One of the easiest mistakes teams make with AI is assuming more usage automatically means more value. Once people start seeing time savings, the temptation is to apply AI everywhere, to every task, every workflow, every stage of work. But the fastest teams usually do something more disciplined than that. They do not use AI for everything. They use it at the moments where work tends to slow down, stall, or loop back. That distinction matters because not every task creates the same kind of drag. Some tasks move fine without intervention. Others create delays, rework, handoff confusion, or blank-page friction that quietly stretches cycle time. The teams getting the best results are usually the ones that know where those slow points are and apply AI there first. ------------- More AI usage is not the same as better AI usage ------------- It is easy to think adoption success should be measured by how often AI appears in the workflow. But high usage on its own can be misleading. A team can use AI constantly and still save very little meaningful time if it is being applied in the wrong places. This happens when people focus on novelty instead of friction. They try AI on random tasks, experiment broadly, and generate a lot of activity without identifying where the real delays are. The tool becomes present, but not necessarily useful in a way that changes the pace of work. The better question is not, “Where can we use AI?” It is, “Where does work keep slowing down?” That is where time savings tend to become visible and repeatable. Maybe it is the first draft that always takes too long to start. Maybe it is the handoff where details get lost. Maybe it is the review stage where messy inputs create extra rounds of correction. These are not glamorous problems, but they are often expensive ones. Fast teams understand that the point is not broad insertion. The point is targeted friction removal. ------------- The biggest gains usually live at the stall points -------------

Can I share something a little ironic especially given that brand strategy and positioning is literally what I do for a living? When I first launched my consultancy, I completely abandoned every principle I would have told a client. I believed I needed to sound extremely polished and "credible"... not how I'd normally speak, but how I imagined an authoritative voice in my field was supposed to sound. So I leaned hard on AI for content, and for a while, I genuinely thought I had it figured out. It hit me later that what I was actually doing was outsourcing my positioning to a tool that had no idea who I was, what I stood for, or why any of it mattered. Blimey. The content did look the part, unfortunately, it just had nothing underneath it. No real point of view, no soul and nothing that could only come from me. And I had to sit with that because I help people avoid exactly this. Here's what I know now (and what I should have applied to myself from day one): AI can absolutely speed up your content, but it cannot do your positioning work for you. That clarity about who you are, who you're genuinely for and why that's different from everyone else? No prompt in the world figures that out on your behalf. It has to come from you first. Once I got that right for my own brand, everything changed. So if your content feels a little off lately, it might actually not be an AI problem at all. It might very well be a positioning problem. And truthfully, that's the more solvable one. I'd know. 💜