Google’s learning your taste, keeping users in AI Mode longer, and more

If you think Gemini got suspiciously good at knowing you recently…

…It’s because Google’s been going through your literal receipts: Gemini can now pull from your Photos library and app preferences to generate visuals that already match your aesthetic.

So when a client asks for something that fits their brand, Gemini already has context. The prompt gets shorter and the output gets more accurate.

Why we care: Your creative department might save a bunch of time on tedious bits and leave more room for work that actually needs the brain.

Also, Google is about to make a decision on your behalf: Google is auto-migrating Dynamic Search Ads to AI Max in September.

The case for migrating now:

• Text guidelines let you define boundaries for AI-generated assets.
• Brand and location controls drop to ad group level, which means tighter targeting without campaign-wide compromises.
• Search term and asset reports finally replace DSA’s old, limited reporting.

Let it happen on its own, and Google picks your settings. Do it yourself, and you keep control. The settings are only as good as whoever configures them.

And AI Mode is keeping users interested: Content that earns a place in AI-generated responses is now worth more than content that simply ranks.

Chrome is introducing three new features: Side-by-side browsing, cross-tab search, and multi-input tools keep users inside AI Mode longer.

It’s time to start asking “does this get cited?” instead of “does this rank.”

Less friction on Edits, Threads, and LinkedIn

For a long time, the Edits app has felt like an intern.

But its resume is expanding: Edits now saves your favourite fonts, styles, and color settings so you can stop rebuilding the same look from scratch every time.

Pin your key projects, highlight specific words, and recover anything you accidentally deleted within 7 days.

If you manage multiple clients, you’ll spend less time digging through assets. Cool stuff.

And the resume continues: Edits now ranks your engagement metrics by how much they drive reach, and automatically benchmarks every post against your last five.

That’s the kind of insight that used to require a spreadsheet, three coffees, and a quiet cry.

Now the answer is already waiting for you, which helps you make faster decisions.

For when it’s a big screen job: Threads now supports messaging on web and desktop, which is good news for community managers and creators who live in a browser tab.

If you’ve been putting off building a presence there, managing conversations from your desktop removes the need to juggle everything on your phone.

LinkedIn finally searches like a human: LinkedIn’s AI search now lets you describe who you’re looking for in plain language.

If you’re running outreach or scouting for partners, you can now find the right person without the usual keyword guesswork.

This is also a good sign to optimize your profile, so LinkedIn can spot you quicker.

Guess what? AI content isn’t bad for SEO, actually…

“AI content kills SEO.” We’ve all heard it, and some believe it. But is it a myth?

Mateusz Makosiewicz has looked over the data, and the truth is that the narrative could be more fantasy than fact.

The headline: Google has never penalized content based on how it was made.

Its guidelines have been consistent for years, meaning automated or AI-generated content is only a problem when its primary purpose is to manipulate rankings. Sounds familiar…

The enemy has always been thin, spammy, unhelpful content. AI just makes it dangerously easy to produce slop at an industrial scale.

And the numbers back this up. Ahrefs analyzed 100,000 random keywords and found that only 13.5% of top-20 ranking pages were “pure human.”

Almost 82% involved some form of AI assistance.

Google uses AI to generate its own Overviews and search answers. Penalizing AI content would be breathtakingly hypocritical, and they know it.

The “AI content” label is also losing meaning fast. AI is ingrained into virtually every writing tool now and 87% of content marketers already use AI in their workflow.

Comparing content by who wrote it is simply the wrong question. A tutorial on setting up Google Analytics either solves your problem or it doesn’t.

Nobody cares if a person or a model typed it out.

Human content fails this test regularly. Content farms, staffed by real humans, were so destructive that Google had to build the Panda algorithm just to clean up the mess.

The takeaway: the penalized sites people point to weren’t punished for using AI. They were punished for fake bylines, fake expertise, and zero editorial oversight.

Long story short, don’t produce content you’d be embarrassed to defend.

AI makes content faster, but does it make it better?

AI is like an energy drink for your marketing operations.

It’s definitely providing a buzz, but is it actually making the work better?

The impact of AI on operations has been overwhelmingly positive in terms of speed.

Productivity saw the biggest boost, with 87% reporting improvement (42% significant). Operational efficiency followed at 80%.

However, the impact on “quality” and “performance” is more tempered. While 58% see an improvement in content quality, 10% actually saw a decrease.

Most tellingly, only 39% see an improvement in content performance, with 34% seeing no change at all.

Our takeaway: AI is a force multiplier for output, but not necessarily for outcomes.

We are producing more content faster, but the market isn’t necessarily rewarding that volume with better results.

Use the time saved by AI-assisted drafting to invest in “Human-Only” tasks: original research, interviewing customers, and refining your unique brand voice.

AI isn’t killing SEO but lazy execution is.

Pro subscribers get myth-busting insights like this, plus tactical frameworks for using AI without tanking your rankings or your reputation. $349/year for up to 10 teammates.