Latest news with #RapidResponse
RNZ News
18 hours ago
- RNZ News
Person taken to hospital after reported assault in Auckland suburb of Beach Haven
Photo: ST JOHN NZ A person has been taken to North Shore Hospital after a reported assault in the Auckland suburb of Beach Haven on Wednesday afternoon. St John were notified of an assault incident at 4:21pm on Rangatira Road and Sunnyhaven Avenue. A person was taken to North Shore Hospital in a moderate condition. St John said that an ambulance, a rapid response unit and an operations manager attended. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Fast Company
13-07-2025
- General
- Fast Company
How Watch Duty became a go-to app during natural disasters
During January's unprecedented wildfires in Los Angeles, Watch Duty—a digital platform providing real-time fire data—became the go-to app for tracking the unfolding disaster and is credited with saving countless lives. Six months out from the fires, Watch Duty's founder and CEO, John Mills, shares how his small nonprofit responded in the heat of the crisis and became a trusted source—even for government agencies. As wildfire season rages on and Texas recovers from devastating floods, Watch Duty's story underscores both our growing vulnerability to natural disasters driven by climate change and the power of community-based solutions to keep us safe and connected when it matters most. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today's top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. As I understand it, Watch Duty is a nonprofit and it's an app that gathers information largely from volunteers, right? From regular people who are monitoring fires? It's like a community? Very much so. You can look at Reddit and Wikipedia in a similar way. The difference is, we do it live. We have about 200 volunteers, about 20 paid staff, about 10 of those are radio operators themselves. But the information really comes from fire service radio. So after going through a couple of disasters, you realize that there's not a Starlink in every truck. The communication systems aren't very good. The firefighters are in danger, and the only way to hear what's actually going on is through them collaborating with each other in real time, through the radio. And so we hear: 'Fire starting here, burning over this ridge.' 'Tankers and dozers are coming.' 'Holding the line to Highway 87.' 'Now the wind's picking up, the fire's spotting over the ridge.' 'It's burning over so-and-so, houses are being impacted.' You hear this live. There is no data source for this. There's not a place for this to happen without us. So that's how we do what we do. And this community of volunteers, are they fire workers? Or are some of them just watching and sharing what they're seeing? A lot of them were 30-, 40-year wildland firefighters, dispatchers, reporter types, sons and daughters of firefighters who grew up in the fire service with the radio chatting in the background. So it sounds like there was a community that was there that you tapped into. I understand you had to persuade them a little bit to see you as more than just a tech guy. That's the beauty of this. We just saw the human behavior and helped enable them to do it better. One of the fires I went through, which was one of the big ones in 2020, when the sky turned red up in Northern California, I was watching them on Facebook and Twitter already doing this. So they were kind of regionalized. There was someone in Red Bluff, someone in Redding, someone in SoCal, someone in Sonoma, Napa. They were independently doing this. They knew each other. They would talk and collaborate a little bit, but they wouldn't organize together. They weren't adversarial, they just didn't spend time really collaborating. The innovation was really [to] convince them all to work together—that I was not [just] a techie. That I lived here, like them, in the same danger that they did. The key was to convince them that I'm here to help. I'm part of this community. I'm not sitting in my laboratory in Silicon Valley trying to profiteer off of your disaster. And the information that they're sharing, the app puts it into a more usable form or a more accessible form? Yeah, it's a great question. We didn't change their behavior. They were always listening to radios and speaking the language of the fire service and putting it on Facebook and Twitter. What happens behind the scenes is actually a lot more data. There's a lot of signals coming in, and a lot of it is very tactical and minor, and we don't want that to go out on Watch Duty. And so they're collaborating in Slack. They're all talking and listening. It's very rare where there's one person running an incident. There are many people in real time content editing: '15 acres heading north-northwest. Was it 50 or 15?' 'Oh shoot, let's wait for the next transmission, air attack's about to be overhead.' 