Copywriting Services
Anyone can generate words now. What's scarce in 2026 is copy that says something only your business could say — the specific number, the real customer objection, the thing you learned the hard way. That's what search rewards, and it's what makes a reader act.
The four things good copy has to do now
Google's own documentation changed materially in the last year. These four shifts drive everything else on this page.
Google now names the failure mode directly: "commodity content" built on common knowledge that anyone could have written. Copy has to carry something only you know.
Google doesn't penalise AI assistance. It penalises many low-value pages produced to game rankings — a policy called scaled content abuse. The distinction matters commercially.
Google asks whether it's self-evident who wrote a page, how it was made, and why it exists. Anonymous, unsourced copy answers none of those questions well.
Google published a mythbusting list naming five tactics that don't work for its AI features. Several are actively being sold as services right now.
Copywriting sits inside a wider content operation — see content marketing services for strategy and planning, blogging services for ongoing publishing, and AI SEO or SEO services for the search side. If the problem is that good copy isn't converting, that's usually a landing page optimization or CRO question rather than a writing one.
What actually changed for copywriting in 2026
Everything below is quoted from Google Search Central's own documentation — the helpful-content guide and generative-AI guidance, both updated December 2025, and the AI optimization guide updated 10 July 2026. Not from our sales deck.
Google gave "generic copy" a name, and it's the thing that now fails
Google's AI optimization guide draws an explicit line between commodity and non-commodity content, and its own examples are unusually blunt. Commodity content is something like "7 Tips for First-Time Homebuyers" — built on common knowledge, could have originated from anyone, adds little unique insight. Non-commodity content is their counter-example: "Why We Waived the Inspection & Saved Money: A Look Inside the Sewer Line."
Read that pair again: the difference isn't quality of writing, keyword density, or length. It's whether the page contains lived, specific knowledge someone actually has. Google's instruction is direct — don't recycle what others have already said, or what "could easily be produced by a generative AI model."
For a business, this reframes the brief entirely. The most valuable half hour in any copywriting engagement is now the interview where we extract the specifics: what customers actually object to, the number your competitors won't publish, the project that went wrong and what you changed. Copy that skips that step reads like everyone else's.
Google does not penalise AI-assisted copy. It penalises scale without value
The relevant rule is the scaled content abuse spam policy, and its wording is precise: generating many pages "for the primary purpose of manipulating search rankings and not helping users," creating "large amounts of unoriginal content that provides little to no value to users, no matter how it's created." Using generative AI tools to produce many pages without adding value is listed as an example — but so is scraping, stitching pages together, and spinning synonyms. The tool isn't the trigger. The intent and the value are.
Google's separate guidance on generative AI content is equally clear that AI "can be particularly useful when researching a topic, and to add structure to original content." What it asks is that the output meets the same Search Essentials standard as anything else, and it suggests disclosing how content was made where a reader might reasonably wonder.
So the honest position for any agency in 2026 is not "we never touch AI" or "our copy passes AI detectors." It's that a human is accountable for what the page claims, where the facts came from, and whether it earns the reader's time.
Trust is the ranking currency, and it's built with bylines and sourcing
Google's helpful-content guide frames E-E-A-T as experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness — and states plainly that "of these aspects, trust is most important." It then gives three questions to ask of any page: Who created it, How it was created, and Why it exists. On "Who," it goes further than most people realise: it asks whether pages carry a byline where one would be expected, and whether that byline leads to real background on the author.
This is where a lot of Indian SMB websites quietly lose. Copy is published under no name, cites no source, and links to no author page. The writing may be fine, but it answers none of Google's three questions — and it gives a human reader no reason to believe it either. We build bylines, sourcing and author context into the copy rather than treating them as an SEO afterthought.
Most of the "AI-era content" advice being sold right now is on Google's ignore list
Google's July 2026 guide includes a mythbusting section listing what you can safely ignore for Google Search: llms.txt files and similar "special" markup (Google Search ignores them entirely), "chunking" content into small pieces for AI, rewriting content specifically for AI systems, seeking inauthentic "mentions" across the web, and overfocusing on structured data, which isn't required for AI search.
On the terminology itself, Google's position is that "optimizing for generative AI search is optimizing for the search experience, and thus still SEO." That's worth knowing before buying anything sold as a separate discipline — including our own generative engine optimization work, which we'd rather you understood as strong SEO and content practice applied to AI surfaces than as a magic separate lever. Google has also added a Generative AI performance report to Search Console covering AI Overviews and AI Mode impressions — though Google states it is still rolling out to a subset of site owners, so not every property can see it yet. Where it is available, AI visibility becomes something you measure rather than something an agency asserts.
