In our previous blog , we showed how unsupervised AI can tank your funding bid. But here's the thing: AI isn't the enemy. When used properly, as a tool rather than a replacement for your brain, it can actually strengthen your Arts Council England application.
The difference between AI-as-disaster and AI-as-asset comes down to one thing: keeping yourself firmly in the driver's seat. In this blog, we're showing you what happened when we put our successfully funded Pink Stitch application through two AI “assessors”, ChatGPT and Gemini.
We asked them: “Could you please review this Arts Council England application, giving critical feedback and suggestions where relevant?”
The results were fascinating. Both provided detailed, section-by-section feedback. We'll explore what these AI reviews got right, where they spotted genuine weaknesses, and most importantly, why working with expert human fundraising support is what actually gets projects funded.
Think of AI as your smart editor or that brutally honest mate who'll tell you when something's not quite working, except this one's available at 3am and doesn't need a cup of tea first.
What AI Reviews Actually Got Right
One of the most useful ways to use AI is as a pre-submission reviewer. Our experiment with Pink Stitch showed this can genuinely work. Here's what both ChatGPT and Gemini correctly identified as strengths:
1. Clear Community Focus
Both immediately noted Pink Stitch addressed a “strong community need”, breast cancer awareness and creative expression for women. If an AI can see your project addresses a defined need, chances are human assessors will too.
2. Strong Partnerships
ChatGPT praised the “strong, diverse partner ecosystem”, noting partnerships with Bravissimo and NHS initiatives “significantly boost credibility.” Gemini echoed this.
3. Co-Creation
Gemini highlighted the “strong co-creation model” with three of four workshop artists being breast cancer survivors themselves. ChatGPT commented on the inclusive leadership and co-design.
4. Accessibility Measures
ChatGPT flagged the “robust access plan” — audio descriptions, BSL interpretation and touch tours — as a clear strength. It's not enough to say “everyone is welcome”; you need to show how you're removing barriers.
5. Clear Structure
Both noted Pink Stitch was well organised with a realistic timeline. ChatGPT praised the “clear timeline and planning.” If your AI reviewer doesn't mention your planning, that section probably needs clarifying.
6. Budget Clarity
Gemini noted how income perfectly matched expenditure and commitments to fair pay and protected accessibility costs. It even caught that the £800 digital marketing spend was mentioned in the narrative but not clearly shown in the budget table.
This tells us AI can help confirm whether key elements are coming through clearly. If AI spots these strengths in your draft, that's probably what to emphasise even more.
Where AI Spotted Genuine Weaknesses
But AI also provided substantial suggestions for improvement, even though Pink Stitch was already funded. Many aligned with reasons ACE might reject applications:
1. Highlight the Art, Not Just the Cause
ChatGPT said the narrative risked over-emphasising health messaging at the expense of art: “ACE occasionally rejects creative health projects if assessors feel the artistic idea is overshadowed by health messaging.”
This is crucial: ACE funds artistic projects with social benefits, not social projects that happen to involve art.
2. Explicitly Mention Creative Risk
Both reviews noticed this was missing. Gemini pointed out that the risks section focused heavily on operational risk and suggested explicitly addressing creative or artistic risk too.
Many applicants focus on proving they're low-risk, but ACE wants to fund innovation.
3. Strengthen Legacy
Both suggested more detail about what happens after the exhibition. ChatGPT noted that ACE likes to see lasting impact rather than one-off events and suggested future tours, toolkits or formalised partnerships.
4. Justify High Costs
ChatGPT flagged the £13,680 venue hire and suggested explaining what the fee includes and why that particular venue is critical. Gemini similarly noted that the split between grant and match funding needed clarifying.
5. Safeguarding Details
ChatGPT said safeguarding wasn't explicitly mentioned and suggested trauma-informed facilitators, a designated lead and signposting to support services.
6. Quantify Impact
Gemini advised adding numbers: expected reach through networks, realistic audience conversion and other measurable indicators that make the project's anticipated impact more concrete.
These are genuinely useful catches. It's like having a virtual grant mentor prod you with questions.
ChatGPT vs. Gemini: Which Is Better?
Both have strengths
ChatGPT (Free): Provided high-level critique, almost like an ACE assessor's summary. Very ACE-aware, explicitly mentioning things such as additionality, artistic versus health focus and environmental measures. The tone was supportive and collaborative, although it could be verbose and generic.
Gemini (Paid): Delivered feedback structured by application section, making it easy to follow. It was slightly more formal and analytical and caught finer points such as budget inconsistencies and role clarity.
In practice, both complemented each other. ChatGPT gave broad, criteria-based critique; Gemini gave detailed, line-by-line polish. If both flag the same issue, that's a clear sign to act.
Always remember: AI can be off. Treat feedback as suggestions, not gospel. You know your project best.
Why Pink Stitch Actually Got Funded
Here's the crucial bit: Pink Stitch didn't get funded because someone used AI to review it. It got funded because it was written by fundraisers who know ACE inside out.
We've got years of experience understanding what assessors actually look for beyond official criteria. We know which buzzwords to avoid, which evidence carries weight, and how to balance artistic ambition with deliverability.
Pink Stitch wasn't written then reviewed. It was strategically developed from the ground up. We shaped the project to align with fundable criteria whilst staying true to artistic vision, identified the right funding stream, built partnerships strategically, developed realistic budgets and created evaluation frameworks that measure what ACE actually wants measured.
The application told a story that made assessors care. We preserved the applicant's authentic voice whilst ensuring every word worked hard to build the case.
Could someone use AI to review their draft and improve it? Absolutely. But there's a world of difference between “improved” and “funded.”
Conclusion: Use AI Wisely, But Know When You Need the Real Thing
AI can help strengthen your application. ChatGPT and Gemini each offered useful perspectives in our experiment. But AI can't replace professional fundraising expertise.
For your own process: keep the reins in your hands, use AI to refine rather than originate content, and always align changes with ACE's priorities and your authentic voice.
Done well, AI input can help you submit a clearer, more complete application. But if you're serious about maximising your chances, consider investing in professional fundraising support.
Good luck with your application, and whether you use AI, professional support, or both, may your creative vision find the funding it deserves.