'We're going to get a size-up on the fire.' Then we deploy the information on Watch Duty. So in real time, they're collaborating. Someone has the con, or control, and that person's essentially incident commander. So of the folks who are on duty or running the event at that time, some of them may be volunteers and some of them may be your staff people? advertisement Yeah, it's a mixed bag. Like many nonprofits, there's paid staff and then there's volunteers. And a lot of our volunteers are now either changing careers or having a second career, because first, they contribute and they listen, and then they start to report, and then they become a staff reporter or a regional captain in the area and help run and collaborate certain parts of a state or a region. And then many of them actually become full-time employees. During the fires I saw that Watch Duty passed ChatGPT as the No. 1 downloaded app. The traffic must have really caught you by surprise, just like the fire did. Yeah, it did. Here's the sad part: We've been the No. 1 app in the App Store three times. This time was the worst, by far. Yeah, I mean, L.A.'s own emergency alert system, there was one, but it was buggy. It was sending false alerts. So it wasn't just L.A. residents that were using Watch Duty, right? It was government officials and firefighters and the helicopter pilots. Everybody seemed to be on it. Yes, the government also uses Watch Duty. We're on all the big screens and all the emergency operation centers. We've done something that others haven't been able to crack, and it's a usable format. So whether you're a little old lady or a 'hose dragger' or a 'brush bunny,' as firefighters refer to themselves as in the wildlands, they all use it and it's done something that we didn't see coming. We assumed that the government had all that information and they just weren't telling us, not out of malice, but they're busy, they're trying to fight the fire. It's very granular, the information we share, and then quickly we realize that we're getting emails from tanker pilots and dozer operators and others telling us that we give them more information than overhead gives them. And that's when we really realized this is a much bigger company than we ever thought possible. It's strange. Is Watch Duty's success, I don't know, an example of the government's failure or the failure of tax-funded technology? Or was there just no investment in this? Yeah, look, I mean, we work so closely with a lot of these government organizations and there's failure abound. It's everywhere. It's how we voted as individuals. It's the other software vendors who were selling lackluster products. It's the government having no other options. There are so many points of failure here. It just really compounded that day and it was very apparent how necessary we were. It's hard to just point blame at one person or one org. I know that's what everybody wants is they want to blame the boogeyman so we can go fix it. And it's not just climate change, it's bad forest management. It's like there's so many things that are all working against us here. It's making this problem extraordinarily bad.
Fast Company
01-07-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
Yahoo CEO Jim Lanzone talks AI, reinvention, and reclaiming relevance
Yahoo is at a critical inflection point. Despite having a large user base—across Yahoo Finance, Yahoo Sports, and Yahoo News—the media company hasn't reclaimed the buzz of its early days. CEO Jim Lanzone candidly discusses the fear of being 'left behind' and how he's pushing the brand to shed its old skin. He explains the wide-ranging implications as AI remakes search engines into answer engines and shares insights about the line between fantasy sports and gambling. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by the former editor-in-chief of Fast Company Bob Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today's top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. I wanted to ask you, you talk about it like Yahoo is sort of in a turnaround or a restart. But I mean, Yahoo News is the number-one news site on the internet, right? Yahoo Finance is the number one. Your fantasy sports platform is huge. You've got a big ad tech business, which I'm sure you talk about here. Second-largest email platform. You've got search, not Google-size search, but still substantial . . . All that sounds pretty robust. Yeah. Amazing ingredients with which to do a turnaround. So the way I would think about it is that absolutely the brands are still extremely relevant and they've had very loyal user bases. As a business, I think a lot of people know, but some maybe don't, that we were spun out of Verizon. Over the years, Yahoo was a stand-alone public company. It was acquired by Verizon in the mid-2010s. They also acquired AOL, which we also own and is one of our brands. And we were acquired for about $5 billion. So if you think about the other brands in and around our rankings in the traffic rankings, they're all trillion dollar brands. And so we had something to work with in terms of the size and loyalty of some of the audiences. But in some cases, email's one of them. We had a big announcement last week. The core product hadn't been improved in over 10 years. And so in the last nine months, every product that we operate has been relaunched with brand-new versions. And so taking advantage of the size of that audience to rebuild the business to be super valuable is the more turnaround side of it. And when you look at something that is robust, like the fantasy sports, as the NFL season comes, which will be your next big burst, right? We actually have a lot planned for it this year. I was curious, how much of the goal is to use this opportunity to introduce those users to other things you have, versus give them new things around what they already are coming for? I mean, what you'll find is that our individual brands have in some ways different audiences. People who really use