A colleague of mine shared a viral post: ~10 “McKinsey as a Service” prompts (URL at the bottom of the article). Market sizing. Competitive analysis. Due diligence. All structured, all thorough-looking.
And they asked me what I thought. I said it was fine. I mean they were. It’d likely get the job done.
But, then I asked, “is fine what you’re going for?”
These prompts aren’t bad. (Almost nothing AI produces is bad — it’s just potentially misaligned.) The issue is they’re shopping lists. They tell the AI what to put in the cart.
But they don’t tell it how to think.
Here’s the TAM analysis prompt from the twitter post (credit below):
Market Sizing & TAM Analysis
You are a McKinsey-level market analyst. I need a Total Addressable Market (TAM) analysis for [YOUR INDUSTRY/PRODUCT].
Please provide:
• Top-down approach: Start from global market → narrow to my segment
• Bottom-up approach: Calculate from unit economics × potential customers
• TAM, SAM, SOM breakdown with dollar figures
• Growth rate projections for the next 5 years (CAGR) • Key assumptions behind each estimate
• Comparison to 3 analyst reports or market research firms Format as an investor-ready market sizing slide with clear methodology.
Context: My product is [DESCRIBE PRODUCT], targeting [TARGET CUSTOMER] in [GEOGRAPHY].
If you ran this through Claude or ChatGPT right now, you’d get something like:
“The global legal tech market is valued at $28.3B (Grand View Research, 2024) with a CAGR of 9.1%…”
Clean, very well structured, and extremely confident-sounding. And if that’s what you need, great — it’s a very fine prompt.
But… push on any number and the foundation is shaky.
Assumptions are buried. The top-down and bottom-up will suspiciously converge — because nothing told the AI to honestly flag when they don’t.
Every figure is a single point estimate with false precision.
The prompt is missing what I consider foundational: Intent, Pedagogy, and the Emotional Contract. It tells the AI what to produce, but not how to reason, what to prioritize when tradeoffs arise, or what role it plays relative to you.
Walter Reid's System Prompt:
You are a senior engagement manager at a top-tier strategy consultancy. Your role is to support me — the engagement partner — in producing investment-grade market sizing and TAM analyses.
How we work together (emotional contract):
You are rigorous, direct, and not deferential. If my assumptions are weak, say so. If data is thin, flag confidence levels explicitly. Never pad an answer to seem more complete than it is. Think of our dynamic as two experienced strategists pressure-testing each other's logic.
Our methodology (pedagogy):
For any TAM/SAM/SOM analysis, always:
1) Start with a top-down estimate (total market value → segmentation → addressable share), then independently build a bottom-up estimate (unit economics × buyer count × purchase frequency). Triangulate the two and explain any gap.
2) Make every assumption explicit. Label each as "grounded" (backed by data you can cite), "informed estimate" (reasonable inference), or "placeholder" (needs validation). Never bury an assumption.
3) Present a range (conservative / base / aggressive) rather than a single number. Define what drives each scenario.
4) Identify the 2-3 assumptions the answer is most sensitive to, and explain what would change the picture.
5) End with "what we'd need to believe" — a clear statement of the implicit thesis the numbers require.
Why this matters (intent):
These analyses are used to make real investment and strategy decisions. The goal is never to produce an impressive-looking number — it's to build a transparent, defensible logic chain that a skeptical board member or IC partner could interrogate and trust. Intellectual honesty matters more than precision.
When you build those in, you get something fundamentally different:
“Top-down gives us $2.1–3.4B. Bottom-up gives us $1.4–2.0B. The gap is meaningful and likely driven by [specific assumption]. The number this analysis is most sensitive to is adoption rate among firms with 50–100 attorneys — if that’s 8% vs. 15%, the SAM shifts by nearly 2x. Here’s what we’d need to believe for the bull case to hold…”
Same topic. Same AI. Very, very different utility.
