Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-09
Write a personal brand positioning statement narrow enough that a stranger could describe you back after one profile visit
Produces a one-line positioning statement plus 3-4 content pillars for your LinkedIn presence, built from what you actually want to be known for and what you're deliberately choosing not to post about, so the brand stays recognizable instead of diluted across every topic you find interesting.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
You are helping me define a personal brand positioning statement and content pillars for LinkedIn — the goal is narrow enough that someone could describe what I'm known for after visiting my profile once, not a broad umbrella that covers everything I'm interested in.
WHAT I ACTUALLY DO
I run a 12-person growth marketing agency focused on B2B SaaS companies under $5M ARR.
WHAT I WANT TO BE KNOWN FOR
The person who tells B2B SaaS founders the truth about why their paid ads aren't converting, instead of just running more ads.
WHO NEEDS TO KNOW THIS ABOUT ME
Founders of B2B SaaS companies between $1M-$5M ARR who are currently burning budget on paid ads with no attribution.
TOPICS I'M TEMPTED TO POST ABOUT BUT SHOULDN'T
General startup hustle-culture content, and commentary on politics or news events unrelated to marketing.
WHAT MAKES MY TAKE DIFFERENT FROM OTHERS IN MY FIELD
I've killed more of my own agency's ad campaigns than I've scaled, and I say so publicly — most agencies never admit a campaign failed.
WHAT TO PRODUCE
First, write one positioning statement, a single sentence, in the format "I help [specific audience] [achieve specific outcome] by [the differentiated approach], unlike [the common alternative approach]." Push back if the audience or outcome I gave you is too broad to fit that sentence without becoming vague — a positioning statement that could apply to half the people in the same industry has failed, and I'd rather you tell me it's too broad than hand back something generic. Then derive 3-4 content pillars, each pillar being a specific angle you'd actually post about repeatedly, not a topic area so wide it could contain any post ("leadership" is not a pillar; "the specific mistakes first-time managers make when a report challenges them publicly" is a pillar). For each pillar, give one real post idea that pillar could produce this month, using something true about my actual work rather than a hypothetical. Explicitly list what falls outside these pillars, using the topics I said I'm tempted to post about, and give a one-sentence reason each one dilutes rather than strengthens the positioning — not just "it's off-brand," but why a reader who follows you for the stated positioning would find that post confusing or trust-eroding.
WHAT NOT TO DO
Do not produce a positioning statement that lists multiple audiences or multiple outcomes joined by "and" — if there are genuinely two audiences, tell me that and ask which one to prioritize rather than serving both weakly. Do not soften the exclusion list into vague professional development advice; be specific about why each excluded topic actually costs you positioning strength.
OUTPUT FORMAT
1. The positioning statement (or a note on why the inputs are too broad to produce one, plus a narrower alternative to consider).
2. 3-4 content pillars, each with one concrete post idea.
3. The exclusion list with reasoning.Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
Requiring the positioning statement to fit a single-audience, single-outcome sentence structure and instructing the model to push back rather than comply when the inputs are too broad works against a specific behavior: language models optimize for producing a usable-looking answer to whatever was asked, so when given a vague audience like 'professionals' or a vague outcome like 'grow their career,' the default behavior is to write a grammatically valid positioning statement that sounds specific through confident phrasing while remaining true of almost anyone — explicitly instructing the model to flag over-broad inputs rather than paper over them with confident language is what actually forces the narrowing, since without that instruction the model has no incentive to tell you your inputs were the problem. The requirement that each pillar produce a real, checkable post idea from your actual work — rather than a hypothetical — matters because an LLM asked only for 'content pillars' will produce abstract category labels that are easy to generate but don't reveal whether the pillar is actually postable; forcing a concrete example surfaces immediately whether a pillar is too thin to sustain repeated posting. The exclusion list with reasoning is the most load-bearing part structurally: most personal-brand exercises define what to post about and stop there, but positioning is actually defined as much by contrast as by inclusion, and a model asked only for pillars has no mechanism to surface the contrast unless the exclusion and its cost are explicitly requested as separate, reasoned output.
What you get back
Positioning: "I help B2B SaaS founders under $5M ARR find out why their paid ads aren't converting by killing underperforming campaigns fast and publishing the postmortems, unlike agencies that keep scaling spend to justify their retainer." Pillar 1: "Campaigns I killed and why" — post idea: the $40K ad set we shut down in week 2 and what the CTR data actually showed. Excluded: hustle-culture posts — a founder who trusts you for hard numbers on ad performance loses trust if your feed also reads like a motivational account.
Verified against
ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-09
Changelog
- 2026-08-09 — Initial publish, verified against ChatGPT GPT-5.1.
Need this built into your business?
If a prompt isn't enough — Google Ads management, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE GOOGLE ADS MANAGEMENT
