For most of my adult life, I have been paid to write. That sentence used to carry a certain clarity. It meant you could report, interview, structure arguments, meet deadlines, understand audiences and turn half-formed ideas into something people wanted to read. Over the years, I have written for media platforms across Asia and globally, worked with founders, PR teams, editors, startups and business leaders, and seen how the definition of a “good writer” changes depending on the publication, market and moment.
Then generative AI arrived in the mainstream. This is no longer a niche productivity shift. McKinsey’s 2025 global AI survey found that 88 per cent of organisations now report regular AI use in at least one business function, up from 78 per cent a year earlier. For content and communications teams, that means AI-assisted writing is quickly becoming part of the operating environment, not a novelty
Today, ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and a long list of other tools can produce a clean first draft in seconds. They can summarise research, suggest headlines, rewrite copy, generate social captions and mimic the structure of a thought leadership article. For hiring managers in media, PR, marketing and content, this raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: if everyone can now “write”, who is actually a good writer anymore?
More importantly, who is still worth paying to write? This is not a question only for editors or agency leads. It is increasingly an HR question. Across APAC, where companies operate across multiple languages, cultures, regulatory environments and media markets, the ability to communicate clearly is becoming more important, not less. But the signals we use to assess communication talent need to change.
A polished writing test is no longer enough. A portfolio full of neat articles is no longer enough. Even years of experience may not mean what it used to. The real differentiator now is not whether someone can produce words. It is whether they can think, judge, question, adapt and take responsibility for what those words do.
The old markers of writing talent are becoming weaker signals
Three years ago, if I were hiring a writer or content person, I would have paid close attention to bylines, writing samples, industry exposure, speed and grammar. These things still matter, but they are no longer sufficient. A candidate can now submit a clean sample with very little original thinking behind it. They can use AI to improve sentence flow, generate article structures or create a competent-looking draft on a topic they barely understand. This does not make them dishonest. In many cases, it simply reflects the new reality of work. Most content teams are already using AI in some form, formally or informally.
The problem is that hiring processes have not caught up. Many companies still assess writers as though the main scarcity is sentence construction. But in 2026, sentence construction is becoming cheaper. What remains scarce is judgment.
Can this person tell when a claim is weak? Can they spot when a statistic is outdated or being used out of context? Can they interview someone and hear the actual story beneath the corporate talking points? Can they understand why a founder’s opinion matters to one outlet but sounds self-promotional to another? Can they write differently for e27, Tech Collective, a lifestyle publication, a LinkedIn post and a client byline without flattening everything into the same generic tone? That is where talent now shows up.
Also Read: Is our talent pipeline ready for the AI economy? Not in the way we think
AI proficiency matters, but not in the way many people think
There is a temptation to treat “AI skills” as a new line item on a job description. Can the candidate use ChatGPT? Can they write prompts? Can they generate content faster? These are useful questions, but they are shallow on their own.
In content and media roles, AI proficiency should not mean the ability to outsource thinking to a tool. It should mean knowing how to use AI without losing editorial judgment. A strong candidate should be able to explain what they would use AI for, what they would never use it for and how they would verify the output.
For example, I would be more impressed by a candidate who says, “I use AI to test headline options and identify gaps in structure, but I do my own source checking and rewrite the argument myself,” than one who simply says, “I can produce five articles a day using AI.”
Speed is useful, but speed without discernment creates risk. In media and communications, that risk may appear as factual errors, bland thought leadership, weak attribution, cultural tone-deafness or content that sounds polished but says very little. For startups and agencies in APAC, where one article may need to work across Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam or broader regional audiences, that lack of judgement can damage credibility quickly. The best talent today is not anti-AI. It is AI-literate and editorially accountable.
What I now look for in writers and content talent
The first thing I look for is curiosity. Not the performative kind, but the kind that shows up in the questions someone asks before they write. A good writer does not simply ask, “What is the word count?” They ask who the audience is, why this topic matters now, what has already been said, what the client or publication wants to avoid, what claim needs proof and what the reader should walk away understanding. In an AI-saturated content market, curiosity is a competitive advantage because it leads to better inputs. Better inputs still produce better work, whether AI is involved or not.
