When I was in college, I got hired as an intern at POWDER magazine. A lifelong skier, landing the unpaid role at “the skier’s bible” — a 50-year old publication with a ravenous following — was like winning the lottery. This wasn’t exactly my collegiate quarterly. POWDER, like any good publication worth its salt, had a very distinct tone and voice. The relationship the magazine had with its incredibly loyal subscribers was its most valuable asset, and every time I got the voice wrong, I risked putting that relationship in jeopardy. Those early assignments had a lot of heavy edits.
Those were hard lessons. I stuck with it, though, and eventually I became the editor-in-chief of that magazine, and then another — this time with a 100-year-old regional publication with an equally precious relationship with readers. That led to a role directing brand marketing — and the tone of voice — for a consumer goods company. I quickly learned just how applicable my magazine experience was for building brand relationships with consumers. Just like publishing, we had to consistently nail the tone and voice or risk alienating our audience. That identity, the reason readers or customers show up, is everything.
This is communications 101 — basic in principle, harder in practice. But in my role as Editor at thinkPARALLAX, overseeing both our content marketing and client reports, I’m seeing AI undercut the very foundation of effective communications: authentic tone and voice.
AI makes a lot of sense for marketers. It can produce content quickly and cheaply. According to SurveyMonkey research, 88% of marketers rely on AI in their current jobs, with 93% using it to generate content faster. Of course they would — it's efficient and accessible. Not using it feels like doing calculus without a calculator. But there’s a fundamental difference: unlike math problems, content creation has no objectively correct answer. And this tool has a fundamental flaw when it comes to the subjective work of building brand relationships.
Brand communications is all about understanding who you are and consistently embracing that identity. In a word, it’s about authenticity. AI, for the most part, is only capable of producing the opposite. It doesn’t create so much as imitate. It is completely dependent on what has already been created. It combs the internet to mimic what already exists. Sure, you can prompt your LLM to adjust its tone and voice. But at best, it’s a simulacrum. And it all kind of sounds the same. If you’ve checked your LinkedIn feed lately, nearly every post follows a similar, generic formula.
Here’s an example of a very cliche sentence written by AI:
“At the end of the day, navigating missed climate goals isn’t just about managing risk — it’s about unlocking the transformative power of authentic leadership in an era where transparency isn’t just nice to have, it’s table stakes.”
And another:
“In today's dynamic digital landscape, brands must leverage authentic storytelling to create meaningful connections and drive engagement across all touchpoints, ensuring that their unique value proposition resonates with target audiences in an increasingly competitive marketplace.”
At first glance, those sure seem like legitimate sentences, but they are so full of jargony gobbledygook they say nothing.
The result of this content is often well-meaning professionals, probably under pressure to produce more with less, undercutting one of their most valuable assets — their identity and their voice. When communications are this vanilla and ubiquitous — often obviously AI-generated — the result is not just unproductive, it’s harmful.
What’s commonly referred to as “AI slop” represents a race to the middle — bland, mediocre content that sounds engaging on the surface but lacks true insight and depth. This isn’t just a marketing problem. Gamers, musicians, lawyers, and journalists are seeing their industries flooded with this hollow content. The scale of crap is so significant that some experts predict AI slop could actually kill the internet.
LLMs just aren’t great for marketing and communications. Identity and voice are too fundamental to outsource to a machine with very little context around your business. And yet, I use AI every day — just differently. An AI bootcamp I recently attended compared LLMs to interns. They need a lot of support and direction, and you always want to check and improve their work. I find Anthropic’s Claude really useful for microtasks within the writing process — a quick start on subheads, ideas for reforming a clunky sentence, summarizing dense technical documents. A recent Harvard Business Review article put it well:
“Use gen AI for much smaller legs in the writing journey — for example, to provide a selection of examples to evidence a point, to find the word on the tip of their tongue, to prompt us into an epiphany. AI is often still at its best when carrying out micro-tasks for us, alongside us.”
For me, Claude isn’t a writer. It’s a refiner — and that helps me save a significant amount of time.
Here are some questions to ask before dropping your next content-generating prompt into an LLM.
Time/efficiency questions:
Voice/authenticity questions:
Strategic value questions:
The main issues with AI writing — generic voice and oversimplification — mirror how we discuss AI itself: it’s either revolutionary or ruinous. The reality is more nuanced. AI can accelerate your work or undermine your brand, depending entirely on how you use it. The framework above helps ensure you’re protecting what matters most: the authentic voice that builds lasting relationships with your audience.
John Clary Davies is the Editor at thinkPARALLAX, a former senior director of brand editorial and sustainability at Avocado Green Brands, and a retired magazine editor.