DeepSeek R1 vs ChatGPT: What the Hype Gets Wrong — A Marketer's Real Assessment

type

Post

status

Published

date

Feb 5, 2025

slug

deepseek-r1-review-marketing-ai-tools-2025

summary

DeepSeek R1 made headlines in early 2025 — but should marketers and small businesses actually use it? A 15-year digital marketing consultant cuts through the hype with a practical breakdown.

The Week Everyone Asked Me If They Should Switch

The third week of January 2025, my phone wouldn't stop.

Clients, collaborators, a few founders I'd been advising — all some version of the same message: "Have you seen DeepSeek? Should we be switching? Is ChatGPT dead?"

It had been maybe five days since DeepSeek R1 hit the App Store. Within a week it had knocked ChatGPT off the top of the download charts — which, if you follow the AI space at all, felt roughly equivalent to a regional brand showing up at the Super Bowl and outselling Nike. US technology stocks dropped sharply on the news, with estimates of around $1 trillion wiped from valuations in a matter of days. The reaction was somewhere between genuine excitement and low-grade panic, depending on who you asked.

I've been using AI tools daily for client work since the early wave — content workflows, campaign analysis, research, platform strategy across TikTok, META, Google and Xiaohongshu. So the question of whether DeepSeek R1 was worth switching to wasn't abstract for me. I needed an actual answer, not a hot take.

Here's what I found after spending real time with it.

What DeepSeek R1 Actually Is — And Why It Caused a Stir

DeepSeek R1 was officially released on January 10, 2025, with its model weights open-sourced under the MIT license ten days later. It was built by a Chinese AI lab and developed at a reported cost of approximately $5.6 million — a figure that got passed around in every headline because, for context, GPT-4's estimated development cost was around $100 million.

That cost gap is the story everyone latched onto, and it's a real story. The efficiency of what the DeepSeek team achieved with comparatively limited compute is genuinely impressive from an engineering standpoint. In benchmark tests across coding, mathematics and scientific reasoning, R1 performed competitively against models that cost far more to build and run.

The open-source angle matters too. Released under MIT licence, R1 can be freely used, modified and deployed — which is a meaningful difference from the closed systems that dominate the market. For developers, for researchers, and for companies that want to run models on their own infrastructure, that flexibility has real value.

So the excitement wasn't manufactured. Something significant happened.

But benchmarks and headlines are not the same as usefulness in practice, and this is where the story gets more complicated.

The Number Nobody Was Talking About

In the middle of all the coverage — the App Store charts, the stock market reaction, the think-pieces about whether this was America's "Sputnik moment" in AI — there was a data point that kept getting buried.

DeepSeek R1's hallucination rate is significantly higher than the models it was being compared to.

Hallucination, in AI terms, means the model generates information that sounds plausible but is factually incorrect or entirely fabricated. It's the AI equivalent of a very confident colleague who occasionally just invents things without realising it.

The research on R1's hallucination rate surfaced a few specific patterns worth understanding:

The "over-helpful" problem. R1 tends to add information that wasn't in the source material, even when that addition might seem reasonable. About 71.7% of R1's hallucinations fall into this category — the model essentially filling gaps with plausible-sounding content it generated rather than knew. For comparison, DeepSeek's own V3 model shows this pattern in only 36.8% of its hallucinations. That gap is significant.

The reasoning chain creates more opportunities to go wrong. R1 shows its thinking process — which is genuinely useful for transparency and for understanding how it reached a conclusion. But longer chains of reasoning also mean more steps where a small error can compound. R1's average token output per query is around 4,717 — compared to 191 to 462 for most competing models. It's doing a lot more work, which creates a lot more surface area for mistakes.

The real cost calculation. R1's per-token pricing is dramatically lower than GPT-o1: approximately $0.55 per million input tokens versus $15. That sounds like a no-brainer until you factor in that R1 is generating 10 to 25 times as many tokens per query. The actual cost differential is much smaller than the headline number, and in some use cases disappears entirely.

What This Means If You're Running a Small Team or a One-Person Operation

Let me be direct about why this matters practically, because I think the hallucination conversation often gets too abstract.

If you're using an AI tool to help you draft social media captions or brainstorm campaign angles, a higher hallucination rate is a manageable inconvenience. You're going to read and edit the output anyway. A plausible-sounding fake statistic in a first draft is annoying, not catastrophic — you catch it before it goes anywhere.

But if you're using AI to research a market, fact-check competitor claims, summarise a report for a client presentation, or support any kind of decision that has real consequences — the stakes are different. A 14% error rate on factual content is not a minor quirk. Imagine building a client proposal around a figure that turns out to be fabricated by your AI tool. Or sending a report to a brand director with incorrect data you didn't catch because you trusted the output. That's not a hypothetical risk; it's a pattern that will eventually catch up with anyone who doesn't account for it.

