The Dying Art of Taste

I'll let you in on a little secret: I believe that a good content marketer should realistically spend a surprising amount of time weighing-in on what a company shouldn't say.

Listen, some decisions are easy because an idea is too thin to deserve an audience. Others are useful, but need more work. But the hardest ones are clever, relevant to the company's goals, and likely to attract attention, yet show poor judgment.

AI has made this part of the job easier for many to ignore. It can turn almost any concept into a workable campaign, produce the copy, and offer plenty of variations.

But it's also quick to agree with the premise it's given.

Ask AI to build a campaign around an idea, and it will usually treat the idea as settled. It will tell you why the concept is timely, praise the connection, and suggest ways to make it stronger. Unless you explicitly asks for pushback, the machine will execute the idea rather than question it.

Spoiler alert: AI is terrible at reasoning for taste. And ultimately, for a lot of "marketers," when we're feeding it these ideas, it becomes nothing but a robotic echo chamber telling us that we're good at what we do.

But that doesn't mean the idea doesn't still suck.

Taste starts before the draft

Taste is often discussed as a matter of style. We recognize it in clear writing, considered design, and a consistent point of view. But that's only the part readers can see. Taste shapes the assignment from the start, including what the company assumes about its audience.

Speaking down to readers is one of the easiest ways to spot poor taste. B2B companies regularly explain basic terminology to people who work with those concepts every day. Sure, it ticks a box in the content calendar. But if someone clicks, you've wasted their time.

A model can adjust its vocabulary or reading level when prompted. But it cannot replace a content team's understanding of its audience. The team should know what readers already understand, where they need help, and which explanations they have seen dozens of times.

The same judgment applies to what a company asks of the reader. Sometimes an article can answer a question and end there. It's okay to be useful without being self-serving — you don't need to force a product connection or turn every useful thought into an opportunity to capture a lead.

Taste respects the reader's knowledge, time, and reason for being there.

A workable idea doesn't mean it's the right idea

Another place I'm seeing this is in timely commentary, or "newsjacking."

Let me start by saying: there's absolutely a legitimate place for it in company content. In a lot of cases, businesses have expertise that helps people understand a developing subject. Their customers may be affected by it, or someone inside the company may have experience that adds to the discussion.

Newsjacking works when the company has something useful to contribute.

But trouble starts when the main goal is getting attention. A term or concept takes off, or something newsworthy happens, and the company scrambles to make a leap and attach it to a campaign. The idea makes sense within the brief, the language is defensible, and the finished piece may even perform.

That doesn't mean it's being published in good taste.

Words come with context that a planning document may miss. They can land differently across cultures, communities, and individual experiences. A company may understand the literal meaning of a phrase while overlooking what its use communicates.

AI is good at creating connections between concepts. It can explain why an idea works and, if asked, produce reasons it might be risky. But neither response settles the editorial decision.

That falls to the human editor.

And yeah, that review could improve an idea or end it. But either outcome means someone exercised judgment before asking the audience to spend time with the work.

Content engines just follow leadership

When content becomes self-serving, look at what leaders are asking the team to do.

I'm not detailing anything groundbreaking here. Leadership sets the priorities, and metrics make them real. If success is measured by volume, impressions, or virality, the team will find more things to publish and more conversations to attach themselves to.

Restraint has little value when the visible reward comes from attracting attention, regardless of whether the company adds anything useful. And AI scales whatever the organization rewards.

This is how "anything goes" becomes an unspoken editorial standard. An idea stays alive as long as it fills a calendar slot, produces visibility, or gives the company another reason to talk about itself.

The marketing starts to sound disjointed. The company grabs whatever subject already has attention, then bends it back toward the product. The reader's needs become secondary to the company's desperation to remain visible.

Leaders who value editorial taste give content marketers room to disagree. They let people reject workable ideas, question what kind of attention a campaign might attract, and spend more time on work that gives the reader something useful.

Taste is going to be a differentiator

My prediction: as AI-generated slop fills more channels, editorial restraint will become a competitive advantage.

Readers notice when a company respects their time, understands their needs, and leaves weak or tasteless ideas in the draft. Sometimes, it really is okay to just let a moment go by without chiming in.

AI will undoubtedly help every company say more. And without sound judgment, much of it will be noise. Taste will separate the ones worth listening to.

Looking to bring better editorial taste to your content marketing? Let's talk »