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

A new generative AI comparison

Photo by Andrew Neel: https://www.pexels.com/photo/monitor-screen-showing-chatgpt-landing-page-15863066/

In the past, I've ncomparted Cha GPT to Google Bard (now Gemini). For today's exercise, I put the same query to Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot. I put in the name of a real person and identified the location for that individual in Queens, NY.  None could give me the information I sough. 

What's interesting, though, is noting the differences in how they contextualized their responses. Out of the four, Claude shows the greatest self-awareness, and I'd say that Copilot shows the least.  

Claude's response

As this appears to be asking about a relatively obscure individual, I want to remind you that while I try to be accurate, I may hallucinate or generate incorrect information when asked about very specific people who are not widely known public figures. If you're looking for factual information about this person, I'd recommend checking other reliable sources.

I award Claude points for warning me about the possibility of hallucinations occurring when generative AI attempts to answer questions in the absence of data. See 

ChatGPT's response

I don't have specific information about an individual named ____from Queens, NY. It's possible that she is a private individual or someone not widely known beyond her personal circles. If she is known for something specific like public contributions, achievements, or notable activities, that information might be available through local news sources or community records.

ChatGPT's response failed to warn about hallucination, though it's interesting that it inferred the person in question was a she (based on the first name, I suppose), a gender identification that Claude managed to avoid.

Google Gemini's response

Gemini just bowed out, practically chiding me for giving it this query that it could not answer:

 
I do not have enough information about that person to help with your request. I am a large language model, and I am able to communicate and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions, but my knowledge about this person is limited. Is there anything else I can do to help you with this request?

Copilot's response

Copilot went in a completely different direction. I wouldn't call it a hallucination, but it is still inaccurate. It wanted to find a match, so in one case it named a business with the last name appearing twice as a partnership, though it admitted that was Brooklyn rather than Queens. Its second suggestion was a male doctor in Queens with a similar last name, though it is spelled differently. Honestly, I find it hard to believe that these are the only two results for the last name in all of NYC. I mean once you're expanding the parameters, there really should be a lot more than two possible results. 

Related

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

Follow Write Way Pro on LinkedIn and on Facebook.

You can also follow Ariella Brown.  

Apple's Crush crash

Unless you truly believe that there's no such thing a bad publicity, the introduction of the new iPad Pro is likely the worst video ad ever made by Appl

By Ariella Brown

*See the P.S. added on May 10th below.

Unless you truly believe that there's no such thing a bad publicity, this is likely the worst video ever created for Apple and is a very good contender for worst ad ever.

As far as views and awareness, it's definitely a winner, having garnered  over 36 million views, 26K+ reposts, and 10K comments within 2 days. 

But in terms of sentiment it has aroused, it's a major marketing fail.

I'm saying this based on the overwhelmingly negative reaction it has inspired. Comments are turned off on YouTube, which usually indicates a deluge of negativity. But they're not off on X where every single reaction to Tim Cook's post I've read out of the thousands posted has been  negative. 

See some samples below.

@JuddBaroff

·I’m not sure ‘wanton destruction of all the good and beautiful things is this world’ was really the vibe you were trying for.

@kepano

·

I think the ad would work much better if it was reversed. All the objects should be expanding out of the iPad rather than being crushed into it made this edited version in five minutes (thanks iMovie!)

Geoffrey Miller

@primalpoly

This is the most ghoulish, tone-deaf ad I've ever seen in my life. Fire all of your marketers. This is utterly catastrophic for your brand.

Jash Dholani

@oldbooksguy

·

Everything beautiful, charming, and analog will be destroyed by a flat black screen You must never see a sculpted bust Never hear music from an actual instrument Never feel the texture of real things A silicon slab (and Tim Cook) will permanently stand between u and the world

*P.S.  I reported on the backlash to the Apple ad  on LinkedIn before AdAge did, yet that publication is the one that got the statement of apology from from Tor Myhren, Apple's VP of marketing communications. Of course, it descends into corporate blah blah before getting the point of confessing that they messed up big-time. 