Yahoo Finance as their way to make more money and save more money and attract stocks and all that is pretty independent of people who love fantasy or love checking sports scores with Yahoo Sports. I definitely think the secret sauce of Yahoo, especially for advertisers, since we're here, is that, collectively, it's hundreds of millions of people who have a first-party relationship with us, which makes our ad targeting extremely effective. So one Yahoo overall is something that actually is true about the actual business. Getting people to use Yahoo as one point for everything is something that will happen over time, but we're not going top-down in how we go about it. But it sounds like you don't necessarily, at least right now, need to convert people into being like, 'I'm a Yahoo, and I do everything in the Yahoo world.' I think that was the '90s Yahoo, and I think the internet kind of moved past that. That said, we did relaunch the Yahoo homepage in February after months of testing different variations of it because the user base gets pretty locked in with how they do things, and you can really mess it up in the link chain if you change something. So we found one that really worked, and the most interesting thing about it was we went back to adding more portal-like features. Over the years, it'd become kind of just a newsfeed, and we added things back that were more utility-based around weather and other things and found that people love that. So actually, the Yahoo homepage that is more of a place to get things done is probably more the direction we'll head with it than just straight news. Not everything about the way the internet was framed in the beginning was wrong. Right? It's interesting because having competed against the people at Yahoo for the first 20-plus years of my career and taking that eye towards it, working here, you do kind of get an appreciation for how . . . If you go back and look at the 2007 version of the homepage or 2003, there was some magic to that and how it all worked, especially with the way the internet has gone with a lot of slop and misinformation, disinformation, clickbait, and people trying to get you to do things. The fact that it kind of had everything in one place, I don't know, it was maybe taken for granted a little bit. So we actually have taken some inspiration from that. Obviously we try to modernize it. But yeah, we've taken some inspiration from it. So with the generative AI wave, media is changing like crazy. As search engines like Google become more of an answer engine as opposed to a search engine, sites like a lot of yours may see some of their referral traffic decline. At the same time, you have a search business yourselves. And if you follow where that is going to become more of an answer engine, you may encourage the development in that direction in people's habits, which could undercut the other part of your business. I'm just curious how you think about those pieces fitting together. Yeah. And I spent the first 10 years of my career in search, and a lot of what we did back in the day was absolutely moving things towards an answer engine. And so I would say that's not really new. What people know as Google OneBox, a lot of the search engines in the early 2000s were doing, already brought answers like the weather or music lyrics or multimedia or translations directly into the page. So this has always been the case. Now, there are certain kinds of queries called navigational queries. Those are trying to get you directly to a website. I do find it interesting that a lot of the generative . . . A lot of the large language models, they're getting a lot of their traffic and sending it to places that are more canonical. So for ChatGPT, 50% of their citations are Wikipedia. For Perplexity, almost 50% are Reddit. And so those are more evergreen, deeper, almost more educational responses. A lot of Yahoo's content is real-time, stock prices, sports scores. So for us personally, we operate in a kind of a different space. But you don't expect that referral traffic to decline? So a couple things. So one is I actually strongly believe that the role of search is not to take traffic from the open web, but to send traffic. And in our case, Yahoo's been doing that for over two decades. We have relationships with all of our publishers where we share revenue, we send traffic downstream. And so I actually think that's part of what Yahoo's always done really well is help create a healthy ecosystem. That was also part of the bargain of the open web for search, that you would make yourself available to the engine that would then send you traffic downstream. Having that traffic get cut off and just subsuming that data to then keep it for yourself was not part of that grand bargain. I think we're in the early days of figuring out how that's going to go. What I actually think will happen in search over time, because I think we're still in the primordial phase here of what AI versions of search will look like, is that the page will respond to your query and to what the search engine knows about you personally to have a different version of the search results page depending on the query type and depending on you. And so you're never going to get the same kind of response to each one of these. I personally really believe that it should ultimately wind up sending traffic downstream to the sources, and little citation links probably are not going to do that.
