From AI fake experts to social media "brain rot" - are we cooked?

The PRCA recently wrote a letter to the Government urging them to stop using X as a public information channel in light of harrowing content and child safety concerns.

This catapulted itself from my LinkedIn feed as a welcome but rare incidence of the PR industry making an ethical stand in a sea of posts around half-baked takes on AI coming for us and New Year life lessons.

This came at a particularly important time as it acknowledged that we, as non-robots, (also known as humans) have a choice on how we consume, engage with and endorse social media.

It also felt like a North Star for what the industry should represent amidst a wash of sinister AI fuelled practices including the Press Gazette naming and shaming quite frankly odd practices whereby so-called 'PRs' are pitching completely fake entities to news outlets. And, worryingly, securing coverage for the likes of a completely made-up gardener on behalf of a dubious recruitment website. (Why not just ask Monty Don for comment - he exists and does the job well?). While I digress, I'd wager a bet that they are more towards the SEO end of the earned media spectrum, and in terms of personal characteristics - wholly unethical with no grasp of what it means to build real relationships and do good work.

It is good to see a professional PR body taking a stand on social media. But is it getting harder to crack for brands (particularly those without a huge social media budget)?

We have adapted social media use since the pandemic, curating and building communities both with brands we love and those content creators who share our interests.

However since AI videos have flooded the platform, I found myself shedding a tear watching a TikTok about a shelter dog choosing its new owner at an animal rescue centre, only to read the comments that it was AI generated. I felt silly and to be quite honest, played. But show me a video of a cat working as a barista and I'll know it's AI and find it funny as my cat wouldn't do that for me even if he could. But, I should really be spending more time with my real life cat than watching videos of fake AI generated ones.

Surely it's not all bad - but is social media fundamentally struggling amidst "brain rot" style content and endless paid ads? And where do we draw the line?

This week Instagram notified me with the option of paying £3.99 for a non-advert subscription and no use of my personal data. Those who can afford to pay the subscription may not be visible to the more premium brands keen to appeal to them. Some have likened it to playing gig to an empty room, if it is adopted. Give your money or consent to personal data being harvested doesn't feel like a good deal.

Deleting social media is now an act of social rebellion, a pathway to a new way of living in a utopia where we are not addicted to scrolling nonsense for 2 hours without even realising.

But what content can survive? What is clear is that native style content that embraces humanity e.g. unpolished behind the scenes moments still does well providing there is a degree of humour, entertainment, relatability and education. I'm not sure if a ChatGPT prompt could come up with that, as some things have to be felt before they are created and brought into being.

But we are at the sharp end of the attention-span economy. Showing your values, sharing something genuinely useful, and an understanding that it is a privilege to have the attention of someone following your brand or business, is important. Providing an antidote to doom scrolling and breaking the fourth wall builds trust.

Meeting people where they are has to acknowledge that all of us often feel powerless in an ever-more-distressing global picture - but maybe the answer is right in front of us - prioritising trust over reach is more important than ever. I do think a healthy dose of assuming knowledge is also important, along with embracing conversation.

Perhaps you're tackling a sensitive topic - be mindful that watch time, saves and shares will be a more impactful measure, as you are in essence speaking to people privately - building more trust - on a publicly visible platform.

Before you post that draft, ask yourself, is this worth distracting someone from their life for?

The importance of good PR imagery

Let's talk about photography (video can come in a future post - I'm talking about the art of great high resolution photography for media use - print and digital).

The types of photography you may need for a PR campaign include:

• A headshot of you in your professional capacity, which is essential for thought leadership pitching, for example, as well as consistent branding on your professional platforms, including website and LinkedIn

• Product imagery, if you offer products to your industry (lifestyle and cut-out imagery, I'll expand on this below)

• Case study imagery (quality photography of people representing your brand)

• A 'picture story' lead image, where the story is brought together visually in an editorial and uncontrived way - the 'main event' of the story's components, if you will. By uncontrived I mean NOT heavily branded. This type of image really has to make sense on its own and with minimum captioning, really.

Qualities your imagery must possess include:

Having an active quality

Whether your subjects are aware of the camera or not (a creative decision), the image must have an active quality. Think about the energy of the photo. What sense does it create? Is there an emotion, an urgency, an 'ah ha' aspect that justifies why you're capturing the scene in the first place? (An example of an inactive photo would be the 'staged' handing over of a big cheque with people in suits frozen in time, shaking hands - you must know the one).

Not heavily branded - if at all

A bit of nuance doesn't go amiss here - branding must be absolutely relevant to the story, or else - leave it out. The photo should really speak for itself without shoe-horning branding in for no reason other than to try and sneak it in for the marketing team. Do remember, picture editors cannot be fooled into promoting your brand logo for free. Product imagery (such as clothing) is slightly different, of course.

High resolution

The standard resolution for PR imagery is 300dpi, no more than 2MB in size for print titles (do not attach to email, use Google links to share).

