AI is changing investor relations in exciting ways. Smarter transcripts, better Q&A preparation, deeper analytics. We are strong believers in what the technology can do for the profession. But there are clear lines not to be crossed, and we want to be specific about one of them.
Some companies are now replacing their CEO in earnings calls with an AI avatar, a digital clone mimicking the executive's face, voice, and mannerisms. The technology is impressive. Using it to replace a CEO in an earnings call is not. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be done.
A CEO is appointed by the board, which is elected by shareholders. The chain of accountability flows from one simple premise: the CEO works for the owners of the company. Earnings calls exist to honour it. Four times a year, management stands before its principals and answers their questions directly.
An earnings call cannot be delegated. It is a direct accountability moment. CEOs delegate work all the time, and rightly so. But there is a fundamental difference between delegating tasks and using a fake version of yourself to simulate accountability.
"The avatar is not the CEO doing the work through others. It is the CEO pretending to be present while being absent. Not delegation. Deception."
When Zoom's CEO Eric Yuan mentioned on a 2025 earnings call (his third consecutive using an avatar) that it "frees up a lot of my time" and he "really loves it," his idea was probably to showcase the technology. The rest of this article explains why earnings calls are the wrong place for it.
One of a CEO's core jobs is to build trust: from current shareholders who need confidence their investment is in good hands, and from potential shareholders deciding whether the company is worth owning. Four times a year, the earnings call is the main vehicle for it. Investors read not just the numbers, but the judgment, composure, and credibility of the people running the company.
"An avatar mimicking a real person is not just inauthentic. It's the opposite of authentic. It's a simulation of authenticity, which is arguably worse than no attempt at all."
An avatar does not remove the CEO's imperfections. It hides them behind a polished facade. An investor might forgive a stumbled sentence or a moment of hesitation on a tough question. Far less forgivable is the discovery that the person they were evaluating was never really there. "We told you upfront it wasn't really him" is not a trust-building statement. It is an admission.
Trust is built on authenticity. Replace a human relationship with a simulation, and you have undermined the very thing you were trying to build.
Earnings calls are regulated communications. Statements made on them can move markets and carry legal liability. The CEO is on the line, literally and figuratively.
An AI avatar breaks the chain. If an avatar misleads investors, who is responsible? Can a CEO claim distance from words a digital clone spoke in their face and voice? Boards, auditors, and regulators have not yet caught up with these questions. The gap itself is a risk.
The problem is not AI. The problem is using AI to simulate a human relationship requiring actual humans.
If a CEO genuinely cannot present, the answer is straightforward: say so. Send another executive. Issue a written release. Honest options exist. None of them pretend presence where there is absence.
Sending a digital clone to create the illusion of engagement while the real CEO is elsewhere freeing up his time is not acceptable. We hope the CEOs who have gone down this path reconsider. Their shareholders deserve the real thing: their thinking, their conviction, their accountability.
In the end, none of it is about AI or technology. It is about a CEO showing up for the people who own the company he runs.
"Artificial intelligence is one of the most powerful tools available to the IR profession. Use it to be smarter, faster, and more informed. Do not use it to disappear."