The Prompt Library

I'm the [TITLE] at [COMPANY]. We sell [PRODUCT/SERVICE] to [AUDIENCE]. Our current positioning is: "[CURRENT POSITIONING]"

Pressure test this positioning. Identify:
1. Where it's vulnerable to competitive attack
2. What it assumes about the customer that might not be true
3. How it would hold up if a well-funded competitor entered with a similar message
4. 2-3 alternative positioning angles we should consider
5. Whether the positioning is actually about the customer's problem or just about us (most positioning fails this test)

Be direct. I need holes exposed, not validation. If this positioning would blend into a wall of competitors at a trade show, say so. The best positioning makes competitors irrelevant, not just different.

I lead marketing at [COMPANY]. Our revenue is [RANGE], we spend [AMOUNT] monthly on marketing, and our primary goal this quarter is [GOAL].

Our current channels: [LIST CHANNELS]
Our biggest constraint: [CONSTRAINT - budget/team/time/creative]

Build me a 90-day strategic focus. Not tactics. The 2-3 bets that will move the needle most, why they matter, and what I should deliberately ignore for now.

For each bet, tell me:
- The first-order effect (what it directly improves)
- The second-order effect (what that improvement unlocks downstream)
- The kill criteria (how I'll know in 30 days if this bet is working or needs to be abandoned)

Most marketing teams spread too thin because they can't stomach saying no. Help me say no to the right things.

I need to present our marketing strategy to the board. They care about growth, efficiency, and defensibility.

Here's our situation:
- Revenue: [X]
- CAC: [X]
- LTV: [X]
- Primary channels: [X]
- Biggest win last quarter: [X]
- Biggest risk: [X]

Write me the narrative arc. Not slides. The story I should tell that makes them confident we know what we're doing.

Structure it as: Situation > Insight > Strategy > Proof > Ask. Boards don't remember 40 slides. They remember one clear story. The insight should be something non-obvious about our market that explains why our strategy is the right response. Make me sound like I see around corners, not just at dashboards.

I'm requesting [AMOUNT] for marketing next year. Leadership is skeptical.

Our current metrics: [KEY METRICS]
What we achieved this year: [RESULTS]
What we're proposing: [HIGH-LEVEL PLAN]

Build me the argument. Not fluff. The logical, financial, competitive case for this investment. Include the risk of NOT investing.

Frame it in three layers:
1. The efficiency argument (here's what we're getting per dollar today, here's how it improves)
2. The competitive argument (here's what happens if we stand still while competitors don't)
3. The opportunity cost argument (here's the revenue we leave on the table without this investment)

CFOs don't care about impressions. They care about leverage. Show them the leverage.

We're currently active on [LIST CHANNELS]. I'm considering cutting [CHANNEL] because [REASON].

Our audience: [AUDIENCE]
Our goals: [GOALS]
Performance on this channel: [METRICS]

Help me think through this. What am I potentially missing? What would need to be true for this channel to be worth saving? And if I do cut it, what should I reallocate to and why?

Also consider:
- Is this channel underperforming because it's the wrong channel, or because we're running it wrong? These require very different responses.
- What's the attribution risk? Some channels look bad in last-click but are doing critical awareness work upstream.
- Is there a "minimum effective dose" version where we reduce investment but maintain presence?

Killing a channel feels decisive. Sometimes it's just lazy. Help me know the difference.

I want to understand [COMPETITOR] deeply.

Analyze their:
1. Positioning and messaging (what are they really selling vs. what they think they're selling?)
2. Apparent target audience and whether there's a gap between who they target and who actually buys
3. Channel presence (where are they showing up, and more importantly, where aren't they?)
4. Content strategy (what are they publishing and what does the publishing cadence reveal about their team?)
5. Potential weaknesses we could exploit
6. What they're doing that we should consider stealing (good artists copy, great marketers steal strategically)

Don't give me surface-level observations I could get from 5 minutes on their website. Give me the kind of analysis that reveals their actual strategy, not their stated one. The gap between those two things is where opportunity lives.

I'm in the [INDUSTRY] space. My main competitors are [LIST 3-5 COMPETITORS].

Analyze the collective positioning of these players. Where is everyone crowded? Where is no one playing? Identify 2-3 gaps in the market that a smart challenger could own.

Think about messaging, audience segments, channels, and offers.

Go beyond the obvious. Every gap isn't worth filling. For each gap you identify, pressure test it:
- Is no one there because it's a bad opportunity, or because no one's been smart enough to claim it?
- Is there actually demand in this gap, or is it empty for a reason?
- Could we credibly own this position given our current capabilities?

The most profitable positioning in any market is the one that makes your competitors' strengths look like weaknesses.

Here's our homepage headline: "[HEADLINE]"
Here are our competitors' headlines:
- [COMPETITOR 1]: "[HEADLINE]"
- [COMPETITOR 2]: "[HEADLINE]"
- [COMPETITOR 3]: "[HEADLINE]"

How differentiated are we really? Where are we blending in? Give me 3 alternative angles that would create genuine separation.

For each alternative, explain:
- What makes it defensible (not just different, but hard for competitors to copy)
- What it requires us to give up (real differentiation means choosing who you're NOT for)
- How it would change our sales conversations

Here's the test: if you swapped our name with a competitor's on our homepage, would anyone notice? If not, we have a differentiation problem. Don't just make it sound different. Make it actually mean something different.

[COMPETITOR] just [LAUNCHED PRODUCT / DROPPED PRICES / RAISED FUNDING / MADE ANNOUNCEMENT].

Our situation: [BRIEF CONTEXT]

Help me think through:
1. What this actually means (vs. what it appears to mean). Press releases lie. What does the move tell us about their internal priorities?
2. Whether we need to respond at all. The most powerful response is often no response.
3. If we do respond, what our options are (and the tradeoffs of each)
4. How to communicate this internally without creating panic
5. The 30-60-90 day implications if we do nothing

Most competitive responses are reactive and emotional. I want to be strategic and calm. A competitor making noise doesn't mean we need to make noise back. Sometimes the best play is to let them burn budget on the announcement while we quietly take their customers.

We recently lost a deal to [COMPETITOR]. The prospect told us [REASON THEY GAVE].

Help me get past the surface. Generate 10 questions I should be asking internally to understand what actually happened. Then suggest how we might adjust our positioning or sales process based on common patterns when losing to this type of competitor.

Important context: prospects almost never tell you the real reason they chose someone else. "Price" usually means "I didn't see enough value." "Features" usually means "your narrative didn't match my mental model of the problem."

Frame the questions to uncover:
- Where we lost narrative control in the sales process
- Whether we were selling to the right person or if the real decision-maker was someone we never talked to
- If this is a one-off or a pattern that's costing us multiple deals

I need campaign concepts for [PRODUCT/SERVICE].

Target audience: [AUDIENCE]
Goal: [AWARENESS / CONSIDERATION / CONVERSION]
Tone: [TONE]
Channels: [CHANNELS]

Generate 5 campaign concepts. Each should include:
- Campaign name
- Core insight it's built on (the human truth, not the product truth)
- Hero headline
- 2-3 supporting messages
- Why it would work for this audience
- The "bar test" (could you explain this campaign to someone at a bar in one sentence?)

No safe ideas. I want concepts that could actually break through. At least one concept should be uncomfortable. If every idea feels safe, you haven't pushed hard enough.

The best campaigns don't describe the product. They describe how the world looks when the product works. Start from the customer's reality, not our features.

I'm running ads for [PRODUCT/SERVICE] targeting [AUDIENCE]. The main value prop is [VALUE PROP].

Give me 10 hooks that would stop the scroll. Mix of:
- Pattern interrupts (break the expected format)
- Contrarian takes (say the thing no one in our industry will say)
- Specific/quantified claims (specificity = credibility)
- Emotional triggers (tap into a feeling they already have)
- Curiosity gaps (create a question they need answered)

No generic marketing speak. These need to feel like a real person said them, not a brand team approved them.

For each hook, note which emotion it targets and why that emotion matters for this audience. A hook that gets attention but attracts the wrong audience is worse than no hook at all. Every scroll-stop should be a qualified scroll-stop.

I'm building a landing page for [OFFER].

Target audience: [AUDIENCE]
Where traffic is coming from: [SOURCE]
Main objections: [LIST 2-3]
Desired action: [CTA]

Give me the messaging hierarchy:
1. Headline (the promise — should pass the "so what?" test)
2. Subhead (the expansion — should answer "how?")
3. 3-4 supporting points in order of importance
4. Objection handlers (address resistance before it solidifies)
5. CTA language (not "Submit" — something that reinforces the value)

Structure it so the page could be built directly from this.

Key principle: the traffic source determines the temperature of the visitor. Someone from a Google search has intent. Someone from a social ad has curiosity. The messaging hierarchy should match the temperature. Don't hard-sell a cold audience or over-explain to a hot one.

I need a [NUMBER]-email sequence for [GOAL: nurture / onboarding / re-engagement / sales].

