There are campaigns that manage to capture the collective sentiment of their time. In “Hasta Lowi,” the new project we developed for Lowi, the foundation is built from a powerful and recognizable insight: the accumulated frustration of those who have spent too much time with a company that doesn’t give them that little bit extra.
The challenge: standing out in a market of identical promises.
In telecommunications, networks look alike and prices converge. The competitive advantage lies in the ability to connect with the user’s real feelings. Lowi was already a benchmark for simplicity; the challenge was to provide it with a new emotional charge to lead the current conversation.
The strategy: betting on the catharsis of the farewell.
We decided to focus on something very different from most operators: the satisfaction of leaving. By taking ownership of an everyday expression like “hasta luego,” we transformed a common phrase into a symbol of empowerment. “Hasta Lowi” is not just a closing; it is the definitive invitation to say goodbye to whatever doesn’t give “that little bit extra.”
A powerful and metaphorical visual narrative.
To bring this idea to life, we opted for a setting filmed at the iconic Montjuic Olympic pools. In the spots, disenchanted customers jump from all kinds of diving boards into a pool of thousands of red balls: a safe and vibrant ecosystem representing Lowi’s reliable network and transparency. The jump is not just a visual resource; it is a metaphor for change.
To achieve this, we had a top-tier team:
- Direction and production: director Sega and the production company Lee Films gave the pieces a colloquial, direct, and proud tone, with a distinct personality in each execution.
- Photography: the graphic translation to digital media, outdoor, and stores was handled by photographer Anne Roig.
- The impact: an expression that aims for everyday conversation.
“Hasta Lowi” can be seen on television, digital media, and radio. The campaign also includes a media strategy aimed at amplifying the expression in daily life through mentions in radio programs and other actions. The goal is for “Hasta Lowi” to be not just a slogan, but a statement of intent that transcends paid media.
Enjoy the full campaign video:
We are among the 100 best companies to work for in Spain for the fifth consecutive year, according to the Forbes ranking. This recognition focuses on what matters most to us: people.
Our commitment to talent, excellence, inclusion, and diversity is unequivocal and grants us a leadership position in the market thanks to our commitment to building a solid company with a culture oriented toward the people who make it up. On this path, our value proposition for people allows us to continue advancing in three key dimensions: Life, Well-being, and Growth. That is, flexibility and work-life balance, physical and mental well-being, and opportunities for professional and personal development.
We will continue working in this direction to support our talent with policies and actions regarding the challenges and opportunities presented by the company’s transformation, always under the framework of our value proposition: well-being, flexibility, and growth. This achievement is the result of the effort of all the professionals on our team, where diversity is a fundamental pillar: more than 50% of our management positions are held by women.
The ranking, conducted by Sigma Dos, is annual and is based on the opinions of employees from more than 2,000 companies with over 250 workers in Spain.
One word dominates almost every aspect of current events: uncertainty. The political systems of Western countries, and global geopolitics, are undergoing profound changes whose impact we are only beginning to feel. Artificial intelligence is transforming access to knowledge and work routines. Values are shifting as new generations reach adulthood with renewed worldviews. Everything is changing: the climate, trade, networks.
The feeling is that everything is in flux. And that moments of truth are more frequent than ever: those instants when individuals, companies, and societies have to look around, interpret the situation, and make crucial decisions that will determine their future and that of their stakeholders. It’s an obligation that sometimes induces vertigo. But it’s also the most stimulating challenge.
That’s why our magazine, UNO, has transformed into an exclusively digital platform. Here, with a frequency more aligned with current events, the most insightful voices from academia, journalism, business, and consulting will reflect on the future and initiate crucial conversations about the challenges it presents. Our goal is to foster a broad dialogue , because the best way to shape the future is to exchange knowledge, compare intuitions, share experiences, neutralize biases, and arrive at shared visions. It’s not about infallible prediction, but about collectively shaping what comes next and addressing it together.
That’s why , in the first articles published on this new platform, we address some of the most crucial issues of our time. First, the profound geopolitical transformations that are bringing an end to the global order as we knew it. This order maintained relative stability, relied on multilateral mechanisms, and established a framework for free trade. Today, all of that is in retreat. This has crucial implications for businesses and decision-makers.
But secondly, we also wanted to begin UNO’s transformation by addressing the threat of disinformation in this changing world. At a time when we feel overwhelmed by the threats of misrepresentation or malicious fabrications, how can we communicate accurately? What long-standing journalistic virtues are more necessary than ever? How does all of this affect reputation and credibility?
The transformation of UNO, from a paper- first magazine to a digital-only platform , and from a periodic editorial product to an ongoing conversation, It reflects the spirit of LLYC . Our founder, José Antonio Llorente, always championed pluralism and the virtues of dialogue. And today, the company understands that the great challenge lies in understanding what the mindset of the future will be— The Next Mindset , as we’ve called it — and in using all available tools to guide our clients and partners toward it. Creativity, influence , and the capacity for innovation will be key, as always. But in new ways.
We cannot ignore the changes that are coming, nor can we assume they won’t affect our sector or our company. We cannot think we can thrive without making bold decisions. And it would be a mistake to abandon what remains the most effective way to envision and shape the future: the blend of leadership with conversation, of boldness with dialogue.
In a time of great uncertainty, LLYC wants to support its clients and partners, as well as society in general, in the great adventure of discovering and shaping the future. The times demand it. But so does the passion for challenges and for making the right decisions at crucial moments.
Alejandro Romero: In this issue, we want to address the role of disinformation, the phenomenon of fake news, post-truth, and who owns the narrative, the famous storytelling. It is a pleasure to have Pepa Bueno and Daniel Innerarity here to talk about this. To start, I would like to know, Pepa, how can we define the concept of disinformation?
