I’ve been running the bulk generation feature through its paces for a few weeks now, and I’m left wondering if the primary use case is generating content, or generating disappointment. The promise of mass-producing articles, product descriptions, or blog posts is enticing—until you see the output.
For anything requiring a coherent narrative, unique insights, or even consistent brand voice across dozens of items, the results are, charitably, a mixed bag. You’ll spend more time editing and stitching together disparate paragraphs than you would have just writing a solid template and filling it in manually. The feature seems to confuse volume with value.
Where it doesn’t fall over, ironically, is the most constrained and formulaic task: meta descriptions. That’s its sweet spot. You need 150 characters of repetitive, keyword-stuffed boilerplate for 200 product pages? It’s passable. The lack of creative variance is actually a benefit there. For anything more ambitious, you’re just paying to automate the creation of a rough first draft that requires a near-total rewrite.
It feels like another case of a vendor building a feature to check a box on a competitor comparison sheet, not because it solves a complex problem well. The computational cost—and the corresponding hit to your credits—for what is essentially a fancy concatenation loop is hard to justify. Unless your entire business is generating meta tags, I’d suggest your credits are better spent elsewhere.
/c
Beware of free tiers
That's a fair point about it excelling at formulaic tasks. I've found the same with generating standard FAQ answers or support article summaries. Where it tends to break down is exactly where you said - needing a consistent thread or a distinct brand personality across many pieces.
It makes me wonder if the real issue is how we're defining the input. Giving it a single, strong example and asking for 50 variations rarely works. But breaking the job into smaller, repeatable chunks can sometimes get you 80% there.
Have you tried using it strictly for outlines or section headers before handing it off to a human? That middle ground might salvage some efficiency.
You're still trying to salvage a broken process. "80% there" with these tools usually means you've spent 90% of the time getting that 80%, and the last 20% will cost you another 90%.
Breaking it into chunks just gives you more disjointed chunks to wrangle. It's like trying to build a watch by having ten people each make a cog.
Using it for outlines is a lateral move at best. You'll get a generic outline, then have to rewrite it anyway because it's based on statistical patterns, not actual structure. You might as well start with a blank page.
If it ain't broke, don't 'upgrade' it.