Time to read: 4:59 minutes
————

One week down.

And I'm still alive (hopefully).

I'm writing this on November 21 to be free to welcome our new child.

Enjoy this week's letter:

1. One (marketing) Idea

We always believe that more is better.

More money. More influence. More status/power.

But more always leaves us wanting…more.

Which means less is more—subtraction over addition.

Here is where I poke my first hole with using AI as the writer (vs editor):

What is the job of content marketing?

To create and distribute content that helps our audience and organization make progress.

Progress on strategic initiatives (organization)
Or enjoyment and education (audience)

Which ultimately leads to revenue or increased LTV (retention).

Nothing is about quantity.

It's likely all about quality—the content speaks directly to someone and their journey. Some people can use AI to achieve this with the appropriate context.

An example would be recording tons of interviews and using the transcripts as context for AI, which can result in better content vs a simple prompt, yet it's still rough (for me).

I see using AI early in the writing process as counterproductive to its job.

It creates more work as the output is still generic and cliche, needing human involvement. Why is this?

Gen AI uses LLMs, and so do humans

Generative AI uses Large Language Models to create the output.

Humans use Little Life Moments to create our output (Jay Acunzo).

Imagine a comedian using AI to write their 5-minute joke and then edit it based on their experience. It'd likely be laughable in the wrong way.

Aka, you'd get booed off the stage.

Comedians are skilled at the art of observation. And turning that into something funny.

If I were a comedian, I would write my jokes using my personal experience and skill as a writer. Then, I'd use AI, leveraging the context of my style and audience to provide feedback and simple corrections for better flow (storytelling).

That's where AI, as the first draft writer, fails.

It's a bit more nuanced, though:

Criticisms of AI as the writer

Writing is a process.

Ideation → Writing → Editing → Proof → Ship

When discussing time, we must hold the whole process.

It's not a race to get a first draft.

It's a race to produce the best thing.

It doesn't save time (it might even add time…)

When we use AI to pump out a first draft, I think we spend more time editing the thing later than if we had written it ourselves. For me and many others.

A few peers have noted they don't use AI as editing it into their "voice" takes longer to get the premise they want across. They'd instead just do it themselves.

Let's do some math on my process (I've done both):

I spend 45-60 minutes editing a 750-1500 word AI first draft. While spending 30-45 minutes prompting it to get a thing worth editing. Equaling around 75-105 minutes (1 hour 15 mins – 1 hour 45 mins).

Let's now use AI as the editor. I spend 45-60 minutes writing a first draft. While using AI to help edit for 30-45 minutes. So we're at the same range: 75-105 minutes.

But something funny happens when I use AI to write the first draft:

Most people who review it spot something I missed that is "AI-y." The way around that is to increase the time gathering context or prompting.

This is where I think it may add time.

To get a sound output, you need to work with the machine. I've yet to see someone do this well. I wasn't able to. The things were good. Just not great.

And we should use AI in ways that make us supermarketers.

Humans are better writers

What is writing?

Thinking. What can AI not do well? Think (yet).

So, we are outsourcing the part humans have the innate talent for.

We experience life, have interactions, and feel things. AI can't (yet).

When we use that as fodder for a first draft, we get a much better thing for the editing phase.

We may have best-selling Human/AI authors in the future, but right now, this is what we have:

The problem is: "While it's possible to flag writing that's AI-generated right now, Rasenberger and other writers are thinking ahead to a future where it won't be so easy." So they note that most books, even if someone edited them, can be detected, likely due to their genericness.

Human's (can) write better.

It doesn't create more useful things

My premise is that AI, as the writer, fails to achieve the job of content marketing–creating useful content for a specific set of people.

And by creating more things, we almost ensure each thing is less meaningful.

Sure, we need to meet audience demands, but we will never create enough.

So rather than creating more, we should aim to create better. And I do not see AI as the first draft writer helpful in this. I see it adding time and complexity.

Unless you get paid by the content asset, I argue a different approach:

(Continue reading the work-in-progress essay)

2. One Quote

The best teachers are on the learning journey with you.

They don't have the answers.

They are curious and have earned experiences to share.

"You teach best what you most need to learn." – Richard Bach.

My podcast was birthed from this place.

I needed to learn SaaS marketing. So, I interviewed 26 SaaS marketers.

But through it, I began to "teach"—to take the wisdom shared and synthesize it for myself (and three listeners).

I used to believe the best teachers knew it all.

I don't anymore.

The best teachers walk alongside you.

(that's what I'm trying to do for young marketers...)

3. One Episode with Ashley Fabry

Ashely Fabry is a former marketing manager turned solopreneur (Ashley Rose Branding).

I got coffee with Ashely months ago to chat about social media marketing.

In this convo, we go beyond social:

To discuss marketing's role today and into the future.

Here are Ashely's answers to the show's two questions:

• Marketing's role is to create a memorable first impression.

• The purpose of life is relationships—making and keeping those connections.

Enjoy 👉 https://podcastonmarketing.transistor.fm/59

4. One (life) Idea

"Imagine if you weren't having a kid.

What would brave (in your career search) look like?"

When Marcella asked me that on a call recently, I was shook.

For a few reasons:

1. I haven't allowed myself to lean into being brave

2. I didn't want to open my aperture more

3. We're having the kid, so is this even a good question?

To the final point, her goal was to have me remain as open as possible.

To the first two points, I realized I was playing small.

I remember hearing God's still voice after losing my job:

Bet on yourself.

With a baby on the way, it was easy NOT to bet on myself.

And masquerading as putting the child first, etc.

To put my child first is to dream and be alive.

To bet on myself so I can grow in confidence.

And find an opportunity that's right for me.

While you might be lucky enough to have a Marcella in your life

You can still ask this question:

"If I didn't have ____, what would brave look like in _____?"

The answer may rattle you.

But it's the door to greater growth and fulfillment.

5. One Photo

Baby Lenni Lou ❣️

---

– JO (every second counts)