I’m Testing 200 ChatGPT Marketing Shortcuts — LIVE on YouTube
An experiment to find out which AI shortcuts actually work for marketers
I came across an interesting article containing 200 ChatGPT shortcut commands specifically designed for marketers, content creators, agencies, and business users.
At first, I could simply bookmark the article and move on.
But I had a different idea.
What if I actually tested every single shortcut?
Not just read the descriptions.
Not just assume they work.
I want to use them on real marketing problems, see what ChatGPT produces, compare the results, rate each shortcut, and document everything.
And I want to do the experiment publicly.
So this is the beginning of my:
200 ChatGPT Marketing Shortcuts Experiment
And yes...
I'm planning to test them LIVE on YouTube.
1. What am I trying to do?
The original article contains 200 custom ChatGPT shortcuts created for marketing and agency workflows.
The shortcuts cover areas such as:
Content & copywriting
Social media & Reels
SEO & research
Client & business communication
Strategy & planning
Productivity
Data & reporting
Brainstorming
Email & outreach
Visual and image prompting
Coding and technical work
Teaching and explanations
Presentations and pitches
Research and fact-finding
Property marketing
Decision-making
The original creator describes these as custom shortcuts: short triggers paired with consistent instructions that can be reused instead of repeatedly writing the same detailed prompt. They are not being presented as an official ChatGPT command system.
That distinction is important.
I'm not trying to discover some hidden feature inside ChatGPT.
I'm trying to answer a much more practical question:
Do these shortcuts actually make working with ChatGPT better?
2. Why am I testing them?
There are thousands of AI prompts and shortcuts available online.
But there's a problem.
A shortcut can look incredibly useful when someone explains it.
Actually using it can be completely different.
For example, a shortcut might promise to:
"Create better hooks."
Okay.
But how much better?
Is it actually better than simply telling ChatGPT:
"Give me 10 strong hooks for this video"?
Does the shortcut save time?
Does it produce more consistent results?
Does it give a marketer something they can actually use?
That's what I want to discover.
3. I'm not trying to prove the shortcuts work
This is probably the most important part of the experiment.
I'm not starting with the assumption that all 200 shortcuts are amazing.
Some might be excellent.
Some might be average.
Some might be redundant.
Some might work only with certain inputs.
Some might be completely unnecessary.
And that's okay.
My goal is not:
200 shortcuts = 200 useful tools
My goal is:
200 shortcuts → 200 tests → real observations → useful conclusions
If only 20 shortcuts turn out to be genuinely useful, that's a valuable result.
If 150 turn out to be useful, that's also a valuable result.
I won't know until I test them.
4. How will I test each shortcut?
I want to use a consistent testing system.
For every shortcut, I'll record:
1. Shortcut
Which command am I testing?
2. Intended purpose
What is the shortcut supposed to help me accomplish?
3. Real test
I'll give it an actual marketing-related task.
4. Output
What does ChatGPT actually produce?
5. Quality
Is the output good enough to use?
6. Normal prompt comparison
Could I have achieved essentially the same thing with a normal ChatGPT prompt?
7. Time saved
Did the shortcut actually make the task faster?
8. My rating
I'll rate the shortcut from 1 to 5.
9. Final verdict
I'll classify it as:
KEEP — genuinely useful.
MAYBE — useful in specific situations.
SKIP — little or no advantage.
5. My rating system
I'll use a simple five-star system.
⭐ 1/5 — Useless
I don't see a meaningful advantage.
⭐⭐ 2/5 — Weak
It works, but I probably wouldn't use it.
⭐⭐⭐ 3/5 — Decent
Useful sometimes, but nothing special.
⭐⭐⭐⭐ 4/5 — Very useful
I can see myself using this regularly.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5/5 — Excellent
This genuinely improves the workflow.
6. I'm going to test them with real problems
I don't want to test marketing shortcuts using meaningless examples.
I'll use realistic situations.
For example, instead of testing a hook-writing shortcut with:
"Write a hook about marketing."
I might test it with:
"Create a YouTube hook for a video where I'm testing 200 ChatGPT marketing shortcuts live."
That gives me something I can actually evaluate.
Similarly, an SEO shortcut could be tested on a real article idea.
A social media shortcut could be tested on an actual post.
A client shortcut could be tested against a realistic client situation.
A decision-making shortcut could be tested against an actual project decision.
This should make the experiment much more interesting.
7. The YouTube LIVE experiment
This is where the project gets interesting.
I don't want to test all 200 shortcuts privately and only show the final winners.
I want people to watch the process.
So I'm planning to test them through YouTube Live streams.
The basic format will be:
Shortcut → Real task → ChatGPT output → My reaction → Evaluation → Rating → Next shortcut
For example:
/hookline
Task:
Create a YouTube opening for my experiment.
Output:
I'll read the result.
Then I'll ask:
Is this actually a good hook?
Would I use it?
Is it better than a normal prompt?
Did the shortcut save me time?
Then:
Rating: 4/5
And move on.
8. The audience can participate
One reason I want to do this live is that viewers can become part of the experiment.
Someone watching might say:
"Try that shortcut with a completely different topic."
Or:
"Compare it with a normal prompt."
Or:
"Try combining that shortcut with another one."
That could lead to experiments I wouldn't have thought of myself.
So the livestream becomes:
Me + ChatGPT + audience
9. How many shortcuts per livestream?
I don't want to force all 200 into one giant stream.
That would probably become exhausting.
Instead, I'll divide the experiment into multiple sessions.
For example:
LIVE 01
Testing Marketing Shortcuts #1–25
LIVE 02
Testing #26–50
LIVE 03
Testing #51–75
LIVE 04
Testing #76–100
LIVE 05
Testing #101–125
LIVE 06
Testing #126–150
LIVE 07
Testing #151–175
LIVE 08
Testing #176–200
The exact number per stream can change depending on how long each test takes.
