Disintermediation and Democratization 2.0: What My 2011 Speech Got Right (and Where We Stand Now)

By: Jack Martin

In October 2011, I stood before an audience at the Holmes Think Tank in New York and delivered a speech about two forces that I believed were quietly dismantling the traditional architecture of corporate communications and public affairs: disintermediation and democratization.

Back then, I made a point that made a few people in the room shift in their seats:

"The public is eager to hear someone explain to them what they should care about. They are eager for leadership. They are eager to hear the truth, and they are insistent that they hear it in a way that they think is unbuilding."

Fifteen years later, that statement isn't just an observation of media dynamics, it has become the defining operational law of global politics, geopolitics, and public trust.

If you look closely at today’s political landscape, the shift I spoke about in 2011 hasn't just continued; it has accelerated into something far more raw, direct, and unpredictable. Here is a look at what we said then versus where we live now.

1. From "Mobile Devices" to the Death of the Middleman

What I said in 2011:

"When you look at the numbers from the experts that watch these trends, they will tell you that over the next five years, your mobile device will be increasingly where you get most of your information... It's moving away from the computer, and certainly moving away from the traditional things that I mentioned to you in the beginning."

What is happening now:

In 2011, we were watching early smartphones chip away at print media. Today, disintermediation in politics is absolute. The legacy gatekeepers; newspaper editorial boards, traditional evening news broadcasts, and party apparatuses, no longer hold a monopoly on public narrative.

Political figures and geopolitical actors don't pitch stories to journalists to reach voters; they broadcast directly to millions via personalized digital channels, long-form podcasts, direct messaging networks, and short-form algorithms. The public no longer receives "filtered" information. They receive unmediated statements in real time, forcing political leaders to manage a public that is reacting live, 24/7, without traditional institutional buffers.

2. The Search for "Unbuilding" and Authentic Leadership

What I said in 2011:

"They are eager for leadership. They are eager to hear the truth, and they are insistent that they hear it in a way that they think is unbuilding."

What is happening now:

If 2011 was defined by the public’s desire for "unbuilding," today's landscape is marked by a complete rejection of political performance altogether. It is no longer enough for leaders to throw away the script; the public now intensely scrutinizes the motives behind why it was discarded in the first place. What voters, consumers, and shareholders demand today goes beyond unpolished delivery, as they insist on verifiable conviction, direct accessibility, and tangible operational follow-through.

In this environment, conviction has replaced calculation. Dropping the PR filter was once revolutionary, but if an "unfiltered" moment feels manufactured today, the public immediately rejects it as political or corporate opportunism. Modern audiences demand leaders who hold the line on core values, even when doing so generates friction or controversy, because they respect genuine conviction far more than consensus-building shaped by focus groups.

At the same time, disintermediation has evolved into a demand for radical directness. The public rejects messages delivered through buffers, press officers, or carefully timed media releases, expecting unmediated access to decision-makers. Whether taking raw questions from voters or addressing constituents directly without middle management, leaders are expected to engage in real-time, transparent accountability.

Finally, the era of the grand speech has yielded to a strict demand for action over aspiration. Exhausted by high-minded rhetoric that fails to produce operational results, modern audiences actively reward leaders and organizations that demonstrate their principles through concrete choices, while relentlessly calling out those who merely offer empty rhetoric. Ultimately, while the public in 2011 wanted to hear the truth in an unbuilt way, today they demand that leadership itself be unbuilt: stripped of political theater, grounded in calculated risk, and delivered with absolute candor.

3. The Shift in Ad-Spending vs. Direct Engagement

What I said in 2011:

"The advertising firms have, as a business practice, to go to a client and to produce an ad for you... that is a very expensive method of communicating with the public... I believe if you have the right model in a public relations firm, you'll be the beneficiary of all this... you're in a position to reach the public in a more efficient, in a cheaper, in a more targeted way."

What is happening now:

In 2011, the multi-hundred-thousand-dollar Super Bowl-style ad was still king of public persuasion. In today’s political arena, massive broadcast ad buys are yielding diminishing returns compared to targeted, organic social amplification, micro-targeted digital messaging, and direct creator partnerships.

Modern political campaigns and geopolitical influence operations are no longer won by simply buying broadcast space. They are won by understanding public sentiment, using data-driven research to gauge real-time attitudes, and engaging directly with micro-communities where trust actually resides.

4. The "5th Seat" and the Wisdom Business in a Fractured World

What I said in 2011:

"We become the deliverers of wisdom in any large transaction, in any large company, only if we begin to adapt to the twenty-first century and make the case that we have wisdom about the public and that we have values as in our own companies that they can trust in us to deliver that."

What is happening now:

In 2011, I argued that every major boardroom needed a "5th Seat"; a dedicated voice focused entirely on understanding the public. Today, that concept applies just as critically to geopolitical statecraft and governance.

We live in a world where populist movements, rapid digital coordination, and instant public activism can rewrite international alliances or upend legislation overnight. Leaders in both business and politics can no longer rely on top-down authority or echo-chamber decision-making. The real competitive advantage “the real wisdom” comes from listening to the single, globally connected public, understanding their core values, and leading with clarity and conviction.

The Bottom Line

The core thesis I laid out in 2011 remains true: there is ultimately only one public, and they hold unprecedented power. The tools may have evolved from basic mobile screens to complex algorithmic feeds and AI-driven platforms, but the fundamental human requirement hasn't changed. People are still looking for genuine wisdom, clear values, and leadership they can trust in an unbuilt world.

What are your thoughts on how disintermediation is shaping today's political headlines? Let’s discuss in the comments below.