I spent 36 years maintaining industrial equipment before becoming a copywriter. Now when I read AI content about industrial topics, my “maintenance guy brain” automatically kicks in.
I catch myself going, “Yeah, but what about when the reticulating fratistat gets stuck?” or “That’s fine until you’re dealing with 30-year-old wiring.” It’s weird – I can’t turn off that voice in my head that says “close, but not quite right.”
(Okay, there isn’t such a thing as a reticulating fratistat… yet.)
The Problem Everyone’s Talking About (But Missing the Point)
Everyone’s debating whether AI will take over writing jobs. Meanwhile, I’m watching something more dangerous happen: industrial companies are accidentally telling their prospects they don’t
really know their own business. And the crazy part?
They have no idea it’s happening.
Most discussions focus on AI replacing human jobs
The headlines are all about robots taking over creative work, but here’s what’s actually going down in industrial marketing departments across the country. Companies are using AI to crank out technical content faster than ever before.
Sounds great, right? More content, less time, lower costs.
But there’s a problem nobody’s talking about. The real issue isn’t that AI might replace marketing copywriters someday. It’s that right now, today, AI-generated content is making established industrial companies look like they don’t understand their own products.
I’ve seen marketing teams celebrate hitting their content quotas while their sales teams quietly stop using the materials because prospects keep asking questions the content should have answered.
That’s not a job replacement problem—that’s a credibility destruction problem.
The technical accuracy gap is widening fast
Here’s something that’ll make your head spin: AI learns from whatever’s available online. That includes outdated manuals, forum discussions from people who half-understand concepts, and marketing copy written by other people who may not have gotten it right either.
So when you ask AI to write about industrial equipment, it’s not drawing from decades of hands-on experience. It’s pulling from a mixed bag of sources that range from brilliant to completely wrong, with no way to tell the difference.
I had a conversation with an engineer last month who said something that stuck with me: “I can tell within one paragraph if content was written by someone who’s actually worked with this stuff or just read about it.”
That’s terrifying when you think about how much technical content is being produced by AI systems that have never touched a wrench.
The worst part? This AI-generated content often passes marketing review because it sounds professional and uses the right terminology.
But it fails what I call the “shop floor test.” Would someone who actually does this work every day nod along or shake their head?
Industrial companies are particularly vulnerable
Manufacturing and industrial companies face a unique challenge here. You can’t fake understanding of complex technical products. Your buyers—engineers, plant managers, maintenance supervisors—they live and breathe this stuff every day.
When safety is on the line, accuracy isn’t just nice to have. It’s everything. I spent years writing safety training materials where getting details wrong could literally cost lives.
That perspective changes how you think about content accuracy.
But here’s what keeps me up at night: B2B industrial buyers expect expertise. They’re not just buying products… they’re buying confidence that you understand their world. When your marketing content sounds like it was written by someone who’s never set foot in a plant, you’re not just missing the sale.
You’re telling prospects to go find a vendor who actually gets it.
The irony is painful. These companies have decades of real-world knowledge, experienced engineers, and hard-won expertise.
Then they publish AI content that makes them sound like outsiders trying to crack the code of their own industry.
Why Technical Buyers Immediately Recognize AI Content
I’ve been on both sides of this equation. I’ve been the maintenance guy reading vendor literature, rolling my eyes at obvious mistakes. And now I’m the writer trying to help companies avoid those same mistakes.
Trust me, technical buyers have a sixth sense for content that doesn’t ring true.
The telltale language patterns that give it away
AI has a particular way of writing that sounds, well, artificial. It uses phrases like “cutting-edge solutions” and “innovative approaches” when a real maintenance person would just say “this pump works better.”
I remember reading AI-generated content about motor troubleshooting that used the phrase “systematically evaluate operational parameters.” Any electrician worth his salt would have just said “check the voltage first.”
That kind of overly formal language is a dead giveaway.
You need the little shortcuts, the “here’s what actually works” insights that come from years of figuring things out the hard way.
AI content?
It’s like listening to someone who crammed for a test versus talking to your buddy who’s been doing the job for twenty years. One sounds forced, the other just… knows.
Technical errors that experienced professionals catch instantly
This is where things get dangerous. AI doesn’t just write in a weird tone. It often makes technical mistakes that sound plausible to non-experts but are obviously wrong to anyone with real experience.
I’ve seen AI content that recommended maintenance procedures in the wrong order, specified incorrect torque values, and mixed up safety protocols between different types of equipment.
Each mistake was subtle enough that a marketing team might miss it, but glaring enough that an engineer would immediately lose trust in the company.
Here’s where I get really nervous about this stuff. We’re not talking about marketing fluff here. We’re often talking about safety. High voltage, pressurized systems, hazardous chemicals.
In my world, a mistake doesn’t just lose you a sale. It can hurt people. I’ve seen what happens when someone follows bad information around electrical equipment.
It’s not pretty.
The emotional disconnect that kills credibility
Here’s something most people don’t understand about technical buyers: they’re not just evaluating specifications. They’re looking for vendors who understand their pain.
Think about it – these are real people dealing with real headaches. The plant manager who got called in at midnight because a pump failed. The maintenance guy who’s sick of ordering parts that don’t fit right. The safety director who lies awake worrying about that one piece of equipment that’s been acting up.
AI sees “500 GPM flow rate.” I see the relief on someone’s face when they finally find a pump that doesn’t break down every other month.
That’s the difference between listing specs and actually connecting with people.
The Hidden Costs Your Marketing Team Doesn’t See
Some marketing departments measure content success by publication schedules and cost per piece. But they’re missing the bigger picture of how this content affects actual sales conversations and company reputation.
Sales teams report prospects questioning company expertise
I’ve talked to sales reps who say prospects are asking pointed questions about whether their company really understands the industry. These aren’t product questions… they’re credibility questions.
Look, when prospects see mistakes in your marketing—even small ones—they start connecting dots you don’t want them to connect.
“Hmm, they got this basic thing wrong. What else are they missing?”
It’s like showing up to a job interview with your shirt buttoned wrong. Maybe you’re brilliant, but first impressions are hard to shake.
The sales cycle gets longer as buyers seek additional proof that you’re the right partner. They request more meetings, want to speak with more technical people, and generally become more cautious about moving forward.
All because your content failed to establish credibility from the start.
Lost deals to competitors with more authentic messaging
I’ve watched companies lose deals not because their product was inferior, but because their competitor sounded more knowledgeable in their marketing materials. When technical buyers compare vendors, they’re looking for signs of real expertise.
The smart companies?
Their stuff reads like it was written by someone who actually knows what they’re talking about. They hit the pain points you didn’t even realize you had. They use the same shortcuts and slang you use in the shop.
Then you’ve got the other guys, churning out AI content that sounds like… well, like a computer wrote it. Technically correct, maybe. But sterile. Generic.
Even when their equipment is genuinely better, they’re starting every conversation having to prove they’re not just another vendor who doesn’t understand the real world.
Damage to hard-earned industry reputation from AI content
Industrial markets are surprisingly small communities. Engineers talk to each other. Plant managers share vendor experiences.
Word spreads quickly about companies that demonstrate real expertise… and about those that don’t.
I watched one company go from industry respect to damage control mode in about six months. All because their new marketing made them sound like outsiders trying to break into their own field. Thirty years of solid reputation, down the drain.
And for what? Faster content production?
Once you’ve damaged your reputation with obviously artificial or inaccurate content, recovery takes time and consistent demonstration of real knowledge.
What Real “Human in the Loop” Actually Means
Most companies think “human in the loop” means having someone edit AI content for grammar and tone.
That’s not enough.
Real human oversight means understanding what should be created in the first place.
Not just editing AI content. Understanding what to create
The biggest mistake is asking AI to create technical content and then just polishing the result. By that point, you’ve already lost the most important element: the human insight about what technical buyers actually need to know.
Real expertise means knowing which technical details matter to your specific audience, understanding the difference between specifications and real-world performance, and recognizing the questions prospects actually ask versus what AI thinks they should ask.
I spend most of my time not writing, but thinking about what needs to be written and why. That strategic thinking… understanding the purpose behind each piece of content… is something AI can’t replicate because it doesn’t understand the business context or buyer psychology. It can do market analysis… it still needs a human to interpret it.
Bringing emotional intelligence to technical AI content
Technical buyers are still people. They have frustrations, concerns, and emotional triggers that influence their purchasing decisions. AI can list product features, but it can’t understand the emotional context that makes those features meaningful.
When I write about industrial equipment, I’m drawing on memories of being frustrated by equipment failures, relieved by solutions that actually worked, and grateful for vendors who understood my challenges.
That emotional context transforms dry specifications into compelling business cases.
AI doesn’t understand the psychology of technical buyers – the fact that they’re risk-averse, skeptical of vendor claims, and looking for partners who won’t make their jobs harder.
That psychological insight is what turns good content into persuasive content.
Creating AI content that passes the “engineer test”
Here’s my litmus test for industrial content: Would your own technical team be proud to share this with prospects? Does it demonstrate the kind of understanding that only comes from real experience? Would a competitor’s engineer immediately spot inaccuracies or gaps?
Content that passes the engineer test does more than avoid errors—it demonstrates competence in subtle ways that technical buyers immediately recognize. It anticipates their concerns, addresses real-world implementation challenges, and speaks their language naturally.
That level of authenticity can’t be faked with better editing or more sophisticated AI prompts. It requires genuine understanding of the technical domain and the human challenges within that domain.
The Way Forward: Strategic AI Content Integration
I’m not anti-AI. I use AI tools myself. I’d be a fool not to. But I use them strategically, as assistants rather than replacements for human expertise and judgment.
I always remain the Human In The Loop.
Use AI for research and structure, humans for expertise and credibility
AI excels at organizing information, suggesting content structures, and handling routine writing tasks. Where it fails is in providing the insights and perspective that make content valuable to technical audiences.
My process involves using AI to help with research and initial drafting, but the strategic thinking, technical insights, and industry perspective come from human experience. The result is content that combines AI efficiency with human authenticity.
Bottom line? AI’s great at organizing stuff and getting you started. Even doing research (saves me HOURS of time). But when it comes to sounding like you actually belong in this industry? That takes the real deal.
No shortcuts there.
Develop internal expertise or partner with industry veterans
Companies have two choices: train their marketing teams to recognize technical accuracy issues, or bring in writers who already understand the industry. Both approaches work, but both require investment in human expertise.
Internal training takes time and requires commitment from technical teams to educate marketing staff. Partnering with industry veterans provides immediate access to experience-based insights but requires finding writers who actually understand your specific domain.
Either way, the solution involves recognizing that technical content requires technical understanding.
AI can support that process, but it can’t replace it.
Test AI content with your technical team before release
The simplest quality control measure is also the most effective: have your engineers and technical staff review content before publication. They’ll catch errors that marketing teams might miss and provide perspective on whether the content demonstrates real understanding.
Forget the grammar nitpicking.
What you really need to know is: does this sound like it came from someone who’s actually done the work? Will our prospects read this and think “yeah, these guys get it” or “who wrote this, an intern with Google?”
And here’s a bonus. Your technical people know exactly what questions keep coming up in support calls. They know the stuff that always confuses customers.
Use that intel. It’s gold.
So what’s your take? Is this resonating with what you’re seeing out there, or am I off base here? Drop a comment and let me know – I’m genuinely curious whether other people are noticing the same patterns I am.
And if you’re wondering whether your current content passes the “engineer test” I mentioned, feel free to reach out. I’m always happy to take a quick look at a piece or two with my “shop floor perspective” – sometimes a fresh set of eyes from someone who’s been on both sides can spot things you might have missed. Whether you need a content audit or help creating materials that actually resonate with technical buyers, I’m here to help.
Steve Maurer, IME
Industrial B2B Copywriter
(479) 935-7597
steve@maurer-copywriting.com
https://maurer-copywriting.com/
Find me on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevemaurercopywriting/
Leave a Reply