Yahoo
23-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Autodesk CMO Dara Treseder on how brands are navigating attention and polarization at Cannes Lions
At the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, top agencies and brands vie for awards and hustle to close deals. As this year's event wraps up, Autodesk CMO Dara Treseder shares the insider buzz—from the continued rise of creator-led content to how brands navigate getting the right kind of attention in a polarized market. Housing market map: Zillow just released its updated home price forecast for 400-plus housing markets Perplexity's new AI features are a game changer. Here's how to make the most of them 5 signals that make you instantly more trustworthy at work This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today's top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. What are you hearing people talk about here at the festival? A lot is going on. There's a recurring theme. I think . . . everyone is trying to figure out, How can I cut through without being cut out? How can I cut through without alienating a core part of my audience? Because we're living in such a polarized time, where there are very few things people can align on. And so there is really that, but we are also in an attention recession, where it's so difficult to get attention, and getting attention is not enough, because you have to convert that attention into intention, right? To get people to actually go into discovery, consideration, and ultimately purchase. So, it's not just getting the attention, but the attention in the way that's right for your brand. Exactly. Getting attention in a way that's right for your brand and drives action, drives engagement. And now, there's just so much that grabs people's attention, so grabbing attention isn't enough. It's actually converting the attention into intention, into buyer intent. Are there any rules about it, or is it that each brand has to do it in its own way? I think that there are some themes that we're seeing about how brands in general are doing this, across all industries, B2B, B2C, healthcare, technology, beauty, retail. We're seeing some recurring themes. And I think one of the big themes is leaning into creators and community, because people show up for people. They might not necessarily show up for brands in the same way as we've seen in the past. So a lot of brands are leaning into [that]. I mean, creators are all over the place. Creators and athletes. Because creators and athletes come with a more dedicated and a more engaged and a more, I'm going to use the word rabid, a little bit, fan base. Yes, real fans. Real fans, rather than just celebrities that you see. I mean, we've been talking for a few years about influencers and how that has sort of changed the marketplace. It sounds a little bit like we've broken through to a new layer with that? We've certainly broken through to a new layer. And in fact, they don't want to be called influencers. They want to be called creators. Because they're saying, 'Hey, I'm not here to just influence. I'm here to co-create with you to drive a certain outcome.' So we're seeing that happen more now. And does that change the relationship that a brand like yours has with a traditional advertising firm? Are you going to creators in a different way? It definitely changes, because creators have, I think, a lot more say and a lot more power, and they're taking a bigger space at the table. So, gone are the days, I think, where it's just you find a creator, you tell them exactly what you want to do. If you're actually trying to drive real results and you want their fans to show up, they're taking an audience-first approach. So first of all, you've got to find that creator that aligns with your values. So you have to know they agree with you or they're simpatico in that way before they start. There's got to be trust. . . . And the trust goes both ways. You have got to trust that they are aligned to your brand values, they are aligned to your customer base, because remember, you want to cut through, you want to break through, but you are not trying to cut out a big portion of your customer base. So you need to make sure that you have that trust that yes, they are aligned to your brand values, they're aligned to your purpose, they're aligned to the outcomes, but then you also have to trust them to give them the space to do what they do. Because it can't come across as an ad. It has to come across as something more organic, something that they would truly want to do on their own, because that's when their audience shows up, and that's what determines the result. Are you, in your conversations with your peers, with other CMOs, are you hearing them privately acknowledge like, 'Oh, we didn't do that quite right? We alienated a group we didn't want to.' One hundred percent, especially in today's world. . . . As we're having these private CMO roundtables, we're all sharing, here's what went wrong, here's what went right, here's what I learned. And a lot of it is just, the margin for error is a lot slimmer than it ever was. There is a very thin line between cutting through and cutting out. It's like walking on high heels on a teeny-tiny thread. There is no margin for error. And so . . . a lot of CMOs are thinking about, How do I do this and how do I do this well? . . . And I think one of the things that's really important is making sure that you have a broad pull at the table as these decisions are being made, and that you are also able to pivot and adjust very quickly. I mean, you talked to me previously about this idea of opine with a spine, right? Yes. The idea that to break through, you have to say something sharp, but you're also saying that the risk is higher than ever, but you have to take that risk. There's no way out of this bind. There's no way out. Let me tell you. We've got to give CMOs and marketers, all marketers at all levels, we've got to give [them] a break. It is a tough world out there. And so, yes, you have to opine with a spine, but you got to be careful what you opine on. So you need to pick the thing that truly makes sense for your brand and business. You cannot opine on everything. If you speak about everything, you're speaking about nothing. And if you end up speaking about things that you have not earned the right to speak about, you don't have the credibility to speak about, you could end up in some real hot water that you don't want to be on. Not the good kind of bath, the scalding kind of bath. So there really is that thoughtfulness that has to go into it. This post originally appeared at to get the Fast Company newsletter: Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Fast Company