I've worked with clients ranging from early-stage startups to regional brand teams where one person is managing the entire marketing function. In both contexts, trust is the most fragile and most valuable asset you have. One credibility slip — one piece of content or one client-facing document with an AI-generated error you didn't catch — can cost you more than weeks of recovered productivity from using a cheaper tool.

This isn't an argument against using DeepSeek R1. It's an argument for using it with a clear-eyed sense of where it's appropriate and where it isn't.

When DeepSeek R1 Is Actually Worth Using

Having spent time with it, here's where I think R1 genuinely earns its place in a working toolkit:

Exploratory research and brainstorming. When you're in early-stage thinking — generating ideas, exploring angles, mapping out a topic — the hallucination rate matters less because you're not treating the output as ground truth anyway. R1's reasoning chain is actually valuable here. Watching it think through a problem produces ideas you might not get from a model that just delivers a clean answer.

Coding and technical problem-solving. Its benchmark performance in coding is legitimate, and for developers or technically-oriented marketers building tools or automations, it's worth testing directly against your specific use cases.

Price-sensitive high-volume workflows. If you're running large volumes of lower-stakes text generation — internal documents, first-draft outlines, content that will be heavily edited — the cost advantage can add up, as long as you're building in verification steps.

When open-source deployment matters. If you need to run a model on your own infrastructure for data privacy reasons — which is increasingly a concern for brands operating in both North American and Chinese markets — the MIT licence is a meaningful advantage.

Where I'd be more cautious: anything client-facing, anything involving factual claims, anything that goes out under your name or your brand's name without a thorough human review pass. The efficiency gains don't justify the risk if you're not building in that review step.

The Bigger Question the DeepSeek Moment Is Asking

The reaction to DeepSeek R1 revealed something about how we talk about AI that's worth pausing on.

The narrative moved incredibly fast — from release to "ChatGPT killer" to stock market panic to backlash to nuanced reassessment — and at almost every stage, the conversation was more about the meaning of DeepSeek than about what the model actually does well and where it falls short. The geopolitical angle, the cost angle, the open-source angle — all of these are real and interesting. But they're not the same as "is this useful for the work I'm actually doing?"

This is a pattern worth noticing because it's going to repeat. AI development is moving fast enough that there will be another DeepSeek moment — another release that causes a wave of "should I switch?" messages. The useful question to ask each time isn't "is this impressive?" but "what specifically is this better at, and what does it cost in accuracy or reliability to get that advantage?"

For marketers and small business owners especially, the temptation to chase the newest and cheapest option is real when budgets are tight. But AI tools are infrastructure now — they're embedded in research, content, client communication, analysis. Optimising for cost without accounting for error rate is like buying the cheapest possible accounting software because the subscription is lower, without checking whether it gets the numbers right.

The right framework isn't "which AI tool is best?" It's "which AI tool is best for this specific task, at this specific risk tolerance, with these specific verification steps in place?" DeepSeek R1 answers that question well for some tasks. For others, the answer is still ChatGPT, Claude, or something else entirely. And that's fine — a toolkit is supposed to have more than one tool in it.

❓ FAQ

Q: Should marketers use DeepSeek R1 in 2025? A: For brainstorming, research exploration, and lower-stakes content drafting — yes, it's worth testing. For anything client-facing, factual, or decision-critical, build in strong verification steps or stick with models that have lower hallucination rates. DeepSeek R1 is a useful tool in the right context, not a universal upgrade.

Q: Is DeepSeek R1 actually cheaper than ChatGPT? A: The per-token price is dramatically lower, but R1 generates 10 to 25 times more tokens per query than most competing models. The real cost difference is much smaller than headlines suggest, and for some use cases the cost is similar or higher. Factor in actual token usage, not just the headline price, before making a decision.

Q: What is AI hallucination and why does it matter for marketing? A: AI hallucination is when a model generates confident-sounding content that is factually incorrect or fabricated. For marketing, this matters because incorrect data in a client report, a campaign brief, or a published piece of content can damage your credibility seriously. DeepSeek R1's hallucination rate is notably higher than competing models — a real consideration for professional use.

Q: How does DeepSeek R1 compare to ChatGPT for social media content? A: For generating creative options, exploring angles, and drafting content that you'll edit heavily, R1 performs well and the lower cost can be attractive at volume. For anything requiring accurate facts, statistics, or specific claims, the higher hallucination rate means more careful review is needed versus GPT-4 or Claude.

Q: Is DeepSeek R1 safe to use for client work? A: With appropriate verification, yes — but that verification step is non-negotiable. The same way you'd fact-check research from any AI tool before it goes to a client, R1 requires the same diligence, arguably more. The risk isn't that it's unusable; it's that its confident output style can make errors easy to miss if you're moving fast.