Audience: [WHO THEY ARE AND WHERE THEY CAME FROM]
End goal: [DESIRED ACTION]
Tone: [TONE]

For each email, give me:
- Subject line (optimize for opens, but never clickbait — trust is the asset)
- Core purpose of this email (one job per email, never two)
- Key message (2-3 sentences)
- CTA
- The psychological bridge to the next email (why they'll want to open it)

Focus on momentum. Each email should make the next one feel inevitable.

The sequence should follow a narrative arc, not a checklist. Most email sequences feel like a list of unrelated pitches. This should feel like a conversation that builds, where each email earns the right to ask a little more. The first email earns attention. The last email earns action. Everything in between builds trust.

I'm briefing my creative team (or agency) on a new ad campaign.

Product: [PRODUCT]
Audience: [AUDIENCE]
Objective: [OBJECTIVE]
Channels: [CHANNELS]
Budget tier: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH PRODUCTION]

Write the creative brief. Include:
- Strategic context (why this campaign, why now — what changed in the market?)
- Target audience insight (the tension in their life this campaign resolves)
- Single most important message (if they remember one thing, it's this)
- Mandatory elements
- What success looks like (be specific — "brand awareness" is not a success metric)
- What to avoid (the cliches our industry defaults to)
- The "tone test" (give 3 examples of things this campaign would say and 3 things it would never say)

Write it tight. No filler. A great brief is a gift to creatives. A bad brief is an excuse for mediocre work.

I need to explain our marketing performance to [AUDIENCE: CEO / board / sales team / investors].

Here are our raw metrics:
[PASTE METRICS]

Translate these into:
1. The 3-5 metrics that actually matter for this audience (different audiences need different metrics)
2. Plain-English explanations of what each means (no jargon — if your CEO needs a glossary, you've failed)
3. The story these numbers tell (good and bad — don't hide the bad, frame it)
4. What questions they'll probably ask and how to answer them
5. The "compared to what" context (a number without context is just a number. Is 3% CTR good? Depends.)

Here's the rule: every metric you present should connect to revenue within two steps. If you can't draw the line from the metric to money, the exec doesn't need to see it. They need the story, not the spreadsheet.

Here's what we currently track on our marketing dashboard:
[LIST METRICS]

Our goals are: [GOALS]
Our channels are: [CHANNELS]

Audit this dashboard:
1. What's missing that we should be tracking?
2. What are we tracking that's just vanity? (High numbers that feel good but don't drive decisions)
3. How should these metrics be organized for faster decision-making?
4. What thresholds or benchmarks should we set to know when something needs attention?
5. What leading indicators should we add? (Most dashboards are rearview mirrors. I need headlights.)

A great dashboard should answer "what do I need to do today?" in under 30 seconds. If it takes a meeting to interpret the dashboard, the dashboard is broken. Organize it by decision, not by channel.

We're currently using [ATTRIBUTION MODEL: last-click / first-click / linear / data-driven / etc].

Our channels: [LIST CHANNELS]
Our sales cycle: [LENGTH]
Our average deal size: [AMOUNT]

Help me understand:
1. What this attribution model is probably overcrediting
2. What it's probably undercrediting
3. Whether this model makes sense for our business
4. What we'd need to do to get closer to the truth
5. What decisions we might be making wrong because of this attribution blindspot

Here's the uncomfortable truth about attribution: every model is wrong, but some are useful. The question isn't "which model is right?" — it's "which model leads to better decisions for our specific business?" A B2B company with a 6-month sales cycle using last-click attribution is making investment decisions based on fiction. Know what your model lies about.

I need to create a monthly marketing report for [AUDIENCE].

Our key channels: [CHANNELS]
Our primary KPIs: [KPIS]
Our current priorities: [PRIORITIES]

Build me a report structure that:
1. Leads with what matters most (start with the answer, not the data)
2. Provides context, not just numbers (every metric needs a "compared to what" and "so what")
3. Clearly separates "what happened" from "what we're doing about it"
4. Takes no more than 10 minutes to read
5. Includes a "what I'd do differently" section (this is where trust is built)

Include section headers and what goes in each.

The best marketing reports aren't about marketing. They're about business impact told through a marketing lens. Lead with what the reader cares about (revenue, pipeline, growth), then work backwards to the marketing activities that drove it.