Pepa Bueno: The first thing to understand is that we live in the ecosystem of disinformation. But it’s hard for us to identify it because we are very much inside it. And this ecosystem clearly plays a relevant role in the way journalism is done. Urgency plays a role in media outlets under a lot of financial stress, with severe economic problems that have a tremendous impact on their business model, and professionals who have to learn new technologies while trying to apply a staff model from classical journalism. By the way: I prefer to say “classical” and not “traditional,” because classical has a noble connotation and always endures, while the label traditional has been imposed on us to sideline us. In any case, classical journalism has to run and tie its shoes at the same time.
But to understand the present moment of this ecosystem, we have to describe three major crises that have affected classical journalism, which should have been the vaccine against disinformation and yet is not. The first is the technological crisis. The emergence of the internet was dismissed and underestimated as something that did not compete with our work or impact our business model. When we realized both were false, it was too late, and all the classical media were in a huge economic crisis. This coincided with the great financial crisis of 2008. And with the credibility crisis of intermediaries that, in my opinion, stems from the breaking of the tacit post-World War II pact in Western societies: you get rich off my work, but I and mine progress.
That pact broke, and from then on all intermediaries we operated in went into crisis. This triple crisis that strikes classical media decimates newsrooms and puts them in competition with social networks, where vertigo and disinformation are part of the ecosystem. And we are still in that battle. A battle that leads us to the emergence of artificial intelligence, which not only competes with us but replaces us.
AR: There are three pillars I think are worth exploring. The first is democracy and how it is affected by disinformation. The second pillar is the role of information professionals, who remain a bulwark, and I love that concept of classical, not traditional, that Pepa mentioned. And it also applies to our classical service offering as a communication firm. And the third is the emergence of technology and the internet and the concept of democratization of information that has often been used to justify that anyone can be a reporter or journalist.
Daniel, what reflections would you make on the first topic, the weakening of democracy?
Daniel Innerarity: Many, and not directly from the world of journalism, because I do not belong to it. But I think I can complement what Pepa said. I believe that basically, what exists is a great difficulty in generating a balanced ecosystem between the media — I used to say “traditional,” but I’m going to start saying “classical” — and social networks. I want to recall that when social networks appeared, we received them as a democratic gain, which was true. I remember living in a provincial town, as they would say in Madrid, where the director of the only newspaper behaved like a feudal lord. To make your opinion count, you had to write a letter to the editor. I’ve told this in class, and students look at me incredulously.
At that moment, that broke, ending a certain bossiness of classical journalism, and therefore there was a horizontalization of information. It was fantastic. The Arab Springs were, of course, going to establish democracy in North Africa. Democracy was unstoppable thanks to this kind of technology. There was the same determinism that we now see negatively, but then positively. And alongside this, we discovered the marvel of a world without intermediaries. Why do we need a journalist? Why do we need a doctor if we have Dr. Google? Why do we need a priest if I can relate directly to God?
Technology has also generated an explosion of available knowledge, of available information, because you enter Google and it’s all there. This has caused individuals who are not professionals in the information world to face an excessive overload. I think the big problem now is not so much that there are people manipulating, which there are, but that people are completely lost in a horizon. This is what makes me now reclaim classical journalism and good journalists: people who, with a different attitude, who don’t act as feudal lords because we won’t tolerate that anymore, help us navigate this chaotic and unregulated cognitive market we have. Therefore, we will have to invent a formula or the figure of someone who filters, selects, prioritizes well, not in an interested way but justifiably, and helps us survive in this chaos.
AR: I agree. In today’s society, I think we must value the importance of the media and journalists as responsible for verifying sources: what is credible, what is trustworthy, and what is not. That is the crux of the matter. And I think someone is needed to take responsibility for that information.
It’s the same in aviation technology. Planes have been ready for years to fly without pilots, but pilots still exist, and if something happens to the plane, we want someone responsible. I think that in classical journalism, that is what we have to value. But let’s move to the risks. Pepa, what risks does this coming disinformation have?
“Democracy is at risk, and we need classical journalism and the information professional who takes responsibility with a signature that the information comes from a verified, credible, and trustworthy source.”
Alejandro Romero
PB: I want to make a brief comment on what Daniel said, which is so suggestive. It’s true that journalism cannot return to the civil pulpit from which it was dislodged by the democratization that the internet signified. But one thing is to abandon the civil pulpit that dictates the rules, and another is to develop the professional method that Alejandro mentioned, which allows organizing, prioritizing, and reporting information with verified sources.
In any case, the risk for me is democracy, and with democracy all the institutions that support it. To put it concretely, the loss of coexistence. We have spent two decades of this century confined in bubbles of ideological comfort, and those bubbles that turned their backs on each other have now entered into direct combat. How does that combat of bubbles and ideological comfort, in which you are constantly agreeing with people who think like you, permeate the physical world, in an era in which the law of the strongest returns? I don’t want to be apocalyptic, but I sense great risks because the other has been objectified and dehumanized a lot, and when you turn on your phone in the morning, you have a daily, permanent battleground. The leap from that to physical life, which is not so far-fetched, puts coexistence at risk.
AR: And how does the power of the algorithm add to that risk, something designed for commercial and marketing purposes so that, for example, if you liked fishing rods, you would get lots of information about them? Now the ideological bubble is brutal because you only receive information from your ideology, and you lose something you mentioned, the contrast of information. I think it’s also necessary to differentiate what is opinion from what is information because there is great confusion.
PB: That is crucial because we are not in the era of over-information; we are in the era of over-opinion.