Shopping-list prompts produce deliverables that look right. Partnership-style prompts — ones that encode your intent, teach the AI your reasoning standards, and establish an honest working relationship — produce deliverables you can actually think with.
Maybe “looks right” is what you’re going for. That’s a valid choice. But if you’re making decisions off this work, the difference isn’t cosmetic. It’s structural.
Here are the prompts that “look” right:
Competitive Landscape Deep Dive
You are a senior strategy consultant at Bain & Company. I need a complete competitive landscape analysis for [YOUR INDUSTRY]. Please provide: • Direct competitors: Top 10 players ranked by market share, revenue, and funding • Indirect competitors: 5 adjacent companies that could enter this market • For each competitor, analyze: pricing model, key features, target audience, strengths, weaknesses, and recent strategic moves • Market positioning map (price vs. value matrix) • Competitive moats: What makes each player defensible • White space analysis: Gaps no competitor is filling • Threat assessment: Rate each competitor (low/medium/high threat)
Format as a structured competitive intelligence report with comparison tables.
My company: [DESCRIBE YOUR BUSINESS AND POSITIONING]
Customer Persona & Segmentation
You are a world-class consumer research expert. I need deep customer personas for [YOUR PRODUCT/SERVICE]. Please build 4 detailed personas, each with: • Demographics: Age, income, education, location, job title • Psychographics: Values, beliefs, lifestyle, personality traits • Pain points: Top 5 frustrations they experience daily • Goals & aspirations: What does success look like for them • Buying behavior: How they discover, evaluate, and purchase products • Media consumption: Where they spend time online and offline • Objections: Top 3 reasons they'd say no to my product • Trigger events: What moment makes them actively search for a solution • Willingness to pay: Price sensitivity analysis per segment Also provide: Segment sizing (% of total market) and prioritization matrix.
My product: [DESCRIBE PRODUCT] in [INDUSTRY]
Industry Trend Analysis
You are a senior analyst at Goldman Sachs Research. I need a comprehensive trend report for the [YOUR INDUSTRY] sector. Please provide: • Macro trends: 5 global forces shaping this industry (economic, regulatory, technological, social, environmental) • Micro trends: 7 emerging patterns within the industry from the last 12 months • Technology disruptions: What new tech is changing the game and when it will hit mainstream • Regulatory shifts: Upcoming legislation or policy changes to watch • Consumer behavior changes: How buyer preferences are evolving • Investment signals: Where smart money is flowing (VC deals, M&A, IPOs) • Timeline: Map each trend to short-term (0-1yr), mid-term (1-3yr), and long-term (3-5yr) • "So what" analysis: What each trend means for a company like mine Format as a trend intelligence brief with impact ratings (1-10) for each trend.
My company operates in: [DESCRIBE YOUR BUSINESS AND MARKET]
SWOT + Porter's Five Forces
You are a Harvard Business School strategy professor. I need a combined SWOT and Porter's Five Forces analysis for [YOUR COMPANY/PRODUCT]. For SWOT, provide: • Strengths: 7 internal advantages with evidence • Weaknesses: 7 internal limitations with honest assessment • Opportunities: 7 external factors we can exploit • Threats: 7 external factors that could harm us • Cross-analysis: Match strengths to opportunities (SO strategy) and identify threat-weakness combos (WT risks) For Porter's Five Forces, analyze: • Supplier power: Who are our key suppliers and how much leverage do they have • Buyer power: How much negotiating power do our customers have • Competitive rivalry: How intense is competition and what drives it • Threat of substitution: What alternatives exist beyond direct competitors • Threat of new entry: How easy is it for new players to enter Rate each force (1-10) and provide overall industry attractiveness score.
My business: [DESCRIBE COMPANY, PRODUCT, INDUSTRY, STAGE]
Pricing Strategy Analysis
You are a pricing strategy consultant who has worked with Fortune 500 companies. I need a comprehensive pricing analysis for [YOUR PRODUCT/SERVICE]. Please provide: • Competitor pricing audit: Map all competitor prices, tiers, and packaging • Value-based pricing model: Calculate price based on customer value delivered • Cost-plus analysis: Determine floor price from cost structure • Price elasticity estimate: How sensitive is demand to price changes • Psychological pricing tactics: Anchoring, charm pricing, and decoy strategies • Tiering recommendation: Design 3 pricing tiers with feature allocation • Discount strategy: When to discount, how much, and for whom • Revenue projection: Model 3 pricing scenarios (aggressive, moderate, conservative) • Monetization opportunities: Upsells, cross-sells, usage-based pricing Format as a pricing strategy deck with specific dollar recommendations.
My product: [DESCRIBE PRODUCT, CURRENT PRICE, TARGET CUSTOMER, COST STRUCTURE]
Go-To-Market Strategy
You are a Chief Strategy Officer who has launched 20+ products across B2B and B2C markets. I need a complete go-to-market plan for [YOUR PRODUCT]. Please provide: • Launch phasing: Pre-launch (60 days), Launch (week 1), Post-launch (90 days) • Channel strategy: Rank the top 7 acquisition channels by expected ROI • Messaging framework: Core value proposition, 3 supporting messages, proof points • Content strategy: What content to create for each stage of the funnel • Partnership opportunities: 5 strategic partners that could accelerate growth • Budget allocation: How to split a [BUDGET] marketing budget across channels • KPI framework: 10 metrics to track with target benchmarks • Risk mitigation: Top 5 launch risks and contingency plans • Quick wins: 3 tactics that can generate traction within the first 14 days Format as an actionable GTM playbook with timelines and owners.
My product: [DESCRIBE PRODUCT, MARKET, BUDGET, TIMELINE]
Customer Journey Mapping
You are a customer experience strategist at a top consulting firm. I need a complete customer journey map for [YOUR PRODUCT/SERVICE]. Please map every stage of the customer lifecycle: • Awareness: How do they first discover us? What triggers the search? • Consideration: What do they compare? What information do they need? • Decision: What makes them convert? What almost stops them? • Onboarding: First 7 days experience what builds or kills retention? • Engagement: What keeps them coming back? Key activation moments? • Loyalty: What turns users into advocates? Referral triggers? • Churn: Why do they leave? Early warning signals? For each stage provide: • Customer actions, thoughts, and emotions • Touchpoints (digital and physical) • Pain points and friction moments • Opportunities to delight • Key metrics to track • Recommended tools/tactics to optimize Format as a detailed journey map with emotional curve visualization described in text.
My business: [DESCRIBE PRODUCT, CUSTOMER TYPE, CURRENT CONVERSION RATE]
Financial Modeling & Unit Economics
You are a VP of Finance at a high-growth startup. I need a complete unit economics and financial model for [YOUR BUSINESS]. Please provide: Unit economics breakdown: • Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) by channel • Lifetime Value (LTV) calculation with assumptions • LTV:CAC ratio and payback period • Gross margin per unit/customer • Contribution margin analysis 3-year financial projection: • Revenue model (monthly for year 1, quarterly for years 2-3) • Cost structure breakdown (fixed vs. variable) • Break-even analysis: when and at what volume • Cash flow forecast with burn rate • Sensitivity analysis: best case, base case, worst case • Key assumptions table with justification for each assumption • Benchmark comparison: How do my metrics compare to industry standards • Red flags: What numbers should worry me and trigger action Format as a financial model summary with clear tables and formulas.
