The individuality of a marketing plan is shown by its level of detail, and especially by the elements that it excludes. Your plan that consists of twelve marketing channels (each with a paragraph and equal portion budget) is simply a list. What you call a plan will, in fact, be executed by somebody with greater budget and possibly a greater staff than you.
A writer uses what captures consumers’ attention where your audience is and what your team can reasonably manage, allocates budget accordingly, and provides the explanation to those who have to approve it.
Marketing plans get judged twice: by a finance director who wants to know why paid spend doubled, and by a marketing manager who has to execute it on Monday. Serving both means writing decisions rather than options, with the reasoning visible. That takes someone who has run a channel and knows what two people deliver in a quarter.
If you ask for a marketing plan, the response will include many channels, as including every channel would have benefits, making it seem like you’ve left out a channel would appear like an oversight in the eyes of a model that has seen many marketing plans. A system created to evaluate a comprehensive plan will say nothing from a vague and broad system. A limited budget becomes dispersed the most when eight different channels of marketing are utilized.
Last year’s numbers are requested first. That includes wins and losses. The learning experiences come more from the losses than the wins. After the audience and budget are given, the draft is created with each channel including a measurable effect, not just a tally of activities.
Every channel must go through three checks to remain in the plan. Those checks are conducted to see if someone owns the channel, if funding is available, and if the channel has a measurement for effectiveness. Any channel that fails any of those checks is moved to an appendix that lists untested ideas. That way, the plan can be clear on the funding that is allocated.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical marketing plan | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concise | 1,500 | $150 | $1.50 | $151.50 |
| Standard | 3,500 | $350 | $3.50 | $353.50 |
| Full submission | 7,000 | $700 | $7 | $707 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
Yes. Send two or three pieces you like the sound of, or your style guide. Matching an established voice is ordinary work for a writer and close to impossible for a model that has never read your back catalogue.
Yes. Tell us the volume and cadence and we keep the same writer on the account so the voice stays consistent. The rate does not change with volume.
Yes, at a writer’s verifiable level: public positioning, published pricing, and the channels they are visibly active in. We do not intend to offer guesses on their budgets or results as findings, because that is where plans subtly fail.
The better way round is for you to give us the number before you start drafting. A plan that’s written first and costed later usually turns into a plan that we end up having to reduce, leaving you to do the work we should be doing anyway. The author has added an *effective* sentence that is a synonym of the second part of the main idea in the input
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
Our old procedures were written by people who understood the process. These are not. They name each button on each step. Two of our newer drivers used them without even asking me questions, which has never happened before.
Rewritten policy that is ninety pages long and uses plain English. Nothing important was lost in the process of softening legal language. Our employment solicitor changed only four words. This brings me satisfaction because it seems that the staff actually read the policy unlike before. I had lost hope on that.
The first brief we received was too general. The writer noted this rather than trying to understand it himself. We did a twenty-minute call. Obviously frustrating that it was needed, still useful that this happened, as the finalized procedures reflect the way the warehouse operates. This includes the different procedures the night shift performs.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees