People also ask
In practice
The policy exists because the technology changed the economics of scale and left the quality question unchanged: engines and publishers reward content that serves readers and penalise scaled, unedited production — so the policy draws the line at the edit, not the tool.
Its clauses: the drafting arrangement (tool-drafted, human-edited, every piece — no raw drafts shipped); uniqueness (each placement written for its publisher and context — no template reshuffles across clients); truth (every claim traces to the client’s approved claims inventory — the AI never improvises marketing); approval (the client sees the actual text in the pack, not a summary); and disclosure (whether publishers are told the draft started with AI is a per-client, per-publisher decision made explicitly — some publishers require it, most care only about quality, and drifting into the question unasked is the one unacceptable answer).
The verification layer: uniqueness checks against the campaign’s own archive, the claims audit on every draft, the periodic sampling that confirms the process is operating as described. The buyer’s reading: the policy’s honesty is testable — ask how uniqueness is enforced, what happens when the AI draft is wrong, and who signs the claims — and a vendor with real answers is describing a working process, while a vendor with “our AI writes everything” is describing their cost structure. The strategic framing: AI drafting is how the floor became affordable at scale — the human edit is what keeps it a floor.
See also: Content standards for placements, Duplicate content across placements, Campaign briefs.
Related service: Guest posts.
