And we keep running faster and faster looking for an alternative, completely failing to see that it's pointless.
Influencers, podcasts, AI search, newsletters, social selling — every new format looks like an answer to the shrinking reach of traditional media. And perhaps it is. But I'm seeing more and more companies and brands behaving exactly like King Julian from Madagascar — running faster and faster before it dawns on them that it's pointless.
The question "which channel works now" is the wrong question. Not because channels don't matter. But because it assumes there is one right answer — and that finding it is enough.
Wayne Gretzky famously said he doesn't chase the puck. He goes where the puck is going.
That's exactly the question worth asking in communications: where will the puck be? Not in terms of a trend or platform — but in terms of architecture. A system that works regardless of which channel happens to be fashionable.
I don't have a single answer for how to build that architecture. But I see three paths that help define it.
I. Instead of asking about the right channel, ask about your audience's mindset
The same person approaches the same purchasing decision differently at different moments. And each of those mindsets requires a completely different language and a completely different communication environment.
The first mindset is blissful ignorance. The recipient doesn't know your product exists. They don't know they have the problem you solve. Traditional product advertising doesn't work here — there's nothing to hook onto. What does work is a strong emotional insight and a low entry threshold. Lifestyle communication that awakens a need before anyone has had a chance to name it.
The second mindset is discovery. The recipient knows they're looking for something. They're comparing, verifying specifications, asking friends, checking AI search. Here, a reach-focused influencer stops mattering, and an opinion leader starts to matter — someone whose community is smaller but engaged. Someone known for testing and comparing, not for their lifestyle.
The third mindset is verification. The recipient has you on their shortlist. But they're delaying the decision because the stakes are high — a contract, a partnership, an investment, health. Here, no creator is enough. What's needed is an external authority: a credible medium, an expert with a name, the personal brand of the organization's leader.
The mistake I see most often: a company chooses a channel not because its audience is in one of these mindsets, but because "everyone is doing it now." The result is reaching random people with the wrong message.
II. Instead of asking about effectiveness, ask about trust
Every communication channel can be described along two axes. First: how much control you have over the message. Second: how much trust that channel generates with the recipient.
This gives four basic modes:
Paid and advertising campaigns — high control, low trust. Reach guaranteed, credibility zero. The recipient knows you're paying.
Influencers and UGC — low control, higher trust. Reach large and random, credibility dependent on the creator's relationship with their community.
Editorial media and external experts — low control, very high trust. Reach is systematically declining, but the quality of attention is increasing.
Own channels and reports — high control, high trust within your own community. Organic reach close to zero.
None of these quadrants is better than the others. Each is right at a different moment and for a different audience. The problem begins when a company stays in one quadrant for too long — either because "that's how we've always done it," or because they're comfortable there.
Paid gives the comfort of control. But paid buys attention, not trust. It works when you're first in a market with few competitors. But it's trust that works over the long term. And as the history of every lasting brand shows — from Apple to Nike — it's built through someone else's voice, not your own.
III. Instead of asking about reach, ask whether the relationship is the cause or the effect
This question separates two fundamentally different operational models.
In consumer communications, trust is usually built after the sale. Reach is the gateway — you first need to reach people, engage them, trigger an impulse. Nespresso's collaboration with George Clooney doesn't start with a relationship with Clooney. It starts with exposure. The relationship with the brand only appears in the daily experience of the product. First reach, then relationship.
In B2B communications, it's the opposite. The relationship is very often a prerequisite, not a consequence. McKinsey doesn't win clients through LinkedIn ads. It wins them through recommendations, joint projects, industry conferences — places where a relationship has a chance to form before anyone thinks about closing a contract. Without a relationship, there's no conversation — let alone a purchase.
Gretzky didn't chase every player. He waited where the puck was going to arrive. In communications, this intuition translates into one thing: instead of chasing reach, it's worth knowing where the relationship is already strong enough for reach to make sense.
Influence is not a channel. It is architecture. And like all architecture — first you have to design it.
I had the opportunity to develop this topic during New Media Relations 2026, organised by Puls Biznesu.