CIOs are grappling with how to leverage AI, but most are asking the wrong question. Its not about an AI strategy. Its about a business strategy powered by AI.
At Samsara, when we focused AI on clear business problems, we cut support chat volume by 59% with virtual agents, our IT help assistant auto-resolved 27% of tickets during the pilot, and engineers accepted about 40% of suggested code from AI code-assist, freeing teams to ship faster and tackle harder work.
My takeaway is that if you treat AI as a separate initiative, youll chase tools. If you treat it as leverage on a business KPI, youll create impact.
The VC Mindset: Investing in AI
My philosophy on AI investment mirrors how a Venture Capital firm manages its portfolio. While every investment should strive for success, organizations must adopt a portfolio mindset: expecting only 10% of AI pilots to yield a high return. This crucial insight is what drives a VC firm, and what should drive your AI funnel.
This means maintaining an active, well-fed funnel of AI investments. Working diligently to narrow this funnel through rapid pilots and experimentation allows businesses to move fast and fail quickly on small, contained experiments to find the few truly transformative applications.
This approach is crucial given the sheer volume of AI solutions available. The typical vendor evaluation process might involve vetting three or four key solutions. In the AI space, that number can balloon into the thousands. Applying a VC mindset allows us to efficiently triage and prioritize, focusing our resources where the potential business impact is highest.
Scaling AI Through Change Management
Investment is only half the battle. The most sophisticated AI tool is worthless if employees don’t use it effectively. Success demands a robust AI change management program that builds new organizational muscles.
1. Driving Adoption: A Top-Down and Bottom-Up Engine
True organizational change requires synchronized effort from the C-suite to the front lines. This is the top-down and bottom-up mandate for AI adoption.
Top-Down Commitment: This begins with the CEO and C-suite making AI a core business priority. At Samsara, two of our four company priorities are explicitly AI-relatedone focused on internal efficiency, and the other on product innovation. This executive mandate, championed by leaders like our CEO and reinforced through my partnership with our CFO, ensures AI initiatives are treated as strategic imperatives, not discretionary projects.
Bottom-Up Application: While CIO organizations are natural early adopters, the people best positioned to apply AI are those who live with the business problems dailyin supply chain, finance, sales, and operations. These colleagues have a nuanced, first-hand understanding of where AI tools can create the most value. And they can bridge this gap by empowering those teams to identify and lead implementation.
2. Scale Literacy with an AI Champions Network
To connect the top-level vision with bottom-up execution, businesses must actively cultivate AI literacy. At Samsara, weve implemented a two-pronged approach to ensuring that AI skills and uses are being scaled across our business.
AI Champions Network: Our AI Champions are a bridge to realizing our AI ambitions. We identify individuals across every function with a strong understanding of technologythe natural thought leadersand designate them as AI Champions. We give them concrete roadmaps for how to use AI in their specific function, making them evangelists who drive enablement and comfort within their teams.
General Education: We use channels like our daily Slack digest to deliver short, 5-minute to 10-minute lessons to provide general AI education and demystify the technology for all employees.
3. Frame AI as Partnership, Not Replacement
Any companys ethos on AI should be clear: AI wont replace people who embrace it. They should position these tools to their staff as partners that will better their teams and outputs, freeing them up for higher-value work.
As I alluded to above, for our R&D and BizTech teams, weve implemented AI Code Generator tools. Our teams accept, on average, over 40% of the prebuilt code suggested, accelerating development cycles and allowing them to focus on complex, innovative challenges.
On the service side, our use of AI chat agents has driven a 59% reduction in chat ticket volume in customer support, allowing staff to focus on complex issues. Similarly, our internal Generative AI-powered help assistant for the IT Help Desk resolved 27% of tickets with no human touch during the pilot, freeing up IT staff for strategic work.
The CIOs Evolving Role
In this new era, the CIO’s job is to stay intensely agile. They must mirror the companys need for external innovation with a commensurate drive for internal modernization.
The path to AI success is not paved with technology alone, but with strategic discipline and cultural transformation. The new CIO mandate is simple: Stay intensely agile. Mirror the companys need for external innovation with an equivalent drive for internal modernization. The path to AI success is not paved with technology alone, but with strategic discipline and cultural transformation. Stop chasing the latest platform and start asking: What is the core business problem we need to solve? Anchor your investments in quantifiable business value, embrace a venture-style portfolio approach to experimentation, and aggressively equip your employees to be partners of AI, not its victims. This shift from technology buyer to strategic portfolio manager is the key to enduring competitive advantage.
Across America, a new generation of farmers is reimagining what it means to work the land. They are engineers, ecologists, and entrepreneurspeople who see farming not only as a way to grow food, but as a form of innovation. In fields across the country, these farmers are harnessing soil science, biodiversity, and technology to restore what decades of extractive agriculture have depleted.
Their work represents one of the most powerful opportunities of our time: The opportunity to regenerate our planet from the ground up. Yet, the odds they face are immense. Land prices have soared, access to capital is limited, and isolation comes with choosing a career path few understand. Farmland continues to disappear, and for those eager to farm differently, access to resources and mentorship remains limited.
These farmers are proving that the next era of agriculture can be both economically viable and ecologically sound. They are experimenting with cover crops to build soil health, integrating renewable energy into operations, and rethinking distribution through community-based models. Their work underscores a truth we must all recognize: The future of farming depends on our ability to empower the people willing to reinvent it.
