I came into the PR and communications industry as a 21-year-old who loved working with people. I was drawn to the opportunity to work with all kinds of, from journalists to clients. There was something I found magical about our work. No two days were the same and every challenge had multiple valid perspectives. Much of that magic came from communications being, fundamentally, about people.
Somewhere along the way, however, I think we started losing some of that magic. We are moving towards a place where output takes priority over genuine, human storytelling. Conversations now centre on how quickly something can be produced, how frequently a company should post, and, increasingly, how effectively we can use AI to do it all.
But is that really what it is all about?
AI raised the floor, but we didn’t raise the ceiling
AI has fundamentally changed what is possible in communications. It has made a certain standard of content faster, cheaper, and accessible to almost everyone, allowing companies without large content teams to create work that would previously have required more time and resources. In these ways, it is a definite boon that has raised the floor for what can be realistically expected.
The challenge, however, is what we choose to do with that new baseline. When producing content becomes easier, there is an obvious temptation to produce more of it. However, simply producing more content does not equate to better communications. Quite the opposite, in my experience. In these ways, the ceiling has remained the same.
And there are three clear signs which provide evidence for that.
We are producing but not positioning
Too often, we think of communications as the content function. That is suboptimal to say the least, because good communicators know messaging and positioning are key to actually making an impact. We need to connect what a company does, why it matters, and who it matters to.
When producing content becomes easier, there is an obvious temptation to produce more of it. However, simply producing more content does not equate to better communications.
AI can make producing content easier, but it cannot decide what the message should be.
Take B1G1, for example. As a global social enterprise, they need to encourage corporate philanthropy. And they do a good job of that by making abstract business impact tangible and human, connecting everyday activity with real-world outcomes, and giving people a reason to care beyond the transaction.
That is the kind of communication AI cannot originate.
We want to be heard without considering whether we have anything worth hearing
The second sign is our growing obsession with being heard, often before we have stopped to ask whether we have something worth saying. AI has made it remarkably easy to produce a polished argument, a confident opinion, or a seemingly expert article in seconds, and as the cost of producing an opinion approaches zero the opinion itself becomes less valuable.
This matters because a company can publish every day, comment on every trend, and generate an endless stream of thought leadership, but none of that necessarily gives an audience a reason to listen.
As AI makes competent content increasingly abundant, the value of having something genuinely useful to contribute will only increase. The companies that stand out will be those with a clear point of view, a reason to have that point of view, and enough credibility for people to care about it.
We are measuring attention, not influence
Communicators have become increasingly comfortable measuring what is easy to count: volume, reach, impressions, and clicks. These metrics have value, but they can create a false sense of precision when they become the primary definition of success.
AI risks making this problem worse. If we can produce more content, more quickly, it becomes even easier to celebrate activity rather than ask whether any of it mattered.
Communications measurement needs to go beyond coverage volume and focus more seriously on impact. Did the coverage change perceptions, strengthen market positioning, build credibility with an important audience, or support a meaningful business objective?
Singapore’s anti-vaping campaign is one of my favourite examples. Rather than simply telling young people that vaping was harmful, it tapped into something more recognisable: the way young people can see themselves as independent while still being influenced by their peers and social environment. They turned insight into something unexpected, relatable, and even humorous, which is why it always caught my eye.
The human advantage
The best communicators still bring something technology cannot easily replicate: relationships, judgement, stakeholder management, audience understanding, timing, and context. They know when to push a story, when to leave it alone, when a company is ready to speak, and how a message needs to evolve across markets.
These are the things that sit above the content, and they are precisely where the ceiling remains.
The goal should not be less human communications because of AI, but more human communications because of it: more time to think, listen, build relationships, understand context, and make better decisions.
I believe this is where the next evolution of communications needs to happen: using technology to make execution more efficient while putting more emphasis on strategy, human insight, credibility, and impact. Our advantage will come from understanding what matters, knowing how to position it, navigating different markets, and measuring whether communications actually created an impact.
That is ultimately what modern communications should be: strategic enough to know what to say, contextual enough to know where and when to say it, credible enough to give people a reason to believe it, and measurable enough to know what it changed.
Aniket Gupta is the Founder and Director of Mahou Consulting.