The full text of the statement as reported in Inc. Magazine's quote is:

Creativity is in our DNA at Apple, and it’s incredibly important to us to design products that empower creatives all over the world. Our goal is to always celebrate the myriad of ways users express themselves and bring their ideas to life through iPad. We missed the mark with this video, and we’re sorry

There is no way a company would have issued an apology like that if the negative reaction had not been this strong. 

Related:

Major Marketing Missteps from Adidas, M&M's and Coke

Follow Write Way Pro on LinkedIn and on Facebook.

You can also follow Ariella Brown.  

Sell me this raincoat

Umbrella in trash generated by Google Gemini

By Ariella Brown

The title of this blog is a variant on the "Sell me this pen" challenge. 

Confession: I find most marketing presentations a waste of time because they just rehash what I already know. But there is the rare exception that offers helpful insight and perspectives that spark my own #WriteWay creativity. 

That has been my experience in attending the Full-Funnel Summit.  Jen Allen-Knuth proposed shifting the sales intro from pushing your product of a $100 raincoat that may meet resistance from buyers who don't want to shell out that kind of money.

Jen said she'd frame it this was for a target market in the windy city of Chicago where it rains for about 1/3 the year: studies say only a small percentage of people remember to take their umbrellas. Those who forget will decide no to walk in the rain and so have to shell out $45 a pop for an Uber.

The implication that trying to save the $100 could end up costing you more if you forget your umbrella and end up paying for rides to try to stay dry.

As I wrote in the chat there, my approach would be different. I'd say "Ever notice how many umbrellas you see in the trash on a stormy day? That's because the wind rips through and breaks them. But have you ever seen a raincoat in the trash on a rainy day? No, you haven't. Here's why." 

And then I'd calculate the cost of multiple umbrellas purchased over the years vs. the one-time cost of the raincoat.

Why did I come up with this? Jen's framing refers to the forgetfulness of most people that you may think doesn't apply to you. You're smart enough to remember your umbrella, right?

 But even so, you have, no doubt, experienced your umbrella getting blown out from a strong wind and have seen multiple umbrellas thrown out that prove that even if you remember to take it, it can prove useless. Also the fact that you never see a raincoat peeking out of a trash can the way you see umbrellas creates a strong visual impression.

Another thing that made me come up with a different approach to Jen's was my thinking that it didn't make sense that her target market would hesitate over shelling out $100 for a raincoat would solve the problem of forgetting an umbrella by spend $45 on a single Uber ride to avoid walking in the rain. Generally, one would first look for a cheap umbrella, look for public transportation or just accept the inevitability of getting wet when walking home. 

If you're marketing to a price-conscious market, you have to speak to the in their own terms. They're not likely to indulge in expensive rides when they can walk. But they certainly can can calculate the cost of multiple replacements for umbrellas that don't stand up to the wind.

While I'm sure that Jen charged the client four or five figures for this marketing idea, I came up with it on the spot, and I'm sure I can come up with something that is equally sound and creative for your B2C or B2B.  The Write Way is all about putting yourself in the mindset of your target audience.

Visit my site to learn more about my marketing and writing services and book a free consultation call.

Follow Write Way Pro on LinkedIn and on Facebook.

You can also follow Ariella Brown.  

What B2B content marketers get wrong

By Ariella Brown

You know that advice that every piece of B2B content should have a clear CTA? It's bogus. In fact, the piece of content I wrote that had an immediate impact in terms of bringing in a sales qualified lead for a six-figure annual contract the day after it was published had no CTA at all -- not even a hint about having to schedule a demo.

What it did have were features that many B2B businesses forget about in doing their own imitation of thought leadership outlets and removing all content from individual identity.

Here's what the article had:
☑A vivid description of the challenges he experienced in his work that others in the same line would identify with
☑A clear presentation of the company's solution and how it directly addressed these pain points
☑Mostly important of all, it had a name associated with a bio and pic for the expert in the insurance industry who served as the source of information for the article and related his own experience.

💡Why was this most important? As it turned out, that was the lead's way of marking his interest in the solution. He know the featured expert, maybe even had direct dealings with him in the past. That made him not just trust what he said but also feel comfortable enough to reach out to him directly rather than to a general company contact or form to say he was interested.

