In the AI age, brands face the risk of becoming interchangeable

Column by Laurent Borrell Nabis Conseil November 2, 2026 11:23 Generative AI allows companies to produce ever more content, ever faster. Tomorrow, the advantage will not be to speak more, but to have something to say.

This development is an undeniable opportunity for communications and marketing departments. But there is a paradox: as content production becomes more accessible, differentiation becomes more difficult.

Because if all companies use the same tools to meet the same objectives, with similar instructions, they risk producing speeches that are similar. Well-constructed texts, correctly formulated, but where it is difficult to identify the author or the brand.

The risk is not that AI will make brands talk badly. It’s because she makes them all speak in the same way.

A brand is neither just a logo, nor a signature, nor a graphic charter. It is based on a positioning, a promise, convictions and a unique way of addressing its audiences.

However, AI cannot sustainably compensate for the lack of reflection on these fundamentals. When a company does not know precisely what sets it apart, what it defends or the value it wishes to bring to its customers, it risks entrusting the tool with the task of producing a generic speech based on a strategy that is itself imprecise.

The result may seem satisfactory at first glance. It will be structured, fluid and immediately usable. But he will often lack what makes a speech memorable: an assumed conviction, a concrete experience, a point of view which is not simply the reformulation of what everyone is already saying.

AI can help express an idea. It does not exempt the company from building it.

Faced with this abundance of content, the value of the communicator is no longer measured only by his ability to produce or orchestrate systems. It is also based on one's ability to choose, prioritize, verify and arbitrate.

What subject really deserves speaking out? What message corresponds to the company’s positioning? What wording faithfully reflects its commitments? What information should be verified? What content provides a new perspective rather than yet another variation on a theme already widely covered?

These questions are far from being secondary. They determine the relevance of the communication and the credibility of those who carry it.

The communicator must therefore maintain editorial control of what AI helps to produce. This involves checking the facts, identifying agreed wording, comparing proposals to business realities and taking responsibility for the final message.

Machine-translated from French