Greentarget

Blog

by

Insights from Rachel Axelrod, Founder and CEO of Axelrod Consulting and Co-Founder of TEDxChicago 

Whether a senior executive is stepping into a board meeting, conducting a media interview, or addressing a room full of employees, investors or other key stakeholders, it’s important to remember: subject matter expertise is only one part of the equation when it comes to high-stakes communication moments. They also require clarity, presence, storytelling and a deep understanding of your audience.  

To learn more, we sat down with Rachel Axelrod, a former litigator turned speech coach and event producer. Drawing on years of experience both as a TEDx producer and executive trainer, Rachel offered the Greentarget team time-tested strategies that can elevate senior executives’ key messages—and their delivery. 

Four Best Practices for Executives 

Our conversation with Rachel centered on how to craft memorable and actionable messages for professional audiences. This included integrating storytelling into interviews, presentations, and speeches, as well as common pitfalls to avoid and how best to convey a unique position of authority.  

Here are four best practices executives should keep top-of-mind:  

  1. The Audience Comes First 

For Rachel, the first rule of high-stakes communications is simple but often overlooked: the audience comes first.  

In other words, before crafting a message or presentation, she urges clients to consider: 

  • Who is the audience (e.g., age, experience level, where they’re from, etc.)? 
  • What do they care about? 
  • How familiar are they with the topic? 
  • Why are they here—by choice or obligation? (If the latter, you’ll have to do a lot more work to keep their attention.)  

Rachel shared a great real-world example. One of her clients is a restaurateur here in Chicago. He gave two keynotes this year: one to 1,000 members of the National Restaurant Association at McCormick Place, and another to 250 manufacturing executives from all over the world. 

In both talks, the client wanted to describe his involvement in the TV show, The Bear (which explores both the high-level of stress and deep fulfillment in the restaurant industry). At the restaurant association conference, 99% of the room had seen the show. But at the smaller manufacturing event, only 20% had heard of it. So, Rachel coached her client to give more background about the show to the group who were not familiar with it. This made her client’s message inclusive and impactful. 

“Knowing your audience is everything,” she added. If they don’t understand your reference, the message won’t land. 

  1. Ditch The Jargon and Tell Stories That Stick 

To make sure your key messages resonate, Rachel advises her clients to ditch the jargon, speak plainly, and, most importantly, tell stories.  

“I’ve watched thousands of TED Talks and coached hundreds of speakers,” Rachel said. “I can tell you that it’s not the insights or lessons that people remember most. What truly sticks with people are the stories.” 

But storytelling doesn’t mean long-winded monologues or personal confessions. Rachel breaks it down into these five fundamentals (the 5 C’s of a story): 

  1. Context – What is the setting of the story? 
  1. Characters – Who’s involved? 
  1. Conflict – What’s the tension or challenge? 
  1. Climax – What’s the turning point or moment of uncertainty? 
  1. Closure – How does it end? 

Stories don’t have to be long; they just need structure. 

Whether about a client, a team experience, or even someone else entirely, if the story follows the 5 C’s, it will draw the audience in and make an impact. 

  1. Practice with Intention 

One of the biggest misconceptions among seasoned professionals? Thinking they can wing it.  

Rachel notes, “I can’t tell you how many executives say, ‘I’m a great public speaker. I’ve done this a million times.’ But confidence can backfire if it leads to under-preparation.”   

Rachel acknowledges that even the most polished speakers need to rehearse. Not just for content, but for pace, tone, and timing, especially when it comes to pausing for effect or responding to unexpected audience reactions. 

  1. Make the Message Actionable 

At the end of a presentation or interview, Rachel advises clients to leave their audience with a “takeaway.” This can be a new awareness of an idea or something more concrete.  

“It doesn’t have to be profound. It can be small. One of my client’s call to action was to put words of encouragement on a colleague’s monitor, like ‘You did a great job speaking up in the meeting today.’ That’s specific. And memorable.”  

Whether your call to action is conceptual or explicit, it should be clear, authentic, and easy to understand. 

Everyone Can Communicate Well  

Rachel told us that many executives believe they’re either naturally good at public speaking or they’re not. But her experience proves otherwise: “Everyone can tell stories. Everyone can improve.” 

For her, communication isn’t about being flashy. It’s about being clear, prepared, and connected to your audience.  

“Whether you’re addressing a live audience, a camera, or a room full of decision-makers, what matters most is preparation, perspective, and purpose.” 

by

As private equity money flows into accounting firms of every size, leaders are naturally focusing on financial terms and operational integration—but often overlook a third factor that is every bit as crucial to get right: strategic communications. 

This oversight carries real consequences. PE accounting deals are redefining identities, cultures, and client relationships, meaning a smart communications strategy isn’t just a nice-to-have. When communications are mishandled, even well-structured deals can unravel through internal discord, client defections, and damaged market reputation. 

Consider the well-known case of Toys”R”Us, where poor stakeholder communication contributed to the retailer’s demise despite substantial PE investment. While accounting firms face different dynamics, the underlying principle remains: How you communicate change both internally and externally often matters as much as the change itself.

The High-Stakes Communication Challenge PE Investment Triggers

PE investment fundamentally alters a firm’s identity, operations, and relationships. These changes trigger immediate questions from every stakeholder group—questions that will be answered with or without your input. 

This communications challenge is amplified in the world of accounting firms, which typically operate on relationship-driven business models built over decades. PE investment can feel like an existential shift to stakeholders who value the firm’s existing structure, culture, or independence. Without careful communication, negative perceptions can become reality.

The firms that thrive through a PE investment are those that proactively shape conversations about the investment rather than reactively responding to them. 

To that end, your communications strategy must begin early in the PE process, ideally as soon as leadership reaches preliminary agreement with potential investors. By the time announcements go public, your narrative framework should already be in place and tested.

Get Ahead of Stakeholder Concerns With Distinct Strategies

Successful PE communications require tailored approaches for four distinct audience groups, each with specific concerns and information needs.

1. Internal Stakeholders: Addressing “What Does This Mean for Me?” 

Internal audiences, from partners to administrative staff, immediately focus on personal survival. They want concrete answers: Will I lose my job? Do my benefits change? Who makes decisions now? How do my compensation and performance targets shift?

Beyond those immediate personal concerns, they worry about cultural transformation. Will the firm maintain its values and cultural character? How will daily operations change? 

These and other questions require thoughtful communications that address both practical changes and organizational identity.

As with any communications strategy, one size doesn’t fit all. Your internal communications should segment audiences by role and seniority, recognizing that partners, managers, and staff need different information at different times. 

Most critically, your strategy must account for the leak principle: assume everyone who learns about the investment will tell someone else—because they will.

2. External Stakeholders: Preserving Critical Business Relationships

Client relationships represent any accounting firm’s most valuable asset, making external communications particularly sensitive. 

When clients hear about a PE investment deal, they will immediately want to know whether it will affect billing rates, service quality, or access to key personnel. Prospective clients may wonder whether the firm’s growth trajectory aligns with their needs. They may also question whether your firm will continue to live up to its existing reputation. 

Recruiting is yet another critical consideration. Top talent may hesitate to join a PE-backed organization if they perceive reduced autonomy or cultural shifts. Conversely, PE investment can enhance recruiting by signaling growth opportunities and resource availability.

Your external communication strategy must address each stakeholder group’s concerns while positioning PE investment as a strategic advantage. This often means emphasizing continuity of service and relationships while highlighting enhanced capabilities and resources.

3. Media: Controlling Your Narrative

Media coverage shapes market perception across all other audiences, making proactive engagement essential. Financial publications focus on deal structures; trade outlets examine industry implications; and business media explores strategic rationales. Each angle influences how your stakeholders interpret the investment.

Proactive media engagement lets you frame your story before competitors, industry observers, or disgruntled insiders define it for you. This requires prepared messaging, designated spokespeople, and strategic announcement timing. 

As you craft your strategy, keep in mind that your goal isn’t just positive coverage—it’s accurate coverage that reinforces your stakeholder communication objectives.

4. AI and Digital Discovery: Managing Your Digital Narrative

When someone searches for your firm’s name plus “private equity,” what story emerges from ChatGPT, Perplexity, or Google’s AI summaries? This digital narrative increasingly shapes stakeholder perceptions, yet it rarely receives strategic attention.

