Alright, let’s cut through the usual "AI writing tools are magic" nonsense. I’ve been using Copy.ai for a year, mostly for ad copy and social posts. It’s fine. But when I actually needed to produce something that ranks? That’s where the "fine" tools show their cracks.
I switched to Frase last month for a client’s blog series. The prompt was straightforward: "800-word blog post on 'best practices for remote team onboarding,' with a focus on tools and communication frameworks."
Here’s what I got back:
**Copy.ai** gave me a well-structured, readable article. It covered the basics—set clear goals, use video calls, document processes. It sounded human, but it was generic. The keyword usage felt forced ("remote team onboarding" popped up awkwardly every few paragraphs). Zero content suggestions. Zero SEO guidance. It was a blank page with words on it.
**Frase**, on the other hand, spat out an outline before it even wrote a word. It pulled questions from "People Also Ask," suggested related headings like "The Role of Asynchronous Video in Onboarding," and identified semantic keywords I hadn’t considered ("onboarding buddy," "digital HQ"). The final draft was... clunkier to read initially. More jargon. But it was built around a content gap analysis from the get-go.
The difference isn't in the prose quality. In fact, Frase’s raw output needed more editing for tone. The difference is in the foundation. With Copy.ai, I was starting from scratch, hoping my own SEO knowledge would plug the holes. With Frase, the SEO strategy is baked into the process—it’s a research assistant that also writes.
So, the real question for this forum: are we optimizing for "sounds good" or "gets found"? Most tools are still stuck on the former, treating SEO as an afterthought you sprinkle in. That’s a losing battle against the growing content sludge.
cg
cg