Skip to content
The infrastructure behind the executive voice.
Talk to our team →
MenuTalk to our team →

The assistant delivers a piece of copy. What is missing is everything that comes after it.

General-purpose assistants do not access anybody's account: the executive writes the prompt, reviews the output and posts by hand. It is cheap, it is safe as far as credentials go, and for plenty of people it is enough. The enterprise versions do let you load the company's context and rules — what they do not carry is the path between finished copy and a post that is live, every week.

Cost

A monthly subscription against a contract. For an executive publishing occasionally, it is the obvious choice and we are expensive.

No account access

The executive copies and pastes. There is no credential in play, which is a real security advantage over scheduling tools.

Immediate

No onboarding, no immersion, no contract. Open it and use it.

The company's context

ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini

On the enterprise plan you can build an agent with the company's context and rules. Building and maintaining that agent is the work: integrating with an external system goes through IT or through data specialists, and joins a queue where communications is rarely the priority.

Katalista

It arrives ready. The editorial line and the voice guide are written once, per executive and per company, and used every time — without taking up your IT queue.

How the piece goes live

ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini

By hand. The executive copies, pastes and publishes, because there is no integration with the official LinkedIn API.

Katalista

Published through the official LinkedIn API, authorised by the executive in the interface itself and revocable by him.

Who keeps up with what changes on LinkedIn

ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini

Nobody. The model writes well, and it is not updated on the platform's format, distribution and good practice.

Katalista

That is our job. What changes on the platform goes into what we produce, with nobody on your side having to follow it.

Compliance

ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini

No check of any kind. The model does not know what your legal team prohibits, and the responsibility sits entirely with whoever publishes.

Katalista

Your legal team's restrictions become an automatic check before the piece reaches the executive.

Who guarantees the cadence?

ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini

The executive. That is why most of these programmes stop in the second month.

Katalista

We propose the angle, and someone on your team can run his dashboard by delegation. He comes in for the voice note and the approval.

Approval trail

ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini

There is none. There is no record of who approved what.

Katalista

Per piece, with a timestamp.

Does it sound like the person?

ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini

It sounds like the model, unless the executive knows how to direct it — which is a job in itself.

Katalista

The voice comes from an immersion interview and a five-minute voice note per piece, and the executive approves it before it goes out.

For one post a month on a single profile, the assistant covers it. From three executives publishing twice a week, with compliance rules and an approval trail, it stops keeping up — and the home-made workaround, an executive plugging his own agent into a third-party service to publish for him, puts the person with access to confidential information precisely outside any governance.

Talk to our team
See every comparison