|
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 long it needs to be. Claude needs the same brief. The difference is it reads it in three seconds instead of booking a call to ask. When you leave those things out, Claude doesn't stop and ask. It guesses. Every variable you skipped (audience, offer, angle, tone, length) gets filled with the average of everything it has read. That average is the "mediocre" you're blaming on the model. You gave it a template's worth of information, so you got a template. Here's the structure I put under every prompt that has to produce real work. Five parts:
Same request, two ways. The wish: "Write a launch email for my new AI course." The brief: "You're my email lead. Write the launch announcement for my AI-for-marketers course. Audience: marketing managers who already use AI casually and are frustrated their output sounds generic. The course teaches them to run Claude as a system, not a chatbot. Proof: I run a 12-function marketing operation on AI for under $300 a month. Keep it to 150 words, conversational, one CTA to the sales page. Subject line should name the frustration, not the course. Don't use 'unlock,' 'elevate,' or 'transform.'" The first gets you something you'll rewrite from scratch. The second gets you a draft you'll tweak and send. Same model, same thirty seconds of typing, completely different starting point. This week, take the next request you were about to fire off as one line. Before you hit enter, expand it into those five parts. It takes a minute. You'll feel the difference on the first reply. If you want me to look at the handful of prompts your team runs most and turn them into briefs that hold up, you can grab a free call with me here: https://calendar.app.google/BCm78pVrBnPL3pWf8. — Louis P.S. The part people skip most is the standard, telling Claude what bad looks like. It's also the one that moves the output the furthest. Don't skip it. |
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.
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...
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...