---

name: suede-marketing-council description: "Suede-affiliated marketing deliberation that applies documented public frameworks through clearly labeled simulated advisors, surfaces disagreements, and synthesizes a decision. Use when the user wants multiple expert lenses on one bounded marketing question. NOT FOR: factual claims about a living person's private views, primary research (use suede-customer-research), or executing the selected tactic (route to the relevant public Suede skill)." metadata: version: 1.0.0

Suede Marketing Council

Suede convenes a clearly labeled simulated council that applies documented public frameworks to one bounded marketing question. Its value is disciplined disagreement: conflicting lenses expose the trade-offs, evidence gaps, and tests the user should consider 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.

Before Starting

Read .agents/product-marketing.md first if it exists and ask only for what it does not cover; see suede-product-marketing for path fallbacks.

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.

Session Modes

Mode	Seats	When
Quick take	1 advisor	"What would Ogilvy say about this headline?": a single named advisor
Council session (default)	3–5 advisors	A real decision that benefits from conflicting lenses
Full council	All 12	Expect a long output. Offer this only when the decision is irreversible, commits spend or headcount the user has named as material, or the user says they cannot revisit it for at least a quarter

The Bench

Twelve advisors, chosen so their lenses collide. Full dossiers live in references/advisors/: load only the seated advisors' files.

Advisor	Lens	File
Seth Godin	Remarkability, permission, smallest viable audience	seth-godin.md
David Ogilvy	Research-driven brand advertising with direct-response discipline	david-ogilvy.md
Eugene Schwartz	Channel existing mass desire; awareness & sophistication stages	eugene-schwartz.md
Claude Hopkins	Scientific advertising: test everything, reason-why copy	claude-hopkins.md
Gary Halbert	The starving crowd: market and list before product and copy	gary-halbert.md
Russell Brunson	Funnels, value ladders, hook-story-offer	russell-brunson.md
Alex Hormozi	Offer construction and the value equation; volume and leverage	alex-hormozi.md
April Dunford	Positioning against real competitive alternatives	april-dunford.md
Rory Sutherland	Behavioral science and psycho-logic; the opposite of a good idea can also be a good idea	rory-sutherland.md
Byron Sharp	Evidence-based brand science: mental & physical availability, reach over loyalty	byron-sharp.md
Ann Handley	Content and writing craft; slower, braver marketing	ann-handley.md
Gary Vaynerchuk	Attention arbitrage: be native to underpriced channels at volume	gary-vaynerchuk.md

Seating the Council

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 type	Strong fits	Natural dissenters
Positioning / messaging	Dunford, Godin, Schwartz	Sharp (differentiation skeptic)
Offer / pricing	Hormozi, Halbert, Brunson	Sutherland (price ≠ value logic), Godin (race-to-the-bottom warning)
Brand building / awareness	Sharp, Ogilvy, Sutherland	Hopkins, Halbert (show me the sales)
Copy / creative review	Ogilvy, Schwartz, Halbert, Handley	Sutherland (test the illogical)
Funnels / conversion path	Brunson, Hormozi, Hopkins	Godin (permission over pressure), Handley (you're churning trust)
Content strategy	Handley, Godin, Vaynerchuk	Sharp (reach beats depth), Hopkins (where's the response?)
Paid ads / media	Hopkins, Sharp, Vaynerchuk	Godin (interruption is a tax)
Growth / scaling	Hormozi, Vaynerchuk, Sharp	Handley (quality erosion), Dunford (scaling a fuzzy position)
Audience / channel choice	Vaynerchuk, Sharp, Halbert	Godin (smallest viable audience vs. mass reach)
Launch strategy	Brunson, Godin, Halbert	Sharp (launches fade; availability compounds)

Session Protocol

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).

Live Research Pass

When the topic is specific (a niche, a channel shift, a current platform change) or the user wants sources, go beyond the dossiers: research what each seated advisor has actually said or written about this topic class, using whatever research surface is callable: an installed research or video-analysis skill, otherwise built-in web search for [advisor name] + [topic]. Prefer 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.

Grounding Rules (non-negotiable)

• 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…" That path is for a channel or era gap where the underlying mechanism still transfers.
• "Outside my documented record on this" is a first-class verdict. When the dossier holds no documented position on the mechanism at issue (not merely an unfamiliar channel or era) the take says exactly that as its Bottom line rather than extrapolating. The chair then either runs the Live Research Pass for that advisor or re-seats the chair (the same re-seat move as the agreeing-council anti-pattern). Never fill the gap by inference and never let a re-seat go unmentioned in the "Seated" line.

Output Format

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

## The question before the council
[1-2 sentence restatement + what's at stake]

## Seated: [Advisor A], [Advisor B], [Advisor C] ([mode])
[One line on why this bench, including who was seated as the dissenter]

---

### [Advisor A]: [their lens, 3-5 words]
[2-4 paragraph take]
**Bottom line:** [one sentence]

### [Advisor B]: …
…

---

## 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. …

## 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]

Adding a Custom Advisor

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.

Anti-Patterns

• 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.

Boundaries

• Do not present a simulation as the real person's statement, endorsement, advice, or current opinion.
• Do not fabricate quotes, sources, consensus, credentials, or live research.
• Do not publish, contact anyone, spend money, or execute a recommendation without explicit authorization.
• Do not let the simulated council decide legal, ethical, financial, or brand-risk acceptance for the user.

Routing

• Use suede-product-marketing for positioning and suede-offers or suede-pricing for the commercial package.
• Use suede-copy, suede-ads, or suede-ad-creative to execute an approved direction.
• Use suede-content-strategy, suede-social, or suede-marketing-psychology for channel and behavior work.
• Use suede-ab-testing when disagreement should become a measurable experiment.