The AI arms race will be won by companies that stop forcing it

One of the more interesting things I have noticed since starting Mahou Consulting is how quickly AI is changing the way companies think about communications.

I regularly speak to businesses that want to use AI to produce more content, and it is not difficult to understand why. It can make research faster, help with first drafts, repurpose content across channels, and remove much of the repetitive work that consumes a communications team's time.

However, there is an interesting problem emerging from this. We are starting to see what I would call 'content inflation'. 

If everyone can produce twice as much, producing more is no longer much of an advantage. It is the same logic behind saying that if everyone is suddenly rich, no one is.

But here we are. A 2025 survey by Ahrefs found that 87% of marketers were using AI to help create content, with AI users publishing approximately 42% more content than those not using AI.

We are already seeing the consequences. LinkedIn has introduced a "Seems like AI slop" option for users to flag posts and comments, while also putting in place measures to detect generic content. I find that particularly interesting because the platform was built around people sharing experiences, expertise, and perspectives, yet now needs ways to signal that something feels too artificial.

The problem is not that companies are using AI to communicate. The problem is when we start forcing AI into communications simply because we can, and in doing so, dehumanise one of the most human functions of a business.

Communication was never simply about producing words. It was about deciding what was worth saying.

AI should make communications better, not lazier

I am not arguing that companies should use less AI. In fact, communications teams should use it extensively where it makes them more efficient: analysing information, monitoring conversations, summarising research, repurposing material, and removing repetitive work.

But there is a difference between using AI as an efficiency tool and forcing it into the strategic parts of communications where human judgement matters most. AI should make your communications team faster, not lazier. It should remove friction from the process, rather than remove the thinking from it.

Start with the narrative, not the content

Before asking AI to produce the next 20 LinkedIn posts, a company should probably spend some time answering a much more fundamental question – what do we actually want to be known for?

I often think about this through what I call the 3Cs of Messaging.

• Corporate: Who are we, and what do we stand for?
• Concept: What do we actually do, and why does it matter?
• Community: Who do we serve, and what broader problem or conversation are we part of?

If those answers are not clear, AI will not solve your communications problem. It will simply help you communicate your lack of a narrative more efficiently.

Sometimes, the best communications decision is not to communicate

This may be the most counterintuitive consequence of content inflation.

When content was expensive to produce, there was a natural limit to how much a company could publish. AI has removed much of that friction, allowing a company to generate several posts, a blog, a newsletter, and multiple social variations in the time it previously took to produce one piece of content.

But more content does not necessarily create more attention, and more attention does not necessarily create more trust.

When content becomes effectively infinite, knowing what not to say becomes a competitive advantage.

Not every product update needs to become a thought-leadership article. Not every corporate milestone needs to become a press release. Not every opinion needs to become LinkedIn content.

The better question is whether something advances the company's narrative, demonstrates genuine expertise, provides evidence, contributes meaningfully to an industry conversation, or gives the audience a reason to care.

If it does not, perhaps it does not need to be published.

The communications job changes as a company grows

The answer also depends on where a company is in its journey.

For an early-stage startup, the focus should be on clarity and credibility: helping the market understand who you are, what problem you are solving, and why anyone should believe you.

For a growth-stage B2B technology company, the focus should shift towards authority and differentiation through executive perspectives, thought leadership, industry conversations, and credible evidence.

For established companies and corporates, communications becomes increasingly about reputation and influence, particularly when entering new markets, navigating change, or managing relationships with multiple stakeholders.

This becomes particularly important when companies expand across Southeast Asia and the wider Asia-Pacific region. A narrative that works in Singapore may need to be adapted for China, Japan, Malaysia, or another market, rather than simply translated and distributed unchanged. Regional communications requires an understanding of what should remain consistent, what needs local context, and where a company has genuinely earned the right to have a voice.

This is something I have become increasingly conscious of since starting Mahou Consulting. Working with startups, B2B technology companies, and established businesses across Singapore and Southeast Asia, I have seen how tempting it can be to treat communications as an output – another article, LinkedIn post, or piece of coverage. 

But whether we are working with an early-stage startup trying to establish credibility, a B2B technology company building authority, or an established business managing its reputation across markets, the companies that stand out are rarely the ones that simply say the most. They are the ones that know what they want to be known for, and have something meaningful to contribute.

In an age of content inflation, perhaps the real competitive advantage is to say more while saying less.