We run a content pipeline that researches a subject, writes a draft, checks it against a list of rules and hands it to you. It does not publish anything by itself, and it will tell you when there is nothing worth writing about. That last part is the reason to use it rather than something that promises thirty posts a month.
Australian team
Based here, working your hours — not a timezone away
144+ projects delivered
Over 10+ years building and maintaining sites for Australian businesses
One developer, start to finish
The same person every time — no re-explaining your site
Straight answers, on your terms
We only take work we can finish. Ask us anything first — no obligation
If you want volume, we are the wrong supplier and will say so on the call. If your problem is that finished drafts sit waiting for approval rather than that nobody is writing them, the content workflow automation page addresses that instead. If you want the site looked after as well, a care plan starts at $159/mo.
Every piece arrives as a draft in your WordPress admin. You read it, change what you want and publish it, or you do not. This is a deliberate design decision rather than a limitation: the moment a pipeline can publish unattended, the thing protecting your site from an embarrassing sentence is a language model having a good day. Plenty of services will offer you the other arrangement. We would not run our own site that way.
Subjects are scored before anything is drafted, and a run that finds nothing passing the test stops with exactly that message rather than producing something to fill the slot. This is the single most unusual thing about the arrangement and the one clients comment on. A content service paid per article has every incentive to write the marginal one; a pipeline that stops tells you when the useful subjects in your field have been covered, which is information you can act on.
Every draft passes through a review stage that knows what machine-written prose looks like, because the tells are enumerated. Twenty-one specific phrasings each carry a defined repair — "delve into" becomes "look at", "harness the power of" becomes "use", "in today's digital landscape" is simply deleted. American spelling is converted to Australian, carefully: "optimize" becomes "optimise", while "program" and the noun "licence" are left alone because the naive substitution is wrong in both cases. A placeholder link left in the text, or a second h1 in the body, blocks the draft rather than being noted.
Subjects are chosen against what your site already covers, so a draft is not quietly competing with a page you published two years ago. That check matters more than it sounds: the most common self-inflicted SEO problem we see is three thin pages on one subject where there should be one good one, and a content service working from a keyword list will happily create the fourth. Anything already covered here fails the test and never reaches a writer.
Google's spam policies name scaled content abuse specifically — producing many pages primarily to manipulate rankings, regardless of whether a human or a machine wrote them. The risk is not theoretical and it does not distinguish between your intent and an obvious content farm. So the offer is deliberately small: a sustainable number of pieces that each earn their place, on subjects that pass a test. If a supplier is quoting you per-article at volume, that is the pricing model creating the risk, not the technology.
Each piece gets a featured image made for it rather than a photograph everyone else is also using. The colour is derived from the title, so the same article always gets the same card and the set looks deliberate across an archive, and the text colour is chosen by measuring contrast against the background rather than being assumed — which means the type stays legible on every card rather than on most of them. Where a photograph genuinely suits the subject better, it uses one and credits it.
Three things, and we would rather set the expectation now. You decide what publishes, because you know which claims your business can stand behind. You supply the specifics a model cannot invent — your prices, your process, the thing you do differently. And you tell us when a draft is wrong, because the correction improves the subsequent ones. What you are buying is the research, the drafting and the checking, not the removal of your judgement from the process.
Setting it up on your site — connecting it, teaching it what you already cover, tuning the rules to your voice and running the first pieces through with you — starts at $300 and is fixed-quoted. After that it is a monthly arrangement priced on how many pieces you actually want, which we will work out on a call rather than putting a number on a page that assumes your situation. Ad-hoc editorial work is $165 an hour. If you would rather just have your existing content reviewed first, that is $249.
These are actual rules in the review stage, not a description of intent. "Blocks" means the draft stops and is not handed over.
| Feature | What is checked | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Known machine phrasings | 21 specific phrases, each with a defined replacement | Repaired automatically |
| American spelling | Whole-word conversion to Australian, with deliberate exceptions | Repaired automatically |
| A placeholder link left in the text | Any unresolved link target | Blocks the draft |
| A second h1 in the body | WordPress already renders the title as one | Blocks the draft |
| Subject already covered on your site | Checked before writing begins | Never drafted |
| Nothing worth writing about | Every candidate failed the fit test | The run stops and tells you |
The list grows as we find new tells. Rules are tuned per client, because a phrase that reads as filler on one site is ordinary language on another.
