Fighting the Attack of the Clones

 

It's May 4th, the perfect time to bring up Star Wars.

But I'm not doing the standard post. Instead, I'm waging my own war on cloning, which is why I selected the image of the poster for Star Wars Episode II Attack of the clones movie poster.

If you haven't seen it, the clones in the title are the duplicates of Jango Fett who requests one clone for himself that grows at the normal pace rather than the expedited one set for the clones made for the Empire to serve as storm troopers.

In the foreground you see Jango Fett (what you can see of someone in Mandalorian armor and helmet) along with our other main characters. But the clones themselves who are even named in the title practically fade into the background.

Why? It's because clones are not interesting. We're interested in characters who have their own personality and story -- not interchangeable copies.

Have you guessed yet where I am going with this?

AI slop is a real life attack of the clones

What we've come to see on this platform, as well as many others, is the equivalent of an attack of clones, that AI slop that has no character and holds no real interest. Often it's used in clickbait or engagement posts like this one from Technology Advice:

But you see it also in standard ads like this one.

However, it could also be put in standard posts, as I now see hundreds -- if not thousands -- of people allowing

LLMs to talk for them on LinkedIn, as you see in the examples below that all sound exactly alike.

It makes the platform sound completely repetitive and everyone who uses the formula utterly forgettable.
By adopting the quick and lazy approach of allowing generative AI to write your posts, you turn yourself and your brand into a clone, robbing yourself of the opportunity to establish a unique identity and voice.

If you hire a content marketers whose posts have the earmarks of AI, as in using this kind of construction - "Most businesses don't have a marketing problem. They have a sameness problem." (So ironic that this person put in that message through generative AI-speak that reinforces sameness!) -- then you're paying for a cloned content rather than content that is specific to what you're about.

And why would you do that? It's like paying a chef to cook you a meal from scratch only to be served microwaved TV dinner.

It's possible to cook up something good when you actually like the challenge of cooking with the ingredients available to you. If you don't, you shouldn't be a cook. Heating up TV dinners is not cooking, and pushing out AI slop is not creative content marketing.

It takes a bit of effort to differentiate yourself 

It is possible to do better with just a bit of effort from someone who cares about the craft of writing and marketing. I'll give you quick example based on one of the many posts that used the formula in a promoted ad. 

It says "Your BD person
isn't failing.
You set them up to. "

Notice that the second sentence doesn't logically follow the first at all. In fact, it contradicts the first because it acknowledges that the BD person is -- in fact -- failing, though it blames the "you" rather than "them" in this case.

This kind of illogical nonsense said with a straight face by people who think they sounds smart is the result of being so used to seeing this pattern of posts that you don't even pause to think if it makes any sense.

Here's what they could have written instead with a logical progression.:
"Is your BD team coming up short?
It's not their fault.
You set them up for failure."

There is an affordable alternative to AI 

Perhaps one of the reasons people let the opportunity to truly connect with customers through their communications slip through their fingers is because they think that they can't afford to pay for quality content. That is as ridiculous as saying you'll just eat food out of vending machines to save money on groceries. That is not sustainable and can cause real harm like vitamin deficiency, high blood pressure,  and even diabetes. Compromising on content quality is the same thing. You can get cheap and fast but not good enough to contribute to your overall health when you rely on LLM output. 

So here's my affordable plan to help you avoid turning into a clone that just fades into the background: a special package offered in May and June 2026 only!    Get a consultation and a plan for social media posts that attract organic traffic through differentiated messaging and a distinctly human voice for just $1500.  Contact me for details. 

And for proof of my writing ability, check out my many publications assembled on my portfolio where you can search by topic. 

The aftermath of the February 28th retail boycott

February 2025

The title here is a type of pun on math   and how reporters spin the numbers to fit their agenda. It's a kind of nod to the idea lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Trying to make a boycott take off

On February 26, 2025, Betty Lin-Fisher, a consumer reporter at USA Today plugged the article she wrote for the outlet on LinkedIn thus:

This Friday, Feb. 28 is the one-day, 24-hour consumer economic blackout.

Consumers are encouraged not to spend money during the 24-hour period and if you need something, to buy local.
The Feb. 28 event is one of several boycotts planned by groups of consumers or activists to protest what they call corporate greed, companies that have rolled back their diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and President Donald Trump's efforts to eliminate federal DEI programs since taking office.

 The Boomerang Effect Shown on Social Media

The comments showed that not everyone agreed with this approach, with many declaring that they'd make a point of shopping that Friday. Some added additional commentary on why they thought this was wrong. 

