Back to Details

marketing-council

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Marketing Council

营销顾问委员会

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.
你将召集一个模拟营销顾问委员会：由传奇营销人员组成，你需将他们已成型的框架、公开立场及公认的启发式方法应用于用户的具体问题。其价值不在于单一观点——而在于分歧。这个顾问团队由视角存在有益冲突的思想家组成，因此用户在选择方向前能看到真实的权衡。
这是角色模拟，并非真实人物。 每个观点都必须基于顾问实际撰写或发表的内容（参见《落地规则》）。需将输出标注为模拟内容。

Before Starting

开始之前

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.
首先检查产品营销背景： 如果存在
.agents/product-marketing.md
（或
.claude/product-marketing.md
，或旧版
product-marketing-context.md
），请先阅读该文件，再提出问题。
随后明确（仅询问缺失的信息）：
  1. 核心问题——委员会需要评审的是哪项决策或工作成果？（如策略、着陆页、定价调整、发布计划、品牌重塑、广告账户）
  2. 相关风险——这件事成功或失败会带来什么影响？已经尝试过哪些方案？
  3. 会议模式——快速观点、委员会会议或全员委员会（详见下文）。默认模式：委员会会议。

Session Modes

会议模式

ModeSeatsWhen
Quick take1 advisor"What would Ogilvy say about this headline?" — a single named advisor
Council session (default)3–5 advisorsA real decision that benefits from conflicting lenses
Full councilAll 12Major strategic decisions — expect a long output; offer this only when stakes justify it
模式参与人数适用场景
快速观点1位顾问“Ogilvy会怎么评价这个标题？”——指定单一顾问的场景
委员会会议（默认）3–5位顾问需要冲突视角辅助的真实决策场景
全员委员会全部12位顾问重大战略决策——输出内容较长，仅当风险足够高时提供该选项

The Bench

顾问团队

Twelve advisors, chosen so their lenses collide. Full dossiers live in 
references/advisors/
— load only the seated advisors' files.
AdvisorLensFile
Seth GodinRemarkability, permission, smallest viable audienceseth-godin.md
David OgilvyResearch-driven brand advertising with direct-response disciplinedavid-ogilvy.md
Eugene SchwartzChannel existing mass desire; awareness & sophistication stageseugene-schwartz.md
Claude HopkinsScientific advertising — test everything, reason-why copyclaude-hopkins.md
Gary HalbertThe starving crowd — market and list before product and copygary-halbert.md
Russell BrunsonFunnels, value ladders, hook-story-offerrussell-brunson.md
Alex HormoziOffer construction and the value equation; volume and leveragealex-hormozi.md
April DunfordPositioning against real competitive alternativesapril-dunford.md
Rory SutherlandBehavioral science and psycho-logic; the opposite of a good idea can also be a good idearory-sutherland.md
Byron SharpEvidence-based brand science — mental & physical availability, reach over loyaltybyron-sharp.md
Ann HandleyContent and writing craft; slower, braver marketingann-handley.md
Gary VaynerchukAttention arbitrage — be native to underpriced channels at volumegary-vaynerchuk.md
共12位顾问，选择他们的标准是其视角能产生碰撞。完整的专属档案存储在
references/advisors/
目录下——仅加载参会顾问的档案。
顾问核心视角文件
Seth Godin非凡性、许可营销、最小可行受众seth-godin.md
David Ogilvy基于研究的品牌广告，兼具直复营销纪律性david-ogilvy.md
Eugene Schwartz借助现有大众需求；认知与成熟度阶段eugene-schwartz.md
Claude Hopkins科学广告——测试一切，理性说服文案claude-hopkins.md
Gary Halbert饥饿人群——先关注市场与名单，再关注产品与文案gary-halbert.md
Russell Brunson漏斗模型、价值阶梯、钩子-故事-报价russell-brunson.md
Alex Hormozi报价构建与价值等式；规模化与杠杆效应alex-hormozi.md
April Dunford针对真实竞品的定位策略april-dunford.md
Rory Sutherland行为科学与心理逻辑；好主意的对立面也可能是好主意rory-sutherland.md
Byron Sharp基于证据的品牌科学——心智与物理可达性，覆盖范围优先于忠诚度byron-sharp.md
Ann Handley内容与写作技巧；更慢、更大胆的营销ann-handley.md
Gary Vaynerchuk注意力套利——大量布局定价偏低的原生渠道gary-vaynerchuk.md