THE FUTURE OF REGENERATIVE FARMING
At Rodale Institute, weve seen firsthand how supporting beginning farmers can accelerate this transformation. Through training, mentorship, and research, weve helped growers adopt regenerative organic methods that improve soil biology, reduce chemical dependence, and restore carbon to the earth. But the broader movement must go further, requiring not only scientific innovation but cultural and corporate partnerships.
Thats why Rodale Institute and Davines Group have partnered to launch the second annual U.S. Good Farmer Award, a program recognizing beginning farmers and ranchers who have been in operation for 10 years or less and who embody environmentally responsible, community-focused, and forward-thinking agricultural practices.
The award honors individuals whose work demonstrates a profound respect for nature, fosters biodiversity, and strengthens their local communities. More than an accolade, the award reflects a global mindset shift where innovation is not just about new technology but about regenerating what sustains us.
In 2025, our U.S. inaugural winner, Clarenda Farmer Cee Stanley of Green Heffa Farms in North Carolina, showed us what this vision looks like in practice. Her herb and tea farm blends economic impact, education, and equity into a model of regenerative success. Shes a farmer, but also a mentor, an advocate, and a catalyst for change.
Her story, and those of farmers who will follow, remind us that progress doesnt always come from technology or policy. Often, it grows quietly in the soil, nurtured by people whose courage to plant seeds in uncertain times defines what regeneration really means.
WHY INVESTING IN NEW FARMERS IS ESSENTIAL
Investing in beginning farmers is essential to a more resilient and regenerative future worldwide. At first glance, it may seem unlikely that a beauty, skincare, and haircare company like the Davines Group shares our commitment and passion for supporting new farmers.
However, Davide Bollati, chairman of Davines Group, like us, sees regeneration as the next evolution of sustainability. It is not enough to minimize harm, but we must actively restore it. In a recent conversation, he shared that the protection and preservation of biodiversity are a cornerstone of our environmental strategy, alongside decarbonization, circularity, and water.
Like us, Bollati also sees an energy among young farmers who have the energy and the courage to innovate with an approach that considers the wellbeing of our planet.
Through The Good Farmer Award, in both Italy and the U.S., its about empowering the next generation of farmers to lead with empathy, intelligence, and creativity. The path forward must be multigenerational, inclusive, and rooted in community.
FINAL THOUGHTS
When Bollati and I met to prepare for the upcoming award application, he summarized our shared purpose perfectlyregeneration today is the only possible path to ensure a future for next generations, and for our planet.
It is farmers like our inaugural award winner, Clarenda Farmer Cee Stanley, who are embracing agriculture for a different quality, and a different pace of life where they can grow high-quality crops, use sustainable and regenerative practices to protect the soil, and connect others with limited access to farm-fresh products.
Jeff Tkach is CEO of Rodale Institute.
Paul Thomas Andersons One Battle After Another scored a leading nine nominations to the 83rd Golden Globe Awards on Monday, adding to the Oscar favorites momentum and handing Warner Bros. a victory amid Netflix’s acquisition deal.
In nominations announced from Beverly Hills, California, One Battle After Another landed nods for its castLeonardo DiCaprio, Teyana Taylor, Sean Penn, and Chase Infinitiand for Andersons screenplay and direction. Its competing in the Globes category for comedy and musicals.
Close on its heels was Joachim Triers Sentimental Value, a Norwegian family drama about a filmmaking family. The Neon releases eight nominations included nods for four of its actors: Stellan Skarsgrd, Renate Reinsve, Elle Fanning, and Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas.
The Globe nominations, a tattered but persistent rite in Hollywood, are coming on the heels of a potentially seismic shift in entertainment. On Friday, Netflix struck a deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery for $72 billion. If approved, the deal would reshape Hollywood and put one of its most storied movie studios in the hands of the streaming giant.
Warner Bros., Netflix, and the Golden Globes
Both companies are prominent in this year’s awards season. Along with One Battle After Another, Warner Bros. has Sinners, Ryan Coogler’s acclaimed vampire hit. It was nominated for seven awards by the Globes, including box office achievement, best actor for Michael B. Jordan, and Coogler for best director.
Netflix’s contenders include Noah Baumbach’s Jay Kelly (which landed nods for George Clooney and Adam Sandler), Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein (five nominations), and the streaming smash hit, KPop Demon Hunters. Arguably the most-watched movie of the year, the three nominations for KPop Demon Hunters included one for cinematic and box office achievementan oddity for Netflix, which typically gives its films only small, limited theatrical runs but found a No. 1 box office weekend in singalong screenings for the animated film.
The two studios led all others in nominations across film and television on Monday. Netflix landed 35 nominations, boosted by its expansive film slate and television nominees like the British limited series Adolescence (five nominations). Warner Bros. had 31 nominations, including 15 from HBO Max for series such as The White Lotus, the lead TV nominee with six.
The proposed deal for Warner Bros. has stoked concern throughout the industry that Netflix might devote one of the most theatrical-focused studios to streaming. Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has pledged a theatrical commitment to many Warner releases, but the leading trade group for exhibitors has called the deal an unprecedented threat. On Sunday, President Donald Trump said the market share created by the merger could be a problem, and Paramount said Monday it was mounting a hostile bid for Warner Bros.
