We didn't build this brief to share it.

We built it because every Monday morning, someone on the team would spend 90 minutes wrestling with AI-generated copy that missed the mark. The AI wasn't broken. Our inputs were. We were asking the right questions in the wrong order, forgetting critical context, and then spending more time fixing the output than it would've taken to write it ourselves.

So we built a system. A one-page brief that takes 15 minutes to fill out and produces AI drafts that are 80-90% ready to publish. Not "starting points." Not "inspiration." Actual usable copy.

It took us about 12 hours to get it right. We tested it across blog posts, ad copy, email campaigns, and social content. It worked. Our 90-minute editing sessions dropped to 15 minutes. Our junior copywriter could brief AI and get better results than our senior writer was getting without it.

Now we're sharing it because no marketing team should waste time solving problems that are already solved.

Everyone's talking about prompt engineering. Few are talking about brief engineering.

Here's what actually happens. You sit down to create a blog post. You open ChatGPT or Claude. You type something like "write a blog post about marketing automation for small businesses." The AI generates 800 words. You read it. It's fine. Generic. Safe. Missing your brand voice. Light on specifics. Heavy on obvious statements.

So you edit. And edit. And edit some more.

An hour later, you've rewritten 60% of it. You could've written it from scratch in the same time.

The issue isn't the AI. It's that you gave it a two-sentence brief and expected it to read your mind about tone, audience sophistication, the specific problem you're solving, the transformation you're promising, and the fifteen contextual details that make your content yours instead of everyone else's.

This is the AI content paradox. The tools are powerful, but without structure, they create more work than they save.

After wasting approximately 40 hours on back-and-forth AI revisions, I got tired of being inefficient.

I pulled apart every successful AI content session and every disaster. I identified the common threads. The result is a one-page creative brief with five sections that force you to think clearly before you ask AI to think for you.

Most people brief AI on what they want to write about. We brief on what we want the reader to become after reading.

This section alone eliminates 80% of generic AI output. Because now the AI isn't writing "about marketing automation." It's writing for someone who's drowning in manual tasks and wants to reclaim 10 hours a week without spending $50K on enterprise software.

AI defaults to corporate-safe blandness. You have to tell it what you sound like AND what you don't sound like.

Example: "Write like David Ogilvy. Clear, research-driven, no wasted words. Avoid anything that sounds like a press release or a thought leader trying too hard."

Here's what separates amateur briefs from professional ones. Constraints.

The tighter your constraints, the better your output. "Write a blog post" produces garbage. "Write an 800-word blog post structured as: hook with data, three tactical examples with specific metrics, ending with a decision framework" produces something you can use.

This is where most AI content fails. It answers the question but doesn't land the significance.

If your brief can't answer "so what?" clearly, your AI output won't either.

Before you hit generate, define what "ready to publish" looks like.

This is your quality checklist. Does the output need:

Write it down. Because "good enough" isn't a standard. It's an excuse to keep editing forever.

Most prompt engineering advice focuses on the prompt. This brief focuses on the thinking before the prompt.

When you're forced to articulate the transformation, voice, constraints, significance, and done-state before you write a single word of instruction to AI, three things happen.

First, you realize you weren't clear on what you wanted. Half the time, filling out the brief reveals you didn't actually know what you were trying to say. That's not AI's fault. That's briefing's job.

Second, your prompts get 10x more specific. Instead of "write about X," you're giving AI a clear picture of the reader, the goal, the style, and the structure. Specific inputs produce specific outputs.

Third, you stop chasing perfection. When you've defined "done," you can actually be done. No more "let me regenerate that one more time" loops that eat your afternoon.

Copy the template at the end of this article. Fill it out before you open your AI tool. It takes 15 minutes the first time. After a few reps, you'll do it in 5.

Then paste the entire brief into your AI tool as context before your actual content request. Something like:

"Here's my creative brief for this piece: [paste full brief]. Now, based on this brief, write [your specific request]."

The output won't be perfect. But it'll be 80-90% there instead of 40% there. And that's the difference between AI saving you time and AI costing you time.

Here's how to implement this system this week.

Immediate (5 minutes):

This week (10 minutes):

This month (ongoing):

The first brief takes 15 minutes. The fifth takes 5. By the tenth, you'll wonder how you ever created content without it.

Copy everything below this line. Fill it out before your next AI content session.

Date: [Date]
Content Type: [Blog post / Email / Ad copy / Social post / etc.]
Working Title: [Your working title]

Reader's Before State:
[Where is the reader now? What specific pain point or frustration are they experiencing? What have they already tried that hasn't worked?]

Reader's After State:
[Where will they be after consuming and implementing this? What specific capability, outcome, or understanding will they have? Be concrete.]

The Gap:
[What's preventing them from getting there on their own? What's missing? Why do they need this content?]

Voice Characteristics (3-5 specific traits):

Forbidden Words/Phrases (be specific):

Copywriter/Style Reference:
[Who does this sound like? David Ogilvy? Ann Handley? Seth Godin? A specific publication?]

Sentence Structure Preference:
[Short and punchy? Long and winding? Mix? Specify.]

Format Requirements:

Research Boundaries:

Angle/POV:

Why This Matters:
[What changes if they implement this? What stays broken if they ignore it? Make the stakes clear.]

What Makes It Different:
[Why is YOUR take valuable? What's the insight they won't find elsewhere?]

The Action Threshold:
[What's the smallest possible first step? What can they do in the next 15 minutes to start?]

This output is ready to publish when it includes:

Additional Notes:
[Any other context the AI needs? Deadline? Related content? Specific competitors to reference or avoid?]

Use this after AI generates your draft. If it doesn't pass all checks, brief better next time.

Content Quality:

Voice Quality:

Structural Quality:

Technical Quality:

If 80% of these boxes are checked, you're ready to polish and publish. If less than 60% are checked, your brief needs work.

I've seen this brief cut editing time in half for every team that actually uses it.

The hardest part isn't filling it out. It's accepting that 15 minutes of thinking before prompting is faster than 90 minutes of fixing after prompting.

Most people skip the brief because they think they already know what they want. Then they spend an hour editing AI output because they realized they didn't.

Do the thinking first. AI will reward you for it.

So here's the A/B question to close this out:

A) You're already using a brief this detailed. What would you add to make it even better?

B) You're not using anything like this yet. Which section would help you most right away?

by SP
for the AdAI Ed. Team