The content factory: thirty outputs from one pillar

I'm [role] at a company that does [what, for whom].
Here's a raw pile of what people ask us — questions from
support, sales calls, and comments:

[paste the list, unedited is fine, 20-50 items]

Pick 8 candidates for pillar content (one solid article or
video that a month of smaller outputs will build on).

For each candidate, write:
1. The topic phrased as a question the reader would ask
   themselves
2. Exactly who this helps and in what situation
3. Why this topic deserves depth, not just one post
4. What we need to have on hand for it not to be generic —
   what data, story, or process of ours belongs in it
5. How many smaller outputs this could yield, and of what kind
6. How long this will stay relevant (months / years / goes
   stale fast)

Rank by how many people it helps, multiplied by how long it
lasts. Don't add topics that aren't implied by my list.

I'm writing pillar content on: [topic, phrased as a question].
Target reader: [who, what's bothering them, what they already
know and don't know].
What I have available: [own data, case studies, a process,
interviews — list them].
Length: [e.g. 2,000 words]. Format: [article / video].

Propose an outline:
- 6-9 sections in an order that makes sense to the reader
  (from their situation to a solution, not from our company
  to our product)
- for each section, 3 bullets of what it should cover
- for each section, flag whether it should carry our data, a
  story, or a general explanation
- 3 spots where the piece is most likely to slide into
  promoting our product, and what to write there instead
- what's missing from my material to pull the outline off

Don't write the text, just the outline.

Here are 5 of our texts that I think are a good example of
how we want to sound:

[paste texts — a post, part of an article, an email to a
customer, anything]

And 2 texts that sound wrong:

[paste]

Build a style guide for our brand from this. I want concrete
rules, not adjectives:
1. Formal or casual address, and how we speak to the reader
2. Sentence and paragraph length — measure it on the samples
   and give actual numbers
3. Words and phrases we use (pull them from the texts)
4. Words and phrases we never use (pull them from the bad
   examples)
5. How we open and close a piece (the pattern from the samples)
6. How we talk about competitors, price, and our own product
7. Humor: how much, and what kind
8. What we keep for clarity's sake, given our field (technical
   terms — which ones we explain, which we don't)

Back up every rule with a quote from the samples. Where the
samples don't support a clear rule, say it can't be determined.

Here's our pillar piece: [paste the text or video transcript].

Break it into standalone ideas — ones that make sense even
pulled out of context and can carry their own post.

Aim for 25-35 items. For each one:
- the core idea in one sentence (a claim, not a headline)
- type: opinion / how-to / a number or fact / story /
  common mistake / definition / list / objection-and-answer
- who it lands hardest with
- how strongly it stands on its own (1-5)
- where in the text it comes from (quote or paragraph)

Rules:
- don't add anything that isn't in the text
- don't repeat the same idea in different words; if it
  repeats in the text, merge it into one item
- copy numbers and facts verbatim, don't round them

Here's the idea stockpile from our pillar:
[paste the stockpile or selected items]

Produce 8 LinkedIn posts. Each built on ONE idea from the
stockpile (cite the item number), no summarizing the whole
article.

Format for each post:
- first line: a claim or situation that makes the reader click
  through. No “Ever notice this?” questions, no emoji
- 4-8 short paragraphs, blank line between them
- a concrete example or number in at least one paragraph
- ending: one sentence that states the takeaway — not a
  “comment below with your thoughts” call to action
- 120-200 words

Match the tone in the project instructions. Don't use emoji
as bullets. No hashtags.

Posts must not repeat each other — every one has to work on
its own, even if a reader saw all eight.

Pick 5 ideas from the stockpile that work visually, and turn
each into a carousel outline (8 slides).

For each slide:
- text on the slide: 12 words max, readable on a phone
- a note on what should be visible in the image (no stock
  photo descriptions — something specific from our world)

Carousel structure: slide 1 the problem, slides 2-6 content
one step or point at a time, slide 7 a recap, slide 8 what
the reader should do next.

Under each carousel, write a caption of 3-5 sentences that
makes sense even without swiping through the slides.

Write a newsletter from our pillar [topic].
Subscribers: [who they are, why they signed up, how often we
write to them].

Structure:
- subject line: 5 variants, each a different angle (a number,
  a question, a specific situation, a contradiction, a direct
  promise). 50 characters max.
- first paragraph: the reader's specific situation, not a
  greeting and not “these days...”
- body: 3 ideas from the pillar, each with a short explanation
  and one example
- one thing the reader should do today, in under 10 minutes
- a link to the full pillar with one sentence on what more
  they'll find there

Length: 400-600 words. Tone per the project.
No “hope this finds you well,” no superlatives.