AR: We are in the era of over-opinion, and it seems that opinion is information. If a certain person tells me something, that is already a dogma of faith, but that is their opinion, not information. Daniel, what do you think the risks are?
DI: First, I think we will have to get used to living in a world a bit more chaotic, a bit more uncomfortable than we had at the end of the last century. It won’t be easy, and only partial, very slow, and limited solutions occur to me. For example, fact-checking to detect very crude lies or rumors with an objectivity criterion.
But there is a risk that is sometimes little discussed and has to do with the instruments we use to face disinformation. These instruments, in turn, must be fully respectful of freedom of expression because otherwise, we can fix one problem but generate a much bigger one. We must bear in mind that the democracy we want to defend at all costs arose from the historical experience that no one had privileged access to the truth and no one held a monopoly on describing reality. And from there, there was an acceptance of pluralism, that we have different interpretations of reality, sometimes very opposed, brutally antagonistic. And that generates discomfort, and surely we would be more comfortable in a universe of greater agreements, and at the same time, it can be considered an achievement.
AR: Another huge risk is the distortion of reality. It seems that by repeating something that is not true, and that is possibly much closer to a lie, it eventually becomes the truth. Because, then, what is truth?
PB: When I talk about journalism, I have stopped using big words. I have stopped using “independence” or “rigor” because they are polysemic. They are used interchangeably by those who come out in the morning with an opinion or turn an anecdote into a big headline and those who do the artisanal and heavy work of journalism, of assessing which is the most important news, which has the greatest impact on people, and we have verified it and have three sources. I no longer speak like that. I say our work consists of an honest approach to reality.
AR: Another great concept. Daniel, after addressing the risks, let’s talk about possible solutions. What would be the solutions for this era dominated by post-truth or disinformation to limit confusion, face the dictatorship of the algorithm, or what role should the media and journalists play?
DI: Let me put on my philosopher mode, which is inevitable in my case, and start by saying that we must make an effort to understand well what is happening, to have good concepts. This is not a fight between good and bad, between those who have a perfect description of reality and those who want to manipulate. Rather, it is fundamentally a chaotic scenario in which some people take advantage. But disorder is prior. We go from a relatively ordered and not very democratic world to a very disordered one and apparently the most democratic we have been able to invent.
I think it is good to make a conceptual clarification, to differentiate a false opinion from a fake opinion. I often say false opinions because it was an opinion, and then I realize it was not correct. But a fake opinion is something quite different. It is something presented as an opinion but is, in fact, manipulation.
I think it is very important that we have conceptual clarity, that we know well the type of world we are living in, and in this scenario, I would underline the limitation of fact-checking because public conversation is not a conversation about the objectivity of things, although that is very important, but about how we interpret things. I usually give an example: when we came out of the economic crisis, the Great Recession, one of the discussions that occupied us for almost a year was whether we had really come out. Why? Because the right and the left, to use these categories, had a different conception of what a healthy, recovered economy was after such a shock. Which of the two was better? I know which was better, but I wouldn’t dare say one was true and the other false. That is, let’s accept that democratic society is one that values pluralism and freedom of expression more, even assuming a certain risk that manipulators have more space than they should. This is a principle I fight hard to maintain.
“We are not in the era of overinformation; we are in the era of overopinion.”
Pepa Bueno
AR: In this conversation, I think we cannot avoid touching on the emergence of artificial intelligence. Daniel, earlier you mentioned Dr. Google, but now we also have Dr. Perplexity, Dr. Cloud, Dr. ChatGPT, who are much more sophisticated. Google facilitated what was previously done with encyclopedias. But now the dimension is different. Pepa, how does generative artificial intelligence, and the agents that have become daily helpers in many of our tasks, affect disinformation?
PB: With artificial intelligence, what happened with the internet happens, but multiplied. I insist a lot on the importance of identifying the ecosystem. Our life, including what relates to artificial intelligence, takes place in five or six places. The owners of those companies, at this moment when everything is geopolitics, are mostly American, one Chinese, and one Russian. For a long time, it was just business, and now, to keep doing business, they have decided to be active in politics. In my opinion, democracy has ceased to be useful to them because it is very heavy, deliberative, you have to get many people to agree, you have to regulate. It has ceased to be useful, and the algorithm, which determines our conversation, our position, the objectification of the other, has decided to enter politics. If we do not identify well that this is the ecosystem and that we are all deeply inside it, even the most educated and informed people, we will hardly be able to coexist in conflict, which is what democracy is.
But freedom of expression cannot cover everything, Daniel, and that comes from a journalist. It cannot cover the civil death of a citizen who thinks differently from you. And we see that every day. Lies, disinformation, campaigns of civil death in the real, physical life of many people and families, many journalists, are being covered. About what you raised about artificial intelligence. Journalists cannot make the same mistake as in 2000 with the internet, which is leaving this tool in the hands of companies. At El País, my firm effort was that from the very beginning there would be editorial criteria, that journalists would be involved in business decisions affecting artificial intelligence, both in acquiring tools and in business and economic strategy.
Artificial intelligence is being used a lot in newsrooms. The first approach, the first protocol in which I was involved, at El País, because at Televisión Española I found it already done when I returned, was that ultimately, just as we live in the era of the individual and everyone’s over-opinion, the journalist is ultimately responsible. The company has responsibility, but one must appeal to the responsibility of individuals when using the tool to tell the reader “I am not deceiving you.” It is I who use this fantastic tool that facilitates many things — it simplifies my translation processes, gives me access to summaries that allow me to save time to focus on the qualitative that I have to offer you as a journalist — but I have commanded this whole process.