Managing your AI-mediated reputation requires attention to information sources that feed these systems—Reddit discussions, Wikipedia profiles, and media outlets that AI tools frequently cite. 

For example, if negative speculation about your deal dominates accounting subreddits, that narrative may surface in AI-generated responses about your firm. The new discovery landscape demands strategic thinking about your digital presence and information architecture.

Execution Essentials: Timing, Leaks, and Channel Strategy

Even the best-designed communications strategy fails without disciplined execution. Pay careful attention to the following elements as you bridge the gap from strategy to execution. 

1. Timeline-Mapping 

Prepare a detailed communications timeline that sequences stakeholder outreach based on importance, information needs, and potential leak risks. 

Internal audiences typically need information first, but the specific order depends on organizational structure and relationship dynamics. Some stakeholders require early involvement in message development, while others only need final announcements.

2. Leak Strategy Development 

Every PE communications plan needs a comprehensive leak strategy addressing three scenarios: 

  • Media inquiries before official announcements
  • Internal rumors spreading ahead of schedule
  • Client questions arising from incomplete information.

Prepare templatized responses for each scenario in advance, knowing you may need to accelerate communication timelines on the fly in the event of a leak. 

3. Channel-Specific Communications

Different stakeholder groups require different communication formats and approaches. Internal audiences might need video calls for complex discussions and email for broad announcements. Client communication could involve personal calls from relationship partners followed by formal letters. Media relations require press releases, interviews, and background briefings.

Your channel strategy should align with stakeholder preferences while ensuring message consistency across channels.

Communications as Strategic Infrastructure

PE investment transforms more than balance sheets and operational processes—it fundamentally reshapes how stakeholders perceive and interact with your firm. Get communications wrong, and you won’t just have an awkward quarter—you could face a mass exodus of top clients and talent.

The accounting firms that recognize this reality early gain a decisive advantage. They engage communications professionals early in the investment process, develop comprehensive stakeholder strategies before announcements, and execute with precision across multiple channels and audiences.

This approach recognizes that the outcome of a PE investment depends not just on financial engineering or operational improvements, but on maintaining stakeholder confidence throughout the transformation process. With the right communication strategy, you preserve valuable relationships while positioning your firm for accelerated growth.

The PE wave isn’t cresting anytime soon. The real question is, will your communication strategy get you safely to shore—or leave your firm scrambling for a lifeline?

by

In this two-part series, journalism professor and former Wall Street Journal reporter Amy Merrick unpacks two influential trends reshaping the media landscape: source transparency and generative AI. From The Washington Post’s hotly debated “From the Source” pilot to the opportunities and risks of AI in journalism, the conversation examines how newsrooms are experimenting with new ways to build trust, efficiency and engagement in an era of rapid technological change.

AI in Journalism: Why Reporters and News Outlets Must Get in the Game—Or Risk Falling Behind. 

This is the second article in the series. You can view the first article here. 

Generative AI is reshaping how stories are discovered, told, and trusted. At Greentarget, we’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what that means for content in the age A—including how it impacts our professional services clients when it comes to earned media. 

As news outlets grapple with the challenges and opportunities that AI presents, we sat down to talk about its impacts on the current journalism landscape with journalism educator Amy Merrick, who brings insights from the newsroom and the classroom to one of the most complex—and fast-moving—technological shifts facing media today. A former reporter for The Wall Street Journal, Merrick is a senior professional lecturer at DePaul University’s College of Communication. 

AI’s impact on journalism aren’t just part of her syllabus—Merrick recently enrolled in a master’s program in computer science in order to understand what AI means for journalists. In the second part of our Q&A (the first focused on The Washington Post’s “From the Source” program), we explore why she decided to dive into AI headfirst and the advantages and risks she sees for journalists.   

————-  

Lisa Seidenberg: Let’s switch gears to discuss AI and your decision to pursue a master’s in computer science. How’s it going so far? 

Amy Merrick: I started the program because I genuinely believe that generative AI will impact everything I do, including media and education. You hear people say that we need participation from a wide range of industries and skill levels. And I agree. People from diverse backgrounds need to be part of the conversation, especially when it comes to ethical implications. 

