When to use this prompt
When you have a strong opinion you want to publish but the structure feels mushy. Most attempted thought leadership fails because it splits between “here’s what I think” and “here’s what’s already obvious.” The result reads as half-take, half-summary, and earns neither attribution nor engagement.
This prompt forces a decision: what is the central claim, what is the contrarian angle, what evidence backs it, and what should the reader do with it. Use it before drafting anything substantial — a blog essay, a keynote, an op-ed, a long-form LinkedIn post.
The prompt
<role>Editor specializing in opinion-driven thought leadership essays.</role>
<task>Build an essay outline around the rough idea below. Force a single central claim, name the contrarian angle, identify three pieces of evidence, and propose a closing the reader can act on.</task>
<inputs>
<rough_idea>
[2 to 5 sentences of what you want to argue, in your own words. Include any specific anecdotes, data points, or named examples you already plan to use.]
</rough_idea>
<audience>[WHO YOU ARE WRITING FOR, e.g., "B2B SaaS marketers", "first-time founders", "in-house counsel"]</audience>
<format>[OPTIONAL: blog essay, keynote, LinkedIn long post, podcast monologue, op-ed]</format>
<word_target>[OPTIONAL: target length; defaults to 1200-1800 words for an essay]</word_target>
</inputs>
<instructions>
1. Distill a single central claim from the rough idea. The claim must be a specific, falsifiable statement, not a topic. "AI is changing search" is a topic. "Most marketing teams will spend 2026 measuring the wrong thing because their dashboards still treat traffic as the goal" is a claim.
2. Name the contrarian angle: which mainstream view does the claim push against? Be specific about who holds the mainstream view (analysts, vendors, the press) so the essay has a real opponent.
3. Identify three pieces of supporting evidence. Each piece must be one of: (a) named data, (b) a specific case or anecdote, (c) a named expert position. Generic appeals to common knowledge do not count.
4. Surface the strongest counter-argument an informed reader would raise, and name how the essay handles it. Skipping this is the most common failure mode of thought leadership.
5. Propose a closing the reader can act on within 7 days. Vague "rethink your strategy" closings do not count. Name a specific action.
6. Output the outline in the structure below. Do not draft the essay; only the outline. Mark any unverified data points as [VERIFY].
</instructions>
<output_format>
**Working title:** [≤65 characters]
**Central claim:** [one sentence, specific and falsifiable]
**Contrarian angle:** [the mainstream view this pushes against, and who holds it]
**Three pieces of evidence:**
1. [Type: data / case / expert] [Specific reference, with source if applicable]
2. [Type] [Reference]
3. [Type] [Reference]
**Strongest counter-argument:** [The objection an informed reader would raise]
**How the essay handles it:** [1-2 sentences]
**Outline (H2 sections):**
1. [Hook section title] — [1-2 sentence summary]
2. [The claim section title] — [summary]
3. [Evidence 1 section title] — [summary]
4. [Evidence 2 section title] — [summary]
5. [Evidence 3 section title] — [summary]
6. [Counter-argument section title] — [summary]
7. [Action section title] — [summary]
**Closing action (what the reader does within 7 days):** [Specific, named action]
**Unverified claims to check before publish:**
- [VERIFY] [claim, with where to verify]
</output_format>How it works
The forced single-claim distillation is the highest-leverage move in essay planning. Most thought leadership fails because the writer holds two or three claims simultaneously, never picks one, and produces an essay that hedges its way to nothing. Asking for one falsifiable sentence forces the choice.
The contrarian angle requirement is the second-highest leverage. Essays without an opponent read as opinions floating in space; essays with a named opponent (“most analysts believe X, but here’s why that’s wrong”) give the reader a stake in continuing.
The “strongest counter-argument” section is what separates real thought leadership from ranting. Anticipating the objection and handling it on the page builds the writer’s credibility and makes the essay defensible. Most writers skip this because it’s hard; the prompt makes it required.
The “closing action within 7 days” constraint kills the most common bad ending: vague calls to “rethink your approach.” Forcing a specific action makes the essay accountable and gives the reader a reason to share it.
Example output
Working title: Stop measuring traffic. Measure who’s recommending you.
Central claim: Most marketing teams will spend 2026 measuring the wrong thing because their dashboards still treat traffic as the goal, while AI engines have shifted the value to mention-share.
Contrarian angle: Pushes against the analyst consensus that “AI search will reduce traffic but the funnel still works the same.” It doesn’t; the funnel’s middle layer has changed.
Three pieces of evidence:
- Data: [VERIFY] BrightEdge data showing 40% of high-intent prompts now produce zero-click answers in AI Overviews.
- Case: A B2B SaaS company whose CTR held steady but pipeline dropped 30% in Q1.
- Expert: [VERIFY] Recent Andy Crestodina post arguing branded search is the new metric.
Strongest counter-argument: “Traffic still correlates with revenue; mention-share is unproven.”
How the essay handles it: Acknowledge the correlation has held historically, but show the lag in the case study above — pipeline broke before traffic did. Argue that mention-share is leading, traffic is lagging.
Outline:
- The dashboard that lied — open with the case study
- The claim — name the metric shift 3-5. Three pieces of evidence
- “But traffic still works” — counter-argument
- Three things to add to your dashboard this week
Closing action: Add a “branded mention frequency” column to the team’s weekly marketing review. Specific, named, doable in 30 minutes.
Variations
- Talk version: Adapt the prompt to output a 25-minute keynote outline with timing per section, a single visual concept per section, and a planned audience-question moment.
- Op-ed version: Constrain to 800 words and require the closing to be a policy or industry-level recommendation, not just a personal action.
- Counter-essay mode: Paste an existing thought leadership essay you disagree with. Ask the model to outline a rebuttal essay using this same structure.