21-06-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
Autodesk CMO Dara Treseder on how brands are navigating attention and polarization at Cannes Lions
At the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, top agencies and brands vie for awards and hustle to close deals. As this year's event wraps up, Autodesk CMO Dara Treseder shares the insider buzz—from the continued rise of creator-led content to how brands navigate getting the right kind of attention in a polarized market. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today's top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. What are you hearing people talk about here at the festival? A lot is going on. There's a recurring theme. I think . . . everyone is trying to figure out, How can I cut through without being cut out? How can I cut through without alienating a core part of my audience? Because we're living in such a polarized time, where there are very few things people can align on. And so there is really that, but we are also in an attention recession, where it's so difficult to get attention, and getting attention is not enough, because you have to convert that attention into intention, right? To get people to actually go into discovery, consideration, and ultimately purchase. So, it's not just getting the attention, but the attention in the way that's right for your brand. Exactly. Getting attention in a way that's right for your brand and drives action, drives engagement. And now, there's just so much that grabs people's attention, so grabbing attention isn't enough. It's actually converting the attention into intention, into buyer intent. Are there any rules about it, or is it that each brand has to do it in its own way? I think that there are some themes that we're seeing about how brands in general are doing this, across all industries, B2B, B2C, healthcare, technology, beauty, retail. We're seeing some recurring themes. And I think one of the big themes is leaning into creators and community, because people show up for people. They might not necessarily show up for brands in the same way as we've seen in the past. So a lot of brands are leaning into [that]. I mean, creators are all over the place. Creators and athletes. Because creators and athletes come with a more dedicated and a more engaged and a more, I'm going to use the word rabid, a little bit, fan base. Yes, real fans. Real fans, rather than just celebrities that you see. I mean, we've been talking for a few years about influencers and how that has sort of changed the marketplace. It sounds a little bit like we've broken through to a new layer with that? We've certainly broken through to a new layer. And in fact, they don't want to be called influencers. They want to be called creators. Because they're saying, 'Hey, I'm not here to just influence. I'm here to co-create with you to drive a certain outcome.' So we're seeing that happen more now. And does that change the relationship that a brand like yours has with a traditional advertising firm? Are you going to creators in a different way? It definitely changes, because creators have, I think, a lot more say and a lot more power, and they're taking a bigger space at the table. So, gone are the days, I think, where it's just you find a creator, you tell them exactly what you want to do. If you're actually trying to drive real results and you want their fans to show up, they're taking an audience-first approach. So first of all, you've got to find that creator that aligns with your values. So you have to know they agree with you or they're simpatico in that way before they start. There's got to be trust. . . . And the trust goes both ways. You have got to trust that they are aligned to your brand values, they are aligned to your customer base, because remember, you want to cut through, you want to break through, but you are not trying to cut out a big portion of your customer base. So you need to make sure that you have that trust that yes, they are aligned to your brand values, they're aligned to your purpose, they're aligned to the outcomes, but then you also have to trust them to give them the space to do what they do. Because it can't come across as an ad. It has to come across as something more organic, something that they would truly want to do on their own, because that's when their audience shows up, and that's what determines the result. Are you, in your conversations with your peers, with other CMOs, are you hearing them privately acknowledge like, 'Oh, we didn't do that quite right? We alienated a group we didn't want to.' One hundred percent, especially in today's world. . . . As we're having these private CMO roundtables, we're all sharing, here's what went wrong, here's what went right, here's what I learned. And a lot of it is just, the margin for error is a lot slimmer than it ever was. There is a very thin line between cutting through and cutting out. It's like walking on high heels on a teeny-tiny thread. There is no margin for error. And so . . . a lot of CMOs are thinking about, How do I do this and how do I do this well?. . . And I think one of the things that's really important is making sure that you have a broad pull at the table as these decisions are being made, and that you are also able to pivot and adjust very quickly. Yes. The idea that to break through, you have to say something sharp, but you're also saying that the risk is higher than ever, but you have to take that risk. There's no way out of this bind. There's no way out. Let me tell you. We've got to give CMOs and marketers, all marketers at all levels, we've got to give [them] a break. It is a tough world out there. And so, yes, you have to opine with a spine, but you got to be careful what you opine on. So you need to pick the thing that truly makes sense for your brand and business. You cannot opine on everything. If you speak about everything, you're speaking about nothing. And if you end up speaking about things that you have not earned the right to speak about, you don't have the credibility to speak about, you could end up in some real hot water that you don't want to be on. Not the good kind of bath, the scalding kind of bath. So there really is that thoughtfulness that has to go into it.