Consider lifestyle, cut-out and headshot formats

Every publication will have its own style guide and the best way to understand the right imagery to share is by reading the publication and preparing a shot list brief in advance. This could include:

• Cut-out imagery (product imagery with white/transparent background - the type of image you may see in a product placement column in a national newspaper e.g. top 5 water bottles, tried and tested skincare)

• Landscape and portrait formats - capture both in the shoot as journalists may need to use/edit based on their standard image sizes. 'Portscape' is also good for 4:5 Instagram posts

• Lifestyle imagery - whether for products or headshots, it always helps to have some options of the subject in context, particularly for consumer media. Clinical/no background images also have their place but should not be relied upon for more human-interest led PR/business profiling

Permissions and usage rights

You will need to be legally minded on usage rights and talent terms, safeguarding and photography/media release forms. The latter gives written permission from the person in the photo (or their parent/guardian if under 18) for you to use the image in PR and marketing. This is relevant for both owned and earned and paid channels.

On terms of PR usage, be sure to have agreements in place for this too (whether talent, case studies and staff - i.e. those you are featuring).

When it comes to editorial media usage terms, it is not advisable, as Oasis's team recently did, to put 12-month usage terms on imagery (after which period, it was reported that the rights would return to the band).

The Guardian states: "The industry norm is that such deals for independent photographers from agencies are struck in perpetuity, so publishers can continue to use shots for pieces such as band retrospectives, tributes and to illustrate future concerts."

Conclusion

Allocate proper budget, do not edit or manipulate the final image unless you explain why this alteration is part of the story. E.g. a photography/tech think piece on new editing software, or a feature on AI advancement, or the worrying rise of deep fakes. Authenticity is the only route. You will remember this royal photo story that saw 5 news agencies withdraw their photo.

Achieving this involves putting a decent budget aside in your campaign for a craft that I believe will and should have a resurgence in an age of over-egged filters and AI manipulation (uninspiring, much?)

I will always be a champion of great photographers. I particularly like this lifestyle image by Sophie Davies to promote an equestrian clothing brand I've devised to raise money for a local horse charity.

Credit: Sophie Davies

There are more examples of PR imagery on my main homepage, including a launch with the Tim Henman Foundation and a clowning workshop.

If you would like to get in touch to discuss how to compile a PR photography brief or story for your next PR campaign, please contact me.

AI, GEO and SEO need ethical oversight in the PR industry

AI advancement is perceived as either an opportunity or a threat, depending on how the technology is leveraged. As a 'tool', it can be beneficial to the output of organisations to solve problems and spot patterns.

Day-to-day tasks can be made easier without replacing humans in the process. All kinds of AI tools have recently promised to speed up the planning application process and build more homes, improve health diagnoses rates and even help caribou conservation in a changing Arctic.

Organisations should clearly plan for advancement with relevant AI policies and consultation, to avoid the shadow of existential fears of staff replacement in the name of progress. Instead, collaboration, transparency and innovation should be the drivers, taking a human-led, bespoke or case-by-case approach where needed.

Key to this: Keep humans involved in creativity, decision making and oversight, with a clear goal in mind (I don't think 'speeding things up with AI' is a good enough and sustainable stand-alone reason, especially if critical thought and decision-making are being outsourced).

My worry is that the much-adopted 'wild west' approach of 'act first, then worry about the impact later' to 'keep ahead of competitors' is already leading to some dubious practices in the communications industry.

These developments fundamentally erode trust between the media, PR and the public. I was shocked to read in the Press Gazette a series of articles and investigations that include how a non-UK PR agency has developed an AI tool that generates fake expert comments to reply to real-world media enquiries.

To replace the fundamental trust built in the PR and media relations industry with made-up experts flies in the face of what the industry should be working day and night to protect, and the essence of what it means to share insights, stories and grow as a society.

It seems this is just another series of technological shifts seen by the PR industry that has been open to exploitation, and I'd include the rise of poorly driven SEO campaigns seen over the last decade, also with arguably very little oversight.

When SEO-driven individuals push backlinks through keyword-stuffed, low-quality AI-generated content (or low-quality human-written content for that matter), it blurs the line between genuine, earned coverage and content that’s been shoehorned in just to play the algorithm.

Journalists get flooded with this kind of thing and start assuming all outreach is like that – spammy, transactional, not worth their time. It drags down the whole industry. But we're now in a place where fake experts are being pitched by a robot to push shady brands. This is fraudulent and scams journalists and the public, and it is ethically wrong.

There is also full-time attention going on generative search among brands too - the space for opportunists to cynically create false information to further their dodgy aims is widened.

It is very difficult to police authenticity, but ultimately human connections, earned trust and judgment - whether it's between a journalist and a PR - means you'll be able to communicate the credibility of the story and why it matters.

For me, focusing on my shared values with clients I work with and their mission helps me build trust across my comms, stakeholder and PR relationships. This also directly relates to my own experience, judgement, business values and reputation.

Using channels that consumers trust and focussing on human relationships is at the heart of ethical PR, transparency and authenticity. I'm not looking over my shoulder for the robots just yet.

To have a chat about how I can help you navigate authentic press outreach for your campaign or mission, contact me here.