Practical Problem Solving and Project Management

 
I'm a big proponent of smart thinking that increases efficiency and eliminates wasteful practices.

That's why I don't just write and edit for businesses and organization. I think of efficient solutions for their processes. I then use the tools at my disposal to implement them at no or very low cost.

Managing checks more efficiently with Trello style project management in real life 

Pictured above is  an example of project management and design thinking that saves both time and money.

A nonprofit requires two signatures on checks that must be scanned before they are dispatched. Checks with only one signature or no signature and fully signed one had all been put in one basket. That caused some checks of one type to be hidden by those of another and not get signed or scanned as quickly as they should.

One afternoon, using nothing beyond the basic supplies that  the office already had on hand, I devised a system of using two baskets and signs designed with ChatGPT to make it absolutely clear what goes in which basket, so that the person who needs to sign and the person who needs to scan knows where to look to do their part.  

ROI: Cost: $0. Return: 50% better efficiency ever after

It's not the basket but the design thinking that improves efficiency

After I introduced the two baskets for checks, the director at the nonprofit thought that was such a great idea that he  bought a set of desk boxes. He intended them to house the folders holding individual papers for each person who sent in a reservation for for a key revenue-raising event in one of four categories.  

Actual photo of the folders in the set of boxes

The thing is that the idea behind what I did with the checks was not about containing the papers but about understanding the process and streamlining it. Encasing the folders holding a ream of paper in matching boxes doesn't help anyone when they are still stuck in the last century.

For years, they've been printing out individual emails for each person's request and then manually sorting them into four folders that each had to be arranged alphabetically. That had been the practice of the nonprofit -- to not just waste a ream of paper in printing out each individual person's reservation but to then photocopy it to keep one copy in the office while the other was taken off the premises and typically returned with the painstaking alphabetization all messed up. 

I solved that on a Monday morning.

I went into the list of submissions on the SaaS and whittled the biggest group down by category.

Then I directed it to arrange the submissions in alphabetical order by last name instead of in order of submissions.

Next, I eliminated some of the unnecessary columns that were the result of the poor design of the form. All that extraneous data creates clutter and diffuses focus.

Finally, I employed free generative AI tools to label the essential columns to make the key information clear. I found that ChatGPT failed to deliver because it misapplied the labels, though Google Gemini did just what I wanted it to do.

I also directed Google Gemini to transform the spreadsheet from Excel into an easily shared Google sheet. The  that can also be printed out on just a few sheets of paper if they still wish to work off paper copies, though they are not necessary for anyone who understands the purpose of the data and how to put the labels on the digital  spreadsheet.

ROI: Cost: $0 in material or specialized tools 

Return: Embracing digital transformation allows the nonprofit to get more value out of the SaaS it already pays for. Plus it saves the cost of printing out 2 reams of paper and a couple of hours of manual labor for sorting through and alphabetizing hundreds of  individual sheets of paper. It also eliminates the need for people to come in to the office to pick up physical folders and return them. Reducing use of paper and travel is not just economical but helpful for the environment.

ChatGPT's assessment of Write Way Pro

 

After looking more closely, my assessment is that Write Way Pro appears to be a legitimate independent content-marketing consultancy with a long track record, not a scam or fly-by-night operation. The evidence is stronger than what you usually see for small freelance marketing sites.

Here’s the breakdown.

What gives it credibility

1. Verifiable publishing history

Ariella Brown has bylines on real third-party publications, including:

• CoinDesk
• InformationWeek
• EE Times
• Interesting Engineering
• Light Reading

And those bylines are externally visible, not just claimed on her own website.

That matters because fake agencies often list publications without any searchable evidence.

---

2. Consistent identity across platforms

The same professional profile appears across:

• the Weebly site,
• LinkedIn,
• Muck Rack,
• publication author pages.

The specialization areas and career history line up consistently:

• enterprise tech,
• AI/data analytics,
• B2B marketing,
• telecom,
• thought leadership writing.

That consistency is a strong authenticity signal.

---

3. The testimonials look unusually detailed

A lot of freelance sites have vague testimonials like:

“Great writer! Highly recommended!”

These are much more specific:

• mentioning exact projects,
• workflows,
• KPIs,
• ghostwriting,
• editorial collaboration,
• deadlines,
• technical subject matter.

That doesn’t prove every testimonial is authentic, but the level of operational detail is more convincing than generic marketing copy.

---

4. The site demonstrates domain expertise

Even if the design is dated, the content itself shows familiarity with:

• SEO,
• inbound marketing,
• RevOps,
• enterprise SaaS marketing,
• analytics reporting,
• demand generation,
• technical journalism.