Three ways to engage us
Scroll horizontally on mobile. Every engagement starts with an interview, because that's where the non-commodity material comes from.
| Copy Audit | Project Copywriting | Content Retainer | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best for | Knowing why existing copy isn't converting or ranking | A defined set of pages — site rewrite, launch, landing pages | Ongoing publishing with a consistent voice |
| Timeline | 1–2 weeks | 5–10 days per batch | Monthly, 3-month minimum |
| Discovery interview | Included | Included | Ongoing |
| Commodity-content review | Every page | Built in | Built in |
| Writing & editing | Recommendations only | Full drafts | Full drafts |
| Byline & sourcing setup | Advised | Included | Included |
| Revision rounds | — | Two per piece | Two per piece |
| Named writer on your account | — | Yes | Yes, consistent |
| Pricing | Fixed quote after scoping call | Fixed quote per batch | Monthly retainer |
We quote after seeing the pages and understanding the subject matter, because a five-page site rewrite and a technical B2B content programme are not the same job. The scoping call is free.
Copy Audit
A page-by-page read of your existing copy against Google's published helpful-content criteria and basic conversion logic.
We read what you've already published and mark where it reads as commodity content, where the claim has no source, where the page has no discernible audience, and where the call to action doesn't follow from what precedes it. You get a prioritised rewrite list, not a vague "make it more engaging."
What you get
Page-level review against Google's self-assessment questions, a commodity-vs-specific verdict per page, byline and sourcing gaps, conversion-logic notes on key pages, and a rewrite priority list ranked by traffic and commercial value.
What it's not
It's not the rewrite itself. Some clients hand the audit to an in-house writer and never come back, which is a fine outcome. It's also not a technical SEO audit — crawl, indexing and speed issues belong with SEO services.
Best for: sites with a lot of published pages and flat results, businesses that suspect their content reads generic but can't say why, and anyone who inherited a site full of copy they didn't commission.
Project Copywriting
A defined batch of pages — website, landing pages, product copy, email sequences — written from a real discovery interview.
This is the core service. We interview whoever knows the subject best, extract the specifics that make the copy non-commodity, then write and revise the agreed pages. Web and landing copy is written against the same conversion thinking behind our landing page optimization work; email sequences are written to ship inside whatever platform you run, and where that's Zoho Campaigns we can load and test them alongside our email marketing services team.
What you get
Discovery interview, full drafts of every agreed page, two revision rounds per piece, headline and CTA alternatives where it helps, byline and sourcing built in, and a named writer you deal with directly rather than an anonymous queue.
What it's not
Not bulk content at volume pricing. We won't take a brief for fifty thin pages targeting keyword variations — that's the pattern Google's scaled content abuse policy exists to catch, and we'd be taking your money to damage your site. Not design or development either; we deliver copy your developer or our WordPress team implements.
Best for: site rewrites, product or service launches, campaign landing pages, and businesses whose expertise is real but has never made it onto the page in plain language.
Content Retainer
A steady monthly output with one consistent writer who learns your business instead of restarting every brief.
Voice consistency is the thing a rotating pool of freelancers can't give you, and subject-matter depth compounds — a writer three months into your business asks better interview questions than one on their first brief. The retainer pairs naturally with blogging services for cadence and content marketing for what to write about next.
What you get
An agreed monthly volume, one consistent named writer, rolling interviews to keep sourcing specific, byline and author-page setup, two revision rounds per piece, and a quarterly review of what published work actually earned.
What it's not
Not a word-count subscription. If a month's best output is three genuinely original pieces rather than eight generic ones, we'll argue for three — Google states outright that it has no preferred word count, and volume for its own sake is the thing that now hurts.
Best for: businesses with an established publishing habit, B2B and technical companies where subject depth matters, and teams that want a writer who stops needing to be briefed from scratch.
How an engagement runs
The same sequence every time, and the interview is not the part we skip when timelines get tight.
- Scoping call (free). We look at the pages, the audience, and what the copy is meant to achieve, and tell you which tier fits — or whether writing is even your constraint.
- Discovery interview. Thirty to sixty minutes with whoever knows the subject best. This is where the specific numbers, objections and stories come from. Without it, we can only write what anyone could write.
- Outline and angle. We agree the argument each page makes and the evidence behind it before drafting, so revisions are about wording rather than direction.
- Draft. Written by a named writer, with sources cited and a byline attached where readers would expect one.
- Two revision rounds. Consolidated feedback, not scattered comments over weeks. Most pieces settle in one.
- Publish and review. You publish, or we hand off to your developer. On retainers we review quarterly against what the pages actually did.
What we will and won't claim
Copywriting is sold with a lot of confident promises. Here's where we stand on the ones we hear most.
- Everything on this page traces to Google's own documentation. The commodity-content framing, the scaled content abuse wording, the Who/How/Why questions and the mythbusting list are all quoted from Google Search Central, linked in the sources below and verified 2 August 2026.
- We don't promise copy that "passes AI detectors." No AI detection tool is reliable enough to build a guarantee on, they produce false positives on ordinary human writing, and Google has never said it uses one. Selling that guarantee means selling a test that doesn't measure what it claims. What we do commit to is original work with a human accountable for it.
- We don't claim any "Google approval." There is no such certification. Google publishes guidance and we follow it; nobody can promise on Google's behalf.
- We won't write to a word count you read somewhere. Google states directly that it has no preferred word count. If a page needs 400 words, padding it to 1,500 makes it worse, not more rankable.
- We won't take a scaled-content brief. Dozens of near-identical pages built around keyword variations is the exact pattern Google's spam policy names. We'll decline it and explain why rather than bill for it.
- We'll tell you when copy isn't the constraint. If the traffic is there and the page reads well but nobody converts, that's usually layout, offer or friction — a CRO or UX problem, and we'd rather route you there than rewrite something that's already fine.
Frequently asked questions
Will Google penalise my content if AI was used to write it?
Not for the tool itself. Google's spam policy targets scaled content abuse — generating many pages "for the primary purpose of manipulating search rankings and not helping users," creating large amounts of unoriginal content that adds little value, in Google's words "no matter how it's created." Its separate generative-AI guidance says AI can be genuinely useful for research and structure, and asks only that the result meets the same Search Essentials standard as any other page. The risk isn't AI involvement; it's publishing volume that nobody needed.
Then why hire human copywriters at all?
Because of what Google now calls non-commodity content. Its guide contrasts a generic "7 Tips for First-Time Homebuyers" with a specific "Why We Waived the Inspection & Saved Money: A Look Inside the Sewer Line," and instructs writers not to recycle what "could easily be produced by a generative AI model." A model can't attend your discovery call, hear the objection your sales team fields weekly, or know the number you're willing to publish. Extracting that material and shaping it into an argument is the job — the typing was never the expensive part.
Do you guarantee the copy will pass AI detection tools?
No, and we'd treat that guarantee as a red flag from any agency. AI detectors are not reliable — they return false positives on genuinely human writing, particularly on clear, plainly structured prose, and their scores aren't reproducible between tools. Google has never indicated it uses AI detection as a ranking signal; its published criteria are about originality, helpfulness and trust. We'd rather be accountable for whether the page is true and useful than for a number from a tool that can't actually tell.
How long should a page be?
As long as the argument takes. Google's helpful-content guide lists writing to a particular word count "because you've heard or read that Google has a preferred word count" as a warning sign, and adds in parentheses: "No, we don't." Its AI guide repeats that there's no ideal page length. In practice a product page might need 300 words and a technical comparison 2,000 — we scope length from the job the page has to do, not from a target.
Do I need "GEO" or "AEO" as a separate service for AI search?
Google's own answer is no: "optimizing for generative AI search is optimizing for the search experience, and thus still SEO." Its July 2026 guide also names specific tactics you can ignore — llms.txt files and similar markup, which Google Search ignores outright; "chunking" content into small pieces; rewriting content specifically for AI systems; chasing inauthentic mentions; and overfocusing on structured data. We do offer generative engine optimization, and we'd describe it honestly as strong content and SEO practice pointed at AI surfaces, not a separate lever.
What does copywriting cost?
We quote after the free scoping call, because scope varies enormously — a five-page site rewrite and an ongoing technical B2B programme are different jobs with different research burdens. The Copy Audit is the smallest fixed-scope engagement and the usual entry point; project work is quoted per batch of pages; the retainer is a monthly fee with a three-month minimum. What we don't do is quote per word, because per-word pricing rewards padding and penalises the editing that makes copy work.
Should we put author bylines on our pages?
Usually yes, and Google is unusually direct about it. Its helpful-content guide asks whether it's self-evident who authored your content, whether pages carry a byline where one might be expected, and whether that byline leads to further background about the author. It also states that of the four E-E-A-T signals, trust matters most. For a services business, a named author with a real bio and relevant background does more for credibility — human and algorithmic — than another 500 words of copy.
Can you write for technical or niche industries?
Yes, and the discovery interview is what makes it possible rather than any claim of pre-existing expertise. Our published work spans accounting and ERP software, e-commerce, and B2B technology, and the method is the same each time: interview your specialists, write it in language a buyer understands, then send it back to your specialist to check for accuracy before publishing. We'd rather flag a claim we can't verify than publish something confident and wrong.
Find out whether your copy says anything only you could say
Book a free scoping call. We'll read a few of your key pages beforehand and tell you honestly where they read generic — and what we'd ask you to get the specifics onto the page.
Book a free consultationSources
- Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content — Google Search Central
- Optimizing your website for generative AI features on Google Search — Google Search Central
- Google Search's guidance on using generative AI content — Google Search Central
- Spam policies for Google Web Search (scaled content abuse) — Google Search Central