Writing got easy. Knowing what to write didn't. So I built a content strategy platform.

Saied Alimoradi — Thu, 30 Jul 2026 09:55:52 +0000

A few weeks into building this, I ran my own tool on a tester's site — a plumber — and proudly showed him the content plan it spat out. He read it for about ten seconds and said, "this could be for literally any plumber." He was right. It was generic mush. That was the moment I realized the hard part of this whole thing isn't the AI writing — it's everything that comes before it.

Because for a solo founder or a small business, AI basically solved writing. I can generate a decent 1,500-word article in 30 seconds. What it did not solve — and arguably made worse — is knowing what to write, and whether anyone (or any AI) will ever surface it. That gap is what I've spent the last few months building around, and I'm posting because I need people to break it. More on that at the end.

The version that embarrassed me

The first build was the obvious one: keyword research, scrape the SERP, cluster into topics, hand back a tidy plan. It demoed beautifully and was useless — for exactly the reason the plumber spotted. It only knew the category, not the business, so every plan came out the same. It also only cared about Google, right as people started asking ChatGPT and Perplexity for recommendations instead.

So I threw most of it out and started on the parts that are actually hard.

The three things that kept going wrong

I'll spare you the full architecture, but three problems ate most of my time — and they're the ones I'd most like other builders to weigh in on:

Cannibalization. Small sites quietly end up with five pages competing for the same intent, splitting their own ranking. I landed on embedding every page, clustering them to spot the overlap, then running an LLM pass per cluster to decide merge / keep / rewrite. "AI writes 100 articles" tools make this worse, which is half of why I don't trust them.
Generic output. The plumber problem. No prompt fixed it — better inputs did: feed the model the business's own services, its real pages, its actual demand data and competitor gaps, then constrain it to those. Grounded beat clever every single time.
The AI-visibility blind spot. Ranking on Google no longer means an LLM will recommend you. So I had it query ChatGPT / Perplexity / Gemini the way a customer would and check whether the business is even named. That turned out to be the most interesting signal in the whole thing.

The objection I already agree with

Someone's going to say the web doesn't need more AI content. I mostly agree — it's the whole reason the cannibalization and audit steps exist. Helping someone write the five posts they're genuinely missing, and merge the twenty already fighting each other, is a different thing from spraying a hundred pages into the void. Whether I've actually pulled that off is fair game to argue with me about.

Why I bothered with the AI-visibility half

A few numbers that made me think it wasn't a gimmick: only around 1.2% of local businesses currently get recommended by ChatGPT (SOCi's 2026 index, 350k+ locations), fewer than half of Google-page-one businesses show up in AI answers at all, and Gartner expects traditional search volume to drop ~25% by 2026 as people shift to chatbots. Argue the exact figures if you like, but the direction seems hard to dispute.

This is where I need you

It's a free beta and it's genuinely rough in places — which is the point. I'd rather have ten people tell me what's confusing or dumb than one polite signup.

Easiest way in: the free report — paste a URL and see whether ChatGPT actually recommends that business, no signup needed → planmoon.app/for. Run it on your own site, a client's, or a competitor's. If you want to see the rest — the plan, the generated articles, the WordPress publishing — that's the account, and it's free while the beta's open, no card. Everything's at planmoon.app.

Two things I'd genuinely like torn apart:

Small businesses without a marketing team are who I built this for — is an AI tool the right answer for them, or am I solving the wrong problem?
Is "does an LLM cite you" a real, durable channel worth engineering for, or am I overfitting to 2026 hype?