For example, Kimberly wrote this: 

I will go to Target and look for products by black businesses and purchase some. I disagree with this whole thing as it could affect those that have nothing to do with it. Treat people on merit and qualifications not race. Last I saw we've had a black President, VP, police chiefs, mayor's, governors I could go on and on into infinity. You can be anything you want to
be. Only one standing in your way is yourself.And Jan wrote:We should agree to disagree and give the current administration 2 full years to show American just what they will do for us. I may not have liked prior Presidents but I never wished harm on our working people. After 2 years, THEN speak up and change things with the Mid-Terms. However, I believe we will see our economy turn around over the next 6 months and no one will want to change anything! It's only been 5-6 weeks...... Wish for the BEST for our Country! We the People have spoken with our votes

What does the data show?

Now that we're in early March, the numbers should be in to let us know if the boycott had any significant impact. So let's see what Betsy Lin-Fisher had to say in her follow-up  on the first day of what  was intended to be a one week "fast" from Amazon purchases and a full 40 day "fast" (the correspondence with Ramadan has to be deliberate, as Lent only began today -- Ash Wednesday) intended to harm Target and Walmart in USA Today. 

She was forced to admit that rather than dent Amazon sales, as compared to the previous eight Fridays, sales were actually up 1%, as per Momentum Commerce. It doesn't appear she's getting this information first-hand but relying on Forbes reports, and the headline it used about Amazon on March 2 was Amazon Defies ‘Economic Blackout’ As Sales Climb During Boycott.

Lin-Fisher was willing to concede Amazon so long as she could claim Target. Again, that's based on a Forbes report: Target Loses Web Traffic As Costco Gains On Feb. 28 Economic Blackout Day The implication her is supposed to be that Costco, which did not yet make a statement about dropping DEI, is being rewarded -- as per an increase of 22% in web traffic and 3% in app visits [not sales but visits] --while the other evil retailers are being duly punished by a drop in traffic.

Let's now set aside the question of whether or not Costco benefitted from the boycotters' position, which actually contradicts their stance of avoiding all big retailers and buying locally instead -- and take a closer look at Forbes' figures for Target and Walmart., and I want you to notice something. Hint: it's in the calendar page that I used as the illustration for this blog.   

• On blackout day, Target website visitors dropped 9% compared to Friday, Feb. 14, from 5.2 million to 4.7 million.
• Target app user traffic, representing the most loyal Target customers, was off even more, down 14%, from 4.2 million to 3.5 million.
• On blackout day, the nation’s number one retailer, Walmart, experienced a 5% slump in web traffic, down from 11.7 million on Feb. 14 to 11.2 million and number two Amazon dropped by 2%, from 67.1 million to 65.9 million.

Did you pick up on my hint? Why are we comparing the 28th to the 14th? Wouldn't it make much more sense to compare the 28th to the 21st -- the closest Friday to it and one in which there was no special occasion that prompted people to spend billions of dollars on gifts? 

The NRF predicted a record-breaking $27.5 billion in spending for Valentine's Day 2025

SEe the illustration above of the level fs spending  about the sales predicted for this year's Valentine's Day that would include spending on February 14th itself -- given the last minute habits of many consumers. They would have been able to shop online at retailers like Walmart and Target and still pick up in store to make sure they'd have the expected token of love ready. In fact, a good chunk of Valentine's Day shoppers do make their purchases online as you can see from the graphic below:

 

Deliberately taking February 14th as the baseline to "prove" a significant drop in shopping traffic at Target and Walmart on an ordinary Friday is the equivalent of weighing yourself just after a Thanksgiving dinner and then weighing yourself a few days later first thing in the morning before breakfast and claiming you lost five pounds. Anyone who tracks weight accurately would always tell you to weigh yourself at the same time of day each time for the sake of consistency with your baseline. 

This tactic is known as stacking the deck, one of the logical fallacies you should have learned about it in a rhetoric course. 

Related: 

Everybody lies with visualizations

An Apology to Generative AI

ChatGPT spelled out in Scrabble tiles

By Ariella Brown

I'm not a generative AI fangirl. If anything, I'd consider myself more of a skeptic because people tend to not just use it as a tool to improve their writing but as a tool to replace the work of research, composition, and revision that is essential to good writing.

It is generally embraced by people who consider online research to be too much work and who believe that anything that comes out of a machine that will charge them no more than $20 a month for writing to be too good a deal to pass up. 

For those of us who actually read, the output of ChatGPT and similar LLMs is not exactly something to write home about. Unless you know how to prompt it and train it to write in a truly readable style, it will default to the worst of wordy, opaque corporate style text. 

But this isn't the fault of the technology. It's the fault of the mediocre content that dominates the internet that trained it. Below is one example that I pulled off  the "About" section of a real LinkedIn profile (first name Kerri maintained in the screenshot that proves this is real and not something I made up):  

As a strategic thinker, problem-solver, and mediator, I thrive in managing multiple, sometimes differing inputs to achieve optimal messaging and positioning. My proactive nature drives me to partner with leaders across marketing teams and internal business units, aligning efforts, connecting dots, and adding context to enable flawless execution of communication strategies and tactics.

