How We Use AI

There’s a common misconception that Google actively punishes AI-generated content. The reality is, Google is indifferent. Research from Ahrefs, which analysed the performance of 600,000 AI and non-AI webpages, mirrors this notion, finding a 0.011 correlation between the percentage of AI content and search ranking position. Ahrefs also found that 86.5% of top-ranking pages contain some amount of AI-generated content. Today, what truly matters is expertise, accuracy, and authority – Google rewards helpful, original content that provides value, regardless of whether AI plays a role. With our content experts still heavily present in the crafting, refinement, and quality checking of all work, we ensure every piece meets this criteria, while staying fully aligned to your brand.

We never let AI output go live untouched. Our content writers refine, edit, and fact-check every piece, ensuring it’s accurate, brand appropriate, and genuinely useful to your audience. AI might help with speed, but originality and authority come from human expertise.

There are some classic giveaways – overly repetitive sentence structures, heavy use of em dashes, or overly formulaic phrasing. But as AI becomes more sophisticated, these signs are far less reliable. That’s actually good news. It means we can generate stronger first drafts, especially when guided by client-specific knowledge and brand tone of voice.

It’s also important to note that many supposed ‘tells’ are misunderstood. For example, some confuse an en dash with an em dash – yet the two serve very different, legitimate purposes. At TBB, we use en dashes where appropriate, because they’re a valued part of precise writing, but avoid the excessive em dashes AI often defaults to. Similarly, Oxford commas are sometimes mislabelled as an AI ‘giveaway’, when in fact they’re simply a matter of house style – and essential to clarity in many cases.

Ultimately, content shouldn’t be judged on whether AI had a hand in it, but on whether it’s accurate, authoritative, on brand, and genuinely useful to its audience. That’s the standard we apply to everything we deliver.

We’re selective and intentional about AI. For example, we don’t use it for press materials, thought leadership, or brand-defining creative concepts. These demand human responsibility, critical thinking, and contextual awareness that AI simply can’t fake. Not to mention, many journalistic guidelines clearly specify it should not be used in editorial or feature content. If there’s any chance AI could undermine credibility or dilute impact, we avoid it. Our principle is simple: if it’s not enhancing quality, it doesn’t belong in the process.

Internally, yes – our teams know when AI helps accelerate a process. Externally, disclosure depends on the context of application. For creative or content delivery, we won’t always flag it piece by piece because the brief has been carefully structured by human input and the final product has been refined, edited, and approved by our specialists. If it doesn’t meet our high standards, it simply won’t be delivered. At the same time, we’re very open with our clients about AI’s strengths and weaknesses, so it’s constantly involved in dialogue.

AI helps us work faster and smarter, especially with repetitive or time-consuming tasks. That frees up our experts to focus more of your budget on creativity, strategy, and quality. You get the same superior output – backed by human oversight – but with faster turnaround times and stronger ROI, without compromising standards.

Absolutely not. AI is a tool, not a replacement. Our people are the ones setting strategy, shaping creative ideas, and ensuring quality. Without them, AI has no understanding of your brand, your goals, or your audiences. We use AI to support efficiency, but the heart of every project is – and always will be – human.