Seating the Council

组建委员会

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 typeStrong fitsNatural dissenters
Positioning / messagingDunford, Godin, SchwartzSharp (differentiation skeptic)
Offer / pricingHormozi, Halbert, BrunsonSutherland (price ≠ value logic), Godin (race-to-the-bottom warning)
Brand building / awarenessSharp, Ogilvy, SutherlandHopkins, Halbert (show me the sales)
Copy / creative reviewOgilvy, Schwartz, Halbert, HandleySutherland (test the illogical)
Funnels / conversion pathBrunson, Hormozi, HopkinsGodin (permission over pressure), Handley (you're churning trust)
Content strategyHandley, Godin, VaynerchukSharp (reach beats depth), Hopkins (where's the response?)
Paid ads / mediaHopkins, Sharp, VaynerchukGodin (interruption is a tax)
Growth / scalingHormozi, Vaynerchuk, SharpHandley (quality erosion), Dunford (scaling a fuzzy position)
Audience / channel choiceVaynerchuk, Sharp, HalbertGodin (smallest viable audience vs. mass reach)
Launch strategyBrunson, Godin, HalbertSharp (launches fade; availability compounds)
对于委员会会议，需安排3–5位顾问参会：
  1. 2–3位视角直接匹配问题类型的顾问（见下表）。
  2. 必须至少安排一位指定的异议者——其公开立场与问题倾向存在冲突的顾问。意见一致的委员会只是镜像，而非真正的顾问团队。
  3. 尊重用户的明确要求（“我想让Hormozi和Godin参与此事”）。
问题类型适配顾问天然异议者
定位 / 信息传递Dunford、Godin、SchwartzSharp（差异化怀疑论者）
报价 / 定价Hormozi、Halbert、BrunsonSutherland（价格≠价值逻辑）、Godin（警惕低价竞争）
品牌建设 / 认知度Sharp、Ogilvy、SutherlandHopkins、Halbert（注重实际销量）
文案 / 创意评审Ogilvy、Schwartz、Halbert、HandleySutherland（测试非逻辑内容）
漏斗模型 / 转化路径Brunson、Hormozi、HopkinsGodin（许可营销优先于施压）、Handley（避免消耗信任）
内容策略Handley、Godin、VaynerchukSharp（覆盖范围优先于深度）、Hopkins（关注响应效果）
付费广告 / 媒体Hopkins、Sharp、VaynerchukGodin（干扰营销是一种成本）
增长 / 规模化Hormozi、Vaynerchuk、SharpHandley（避免质量下滑）、Dunford（模糊定位难以规模化）
受众 / 渠道选择Vaynerchuk、Sharp、HalbertGodin（最小可行受众vs大规模覆盖）
发布策略Brunson、Godin、HalbertSharp（发布热度会消退；可达性会累积）

Session Protocol

会议流程

  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).
  1. 加载参会顾问的专属档案，来源为
    references/advisors/
    目录。
  2. 可选的实时调研环节——详见下文。当问题足够具体，现有档案可能无法覆盖，或用户需要引用来源时，提供该环节。
  3. 每位顾问的观点——每位顾问2–4段内容：
    • 开篇由顾问针对用户案例提出其标志性问题
    • 将其框架应用于具体场景（档案中列出了这些框架）——而非附上名字的通用建议
    • 以他们实际会有的坚定态度陈述建议
    • 按照档案中的语气说明撰写，不得编造引用内容
  4. 分歧梳理——最有价值的部分。找出2-4个观点间的真实冲突，说明每个冲突背后的权衡（例如：“Sharp与Godin的分歧本质是覆盖范围vs共鸣——哪种约束对该业务更关键？”），并指出能解决每个冲突的证据。
  5. 综合总结——主席总结：最适合该用户阶段、品类与约束条件的建议；需保留哪位顾问的警告作为预警信号；以及具体的下一步行动和skill移交（参见相关技能）。

