TLDR
We tested three anonymized AI blog tools across multiple clients in dental, therapy, wellness, and consulting. ClaudeAI performed best overall with the most current, relevant feel; Version 2 was the readability champ but sometimes felt generic; Version 1 trailed. We kept the best parts, fixed friction points (brand match, depth, trust), and rolled those improvements into LRMC’s new one-input blog process for small businesses owners.
Why We Ran This Experiment (For Small Business Owners)
Many businesses tell us the same thing: you’re stretched thin, you’ve tried marketing that didn’t move the needle, and you want plain-language guidance that produces steady results—not jargon. Our baseline blog prompt sometimes created long spins and inconsistent accuracy, which meant more cleanup time than it should have. We set out to fix that.
How We Did It
Participants & setup:
- Multiple client subjects across our core industries (dental, therapy, wellness, consulting).
- Three anonymized posts per client—all built from the same inputs—so readers judged content, not the label.
The versions:
- Version 1: Baseline “prompted” flow.
- Version 2: Custom instruction-architecture in ChatGPT—specialist enters only the focus keyword; the system handles outline → draft → optimization questions.
- ClaudeAI (Version 3): Claude Artifact—same “keyword-only” constraint; auto plan → draft → optimization checklist.
Scoring: Readers evaluated clarity, accuracy, usefulness, brand match, trust, and depth/uniqueness; we also collected open-ended comments.
Results at a Glance
| Metric | Version 1 (Prompted) | Version 2 (ChatGPT + Instruction Architecture) | ClaudeAI (V3) |
| Practical usefulness | 2.75 | 3.25 | 3.50 |
| Depth / new insights | 2.25 | 2.50 | 3.50 |
| Trustworthiness | 2.25 | 2.75 | 3.50 |
| Up-to-date / relevance | 3.75 | 3.50 | 4.00 |
| Readability / layout | 2.75 | 4.25 | 3.50 |
| Brand match | 2.00 | 2.50 | 3.50 |
- Winner:Version 3, ClaudeAI
- Stood out for up-to-date framing and balanced strength across criteria; comments praised the wording, structure, and potential for unique articles.
- “Really like the wording/structure… most unique articles/wording.”
- Runner-up:Version 2 (ChatGPT with instruction-architecture)
- Clear readability leader thanks to skimmable flow and headings, though some felt the tone was generic and too “resource heavy.”
- “Second best… felt a bit too ‘resource’ heavy.”
- Version 1 (Baseline prompts):
- Earned points for market-current angles but struggled on brand match, trust, and depth; some readers described it as robotic with occasional service misalignment.
- “Felt robotic.” “Services not aligned.”
What Our Clients Measured
Primary Criteria
- Accuracy & trustworthiness
- Practical usefulness (would you send to a customer?)
- Brand fit (tone, plainspoken clarity)
- Skimmability & structure (H2/H3, bullets, internal logic)
- Time to “publish-ready” (editor cleanup minutes)
Secondary Checks
- On-page SEO fundamentals (title/H1 alignment, headings, internal linking opportunities)
Local relevance where appropriate (Denver/Colorado)
Our Updated LRMC AI Blog Process
We will do keyword research that aligns best with your target audience and how we can best speak to those individuals.
You give us: approval of which keyword to focus on
We handle: research synthesis, outline, draft, brand QA, trust pass, and final polish.
Guardrails baked in:
- Tone: warm, clear, human; strategic without hype.
- Readability: short paragraphs, bolded takeaways, subheads every 2–3 paragraphs, bullets.
- Transparency: plain-language reporting; no overpromises or buzzwords.
Step-by-step:
- Outline auto-builds from the keyword + audience intent (owner-led, 5–50 team, local/regional focus as relevant).
- Draft follows a skimmable structure (H2/H3 cadence, bullets, clean logic).
- Brand QA checks values, service scope, and exclusions against the company’s positioning.
- Trust pass adds byline + credentials and a short “How we do this in practice.”
Final polish and internal checklist.
What This Means for Small Businesses
If you’re writing in-house, try this three-step approach your team can actually keep up with:
- Start with a one-line focus keyword and who it’s for (e.g., “emergency dental care—families”).
- Use an instruction-architecture or Artifact that auto-generates outline → draft → QA checklist from that one input.
- Before publishing, run a 5-question client-readiness check internally (clarity, accuracy, usefulness, brand fit, trust). Track cleanup minutes so you can see the time you actually saved.
Why this helps: it respects your limited bandwidth, keeps the tone plainspoken, and steadily improves visibility without buzzwords.