For more than two decades, we’ve identified upcoming trends that could be significant to develop strategies to help keep clients relevant. Part of our process is to evaluate our predictions for the current year before gathering data points for the upcoming set of trends.

Our annual Track Record is a way to hold us accountable for our predictions. We always ask: Did we get the trends right? Did we miss a key trend? We try to learn from what we got right as much as well as what we missed or got wrong.

The big trend we identified for 2024 was about generative artificial intelligence—which we realize was obvious, but for what it’s worth, the previous year, we predicted AI would be a big trend before it became mainstream. (AI, including machine learning, has been around for years; our first AI client was back in 2015 and we got them into Fast Company.)

Here’s a recap of the agency’s top predictions for 2024 and our self-reporting on those predictions:

1. The growing popularity of generative AI was a major story but parts of our prediction have not come true—yet. As AI became mainstream, issues such as copyrights and deepfakes, drove significant media attention—as we predicted. We were wrong when we said that AI’s impact on value pricing (because AI reduces the time to create something, the resulting price for that deliverable should decrease) hasn’t happened or caught the media’s attention yet, but we expect it will. We also missed the beginning of a backlash among creatives regarding books, articles and images created by AI without any acknowledgment; we expect more backlash from creatives and those seeking creative content in 2025 but we will see more integration of AI into apps and corporate software. Grade: B. (Please note: this document was written by a human.)
2. Drug shortages and costs did not generate as much media attention as we thought. There were drug shortages, and we assume people did complain about costs. However, the media did mention insulin costs, often in election-related policy discussions. Still, neither topic generated the kind of coverage we expected, such as the positive economic impact that capping insulin prices had. Grade: C.
3. We expected more coverage about CRISPR advancements: Gene-editing tools like CRISPR generated media attention but not at the levels we expected. Challenges remain, particularly cost and access, and we expect that will get covered more in the next few years. Grade: C.
4. Misinformation across social media was a big story: We probably overstated things when we said, “All eyes will be on content moderation and the rising influence of social media in this election year.” There was a spike in coverage about misinformation in Oct. when X (formerly Twitter) issued its first transparency report in two years, and the New York Times has been reporting on some of the most prolific users posting misinformation. We continue to think that misinformation, including deepfakes, is a vitally important issue. Declining trust in media and increasing polarization of news bubbles—not just FOX vs. MSNBC but so-called bro podcasts (like Joe Rogan) vs. late-night comedians—is a problem for the world, not just the U.S.  Worse is social media, where content moderation can’t keep up with the flood of misinformation and hate speech, partly due to bots but also because hate-reading/doomscrolling keeps users clicking on the platform. (It’s possible to see the misinformation and hate as a feature, not a bug.) Grade: A.
5. EVs got coverage, but some adjacent issues did not. The media was focused on EV challenges, especially charging infrastructure and electrification—which we correctly anticipated. But we overstepped when we said that battery storage capacity, along with new technology to enable longer range, would get attention this year and that concerns about climate change would be a factor. We did not see much coverage about battery storage technology but expect more in the next two years. Grade: B.
6. Bitcoin continued to generate media coverage. Okay, probably a slam dunk but we also said to expect more articles questioning aspects of Bitcoin. We continue to expect more backlash articles next year. Grade: A.
7. The real estate sector faced problems and received significant coverage. We said that we will see more commercial buildings converted to residential use to resuscitate downtowns that have been hard hit during Covid. Homeownership is a key issue for Gen Z, who can’t afford the rising costs. Grade: A.
8. Workforce issues continued to get attention. But we didn’t see as much as we expected about the hybrid workforce, shortages, layoffs, and the impact of working from home and returning to the office. Grade: B.
9. Consumers did not feel the impact of anticipated rocket and semiconductor shortages. A semiconductor shortage had real impact but didn’t generate as much coverage this year. Grade: C-.
10. Traditional media, including local papers, faced rocky times. This year, newspapers had less impact than journalists and journalism professors may have thought. (Some claim online “bro media” had a greater impact, at least among Gen Z men.) Given the misinformation and gaslighting prevalent on social media, hard facts and accurate reporting will be more necessary than ever. Unfortunately, traditional media will continue to deal with systemic financial issues that will lead to additional layoffs and closures—and they still need to find a way to be relevant to general consumers. Grade: A+

 Our overall grade for 2024 was 3.07, or just over a B, which is slightly lower than the B+ we typically score.

 We are preparing our predictions for next year. Check again next month for a heads’ up.