In fast-paced, fluid environments, I excel in effectively prioritizing tasks and ensuring they are completed efficiently. I have a proven track record of setting and meeting strict deadlines and budgets, leveraging my ability to navigate dynamic landscapes seamlessly.

Driven by natural curiosity, I am constantly seeking to understand and implement the latest trends, technologies, and tactics essential for driving B2B sales opportunities. My keen interest in exploring new channels for messaging and content distribution fuels my passion for innovation and continuous improvement to not just meet but exceed expectations.

Let’s connect to explore how we can drive success together.

You know what sounds exactly like this? Cover letters you ask ChatGPT to compose for you. 

I've tried those out a few times and never been happy with the results because they always sounds like the text above. Trying to tell it to sound less stiff doesn't make it sound any less canned, and forget about getting it to copy my own writing style.

It's possible that Kerri used ChatGPT to create her "About" section. Given that she's been in the marketing biz for some time, though, I'd think she had to have had something filled out for years before ChatGPT was available, and it likely sounded very much like this even if she did let some LLM or something like Grammarly tweak it for her.  

People like Kerri, who ignore all writing advice from the masters like Orwell, White (watch for a upcoming  blog about him), and others made this the public face of corporate communication who are to blame for the bombastic and soulless style that LLMs replicate at scale. 

That's the reason for this apology too ChatGPT for mocking its output. You're not the one at fault. You had no way of knowing better. Humans do, and they should have provided you with better models for writing. 

Note on the title: I thought of giving this post the title "Apology" intended in the classical sense of a defense or justification for something others take as wrong with the hint of an apology to AI. Knowing that that wouldn't be clear to some readers, I opted to make this just a straight apology instead. 

Related:

A new generative AI comparison

The Perils of prompt engineering

Bard vs. Bard
Add a pinch of salt to creative claims for AI

An A/B test of generative AI
Bard brings in the clowns

Another pitch that goes wrong

  

By Ariella Brown

This pitch arrived in my LinkedIn messages today: 

• Hello Mam, I want to collaborate with you regarding articles publications on techopedia.com plz respond so we could discuss further.

It's amazing how many wrong notes a person can pack into such a short message.

1. What is this "Mam" doing here? I'm not clear on whether he was going a casual "Hey, man," vibe and mistyped the last letter or if he is misspelling Ma'am as in Madame. But why would he do that when he can address me properly by name?

2. Jumping right into what you want without establishing some basis to interest me in the endeavor. What value is supposed to be in this for me? Do you have industry insight to share? More likely, he's just hoping to get his company offerings described in a publication without paying for it.

3. While he may have found me from Techopedia, he did not bother to check that on profile I show it as ending a couple of months back when the publication was sold to a new owner. It's being taken in quite a different direction by a company that heavily pushes gaming and crypto and so is no longer the same type of publication that I contributed to.

4. What's up with this nonstandard "plz" in this context? You're not texting a buddy but trying to set up some kind of working relationship with someone new, so this is hardly the way to express yourself.

In a certain mood, I may have responded, but I decided to write about this instead. Any other writers get similar messages with the same pattern?

One bad turn deserves another

Later, the same day, I got this message (all misspelled words retained from the original):

• Guest posting equries

  Hi! I saw the page of your blog techopedia.com and I saw that the page the page of your blog is beautiful and well decorated. I really enjoy your recent blog post. It is very effective and interesting. I want to share my thoughts on your blog. I totally understand that there would be some editorial fee involved and I'm ready to pay. I hope so you will like my suggestion and we will get benefited mutually side by side and this will help us both to rank our business. It's my pleasure that we work together I have bulk orders on your sites. Kinldy share your sites lists. Then we work mutually together. I hope u understand well. I'm waitning for your positive response Kind regards

A few weeks later, I got this doozy

I visited your YouTube channel and found that your channel videos are not SEO optimized and your videos have very low SEO scores. If you want me to grow your channel more and grow your business and your videos go viral, I will do on-page and off-page SEO optimization with your channel videos and work with actionable and performance tags of your videos and improve the SEO score of each of your videos to 95 plus score out of 100. As a result, your videos will go viral, every video will rank on YouTube, YouTube will get your videos first in search engines and people will find your videos very easily and your videos will come up in google-search. And I will promote your YouTube channel organically and manually. As a result, your channel will get more subscribers, likes, views and watch time day by day. As a proof I am giving you a sheet with before and after SEO results with links to some of my client's channel videos that are live on YouTube where you can see all the details. Please check this:[redacted] Please feel free to inbox me if you have any questions!

The reason it's such a doozy is that I don't have a YouTube channel, so the claim that he checked it automatically mark him an incompetent liar -- not someone I'd ever consider giving my business.

Related:

How to get everything wrong in a pitch

Visit WriteWayPro.weebly.com  Like and follow on Facebook and on LinkedIn