Thomas, I agree with you about a copywriter's role and expertise. My point is that there ARE differences in the copy produced by a capable wordsmith versus a writer that understands and considers things like SERP features, semantic scope, mobile vs desktop experience, the role of supporting assets, etc. I've spent so much time massaging professional copy that, by the time it was passably optimized, I had basically done it myself. So yes, I already pay 2x for optimized web copy (and code). The problem is that_ half of that cost is my time_. I would definitely pay a premium for a copywriter with SEO chops.
I digress... The question is whether decent web page / blog copy published via wysiwyg is any more or less successful, SEO-wise, than the same copy coded by hand (by which I mean foundational SEO, not ninja guru jedi sh*t). I'm asking a specific technical question; wysiswyg vs hand coding.
There is clear consensus here that coding by hand (done well) has a better chance to rank on the Google. That's pretty obvious, really. That is not the thrust of the question. Good copywriters write good copy. Good SEOs do good SEO.
Copywriting is tough. We ask these professionals to become experts in topics (and their page-level details) in a matter of just a few (billable) hours. On the other hand, we SEOs spend weeks, months, and years with our clients. We understand their market, audience, vernacular, and differentiating nuance. I don't envy the copywriters' challenge, but I will pay a premium for a unicorn who can do it all.
...I digress again... This is a technical question: What is the delta for the same copy produced via wysiwyg vs. by hand?