One of my pet peeves about B2Bs is that they offer no point of direct and immediate contact. Many of them refuse to list a phone number, and some won't even put in an email. No, they insist, if people are real prospects, they'll fill out the form that makes it easy for us to automatically feed their information into a CRM and send it on to sales people.

This foolish delusion prevents easy access to people who don't want to have to be treated as just prospects you'll get to at your own convenience. They want to get a response while they're thinking that your offering may be just what they need. Keep them waiting, and they'll start looking elsewhere for that solution, and you may not even know you had a prospect that got away. That's the wrong way to attract inbound.

Learn more about the #WriteWay by following The Write Way Pro LinkedIn page and connecting with me on that platform.

.
Yes, I did include a CTA here. I didn't say never to have a CTA -- only that you don't have to have a CTA for every piece of content. But I'm going to break another rule here and give you yet another course action. You can check out my portfolio here: AriellaBrownPortfolio.blogspot.com

Related

7 Habits of Highly Effective Marketers

Think Marathon Rather Than Sprint When Planning Content Marketing

Most Memorable Brand Slogans

Make Your Content as Accessible as Possible

What Edison Can Teach Us About SEO

7 Ways to Grab Customer Attention in Subject Lines

CRO is Like Basketball

The 6 step plan that fails

Photo by Aleksejs Bergmanis: https://www.pexels.com/photo/aerial-photography-of-concrete-bridge-681347/

By Ariella Brown

I should have known better, but I still  fell for it. 

I put in my information in order to ungate and  download the tantalizingly titled "How to build pipeline with content in 6 steps" from a company I won't name here. Disappointment doesn't begin to express my feeling at this one-pager that only someone who has never created business content wouldn't know.

The first step is: "Do some research" in order to know you customers.  Obviously, that is your starting point. But it doesn't give you any advice on how to go about this. That's what many businesses who fail to understand their customers really need help with. Surveys are ignored, and few take the time for really in-depth talks because all conversations turn to upsells and not to fostering understanding.

Step 3 is another obvious step for any content creator: "Tell a story."  That was to be the bridge to step 4: using data and the claim that first-party data is the best (definitely debatable).

But the real goal of the whole piece was to declare in step 5 that you need the right tool -- the one the company that put this out offers -- to track engagement. Step 6 is to track engagement (no doubt, with this tool).

The dichotomy that's wrong

What struck me more than the blatant selling in this presented-as-helpful-guide  was the assumption of step 2, which focuses on a division of content that must appeal to people who love categories but that is, ultimately, counterproductive.

It says: "Determine if your content is tactical or 'experience-driven'.” It then goes one to explain that "collateral related to the business image like presentation decks, press releases, and thought leadership" all goes into the "tactical" bucket.

That is presented as distinct from "collateral related to demand gen activities, supported by personas, nurture content, event material, and industry-specific content" go into the "experience" bucket. The chef's kiss here is that the writer (I picture a college student intern using Chat GPT) adds in this note: "(hint: this is the one you want to focus on for demand gen)."

Now, if were to uphold this division of content type, something I don't advocate at all, I would definitely put thought leadership into the experience/demand gen bucket. That's where it belongs, no question about it. 

On the other hand, there is a very important form of content for the tactical bucket that is not named -- case studies or success stories.

Ultimately, though, the division seems to be about the more direct sales enablement materials that would be considered tactical vs. the brand and relationship-building content that is more often associated with demand gen. The delusion of this division is that the former works for immediate conversions-- at least to the point of an MQL while the latter is the stuff you put out to get the person primed for the tactical stuff.

But in reality, your target customer won't be pushed into a linear funnel, neatly progressing from your ToFu to your MoFu to your BoFu content and take the action specified as soon as they hit the tactical content. The buyer's journey is a lot more complex and recursive than that, and recognizing this reality should be part of your first step in building your pipeline.

 Related:

Visualizing the customer journey

Follow Write Way Pro on LinkedIn and on Facebook.

You can also follow Ariella Brown.