For years, content felt like a tax I paid every single day. A little dread every morning. What do I post. What do I write. The blank page, again, on a loop.
Then I stopped writing daily and started writing monthly. One sitting. Three or four hours. A month of content, drafted and scheduled, done.
The secret isn't that I type faster. It's that I changed the shape of the work, and I let AI do the parts I was wasting my best energy on. Let me show you exactly how, because the system matters more than the willpower.
To write a month of content in one sitting: separate deciding what to say from writing it, do all the deciding first, then use an AI assistant to draft from your decisions in one pass. The blank page is slow because you're doing strategy and writing at the same time. Split them, batch them, and a month fits into an afternoon.
Here's the thing nobody admits. The hard part of content isn't writing. It's starting. Every single day you pay the start-up cost again: deciding the topic, finding the angle, fighting the blank page, getting into the rhythm. Then you write for twenty minutes and stop, and tomorrow you pay all of it again.
Batching deletes that repeated cost. You start once. You get into flow once. You stay there.
The other quiet killer is context-switching. Writing a post, then answering email, then writing another post means your brain reloads "writing mode" over and over. Each reload is expensive. Batching protects the mode.
Before the sitting, I never start from nothing. That's the mistake. I keep a running note of every idea, question, complaint, and thing I learned. By the time I sit down, I have a pile.
If your pile is empty, an AI assistant fills it fast. I'll say: "I'm a [whatever] who helps [whoever]. Give me 30 content angles my audience would actually click, mixing how-tos, opinions, and stories." Thirty angles in seconds. I keep the eight that make me feel something and ignore the rest.
This is the deciding phase. No writing yet. Just choosing. Keeping these separate is the entire trick.
Now I cluster. Eight angles, grouped into a loose theme for the month so it doesn't feel random. Then I draft.
I don't ask AI to "write me content." Too vague, you get mush. I give it a brief per piece:
Then I let it draft all of them. Not to publish. To react to. A draft I can fix beats a blank page I have to fill. My energy goes into making it good, not making it exist.
The blank page is the expensive part. AI's real job is to delete the blank page.
This is where people go wrong with AI content. They publish the first draft, it reads like cardboard, and they conclude AI writing is bad. The draft was never the product. It's the clay.
My editing pass does three things every time:
Twenty minutes of this per piece turns a generic draft into something that sounds like a person. That ratio — fast draft, sharp edit — is the whole game.
The mistake I see constantly is people inverting that ratio. They agonize over the prompt, hoping to get a perfect draft out the other side, and then publish whatever comes back because they're tired of fiddling. Backwards. The draft should be cheap and fast and frankly a bit rough; the edit is where your time and taste belong. A perfect prompt feeding a lazy edit produces something polished and lifeless. A quick prompt feeding a brutal edit produces something alive. Spend your energy where it actually shows — on the page the reader sees, not the prompt they never will.
People don't believe the speed until they see it broken down, so here's a real one.
| Phase | Time | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Harvest angles | 30 min | Pull from notes + AI for gaps |
| Choose + cluster | 20 min | Keep the 8 that matter |
| Draft all 8 | 30 min | AI drafts from briefs |
| Edit hard | 90 min | The part only I can do |
| Schedule | 20 min | Queue the month |
Call it three hours. Against an hour a day, every day, fighting the same blank page, it isn't close.
The reason this works isn't the AI. It's that I stopped treating content as inspiration and started treating it as a process with steps. Inspiration doesn't scale. A process does.
Once writing became "harvest, choose, draft, edit, schedule," the dread went away. There's no blank page in a checklist. AI just makes the slowest step — drafting — almost free, so the whole thing fits in one focused block instead of bleeding across thirty mornings.
This is the same logic behind any good content workflow or AI-powered blogging setup: let the assistant handle volume, keep the judgment for yourself. It's the practical version of the honest truth about AI productivity tools, and it leans hard on getting the ask right — which is exactly what the prompt pattern that fixed my AI output is about. Writing research has long held that editing, not drafting, is where quality is made; the Nielsen Norman Group makes a similar case about how people actually read, which is why the cut-and-sharpen pass matters more than the generation.
People assume batching is a speed trick that costs you quality. In my experience it's the opposite — the quality went up, and it took me a while to understand why.
When you write one post a day, every post lives alone. You don't see how it connects to the others, because the others don't exist yet. The result is a feed that wanders. One day you're giving tactical tips, the next you're philosophizing, and there's no thread a reader can follow. Each piece is fine; the whole is mush.
Batching forces you to see the month at once. Laid out together, the gaps are obvious. "I have four how-tos and nothing with a point of view." "Three of these say almost the same thing." You fix the shape of the month, not just the individual posts. Readers feel that coherence even if they can't name it. A feed with a thread keeps people; a feed of random fine posts doesn't.
There's also a focus dividend. Editing eight drafts back to back, I get sharp at it. By the third edit I've found my rhythm — I know exactly what filler to cut, where my voice goes flat, which openings I always over-write. That momentum makes every later edit better. Doing one edit a day, I never build it. I'm warming up and cooling down thirty times a month and never hitting stride.
And honestly, batching protects me from my own moods. Some days I have nothing to say, and a daily schedule would force me to publish something hollow anyway. With a month already queued, a bad day costs nothing. The content keeps flowing while I go do literally anything else. That alone has saved me from publishing a lot of forgettable filler I'd have shipped just to feed the calendar.
If your content feels like a daily tax, try batching just one month this way and see how much of the dread was really just the repeated cost of starting.
Q: Doesn't batched content sound robotic? Only if you publish the draft. The editing pass is non-negotiable. The voice comes from your edits, not the generation. Skip the edit and yes, it sounds like a machine.
Q: What if I run out of ideas mid-sitting? You won't if you harvest first. The deciding phase exists so the writing phase never stalls. An empty pile is the real reason people freeze.
Q: A month feels like a lot to schedule at once. What if things change? Leave two slots open for anything timely. A month of evergreen content plus two reactive slots covers almost everything without locking you in.
Q: Can AI just do the whole thing while I do nothing? It can, and it'll show. The unedited stuff is fine and forgettable. The edited stuff gets read. Your twenty minutes per piece is what separates the two.
You're not slow at content. You're paying the start-up cost thirty times a month instead of once. Batch the deciding, let an AI assistant kill the blank page, then spend your real energy editing. A month genuinely fits in an afternoon.
Don't write more often. Write once, well, and schedule the rest.
What would you do with the four mornings a week you'd get back? That's the actual prize here, not the content.
No following, no network, no luck. Just an unglamorous system I ran for eighteen months. Here's exactly what I did.
I went from 200 to 11,000 subscribers without hiring anyone. AI didn't write my newsletter — it did everything around it.
One person, output that looks like five. It isn't about working more hours — it's about a kind of leverage teams rarely have.
Comments
Sign in to join the conversation
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!