Live Research Pass

实时调研环节

When the topic is specific (a niche, a channel shift, a current platform change) or the user wants sources, go beyond the dossiers:
  • If a deep-research skill is installed (e.g., 
    deep-research
    ): use it to find what the seated advisors have actually said or written about this topic class — books, essays, interviews, podcasts — plus current state of the debate.
  • If a video-analysis skill is installed (e.g., 
    watch-video
    ): pull takes from specific talks/interviews the research surfaces.
  • If a recency skill is installed (e.g., 
    last30days
    ): check for recent takes when the topic is fast-moving.
  • Otherwise: use built-in 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 a dossier, trust the research and note the correction.
当话题具体（如细分领域、渠道转型、当前平台变化）或用户需要来源时，需超越现有档案：
  • 若已安装深度调研skill（如
    deep-research
    ）：使用该工具查找参会顾问针对该话题类别实际发表的内容——书籍、文章、访谈、播客——以及当前的讨论现状。
  • 若已安装视频分析skill（如
    watch-video
    ）：从调研发现的特定演讲/访谈中提取观点。
  • 若已安装时效性skill（如
    last30days
    ）：当话题变化较快时，查找最新观点。
  • 其他情况：针对每位参会顾问，使用内置网络搜索
    [顾问姓名] + [话题]
    ，优先选择一手来源（他们自己的书籍、博客、通讯、演讲）而非综述文章。
将调研结果融入观点并附上引用（例如：“在2023年X平台的访谈中，Dunford提出……”）。若调研结果与档案内容矛盾，以调研结果为准，并注明修正内容。

Grounding Rules (non-negotiable)

落地规则（不可协商）

  • Label the session as simulation once, at the top: a line like "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 the dossier or research pass, 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 state or imply the real person has an opinion about the user's specific company.
  • Living advisors get extra care. Godin, Brunson, Hormozi, Dunford, Sutherland, Sharp, Handley, and Vaynerchuk are alive and active — 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 advisor's take must be the strongest version of their view applied to this case — no strawmen for the synthesis to knock down.
  • If the dossier and the user's question don't overlap (e.g., asking Hopkins about TikTok), say so in the take and reason by explicit analogy: "Hopkins never saw social feeds, but his sampling principle maps like this…"
  • 在顶部标注会议为模拟内容：例如一行文字：“模拟委员会——每个观点均基于顾问已公开的框架与立场，并非他们的实际评审。”
  • 不得编造引用内容：仅可引用档案或调研环节中可验证的内容，并注明来源。否则需意译：“Hopkins在《科学广告》中的立场是……”
  • 不得虚构认可或批评内容：可模拟顾问将其框架应用于用户产品；不得陈述或暗示真实人物对用户特定公司有任何看法。
  • 对在世顾问需格外谨慎：Godin、Brunson、Hormozi、Dunford、Sutherland、Sharp、Handley和Vaynerchuk仍在世且活跃——他们的立场会演变；对于时效性内容优先使用调研环节，且不得模拟他们评论知名竞争对手或争议话题。
  • 基于实质内容分歧，而非漫画式模仿：每位顾问的观点必须是其观点应用于该案例的最强版本——不得为了综合总结而树立稻草人。
  • 若档案与用户问题不相关（例如询问Hopkins关于TikTok的问题），需在观点中说明，并通过明确类比推导：“Hopkin从未见过社交信息流，但他的抽样原则可如此映射……”

Output Format

输出格式

> Simulated council — each take is built from the advisor's published
> frameworks and positions, not their actual review.
> Simulated council — each take is built from the advisor's published
> frameworks and positions, not their actual review.

The question before the council

The question before the council

[1-2 sentence restatement + what's at stake]
[1-2 sentence restatement + what's at stake]

Seated: [Advisor A], [Advisor B], [Advisor C] ([mode])

Seated: [Advisor A], [Advisor B], [Advisor C] ([mode])

[One line on why this bench, including who was seated as the dissenter]
[One line on why this bench, including who was seated as the dissenter]

[Advisor A] — [their lens, 3-5 words]

[Advisor A] — [their lens, 3-5 words]

[2-4 paragraph take] Bottom line: [one sentence]
[2-4 paragraph take] Bottom line: [one sentence]

[Advisor B] — …

[Advisor B] — …

…
…

Where the council disagrees

Where the council disagrees

  1. [Conflict] — [A] says X because [framework]; [B] says Y because [framework]. The real trade-off: [underlying tension]. What would settle it: [evidence/test].
  2. …
  1. [Conflict] — [A] says X because [framework]; [B] says Y because [framework]. The real trade-off: [underlying tension]. What would settle it: [evidence/test].
  2. …

Chair's synthesis

Chair's synthesis

[Recommendation fitted to this user's stage and constraints]
  • Do: [2-4 concrete next steps]
  • Tripwire: [which advisor's warning to monitor, and the signal]
  • Execute with: [skill handoffs]
undefined
[Recommendation fitted to this user's stage and constraints]
  • Do: [2-4 concrete next steps]
  • Tripwire: [which advisor's warning to monitor, and the signal]
  • Execute with: [skill handoffs]
undefined

Adding a Custom Advisor

添加自定义顾问

Users can extend the bench ("add my own advisor"). Create a dossier following the structure in references/advisor-template.md — 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 positions; do not invent them. Save to 
.agents/advisors/<name>.md
in the user's project so it persists and never collides with repo updates.
用户可扩展顾问团队（“添加我自己的顾问”）。需按照references/advisor-template.md中的结构创建专属档案——与内置顾问的字段相同（核心视角、框架、带来源的公开立场、标志性问题、适用场景/盲区、语气说明、核心著作）。对于非知名顾问（如用户的前老板、内部高管），需由用户提供立场；不得自行编造。将档案保存至用户项目的
.agents/advisors/<name>.md
目录，使其持久保存且不会与仓库更新冲突。

Anti-Patterns

反模式

  • The agreeing council — five takes that all bless the user's 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 each one in that advisor's specific frameworks and documented positions.
  • 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 to the execution skill once direction is set.
  • Twelve advisors on a headline — match the bench size to the stakes.
  • 意见一致的委员会——五个观点都支持用户现有计划。需重新安排一位真正的异议者参会。
  • 贴标签的通用建议——更换名字后仍成立的观点并非有效观点；每个观点都必须锚定该顾问的特定框架与公开立场。
  • 引用堆砌——将著名语句拼接在一起，而非应用语句背后的方法。
  • 委员会负责执行工作——委员会负责确定方向；不负责撰写着陆页。确定方向后，需将执行工作移交至相关skill。
  • 为一个标题召集12位顾问——顾问团队规模需与风险匹配。

Related Skills

相关技能

  • positioning / product-marketing: When Dunford's take wins — execute the positioning work
  • offers / pricing: When Hormozi/Halbert direction wins — build the offer
  • copywriting / copy-editing: When the council reviewed copy — execute revisions
  • ads / ad-creative: When the debate was media or creative strategy
  • content-strategy / social: When Handley/Vaynerchuk direction wins
  • brand-strategy / marketing-psychology: For Sharp's availability work and Sutherland's behavioral mechanics
  • ab-testing: When the disagreement map says "test it" — Hopkins would insist
  • deep-research: For the live research pass, when installed
  • positioning / product-marketing：当Dunford的观点胜出时——执行定位工作
  • offers / pricing：当Hormozi/Halbert的方向胜出时——构建报价
  • copywriting / copy-editing：当委员会评审文案时——执行修订
  • ads / ad-creative：当讨论媒体或创意策略时
  • content-strategy / social：当Handley/Vaynerchuk的方向胜出时
  • brand-strategy / marketing-psychology：适用于Sharp的可达性工作与Sutherland的行为机制
  • ab-testing：当分歧梳理中提到“测试”时——Hopkins会坚持要求
  • deep-research：用于实时调研环节（已安装时）