How companies decide; instant romance novels; Andy Award nominations: Newsletter 11 February 2026

Newsletter 135. Companies (and Super Bowl coaches) behave rationally, even when it seems otherwise. Plus, how to write a romance novel in an hour, a terrifying prediction about AI job loss, three people to follow, three books to read, and one bot to rule them all.

Rational actors, Super Bowl edition

People are irrational. Organizations aren’t. They do things for logical reasons. The trick is to figure out why.

For example:

Why was the Super Bowl so boring? Because both teams limited risk. Why? Because it figured to be a low-scoring game. Why? Because both defenses were excellent. Both coaches were, too. They pursued the strategies most likely to win, which meant low risk and keeping the ball mostly on the ground. Boring to watch for most viewers, but rational.

Why did halftime feature Puerto Rican artist Bad Bunny? Because he is vastly popular, especially globally: he’s been Spotify’s most streamed artist four times. And the NFL is trying to build a global presence. Why was his show the way it was? Most likely, because that was part of what the NFL had to agree to for him to perform. What about the people who found his show offensive? Well, how many of them are there? How many tuned away? Maybe 5 million, versus over 100 million who watched Bad Bunny. How many will stop watching the NFL? Based on past behavior, hardly any. The NFL behaved rationally. It doesn’t care about your feelings, and it knows there is no threat to its dominance of American sports.

Why are news organizations like the Washington Post and CBS News treating the Trump administration more favorably? Because they and their owners believe that is the best way to enable them to get favorable treatment from the administration in the future. Is that going to reduce their audiences? That’s likely. But their owners have bigger ambitions than just news. Will that reduce the value of those news assets as audiences become frustrated and leave? Yes, but they believe the reduction in value is smaller than the amount that favorable treatment could add to the value of their holding companies.

I see people make this error over and over. In their interpersonal interactions, they ascribe value to qualities like integrity and shared values. They interact with corporations on the same basis. The corporations encourage this, spending on marketing to create “brands” that seem to embody human qualities. But that’s marketing. Behind the scenes, there are armies of analysts (and yes, AI as well) determining the likely increase or decrease in value and risk, both short- and long-term, from their decisions.

That’s how they make decisions.

They don’t care about your feelings. They only care about your spending. And even that, they only care about in aggregate.

Inertia is their most valuable asset. Customers don’t want to put in the effort to research or change their behaviors. They like to complain. They don’t like to act.

There is one thing affecting large organizations that changes almost daily. The behavior of the current presidential administration is volatile, and changes in policy can quickly have massive impacts on valuations. It’s not really a surprise that large organizations respond to that. It’s a potential immediate threat, as opposed to the inertia that characterizes the rest of their markets.

If you don’t like what you see, you can whine and boycott. That might work, but given how powerful inertia is, it may take a while.

Changes in the administration, however, will have a more immediate impact.

If you analyze all the forces affecting a large organization, you’ll see that it’s behaving rationally. Railing against it is futile. Because in the end, only sustained changes in the conditions in the world will cause a difference in the decisions such organizations make.

News for writers and others who think

Alexandra Alter writes in the New York Times about romance writers who are using AI to craft books in an hour or so (gift link). Is this because romance is so formulaic? Maybe. But you have to wonder what somewhat formulaic categories might be next.

Gotham Ghostwriters and the ASJA announced that they are accepting submissions for the Andy Awards, which recognize excellence in ghostwritten books. Books published between January 1, 2025 and June 30, 2026 are eligible. The named author and the ghostwriter must submit jointly.

Developer Matt Shumer makes a compelling case that AI is coming for every white-collar job, and sooner than you think.

Scholarly and professional publishers have seen their valuations drop. If your company is valued on gatekeeping content, AI is clearly a threat.

In Fast Company, enterprises that replace entry-level workers with AI are, unsurprisingly, finding that anticipated “benefits” aren’t quite as simple as they seem.

Three people to follow

Jason Freeman , CEO of a company bringing AI tools to learning design

Andrew Lack , journalist and former head of NBC News

Sally Hogshead , creative and fascinating author

Three books to read

Reaching for the Extreme: How the Quest for the Biggest, Fewest, and Weirdest Makes Math by Ian Stewart (Princeton University Press, 2026). What makes mathematicians tick?

Incorruptible: Why Good Companies Go Bad and How Great Companies Stay Great by @eric Ries (Authors Equity, 2026). The cure to the disease of short-term thinking, from the author of The Lean Startup.

A People’s Guide to Publishing: Building a Successful, Sustainable, Meaningful Book Business from the Ground Up, Second Edition, by Joe Biel (Microcosm, 2026). How to build an indie publisher from a standing start.

Bot? Why not?

Being an author used to be confusing, until you found out you could get answers to all your questions for two bucks.