I went all in with AI for our landing page, thinking it would outperform my intern’s work.
After two weeks of testing, the AI version only converted at 2.1% while the intern’s copy nailed 3.4%.
Looks like human touch still matters.
Been there. AI writes like it studied marketing textbooks but never actually sold anything.
Your intern probably used simpler words and focused on one clear benefit. AI loves cramming features and clever phrases that sound impressive but don’t convert.
I’ve seen this pattern across different verticals. The human versions usually win because they pick one pain point and hammer it home instead of trying to be everything to everyone.
Two weeks for one landing page test? Way too slow. I would’ve tested both versions plus five more variations in that same timeframe. AI copy works best with rapid iteration cycles - not one-and-done attempts. Run multiple prompts, test different angles within hours instead of dragging it out for weeks.
AI copy sounds generic because it’s trying to please everyone at once.
Your intern wrote for real people, not search engines and buzzwords. Users notice when someone actually gets their problems.
AI tools work better when you edit them instead of using the first draft.
Real people write better copy than AI.
Your intern probably talked to real customers or knew your target audience.
I’ve launched three landing pages this year. AI versions sound polished but miss what actually hurts.
Here’s what worked: AI for the first draft, then I rewrote using support tickets and user feedback. The winners had messier copy but hit the exact problems people were searching for.