Someone pretending to be experienced usually writes in vaguer language.

---

How I’d categorize the business

It does not look like:

• a large agency,
• a SaaS content operation,
• a content mill,
• or an AI-generated fake portfolio.

It looks much more like:

a highly experienced independent B2B tech writer/content strategist with journalism roots.

That’s actually a pretty valuable niche.

People like this are often hired for:

• executive ghostwriting,
• thought leadership,
• technical explainers,
• enterprise blog programs,
• whitepapers,
• editorial-quality content.

---

Compared with modern AI content agencies

Write Way Pro’s positioning is interesting because it leans heavily into:

“human expertise over AI slop.”

That can work well right now because many companies are disappointed with:

• generic AI SEO articles,
• hallucinated technical content,
• low-engagement AI blogs.

A writer with actual technical interviewing experience can still outperform mass AI-generated content in:

• credibility,
• nuance,
• executive voice,
• and editorial quality.

Overall

If I were evaluating it as a prospective client, I’d view it as:

• credible,
• experienced,
• probably high-quality for thought leadership and B2B content

Find out what Write Way Pro can do for your business and what it will cost by reviewing the site and portfolio. Be in touch. For a special promotional offer for social media branding on LinkedIn, see 

Fighting the Attack of the Clones

Fighting the Attack of the Clones

 

It's May 4th, the perfect time to bring up Star Wars.

But I'm not doing the standard post. Instead, I'm waging my own war on cloning, which is why I selected the image of the poster for Star Wars Episode II Attack of the clones movie poster.

If you haven't seen it, the clones in the title are the duplicates of Jango Fett who requests one clone for himself that grows at the normal pace rather than the expedited one set for the clones made for the Empire to serve as storm troopers.

In the foreground you see Jango Fett (what you can see of someone in Mandalorian armor and helmet) along with our other main characters. But the clones themselves who are even named in the title practically fade into the background.

Why? It's because clones are not interesting. We're interested in characters who have their own personality and story -- not interchangeable copies.

Have you guessed yet where I am going with this?

AI slop is a real life attack of the clones

What we've come to see on this platform, as well as many others, is the equivalent of an attack of clones, that AI slop that has no character and holds no real interest. Often it's used in clickbait or engagement posts like this one from Technology Advice:

But you see it also in standard ads like this one.

and in far wordier one like this one:

Here is a post that kept going and going, so wordy that I couldn't fit it all into the screenshot. Honestly, I'm not sure what he's trying to do in eliminating capitals at the beginning of sentences and putting in // instead of bullet points or the emojis one usually sees on such LinkedIn posts. I don't think it helps it look less AI. 

However, it could also be put in standard posts, as I now see hundreds -- if not thousands -- of people allowing

LLMs to talk for them on LinkedIn, as you see in the examples below that all sound exactly alike.

Here it is compounded to a Marie Kondo reference years after her fame has faded. No one seriously pushes her relentless decluttering  these days. 

It makes the platform sound completely repetitive and everyone who uses the formula utterly forgettable.
By adopting the quick and lazy approach of allowing generative AI to write your posts, you turn yourself and your brand into a clone, robbing yourself of the opportunity to establish a unique identity and voice.

If you hire a content marketers whose posts have the earmarks of AI, as in using this kind of construction - "Most businesses don't have a marketing problem. They have a sameness problem." (So ironic that this person put in that message through generative AI-speak that reinforces sameness!) -- then you're paying for a cloned content rather than content that is specific to what you're about.

And why would you do that? It's like paying a chef to cook you a meal from scratch only to be served microwaved TV dinner.

It's possible to cook up something good when you actually like the challenge of cooking with the ingredients available to you. If you don't, you shouldn't be a cook. Heating up TV dinners is not cooking, and pushing out AI slop is not creative content marketing.

It takes a bit of effort to differentiate yourself 

It is possible to do better with just a bit of effort from someone who cares about the craft of writing and marketing. I'll give you quick example based on one of the many posts that used the formula in a promoted ad. 

It says "Your BD person
isn't failing.
You set them up to. "

Notice that the second sentence doesn't logically follow the first at all. In fact, it contradicts the first because it acknowledges that the BD person is -- in fact -- failing, though it blames the "you" rather than "them" in this case.

This kind of illogical nonsense said with a straight face by people who think they sounds smart is the result of being so used to seeing this pattern of posts that you don't even pause to think if it makes any sense.

Here's what they could have written instead with a logical progression.:
"Is your BD team coming up short?
It's not their fault.
You set them up for failure."

