The big lesson from Orange's Deep Fake "Trickery For Good" Ad
PR Profs and Pros must have bigger conversations about AI
As a former public relations professional turned professor, I speak industry and academia. If the recent Women’s World Cup ad from French Telecom Orange were a college class, it’d be one of those courses that fulfilled multiple graduation requirements.
Specifically, the PR credits I’d award this example include PESO integration, corporate advocacy, researched-based creative, combining an old and simple creative technique with a new technology, the incredibly blurry lines between advertising, public relations, marketing and related fields, AI and the uncanny valley, and partnerships between corporate, agency, and nonprofits.
Yet, the biggest lesson from this ad — for both PR pros and profs — is that we must have bigger conversations around generative AI than content creation and cheating prevention.
Before we delve into the kinds of conversations we should pursue, allow me to describe the commercial, titled Bleues Highlights created by the Paris agency, Marcel. I do not want to spoil the experience for you, but let’s just call it a “deep fake trickery for good” which promotes Orange’s public commitment to financially supporting both its national Men and Womens soccer teams.
The “wow-factor” of this ad registered on my teen daughter’s face as her bored “what is this thing you want me to watch, mom” look morphed into a spark in her eyes followed by a slow to big smile combined with a proclamation that the commercial was, indeed, “cool.”
The Bleues Highlights ad reminds professionals and professors that generative AI is here; our job is to learn to co-exist with the technology. This “co-existing” means we need bigger conversations.
Unfortunately, too many of the industry conversations I’ve experienced focus on content creation or seminars that end with a sales pitch for a new generative AI product. After lots of listening, I’ve discovered that generative AI lets me do my job faster which could translate into better as long as I already have a solid foundation in public relations and writing.
Generative AI in academia is a tougher conversation since incorporation of the technology depends on the type of class combined with the relationship that is possible with your students. As such, I’m happy that my university has allowed instructors to create individual generative AI policies.
Certainly, academic rigor matters, and yes, instructors must adapt. However, the media continues to draw from the conflict news value by churning out screaming headlines about how ChatGPT should “literally strike fear in all academics.” (oooooh…..I’m shaking with fear as I type….)
For professionals, those bigger conversations should include addressing AI ability’s to return biased content, and nonprofit communicators must remain vigilant for AI generated content that exacerbates stigma or overly simplifies a complicated topic. Crisis communicators need to meticulous
ly plan for AI-related errors, especially given the sense of betrayal humans often feel when they discover they've been interacting with machines instead of fellow humans.
Internal communicators need thoughtful conversations regarding employee’s willingness to adopt these tools and their fears of change and job loss. Organizational leaders must create and communicate AI policies to employees. Professionals in healthcare fields implementing AI must think about how they will convince skeptical physicians and patients.
PR instructors should allow students to experiment with these technologies in class (governed by a strong syllabus policy about AI use) and should talk to students about how this technology has and will continue to impact our field. Despite the news media characterization that students are all using ChatGPT, I’ve had to teach several of my students how to use the technology.
Prompt writing was eye opening for some students, and I’m glad I can send them to job interviews able to explain the strengths and limitations of the technology as well as how their foundation in communication makes them the “best human to run the machine.”
Furthermore, since instructors all share the same charge of improving critical thinking, we should challenge students to examine marketing messages from AI companies. For example, if — as the AI companies generally promote — AI is truly a tool . . . who is responsible for its misuse? Is it the communicator or the company that is data scraping the good, bad, and ugly from the internet.
Or, while deep fakes have been exploited negatively, how might they be harnessed for positive purposes? What are the ethics of using the technology to resurrect a victim of gun violence for an advocacy campaign? Finally, who is left out of generative AI? A recent Pew Research report noted that only 6 in 10 adults have tried ChatGPT and that adoption is linked to demographics such as socioeconomic class.
The true advantage of those college classes that fulfill multiple requirements is that they allow students to tackle a subject through multiple learning approaches and perspectives, which is also what effective PR types have been trained to do. Of course, for me, anything with soccer has my immediate and focused attention.
Hopefully, as you watch the Blues Highlights commercial you’ll experience its “wow factor” on two levels: 1) the creativity of the ad; and 2) the new, varied and intense paths this technology creates for public relations professionals.