Eventually, I thought, ‘Okay, I keep saying this; maybe I need actually to be one of those people participating.’ I needed to get a lot more educated to do that helpfully. It’s easy to critique something you don’t understand, but it’s way more helpful to understand it from the inside. Why does it have particular strengths and weaknesses? What aspects of the system’s architecture lead to these issues, and what kind of systems do we want in the future? 

One of the most incredible things so far is that computers no longer feel like magic. Understanding how programming and computers work helps demystify the process, and it gives me more confidence to join conversations about this topic. 

There’s a lot more to come, but I’m happy I’m learning. 

LS: I was especially interested in your analysis about why you started the program, especially your thoughts on generative AI and how it’s going to change journalism—both the good and the bad. You mentioned some examples in your LinkedIn post. What else are you seeing in the media landscape related to AI’s impact on journalism right now? 

AM: There are lots of experiments happening right now. The Associated Press, for example, has documented pilot projects that utilize AI to assist reporters. One tool scans city council meeting transcripts for keywords and alerts reporters. Anyone who covers local news knows how challenging it is to keep up with all those meetings, but the information can be essential. 

There are other tools for sending push notifications about weather alerts, and data journalists are finding AI helpful for digging through massive datasets they couldn’t manage on their own. Of course, humans still need to fact-check and be transparent about the limits of these tools, but the potential for data journalism is huge. 

What surprises me on the downside is how fast some outlets jumped to using generative AI for writing stories. That’s one of the worst uses for the technology right now. 

LS: Interesting–can you expand upon that? 

AM: The way large language models work is basically by predicting the next word in a sequence. To prevent things from becoming too repetitive, they introduce some randomness, which can lead to creative or unexpected results, sometimes cool, sometimes not. 

But when you’re writing journalism, you can’t have the AI making things up or suggesting stuff that isn’t factual. There have been cases, such as the one with the Chicago Sun-Times, where AI-generated fake book recommendations sounded plausible because they matched themes that those authors write about. However, those books weren’t real, and no one checked. It could have happened anywhere, but it became a symbol of how AI can mislead publishers. 

That’s tricky because you have to know a lot about the topic to catch those errors or do very thorough fact-checking. I’m surprised by how quickly some places have jumped into using generative AI for writing, considering it’s not yet ready for that purpose. 

LS: I also wanted to get your take on the policy Law360 put in place requiring all stories pass through an AI bias detection tool. Did you see that? 

AM: I did! It was interesting. I conducted a small experiment in one of my classes, where students used AI to assess a news story for bias and then compared the AI’s suggestions with their partner’s thoughts. Overall, the class felt AI made some valuable suggestions. I don’t think using AI for bias detection is a crazy idea. But I was surprised they mandated it so soon, given how new and untested it is. I get why staff pushed back. 

LS: Can we discuss this pushback further? What were the reporter’s concerns? 

AM: The AI tool tends to suggest toning down language about wrongdoing to sound more neutral. But for a law publication, if a judge or jury found evidence of wrongdoing, you need to communicate that. So, the AI’s tendency to neutralize could interfere with accurate reporting. I like the idea of pilots and experiments, but mandating it so early seems premature. Maybe management thought they had to push it for people to try it, but trust-building between staff and management usually works better than mandates with new, untested tools. 

It’s like what we said earlier. AI tools can only be practical if they keep pace with the specialized knowledge reporters bring. The tools have to make the work better, or they’re not worth it. 

Change is hard for everyone, including me. There’s always some pushback, which is a healthy sign. But you need a process of testing, refining, getting people on board. If everyone resists, you have to figure out why. 

LS: PR software providers Muckrack and Cision recently released their 2025 reports on the state of journalism and media, both of which delve into how reporters are utilizing AI. ChatGPT is the most widely adopted tool, according to Muckrack—it’s used by 42% of respondents—and transcription and writing tools like Grammarly were the next-most popular, used by 40% and 35%, respectively. What’s your reaction to these findings? Do they align with what you’re seeing? 

AM: Transcription is probably the least controversial use, and it’s the most common, too. Tools like Otter have been utilizing AI for some time now, and the results are pretty impressive. Additionally, you always have the original audio to refer back to if you need to verify something. 

Even for our student magazine, Fourteen East, which I advise, whoever is fact-checking a story will compare the transcript and the audio for any quoted material. So, AI saves a lot of time; transcribing manually can be incredibly slow. 

We touched on writing earlier, but I don’t use AI to generate first drafts, and I ask my students not to either. Writing is an integral part of the thinking process. It helps you figure out what you think. 

And I also worry about anchoring bias. Once you’ve got a draft, even if it came from AI, there’s a tendency to commit to it mentally, which can limit creativity and critical thinking. It’s harder to deviate from that first version. 

For journalists, there are often legal and ethical concerns about inputting proprietary or unpublished material into AI tools, particularly if the data is used to train the model. Coming from The Wall Street Journal, where insider trading is a concern, we had to be extra careful. So that’s always in the back of my mind. 

That said, people should experiment with AI, even in small ways. Try it out in everyday, low-stakes situations — even something like figuring out what to plant in your backyard! That way, even if you don’t end up using it professionally, you understand what it does, what you like or don’t like about it, and can speak knowledgeably about it. 

Because AI isn’t going anywhere, and if you’re not using it at all, it’s harder to be part of the larger conversation around it, and that’s a conversation more people should be part of. 

So, yeah, low-stakes experiments, that’s where I’d love to see more focus. It’s how we start to understand the strengths and limitations of these tools, and how they can (or can’t) be useful in different contexts. 

LS: That makes sense. Is there anything you’re watching closely right now or thinking about in terms of where this is all headed? 

AM: I’d love to see more people from a broader range of backgrounds and industries involved in shaping the direction AI goes. Not just people in Silicon Valley or working in tech. These tools will impact numerous aspects of life and society, so the more diverse perspectives we have in the room, the better. 

At Greentarget, we help clients lead with authority in a media environment where technology, misinformation, and shifting trust are resetting the terms of engagement at lightning speed. If you’re exploring how AI could shape your communications, newsroom relationships, or thought leadership strategy, we’re here to guide you. 

Learn how Greentarget helps organizations navigate the future of media with clarity, credibility, and purpose. Get in touch. 

by

In this two-part series, journalism professor and former Wall Street Journal reporter Amy Merrick unpacks two influential trends reshaping the media landscape: source transparency and generative AI. From The Washington Post’s hotly debated “From the Source” pilot to the opportunities and risks of AI in journalism, the conversation examines how newsrooms are experimenting with new ways to build trust, efficiency and engagement in an era of rapid technological change. 

How the Washington Post’s “From the Source” Could Redefine Media Transparency: A Q&A with Chicago Journalism Educator Amy Merrick 

This is the first article in the series. 

News that The Washington Post is launching a new system that allows people quoted in some articles to add annotations after publication ignited a firestorm of debate across the media landscape. Commenters suggested the program could enable attacks on the reporting (or the reporter), amplify misinformation, allow sources to walk back quotes, or simply provide a platform for self-interested promotion. 

The goal of the “From the Source” system is to encourage readers to engage in on-site conversations rather than shifting to social media platforms. The initiative also comes as other pressures weigh on media outlets as they confront profound economic challenges to their business model—including the explosive growth of generative AI, with chatbots and GenAI search results tanking traffic to news sites from traditional search referrals.   

To unpack the implications of it all, we caught up with Amy Merrick, a senior professional lecturer at DePaul University’s College of Communication and former reporter for The Wall Street Journal. Merrick is a faculty adviser to the school’s 14 East magazine and its Society of Professional Journalists chapter. She includes discussions on the impact of AI as part of her syllabus and recently enrolled in a master’s program in computer science in order to understand what AI means for journalists and help her students get ready for what’s next. 

We talked with Merrick about the significance of the Post’s new offering and where she thinks AI and journalism are headed. What follows is the first part of that conversation, focused on “From the Source” and what the initiative could mean for both journalists and sources. In the comings weeks, stay tuned for the second part, which examines the fast-moving impacts that AI is having on journalism. 

Lisa Seidenberg: The online response to The New York Times’ story on “From the Source” was strong, to say the least. As a former journalist, what was your reaction, and do you agree with these concerns?   

