AI-enabled content: faster, still yours.
An AI-assisted workflow built on your own experts and your own language. More content per month at the same standard, and a system your team keeps whether or not we stay.
● Start here
Tell us about the business.
It takes about a minute. It reaches the people who would do the work rather than a sales inbox, and if we are not the right fit for what you need we will say so.
Goes to hello@katama.io. No sequences, no newsletter, no list.
● What AI-enabled content is
AI-enabled content is using AI inside a defined workflow rather than as a substitute for having a point of view.
The tools draft, summarise and repurpose. The argument, the evidence and the judgement about what is worth saying stay with your experts. It sits underneath content marketing, which decides what to publish; this is how it gets made, at what rate, and to what standard.
Why AI content reads like AI content.
There is one reason, and it is not the model. This sits under online marketing alongside content marketing, which decides what is worth publishing; the failure here is upstream of both. A model asked to write about a category returns the average of everything already written about that category. That is what it is for. If nobody supplied a point of view, the average is what you get.
Two symptoms, and buyers spot both. The piece could have been written about any competitor with a find and replace. And it says nothing the reader could not have guessed before opening it. Neither is a writing-quality problem, so neither gets fixed by a better prompt.
The second failure is volume without a gate. Publishing more of the same thing makes the problem larger and more visible, and it puts your name on claims nobody checked. A model will produce a statistic with a confident citation attached and no source behind it.
So the workflow is the product here. Your experts supply the argument, the tooling removes the drafting time, and a named person approves before anything carries your name.
What we produce.
The work starts with recorded interviews rather than a blank prompt. Your experts talk, we transcribe, and that transcript becomes the source material every draft is built from, which is what keeps the output specific to you.
Then the system gets built: a prompt library, a source library, a house style and a review gate, all of it living in your tooling. The assets come out of that system rather than out of a person who happens to be good at prompting.
It spans marketing and sales writing on purpose. The same interview usually yields an article, three LinkedIn posts and a paragraph a rep can send, and producing those separately is how most teams waste the material.
● What you get
- An AI-assisted workflow documented for your team
- Thought leadership drafted from your experts’ interviews
- Long-form articles and blog programs
- LinkedIn content for the company and its executives
- Sales messaging and outreach copy
- Email campaign and nurture sequences
- Customer stories written from the call, not the brief
- A house style and a review gate every draft passes
- Prompt and source libraries kept in your own tooling
- Fact checking, because a model will invent a statistic
How the work runs.
Source the material
Interviews with the people who actually know the subject, recorded and transcribed, plus the sales calls and the material you already have. Nothing is drafted from a blank prompt.
Build the workflow
Prompts, a source library, the house style and the review gate, set up in your tooling so the same inputs produce the same standard whoever is running it.
Produce and review
Drafts at volume, then a named human deciding what publishes. The review gate is the part that makes the volume safe, so it is not optional.
Hand it over
Your team runs the workflow. We stay on the parts that need judgement, and you keep the system either way.
What we report.
Published against plan
Pieces live versus pieces committed, which is the only throughput number that means anything.
Interview to published
Days from the expert interview to a published draft. This is the number the workflow exists to move.
Forwarded into deals
Pieces sales actually sent to a live opportunity. Content nobody forwards was written for nobody.
Cited by engines
Where a piece is the source an assistant quotes, tracked alongside the answer engine work.
Who this suits.
- You have experts with real opinions and no time to write
- Volume is the constraint, not knowing what to say
- Sales asks for material faster than marketing can produce it
- You want the capability in-house rather than a retainer forever
- Nobody internally will sit for an interview
- You want volume with no review gate
- The positioning is unsettled, so there is nothing distinctive to say yet
- You expect AI to supply the point of view
Fair questions.
How is this different from content marketing?
Content marketing decides what is worth publishing and why, and owns the editorial program. This is the production system underneath it: the workflow, the review gate and the throughput. Most companies want both, and if you only need one it is usually this one, because the strategy is rarely the actual bottleneck.
Will Google or an AI assistant penalise AI-assisted content?
Neither penalises content for being AI-assisted. Both are increasingly good at spotting content with nothing in it, which is a different problem and the one this workflow exists to avoid. Every piece goes out with a named reviewer and something in it that could only have come from your experts.
Do we own the workflow at the end?
Yes. The prompts, the source library and the house style live in your tooling rather than ours, and they stay with you if the engagement ends. That is deliberate: a workflow you cannot run without us is a retainer rather than a capability.
Who signs off before anything publishes?
A named person on your side, every time. We will not publish under your company name or under an executive name on our own judgement, because the first time a buyer catches something wrong it costs more than the piece ever earned.