Write a short video script (60-90 seconds) for idea
[item number from the stockpile].
Speaker: [who], filmed [on a phone / on camera], setting
[description].

Format:
- first 5 seconds: the exact words to say so the viewer
  doesn't scroll past. No greeting, no self-introduction.
- write out the body sentence by sentence, exactly as it
  should be spoken — spoken language, not written (short
  sentences, no three-line compound clauses)
- for each part, a note on what's visible on screen
- ending: one sentence
- 3 on-screen title variants at the end (8 words max)

130-180 spoken words total. Read it back to yourself and cut
anything that's awkward to say out loud.

Pull everything from the stockpile tagged “common mistake” or
“objection-and-answer” and turn it into a website FAQ.

For each question:
- phrase the question in the customer's words (the way they'd
  actually ask it, not what we'd call it)
- an answer of 60-120 words, the first sentence answers
  directly
- where the answer is “it depends,” say exactly on what
- a link to the part of the pillar where it's covered in depth

Order by the question we get asked most.
Don't write marketing answers — where our product is a bad
fit, say so.

Here's my stockpile of outputs from the [topic] pillar:
[paste the list of finished and planned pieces — posts,
carousels, newsletter, video, FAQ]

Schedule them for [month]. Conditions:
- LinkedIn [3]x a week, Facebook [2]x a week, newsletter
  [1]x every 14 days, video [1]x a month
- we publish [Mon-Fri], our best times are [state if known]
- don't run strong pieces back to back, spread them out
- newsletter only after at least two posts on the topic have
  gone out
- I'm on vacation week [number], nothing that needs my
  reaction that week

Output as a table: date, channel, piece name, idea from the
stockpile, status (done / needs writing), what it still needs
(image, chart, client sign-off).

At the end, tell me where the month has a gap and what from
the stockpile to fill it with.

We're batching. Here's the calendar for the next four weeks
and the idea stockpile:

[paste the calendar]
[paste the stockpile]

Produce first drafts of ALL pieces on the calendar at once,
in date order. For each one, note: date, channel, idea number
from the stockpile.

Stick to the formats we agreed on in the project. Don't stop
to comment or ask questions along the way — produce everything,
and put any open questions in a list at the end.

For any piece that uses a number, a name, or a claim about a
third party, add a line at the end: SOURCE: [where in the
pillar it's from]. Where you have no source, write
SOURCE: MISSING.

Here's a finished piece of content, ready to publish:
[paste the text]

The source it came from (our pillar):
[paste the relevant part, or the whole pillar]

Check it and list findings — don't rewrite ANYTHING:
1. Factual claims, numbers, and names — for each one, note
   whether it's backed up in the source or whether it was
   added in the text. List anything added separately and
   flag it clearly.
2. Claims that were hedged in the source (“may,” “tends to”)
   and got stronger in the text (“always,” “proven”).
3. Promises to the customer that don't belong there.
4. Mentions of competitors or third parties.
5. Departures from the tone in the project instructions.
6. Sentences I wouldn't be able to defend if someone
   questioned them in the comments.

Cite the relevant spot for every finding.

Here's an overview of our content from the last 12 months
with results:

[paste: date, channel, topic, reach/views, engagement,
clicks — whatever you have]

Run an audit:
1. Which pieces are evergreen (still true today, not tied to
   an event or a season) — list them
2. Which of those had above-average results and are worth
   republishing
3. Which need an update before republishing (what exactly has
   gone stale in them)
4. Which pieces are permanently valid but landed weak —
   suggest a different treatment (a different angle, format,
   or opening line)
5. Topics that have repeatedly worked well and don't have a
   pillar behind them
6. Topics we put work into that didn't work — and whether the
   reason is visible

Work only from the numbers I gave you. Where you don't have
data at the end, say so instead of guessing.

This piece worked, and I want to reuse it after [8] months:
[paste the original text and its results]

Suggest 4 ways to publish it again without it being a repeat:
1. A different format (post → carousel / video / checklist)
2. A different angle — the same idea from a different role's
   or situation's point of view
3. An expansion — what we can add today from what we've
   learned since
4. The counterpoint — where that claim no longer fully holds
   today

For each one, note what stays from the original text and what
needs verifying, since it may have gone stale.