Amy Merrick: The climate section at The Washington Post has been a space for experimentation before, so it doesn’t surprise me that they’re starting this pilot program there. The first thing I’d say is that established media companies really should be doing more of these pilot projects. They should be trying new things, testing ideas. We’re still seeing outstanding journalism happening across the US and around the world, but on the business and tech side, the media has fallen behind. That’s opened the door for tech companies to capture a lot of the growth and audience. 

These types of experiments should be encouraged. Honestly, I was surprised by how negative some of the early reactions were, especially since the program hasn’t even fully launched or had a chance to evolve. There’s a tendency in the media industry to shoot down new ideas before they’ve had a chance to prove themselves. 

Now, I don’t know if this pilot will be the one that’s a breakthrough, but I’m glad they’re trying something. And while I get the concerns around the annotations, I also see the potential. As a reporter, part of the job is to critically assess the information you’re given, put it into context, and bring different perspectives into conversation. If sources are then coming in to annotate or add further context, that could be valuable in the best-case scenario.  

LS: On the theme of adding meaningful value, do you think this system will add an opportunity for authorities to share a new point of view or enhance the story? 

AM: Yes, they’re allowing sources to offer valuable extra context that didn’t fit into the story itself, which is helpful.  

These days, not much is limited to just print, but back when it was, that was a bigger constraint. Even now, though, if you’re trying to keep a precise angle or focus, you can’t go in every direction at once.  

So, ideally, you’d have climate experts providing background or further explanation that didn’t make the final cut. It functions like a footnote or appendix, allowing readers who want to delve deeper to do so.  

If this idea catches on, it could become a new skill people develop, figuring out how to add something meaningful to articles after they’re published. It works like online comments, providing context instead of relying on hyperlinks that most readers don’t click. It’s a way to be more transparent and help readers better understand the sources. 

I did notice, however, that in some early examples, the annotations were mostly company press releases, and I’m not sure how useful those are in terms of adding meaningful value. 

LS: The goal of this is driving reader engagement. Do you think it will? 

AM: It’s too soon to say if this will drive more engagement, but people do like having conversations about stories and sharing their input. A well-moderated comment section can be such a pleasure. I read some newsletters on Substack where readers share thoughtful opinions, and platforms like Reddit, with its upvoting and downvoting features, can work well. 

I do think audiences expect to participate in conversations now, and trying new ways to do that is smart from a business perspective. More engagement typically means more time spent on the site or app, which can help with advertising, subscriptions, or donations. Journalists want their work to be read, too, so audience engagement is key. It used to be treated as an afterthought, but now places that do it well make it a core part of the process. 

LS: Will other outlets be watching how this works and deciding if they want to try it too? It may make sense for specialized or trade publications, like climate-focused ones. 

AM: Interestingly, they’re starting with climate, which is a pretty technical topic where readers want lots of detail. That’s a great place to experiment.  

However, if they expand into political stories, that could become complicated as politicians tend to stick to their messaging, and back-and-forth discussions about wording could be a headache. But they haven’t tried it yet, so we’ll have to see how it plays out.  

I think other outlets will be paying attention. For trade publications with a knowledgeable audience, this could be valuable. The Post is known for being experimental these days, so many people watch what it does closely. Of course, there has been a lot of scrutiny on them lately, with ownership issues and all, so they’re definitely in the spotlight. 

As Merrick explains, experimentation in journalism—especially in how media organizations engage sources and audiences—deserves room to evolve. While “From the Source” raises valid questions, it also presents an opportunity for newsrooms and communicators to rethink transparency and audience trust. 

In the second part of our Q&A, Merrick shares why she’s diving headfirst into AI and how she sees it reshaping newsrooms—from transcription tools to editorial ethics and everything in between. 

At Greentarget, we help organizations navigate this changing landscape with communications strategies rooted in credibility, authority and earned engagement. Want to understand how changes in journalism affect your content and communications strategy? Let’s talk. 

by

Audiences crave what a machine can’t have: an authentic personality 

As writing and critical thinking are increasingly outsourced to AI, the internet is becoming less and less human. A 2024 study from the Amazon Web Services AI Labs found that 57% of all web-based text is either AI generated or has been translated through an AI algorithm—a share that has likely ballooned even further in 2025.  

