How AI’s digital memory can debunk brand narratives

ChatGPT is all the rage, but amid the hoopla and “creative efficiency exuberance,” life is going to get much more complicated for brands.

Don’t believe me. Just grab any OpenAI application and ask whether your favorite brand is sustainable? Or committed to diversity? Or trustworthy with personal data?

While leading digital and social media for Nestlé, we had a popular saying that frequently kept me up at night: Google and Wikipedia never forget.

However hard we tried to leverage marketing tools and channels to tell a positive, trust-building narrative about our brands, Google and Wikipedia would always remind consumers of issues we’d rather forget: supply chain “opportunities,” brand missteps, excess use of palm oil and plastics—even a 40-year-old boycott. When digital memory collides with desired brand narrative, things get complicated, confusing and—inevitably—costly for brands.

According to Pitchbook, investors poured $1.4 billion into generative AI companies in 2022, nearly as much as the last five years combined. OpenAI is now reportedly looking at a $29 billion valuation. Usage of utilities and apps drawing from OpenAI is exploding, and I'm among the millions of fast converts. 

For marketers, the conversation so far has been largely centered on ChatGPT’s “creative unlock”—pitch and slogan writing, dynamic “on the fly” images, even tweets. There’s also lots of discussion about what this means for customer service, given how many questions consumers have about brands.

Impact exposure

But there's a far less sexy side of AI that's bound to create headaches for brands and even CEOs.  OpenAI makes the path to smart answers about brands an attractive, sticky and even fun alternative to both Google Search or Wikipedia. Indeed, we're marching toward “single response” search powered by AI algorithms that crunch through reams of data in the digital universe.

Since ChatGPT came out, I’ve been typing and cataloging hundreds of queries related to brands, especially around impact topics, from sustainability to responsible sourcing. Yes, some brands are getting well-deserved credit for, say, ESG targets or diversity and inclusion commitments, but most will blush (or squirm) when they see the responses. Put another way, they have exposure.

I was particularly taken aback by the bluntness of responses on the green and sustainability front. I mean, who needs righteous Green TikTokers when ChatGPT acts as a de facto BS detector and greenwashing filter. Notably, there’s no fluff. I typed in one popular brand (which I won’t name):

“Yes (your brand) leaves a carbon footprint. The production of (your brand) requires the use of energy and resources, which can lead to the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Additionally, the disposal of (your brand) can also contribute to the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.” Try for yourself.

Then there are multiplier effects. ChatGPT tools are so sticky they are likely to be baked into all manner of other applications, tools and sites—so positive or negative perspectives could cast a long shadow.

End of the long tail

It gets worse. ChatGPT heralds the end of long-tail search results. The utility simplifies your universe of results into one integrated “black box” answer. Yes, you can technically “regenerate” a response, but in my experience, there's minimal new content.

Keep in mind that most brands struggle to own top organic search results, especially on important and consequential queries (e.g. what’s the best dog food). Brands compensate for this through advertising, content optimization and massive spending on search agencies and consultants. AI search is shifting that paradigm. Perhaps Google or Microsoft's version of OpenAI will soften the squeeze, but if a single response is really good, will consumers want more noise?

Voice assistants Alexa and Google Assistant forewarned this no-long-tail reality. Voice barks back one response, and brands have limited influence in shaping the result. Several years ago, I co-led a “voice audit” of major CPG brands and found that nearly 80% of “impact queries” default to Wikipedia, detractors or activist groups. Only in rare cases was the answer to a simple “Is (brand) sustainable" sourced from the actual brand. The shorter the tail, the higher the exposure.

One silver lining in all this: Internal advocates may get more ammo to push for more impactful and authentic initiatives and strategies. CMOs may also quickly realize that green targets and ESG commitments are among the most important inputs into brand building. Less “check the box,” more “do or die.”

So, now what?

In the coming months, expect a groundswell of startups, consultants, agencies and newly minted AI optimization firms to flood the market. Most will herald more-for-less marketing optimization. Here’s my advice:

First, keep exploring AI creative possibilities, but balance this with a reality check of how these algorithms will position and rank your brand in the marketplace … and especially in front of curious buyers. Here the old adage still applies: “Listen before you engage.”

Second, think well beyond marketing to the substance of your brand promise, from product superiority to responsible sourcing to data integrity. And take an extra hard look at your impact messaging and ask if it is factual enough to pass the AI bot test.

Third, put on the concierge hat. Anticipate the obvious (even hard) questions, and ensure you have credible, honest responses readily available to consumers. Over time such owned media content may well influence AI algorithms in your favor.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly—especially now—walk carefully on the green front. Don’t oversell. Don't become fodder for a 50 million-view TikTok show entitled Bot Greenwashing. (I'm actually serious)

Oh, and remind your teams that, like Google and Wikipedia, AI never forgets.