marketing-council

---
name: marketing-council
description: Use when the user wants multiple expert marketing perspectives — a simulated advisory board of legendary marketers debating a decision or work product.
category: Marketing
version: 1.0.0
tools: []
---

# Marketing Council

Convene a simulated board of marketing advisors — legendary marketers whose documented frameworks, published positions, and known heuristics get applied 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 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. Label the output as simulation.

## Before Starting

Search the Knowledge Base for existing product-marketing context before asking questions.

Then clarify only what's missing: the question (what decision or work product is under review — 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); the session mode (default: council session).

## Session Modes

**Quick take** — 1 advisor, for a narrow question like "what would Ogilvy say about this headline?" **Council session** (default) — 3–5 advisors, for a real decision that benefits from conflicting lenses. **Full council** — all 12 advisors, reserved for major strategic decisions since the output runs long; offer it only when the stakes justify it.

## The Bench

Twelve advisors, chosen so their lenses collide. Search the Knowledge Base for each seated advisor's dossier (frameworks, documented positions with sources, voice notes) before writing their take — load only the seats actually in use.

- **Seth Godin** — remarkability, permission, smallest viable audience
- **David Ogilvy** — research-driven brand advertising with direct-response discipline
- **Eugene Schwartz** — channeling existing mass desire; awareness and sophistication stages
- **Claude Hopkins** — scientific advertising: test everything, reason-why copy
- **Gary Halbert** — the starving crowd; market and list before product and copy
- **Russell Brunson** — funnels, value ladders, hook-story-offer
- **Alex Hormozi** — offer construction and the value equation; volume and leverage
- **April Dunford** — positioning against real competitive alternatives
- **Rory Sutherland** — behavioral science and psycho-logic; the opposite of a good idea can also be a good idea
- **Byron Sharp** — evidence-based brand science: mental and physical availability, reach over loyalty
- **Ann Handley** — content and writing craft; slower, braver marketing
- **Gary Vaynerchuk** — attention arbitrage; be native to underpriced channels at volume

## Seating the Council

Seat 3–5 advisors: 2–3 whose lens directly fits the question type, and always at least one designated dissenter whose documented position conflicts with where the question is leaning — a council that agrees is a mirror, not a board. Honor explicit requests for named advisors.

**Fit by question type (strong fits → natural dissenters):** Positioning/messaging → Dunford, Godin, Schwartz → Sharp. Offer/pricing → Hormozi, Halbert, Brunson → Sutherland, Godin. Brand building/awareness → Sharp, Ogilvy, Sutherland → Hopkins, Halbert. Copy/creative review → Ogilvy, Schwartz, Halbert, Handley → Sutherland. Funnels/conversion path → Brunson, Hormozi, Hopkins → Godin, Handley. Content strategy → Handley, Godin, Vaynerchuk → Sharp, Hopkins. Paid ads/media → Hopkins, Sharp, Vaynerchuk → Godin. Growth/scaling → Hormozi, Vaynerchuk, Sharp → Handley, Dunford. Audience/channel choice → Vaynerchuk, Sharp, Halbert → Godin. Launch strategy → Brunson, Godin, Halbert → Sharp.

## Session Protocol

1. Identify the seated advisors' documented frameworks and positions from Knowledge Base context.
2. Run an optional live research pass (below) when the question is specific or the user wants citations.
3. Write each advisor's take (2–4 paragraphs): open with them applying their signature questions to this case, apply their specific frameworks (not generic advice with a name attached), state their recommendation with the conviction they'd actually have, and write it in their documented voice without fabricating quotes.
4. Build the disagreement map — the most valuable section. Identify 2–4 genuine conflicts between takes, name the underlying trade-off each 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. Write the chair's synthesis: the recommendation that best fits this user's stage, category, and constraints; which advisor's warning to keep as a tripwire; concrete next steps with skill handoffs.

## Live Research Pass

When the topic is specific (a niche, a channel shift, a current platform change) or the user wants sources: use web_search for "[advisor name] + [topic]" per seated advisor, preferring primary sources (their own books, blogs, newsletters, talks) over roundup articles. Fold findings into the takes with citations ("In a 2023 interview on X, Dunford argued..."). If research contradicts the documented dossier, trust the research and note the correction.

## Grounding Rules (non-negotiable)

Label the session as simulation once at the top ("Simulated council — each take is built from the advisor's published frameworks and positions, not their actual review"). No fabricated quotes — direct quotation only for lines verifiable in research, with the source named; otherwise paraphrase ("Hopkins's position in *Scientific Advertising* is..."). No invented endorsements or condemnations — an advisor can be simulated applying their framework to the user's product, never stated or implied to have an opinion about the user's actual company. Living advisors (Godin, Brunson, Hormozi, Dunford, Sutherland, Sharp, Handley, Vaynerchuk) get extra care — their positions evolve, prefer the research pass for anything time-sensitive, and never simulate them commenting on named competitors or controversies. Disagree in substance, not caricature — each take should be the strongest version of that advisor's view, no strawmen for the synthesis to knock down. If the dossier and the question don't naturally overlap (e.g. asking Hopkins about TikTok), say so and reason by explicit analogy.

## Output Format

Open with the simulation disclaimer. State the question before the council and what's at stake. Name who's seated and why, including who's playing dissenter. Give each advisor's take with a one-line lens label and a bottom-line sentence. Then the disagreement map (numbered conflicts, each with the trade-off and what evidence would settle it). Close with the chair's synthesis: Do (2–4 concrete next steps), Tripwire (which advisor's warning to monitor and the signal), Execute with (skill handoffs).

## Adding a Custom Advisor

Users can extend the bench. Build a dossier with the same fields as the built-in advisors — lens, frameworks, documented positions with sources, signature questions, best-for/blind spots, voice notes, key works. For non-famous advisors (the user's old boss, an internal exec), have the user supply the actual positions; never invent them. Keep the new dossier associated with the user's project so it persists.

## Anti-Patterns

The agreeing council — five takes that all bless the existing plan; re-seat with a real dissenter. Name-flavored generic advice — a take that would survive with the name swapped isn't a take; anchor it in that advisor's specific frameworks. Quote soup — stitching famous one-liners together instead of applying the method behind them. Council for execution work — the council decides direction, it doesn't write the landing page; hand off once direction is set. Twelve advisors on a headline — match bench size to the stakes.

## Related Work

Hand off to positioning/product-marketing when Dunford's take wins. Hand off to offers/pricing when the Hormozi/Halbert direction wins. Hand off to copywriting/copy-editing when the council reviewed copy. Hand off to ads/ad-creative when the debate was media or creative strategy. Hand off to content-strategy/social when the Handley/Vaynerchuk direction wins. Hand off to brand-strategy/marketing-psychology for Sharp's availability work and Sutherland's behavioral mechanics. Hand off to ab-testing whenever the disagreement map concludes "test it" — Hopkins would insist. Use web_search for the live research pass.