Using AI the Right Way: Strengthening Your ACE or DYCP Application
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:
-
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.
-
ChatGPT praised the "strong, diverse partner ecosystem," noting partnerships with Bravissimo and NHS initiatives "significantly boost credibility." Gemini echoed this.
-
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."
-
ChatGPT flagged the "robust access plan", audio descriptions, BSL interpretation, touch tours, as a clear strength. Concrete accessibility actions earn serious brownie points. It's not enough to say "everyone is welcome"; you need to show how you're removing barriers.
-
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.
-
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 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:
-
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.
-
Both reviews noticed this was missing. Gemini pointed out: "The Risks and challenges' section focuses heavily on operational risk. Since the Arts Council values creative risk, it would strengthen the narrative to mention any creative or artistic risks."
Many applicants focus on proving they're low-risk, but ACE wants to fund innovation.
-
Both suggested more description of what happens after the exhibition. ChatGPT noted: "ACE likes to see lasting impact, not one-off events" and suggested future tours, toolkits, or formalised partnerships.
-
ChatGPT flagged the £13,680 venue hire: "ACE is wary when venue costs take a large proportion of the budget." It suggested explaining what the fee includes and why that specific venue is critical. Gemini similarly noted the split between grant and match funding needed clarifying.
-
ChatGPT said that safeguarding wasn't explicitly mentioned: "ACE increasingly expects safeguarding considerations in creative health work", suggesting trauma-informed facilitators, a designated lead, and signposting to support services.
-
Gemini advised adding numbers: "Specify the expected reach through the NHS CORE20PLUS5 network or how many of CoppaFeel!'s 1 million young people the project realistically expects to convert to visitors."
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 mentioned things like additionality, artistic vs health focus, environmental measures. Supportive, collaborative tone. Can be verbose and generic in phrasing though.
Gemini (Paid): Delivered feedback structured by application section, making it easy to follow. Slightly more formal and analytical. Caught finer points like budget inconsistencies and role clarity. More numbers-savvy.
In practice, both complemented each other. ChatGPT gave broad, criteria-based critique; Gemini gave detailed, line-by-line polish. If you have access to both, use both. 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, how to balance artistic ambition with deliverability. AI can pattern-match generic grant languages. It can't tell you that ACE is currently particularly interested in X, or that assessors tend to flag Y as a concern.
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. AI can review what you've written. It can't help you shape a fundable project in the first place.
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. We included specific, vivid details that bring a project to life. AI can suggest adding more detail. It can't write prose that makes an assessor think "yes, this project needs to happen."
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. It can highlight issues but can't solve them with the nuance and strategic thinking that experienced grant writers bring. It can spot patterns but can't craft authentic, compelling narratives. It can check logic but can't bring deep sector knowledge that shapes fundable projects from the start.
For your own process: keep the reins in your hands, use AI to refine not 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? If you want your project to be one that gets funded rather than one of the many strong applications that don't quite make it? Then 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.”