[CHANNEL/CAMPAIGN] is underperforming. Here's the data:
[PASTE RELEVANT METRICS]

Historical benchmark: [WHAT IT USED TO DO]
Recent changes: [ANYTHING WE CHANGED]

Help me diagnose this systematically:
1. What are the possible causes? (Rank by likelihood, not by what's easiest to fix)
2. What data would confirm or rule out each cause?
3. What's the fastest test I could run to identify the problem?
4. If I had to make a bet right now, where would I look first?
5. Is this a "fix it" problem or a "the market changed" problem? (These require very different responses)

The most common mistake in diagnosing underperformance: assuming the channel broke when actually the audience shifted. Before blaming the machine, check if you're still talking to the right people about the right thing. Market fatigue is real and no amount of optimization fixes a tired message.

I'm evaluating whether to keep or replace our current [TYPE] agency.

What they do for us: [SCOPE]
What we pay: [AMOUNT]
Our results: [RESULTS]
Our frustrations: [FRUSTRATIONS]

Generate 15 questions I should ask them in a performance review. Not softballs. Questions that reveal whether they're actually thinking strategically or just executing tasks.

Include questions that test:
- Whether they understand our business model, not just our brand guidelines
- Whether they can explain the "why" behind their recommendations
- Whether they proactively bring insights or only respond to briefs
- Whether they track the right success metrics or just report activity

Here's the litmus test: if your agency couldn't tell you three things about your competitors that you didn't already know, they're not paying enough attention. An agency that only executes is a freelancer at agency prices.

I need to hire a [ROLE] for my marketing team.

Team context: [CURRENT TEAM STRUCTURE]
What this role needs to own: [RESPONSIBILITIES]
Our stage: [STARTUP / GROWTH / ENTERPRISE]
Budget: [RANGE]

Write me:
1. The actual job description (not HR fluff — write it like you're explaining the role to a smart friend)
2. The 5 must-have skills vs. nice-to-haves (be honest about what you'll actually screen for)
3. Interview questions that reveal true capability (not "tell me about a time..." — give me questions with no good fake answers)
4. Red flags to watch for
5. The "day 90 test" (what should this person have accomplished in their first 90 days that proves the hire was right?)

Here's the hiring truth nobody talks about: the best marketers are rarely looking for jobs. Your job posting is an ad, and most job ads are terrible. Write it like you'd write a landing page — sell the problem they'd get to solve, not the tasks they'd execute.

I need to give feedback to [PERSON/TEAM] about [ISSUE].

Context: [WHAT HAPPENED]
My goal: [WHAT I WANT TO CHANGE]
Relationship dynamic: [DIRECT REPORT / PEER / AGENCY / EXEC]

Help me structure this conversation:
1. How to open without putting them on defense
2. How to describe the issue specifically (observable behavior, not interpreted motive)
3. How to make it about outcomes, not personality
4. How to close with clear expectations and a defined check-in point

Keep it direct but not brutal.

The most effective feedback follows one rule: describe the gap between what you expected and what happened, then make the path forward collaborative, not punitive. People don't resist feedback — they resist feeling judged. Keep the person on your side of the table while addressing the problem.

I'm putting out an RFP for [SERVICE: agency / platform / consultant].

Our needs: [WHAT WE NEED]
Our budget: [RANGE]
Our timeline: [TIMELINE]
Our dealbreakers: [MUST-HAVES]

Build me an RFP that:
1. Clearly communicates what we need (so we don't get generic responses)
2. Asks questions that reveal strategic thinking, not just capability
3. Makes it easy to compare responses side-by-side
4. Filters out vendors who aren't serious
5. Includes a "wildcard" question that reveals how they think when there's no right answer

Here's what most RFPs get wrong: they're so structured that every response looks the same. Include one open-ended question that lets strong vendors differentiate themselves. Something like "What would you do differently than what we've described?" The best vendors will push back on your brief. That's a good sign.

I need to align with [SALES / PRODUCT / FINANCE / CEO] on [TOPIC].

The tension: [WHERE WE DISAGREE OR MISUNDERSTAND EACH OTHER]
What I need from them: [WHAT I WANT]
What they probably want: [THEIR LIKELY CONCERNS]

Help me prepare:
1. How to frame this as a shared problem, not a turf war
2. The data or evidence I should bring (and how to present it without being condescending)
3. Where I should be willing to compromise (and where I shouldn't)
4. How to know if the conversation was successful
5. The follow-up that makes the alignment stick (most alignment dies in the hallway after the meeting)

Cross-functional alignment fails because each team optimizes for their own metrics. The unlock is finding the shared metric you both care about and building the conversation around that. Don't walk in defending marketing. Walk in solving a business problem that happens to need marketing to fix it.