This is an original teaching example written for AI Teachers using the AI Teachers launch itself as the subject. It is not a client case study and not a performance result.
1. The starting notes
- want people to pay for help w/ AI, not just read free stuff
- $350 session already listed on the agency page
- audience: marketers? consultants? designers? small teams
- teaching background, 20+ yrs design/product/marketing
- free workshop exists, lots of content already
- maybe group workshop later?? maybe $149
- team thing from $1,500
- The earlier founder workshop is a separate campaign.
- do ads?? not sure about budget
2. What’s missing before anyone writes a brief
- Who exactly is the first audience? The notes list four. A brief for four audiences is a brief for none.
- What does “pay” mean here? A price is noted, but not what the buyer receives or when.
- Which statements are facts, and which are ideas? The notes mix both.
- What would count as success? Nothing says how we would know it worked.
3. Separating what we know from what we’re guessing
| Known | Proposed | Still needs testing |
|---|---|---|
| The agency publishes a $350 session. | A 90-minute private delivery format. | Whether the intended audience will buy. |
| Professional and teaching background. | One-task scope and bounded follow-up. | Which task generates the strongest demand. |
| Existing free learning content. | A professional-workflow campaign. | Whether learners reuse the process. |
This step is where the judgment lives. AI can sort the notes into columns quickly; deciding which column an item belongs in takes someone who knows what is actually true.
4. The resulting brief
Goal: Learn whether independent marketers and consultants will pay $350 for one private, 90-minute AI working session.
Audience: Independent marketers and consultants who produce briefs, research summaries, and client deliverables and already use AI.
Problem in their words: “I’m using AI, but I’m still spending too much effort trying to make the output useful.”
Message: Work on the context, the decisions, and the review—not just the prompt.
Offer: AI Working Session, $350, 90 minutes, one task.
Deliverables: Session page, one worked example, one free starter sheet, ten personal invitations.
Out of scope for now: Paid advertising, group workshops, a course library.
Open questions: Which task do buyers bring most often? How many hours does delivery really take?
5. The review that decides whether it’s usable
- Does every claim trace to a note, or is it labeled as a proposal?
- Could someone act on it tomorrow without asking what we meant?
- Are the open questions still visible, rather than quietly filled in?
- Is anything promised that we haven’t verified?
A review like this should catch anything presented as settled that is still a proposal. The team offer, for example, belongs under “proposed,” and the brief should say so.
Where AI helped, and where judgment decided
AI helped: sorting the notes, drafting the brief structure, and listing questions the notes didn’t answer.
Judgment decided: choosing one audience, deciding what is known versus proposed, and cutting everything that wasn’t part of the first test.
Try it on your notes
Download the Workflow Starter Sheet and run one real task through it. Or bring the task to a working session.