AR: And also, by being responsible for that article, that information, or that report, they stake their prestige and personal brand. And I agree it has many positive aspects in terms of research, deep research, access to much more information that must be verified. Daniel, from your point of view, what is the impact of the emergence of AI?
DI: I would answer on two levels, the micro and the macro. At the trade level and the geostrategic level. At the trade level is, of course, journalism, but I am a professor and researcher. And I see the same debate in both fields. Norbert Wiener, one of the fathers of artificial intelligence, said a phrase I repeat a lot because I think it sums it all up. He said that the world of the future will be an increasingly demanding struggle against the limits of our intelligence. We will not be lying comfortably in a hammock served by robot slaves. And I add to “served,” “replaced.” We are not heading toward replacement; we are, especially if we do it well, heading toward a struggle against the limits of our intelligence. And surely philosophers, journalists, political scientists, and engineers will have to ask themselves an uncomfortable question: what I do, does it have added value? What part of what I do really has added value? We have to ask ourselves questions like: could a machine have done what I did this morning? Because maybe you should dedicate yourself to something else, seek competitiveness, but also the satisfaction of struggling against your own limits. I expect a lot from the creativity of professions that will be relieved of tasks that have no value. Of course, now this is uncomfortable but also fascinating.
That would be my answer regarding the micro, the trade. The answer regarding the macro is that we are in a very annoying geopolitical environment in which the big bosses who dominate platforms and technology, the techno-solutionists or feudal lords of technology, do not believe in democracy. There is a strict correlation: the more credulous you are of the power of technology, the less you believe in democracy. Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, all these people, say it openly: with technology, we can solve all humanity’s problems. And at the same time, they say democracy no longer serves to solve any serious problem of humanity. I am very obsessed with exploring that relationship because it seems to me that it is not casual. It is no coincidence that technology is granted healing powers for any social disease and that, deep down, these people who dominate us are very socially illiterate. The most complex thing in the world, humanity’s greatest achievement, is democracy. It is the organization of coexistence in a plural society, articulating values that are hardly compatible.
“I think it is good to make a conceptual distinction, to differentiate a false opinion from a fake opinion.”
Daniel Innineraty
AR: Democracy is uncomfortable because it requires us to agree. And the world of technological corporate dictatorship does not want agreements. Silicon Valley’s concept of breaking everything is based on breaking the structure to recreate it and see if it can be simpler and easier to manage. Because managing the complexity of people is one of the great difficulties of any social, business, or human organization. But let’s start wrapping up and drawing some conclusions. What three key ideas would you take from this dialogue?
PB: First, despite the defeatist tone, I am optimistic. But an optimism informed about journalism and democracy. Although curves are coming in the short term, we all trust a pendulum movement. That there will be a moment when the saturation of noise, data, and uncontextualized images will cause a pendulum movement and a majority of citizens will turn to classical media seeking some understanding of the world. Not to be told what to think but to be given the tools to form their own opinion.
And that is a task that goes beyond journalism, which obviously affects the whole society; it affects public powers, those who have a fundamental role in politics, those who still believe that democracy, that wonderful invention that is only two hundred years old, is worth it as a model of coexistence that appeals to the whole society, that appeals to literacy. Not only that of the young, which I believe is essential; I think the greatest risk is not there but in adults with analog training, digitally arrived. So, optimism, trust in the pendulum movement, and meanwhile, journalism that is very, very flexible with the context and the new ecosystem and with technology, and very firm with the classical journalism protocol. We cannot abdicate from that.
DI: First, I think we will be in a chaotic, unpleasant environment for a long time. It’s not just Trump’s mandate; when a Democrat comes, this will not end. There is a background tectonic movement, a tide, that goes in a disturbing direction. Therefore, we must protect institutions. Let’s educate ourselves. I insist a lot on this. Pepa said years ago that one should spend on newspapers at least what one spends on beers. Well, I would say let’s also spend some money on education. Part of this current polarization, stupid and amateurish, is that the principle of universality of politics and equality of all opinions is confused with the effort to have a somewhat mature opinion, supported by data and opinions.
That on one hand. On the other hand, regarding professions, what do we seek and what do we offer? Right now, I pay people to guide me, not to confirm my opinions. When I go to media, since we are talking in this environment, what I want is for them to guide me, and I begin to suspect when everyone guides me in the same direction. Also, I think it is good to have diversity, contrast of opinions, but what I want is people who offer me something good. I am tired of memes on X.
And at the same time, what do we offer in our profession? If what I want is to consume low-quality but satisfying cinema, Netflix’s algorithm will be fantastic. It works very well and gives you pleasant things. If I want that, fine. But sometimes I want something that surprises me, something truly creative, something disruptive. And there, I won’t find a robot; I will find a flesh-and-blood person, a little crazy, who has gone a bit against the tide. Of course, I want the driver of my bus, the one who gives me the weather information, all these people not to be too creative. But surely in a newsroom, space must be left for the four crazy ones. Even if they are no more.
And then the third thing I wanted to say is that we value what we have. Let’s value democracy. But let’s not make — I have imposed this as a rule on myself because I basically dedicate myself to this — excessively negative descriptions of reality because that is what the bad guys, if you allow me to say so, want. I think Donald Trump is a character who is delighted with certain descriptions made of him, which give him more power than he really has. And on the contrary, I think he feels more uncomfortable when we poke him in the eye and say that democracy, even the American one, has far more elements of resistance than it seems.
PB: I love what you said, Daniel, because I usually say let’s do journalism to help understand the world, not to fear it.
