

Interviewed as part of this survey, communication directors from major French companies (CAC 40 and SBF 120) overwhelmingly acknowledge that AI is already having a significant influence on their business. 51% of respondents believe that the impact is strong or very strong, and 93% think that this technology will have repercussions at least as great as the arrival of the Internet.

Among the most widespread uses, content creation dominates (81% of respondents), followed by the design of strategies and creative elements (63%), and analysis and monitoring (52%). Communications professionals see it as a way of improving their productivity (63%), their creativity (48%) and the overall effectiveness of their organisations (26%).

Despite this growing awareness, the budgets allocated to AI remain limited. Only 30% of communication directors plan to significantly increase their investment in this technology, while 67% intend to do so more gradually.

An urgent need for training

Faced with the rapid growth of AI, companies are seeking to raise awareness and train their teams. To do this, they are relying on concrete use cases (93%), practical training (74%) and theoretical instruction (52%). However, a number of factors are still holding back the adoption of these tools, including security concerns (56%) and the time needed to train teams (44%).

According to Alexandre Villeneuve, co-founder of JIN, these obstacles are particularly visible in large groups, where technological and legal constraints are holding back the transition. He also highlights a major challenge: although communications directors are aware of the issues, employees at other hierarchical levels do not always perceive the importance of these transformations.

Challenges for effective deployment

While AI opens the way to greater creativity and productivity, it also raises ethical and strategic questions, particularly in terms of misinformation, content standardisation and transparency.

However, the study reveals that AI is not causing major concern among communications directors. On the contrary, it is fairly well accepted in the sector. The main reservation concerns the lack of investment, a surprising paradox: although managers are aware of the importance of AI, they are still reluctant to devote substantial budgets to it.

According to Alexandre Villeneuve, this reluctance could be explained by the speed of technological advances. ‘The advances in AI are so lightning-fast that companies don’t know where to place their investments’, he observes. For the time being, they prefer to wait and see rather than invest massively in this revolution.

But this caution could well prove risky in the long run. Without adequate investment, companies could find it difficult to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by AI, and find themselves lagging behind the competition.

L’article AI in communications: everywhere, but who’s prepared to pay? est apparu en premier sur JIN, Agency in Europe (France, UK, Germany...).

AI to revolutionize healthcare

The future of AI in healthcare aims to become an increasingly complex tool, harnessing ever more data. It will no longer be just a matter of making a diagnosis for a pathology, but of carrying out truly comprehensive assessments, combining imaging, medical biology, and no doubt connected health objects (such as ECG via the Apple Watch). Jean-Emmanuel Bibault, oncologist at Georges Pompidou Hospital, predicts that, very soon, medicine will be unable to understand the diagnoses provided by AI.

Some AIs are already capable of detecting breast or pancreatic cancers several years before they are likely to appear. Imagine the reaction of a patient who is told that an AI estimates that he or she has an 85% chance of developing a fatal cancer within two years, without medicine being able to explain how the AI arrived at this diagnosis. Just as mechanics plug in a computer to diagnose faults, doctors risk losing their central role in diagnosis. This is inevitable, as AI is already better at it. As Jean-Emmanuel
Bibault points out, AI diagnoses from clinical pictures with a success rate of 87%, while doctors achieve only 65%.

One specialized AI, DrOracle, even scored 97/100 on the US medical school exit exam (compared with 75 for ChatGPT-4). An impressive score, all the more so as it only takes around 70% to pass this exam.

Efforts are underway to improve AI transparency. Researchers are working on explainability techniques, aimed at making AI decisions more comprehensible to humans. These approaches often combine deep learning with expert systems, the latter operating on rules of causality defined by science. However, these solutions often constrain the potential of AI.

In the medical field, AI will be rigorously controlled by research and doctors themselves. But what about banks refusing a loan, recruiters dismissing a candidate, or schools rejecting an enrolment? Will they go to such lengths to control their AIs? In a context of permanent quest for productivity, nothing is less certain.

Our rights in the face of AI

Following the application of the RGPD (General Data Protection Regulation), a European regulation aimed at protecting the personal data of EU citizens that came into force in May 2018, the president of Italy’s main employers’ union had ironically stated “America innovates, China copies, Europe regulates”.

Under the impetus of its European Commissioner Thierry Breton (former Minister of the Economy under Jacques Chirac) the EU has further illustrated this new adage by being the first to regulate AI, demonstrating a certain reactivity and understanding of the stakes of AI in the future.

The IA Act to manage risks

The AI Act, which came into force in August 2024, defines 5 levels of risk: minimal, limited, general use, high and unacceptable. Minimal-risk AI includes technologies such as spam filters, voice assistants like Alexa and Siri, product recommendations, and machine translation. These tools are considered low-risk, and are not subject to any particular regulatory requirements.

However, AIs classified as limited, such as chatbots, content filters on social networks and content recommendations (Netflix, press…), must now be transparent about how they operate and how the data they process is used.

General-purpose AIs, which include advanced virtual assistants such as ChatGPT and predictive analytics platforms, are subject to more stringent requirements. These systems must implement rigorous risk management throughout their lifecycle, guarantee the quality and representativeness of the data used, and provide detailed technical documentation. Transparency is fundamental: users need to know that they are interacting with AI. In addition, human oversight must be built in to enable appropriate supervision, while levels of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity must be maintained at a high level to avoid errors and hacking.

High-risk AIs, used in sensitive sectors such as healthcare, education, recruitment, critical infrastructure management (power…), law enforcement and justice, are subject to similar but even stricter obligations. These systems must comply with rigorous standards to guarantee their security and fairness. Facial recognition for surveillance also falls into this category, underlining the need to regulate potentially intrusive technologies.
Finally, the unacceptable risk level prohibits AIs involved in subliminal manipulation (advertising, social networks, games…), social rating, and real-time biometric surveillance (facial recognition, but possibly also tattooing), with a few exceptions, such as investigations into kidnappings or terrorist threats. These restrictions are designed to prevent unregulated mass surveillance and protect individual freedoms.

Regulatory challenges in Europe

This legislation is part of a growing global trend to regulate emerging technologies. In the USA, debates on AI regulation are gaining momentum, but the country is taking a more innovation-led approach.

The AI Act could well become a model for other parts of the world seeking to regulate AI in a balanced way. It’s an important first step, but it can’t answer all the questions posed by the rise of artificial intelligence.

The speed of technological advances calls for adaptable and evolving regulation. This is because the AI Act leads to legal instability, which could slow down the development of AI on the continent. Apple has delayed the European launch of its Apple Intelligence product, and Meta has postponed the release of the latest version of its open-source LLama model.

Positive spirits see this as an opportunity for European companies like Mistral AI. Nevertheless, the question remains: will they be able to keep up with the pace of innovation while complying with strict rules that their foreign competitors are not obliged to follow?

The answer to this question may well determine the future of AI in Europe.

L’article Transparency and opacity of AI systems: what impact on our rights? est apparu en premier sur JIN, Agency in Europe (France, UK, Germany...).

Yet AI can be seen as an opportunity in the fight against online hate, where it is capable of unparalleled effectiveness. Today’s moderation systems are based on user reports and manual checks by teams that are often undersized. It is not unusual for a hate post to circulate for hours, or even days, before being deleted, giving thousands of people time to see it, share it and imitate it.

Artificial intelligence algorithms, by combining computing power and speed of analysis, offer unprecedented responsiveness compared with traditional human moderation methods. Major social media platforms and other online services already use sophisticated algorithms to identify and moderate hateful content, often in real time.

Riot Games and Google: early and striking examples

Riot Games, the company behind the popular video game League of Legends, is an early and prominent example of the use of AI to moderate online behaviour. Riot Games had developed a system called the Tribunal, where players could review reported cases of inappropriate behaviour, such as threats, racism, sexism or homophobia.

Players’ votes – over 100 million in total – were used to train an AI capable of detecting toxic behaviour. The results have been impressive, with a 40% reduction in verbal abuse since the programme was launched.

Another striking example of the potential effectiveness of AI is Google, which uses deep learning algorithms to moderate comments on YouTube. In 2020, the platform announced that its AI systems were able to detect 95% of content violating its rules before it was even reported by users. What’s more, the AI systems were able to remove more than 50% of hateful comments within 24 hours of publication. Despite this, Google was obliged to arbitrate, with the help of human staff, double the number of complaints about withdrawn content.

However, algorithms can sometimes misinterpret context, which can lead to false positives (innocent content marked as hateful) and false negatives (undetected hateful content). The subtlety of language and the use of roundabout terms complicate the task of AI systems. Furthermore, the effectiveness of algorithms varies between languages and cultures, making the uniform detection of hate speech even more complex.

The limits and ethical issues of automated moderation

A delicate balance must be struck between censoring hateful content and protecting freedom of expression. Incidents such as the censorship of Gustave Courbet’s painting ‘The Origin of the World’ by Facebook, which was mistakenly deemed pornographic, illustrate the risks of automated moderation.

To maximise the effectiveness of AI models, it is necessary to use larger and more diverse data sets and to develop advanced contextualisation techniques. The close integration of human moderators into the process of reviewing content flagged by AI is also essential, creating hybrid systems that combine the strengths of AI and human expertise. Facebook announced in 2021 the use of AI systems to filter problematic content, while maintaining teams of human moderators for the most complex decisions.

Transparency and regulation, essential conditions

Regular audits of moderation algorithms are necessary to identify and correct potential biases. It is also important to provide greater transparency on how algorithms make censorship decisions and to allow users to challenge these decisions. In the US, civil rights groups have called for greater transparency and accountability in the use of AI to moderate content, highlighting the risks of discrimination or unfairness.

In France, the fight against online hate has taken on a legal dimension with the Avia law, which obliges platforms to remove hateful content within 24 hours of it being reported. Although ambitious, this legislation has raised questions about the ability of platforms to respond effectively and the risks to freedom of expression. AI could offer a solution by enabling faster and more accurate detection of problematic content, but it must be used with discernment and framed by clear regulations. AI, if used responsibly and ethically, could well be the key to cleaning up digital environments.

It offers an unprecedented capacity for rapid reaction and precision of analysis, far surpassing traditional methods of human moderation. Ultimately, AI can play a central role in creating a calmer Internet. The examples of Riot Games, Google and the legal initiatives in France show that AI can provide effective solutions, but they must be applied sensibly to protect both the safety of users and their fundamental rights.

L’article Moderating with AI: blocking hate without undermining our freedoms? est apparu en premier sur JIN, Agency in Europe (France, UK, Germany...).