Transparency is the new AI strategy

Hello all, it’s edition 131 of The SEG3 Report, and this week I’m looking at the International Olympic Committee (IOC)’s nascent Trustworthy AI Framework, the details of which are applicable to anyone building fan experiences with AI.

Plus, our speed reads:

Let’s dive in!

A couple of days ago I saw this meme on Reductress’ Instagram page. I chortled to myself and continued doomscrolling. But I thought about it again when sitting down to write about the IOC launching its Trustworthy AI Framework.

There are a lot of different reasons for wanting to avoid AI - those Google AI summaries can be very, very wrong, and we’ve already seen countless headlines about rogue AI hallucinated facts making their way into important papers and studies. 

It makes sense, then, that an organisation like the International Olympic Committee (IOC) with a global reputation to protect wants clear rules for how AI gets used across the Olympic Movement. It may not be the sexiest AI announcement (sorry, IOC) - that said, there are some interesting golden nuggets for anyone building fan experiences that incorporate AI on any level.

The Framework was built with Deloitte and shaped by more than 200 leaders across the Olympic Movement, athletes included. It sets out seven principles covering safety, personal data, reliability, transparency, accountability, fairness and sustainability.

The part worth your time, and that we’ll focus on, is the checklist - a series of questions which can help you understand your risk level, such as:

Now, a lot of fan engagement products will answer yes to those questions, and as such, this framework will deem you “high-risk”. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as it forces you to know what guardrails and standards you need to put into place before you let it out into the world.

A good example of this in practice is Hasbro’s AI studio, Sixth Wall. Its Chief Creative Officer, Gray Bright, told us on The Speakeasy that the studio chose real voice actors over synthetic copies, with all of Sixth Wall’s output drawing on a golden record, a single approved source which keeps AI in canon and in lore.

Together, these are the kind of guardrails and internal standards that mean the effort and creativity of the human artists is kept intact throughout whilst still being able to deliver new experiences using emerging technology.

Thematically, the bit I was most interested in was that everyone across the Olympic Movement must be aware when they are interacting with AI. In short, transparency.

It isn’t the first time we’ve talked about trust and the use of AI. In edition 125, I looked at IBM’s fan data, where AI use keeps climbing even while trust in it slips. In edition 108, I explored Luminate’s report on AI in Music, Film and TV. The most salient takeaway from that data was that when audiences and fans feel like AI use is being hidden from them, their trust in the creator is broken.

Basically, AI in workflow - where it’s seamless and, often, invisible - is acceptable to fans, but there is hesitancy (more than that, really) when it starts to eke out into the creative process, especially in a way that isn’t transparent or when AI makes a mistake (as we covered last week, with 100 Thieves’ AI use in their Old School RuneScape design). 

The IOC’s checklist is the supplier-side answer to avoiding these kinds of pitfalls. But more than that, transparency is at the core of everything. Being clear about where AI is being deployed, how it’s built, and what data it uses means you can earn goodwill while still delivering cutting-edge and efficient experiences.

Looking at sports specifically, Wimbledon is a really useful example of the use of AI, because the tournament runs two very different kinds of AI technology, both of which can be held up to the IOC framework.

Match Chat is the in-match assistant built with IBM. A fan opens it because they want to, and asks it whatever they like. This is a low-stakes AI deployment, because fans can opt to use the AI or not, and its systems are transparent.

The line-calling system, however, was a blanket tournament-wide programme, replacing roughly 300 human line judges. This is a clearly high-stakes use of AI, and has dramatic consequences for the players.

Wimbledon's line-calling issue last summer highlighted the limits of AI’s ability, and what happens when things like the ‘who is held accountable’ question isn’t answered. While we fully expect people to make errors, and we hold them accountable, this moment showed the value in what the IOC lays out: that having a human backstop, especially in live experiences, is paramount for trust and performance all around.

On The Speakeasy, Chris Clements told us the IBM partnership works because there’s enough trust for each side to “push and challenge” the other. This relationship is what allows missteps to be fixed, and what keeps AI in check. Basically, someone across the table is allowed to say no. 

The IOC’s launch statement put athlete data front and centre, and for good reason. A 2025 piece in Frontiers in Sports and Active Living notes that wearable data comes from athletes’ bodies while its legal ownership remains uncertain, and use of it in recruitment may count as high risk under the EU AI Act. Dry, sure, but really important.

The bigger point to note is that the IOC is treating fans via the same personal data principles, which are:

Again, this speaks back to that transparency angle we mentioned earlier, just on the opposite end of the funnel.

To come back to Chris Clements once more, he told us during that episode that he doesn’t love the word “personalisation” because it “doesn’t really mean anything”. What matters to Wimbledon is learning about visitors quickly “provided you give us the right consent”. 

That’s the balance that we all have to strike. More data can mean better fan experiences, and fans know this too. But that doesn’t mean everyone’s keen to have their data scraped without their explicit consent. (We talked previously about unreliable audience data, and the ramifications it can have).

Giving fans a clear reason for collecting their data, and an explanation about what new experiences it will unlock for them, means you’re more likely to get that data willingly, happily even, from fans. A little transparency across the board goes a long way.

So, if you want to borrow anything from the IOC’s framework, I think these three points are the most important ones to consider:

The first is human oversight: who is there to step in when AI gets it wrong, and how do fans reach them?

The second is disclosure: tell people when they’re dealing with AI, what it’s for, where it’ll be beneficial (and where it could fall short).

The third is consent: ask for it from whoever is going to come into contact with AI. Make opting out as easy as opting in.

Keep to those principles before a launch, and you’ll keep the trust and respect of your audience. Leave them out until something happens or fans pick up on AI’s involvement, and you’ll spend far more time, effort and resources winning them back over than if you’d just been transparent.

Riot Games and Balenciaga are teaming up for Valorant Champions Shanghai 2026, with an in-game agent as the face of the campaign.

TL;DR

Why you should care

Here we are again, with the digital, product, life layer handoff! 

Balenciaga has named Valorant’s Viper as its first digital brand ambassador.

It’s a light-touch drop, but it feels like a deliberate choice rather than a consequence of caution. It’s very different to Balenciaga’s own Fortnite tie-up in 2021, which had physical merch and in-game outfits. Instead, this drop leans into scarcity: one product, the NEO FOCUS gaming-specific eyewear. 

This also fits how Balenciaga seems to be picking its partners, which is - again - with deliberate strategy in mind. In Edition 116 we covered it becoming Substack’s first luxury fashion partner, with brand money going to individual creators rather than platform inventory. This is a direct line to Balenciaga fans via creators’ newsletters, a depth play rather than a reach play. 

Then there’s SEGA: on The Speakeasy, Justin Scarpone said these partnerships let SEGA speak to the subset of fans who are both SEGA and Balenciaga fans. He was clear it won’t be as mass as a Sonic toy line at Walmart, but said, “occasional halo products are well appreciated.” This is a similar move, with a halo product (the glasses) that speaks directly to fashion lovers who also play Valorant.

Balenciaga is going where an engaged community already spends its time, and delivering co-created products that get fans excited. It’s a winning formula in our eyes.

Working on anything cool, or have a press release you would like us to cover? Send it in for the chance for it to be covered in next week’s edition!

That’s all for now, everyone - thanks again for reading the latest edition of The SEG3 Report. If you found it of interest, please do consider sharing with a colleague or friend who’d enjoy it too!