Writing used to be one of the easiest professional skills to demonstrate. Give someone a brief, ask them to produce an article, review their grammar, structure and understanding of the subject and you had a reasonably good indication of whether they could do the job. That assessment is becoming far more complicated. Generative AI tools can now produce a competent article, rewrite awkward sentences, summarise lengthy reports, suggest headlines and turn a few bullet points into polished copy within minutes. The baseline quality of written content has risen dramatically, but that does not necessarily mean the quality of thinking behind it has improved.
For businesses, agencies and media teams, this creates a new hiring challenge. If producing clean copy is no longer particularly difficult, what should we actually be looking for when we hire writers, content strategists, PR professionals or communications specialists? Increasingly, the answer has less to do with their ability to put sentences together and much more to do with what happens before and after those sentences are written.
Writing ability is no longer the strongest differentiator
A strong portfolio still matters. So do grammar, clarity, industry knowledge and experience. The difference is that these signals are no longer as reliable on their own. A candidate can use AI to improve a writing sample, organise an argument or generate a first draft on an unfamiliar topic. This is not necessarily a problem. AI is already part of the way many modern communications teams operate and refusing to use it is unlikely to be a competitive advantage.
The problem arises when organisations continue assessing talent as though polished writing automatically demonstrates strong communication skills. It does not. The more useful questions are now harder to answer from a conventional writing test. Can the person recognise that a statistic does not actually support the argument being made? Will they question a vague client claim rather than simply polishing it? Can they identify the strongest angle hidden inside an interview? Do they understand when a story is genuinely useful to a journalist and when it is merely useful to the company promoting it? These are judgement calls. And unlike sentence construction, judgement remains difficult to automate.
Good communication starts before the first sentence
One of the clearest indicators of strong content talent is the quality of the questions they ask. A weaker writer receives a brief and immediately begins producing copy. A stronger writer first tries to understand the problem. Who are we speaking to? Why would they care? Why is this relevant now? What has already been written about the subject? Which claims need evidence? What should the reader understand by the end? Is the proposed angle actually interesting or are we simply repeating the organisation’s preferred talking points? These questions matter because AI can only work with the context it receives.
When the thinking going into the process is generic, the output usually is too. Better research, sharper questioning and stronger editorial instincts improve the work regardless of whether an AI tool is involved. Curiosity, therefore, is becoming one of the most valuable skills in modern communications.
Being good at AI is not the same as being good at content
There is now understandable pressure for candidates to demonstrate that they are comfortable using AI. But asking whether someone can use ChatGPT or write prompts tells us very little. The more important skill is knowing where AI belongs in the workflow and where human judgement still needs to take over. A good content professional might use AI to brainstorm headline alternatives, organise research, test different structures or identify gaps in an early draft. They should also know that sources need to be verified independently, claims require context and the final argument cannot simply be accepted because a tool produced convincing prose.
In other words, AI literacy should come with editorial responsibility. This matters particularly in PR and communications. A confidently written factual error can damage a client’s credibility. An invented quote or poorly checked statistic can create far bigger problems than an awkward sentence ever could. Speed is valuable, but only when the person using the technology knows what needs checking.
Taste is becoming a professional advantage
There is another skill that is difficult to capture in a job description: taste. Taste is why one writer recognises that an opening feels generic while another thinks it is perfectly acceptable. It is knowing when a quote adds nothing, when a headline needs more tension or when a piece of thought leadership sounds impressive but does not actually say anything. This has become more important precisely because generative AI can create competent-looking content so easily.
The internet is increasingly filled with grammatically correct writing that follows familiar structures and uses all the expected terminology. What distinguishes stronger communication is often the ability to remove the clichés, make sharper choices and recognise what is worth saying in the first place. The strongest writers are not simply producing more words. They are making better editorial decisions.
Adaptability matters more than having one polished voice
Modern communications roles rarely involve writing one type of content. On any given week, someone working in an agency or in-house communications team may need to prepare a founder commentary, edit an executive LinkedIn post, turn research into a contributed article, develop interview questions, write a media pitch and adapt a story for social media. Those formats should not sound identical.
A regional technology publication expects something different from a consumer lifestyle title. A founder opinion article should not read like a press release. A LinkedIn post should not simply be the first three paragraphs of a corporate article broken into shorter sentences. Strong writers understand these distinctions instinctively. They can preserve a core message while adjusting tone, depth, structure and language according to the audience. AI can help execute those changes, but someone still needs to understand why they are necessary.
Accountability may be the most important skill of all
Perhaps the biggest difference between average and excellent communication talent is whether the person feels responsible for what they publish. Can they explain why they selected a particular source? Will they flag a statement they cannot substantiate? Can they defend the angle they chose? Are they willing to tell a colleague or client that a claim needs to be removed? Do they see feedback as part of improving the work rather than simply as a list of edits to accept? These behaviours become increasingly important as content production gets faster. AI makes it possible to produce more material, but greater volume also creates more opportunities for weak research, inaccuracies and generic thinking to slip through. Someone has to own the final output. That responsibility cannot sit with the tool.
Hiring processes need to change too
If the skills required of writers have changed, the way organisations assess them should change as well. A generic take-home assignment asking someone to write an 800-word article may no longer reveal very much. Candidates have access to the same AI tools that employees will eventually use at work anyway.
A better assessment could test the decisions around the writing. Give a candidate a weak AI-generated article and ask them to edit it. Provide a messy client brief and ask what information is missing. Ask them to fact-check several claims and explain which sources they would trust. Give them one company announcement and ask how they would position it differently for a business publication, a trade outlet and LinkedIn. Ask what they would challenge before they started writing. These exercises reveal much more than whether someone can deliver grammatically correct prose. They show how the candidate thinks.
Five things worth looking for in content talent today
When evaluating writers, editors, PR professionals and content strategists, there are five capabilities that increasingly matter.
1. They question the brief.
Strong communicators do not blindly execute. They identify gaps, inconsistencies and opportunities before drafting begins.
2. They use AI as support rather than substitution.
They are comfortable with new tools but retain ownership of the research, argument and final output.
3. They understand audiences.
They know that a message needs to change depending on where it appears and who is expected to read it.
4. They know how to edit themselves.
Good writers can recognise when their own argument is weak, accept feedback and improve a piece without losing its purpose.
5. They make information more useful.
The final test is not whether the content sounds polished. It is whether the reader understands something more clearly after reading it.
AI has raised the bar for human writers
AI has not eliminated the value of writing. It has reduced the value of simply being able to produce acceptable text. That distinction should shape how businesses think about communications talent in the years ahead. Grammar can be corrected. Structures can be suggested. First drafts can be produced almost instantly. What organisations still need are people who can decide what is worth saying, recognise what is credible, understand the audience and turn information into something meaningful.
The best writers were never valuable only because they could write quickly. They were valuable because they could think clearly. In the age of AI, that difference is becoming much easier to see.
If your team is figuring out how to use AI without losing the human judgement, creativity and credibility that make content worth reading, we can help. From content strategy and thought leadership to AI-supported communications workflows, speak to the SYNC team at hello(a)syncpr.co.