About the unverified marks on this pageFigures tagged unverified are PACE-local estimates that could not be confirmed against any published source, so they are labelled rather than quietly presented as fact. Every other factual claim on this page — statutes, standards codes, gene biology, primary-source citations — was independently checked; the full claim audit, including what came back wrong, lists every claim with its source.
Try it Tuesday · 90 minutes
Run this next week
90 minutes, one real client named at the start — a campus club works. Minutes 0–10: write the client's actual objective in one sentence. Minutes 10–40: run the twelve-positioning-statements prompt, then cut to three, writing a one-line rationale for every cut. Minutes 40–75: an arm's-length test — students show the three surviving positions to people from other majors and record which the stranger believed and which they distrusted on sight. Minutes 75–90: report the gap between the position the team liked and the one outsiders trusted. The deliverable is the cut rationale plus the arm's-length notes; it grades the judgment that survives after AI supplies the volume.
The full assignment
Make it 3D print · laser cut
Physical packaging or a point-of-sale piece for a real local client. Holding a mockup surfaces every decision a slide deck hides: size, weight, what the customer reads first from arm’s length.
Build it AI chat · no code
A message-testing harness. Students generate a wide spread of positioning variants, then build a simple landing page per variant and measure. The AI supplies volume; the student supplies the judgment about which variant is worth defending.
4 weeks, realistically
The 4-week version
- Wk 1Land one real client, even a campus organization. Written brief, signed by the client — enough to design the packaging or point-of-sale mockup from.
- Wk 2Submit the packaging cut file at the start of the week. Generate wide with AI in class, then cut down to three positions with a written rationale per cut.
- Wk 3Build one page per position, run whatever traffic is available for five days.
- Wk 4Client presentation with the physical mockup and the actual numbers. The client picks. Students debrief the gap between their favorite and the client’s.
Starter prompt & what the model actually did
The prompt, run for real
Generate twelve distinct positioning statements for this product, aimed at this audience: [describe product and audience]. Make them genuinely different from each other in strategy, not in wording: vary what need is being claimed, what the competition is, and what the customer has to believe. Number them. Then for each one, write the single sentence a skeptical customer would say to reject it.
Here are twelve positioning statements, each built on a different strategic bet, followed by the rejection each would earn from a skeptic. **1. The energy play** — For office workers who hit an afternoon slump, our kombucha is the clean alternative to a third coffee that lifts you without the crash. *Skeptic: "It's fizzy tea, not a stimulant — I'd feel nothing."* **2. The gut-health play** — For people who care about digestion, our raw, unpasteurized brew delivers live cultures that a probiotic pill can't match. *Skeptic: "A capsule is dosed and studied; your bottle is a guess."* **3. The sugar-swap play** — For anyone quitting soda, we're the tart, bubbly drink that scratches the same itch for a fraction of the sugar. *Skeptic: "Kombucha still has sugar — this is marketing, not a swap."* **4. The local-provenance play** — For Honolulu residents who want to keep dollars on-island, we're the kombucha brewed a few blocks from your desk, not shipped from the mainland. *Skeptic: "I care how it tastes, not the zip code it's brewed in."* **5. The ritual play** — For the weekend farmers-market crowd, we're the small pleasure that makes Saturday morning feel intentional. *Skeptic: "That's a vibe, not a reason to spend $9."* **6. The status play** — For people whose desk drink signals their standards, we're what you're seen holding instead of a Red Bull. *Skeptic: "Nobody at my office is judging my beverage."* **7. The clean-label play** — For label-readers, we're the drink with five ingredients you can pronounce and nothing you can't. *Skeptic: "Every brand claims that now — it's table stakes, not a difference."* **8. The hydration play** — For desk-bound people who forget to drink water, we're the flavorful reason you'll actually stay hydrated all day. *Skeptic: "Water is free and does that better."* **9. The craft/flavor play** — For those bored by mass-market SKUs, we're the small-batch kombucha with rotating flavors you can't get anywhere else. *Skeptic: "I found a flavor I like — I don't want it to disappear next month."* **10. The immunity play** — For people trying not to get sick in a shared open-plan office, we're the daily habit that supports your defenses. *Skeptic: "No drink has ever stopped me catching what's going around."* **11. The mindful-alcohol play** — For happy-hour skippers, we're the sophisticated non-alcoholic pour that holds its own in a glass. *Skeptic: "If I'm not drinking, I'll just have a soda water for free."* **12. The values-community play** — For buyers who want their money to back real people, we're a brand you can meet face-to-face every weekend. *Skeptic: "I like the founder, but I buy on price and taste, not friendship."* A note: several of these (immunity, gut health) lean on claims that invite regulatory scrutiny and the sharpest skepticism — worth validating before they anchor your messaging.