AR: That is an important conclusion and a great headline. I want to thank you both for the space, the conversation, and the ideas. Artificial intelligence will hardly be able to replace these debate tables and live human creativity. Which remains a stimulus for the brain, to learn and think about ideas that I believe are the basis of humanity’s progress. For my part, I agree that we must strengthen democracy. Democracy is at risk, and we need classical journalism and the information professional who takes responsibility with a signature that the information comes from a verified, credible, and trustworthy source. I think what we need is education, to have our own opinion and our own criteria when discussing a topic, and for that, we need to read. And now, also educate ourselves in artificial intelligence and the use of tools.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine and Donald Trump’s second term have combined to bring an end to a long phase in international relations. Europeans need to wake up and adapt to a very different, much more adverse reality. Business leaders and executives cannot remain indifferent to the ongoing changes, because the reconfiguration of power on the international stage has become the primary source of risks and opportunities for their companies.
The goal of global prosperity, central during the thirty years following the fall of the Berlin Wall, gives way to the imperative of security, understood in a national key and as an expansive concept.
“We are moving from efficiency to resilience. We are witnessing the transition from a global liberal order to a widespread zero-sum mentality, based on power relations in which there must always be winners and losers.”
Economic deglobalization is advancing in a world that, nevertheless, remains highly interconnected. International Law is being devalued in favor of competition based on the law of the strongest.
We are again witnessing a confrontation between two great countries, the United States versus China. This is a new cold war, very different from the first. China has woven a limitless alliance with Russia and projects its global ambition with increasing assertiveness. The United States is withdrawing, but it is an isolation compatible with imperial impulses, from Venezuela to Iran. Its renunciation of being a provider of global public goods weakens its relationship with its allies in Europe and Asia, even though they remain indispensable in critical situations like those we are experiencing these weeks.
The vast majority of countries in the so-called Global South do not take sides. Some of them, emerging powers, skillfully triangulate, taking advantage of the benefits of multi-alignment and leveraging the rivalry between the two superpowers. These include India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, South Africa, and the Emirates.
The United States challenges the world it has created and that has so greatly benefited its citizens and companies because it understands that yesterday’s solutions are now the cause of its problems. The return of Donald Trump to power in his second term has been bad news for Europe. The New York magnate’s second presidency is a triple shock to the continent’s defense, economy, and democracy.
Neither the Union nor its Member States have the means and cohesion to achieve strategic autonomy in the short term to face the weakening of the transatlantic relationship and the growing security threats; primarily, Russian expansionism. Europe’s enormous dependence on the United States in defense and technology, and to a large extent in energy, does not allow for rapid improvisation of alternatives. Increasing pressures from Washington—in trade, digital regulation, defense investment, sanctions, support for far-right parties—seriously affect Europeans, who wonder how to manage this new U.S. doctrine of “aggressive unilateralism,” as Jake Sullivan suggested last summer at the Aspen Institute.
China’s new moves in its competition for global hegemony complete this complex geopolitical panorama. Under Xi Jinping’s leadership, the Asian country no longer “rises” but “fights,” in the words of Ambassador Kevin Rudd. It seeks global influence through technology, trade, investments, diplomacy, and rapidly growing armed forces. It does so for reasons of internal security, to maintain the iron control of the Chinese Communist Party over the capitalist-Leninist regime established by Deng Xiaoping. Beijing needs to continue exporting, secure the supply of food, energy, and raw materials, neutralize minorities in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong, advance in the takeover of Taiwan, and achieve international maritime projection while competing with the United States in the race for Artificial Intelligence.
The two alternatives discussed in Brussels and national capitals are not realistic. On the one hand, the rapid decoupling from the United States through the acquisition of its own defense capabilities and strengthening the European economy (internal market, capital union, industrial policy, as well as a common strategy to compete in a digital revolution led by others). The EU is over-diagnosed. The list of unfinished tasks over many years is very long, and European society is not prepared for a centralization of powers. The Union is slow and technocratic, lacks a recognizable executive power, and anti-European parties continue to grow and govern in some countries.
On the other hand, from Brussels and some national capitals, rapprochement with China, the other superpower, is being considered. This is a move full of contraindications due to the political nature of the Beijing regime, which is the antithesis of individual freedom and human rights.
“Europeans need to achieve strategic autonomy as soon as possible, but even if they do everything right, it will take at least ten years to achieve it. Meanwhile, they must continue minimizing risks, seeking accommodations, and negotiating, despite everything, with Washington. The Trump nightmare may end much sooner than the Chinese dystopia.”
In this transition to a new international order, European company executives need to develop new agility in their international diagnosis, understanding that contingencies take precedence over rules. They must learn the language of geopolitics to better analyze non-financial risks and implement both defensive measures and those favorable to the development of new businesses. But perhaps the most important thing is to remember that history rhymes, as Mark Twain said, and its cycles and waves always return. In this transition stage to a new era, companies cannot be indifferent to political processes and must know how to influence and effectively represent their interests.
“In the face of accelerated change, the best executives will be those who feel comfortable living with more uncertainty.”
The rules that have governed the world for the past seventy years are in decline. The global order based on multilateralism and, since the fall of the Wall, on the predominance of the United States, is fading away. Rivalries are greater, China is fighting for hegemony, and unilateralism prevails. Almost no scenario is now off the table.
This change is momentous for the companies that are part of the LLYC community. The United States, Europe, and Latin America — the regions where our company operates — are adopting new roles and new relationships, generating strong trade tensions. But there are still broad spaces for cooperation, synergy, and democratic values. In this dialogue, which took place before the U.S. intervention in Venezuela and the war in Iran but reflects all the conditions that led to them, Luisa García and Pol Morillas address the geopolitical side of the many challenges ahead.
