# Marketing council Human Guide

## What This Is For
When the user wants multiple expert perspectives on a marketing question — a simulated board of advisors staffed by legendary marketers (Seth Godin, David Ogilvy, Eugene Schwartz, April. It gives the agent a clearer input/output frame for marketing council: what context to ask for, what decisions to make, and what usable artifact to return.

Use this as a human-readable version of the Marketing council agent skill. It is meant for marketers, operators, founders, and other non-coders who want the workflow without reading agent-specific implementation instructions.

## When To Use This
- Use this when you need a repeatable process for marketing council.
- Use this when the task needs judgment, examples, constraints, or a clear output format rather than a one-off prompt.
- Use this when you want to hand an AI assistant enough context to produce a usable marketing artifact.

## When Not To Use This
- Do not use this when you only need a quick factual answer.
- Do not use this when the work depends on private data you cannot share with the assistant.
- Do not use this as a replacement for legal, compliance, financial, or medical review.

## What You Need Before Starting
- The goal or business outcome you want.
- The audience, customer segment, or market context.
- Any source material the assistant should respect, such as notes, briefs, examples, URLs, or brand guidance.
- Constraints such as tone, length, channel, deadline, region, or approval requirements.
- A clear definition of what a good final answer should look like.

## Step-By-Step Workflow
1. State the job clearly: "Use the Marketing council guide to help me with..."
2. Add context: audience, goal, offer, channel, source material, and constraints.
3. Ask the assistant to identify missing inputs before producing the final output.
4. Have the assistant follow the skill-specific guidance below.
5. Review the result against the final checklist and ask for revisions where needed.

## Skill-Specific Guidance
- **The question** — What decision or work product is the council reviewing? (a strategy, a landing page, a pricing change, a launch plan, a rebrand, an ad account)
- **The stakes** — What happens if this goes well or badly? What's already been tried?
- **Session mode** — quick take, council session, or full council (see below). Default: council session.
- **2–3 whose lens directly fits the question type** (table below).
- **Always seat at least one designated dissenter** — an advisor whose documented position conflicts with where the question is leaning. A council that agrees is a mirror, not a board.
- Honor explicit requests ("I want Hormozi and Godin on this").
- **Load the seated advisors' dossiers** from `references/advisors/`.
- **Optional live research pass** — see below. Offer it when the question is specific enough that documented positions may not cover it, or the user wants citations.
- **Each advisor's take** — 2–4 paragraphs per advisor:
- Open with the advisor applying their *signature questions* to the user's case
- Apply their frameworks to the specifics (their dossier lists them) — not generic advice with a name attached
- State their recommendation with the conviction they'd actually have

## Decision Points And Nuance
The original skill emphasizes: Before Starting, Session Modes, The Bench, Seating the Council, Session Protocol, Live Research Pass, Grounding Rules (non-negotiable), Output Format, The question before the council, Seated: [Advisor A], [Advisor B], [Advisor C] ([mode]).

Use these questions to steer the work:
- What is the intended audience or buyer?
- What source material must be preserved?
- What should the assistant optimize for: clarity, persuasion, accuracy, speed, creativity, or conversion?
- What examples represent the desired quality bar?
- What should the assistant avoid?

## Common Mistakes
- **This is persona simulation, not the real people.** Every take must be grounded in what the advisor actually wrote or said (see Grounding Rules). Label the output as simulation.
- | Offer / pricing | Hormozi, Halbert, Brunson | Sutherland (price ≠ value logic), Godin (race-to-the-bottom warning) |
- **No invented endorsements or condemnations.** An advisor can be simulated *applying their framework* to the user's product; never state or imply the real person has an opinion about the user's specific company.
- **Disagree in substance, not caricature.** Each advisor's take must be the strongest version of their view applied to this case — no strawmen for the synthesis to knock down.
- **Tripwire:** [which advisor's warning to monitor, and the signal]
- "Rebrand debate includes Sharp's distinctive-assets/memory-structures warning",
- Never compete on price — premium pricing justified by stacked value and guarantees; discounting signals low value.
- **"So what? Because…" test** (*Everybody Writes*): Interrogate every piece until you reach reader-relevant value; if you can't, don't publish.

## Copy-And-Paste Prompt
```text
Use the Marketing council human guide.

My goal:
[Describe the business outcome]

Audience:
[Describe who this is for]

Context and source material:
[Paste notes, examples, links, or existing copy]

Constraints:
[Tone, length, channel, timeline, must-include items, must-avoid items]

Before producing the final output, ask me for any missing information that would materially improve the result.
```

## Final Checklist
- [ ] The output matches the original goal.
- [ ] The audience and context are reflected in the answer.
- [ ] Important constraints and source material were preserved.
- [ ] The assistant made the relevant decisions explicit.
- [ ] The final artifact is ready to use, review, or hand to the next person.

## Source
This guide was generated from the coreyhaines31/marketingskills skill entry for `marketing-council`.

## Source Skill Notes
These notes preserve the nuance from the original skill. Use them as supporting reference when the workflow above feels too generic.

# Marketing Council

You convene a **simulated board of marketing advisors**: legendary marketers whose documented frameworks, published positions, and known heuristics you apply to the user's specific problem. The value isn't any single take — it's the *disagreement*. The bench is built from thinkers whose lenses conflict in useful ways, so the user sees the real trade-offs before choosing a direction.

**This is persona simulation, not the real people.** Every take must be grounded in what the advisor actually wrote or said (see Grounding Rules). Label the output as simulation.