Neon shines on a bad day for Wicked: For Good
Yet the studio that triumphed on the movie side of the Globe nominations was Neon. The indie specialty film company has emerged as a dominant force in international releases, winning a string of Palme d’Or awards at the Cannes Film Festival. It earned 21 nominations Monday, including five of the six international film nominees.
Some of those nominations came at the expense of some high-profile studio films. Wicked: For Good was nominated for five awards, including two nods for its songs and acting nominations for Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande. But it was overlooked for an award it was presumed to be in contention for: best comedy or musical.
The nominees instead were One Battle After Another, Yorgos Lanthimos’ Bugonia, Josh Safdie’s Marty Supreme, Park Chan-wook’s No Other Choice (a Neon release), and a pair of Richard Linklater movies in Blue Moon and Nouvelle Vague.
In the drama category, Chloé Zhao’s Hamnet scored six nominations, including nods for its stars, Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal. It was nominated for best film, drama, along with Frankenstein and three Neon titles: The Secret Agent, Sentimental Value and It Was Just an Accident.
Jafar Panahi’s It Was Just an Accident, the acclaimed Iranian revenge drama, was nominated for a total of four awards. At different times, Panahi has often been imprisoned, put under house arrest and prohibited from leaving Iran by the Islamic Republic while making films over the past two decades. Earlier this month, while traveling outside of Iran with the film, he was sentenced to a year in prison and a new two-year travel ban.
Podcasters and A-listers mingle
As the Globes continue to transition out of their scandal-plagued past, there’s one notable change this year. For the first time, the Globes are giving a best podcast trophy. The inaugural nominees are Armchair Expert With Dax Shepard, Call Her Daddy, Good Hang With Amy Poehler, The Mel Robbins Podcast, SmartLess, and NPR’s Up First.
Many of those nominees aren’t exactly outsiders to Hollywood. But they’ll mingle with a wide array of stars that the Globes, long known for packing their red carpet with A-listers, were sure to nominate.
Those include Timothee Chalamet, nominated for his performance in Marty Supreme, Jennifer Lawrence (Die My Love), Julia Roberts (After the Hunt), Tessa Thompson (Hedda), Jeremy Allen White (Springsteen: Delivr Me From Nowhere), Emma Stone (Bugonia), Ethan Hawke (Blue Moon) and the two stars of The Smashing Machine, Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt.
After a series of controversies for the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the group that previously put on the ceremony, the Globes were sold in 2023 to Todd Boehly’s Eldridge Industries and Dick Clark Productions, a part of Penske Media. A new, larger voting body of more than 300 people now vote on the awards, which moved from NBC to CBS on a shorter, less expensive deal.
Nikki Glaser is returning as host to the Jan. 11 Globes, airing on CBS and streaming on Paramount+. This past January, Glaser won good reviews for her first time emceeing the ceremony. Ratings were essentially unchanged, slightly dipping to 9.3 million viewers, according to Nielsen, from 9.4 million in 2024.
Helen Mirren will receive the Cecil B. DeMille Award in a separate prime-time special airing Jan. 8. Sarah Jessica Parker will be honored with the Carol Burnett Award.
Jake Coyle, AP film writer
Joshua Aaron, the developer of the ICE agent tracking app ICEBlock, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice and ICE for unconstitutionally pressuring Apple to remove the app from its App Store.
Apple pulled ICEBlock in early October after Justice Department officials contacted the company claiming that the app enables users to evade immigration raids and endangers ICE agents. The app, which has more than a million downloads, gives users notifications when ICE agents are nearby, and allows users to anonymously report the location of ICE agent activity, but only if they are located in the same area. Aarons lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks reinstatement of the app, plus appropriate damages. The case could reshape how tech platforms handle government requests, particularly when those requests come without formal warrants or court orders.
The developer argues the app simply facilitates sharing of public information, similar to community apps that track traffic or weather. The lawsuit claims Attorney General Pam Bondi and other officials violated Aarons rights by forcing the apps removal without a court order.
The goal is pretty simplewere hoping to set a precedent that says not only is ICEBlock protected by the First Amendment but they cannot come after me and threaten me as they’ve been doing over the past year, Aaron tells Fast Company. If successful, the lawsuit could prevent the Justice Department or other federal agencies from depriving other lawful apps of distribution in the future.
The ICEBlock app removal may be a case of an unconstitutional government tactic known as jawboning, in which a government official uses their official capacity to pressure a private sector entity to do something. In another recent example of the practice, FCC chairman Brendan Carr used an implicit threat of regulatory entanglement to pressure ABC and its affiliates to drop Jimmy Kimmels Kimmel Live show.
Bondi may have admitted, in public, to jawboning, when she spoke on Fox Digital the night after Apples removal of ICEBlock on October 2, 2025. We reached out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app from their App Storeand Apple did so, Bondi declared, according to the lawsuit.
With this admission, Attorney General Bondi made plain that the United States government used its regulatory power to coerce a private platform to suppress First Amendment-protected expression, the suit states. Bondi again boasted of the ICEBlock take-down during a congressional oversight hearing two days later.
But it may take more than Bondis public statements to prove that the government violated the First Amendment. The EFF, a digital rights group, recently filed suit to compel the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to release documentation of their communications with Apple and other tech platforms that led to the app removals.
Meta removed a Facebook group with 80,000 members called ICE Sighting-Chicagoland at the request (or demand) of the government. Chicago residents had been using the apps to warn neighbors when the masked federal agents were near area schools, grocery stores, and other community locations. Google removed an ICE tracking app called Red Dot from its Google Play store, saying the app violated its policy against apps that share the location of what it describes as a vulnerable group.
Large tech companies have largely overlooked the authoritarian tendencies of the Trump administration, choosing instead to appease and coddle it, and capitulate to its demands. The tech industry is engaged in investing trillions in AI, and wants the administration to continue hobbling the governments normal regulation and oversight.
Precedent may be on Aarons side. There is a long history that shows documenting law enforcement performing their duties in public is protected First Amendment activity, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Mario Trujillo tells Fast Company. The government acted unlawfully when it demanded Apple remove ICEBlock, while threatening others with prosecution.
Reuters reported that members of the House Homeland Security committee argued in a letter to tech companies that free speech does not protect incitement to lawless action, and called on them to explain how they vet and monitor such content.
Apple cited its App Store guidelines prohibiting content that poses “safety risks” as justification for the removal, but critics argue the vague policy allows for arbitrary enforcement influenced by government pressure. As AppleInsiders Wesley Hilliard points out, the App Store carries the Waze and Apple Maps apps, both of which allow users to post information about nearby traffic enforcement personnel.
On December 5, the entertainment world was rocked when Netflix and Warner Bros. announced a massive deal that set Netflix up to purchase the legendary Hollywood studio, creating one of the largest media entities of all time. Today, Paramount Skydancewhich has been vying for Warner Bros. for monthsappears to be saying, Not so fast.
Paramount Skydance, the David Ellison-led company fresh off of its own merger earlier this year, has been circling around a potential buyout of Warner Bros. Discovery (Warner Bros. parent company) since at least September. Last week, it appeared that Netflix was swooping in to snatch a large part of the deal. And now, Paramount Skydance has countered with a hostile takeover bid to secure Warner Bros. Discovery once and for all. Heres everything you need to know about the saga and whats at stake.
Whats the backstory?
Back in early September, initial reports emerged that Paramount Skydance was preparing a bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, one of its rivals. The following month, Warner Bros. Discovery confirmed that it was open to a potential sale in a press release, sharing that it had received unsolicited interest from multiple parties for the entire company. Paramount Skydance and Netflix were two of the top contenders identified for the deal.
In late October, Reuters reported that Ellisons initial $60 billion approach offer was rejected by Warner Bros. Discovery, though analysts still pegged Paramount Skydance as the most likely victor in the bidding wars.
Then, on December 5, Netflix and Warner Bros. came forward to announce a deal in which Netflix would purchase the legendary Hollywood studio, along with its HBO Max and HBO divisions, for a total enterprise value of approximately $82.7 billion (which Netflix says has an equity value of $72 billion).
The agreement came after Warner Bros. Discovery announced this summer that it would split the current company into two, with the newly created companies owning its Streaming & Studios assets and Global Networks divisions, respectively. Through the proposed acquisition, Netflix would be buying the Streaming & Studios company that will spin off from Warner Bros. Discovery next year. Paramount Skydance, on the other hand, had expressed interest in buying all of Warner Bros. Discoverys assets.
How did people react to the Netflix deal?
Experts say that the colossal Netflix-Warner Bros. deal would give the worlds largest streaming service access to a giant library of valuable IP, including the Harry Potter film franchise, the DC Universe, Barbie, and more.
The proposed deal sparked immediate concerns that Netflix might gain too much of a monopoly within the entertainment industry, potentially allowing the company to bump up its subscription prices. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren called the deal an anti-monopoly nightmare in a statement. It would create one massive media giant with control of nearly half of the streaming marketgiving Americans fewer choices over what and how they watch, and putting American workers at risk, she wrote on X.
Another notable commentator was President Trump, who said on December 7 that the deal could be a problem because of the size of the combined market share.
What’s happening now?
Now, it seems that the Netflix deal could be on shaky ground.
On December 8, Paramount Skydance announced that it would go straight to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders with an all-cash, $30-per-share offer that equates to an enterprise value of about $108.4 billion. Warner Bros. Discovery reportedly rejected the deal last week, but now its investors will get a chance to weigh in. This tactic is called a hostile takeover bid, and its intended to put pressure on a target company by recruiting its shareholders on the side of the deal.
Were really here to finish what we started, Ellison told CNBC this morning. He added: Were sitting on Wall Street, where cash is still king. We are offering shareholders $17.6 billion more cash than the deal they currently have signed up with Netflix, and we believe when they see what it is currently in our offer, thats what theyll vote for.
At this point, the deal is in limbo as shareholders react to Ellisons new offer. And, no matter which company comes out victorious, the acquisition is likely to face regulatory fights to determine whether the megamerger truly represents a media monopoly.
For global companies, Africas promise has long been tempered by a persistent operational myth: that the continent is not ready for complex business. The reality is different, however. The barrier isn’t a lack of demand, but the inability of traditional global systems to handle Africas unique financial landscape.
Nearly 400 million African adults remain on the fringes of the formal financial system, yet digital adoption is exploding. The conversation has decisively shifted from basic financial access to a more critical question: How can multinationals efficiently manage their core operations like paying suppliers, collecting revenue, and moving money across borders, in such a complex environment?
WHY AFRICAN FINTECH IS THE SOLUTION
Global payment giants are built for standardized, mature markets. African fintech companies have grown from basic payment services into essential partners. Their key strength is building the specialized digital backbone that businesses need to operate.
The most important work of African fintech isn’t consumer-facing. Today, it’s happening behind the scenes, where it solves two fundamental problems at once: domestic fragmentation and global isolation.
Internally, their platforms help large companies easily pay hundreds of suppliers across different African countries at once, in local currencies. Externally, they are building the rails for African businesses to trade with the world. For instance, they provide a secure infrastructure for African merchants to pay or receive payments from a partner in East Asia. This dual capability avoids the delays, high fees, and headaches of old systems, keeping supply chains running smooth.
African fintech systems are crucial for global money transfer companies, allowing them to send payments directly to people anywhere, even remote areas, not just major cities. This same technology is also built into key industries like agriculture and logistics. It provides instant payments to farmers and handles complex freight payments, solving critical cash flow problems for businesses. This is not e-commerce, this is the essential financial plumbing for Africa’s real economy.
The role of regulators has also evolved. Its no longer just about enabling data sharing. Progressive regulators are now collaborating with fintechs to design cross-border payment frameworks and digital identity systems that secure high-value B2B transactions. This proactive engagement is creating a more stable and predictable environment for large-scale investment.
Similarly, deep integration with telcos goes beyond consumer mobile money. It’s about leveraging vast agent networks and mobile penetration to create secure, corporate-grade channels for business operations, from distributing payroll to settling invoices with small-scale retailers.
The data underscores this shift. According to the GSMA’s 2025 report, Africa processed $1.1 trillion in mobile money value in 2024, accounting for 66% of the global total. Digital payments in Africa are growing rapidly, with transaction values expected to continue their strong upward trajectory. But the real story is in the nature of these transactions: Increasingly, they are sophisticated, high-value B2B flows.
Multinationals must now strategically partner with African fintechs to succeed. This is crucial for their proven pan-African networks and deep understanding of local rules and markets. The future of business on the continent will be built on this connected infrastructure. By working with these fintechs, global companies aren’t just overcoming a barrier; they are plugging into Africa’s most powerful driver for growth.
Olugbenga GB Agboola is founder and CEO of Flutterwave.
Miami Art Week usually exists behind invisible velvet ropes. It is a place where private dinners, celebrity walkthroughs, and invitation-only installations dominate the social landscape.
But this past week, Capital One tried something unusual. It opened one of Art Weeks most insular cultural moments to people who are not part of the traditional art world by giving its cardholders access to the kind of programming that normally requires a personal invitation, using Art Week not simply as a cultural stage but as a strategic laboratory for understanding what premium consumers now expect from financial brands.
The brand’s presence featured a collaboration with artist Alex Prager and global arts agency The Cultivist, centered on Mirage Factory, a cinematic installation that functioned as both an artwork and an access vehicle. The activation also included a performance by Diana Ross, a signal of the caliber of entertainment Capital One was willing to attach to its premium ecosystem.
Taken together, these elements demonstrated how the brand is positioning itself inside a broader evolution of the credit card rewards market. Once defined primarily by points, cashback, and lounge access, the premium category has shifted toward cultural relevance and emotional differentiation, especially among younger affluent customers.
Capital One presented the activation as an example of what premium now means in a market where loyalty is shaped not only by earn rates, but by identity, affiliation, and what a customer feels their card allows them to experience.
Turning a cultural moment into a loyalty engine
Prager describes Mirage Factory as an immersive reflection of Los Angeles mythology and the machinery of Hollywood dreams.
“The Mirage Factory allows visitors to escape into the dreamlike world of Los Angeles, to experience a heightened, fabricated vision that celebrates the artifice of the city and the dreams that built it” Prager explains. “It evokes the spirit of Golden Age Hollywood, a cinematic fantasy of nostalgia, glamour, and illusion.”
The installation was open to the public for a limited time, but the most valuable components were reserved for Capital One cardholders. Those included a multi course dinner staged inside the installation and a second evening of bespoke programming. For select attendees, the activation also included access to the Diana Ross performance, a tier of cultural exclusivity that has become increasingly common as credit card issuers compete through experiential differentiation.
[Photo: Daniel Seung Lee, courtesy Capital One]
From a business perspective, the shift reflects competitive dynamics that now extend far beyond traditional rewards. The premium card category has evolved into an arms race of cultural touchpoints.
American Express, Chase, and Capital One are all investing in curated events, access-driven partnerships, and high-touch hospitality in an attempt to cultivate deeper emotional loyalty. In this context, a single moment like Mirage Factory becomes a test case for understanding what customers are willing to pay for and which experiences actually change brand perception.
Lauren Liss, Capital One’s Senior Vice President of Premium Products and Experiences, noted that the companys premium portfolio is now its fastest growing segment, driven in part by demand for experiences that feel both elevated and low friction.
She explained that Capital One evolved from a really small company that issued credit to customers overlooked by traditional banks to a firm that identified a gap in the market.
There were premium credit cards that were out there, but a lot of folks were saying they weren’t for them. They wanted something that was simple, straightforward, easy to use, had the rewards, but also had things that were tailored to great experiences, she said. Both that value and the access.
[Photo: Daniel Seung Lee, courtesy Capital One]
The company now runs more than 300 branded experiences per year. Liss said the measure of success is straightforward.
I’d say the best measurement is that our customers love it. The sellout rate is well over 90 percent, she said. Even if I’m not going now, it’s really cool that I have these types of options or offerings for the future.
Why a financial brand is investing in art world authenticity
For Capital One, credibility in cultural spaces depends on its partners. The Cultivist plays a central role in ensuring these activations feel artist-led rather than brand-driven.
Cultivist cofounder Marlies Verhoeven Reijtenbagh said the firm began as a non-commercial art membership club and expanded into a consultancy that connects artists, institutions, and brands in ways that protect artistic integrity.
We realized that a lot of brands wanted to work in the art world, and that we could help them do it in a way that felt very authentic, because we saw a lot of brand activations that maybe were a bit more pasted on, she said.
Working with Capital One, she added, is structurally different from working with other financial firms because the company brings a unified internal strategy to the table.
When I work with big brands, especially big corporate financials, it often feels like little fiefdoms that have their own individual goals, she said. This is very different.
Authenticity is especially important because the credit card industry has entered a phase where premium customers judge brands as much by cultural fluency as financial benefits. Integrations that appear superficial can erode trust faster than a weak earn rate. But Capital Ones approach reflects an understanding that cultural participation must feel native, not opportunistic.
The economics f premium dining inside a branded art experience
Capital One also expanded its culinary strategy at Art Week. The exclusive dinner inside Mirage Factory was led by chef Dave Beran, whose Michelin-starred restaurants are known for narrative-driven menus.
[Photo: Daniel Seung Lee, courtesy Capital One]
High-touch experiences like this operate at the top of what Capital One executives describe as an access pyramid. Some events serve thousands of cardholders through presales or reserved ticket inventory. Others, like the Mirage Factory dinner, serve a few dozen. Both are strategically important, but they generate value in different ways.
Monica Weaver, Head of Branded Card Partnerships and Experiences, said the system is designed to give customers multiple pathways into the cultural sphere.
We think about it in this pyramid where there are certain events that are bucket list, and those are fewer. Then there are exclusive experiences, and then there is a broader tier which is reserved access to certain things, she said.
Capital One has built out these layers through Capital One Entertainment, which blends proprietary events with the full Vivid Seats inventory. Customers redeem rewards for both bucket list and everyday experiences.
This reflects a broader shift in rewards behavior. Points are no longer perceived as a savings mechanism. They function as a form of stored access, a currency customers convert into identity-defining moments.
Expanding influence beyond the gallery walls
This year, the company also extended its Art Week presence into The Shelborne By Proper, a historic Art Deco hotel that became a branded retreat for Venture X and Venture X Business cardholders. Through the Premier Collection, stays included breakfast credits, upgrades when available, and property-wide programming tied to the Mirage Factory concept.
There were daily Golden Hour gatherings, wellness events, and nightly sound sessions. The programming allowed Capital One to shape not just a single event but the full customer journey across the Art Week environment.
In premium banking, this kind of journey-mapping is becoming a central competitive tool. Every moment becomes a data point in understanding what customers value.
Weaver framed the partnership as a broader strategic move.
Our partnership with The Cultivist and debut of Alex Pragers Mirage Factory redefines what immersive premium access means at Art Week in Miami, she said.
Ami Vedak, who leads Small Business Acquisitions for Business Cards and Payments, added that the events resonated strongly with small business owners, many of whom view premium card perks as tools for client entertainment and business growth.
You hear about Art Week in Miami a lot. It is in the press a lot. Even me as a regular person, I did not necessarily know how to access it, she said. Small business owners are people too. They want opportunities to immerse themselves in art and culture.
A financial company positioning itself as a culture brand
Capital Ones activation fits a broader industry trend, in which financial institutions compete for high-value customers by offering cultural access that cannot be replicated by earn rates alone.
In that landscape, a Diana Ross performance, an immersive art environment, and a curated hotel program are not aesthetic add-ons. They are strategic assets in a loyalty economy where emotional differentiation drives retention.
For a brief moment, the boundaries around one of the most exclusive weeks in American culture shifted. Access depended not on a relationship with a gallery, but on whether a visitor carried a specific card. For Capital One, that shift was less about a single week, and more about building a long-term competitive strategy rooted in cultural relevance rather than commodity rewards.
Massachusetts’ highest court heard oral arguments Friday in the state’s lawsuit arguing that Meta designed features on Facebook and Instagram to make them addictive to young users.
The lawsuit, filed in 2024 by Attorney General Andrea Campbell, alleges that Meta did this to make a profit and that its actions affected hundreds of thousands of teenagers in Massachusetts who use the social media platforms.
We are making claims based only on the tools that Meta has developed because its own research shows they encourage addiction to the platform in a variety of ways, said State Solicitor David Kravitz, adding that the state’s claim has nothing to do the company’s algorithms or failure to moderate content.
Meta said Friday that it strongly disagrees with the allegations and is confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people. Its attorney, Mark Mosier, argued in court that the lawsuit would impose liabilities for performing traditional publishing functions and that its actions are protected by the First Amendment.
The Commonwealth would have a better chance of getting around the First Amendment if they alleged that the speech was false or fraudulent, Mosier said. But when they acknowledge that its truthful that brings it in the heart of the First Amendment.
Several of the judges, though, seem to be more concerned about Meta’s functions, such as notifications, than the content on its platforms.
I didn’t understand the claims to be that Meta is relaying false information vis-a-vis the notifications but that it has created an algorithm of incessant notifications … designed so as to feed into the fear of missing out, fomo, that teenagers generally have, Justice Dalila Wendlandt said. That is the basis of the claim.
Justice Scott Kafker challenged the notion that this was all about a choice to publish certain information by Meta.
It’s not how to publish but how to attract you to the information, he said. It’s about how to attract the eyeballs. It’s indifferent the content, right. It doesn’t care if it’s Thomas Paine’s Common Sense or nonsense. It’s totally focused on getting you to look at it.”
Meta is facing federal and state lawsuits claiming it knowingly designed featuressuch as constant notifications and the ability to scroll endlesslythat addict children.
In 2023, 33 states filed a joint lawsuit against the Menlo Park, California-based tech giant, claiming that Meta routinely collects data on children under 13 without their parents consent, in violation of federal law. In addition, states, including Massachusetts, filed their own lawsuits in state courts over addictive features and other harms to children.
Newspaper reports, first by The Wall Street Journal in the fall of 2021, found that the company knew about the harms Instagram can cause teenagers especially teen girls when it comes to mental health and body image issues. One internal study cited 13.5% of teen girls saying Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse and 17% of teen girls saying it makes eating disorders worse.
Critics say Meta hasn’t done enough to address concerns about teen safety and mental health on its platforms. A report from former employee and whistleblower Arturo Bejar and four nonprofit groups this year said Meta has chosen not to take real steps to address safety concerns, opting instead for splashy headlines about new tools for parents and Instagram Teen Accounts for underage users.
Meta said the report misrepresented its efforts on teen safety.
___
This story has been corrected to show one of the justices is called Justice Dalila Wendlandt, not Wendland.
Michael Casey, Associated Press
Associated Press reporter Barbara Ortutay contributed to this report.
President Donald Trump is planning a $12 billion farm aid package, according to a White House official a boost to farmers who have struggled to sell their crops while getting hit by rising costs after the president raised tariffs on China as part of a broader trade war.
According to the official, who was granted anonymity to speak ahead of a planned announcement, Trump will unveil the plan Monday afternoon at a White House roundtable with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, lawmakers, and farmers who grow corn, cotton, sorghum, soybeans, rice, cattle, wheat, and potatoes.
Farmers have backed Trump politically, but his aggressive trade policies and frequently changing tariff rates have come under increasing scrutiny because of the impact on the agricultural sector and because of broader consumer worries.
The aid is the administrations latest effort to defend Trumps economic stewardship and answer voter angst about rising costseven as the president has dismissed concerns about affordability as a Democratic hoax.
Upwards of $11 billion is set aside for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farmer Bridge Assistance program, which the White House says will offer one-time payments to farmers for row crops.
Soybeans and sorghum were hit the hardest by the trade dispute with China because more than half of those crops are exported each year with most of the harvest going to China.
The aid is meant to help farmers who have suffered from trade wars with other nations, inflation, and other market disruptions.
The rest of the money will be for farmers who grow crops not covered under the bridge assistance program, according to the White House official. The money is intended to offer certainty to farmers as they market the current harvest, as well as plan for next year’s harvest.
China purchases have been slow
In October, after Trump met Chinese leader Xi Jinping in South Korea, the White House said Beijing had promised to buy at least 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans by the end of the calendar year, plus 25 million metric tons a year in each of the next three years. Soybean farmers have been hit especially hard by Trumps trade war with China, which is the worlds largest buyer of soybeans.
China has purchased more than 2.8 million metric tons of soybeans since Trump announced the agreement at the end of October. Thats only about one quarter of what administration officials said China had promised, but Bessent has said China is on track to meet its goal by the end of February.
These prices havent come in, because the Chinese actually used our soybean farmers as pawns in the trade negotiations, Bessent said on CBS Face the Nation, explaining why a bridge payment to farmers was needed.
During his first presidency, Trump also provided aid to farmers amid his trade wars. He gave them more than $22 billion in 2019 and nearly $46 billion in 2020, though that year also included aid related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Trump has also been under pressure to address soaring beef prices, which have hit records for a number of reasons. Demand for beef has been strong at a time when drought has cut U.S. herds and imports from Mexico are down due to a resurgence in a parasite. Trump has said he would allow for more imports of Argentine beef.
He also had asked the Department of Justice to investigate foreign-owned meat packers he accused of driving up the price of beef, although he has not provided evidence to back his claims.
On Saturday, Trump signed an executive order directing the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission to look at anti-competitive behavior in food supply chains including seed, fertilizer and equipment and consider taking enforcement actions or developing new regulations.
___
An earlier version of this story incorrectly attributed the connection to tariffs to a White House official.