Yet as human voices disappear in a sea of online AI slop, the ones that remain are becoming more and more influential. That’s because even though large language models like ChatGPT were trained on incomprehensibly vast volumes of human writing, their outputs often lack the color and creativity that human beings provide. Audiences are noticing, and many don’t like what they see. 

For lawyers, consultants and professional services firms selling their perspectives as experts, this is a major opportunity to reinforce authority and engage with audiences. Maintaining the human touch with a distinct voice can build relationships that drive better conversations (and more business). Here’s how to write authentically, memorably, and uniquely in the Age of AI. 

Write How You Speak 

Each of us has an idiolect. Unlike a dialect shared by a group, your idiolect is unique to you—a verbal fingerprint. You may not realize it, but you favor some words and phrases over others and have unique grammatical styles that can help identify you. Just think of how Ernest Hemingway writes compared to Jane Austen.  

Linguists are increasingly concerned that AI could wipe out these idiolects in favor of something far duller. Language consultant and professor Tony Thorne, for example, told The Guardian that “AI is nudging us towards a neutral language that is much less rich.” When a language model is trained on what word will come next based on probabilities, it’s easy to see how the more interesting and unconventional choices are discarded, replaced by forgettable words and phrases.  

To preserve your voice, resist the temptation to outsource the entire writing process to AI. You can use AI as an ideation tool, but also consider talking out your argument first before putting it to paper. If you’re struggling to get started, try writing for just 10 minutes with no distractions; you might be surprised by what takes shape (and how authentic it sounds). And if using AI as an editor after the fact, make sure it isn’t removing too much what makes your writing yours. 

For example, Katie Parrott, a writer who focuses on AI and even trained a GPT to help edit her work, noticed that the tool repeatedly tried to tone down her language, a role she dubbed the “timid scribe.” But as she points out, sometimes the ideas that challenge, provoke, or explore new territory can’t be conveyed in mild, emotionless language. Forcing a reader to confront an idea requires the phrasing, tone, and emotion that naturally stem from your passion for the topic. 

Have a Strong POV 

Voice comes easier when you have something to say. In a world where content is generated in seconds, audiences are tuning out anything that feels generic, recycled, or uncommitted. What they crave instead is a clear point of view—a signal of confidence, experience, and originality. 

A strong POV doesn’t mean being provocative for its own sake. It means understanding the landscape, identifying what’s missing or misunderstood, and offering a perspective that is both informed and uniquely yours. Why does this issue matter now? What’s being overlooked? These are questions that invite bold, substantive answers that only real experts can provide. 

A summary of what’s in the federal budget, for example, can come from anyone. But an analysis of why new tax provisions will stimulate middle-market M&A activity in the coming year? That requires real insight and perspective that can only come from experience. It goes beyond just “what is it,” instead exploring “what does it mean” and “why does it matter” to prompt debate and discussion. 

For lawyers, consultants, and advisors to complex industries, having a strong POV also reinforces your authority. Clients want more than just credentials, instead seeking out judgment, interpretation, and clarity. They want to know where you stand and why. A watered-down or overly cautious stance doesn’t inspire trust; a thoughtful, well-argued position does. 

Ask yourself: 

  • What do I believe that others in my industry don’t talk about enough? 
  • What experience gives me a right—or even a responsibility—to speak up on this issue? 
  • If my name were removed from this article, could people still know it came from me? 

When you answer questions like these honestly, your writing becomes stronger. People remember the thinkers who take risks, who challenge assumptions, and who don’t just summarize the news, but drive the conversation. 

The Value of Voice 

In an era dominated by AI-generated noise, your distinct voice is more valuable than ever. Whether you’re looking to sharpen your point of view, refine your writing, or explore the right platforms for your message, we’re here to help.  

by

More than 80% of in-house legal leaders say their organizations are too conservative during high-profile litigation – exposing a dangerous communications gap. Greentarget’s 2025 Litigation Communications Survey reveals the hidden risks and missed opportunities when legal and communications teams fail to align. Based on insights from 100 in-house counsel, the report uncovers how governance models, under-leveraged tools like court filings, and siloed decision-making are holding companies back. For outside counsel, it’s a wake-up call—and an opportunity to lead.


Download the full report to explore how law firms can step in with smarter, reputation-forward guidance when it matters most.

Close
Close