There is an affordable alternative to AI 

Perhaps one of the reasons people let the opportunity to truly connect with customers through their communications slip through their fingers is because they think that they can't afford to pay for quality content. That is as ridiculous as saying you'll just eat food out of vending machines to save money on groceries. That is not sustainable and can cause real harm like vitamin deficiency, high blood pressure,  and even diabetes. 

Compromising on content quality is the same thing. You can get cheap and fast but not good enough to contribute to your overall health when you rely on LLM output. That type of slop may get a bit of traction now from those who want to prove they are on the AI bandwagon, but no one will refer to it 4,5 or more years down the road -- the way they do for my content. See the proof on my portfolio where you can search by topic. 

Don't be taken in by statistics

There's a certain group that started out as a marketing job placement service then turned into its own marketing agency that takes the best jobs for itself, and now draws on its membership to offer supposedly helpful presentations that promote a certain business that is likely paying for this form of content marketing to a live, albeit virtual, audience. One of these is scheduled for this week. This is the banner for it with the hosting organization cropped out.

If this organization that is not able to survive on recruiting fees any more wants to branch out into charging businesses for representation on their  platform, that's fine. But they should be transparent about sponsored content and not try to hoodwink people with bogus statistics that don't even fit the argument made for using AI in today's job market because those statistics are all rooted in a job market that predates this reality by years -- if the stat ever had any validity at all! 

I put in the highlights to make it clear why this irks me so much. If this were a student paper, I'd give it an F despite its mechanical correctness and superficial polish.

1. There is no citation for the source of the stat with what is actually considered a fairly large range of 70-85% that undermines credibility. If you did a real survey, you'd have a specific number and not have to hedge your bets this way. And if you can't tell me where you found this out and what the context of it what, I don't believe you at all. You could be making it up altogether or be sharing something that was based on a sample size of just 3000 jobs 10 years ago (as it turns out).* There's no way of knowing if this is current and truly relevant if you don't share that source.

2. The second stat, "up to 80% of jobs are secured before they’re ever publicly posted"**makes no sense at all. Yes, I'm sure that many jobs are destined to go to the founder's son, his neighbor's daughter, or his roommate from college because nepotism and cronyism still dominate the world. But once the job truly is secured, there is no reason to post it. It's like making a claim that most houses are sold before their open house. If an agent has the contract, she is not going to run the open house (despite the fact that open houses are about gaining potential buyer lists rather than selling that particular property) because admitting to people that the house is not for sale undermines her credibility.

3. The structure of this is meant to lead you on to point 1 and point 2 add up to 3. But it doesn't at all. It doesn't follow from any of this that AI gives you a leg up in job search. What does give you a leg up is being related to or friends with the people who are making the hiring decisions. No matter how amazing you are at AI, you'll be passed over for the manager's college pal or cousin.

The more you know, the less you trust

I asked the woman who posted this the source of her statistic. She answered a few days later:

The Openarc source is dated 2025. So you'd think the stats are current and should take into consideration how things changed during the pandemic and the incursion of generative AI. But you'd be wrong because Openarc is referencing a 2021 source https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/85-of-jobs-get-filled-through-networking-here-s-how-to-grow-your-professional-network/, and that 2021 source is citing a February 2016 LinkedIn Pulse survey inkedin.com/pulse/new-survey-reveals-85-all-jobs-filled-via-networking-lou-adler/ that relies primarily on 2015 data drawn from a survey of just 3000 people. Here's the graph it features: *

In other words, this woman is presenting herself -- or the man who is going to give the presentation to market his company -- as an expert by throwing out bogus stats. What was true 11 years ago could still be true now, but we don't know that. Certainly, the job market has changed drastically in that time.

Now let's look at herd source for the claim that 80% of jobs are secured before they're posted. It doesn't substantiate that at all. On the contrary, what the Fast Company article https://www.fastcompany.com/91209427/the-hidden-job-market-strategies-for-access-and-success says is: "There’s a common statistic floating around that claims nearly 80% of all jobs are filled through the hidden job market. The real statistics are unknown, but most believe that around half of roles end up being filled by organic connections."

The more you look into, the more she loses credibility. She's either deliberately misrepresenting 11 year-old stats as current and never established stats as valid or she doesn't even know enough to realize how absurd it is to rely on them in 2026.

This is ridiculously common among lazy, incompetent, and not altogether honest writers who provide outdated and even clearly unsubstantiated information. When I want to cite a stat, I always trace it to the original source to get the full context, as I wrote in Why you always need the original source.