Luisa García (LG): When we began thinking about how we wanted to celebrate LLYC’s 30th anniversary, we were clear that although we are very proud of what we have achieved over these years, we wanted to look to the future. That’s why we launched the Partners for What’s Next program, with the idea of staying close to clients and collaborators to understand the challenges ahead and be able to support them when facing those challenges. In that context, it was important to have a conversation about the new global order, or disorder. And with no one better than Pol Morillas, author of the book The Big Players’ Playground. Europe in a Hostile World, and director of CIDOB in Barcelona, one of Europe’s most important international studies think tanks.
Pol Morillas (PM): Thank you very much for sharing this time with me and inviting me to join your conversations.
LG: Pol, we come from a world marked by multilateralism, where institutions like the IMF, the UN, or the World Bank promoted globalization, trade, and cooperation. But we already know that in the future, the world will probably no longer be governed by that order.
PM: Indeed, I believe that at this moment we are seeing a trend toward a multipolar world where not just one country, the United States, but two countries, China and the United States, dominate. And where middle powers also want to participate in dividing the international power pie. It is more multipolar but, at the same time, increasingly less multilateral.
The institutions you mentioned are losing relevance in structuring relationships. And that multipolarity without multilateralism is what gives us a feeling of helplessness. The role of states, especially great powers, can be strengthened so that these two instances govern the structuring of international relations. But the crises we will face — climate-related, those linked to technological regulations, the COVID-19 pandemic at the time, or another similar one in the future — will continue to be transnational crises. That is the great paradox we face right now.
LG: LLYC was born in Spain and began its international expansion twenty-eight years ago in Latin America. I wanted to ask you about the role of those two regions, Europe and Latin America. Are they just spectators, just bargaining chips in the new power struggle?
PM: I believe that in this new international order, Europe and Latin America share a similar position. Europe has always depended on the United States for its security. The transatlantic relationship is fundamental, also as a hub of international trade and the center of the world economy in the Atlantic. And now Europe is considering whether, in light of the crisis in transatlantic relations with Trump, which is also due to the rise of new powers, it should diversify its alliances. And Latin America is somewhat in the same position. It cannot depend solely on growing Chinese investments. It must maintain a good relationship with the European Union — as we have seen in the discussions about the EU-Mercosur Agreement — but without losing sight of the United States, with which it has always maintained a very close relationship. Latin America and Europe share the feeling of having to pivot among many actors simultaneously because their context, this more multipolar world, has also changed.
LG: Yes, Europe and Latin America must learn to be more polyamorous. But in that shared polyamory, do you think there is space to strengthen the relationship between the two? You mentioned the Mercosur-EU agreement. Is the opportunity and movement to reinforce Latin America and the European Union real, or is it still a chimera?
PM: The relationship between Latin America and Europe is very unequal. It is marked by distrust, sometimes due to the legacy of colonialism. And that affects the bilateral relationship. But if we broaden the picture and see where the other international powers are located, and look to the future, to where these two continents are headed, they surely share much more than what separates them.
LG: Of course, overcoming the past and looking to the future is fundamental. Also, just as with the enlargement of the European Union we realized how diverse Europe is, one cannot think of Latin America as a single unit. Europe’s relationship with Mexico is nothing like its relationship with Brazil, nor is the relationship between Mexico and Brazil the same.
PM: That leads us to another important issue: the fragmentation of political systems in many regions of the world. In Europe’s case, what hurts it most when relating to other countries, especially the United States, is its internal fragmentation. We saw this, for example, in the trade agreement between the European Union and the United States. It showed a Europe willing to yield to U.S. demands, which did not want to play its most valuable card: a common trade policy, the ability to act economically and commercially with one voice — something it does not have in defense or technology. Europe was very afraid of internal fragmentation, the impact that a negotiation contrary to U.S. interests could generate within the European Union. Often, it is not so much that the European Union lacks tools to act or power — it has power — but that this power is excessively fragmented.
“We live in a world in which the national interests of the great powers, defended to the extreme, and the interdependencies that pass through the funnel of instrumentalization, come together.”
Pol Morillas
LG: Looking again at the axes, you have spoken about trade and security policy between the United States and the European Union. What other U.S. foreign policy issues do you think will shape the agenda leading up to the midterms [besides the intervention in Venezuela and Irán]?
PM: I believe that within the Republican administration and the MAGA movement itself, there is a big debate about the country’s foreign policy and two fundamental precepts of it. On one side are those who say the focus should be on the United States’ own interests, even within its closest area of influence. In that sense, we saw Trump’s statements regarding Canada, Greenland, or Panama, as if those countries were his backyard where the U.S. can do anything. That side prioritizes the conception of security. This view includes the unpunished attacks on boats in the Caribbean, under the pretext that they are drug-running boats and a problem for American security [and that preceded the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro].
And another side says no, that the United States has a fundamental rival beyond its Western Hemisphere and immediate surroundings, which is China. And what must be done is to equip all American foreign policy for confrontation or competition with China. These two foreign policy views coexist with others that say that to prioritize China, the U.S. must stop focusing on scenarios that do not interest it, where it does not want to project its foreign policy, whether that is the Middle East, [although the attack on Iran disproves this version] Europe, or Ukraine.
LG: So, it’s about prioritizing.
PM: It is difficult for us to decipher what Trump’s foreign policy objectives are because he constantly makes us doubt, changes his mind, and has variable positions on different issues, particularly on China.
LG: The relationship between the United States and China is heavily marked by the impact technology has on the geopolitical agenda, from rare earth elements to artificial intelligence legislation. And throughout the chain, we see a clear impact on the commercial front. Besides that, we have also identified climate change or migration. What topics will you be focusing on at CIDOB in the coming months or years?