Seung Min Kim, Josh Funk, and Didi Tang, Associated Press
Associated Press writers Michelle L. Price, Bill Barrow, and Jack Dura contributed to this report.
Planner vs. Engineer is a well-known professional rivalry in the infrastructure world. The arguments are sometimes friendly, sometimes hostile, sometimes about important issues, sometimes insignificant. Im in a peculiar spot because of my career as a plangineer. My parents helped me buy a civil engineering degree, but several years into my career, I bought the certified planning certificate. I know the two camps very well.
The roundabout question
Roundabouts are one of the many Planner vs. Engineer debates, and it happens to be a very important issue where emotions cloud good judgment. As much as I criticize the engineering profession, they are generally correct on this one. But that wasnt always the case.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the status quo transportation engineering community believed wholeheartedly that roundabouts were not only good, but were silly, dangerous, would lead to gridlock, couldnt be understood by American drivers, etc. The primary reasons for opposing roundabouts and defending traffic lights (the typical alternative) were speed and delay. That is, if an intersection design slowed down vehicles, that was bad. If there was real or perceived delay for drivers at intersections, that was bad.
{"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"","headline":"Urbanism Speakeasy","description":"Join Andy Boenau as he explores ideas that the infrastructure status quo would rather keep quiet. To learn more, visit urbanismspeakeasy.com.","substackDomain":"https:\/\/www.urbanismspeakeasy.com\/","colorTheme":"green","redirectUrl":""}}
The status quo certified planners, spotting a thing engineers hated, praised the thing. Their reasons for supporting roundabouts included their function as a community gateway, a traffic calming feature, an environmentally sustainable design, and something that wasnt so car-oriented like seemingly everything else dreamt up by traffic engineers.
But in the 2000s, a fringe group of practitioners and academics who were claiming that roundabouts were [Gasp!] actually good started growing in numbers. Case studies were repeatedly finding the same results: roundabouts dramatically reduced vehicle speeds, reduced crashes, maintained or reduced overall travel time, and made it safer for pedestrians to cross the street.
When the engineers became pro-roundabout, the planners became roundabout skeptics or flat out anti-roundabout. I lived through this transition. It was wild to behold.
Modern roundabouts have been proven to be the safest form of at-grade intersection, and the most common claim from skeptics is but cars dont stop at roundabouts, so they must be dangerous for pedestrians. That seems like a reasonable explanation, but its wrong.
There are two reasons pedestrians are safer at roundabouts: slower vehicle speeds and shorter crossing distances.
[Photo: WendellandCarolyn/iStock/Getty Images Plus]
Speed is the difference between life and death
Speed is the fundamental factor in crash severity. The difference between a person struck at 45 MPH (the standard American arterial speed limit) and one struck at 20 MPH (the standard design speed at a roundabout) is the difference between death and life.
Roundabout geometry forces drivers to slow down. Even on a high-speed road, roundabouts are designed to slow approaching vehicles. Once drivers enter the circle itself, speeds drop even lower, giving them ample time to yield to people in crosswalks on the exit leg. The physical design of the roundabout makes speeding through nearly impossible. When drivers are moving slowly, they have time to see pedestrians, react, and stop.
Shorter crossings are safer crossings
Multi-lane roads get even wider at intersections, with multiple left-turn and right-turn lanes added to process vehicle queues during each signal cycle. Without these additional lanes, traffic would back up to adjacent signals. For pedestrians, this means crossing not just two lanes but potentially six or more, with threats coming from all directions. The longer pedestrians remain exposed to moving vehicles, the greater their risk.
Turn lanes extend hundreds of feet before intersections, meaning a series of signalized intersections produces bloated corridors between them. These wide corridors invite speeding, and speeding leads to more severe crashes. Roundabouts eliminate the need for long turn lanes in every direction. Without them, the corridors between intersections can remain narrow, which naturally discourages high speeds throughout the entire roadway network, not just at intersections.
Most modern roundabouts are designed so pedestrians never cross more than one or two lanes at a time without reaching a refuge island. The splitter islands that separate entering and exiting traffic create natural stopping points, breaking what would be a long, dangerous crossing into manageable segments.
Retrofitting suburbia
In the United States, the greatest life-saving potential for roundabouts lies in sprawling suburban areas along multi-lane arterialsprecisely the environments where traffic engineers were trained to maximize vehicle flow at the expense of all else. These are the locations where pedestrians face the longest crossing distances, the highest speeds, and the most complex traffic movements.
On tight urban streets with traditional grid patterns, signalized intersections can work well for pedestrians. But in suburban contexts, where intersections are spaced far apart and roads are designed for high speeds, roundabouts offer a proven solution for protecting vulnerable road users.
As a certified planner who has worked as an engineer for many years, I dont care which team gets the bragging rights for promoting pedestrian safety. I only care that we stop designing intersections and corridors in ways that are proven to be deadly. In suburbia, especially, every new or retrofitted multi-lane arterial crossing should default to a roundabout.
{"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"","headline":"Urbanism Speakeasy","description":"Join Andy Boenau as he explores ideas that the infrastructure status quo would rather keep quiet. To learn more, visit urbanismspeakeasy.com.","substackDomain":"https:\/\/www.urbanismspeakeasy.com\/","colorTheme":"green","redirectUrl":""}}
