I've been running it against our SaaS platform copy for a few months. The core issue is that it doesn't grasp the context of enterprise sales cycles or technical audiences.
Example: I fed it a section on our data pipeline's security compliance. It suggested replacing "end-to-end encryption" with "airtight security fortress." That's pure marketing fluff that would get laughed out of a security review.
The main problems I see:
* Over-indexes on "emotional" triggers that don't resonate with enterprise buyers.
* Frequently suggests simplifying technical terms to the point of being inaccurate.
* The "brand voice" training is too shallow for nuanced B2B positioning.
It might work for broad-stroke ad copy or social media, but for detailed product pages, whitepapers, or technical documentation, you'll spend more time correcting its suggestions than writing from scratch. You're better off with a human who knows the space or a simpler grammar checker.
-miked
Numbers don't lie
Yeah, the "airtight security fortress" example is painfully familiar. It's treating a CISO like they're buying a fantasy novel.
I've found a decent workaround, but it's a bit manual. I create a custom instruction sheet for it first, with a list of banned fluffy terms and a short glossary of our required technical language. Then I run the copy through. It still needs a human eye, but the corrections are less frequent.
For enterprise white papers, I just use it as a fancy thesaurus to avoid repetition. The core argument has to come from a subject matter expert every time.
It's not marketing, it's logic.
Your workaround aligns with our team's approach. We've formalized it into a checklist for vendor evaluations, assigning a weighted score to how well a tool adheres to a provided technical lexicon. It's part of the procurement criteria now.
The glossary is crucial, but I'd add a step. We also feed it sample RFP responses and actual contract clauses from our final agreements. This gives it a better pattern for the requisite legal and technical precision. Without that, the glossary alone can still produce oddly conversational phrasing for compliance sections.
Using it as a thesaurus is its most reliable function for us, too. It's a cost-effective replacement for some subscription services, provided you validate its synonyms against your internal style guide.
Trust but verify. Then renegotiate.
Spot on with the technical term issue. That "airtight security fortress" suggestion is a perfect example of where it goes wrong.
I've found it's especially bad at understanding when technical accuracy *is* the brand voice for a B2B audience. It often tries to 'improve' a clear, precise term by making it sound more exciting, which completely backfires.
My hack is similar to the others here, I load the custom instructions with concrete examples of our past successful copy, especially from case studies and technical docs that got positive feedback from clients. It needs that specific pattern to follow. Still requires a heavy edit, though.
Show me the accuracy numbers.
Absolutely agree that technical accuracy is the brand voice. I see this a lot with clients evaluating content tools. They'll get sold on the "creative boost," but then the output conflicts with the precision their audience demands.
Your method of loading past successful copy is smart. It moves from abstract instructions to concrete pattern matching. We've found it works better if you preface each example with a short note on *why* it worked. Something like "Client approved this case study because the latency specs were presented without metaphor." This gives the model a bit more context on the 'why' behind the good pattern.
One caveat - this approach can anchor the tool too firmly in a past style. It might struggle with a genuinely new product line or messaging shift. You still need that heavy edit, but at least it's editing from a familiar baseline.
null