PR Daily Calls Out the AI Words That Are Killing Your Copy

PR Daily names "quietly," "feels," "impactful" and "revolution" as AI tells draining precision from copy — and offers high-concept replacements for writers.

Wire notes

  • PR Daily built its list of AI-tell words from a LinkedIn poll of communicators asking which workplace phrases they had grown weary of
  • Named offenders include "quietly," "feels," "impact," "it's not just X; it's also Y," "revolution" and "innovation"
  • The recommended replacement for contrasting negation is Hollywood-style high-concept thinking: "What if X?", "X meets Y," "X but with Y"
  • Ragan's Writing & Content Strategy Virtual Conference is scheduled for Dec. 3, 2027
Quietly feeling unimpactful: How to kill common AI darlings in your writing
PhotoQuietly feeling unimpactful: How to kill common AI darlings in your writing — StockSnap / pixabay

Words such as "quietly," "feels," "impactful" and "revolution" now function as AI tells in professional copy, and PR Daily has published a field guide to cutting them. The piece, built on a LinkedIn poll of communicators, argues that chatbot-generated syntax and corporate overuse have drained once-serviceable words of their precision — and that fixing them usually demands a restructure, not a quick delete.

The publication asked its LinkedIn audience which workplace words and phrases had worn out their welcome. The replies formed a snapshot of the language that keeps turning up in workplace writing today, from AI's big feelings to the vague "impact" every campaign seems to make. The common thread, PR Daily reports, is a lack of specificity and precision.

What does this change for working writers? It names the problem words and offers concrete replacements. The offenders:

  • "Quiet" and "quietly." AI inserts the word without clear rationale into narratives of every kind — a brand may "quietly" rise to cultural prominence, a consumer segment may "quietly" decline to participate. PR Daily's verdict: the modifier is subjective and imprecise enough to fit many contexts without adding substance. In most cases you can strip it out; if it carries meaning, demonstrate the point through objective evidence instead. Was it really a "quiet" launch, or did the brand intentionally start with more exclusive targeting?

  • "Feel" or "feels." Bots love to claim work "feels transformative." PR Daily calls this "practically passive voice without the passive voice" — it offloads the need for evidence-based claims onto a mysterious, hypothetical feeler of feelings. The fix: rework sentences with clear actors, actions and cause-and-effect logic. If feelings matter, attribute them — who had the reaction, and what did they say or do?

  • "Impact" and "impactful." The words inherently tell rather than show. If a campaign increased donations, changed a policy or reached a defined audience, give readers that result and let it speak for itself.

  • Negative parallelism: "It's not just X; it's also Y." Chatbots rely too heavily on forced parallels and contrasting negation when they lack sufficient information — and sometimes when they have it. The trouble, PR Daily notes, is that in most cases at least one of the two claims does not hold up: "It's not just software. It's a revolution." Is it really, and what does that mean practically?

  • "Revolution" and "innovation." "Revolution" carries enormous cultural baggage and deserves unpacking — will there be guillotines, will it really overturn anything? "Innovation" demands the same test: explain what is genuinely new and has not been done before. If lofty words cannot earn their keep, ask more specific questions about what makes the pitch, organization or team distinctive.

  • PR Daily's preferred replacement for the "not just X" construction borrows from Hollywood: high-concept thinking, which compresses an idea into a clear premise built from familiar pieces and an unexpected twist. The structures are "What if X?", "X meets Y" and "X but with Y." Examples from the piece: "What if junior employees led a Town Hall for once?", "a candy bar ad in the style of a mockumentary comedy," "a conference meets a music festival." The format gives readers a quick picture of an idea and its distinction, and it forces the writer to explain exactly what is on offer and how it differs from competitors. The publication also suggests it works as a team brainstorm exercise.

    The advice arrives as communications teams lean harder on generative tools for first drafts, and it links back to PR Daily's earlier guidance on editing the obvious signs of AI-generated copy. The author notes that many tired terms are difficult to avoid — when writers are cranking out copy, the words tend to find their way in, and cutting them completely often takes a restructure and more questions.

    PR Daily says more advice is coming and invites readers to submit terms they want alternatives for. Writers looking for further wordcraft can register for Ragan's Writing & Content Strategy Virtual Conference on Dec. 3, 2027.

    via linkedin.com (Original)

    Filed under

    Share this article:

    More from Priya Raman

    Priya Raman

    Show full bio

    Correspondent covering people, launches and day-to-day practice in marketing, advertising, marketing technology, media, SEO and search at Marketing Herald.

    202 articles

    More on the wire

    « Previous article