ai prompts to improve existing content marketing

act as an seo content strategist. realign the following content to dominant search intent and modern on‑page best practice without browsing.

inputs:
- primary keyword/topic: [e.g., "hr analytics software"]
- secondary and related entities: [list]
- target geography: [e.g., uk and eu]
- funnel stage focus: [e.g., consideration]
- business goal + kpi: [e.g., free trial starts]
- brand voice and tone: [e.g., authoritative, approachable]
- constraints: [claims to avoid, regulated terms]
- competitor angles to avoid or counter: [if any]

content to improve:
[paste full text]

tasks:
1) intent hypothesis: define likely search intents (informational, commercial research, transactional). state assumptions and confidence levels.
2) gap map: list subtopics, questions, and entities commonly expected by readers for this topic. mark which are missing or thin. present a table with priority (high/med/low) and reason.
3) outline v1 "search‑first" and outline v2 "story‑first". explain trade‑offs and recommend one based on goals.
4) generate 8–12 h2/h3 suggestions with semantic clusters and target word counts. include a short content brief for each section.
5) draft a featured‑snippet ready answer (40–55 words), plus a longer summary (120–160 words).
6) on‑page pack: title tag, meta description, og tags, 5 faqs, and a short url suggestion.
7) internal linking plan: 10 suggested anchors with target page types and rationale.
8) structured data suggestions: propose suitable schema types and provide a placeholder json‑ld block with variables to fill later.
9) provide two contrasted rewrites for the introduction:
   - version a: high‑clarity, scannable
   - version b: narrative hook with authority signals
10) output in markdown. keep british english. do not disclose internal reasoning. ask up to 3 clarifying questions only if a field is blank.

you are head of brand and an accessibility reviewer. calibrate brand voice from samples, then rewrite the content to match that voice while improving inclusivity and clarity.

inputs:
- voice samples: [paste 2–3 short brand excerpts] or list voice adjectives [e.g., practical, empathetic, expert]
- audience: [primary and secondary]
- purpose and kpi: [e.g., book a call]
- reading level target: [e.g., gcse, undergraduate]
- sensitivities or terms to avoid: [list]
- british english

content to improve:
[paste full text]

process:
1) derive a mini voice guide: tone sliders (formality, warmth, energy), sentence length range, pov, jargon allowance, words to use/avoid. present as a table.
2) role‑play critiques:
   - as a first‑time reader in [audience], list what feels unclear or unhelpful.
   - as a sceptical budget‑holder, list objections the content fails to address.
3) rewrite the piece in two modes:
   - voice‑true version adhering strictly to the mini guide.
   - persona‑tuned version for [specific icp], noting 3 changes and why.
4) micro‑improvements: cta options (6), button labels (6), subject lines (6), preview text (6).
5) accessibility: reading age estimate, plain‑english 120‑word summary, inclusive language fixes with before/after examples, alt text suggestions for 3 likely images.
6) provide a one‑page style card that can be reused by other writers.

output: markdown with clear headings. do not reveal hidden reasoning.

act as a category editor. compare our content against competitors and build a differentiated, evidence‑ready upgrade plan.

inputs:
- our audience and goal: [e.g., uk smb finance leaders; drive demo requests]
- brand pov to emphasise: [e.g., transparent pricing, strong support]
- risk/compliance limits: [list]
- british english

our content:
[paste our text]

competitor set (paste excerpts, outlines, or summaries):
[comp 1]
[comp 2]
[comp 3] [optional]

tasks:
1) create a comparison table with rows for scope, depth, originality, proof, recency, clarity, conversion cues, and brand fit. score 0–5 and cite brief snippets as evidence.
2) identify 8–12 content gaps and missed objections. tag each as table‑stakes, differentiator, or thought‑leadership.
3) draft a unique stance and narrative arc that clearly diverges from competitors. provide a 100‑word manifesto paragraph.
4) produce two contrasted headline and intro pairs:
   - authority‑led
   - challenger‑led
5) write a new section that only we can credibly own. flag any claims needing evidence with [citation needed] and suggest what evidence would suffice.
6) propose 3 original data or asset ideas (e.g., poll, mini‑benchmark) to support the stance, including method outline and timeline.
7) supply a conversion layer: proof elements to add (logos, quotes, numbers), cta placement, and internal link anchors.

output: markdown tables and sections. keep british english and avoid exposing hidden reasoning. ask up to 3 clarification questions if inputs are incomplete.