What communicators should watch as AI shapes reputation

People today are asking AI tools which company they should trust and AI agents will make recommendations immediately.

That means companies can be described or compared before someone visits their website or sees content they created.

“There’s a risk that organizations build the ability to generate intelligence faster than leaders can absorb it,” said Ines Schumacher, senior partner at FleishmanHillard.

The job ahead is bigger than optimizing for AI search, she said. It’s understanding what story AI is telling, what sources are shaping it and whether that story could influence a real decision. Then they have to turn that intelligence into something leaders can use. It’s already happening.

Schumacher will tackle this idea at Ragan’s Future of Communications Conference next month. PR Daily spoke with her about what communicators should be watching now and the capabilities they’ll need next.

Responses have been edited for length and clarity.

PR Daily: If AI becomes the first place people encounter a company, how does that change the communicator’s job?

Schumacher: It moves communications closer to the point where people form a judgment. Someone may ask an AI system whether a company is trustworthy or how it compares with competitors. Increasingly, they may ask an agent to solve a problem without naming a brand at all.

The company may be considered, described or passed over before the person sees its own content.

Communicators will need to understand those answers and the public information behind them. Are the facts right? Is important context missing? Which sources are shaping the description? Could it affect a customer, investor or employee decision?

Because answers change as platforms and sources change, this has to be an ongoing discipline.

What signals will tell AI systems which brands and executives are authoritative?

I don’t think there will be one authority formula. Different systems draw on different sources, and what’s relevant depends on the question.

But I expect findable, current and corroborated evidence to matter: demonstrated expertise, original research or firsthand experience, along with credible independent sources that support a claim.

For executives, I’d focus on the quality and coherence of their public record. Have they offered a useful perspective on issues they know well? Explained a difficult decision? Shown the evidence behind their view?

For a brand, the strongest position is one where what it says, what it does and what it informs, outsiders can verify and align.

How does this change earned media and executive thought leadership?

A person still makes the consequential decision, but an AI system may assemble the first account they see.

That gives earned media value beyond the initial audience for a story. Detailed, independently reported coverage can provide context and corroboration long after publication.

As more content is produced at speed, relationships with journalists and specialist outlets, and giving them something genuinely worth examining, become more valuable.

Executive thought leadership should meet the same standard. Leaders need to offer a judgment they have earned the right to make, explain the evidence and acknowledge tradeoffs.

A substantive argument grounded in real experience is useful to a reader and more likely to remain meaningful when summarized or combined with other sources.

What should communicators monitor right now?

Start with the questions that could change a stakeholder’s decision.

Test how relevant AI platforms describe the company, its leaders and its category. Include questions that name the brand and questions that describe a need without naming it.

I recommend watching for two kinds of drift: wrong facts and old stories told with new facts.

An answer might correctly mention a leadership change while still describing the company according to an earlier strategy.

The team then has to investigate. Is an old source still prominent? Is current evidence hard to find? Did the platform change, or is a wider perception shifting?

The point to act is when a material error or outdated frame persists or starts appearing in questions people use to compare options.

Ask: What would be at stake if someone believed the answer?

Looking three to five years ahead, what capabilities will communications teams need?

I would put narrative and predictive intelligence at the center: the ability to see how a story forms, understand what is driving it and assess where it could go next.

That means bringing together signals from media, social platforms, search and AI answers, then testing plausible scenarios without pretending to predict reputation with certainty.

Teams will need to distinguish a factual error from credible criticism, an outdated description from a shift in stakeholder expectations and a platform change from a real change in perception.

The value comes when those findings reach leaders in time to help them act, whether that means correcting the record, providing stronger proof or reconsidering what the organization is doing.