Writing the article and filming the video needs you. Reformatting it, uploading it, captioning it, scheduling it, and doing all of that again for every channel does not. We automate the second part.
Making the content is the job. Everything after it is recurring routine.
You film a video. Then you crop it vertical for one channel and square for another, write a caption for each, add subtitles, pick a title, write a description, and upload it four times. That takes longer than the filming did.
You write an article. Then you paste it into your website, fix the formatting the paste broke, place the images, add the links, and publish. Then you write four social posts about it. Then you build the newsletter that mentions it.
One piece of content, one afternoon gone — and it comes out of the same person who was supposed to be making the next one. That work repeats identically every single time. Which is exactly what a machine is for.
These four are where the payoff comes fastest and the risk is lowest — proven paths, not experiments. We start with the one that eats most of your week.
Four flows, or one to start with. You don't have to automate everything at once — and you shouldn't.
Because automation fails the way software fails: quietly, at the edges, in the case nobody thought about. And an automation that publishes quietly wrong is worse than no automation — you find out from your audience.
We have spent 15+ years testing other companies' software: finding the case where the second language variant renders wrong, where the file with the odd name breaks the upload, where the integration works right up until the data looks slightly different. That is exactly the skill this work needs and almost never gets.
So when we build your flows, we build the awkward questions with them:
You get the automation with test cases, documentation, and a way to see that it is running. Not a black box only we understand.
Paul-Tech is a precision agriculture company selling soil-sensor technology to farmers. It is also a company we co-founded, which is why we could rebuild its content operations from the ground up.
Marketing depended heavily on manual work.
Articles, social posts, website content, newsletters and videos were prepared and published separately across different channels.
Content creation was time-consuming and required a marketing specialist to manage the process continuously.
One automated content flow now manages the process.
Published content is automatically transformed, formatted and distributed across the relevant channels.
The automation has effectively become a digital marketing specialist for Paul-Tech, reducing manual work and allowing our small team to focus on strategy and growth.
We sit down with whoever currently does the publishing and write down every step they actually take. That meeting alone is usually worth having.
We start with a single flow — the one costing you the most hours — and agree on what "working" means before anything is built.
One working flow at a time, so you see a result in weeks, not at the end of a project.
Every flow is tested against the cases we agreed on, including the ones designed to break it, before it publishes anything public.
Documentation, access, and the ability to change things yourself. Every flow reports its own failures, so you always know it is running. We stay on for maintenance if you want us to — not because you're locked in.
We map how your content currently gets from finished to published and give you a prioritised list of what to automate first, with effort estimates. Useful even if you build it yourself afterwards.
One or more of the four flows — built, tested, documented, fixed scope.
Monthly: we monitor and maintain what runs, and build the next flow when you're ready.
Most of the major ones, but not all in the same way. Some platforms allow fully automatic publishing; others require a final tap of approval, and a few limit what an automation may do at all. We check your exact channel mix first and tell you which will be fully hands-off and which will need one click from you. No promises before we've looked.
No. You decide what enters the flow, and an approval step can sit anywhere in the chain. The automation decides format, timing and destination — never what is worth publishing.
That depends on what goes in. We build the path, not the voice. Where text has to be written or shortened for a channel, you approve the pattern first and can review every output for as long as you want to.
No. We work with what you have. If a tool genuinely can't do what you need, we'll say so — but replacing your stack is not the starting point.
You do. It runs in your accounts, under your access, documented so your own team or another partner can work with it.
Every flow reports its own failures, so you know that it failed and which step failed. If we maintain it, we fix it; if you maintain it, the documentation tells you where to look.
Usually more than for a big one. A small team has no spare capacity, so every hour spent uploading is an hour not spent creating. Start with one flow and judge the result before deciding on more.
Yes — that's a testing project, and it's what we've done for years.