PM: I think that in many of these areas you mention, what prevails is the logic with which we started the conversation: the interdependencies that still exist, that transnationality of phenomena that affects trade, climate change, migration, or technology. All these issues are necessarily transnational. But what governs relations is the instrumentalization of these issues according to the interests of nations. In the case of trade, we see this clearly. The United States and China have not stopped trading; on the contrary, they remain subject to great commercial interdependencies. What happens? Those interdependencies are instrumentalized and used as geopolitical pressure weapons against each other. This is obvious in the case of rare earths, with the limitation of the export of semiconductors, chips, and advanced technology from the United States to China, especially those of potential dual use, that is, civilian and military.
Regarding migration, what we often see is that many countries are also instrumentalizing migration as a weapon of destabilization against third countries. This happened, for example, when Russia allowed refugees from various countries like Afghanistan to freely cross into Finland and other neighboring countries as a mechanism of pressure or destabilization. Fundamentally, migrations are also interdependencies or transnational phenomena that states instrumentalize. And regarding technology, we have already talked about basic elements like chips, semiconductors, or rare earths, components necessary for advanced technologies that are also instrumentalized. We live in a world where the national interests of great powers are defended to the utmost and increasingly without scruples, alongside interdependencies that pass through that funnel of instrumentalization.
LG: And what can companies do to understand, anticipate, and operate better in that world? Because sometimes the timeframes are very short. For example, agility in adapting supply chains in response to a tariff change is an obvious example. What best practices could develop those skills that sometimes are less advanced within companies?
PM: First of all, the market-geopolitics binomial must be reversed. What we are seeing now is that very often geopolitics conditions commercial relations and the main partners with whom companies want to maintain fluid and intense commercial relationships. If before it was believed that geopolitics would gradually reduce its impact thanks to market forces, now what we see is quite the opposite. Geopolitics intensifies market relations, and therefore companies must incorporate this factor, which was previously considered a non-market or secondary aspect, into their profit and loss account. Now it has a primary impact and must be at the center of the analysis of market elements. This is the great paradigm shift: we come from a globalized world without barriers and with global value chains without restrictions, but increasingly we see that this is giving way to the preeminence of state power in geopolitical relations and even intervention in critical industries and companies.
LG: I think we have made a good journey because we first talked about the new multipolar scenario, the blocs, and how they adapt to the new situation, combining domestic and foreign policy in an indivisible way. You also told us how some major issues are instrumentalized in politics between countries or blocs. And we ended with this proposal to change our business perspective because in this new context geopolitics will have a much more direct impact than before, and probably much faster, and we must anticipate it and have the knowledge inside the house that allows us, at the very least, to design some scenario. We have talked about Europe, China, Latin America, the United States, and mentioned migration and technology. Is there anything at CIDOB that you think is not receiving enough attention?
PM: There are two issues. The first, which directly impacts the mechanisms of political and social relations in our societies, is the future of democracy. That is, to what extent, particularly in Europe, those values that have been unquestionable are and continue to be the desired governance mechanism. Today, more than ever, it must be demonstrated that those ideas remain valid because there are others that move in a different direction and question them. And in another area, there is an element we have not mentioned that is fundamental for Europe and Spain in particular: Africa. Europe has not only lacked strategic vision when defining the relationship it wants to maintain with its southern neighbors in the European Union but also on many security issues, climate crises, migrations, refugees, illicit trafficking. Many of these issues originate in sub-Saharan Africa, or the Sahel in particular. Europe must stop turning its back on the African continent because we should understand the Mediterranean Sea more as a lake than as a sea
“We must flip the market-geopolitics binomial. Geopolitics intensifies market relations and, therefore, companies must incorporate this factor into their bottom line.”
Pol Morillas
Every generation believes it is living through the most complex moment in history. Without falling into that temptation, the current challenges—climate crisis, growing inequality, geopolitical tensions, armed conflicts, and technological developments without an adequate ethical framework—deserve special attention. These are not inevitable phenomena: they reflect human decisions guided by narratives that have prioritized the maximization—and concentration—of economic profits, consumerism, individual competition, and uncontrolled technological developments. These narratives have simplified the idea of progress, reducing it to GDP growth and material well-being.
In the economic realm, the emphasis has been on maximizing production and consumption, with excessive confidence in market efficiency and correcting—if at all—social and environmental impacts afterward. The GDP metric, turned into a synonym for progress, has hidden deep inequalities and environmental degradation that compromise the sustainability of growth itself. However, those who benefit from the prevailing model have successfully blocked any attempts to rethink it for years. The trajectory of technological advances follows a similar pattern. Artificial intelligence, perhaps the most transformative tool of our time, is developed under a narrative where technology is considered an end in itself, not a means to improve people’s living conditions. Geopolitical competition, technological concentration in few hands, and the race for general or superior artificial intelligence sideline the most important debate: its human and social impact. What should be a collective conversation has been captured by interests that prioritize speed and profitability over equity, security, and democratic deliberation.
“The greatest challenge of current leadership is not managing complexity but daring to change the narrative that sustains it.”
Despite the enormous promise of these developments, their most problematic impacts—algorithmic biases, digital inequality, existential risks—are not accidents but the result of narratives that displace universal values and human dignity from the center of the equation. Just as the economy has been interpreted as an almost autonomous linear process, technology as we know it is presented as an inevitable phenomenon. In both cases, the loss of citizen agency and inclusion is not only a consequence but a structural feature of the model.
That is why it is urgent to restore trust to change course. Both the economy and technology must be directed to achieve the desired outcomes. This is, in essence, a leadership challenge.
These outcomes are not unrelated to many current leaderships that favor dogma and exclusion over evidence and empathy. The fact that many of them have come to power through popular vote denotes the level of polarization in our societies and the impact of misinformation on democratic processes. In response, we need leaders capable of building a different narrative, one that unifies rather than fragments; that recognizes the magnitude of problems without instrumentalizing them; and that understands compassion not only as a moral gesture but as a criterion to guide fairer and more effective policies.
“Artificial intelligence is not a technological discussion but a social one: its effects depend on human decisions and the purpose we assign to it.”
Leading today demands a radical commitment to evidence. It means challenging established interests, particularly when that involves going against the tide. It means remembering that there is no sustainable economic growth if large segments of the population are excluded, and that there is no truly advanced technology if it deepens inequality or erodes human dignity. It also requires demonstrating that another path is possible: one where innovation serves to solve collective challenges, not amplify them; where the economy measures what truly matters; and where societies regain control over decisions.
In such a complex world, there are no single solutions or infallible leaderships. We need leaders who inspire and articulate a vision but also recognize that they do not have all the answers. Leaders who listen to and value diverse perspectives because sound decisions only arise from inclusive processes. Let us be wary of those who claim absolute certainties: current challenges demand broad deliberation and listening leadership. Only then can we steer the economy and technology toward a more sustainable path and recover our collective capacity to decide the future.
“Only by recovering our sense of agency can we direct technological developments toward real benefits and prevent them from amplifying existing risks.”
We were recognized once again by Leaders League among the leading firms in Risk Management and Crisis Management in Peru. The ranking, prepared by the international firm Leaders League, places our operation in Peru in the highest category of its specialized ranking. Founded in Paris in 1996, the publication has nearly 30 years of experience analyzing companies and markets globally, consolidating itself as an international reference in the evaluation of advisory and professional services firms.
The “Leader” distinction represents the highest category awarded by the ranking and reinforces the positioning we have built in Peru, accompanying organizations and leaders in some of their most complex moments. In an environment where reputation, the ability to anticipate, and risk management are increasingly decisive, communication has become a key element to protect trust and help organizations navigate high-exposure scenarios.
This recognition reflects the work we develop from Peru together with clients from different sectors, accompanying them in the management of sensitive conversations, critical situations, and strategic decision-making processes. It also highlights the consistency and depth of a practice that combines strategic vision, knowledge of the context, and real-time response capacity.
Furthermore, it reaffirms the coordinated work among our teams and the shared commitment to continue building high-impact integrated solutions, aligned with the needs of an increasingly demanding and changing business environment.
Thanks to the entire team and the clients who continue to trust us to accompany them in some of their most important moments.
We ranked #4 in The Deal’s Q1 2026 Private Equity PR Firms league table, climbing two positions from our previous #6 ranking in Q4 2025, based on transaction activity in the U.S. market.
Published by With Intelligence, The Deal is a specialized industry benchmark that tracks advisory performance across one of the most competitive segments of the U.S. deal ecosystem.
Its quarterly rankings measure firms by the number of announced deals and their aggregate transaction value, with a focus on financial PR, private equity-backed deals, and restructuring or bankruptcy advisory.
This recognition reflects our continued activity supporting private equity transactions across investor communications, portfolio company developments, fundraising narratives, and complex strategic processes. In these environments, communication is not peripheral to the transaction. It helps build confidence, manage complexity, and align stakeholders when decisions move fast and scrutiny is high.
Our work in U.S. private equity is part of a broader financial communications platform operating across global M&A markets. Earlier this year, Mergermarket recognized us among the top 10 most active PR advisors worldwide in M&A league tables, reinforcing our sustained presence across transactions internationally.
Together, these recognitions reflect consistency over time and across markets where deals require clarity, discipline, and strategic judgment. They also reinforce the value of supporting our clients in their moments of truth, when a transaction, a decision, or a narrative can directly shape market confidence.
Thank you to everyone involved in making this possible. Your rigor, teamwork, and client-first mindset continue to strengthen how we show up in one of the most demanding areas of our industry.
Partners for What’s Next.
There are campaigns that manage to capture the emotional pulse of their time. In “La rueda” (The Wheel) the new campaign from Cervezas Alhambra, the narrative is built upon a necessary visual metaphor: the urgency of breaking away from inertia to reclaim the sovereignty of our own time.
The challenge: the inertia of immediacy
We start from an insight that defines modern life: “autopilot.” In a society where speed is confused with efficiency, we have normalized moving through life without paying attention to what surrounds us. The challenge is, therefore, to elevate Alhambra Reserva 1925, transforming it into the catalyst for a necessary and conscious pause.
The strategy: a metaphor in motion
To materialize this concept, the campaign uses the Cyr wheel as an analogy for the dizzying pace imposed on us by daily life. By filming entirely in Granada, the brand’s city of origin, the city stops being a backdrop and becomes a protagonist that embodies the brand’s philosophy: living without haste.
A high-fashion audiovisual proposal
Faithful to the excellence that defines our projects, “La rueda” (The Wheel) moves away from conventional category codes to approach the aesthetics of luxury and cinema. To achieve this, we have relied on an ecosystem of exceptional talent:
- Direction and Production: The eye of Nacho Gayán and the production company Agosto have provided the piece with a cinematographic texture and an organic elegance.
- Voice and Sound: The musical composition was handled by Iván Llopis, along with a string quartet from the Orchestra of Valencia; together they have created an emotional atmosphere that reinforces the message of authenticity.
The impact: relevance through authenticity
With this launch, Cervezas Alhambra not only reinforces its century-old identity: it proposes a different pace to connect with an audience that seeks a deeper and more conscious way of inhabiting their daily lives.
Enjoy the full video of the campaign: