算法艺术创作
algorithmic-art
通过代码和可调参数创作生成艺术与交互式视觉效果。
webinar-planner【设计与创意】Plan a webinar end-to-end using April Dunford's Obviously Awesome positioning framework to find the topic angle that makes the webinar obviously valuable to the right audience. Produces topic positioning, abstract, speaker brief, registration page, promotion sequence, day-of run-of-show, and post-webinar follow-up. Use when the user asks to plan a we…
独立 GitHub 快照 · 自动分类 · 以原作者文档为准
Plans a webinar as a campaign, not a one-off. Treats the live event as one moment in a multi-week arc: pre-event demand, live execution, post-event nurture. Before any of that, uses April Dunford's Obviously Awesome positioning framework to find the topic angle that makes the webinar obviously valuable to the right audience.
Most webinar topics compete in crowded ground: "Introduction to X", "Everything you need to know about Y", "The future of Z". These sound like every other webinar in the inbox and get ignored.
Dunford's argument in Obviously Awesome: positioning is context. It defines the lens through which everything else about the offering is understood, and getting it wrong makes every downstream decision harder. Her sharpest point for webinars is that positioning is a deliberate choice, not a description of what you built. Most teams inherit their webinar's positioning by accident, from the topic the speaker happened to want to talk about.
The 5 components - apply to the webinar itself, not just the product:
| # | Component | The question for a webinar | The failure when it is skipped |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Competitive alternatives | What will they do instead of attending? | You compete with other webinars, when you actually compete with the browser tab they already have open |
| 2 | Unique attributes | What does this have that those do not? | The abstract lists topics, which every alternative also covers |
| 3 | Value | So what? What does each attribute enable? | Attributes are stated as features: "a panel of four experts" with no stated payoff |
| 4 | Target customer characteristics | Who cares most about that value, right now? | "For marketers" - so nobody self-selects, and registration comes from the existing list only |
| 5 | Market category | What frame makes the value obvious immediately? | Filed mentally as "another vendor webinar" in the first two seconds |
Dunford's sequence matters: components 1 to 3 must be answered before 4 and 5, because you cannot know who cares most about a value you have not defined. Working backwards from a title is the most common way this framework gets applied wrongly.
Competitive alternatives: What would the attendee do instead of attending this webinar? (Scroll LinkedIn? Read a blog post? Ask a colleague? Attend a competitor's event?) This is the real competition.
Unique attributes: What does this webinar offer that the alternatives don't? (Specific framework? Practitioner speakers who've done it, not just studied it? Live benchmarking? Proprietary data?)
Value: So what? For each unique attribute, what does it actually enable for the attendee? (Saves X hours, avoids Y mistake, gets them to Z outcome faster)
Target customer characteristics: Who specifically cares most about this value? Not "marketers" - which marketers, at which stage, with which problem, right now?
Market category: What frame of reference makes this webinar's value immediately obvious? (Not "a marketing webinar" - what specific context makes the target customer say "this is exactly for me"?)
Positioning self-check: Could this webinar title and topic be run by any of our competitors? If yes, it is not positioned - it is generic.
Example of repositioning a topic:
The second version signals: who it is for (Series B marketing teams), what they get (60% time reduction), the specific problem (losing brand voice), and the format (live, practitioners, not theorists).
knowledge/icp/personas.mdA webinar has a hard, public date, so a missing input does not degrade the plan, it cancels it in public. Check these first and state what you found. The first three are stop conditions.
| Gate | Warning sign | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Speaker confirmed in writing | The plan names a speaker who has not confirmed the date | Stop. Do not build a promotion sequence around an unconfirmed name. Write [NEEDS INPUT: written confirmation from <name> for <date>] and plan the rest around a placeholder. An unconfirmed external or customer speaker is the single most common cause of a cancelled webinar |
| Lead time | Fewer than three weeks between today and the date | Flag hard. Three promo waves do not fit. Either move the date or cut to a single wave to the existing list and set expectations that registration will be a fraction of normal |
| Someone owns the day-of operations | No named host, moderator or producer | Stop. A speaker cannot present, watch chat, run polls and manage the recording at once. Name the second person or reduce the format |
| Goal is measurable | The goal is "thought leadership" | Flag. Rewrite as a countable outcome from knowledge/kpis.md, or the retro has nothing to judge |
| Date collision | Clashes with a major industry event, a public holiday in the target region, or the company's own launch | Flag and propose two alternative dates |
| Topic has a real audience | The topic came from what the speaker wants to talk about, not from a pain in knowledge/icp/personas.md | Flag before positioning work. Positioning cannot rescue a topic nobody has the problem for |
Cancel or postpone rules. Set these at planning time, not the week before, and write them into the README:
knowledge/learnings.md. If there is no prior webinar, say there is no basis for a threshold and set the checkpoint as a judgement call with a named decision owner, rather than inventing a number.Load context. Read brand voice, primary persona, positioning, learnings (especially any prior webinar retros).
Complete positioning pre-work before choosing a title. Work through all 5 Dunford components:
## Webinar positioning (Obviously Awesome framework)
**1. Competitive alternatives**
What will our target attendee do instead of attending this webinar?
- Alternative 1: <e.g. read a blog post on the same topic>
- Alternative 2: <e.g. ask a colleague who's done it>
- Alternative 3: <e.g. attend a competitor's event>
Why would they choose us instead? <specific answer>
**2. Unique attributes**
What does this webinar offer that those alternatives don't?
- Attribute 1: <specific thing, e.g. "3 practitioners who've 10x'd pipeline sharing exact playbooks">
- Attribute 2: <specific thing, e.g. "live Q&A with people who made the same mistakes">
- Attribute 3: <specific thing>
**3. Value (so what?)**
For each unique attribute, what does it enable for the attendee?
- Attribute 1 -> Value: <outcome, e.g. "walk away with a tested framework they can run next week">
- Attribute 2 -> Value: <outcome>
- Attribute 3 -> Value: <outcome>
**4. Target customer characteristics**
Who cares most about this value right now?
- Role: <specific, e.g. "VP Marketing at Series B SaaS companies">
- Situation: <specific, e.g. "first marketing hire, no established playbook">
- Urgency: <what makes this matter now, e.g. "board has asked for pipeline targets 3x last quarter">
**5. Market category**
What frame of reference makes this value immediately obvious?
- Category: <e.g. "pipeline generation for early-stage B2B" not "marketing webinar">
Build the title using the positioning output.
Title formula: [Specific value for specific audience] + [unique attribute or approach]
Generate 3 title options ranked by specificity. The most specific one wins.
Bad title: "AI for Marketing Teams" Good title: "How we cut content review cycles from 2 weeks to 2 days - a live walkthrough for B2B content teams"
Validate the topic. Pressure-test:
knowledge/icp/personas.md?If it fails any check, propose 3 repositioned alternatives before proceeding.
Build the full webinar pack in output/webinar/<DD-MM-YYYY>-<slug>/:
output/webinar/25-04-2026-ai-marketing-stack/
├── README.md # the master plan
├── abstract.md # public-facing description
├── speaker-brief.md # what speakers need to prepare
├── registration-page.md # landing page copy
├── promotion-sequence/ # all promo assets
│ ├── linkedin-posts.md # 5-7 posts across 3 weeks
│ ├── email-invites.md # 3-email invite sequence
│ ├── partner-co-marketing.md # if partner involved
│ └── ad-creative.md # paid ads if budget
├── day-of/
│ ├── run-of-show.md # minute-by-minute timing
│ ├── speaker-prep-checklist.md
│ ├── poll-questions.md # 3-5 audience polls
│ └── chat-moderation-script.md
└── follow-up/
├── attendee-email.md # within 24 hours
├── no-show-email.md # different message
├── nurture-sequence.md # 3-email follow-up over 14 days
└── recap-blog-post.md # SEO content from the recording
README.md (master plan):
# Webinar: <Title>
**Date**: DD-MM-YYYY HH:MM <TZ>
**Format**: <solo|panel|fireside|workshop>
**Length**: <minutes>
**Speakers**: <names + roles>
**Audience persona**: <from knowledge/icp/>
**Goal**: <pipeline|awareness|education|co-marketing|recruiting>
## Positioning summary
- **Target**: <specific audience from Dunford component 4>
- **Competitive alternative**: <what they'd do instead>
- **Unique value**: <what this webinar offers that alternatives don't>
- **Category**: <frame of reference from Dunford component 5>
## Success metrics
Every target must be this team's own prior figure with the source webinar named,
or `[NEEDS INPUT]`. Registration-to-attendance rates vary enormously by audience,
topic, timezone and list quality, so a remembered industry number is a fabricated one.
- Registrations target: [NEEDS INPUT: prior webinar in knowledge/learnings.md]
- Attendance rate target: [NEEDS INPUT]
- Conversion target: <metric, e.g. demo bookings, MQLs> [NEEDS INPUT]
- On-demand views target: [NEEDS INPUT]
## Go / no-go
- Checkpoint date: -7 days
- Registration figure at which we postpone: <chosen by the team from their own history>
- Decision owner: <name>
## Timeline
| Days out | Activity | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| -28 | Topic locked, speaker confirmed, page live | |
| -21 | Promo wave 1 (LinkedIn, email) | |
| -14 | Promo wave 2 + paid ads if budget | |
| -7 | Promo wave 3 + partner push | |
| -3 | Final push, reminder email 1 | |
| -1 | Reminder email 2, speaker rehearsal | |
| 0 | Live | |
| +1 | Attendee + no-show emails | |
| +3 | Nurture email 1, recap blog live | |
| +7 | Nurture email 2, on-demand promo | |
| +14 | Nurture email 3, retro | |
Abstract must-include list (for abstract.md):
Promotion sequence rules:
/linkedin-post for each)/email-nurture patterns)/ad-campaign-writer)Day-of run-of-show (minute by minute):
00:00-00:02 Pre-roll: hold music + countdown timer
00:02-00:05 Welcome + housekeeping (chat, Q&A, recording)
00:05-00:10 Speaker intros + agenda
00:10-00:30 Main content block 1
00:30-00:32 Poll #1 + reaction
00:32-00:55 Main content block 2
00:55-00:58 Poll #2
00:58-01:15 Q&A
01:15-01:18 Recap + CTA + on-demand link
01:18-01:20 Close
Follow-up sequence:
Self-check. Every item is checkable against the saved files. Point at the file and line, or the item fails.
README.md contains all 5 Dunford components filled in, and each names something specific rather than a category wordabstract.md contains a sentence naming the competitive alternative, a sentence naming the target characteristics, and a sentence stating the concrete deliverable attendees leave withknowledge/services/ or is marked [NEEDS INPUT]. List each number and its sourceREADME.md as confirmed with a date, or [NEEDS INPUT]. No promotion asset names an unconfirmed speaker[NEEDS INPUT]. No benchmark from memorySave all files. Print the folder tree at the end.
knowledge/learnings.md for prior webinar retros. Apply what worked, drop what didn't.The sample run-of-show is one shape, not the shape. Before handing it over, rebuild it to the length actually chosen (30, 45 or 60 minutes) and check the segments sum to that number. Handing speakers an 80-minute agenda for a 45-minute slot, with Q&A scheduled after the event ends, is a live operational failure, not a wording issue.
knowledge/services/ or a documented prior result. If neither exists, describe the outcome
qualitatively. The registration page is a public claim and in some sectors a regulated one.These are limitations of the skill, not of the event. Anything below that reaches the output must be labelled [UNVERIFIED] or [NEEDS INPUT] there.
/campaign-brief when the webinar is one channel inside a wider campaign, so the goal and budget are set before the topic/positioning-doc when the Dunford pre-work keeps failing the competitor test, because the problem is company positioning rather than the topic/email-nurture for the invite, reminder and follow-up sequences, which have their own consent and cadence rules/social-calendar to book the promotion posts into the month rather than adding them on top of a full calendar/linkedin-post for each individual promotion post/ad-campaign-writer for paid registration ads, only where there is budget/ppt-maker for the deck, once the run-of-show fixes the segment timings/case-study-writer when a customer speaker's story is the real asset and outlives the event/seo-article-writer or /content-repurposer for the recap article and the clips cut from the recording/retro afterwards, to write registration, attendance and conversion into knowledge/learnings.md so the next webinar has a real threshold instead of a guess