Content creation— Is it a job for robots? Or a job for humans?

Recently, an article titled "Future Content Creation Will Require Humans, Not Robots" appeared on the Content Marketing Institute blog.

Jay Acunzo, who wrote the blog, stated, "In future content creation, technology and human skill will become integrated. While we often actively embrace technology now, eventually efficiency and shortcuts alone won't suffice. We'll need individuals overflowing with creativity and capable of generating rich ideas." Ultimately, robots cannot replace writers. He says we cannot mechanize core human competencies like creating media or telling stories.

This made me think of the recurring "science vs. arts" issue that surfaces in content marketing work.
Analysts insist, "The data shows A. That's how we should proceed." Content planners counter, "But people don't move based on that alone." When systems people argue, "Systematically, it's either present or absent," the content side often feels, "But even the same person might benefit from its presence in some situations and not in others... Humans aren't that easily categorized."
Data × Imagination, Machines × Humans, Digital × Analog, Theory × Emotion, Numbers × Design, Rationality × Irrationality, Math × Language... The content creation team is ultimately destined to bear the weight of reconciling all these contradictions.

What happens when you plan projects relying "only" on data?
According to one SEO manager, "When you base content planning on keywords with high search volume, the content gradually loses its distinction from competitors' offerings." Or, in the pursuit of high-conversion rates, you might end up creating content targeted only at people already ready to buy.
Even in our own planning, if we only look at the results of a campaign and use that to refine content, we end up skewing heavily toward the types of content that are easiest to drive traffic with. However, from the perspective of an individual consumer, they rarely have the time to endlessly cycle through similar content. They don't always decide to buy before searching for information. And does a brand that only publishes how-to guides and ranking lists really seem appealing? That leaves a big question mark.

A similar point is made in the world of customer journey analysis. At the Sydney Content Marketing Conference, Andrew Davis stated, "Even if you analyze the customer journey in detail, people don't actually move that way."
"For example, say you see a photo on Flickr and suddenly crave meatloaf. So you start looking for a restaurant, then check maps to see if there's parking nearby... but it all gets too much hassle. You think, 'Ah, screw it, I'll just make it myself!' Then you head to YouTube to find a recipe, but realize you don't have a meatloaf pan! So you go to Amazon to look for one. You don't know which one to get, so you head to Wikipedia, only to find a musician named Meat Loaf! You end up getting sidetracked... That's how messy people's customer journeys actually are, right?"
He calls this the "meatloaf journey," arguing that meticulously mapping out the journey and delivering precisely tailored content doesn't really work. Instead, he says what's crucial is capturing "the moment of inspiration" – that instant when something sparks interest in your brand.

The gap between algorithms and gut feeling. The disconnect between what we conceptualize and human reality.
The task of bridging these gaps through imagination. That is precisely the work of content creation. Yet, surprisingly difficult in its execution is bridging the divide in thinking habits between science and humanities—or, to put it dramatically, the "cultural divide."
To those who analyze data and relentlessly pursue conversions, the "fluffy rationale" of idea generators can feel somewhat unsettling. Even if it resonates personally, the absence of supporting facts leaves a lingering unease.
On the other hand, how do we reach consumers? How do we entertain them? For content team members who meticulously observe people and deeply explore insights, being constantly cornered by data makes ideas feel stifled. It becomes difficult. It's easy to feel like, "People aren't robots, after all."
But even if we find each other's methods unsettling, we don't shy away. We discuss and adjust. At the very least, we increase dialogue. Isn't this actually one key to achieving content marketing that contributes to the company's business and delights the target audience?

When attempting content marketing, the "cultural divide" between science and liberal arts isn't confined to content alone. It exists everywhere—between web marketing specialists and those from mass media advertising, between system engineers and designers, between DMP (Data Management Platform) teams and branding teams. We must persistently bridge these gaps.