Guest article: Matt Baldwin, Coast
PR and communications teams have spent years refining tone, language and style to carefully control corporate messaging. Clear, purposeful writing is expected – and so too authenticity.
But those very qualities that once signalled professionalism are now raising suspicion. AI is to blame.
When writing is perfect, it is assumed to be ‘too perfect’. It must, therefore, have been written by AI.
There is growing pushback in both how writers write and in what journalists demand.
Writers are thinking the unthinkable: deliberately including mistakes in their work. The occasional typo, random capitals or grammatical errors to avoid suspicion, to prove their ‘humanness’.
Journalists too are pushing back.
Here is a paragraph from contributor agreement of the publishers of FT Adviser, Investors Chronicle and The Banker. Its intent is clear.
“You will not use generative artificial intelligence (AI) services to write or gather reporting or information used within your piece; and that if you do use AI in the creation of your piece it is only after consultation with and written permission from the assigning editor and/or appropriate FT representative.”
Publishers are drawing a hard line – and for good reason. The Press Gazette, the media’s trade rag, has run several stories where national and regional newspapers have been duped into quoting AI-generated ‘fake’ experts.
So, if perfect now looks suspicious, what does good actually look like?
All PR and comms teams should baulk at the idea of deliberately introducing errors into their text.
Professional services firms are built on detail, and we can all share examples of a pernickety partner dismissing an early draft article, press release or white paper because of an errant apostrophe or typo. Deliberately reintroducing them will not help.
A more fundamental shift is needed. Tone of voice matters, but provenance is key. Where does the ‘thinking’ in content come from and how clearly does that come across?.
We believe it starts not with the messaging workshops and matrices so loved by PRs, but with the lived experiences of clients, colleagues and intermediaries. The more processed comms becomes, the less human it feels.
Here are two ways to create distance and show authenticity.
Be specific. AI is great at sounding plausible – it is why we love it. But, unless well prompted, it is not so great at being specific. Forget the stylistic quirks that might show you are human (most of us would miss them anyway) and focus on the detail. Your personal experience, those of staff and clients. Use data, case studies and real examples. Let the story tell itself.
Let experts sound like themselves. PR and comms teams are great at smoothing out the individual voice, seeking corporate consistency. We need to loosen that grip and let our experts sound a little more like themselves. Yes, there has to be guardrails, but we should seek to bring out the real personalities in your firm.
The goal is not to sound less professional. It is to sound unmistakably human.
Matt Baldwin is the joint managing director of Coast, a media relations agency.