The Challenge
Throughout my career managing brands, developing media strategies, and leading e-commerce initiatives, I've relied on research, rules, and frameworks from evidence-based marketing leaders Byron Sharp, Les Binet, and Mark Ritson.
But accessing their expertise (quickly and accurately) had friction:
- Which of Sharp's laws apply to my brand's category challenges?
- Where did Binet quantify that metric on sales activation?
- What did Ritson say about audience targeting for large brands?
Standard AI tools produce generic marketing advice without rigorous backing. When strategic decisions affect brand health and budgets, you need verifiable expertise, not plausible-sounding recommendations.
The opportunity was clear: build an advisory system that provides immediate access to evidence-based marketing expertise with complete source transparency and verifiable accuracy.
I chose these three experts because each provides distinct solutions:
- Ritson focuses on strategic process
- Binet on resource allocation and effectiveness
- Sharp on growth mechanisms and empirical laws
Their productive disagreements are the system's strength. When experts disagree on topics like differentiation, targeting, or metrics, you see the trade-offs and choose based on context. Exactly how real strategic boards operate.
Implementation
I chose NotebookLM because every response must cite specific uploaded documents. This ensures accurate, verifiable answers without contamination from unreliable sources.
Using NotebookLM's deep research capability, I generated three in-depth research reports focussed on each expert's principles, and gathered sources relating to primary research, frameworks, and published work. Then, I audited for quality, removing duplicates and third-party interpretations, and implemented file naming conventions to ensure each expert's perspective stays distinct.
Through many iterations, I developed the notebook configuration prompt that includes:
- Knowledge ownership rules preventing experts from citing each other's sources without attribution
- Zero assumption rule forcing experts to request missing context rather than assume
- Board's verdict structure presenting universal agreement, strategic trade-offs, and conditional decision frameworks rather than artificial consensus
To validate the system, I developed stress tests designed to break it. Tests included asking experts about each other's concepts, deliberately misattributing advice, and forcing responses on topics outside their source material. The validation confirmed experts maintained their distinct perspectives while providing accurate, source-backed responses. This transformed the system from interesting experiment to trusted strategic tool.
Business Impact
Users of the system can now validate any strategic decision against the Marketing Advisory Board before taking action. This provides recommendations grounded in research rather than marketing folklore, arguments backed by specific studies, and rapid consultation replacing hours of manual research. The clarity on where experts agree versus disagree shows which principles are non-negotiable and where context determines the answer.
To see how this works in practice, I've made the Marketing Advisory Board system publicly accessible:
Test it with your own strategic questions and see how Ritson, Binet, and Sharp respond to real marketing challenges.