“Generative AI reduces the cost of producing false news even further,” per Kevin Aslett, in a segment on NPR’s Here and Now. “Instead of factchecking individual claims, we should factcheck the sources we’re using.” ETA link to the segment in the comments.
So, is your brand a source? If so, how are you holding up to factchecking and skepticism?
Many brands embrace a broad content strategy that comprises content marketing, social content sourced from user-generated content or commissioned to influencers, and simple reviews. They operate with the goal of getting more content to inform consumers’ decisions. Third-party reviews are especially valuable earned media for influencing purchase decisions. But say it with me:
- more content means more exposure.
- more content means more vulnerability.
- more content means more oversight.
I don’t mean “exposure” in the good way; I mean it in the potential threat way. Ditto for vulnerability. Content from outside sources can compromise a brand and undermine trust if it’s produced without close attention to messaging and execution. But it’s not a reason to avoid a broad content strategy that incorporates content from a variety of sources.
Quite the opposite: the rise of generative AI and increased social content in marketing underscores the need for clear message architecture, accessible governance guidelines, and transparency in details that build trust. (The pillars of voice, volume, and vulnerability that I describe in Trustworthy!) If your org is gearing up to incorporate more content, especially from outside influencers, flag this post. Smart marketing should mean they invest in content strategy for guidance and building trust as well.
—
Originally published on LinkedIn