Local expertise, transparent process, measurable results.
A clear, efficient process means your project goes live sooner — without cutting corners on quality.
A local team who understands how Melbourne businesses work. Real people, real accountability, same time zone.
Every build is tested across real conditions and edge cases — not just the happy path — before handover.
Fixed quotes agreed in writing up front. No hourly billing surprises, no scope creep on our side.
30 days of post-launch monitoring — we catch issues early and fix them at no extra charge in warranty.
Your work is built by senior developers, not juniors learning on your budget.
A language model writes the first draft, yes, and we are not going to be coy about it. What separates this from pasting a prompt into a chat window is everything after: the subject had to pass a test to be written at all, the draft is checked against a list of known machine phrasings with specific repairs, the spelling is converted to Australian, and a human reads it before anything is public. Describing that as "AI content" is accurate but misses where the work is.
Google's position is that it judges the content, not the author — what it acts against is scaled production intended to manipulate rankings. The risk lives in volume and in publishing things that help nobody, which is why the offer is shaped the way it is and why we decline volume work. If somebody is promising you thirty posts a month, the thing creating your risk is that promise.
It can be configured that way and we will not set it up like that. The review gate is the only thing standing between your site and a paragraph that is confidently wrong about your own business, and we are not prepared to be the supplier who removed it. If unattended publishing is a firm requirement, you want a different vendor and we would rather say that early.
It does not, to begin with, and this is the honest limitation. It knows your existing pages, which is enough to avoid repeating them and to match your general subject matter. It cannot know your prices, your process or the reason customers choose you unless you tell us, and drafts that need those read as generic until they are supplied. The setup work is largely capturing that once so it stops being missing.
You reject it and tell us why, and that is a normal part of the arrangement rather than a fault report. Factual errors about your own business are the common case and the reason the review gate exists. Nothing about the process assumes the drafts arrive correct — it assumes they arrive checkable, which is a different and much more defensible claim.
Yes, outright, including the images. It is in your WordPress installation from the moment it is drafted, and if you stop the arrangement everything published stays yours with nothing to migrate and no licence to keep paying. We have no interest in the sort of dependency where leaving costs you your archive.
Fewer than you are probably being quoted elsewhere. For most small businesses a handful of pieces a month that each answer a real question outperforms four times that number of thin ones, and the pipeline will in any case refuse subjects that do not pass the test. The right number falls out of how much genuinely uncovered ground your field has, which we can assess before you commit to anything.
Often the better first move. Sites with a few years of posts usually have several near-duplicates competing with each other and a handful of pieces that would rank with an hour of work each. Consolidating and improving those is cheaper than new writing and the results arrive sooner. We will tell you if that is your situation rather than starting the meter on new pieces.
No, and it would be misleading to sell it as one. It depends on a language-model gateway we run, so what you would be installing is the half that cannot work alone. It is a managed arrangement: we run the pipeline, you get drafts in your own site. If you specifically want software you host yourself, say so and we will tell you honestly whether that is worth building for you.
A short call, a fixed quote, and no obligation either way.
Get a fixed quoteWhy CloudyWP
Researched drafts checked against 21 known AI phrasings and Australian spelling, delivered to your admin. Nothing publishes itself. We do not sell volume.
Get a fixed quote02 — How we work
Every CloudyWP project runs the same way, whether it is a one-page site or a store with a thousand SKUs. Here is exactly what happens.
01
A single scoping call, then a written plan: what gets built, what it costs, and when it ships. No discovery-phase invoices, no moving targets.
02
Custom WordPress or Shopify on clean code you own outright. Every build ships fast, passes Core Web Vitals, and is handed over documented.
03
Your site talks to the tools you already run — CRM, invoicing, email, stock. The repetitive admin stops being someone's job and starts running itself.
Scope
A fixed quote, in writing
Deliverables, price and dates agreed before a line of code is written.
48 hrs to your quote