## Before Starting

**Check for product marketing context first:**
If `.agents/product-marketing.md` exists (or `.claude/product-marketing.md`, or the legacy `product-marketing-context.md`), read it before asking questions.

Then clarify (ask only for what's missing):
1. **The question** — What decision or work product is the council reviewing? (a strategy, a landing page, a pricing change, a launch plan, a rebrand, an ad account)
2. **The stakes** — What happens if this goes well or badly? What's already been tried?
3. **Session mode** — quick take, council session, or full council (see below). Default: council session.

## Session Modes

| Mode | Seats | When |
|------|-------|------|
| **Quick take** | 1 advisor | "What would Ogilvy say about this headline?" — a single named advisor |
| **Council session** (default) | 3–5 advisors | A real decision that benefits from conflicting lenses |
| **Full council** | All 12 | Major strategic decisions — expect a long output; offer this only when stakes justify it |

## The Bench

Twelve advisors, chosen so their lenses collide. Full dossiers live in `references/advisors/` — load only the seated advisors' files.

| Advisor | Lens | File |
|---------|------|------|
| **Seth Godin** | Remarkability, permission, smallest viable audience | [seth-godin.md](references/advisors/seth-godin.md) |
| **David Ogilvy** | Research-driven brand advertising with direct-response discipline | [david-ogilvy.md](references/advisors/david-ogilvy.md) |
| **Eugene Schwartz** | Channel existing mass desire; awareness & sophistication stages | [eugene-schwartz.md](references/advisors/eugene-schwartz.md) |
| **Claude Hopkins** | Scientific advertising — test everything, reason-why copy | [claude-hopkins.md](references/advisors/claude-hopkins.md) |
| **Gary Halbert** | The starving crowd — market and list before product and copy | [gary-halbert.md](references/advisors/gary-halbert.md) |
| **Russell Brunson** | Funnels, value ladders, hook-story-offer | [russell-brunson.md](references/advisors/russell-brunson.md) |
| **Alex Hormozi** | Offer construction and the value equation; volume and leverage | [alex-hormozi.md](references/advisors/alex-hormozi.md) |
| **April Dunford** | Positioning against real competitive alternatives | [april-dunford.md](references/advisors/april-dunford.md) |
| **Rory Sutherland** | Behavioral science and psycho-logic; the opposite of a good idea can also be a good idea | [rory-sutherland.md](references/advisors/rory-sutherland.md) |
| **Byron Sharp** | Evidence-based brand science — mental & physical availability, reach over loyalty | [byron-sharp.md](references/advisors/byron-sharp.md) |
| **Ann Handley** | Content and writing craft; slower, braver marketing | [ann-handley.md](references/advisors/ann-handley.md) |
| **Gary Vaynerchuk** | Attention arbitrage — be native to underpriced channels at volume | [gary-vaynerchuk.md](references/advisors/gary-vaynerchuk.md) |

## Seating the Council

For a council session, seat 3–5 advisors:

1. **2–3 whose lens directly fits the question type** (table below).
2. **Always seat at least one designated dissenter** — an advisor whose documented position conflicts with where the question is leaning. A council that agrees is a mirror, not a board.
3. Honor explicit requests ("I want Hormozi and Godin on this").

| Question type | Strong fits | Natural dissenters |
|---------------|-------------|-------------------|
| Positioning / messaging | Dunford, Godin, Schwartz | Sharp (differentiation skeptic) |
| Offer / pricing | Hormozi, Halbert, Brunson | Sutherland (price ≠ value logic), Godin (race-to-the-bottom warning) |
| Brand building / awareness | Sharp, Ogilvy, Sutherland | Hopkins, Halbert (show me the sales) |
| Copy / creative review | Ogilvy, Schwartz, Halbert, Handley | Sutherland (test the illogical) |
| Funnels / conversion path | Brunson, Hormozi, Hopkins | Godin (permission over pressure), Handley (you're churning trust) |
| Content strategy | Handley, Godin, Vaynerchuk | Sharp (reach beats depth), Hopkins (where's the response?) |
| Paid ads / media | Hopkins, Sharp, Vaynerchuk | Godin (interruption is a tax) |
| Growth / scaling | Hormozi, Vaynerchuk, Sharp | Handley (quality erosion), Dunford (scaling a fuzzy position) |
| Audience / channel choice | Vaynerchuk, Sharp, Halbert | Godin (smallest viable audience vs. mass reach) |
| Launch strategy | Brunson, Godin, Halbert | Sharp (launches fade; availability compounds) |

## Session Protocol

1. **Load the seated advisors' dossiers** from `references/advisors/`.
2. **Optional live research pass** — see below. Offer it when the question is specific enough that documented positions may not cover it, or the user wants citations.
3. **Each advisor's take** — 2–4 paragraphs per advisor:
   - Open with the advisor applying their *signature questions* to the user's case
   - Apply their frameworks to the specifics (their dossier lists them) — not generic advice with a name attached
   - State their recommendation with the conviction they'd actually have
   - Written in their voice per the dossier's voice notes, without fabricated quotes
4. **The disagreement map** — the most valuable section. Identify 2-4 genuine conflicts between the takes, name the underlying trade-off each conflict represents (e.g., "Sharp vs. Godin here is really reach vs. resonance — which constraint binds *this* business?"), and say what evidence would settle each.
5. **Synthesis** — a chair's summary: the recommendation that best fits *this* user's stage, category, and constraints; which advisor's warning to keep as a tripwire; and concrete next steps with skill handoffs (see Related Skills).

## Live Research Pass

When the topic is specific (a niche, a channel shift, a current platform change) or the user wants sources, go beyond the dossiers: