|
Hi Reader, I'll say what I always say: Claude is the better tool for marketing. Better brand voice consistency. Better at following constraints. Better at holding a style guide across a long conversation. I use it every day. I recommend it to every client. But here's the reality: I talk to marketing leaders every week, and many are on ChatGPT. Budget decisions, IT approvals, enterprise contracts — the tool is already locked in. So I stopped arguing about which AI is best and started asking a different question. Are those teams using even half of what ChatGPT can actually do? Almost never. Most marketing teams use it for three things: writing blog posts, drafting emails, brainstorming taglines. That's like buying a Ferrari and only driving it to the mailbox. I spent months mapping every ChatGPT feature to a real marketing use case. If your team is on ChatGPT — or if you manage people who are — here's what they're sitting on: → Projects — create a workspace for each campaign. Upload your brief, brand guide, and ICP doc once. Every chat inside that project references them automatically. No more pasting your brand voice into every prompt from scratch. → Custom Instructions — two text boxes that shape every output ChatGPT produces. Most teams leave them blank. Fill yours with your buyer persona: "CMO at a mid-market SaaS company, $2M budget, 100–500 employees." Every response gets written for that person. → Memory — ChatGPT remembers across conversations. Tell it your brand voice, your metrics, your goals. It compounds. Six weeks in, a cold prompt becomes a warm one because the context is already there. → Custom GPTs — build a GPT trained on your top 10 LinkedIn posts. Call it your Brand Voice Writer. Share it with the team. Prompt to start: "Act as a ghostwriter for [name]. Here are 10 example posts. Match this voice exactly. Never deviate from it." → Deep Research — I asked ChatGPT to analyze 5 competitors: positioning, pricing, target audience. It came back with a structured brief and citations in 15 minutes. That used to take my team a week. → Canvas — a side-by-side editor for long-form content. Write a landing page, highlight the weak sections, adjust reading level with one click. Stop copying between ChatGPT and Google Docs. → Image Generation — I generated 5 ad creative concepts in 2 minutes. Picked the best direction. Sent it to design. Saved an entire round of revisions. Try this: "Generate 5 ad concepts for a B2B product targeting CMOs — each with a different emotional hook: curiosity, urgency, aspiration, social proof, fear of falling behind." → Connectors — link Google Drive and ask ChatGPT to find your Q3 performance deck and pull out the wins and misses. No uploading. No screenshots. It reads the file directly. → Data Analysis — drop in 3 months of email data and ask: "What subject line patterns correlate with our highest open rates? Build a chart by day of week." I did this last month. It took under a minute. Then there's Work — and this one is different from everything above. Work is ChatGPT's AI agent. It connects directly to your team's tools: Gmail, Slack, Google Drive, local files, apps you already use every day. You give it a raw idea, a pile of notes, or a data dump. It turns that into a finished deliverable — a document, a presentation, a spreadsheet, an interactive website. This is where AI stops being a chat window and starts acting like a team member. We've been running something similar in Claude for a while now. The fact that ChatGPT is moving in this direction tells you where all of this is headed. If your team is on ChatGPT and ignoring Work, that's the one to start with. One thing to do this week: if you have access to Work, connect it to one tool your team already uses — Google Drive or Gmail — and run one real task through it. Not a demo. Something you'd otherwise spend an hour on yourself. The tool matters less than knowing what it can actually do. A marketer running ChatGPT at full capacity will outperform a marketer running a better tool at 10%. If you want to think through how any of this would fit your team's actual setup — what's worth building now, what can wait — I do free 30-minute calls. No pitch, no deck. You can grab a spot here. — Louis P.S. If you find this newsletter useful, one easy way to support it is by clicking on this week’s sponsor below. It helps me keep these emails free. |
Practical AI marketing for marketers who want real systems, not theory. I run a 12-function marketing operation solo for under $300/month. Weekly: workflows, prompts, and tools you can implement.
Hey Reader, Most people think AI tools are neutral. Put a prompt in, get an answer out. The tool is just a tool. That's not how it works. Every major AI company was built by someone with a specific worldview — about what intelligence should do, what it should refuse, what it should prioritize when it has to choose. Those beliefs don't live in a mission statement. They get encoded into the training data, the guardrails, the reward functions, the things the model will and won't say. The output...
Hey Reader, Quick question: when you open Claude, which model do you pick? Most marketers I talk to pick Sonnet or Opus by default and leave it there. A few go straight to Opus for everything because it feels like the "safe" choice. Both are costing them — in tokens, in speed, and in output quality on tasks the model wasn't built for. The thing is that picking the wrong tool is like using a forklift to move a coffee cup or hiring a lawyer to write a grocery list. I run a 12-function AI...
Hey Reader, Most people write prompts like wishes. "Write me a launch email." Then they judge Claude on whatever comes back, decide it's mediocre, and conclude AI isn't there yet. The model isn't the problem. You handed a contractor one sentence and expected a finished build. A working prompt is a brief, not a request. You'd never tell a freelancer "write a launch email" and walk away. You'd tell them who it's for, what it's selling, what you've already tried, what good looks like, and how...