10. The LIVE scoreboard
I want viewers to be able to see the progress immediately.
Something like:
200 SHORTCUT EXPERIMENT
TESTED: 37 / 200
KEEP: 21
MAYBE: 10
SKIP: 6
AVERAGE RATING: 3.7/5
This makes the experiment feel like a challenge.
Every livestream moves the counter closer to:
200 / 200
11. Some tests I'm particularly interested in
There are several categories that I think could produce interesting results.
Content
Can shortcuts actually make content creation faster?
I'll test:
first drafts
rewriting
hooks
captions
content structures
calls to action
Social media
Can one piece of content really be transformed into multiple useful formats?
I'll test:
Reels
captions
carousels
engagement questions
content calendars
repurposing
SEO
This is one area where I want to be especially careful.
I'll test things like:
search intent
keyword grouping
heading structures
content gaps
FAQs
metadata
But I'll also check whether the suggestions make actual SEO sense rather than blindly trusting the AI.
Marketing strategy
Can a shortcut actually help make a business decision?
I'll test:
competitor analysis
positioning
pricing
prioritization
risks
partnerships
idea validation
Client work
This could be particularly useful for agencies and freelancers.
I'll test shortcuts for:
client updates
follow-ups
scope problems
deadlines
handoffs
objections
testimonials
Research
I'll test whether the shortcuts help organize research without confusing AI-generated suggestions with verified facts.
This is important because a shortcut can help structure research, but the shortcut itself doesn't make information automatically true.
12. What happens if a shortcut fails?
I'll document that too.
If a shortcut produces a poor result, I won't hide it.
I'll try to understand why.
Maybe:
the input was bad
the instruction was too vague
the shortcut overlaps with another one
ChatGPT needs additional context
the shortcut simply isn't very useful
Sometimes I may run a second test to see whether the result changes with better context.
That itself becomes part of the experiment.
13. What I want to discover
At the end of the experiment, I want to answer questions like:
How many of the 200 shortcuts are actually useful?
Which category performs best?
Which category has the most repetitive shortcuts?
Which shortcuts save the most time?
Which shortcuts produce the best outputs?
Which shortcuts are better than normal prompts?
Which shortcuts are overrated?
Which shortcuts surprised me?
Which shortcuts would I actually use in my daily workflow?
And finally:
If I could keep only 10, which 10 would I choose?
14. The experiment doesn't end with 200 tests
The 200 tests are actually the beginning of the analysis.
After completing them, I want to create a final ranking.
Something like:
🏆 My Top 10
The ten shortcuts I genuinely want to keep.
🥇 Best for Content
The strongest content shortcut.
🥇 Best for SEO
The strongest SEO shortcut.
🥇 Best for Social Media
The strongest social shortcut.
🥇 Best for Strategy
The strongest strategy shortcut.
🥇 Biggest Surprise
The shortcut I didn't expect to like.
🗑️ Most Overrated
The shortcut that sounded better than it performed.
15. What content can come from one experiment?
This is another reason I'm interested in doing this publicly.
One experiment can produce a lot of content.
YouTube LIVE
The complete testing process.
YouTube videos
I can turn the results into edited videos.
For example:
"I Tested 50 ChatGPT Marketing Shortcuts"
"The 10 Best ChatGPT Shortcuts for Marketers"
"I Tested ChatGPT's Marketing Shortcuts So You Don't Have To"
YouTube Shorts
Individual discoveries can become Shorts.
For example:
"I found a ChatGPT shortcut that actually makes writing hooks easier."
Or:
"This ChatGPT marketing shortcut was completely useless."
Blog updates
Every batch can become a new experiment update.
Social media
Interesting results can become LinkedIn posts, Instagram content, or other updates.
16. The final project
At the end, I want this to become more than a livestream series.
I want to have a complete public record of the experiment.
The final project could contain:
200 shortcuts
↓
200 tests
↓
200 ratings
↓
Best shortcuts
↓
Worst shortcuts
↓
Unexpected discoveries
↓
Final Top 10
↓
What I learned
17. What could I get from this even if the experiment doesn't go perfectly?
Even if the shortcuts aren't particularly useful, the experiment still gives me something.
A YouTube series
Multiple livestreams and videos.
A case study
A documented AI experiment.
A personal marketing toolkit
The shortcuts that survive the testing become my own working toolkit.
A dataset
I can eventually organize the results into a spreadsheet containing:
shortcut
category
test case
output quality
rating
usefulness
time saved
final verdict
A portfolio project
It demonstrates experimentation, AI usage, marketing knowledge, content creation, analysis, and documentation.
A final report
I can publish what I learned after testing all 200.
18. Credit to the original creator
This experiment is based on the 200 ChatGPT Shortcut Commands for Marketers & Agencies published by Rhea Goel on Artea on August 15, 2026.
The original article contains the 200 shortcuts and their intended uses. I'm using that collection as the starting point for my independent testing experiment.
Original source:
200 ChatGPT Shortcut Commands for Marketers & Agencies — Artea
All testing, ratings, observations, comparisons, experiments, and conclusions in this project will be my own.
19. Where this experiment starts
Right now, I have no idea how many of these 200 shortcuts will survive my testing.
Maybe most of them will be useful.
Maybe only 50.
Maybe 20.
Maybe I'll discover that a normal well-written prompt is better than many of these shortcuts.
I don't know.
And that's exactly why I want to test them.
I'm starting with:
200 shortcuts
0 tests completed
And the goal is:
200 / 200
One shortcut at a time.
One real test at a time.
One livestream at a time.
Let's see what actually works.
Comments
Post a Comment