The second signal is taste. This is harder to teach than grammar. Taste is knowing when a sentence sounds too inflated, when an opening paragraph is dragging, when a quote is weak, when a headline is technically accurate but emotionally flat. It is what helps a writer avoid the generic “in today’s rapidly evolving landscape” style of content that AI tools produce so easily.
The third is accountability. I want to know whether someone feels responsible for the accuracy and usefulness of the work. This is especially important in journalism-adjacent roles, PR and thought leadership. A writer who cannot explain why they used a certain source, framed an argument in a certain way or removed a claim from a draft is not ready to operate independently.
The fourth is adaptability. The strongest content professionals are not locked into one format or one voice. They can write a founder byline, edit a client comment, turn a press release into a story, prepare interview questions, write a social caption and understand why each one requires a different approach. Finally, I look for perspective. AI can summarise what is already online. A strong writer can tell you what is missing from the conversation.
What matters less than it used to
This may be uncomfortable, but credentials matter less to me than they once did. A journalism degree, a communications qualification or a well-known previous employer can be useful signals, but they are not guarantees. Some of the strongest writers I have worked with were not the most credentialed. They were the ones who could listen carefully, think clearly and revise without ego.
Also Read: The creative gap: Why GenAI is outpacing the talent it was meant to empower
Years of experience also need to be examined more carefully. Someone may have spent five years producing content without ever learning how to shape an argument. Another person may have two years of experience but sharper editorial instincts, stronger research habits and a better grasp of digital audiences.
Even technical writing skill, while still important, is no longer the entire game. Grammar can be cleaned up. Structure can be improved. What is harder to fix is a lack of thinking. This does not mean lowering standards. It means raising them in the right places.
What this means for APAC’s HR and media ecosystem
Across APAC, companies are under pressure to produce more content, more quickly and across more channels. Startups need founder visibility. Tech companies need thought leadership. HR teams need employer branding. PR agencies need bylines, pitches, commentary and media-ready narratives. Publications need contributors who understand their audience and do not waste editorial time.
At the same time, budgets are tight, and AI tools are making leaders question what they should still pay humans to do. The answer is not to pay people merely to generate text. That work will continue to be automated, compressed or devalued. The answer is to pay people who can combine domain understanding, editorial judgement and strategic communication.
For HR leaders, this means rethinking how writing and content roles are assessed. Instead of asking candidates to produce a generic article from scratch, give them a messy brief. Ask them what they would question. Give them a weak AI-generated draft and ask them to improve it. Ask them to fact-check a paragraph. Ask them to explain which angle would work for which publication and why. In other words, test the thinking around the writing.
A practical framework for hiring content talent now
When hiring writers, editors, PR consultants or content strategists today, I would ask five questions.
- Can they think beyond the brief? A great hire does not simply execute instructions. They can identify what is missing, what is unclear and what needs to be challenged.
- Can they use AI without becoming dependent on it? The best candidates should be able to use tools for efficiency while still owning the final judgment.
- Can they adapt to the audience and context? A strong writer knows that a startup founder byline, a lifestyle feature and a regional tech analysis cannot sound the same.
- Can they handle feedback without losing the thread? In content work, revision is not a punishment. It is part of the job. Good talent can take feedback, improve the piece and still protect the core argument.
- Can they make the work more useful? This is the ultimate test. After they touch a draft, is it clearer, sharper, more accurate and more valuable to the reader?
Also Read: What hiring a high school graduate taught me about talent in the AI economy
The future belongs to writers who can think
AI has not made writing irrelevant. It has made average writing easier to produce. That distinction matters. For those of us who have built our careers on words, the shift can feel unsettling. But it is also clarifying. The market is no longer rewarding people simply because they can fill a page. It is rewarding those who can bring judgment, context, taste and responsibility to communication.
In media, PR, marketing and content roles, “great talent” no longer means the person who can write the cleanest first draft. It means the person who can understand what needs to be said, why it matters, who it is for and how to make it credible.
The tools will keep improving. More people will be able to produce acceptable content. But acceptable content is not the same as valuable communication. That is where good writers still matter. And that is why the best ones will still get paid.
—
Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of e27.
Join us on WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn to stay connected.
The post Why the best content talent is no longer just a good writer appeared first on e27.