Some of the most meaningful communications work I've done has been for mission-driven organizations, non-profits, European Union programs, community initiatives, causes where the whole point is to move people to care and to act. And it's also some of the most ethically loaded work in all of marketing, because the raw material of the story is often a real person's hardship, and the line between telling their story and using them is thinner than most communicators admit. Get it right and you build genuine understanding and support for a cause that deserves it. Get it wrong and you've turned a human being into a prop, extracted their pain for your engagement metrics, and quietly reinforced the power imbalance you claim to be fighting. Having worked on communications for refugee protection, social justice programs, and grassroots mobilization, this is the tension I think about most. Here's how I try to navigate it. The extractive story and why it's so tempting Th...
There's a specific fear that stops a lot of marketing leaders from going all-in on AI, and it's a legitimate one. It goes like this: if I let my whole team use these tools freely, everything we publish will start to sound the same as everything everyone else publishes. The brand voice we spent years building will dissolve into that smooth, competent, faintly robotic tone that you can now recognize instantly across half the internet. The fear is real. But the answer is not to ban the tools, and it's not to let one person be the gatekeeper for everything. The answer is to roll AI out in a way that protects voice by design. Having done exactly this with my own team, here's how I think about it. Why AI erodes voice by default First, understand the mechanism, because you can't defend against a problem you don't understand. Large language models are trained to produce the most probable, most broadly acceptable response. That's their nature. Left to their defa...