That Escalated Quickly: A Truc-bullient Argument on AI, the Purpose of Professional Communication and Damn Near the Meaning of Life (Par Three of Three)

To my claim that most leaders do not, in fact, frequently speak or write specifically to change behavior, but rather for softer purposes of making themselves, and thus the institution, better understood and more attractive to important constituencies, Mike wrote:

As Hannibal Lecter put it, “Incidental.”

Why do you think they want the public to have such an understanding?

So the public will buy what they are selling.

That’s why they flattered Janet into blogging her sincerity for Tech.EDU. The people who let her do that believe that the university is pouring money into random blogs because peace and love. Two levels above, there’s a room full of board members who are looking at the bottom line and see Janet as a means to an end: income. Plus it’s a nice thing to do that they can afford because they have income. It is an “extra” that serves a bonus purpose. But it does nothing to dispel Janet’s misapprehension of reality.

It gets worse: Janet’s handlers (and most of America) can afford to believe that the university is just tossing money to the comms department because sunshine.

I say this to every class at [the college where Mike teaches undergrads]—and now I gather you disagree with this: “If you can’t draw a line from what you do to the bottom line, you’re already a dead man walking. The company doesn’t send out comms—it doesn’t even donate to charity—simply because it’s a nice thing to do. They may admire these things greatly—yes, they are wonderful things! But executives do things because it drives profit and if they can afford a two-fer, they take it. Why do you think comms is the first place that gets cut in a pinch? Because many comms people forget that the 10K fun run was made possible first and foremost cos Acme could afford to fund it by selling stuff.”

… It works that way not because people are bastards (though a few are). It works that way because everybody wants to get paid so they can eat, including you and me and Janet. To pretend that CEOs are just wantin’ to get to know ya is to skip right over the Line One of the job description.

(Aren’t you glad this is the last day of this?) I replied:

Yes, after 35 years of observing corporate communications, I do disagree with what you’re saying.

You make my point better than you make yours.

You think they cut comms in a pinch because the communicators “forget” about the original purpose of the 10K fun run? No, they cut comms because they knew all along that the thing was good to do but not essential to the business. And now they have to cut it. And when they get fat again, they’ll bring the fucker back.

I’m glad you tell the kids to be results-oriented. But don’t expect my ass to receive that “dead man walking” shit.

I’ve known thousands of communicators—and I’ve known more of ‘em longer and better in my position than you have in yours—who have worked great and happy long careers without a nickel of generated revenue to show.

The corporate communication measurement pioneer Angela Sinickas—whose landmark manual on communication measurement I edited, way back in 1994—once told me she was once judging a speechwriting category in a prestigious communication awards program. Candidates had to include an element of quantitative measurement with their entry. One entrant wrote, “After the speech, the CEO gave me a dozen roses (12).”

Yep.

Mike:

Oh, yes, I knew that bullet was comin’ my way. I was waiting for it: “I’ve met more corp comms types than you ever will.” Indeed. I agree. I think you don’t need to meet any at all to know how a business works.

You think I’m making your point and I think you’re making mine: “They knew all along that the thing was good to do but not essential to the business. And now they have to cut it. And when they get fat again, they’ll bring the fucker back.” You just wrote word for word my point: they are not essential to the business. And I’ll add: “But down to an individual they imagine they are essential because they don’t understand the simple point I’m making about where income comes from.”

But that’s far removed from AI, though it leads there: If we were worried about what matters, which is income, we’d be insisting that people use AI—oh, wait. Outside of writing, that’s exactly what they’re doing.

But somehow writers (’scuse me, Writers) imagine they are exempt from the money-earning need of the system because … well, that’s where I’d like you to explain why you think corporate comms people are exempt from having to contribute to the bottom line. Seriously, because that’s what you just said, re years of working with no contribution to the bottom line. Really? Their existence must have provided something of value.

Me:

*There are things of value to an institution that can’t be attributed to the bottom line*—this quarter or next or ever. A lot of corporate communication is comprised of stuff like that. Always has been and always will be.

And you know it too, even though you pretend not to. Others pretend not to as well. They include: comms directors trying to justify more budget, communications measurement gurus and people trying to scare college students into being a little tougher-minded. Some of these purposes are well justified.

But you can’t scare me, Bub.

And let’s give Mike the last word:

All I have for you to that is, No.

(Now I shall write more than No. Heh.)

Everything is reflected in the bottom line. That’s why “image” is factored into a sale. So forgive my bluntness but you’re incorrect.

Writing Boots readers, Mike and I thank you for following us to this bitter end. And we invite your comment.

Meanwhile, if you’d like to learn how Mike Long uses AI in and around his writing work, he’ll talk a lot about that in this month’s webinar, Strategic Speechwriting: The Method and the Art, September 29-October 2. And if you’d like to participate in a live conversation on AI and speechwriting, Mike is appearing on an all-conference debate panel on this topic at the 2026 World Conference of the Professional Speechwriters Association, October 26-29 in D.C.