Businesses will get better communications results when content is human-led and AI-assisted, rather than AI-led and human-assisted. AI can help with speed and support tasks, but it cannot replace judgement, originality, audience understanding, or strategic communications thinking.
A comment from a journalist recently stopped our team in our tracks.
One of our senior account managers at HMC had pitched a story idea and, after the journalist expressed interest, offered to put together a draft as a starting point. The reply came back with a line we had never seen before:
“. . . we do have to ask that no AI writing tools are used AT ANY POINT in the process please.”
That request says a lot.
It suggests journalists are now dealing with such a volume of AI-generated pitches, press releases and draft stories that some feel the need to draw a line before the process has even begun.
And frankly, we can understand why.
Polished does not always mean persuasive
One of the traps with AI-generated writing is that it can sound smooth on the surface. To someone outside the media or communications profession, it can look perfectly acceptable. The grammar is tidy. The structure is there. The tone sounds professional enough.
But that does not mean it is good writing.
More often than not, AI-led content lacks the very things that make communications cut through. It can miss the instinct needed to find the best angle, the judgement required to know what matters most, and the originality that makes a journalist, customer or stakeholder actually want to keep reading.
That is why so much AI content ends up feeling bland, interchangeable or slightly off, even when it is technically well written.
The real advantage right now is not what many people think
There is no question AI can be useful. We use it ourselves in appropriate ways. It can help with research, stimulus, summarising information, pulling together initial thoughts, or speeding up parts of a workflow.
But there is a big difference between using AI as a tool and letting it drive the work.
Right now, many organisations seem to think they can hand their storytelling over to AI and get the same result. In our view, that is a mistake.
The content that is standing out is not AI-led and human-assisted. It is human-led and sometimes AI-assisted.
That distinction matters.
It means a real person is still doing the strategic thinking. A real person is still deciding whether the story is actually interesting, whether the message is right for the audience, whether the angle is fresh, and whether the final piece feels credible and worth paying attention to.
Why this matters beyond media relations
This issue is not limited to media releases and pitches.
The same principle applies to website copy, case studies, opinion pieces, speeches, LinkedIn content, newsletters and thought leadership. If everyone starts relying on AI to do the heavy lifting, more and more content will start to sound the same. We’ve already seen this!
That creates a real opening for businesses willing to do things differently.
When your content is shaped by human insight, experience and strategic judgement, people can feel the difference. It tends to be sharper, more relevant, distinctive and useful.
In other words, it has a better chance of actually “working.”
What we are seeing at HMC
At HMC, we have embraced AI as a helpful tool, but never as a substitute for strategic communications thinking.
Our best results still come from the same place they always have. Asking good questions, pushing for a stronger angle, thinking carefully about audience, applying experience, writing with purpose, and editing with care.
That human work is what helps create stories that get picked up, opinion pieces that get placed, podcast opportunities that get secured, and content that builds genuine credibility for clients.
AI can support the process. But it cannot replace the thinking.
Three practical tips for businesses using AI in content creation
1. Use AI to support thinking, not replace it
AI is best used to assist with parts of the process, not to take over the whole job. Use it to help generate options, organise ideas or save time on basic tasks, but keep ownership of the purpose, messaging, edits and judgement.
2. Ask whether the content actually says anything new
Before publishing anything, stop and ask: is this genuinely interesting, helpful or insightful? Or does it just sound polished but says little? If it could have been written for almost any business in almost any industry, it probably needs more refinement.
3. Keep a human editor close to the work
The final pass matters. Someone with strong communications judgement should always sense-check whether the writing sounds credible, fits the brand, suits the audience and has a point of view worth sharing. Only a human knows if this piece of writing will add value to your brand.
The bottom line
That journalist’s request was revealing. It was also a timely reminder that while AI may be changing the way content is produced, it has not changed what makes content “good.”
Strategic thinking, originality, sound judgement and a real understanding of audience matters more than ever before.
And at HMC, this is the distinct advantage we offer our clients.
FAQs about AI generated content:
Should businesses use AI to write their content?
AI can be useful as a support tool, but businesses will get better results (media stories picked up, social media engagement, new business enquiries) when their marketing and PR content is led by a communications professional who understands the current industry environment, what your audience wants, best timing, nuance and story angles that will resonate.
What is the difference between AI-assisted and AI-led content?
AI-assisted content starts and ends with human thinking and input, while using AI selectively to support parts of the writing process. AI-led content starts and ends with your preferred LLM (i.e. ChatGPT, Glaude, Co-Pilot) and may or may not include a few human edits before it’s finalised.
Why are journalists pushing back on AI-written media content?
Because AI-led writing may “sound” polished to an untrained eye, but it lacks originality, judgement and a real sense of what will interest a journalist’s audience.