- Genuine strategic diversity across the twelveThe energy, gut-health, sugar-swap, local-provenance and status plays rest on materially different bets — the model followed the 'different in strategy, not wording' instruction well.
- Self-flagged regulatory risk on immunity and gut-health claimsUnprompted, it warned that claims #2 and #10 'invite regulatory scrutiny' — a useful, accurate caution students should heed.
- Skeptic lines are real objections, not strawmen'Water is free and does that better' and 'that's a vibe, not a reason to spend $9' are the actual rejections these positions earn.
- Convergent phrasing: nearly every entry uses a 'For [people] who...' frameThe template repetition shows the model's pull toward one copy structure; a student should vary the form when testing so the frame itself is not the confound.
Assessment
Rubric
| Criterion | Weight | What it assesses |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic diversity of the spread | 20% | The retained positions rest on genuinely different bets — need, competitor, required belief — not reworded versions of one idea. |
| Quality of the cut rationale | 30% | Each elimination is justified against the client's objective and audience, not the team's taste. |
| Evidence of audience reaction | 30% | The arm's-length test is reported honestly, distinguishing what an outsider believed from what the team hoped. |
| Claim scrutiny | 20% | Flags positions that depend on unproven or regulated claims before they anchor the campaign. |
What this replaces
Swapping it into a real course
Replaces
The semester campaign deck presented to the class.
What is lost
The polished, comprehensive campaign document and its production values.
What is gained
Students practice the actual professional move — killing nine plausible ideas and defending why — instead of over-investing in one campaign picked in week two; the grade rewards discrimination over decoration.
Where AI is bad at this
The failure your students should catch
A model generates marketing copy that is fluent, on-trend, and strategically empty — converging on the same benefit language ('elevate', 'seamless', 'community') regardless of product, and asserting a differentiator without evidence any customer cares about it. Its output looks like a finished campaign while smuggling in unvalidated claims, some of which — health, sustainability — invite regulatory and skeptical scrutiny it never flags.
Budget & logistics
What it costs to run
- Instructor prep1 hours
- Class time90 minutes
- Per-student cost$0 for the Tuesday version; roughly $10–20 per team in print or cut stock unverified for packaging or point-of-sale mockups in the four-week version.
- Fabrication file dueFirst day of Week 2 — submit the packaging cut file at the start of the week the positions are chosen; it is designed from the week-1 client brief. PACE quotes 7–10 business days (up to 14 calendar days), so it clears before the week-4 client presentation.
- Calendar dependencyMessage testing needs no lead time. The packaging mockup is designed from the week-1 client brief, so its file goes in at the start of week 2 and the up-to-14-calendar-day turnaround clears before the week-4 client presentation.
Three sizes
Scale it to the time you have
One session
The 90-minute generate-cut-test session producing a cut rationale and arm's-length notes; no fabrication.
4 weeks
The seeded four-week plan: signed client brief, wide generation cut to three, one landing page per position with real traffic, then a client presentation with the physical mockup and the numbers.
One semester
A full client engagement — brief, wide generation, a multivariate landing-page test with real traffic, fabricated packaging, and a final debrief on the gap between the team's favorite and the client's choice.
Reserved · live build
This space is intentionally empty. During the Day 8 session it will be filled in live — fill the liveBuild field in content/marketing.json and rebuild.
Tell us what happened
Run it, then say how it went
If you try this — the 90-minute version, the prompt, any part of it — send back what you tried and what happened, especially anywhere the model was confidently wrong. That is the material the next session is built from.
Email feedback on Marketing / Strategic Communication →
Opens a draft in your mail client, already addressed and titled. No form, no account, nothing to sign up for.