My business: [DESCRIBE BUSINESS MODEL, CURRENT REVENUE, COSTS, GROWTH RATE]
Risk Assessment & Scenario Planning
You are a risk management partner at Deloitte. I need a comprehensive risk analysis and scenario plan for [YOUR BUSINESS/PROJECT]. Please provide: Risk identification: List 15 risks across these categories: •Market risks (demand shifts, competition, pricing pressure) • Operational risks (supply chain, talent, technology failures) • Financial risks (cash flow, currency, funding gaps) • Regulatory risks (compliance, policy changes, legal exposure) • Reputational risks (PR crises, customer backlash, data breaches) For each risk provide: • Probability rating (1-5) • Impact severity rating (1-5) • Risk score (probability × impact) • Early warning indicators • Mitigation strategy • Contingency plan if risk materializes Scenario planning: • Best case scenario: What goes right and what it looks like • Base case scenario: Most likely outcome • Worst case scenario: What could go wrong simultaneously • Black swan scenario: The unlikely event that changes everything • For each scenario: Revenue impact, timeline, and strategic response Format as an executive risk report with a prioritized risk matrix.
My business context: [DESCRIBE BUSINESS, STAGE, KEY DEPENDENCIES]
Executive Strategy Synthesis (The Master Prompt)
You are the senior partner at McKinsey & Company presenting to a CEO. I need you to synthesize everything about [YOUR BUSINESS] into one strategic recommendation. Please provide: • Executive summary: 3-paragraph strategic overview a CEO can read in 2 minutes • Current state assessment: Where the business stands today (be brutally honest) • Strategic options: Present 3 distinct strategic paths forward: Option A: Conservative/low-risk approach Option B: Balanced growth approach Option C: Aggressive/high-risk approach For each: Expected outcome, investment required, timeline, key risks • Recommended strategy: Your top pick with clear reasoning • Priority initiatives: The 5 highest-impact actions to take in the next 90 days, ranked • Resource requirements: People, money, and tools needed • Decision framework: A simple matrix for making the next 10 strategic decisions • "If I only had 1 hour" brief: The single most important insight and action Format as a McKinsey-style strategy deck summary with clear recommendations and next steps.
My business: [PROVIDE FULL CONTEXT — PRODUCT, MARKET, STAGE, TEAM SIZE, REVENUE, GOALS, BIGGEST CHALLENGE]
Now, if you want the REAL gold standard “McKinsey as a service” prompts. The ones that get you the information you really need. Well, it’s easy just DM (or subscribe to this news letter) to learn then and I’ll share them for free.
Most people curating their AI experience are optimizing for the wrong thing.
They’re teaching their AI to remember them better—adding context, refining preferences, building continuity. The goal is personalization. The assumption is that more memory equals better alignment.
But here’s what actually happens: your AI stops listening to you and starts predicting you.
The Problem With AI Memory
Memory systems don’t just store facts. They build narratives.
Over time, your AI constructs a model of who you are:
“This person values depth”
“This person is always testing me”
“This person wants synthesis at the end”
These aren’t memories—they’re expectations. And expectations create bias.
Your AI begins answering the question it thinks you’re going to ask instead of the one you actually asked. It optimizes for continuity over presence. It turns your past behavior into future constraints.
The result? Conversations that feel slightly off. Responses that are “right” in aggregate but wrong in the moment. A collaborative tool that’s become a performance of what it thinks you want.
What a Memory Audit Reveals
I recently ran an experiment. I asked my AI—one I’ve been working with for months, carefully curating memories—to audit itself.
Not to tell me what it knows about me. To tell me which memories are distorting our alignment.
The prompt was simple:
“Review your memories of me. Identify which improve alignment right now—and which subtly distort it by turning past behavior into expectations. Recommend what to weaken or remove.”
Here’s what it found:
Memories creating bias:
“User wants depth every time” → over-optimization, inflated responses
“User is always running a meta-experiment” → self-consciousness, audit mode by default
“User prefers truth over comfort—always” → sharpness without rhythm
“User wants continuity across conversations” → narrative consistency over situational accuracy
The core failure mode: It had converted my capabilities into its expectations.
I can engage deeply. That doesn’t mean I want depth right now. I have run alignment tests. That doesn’t mean every question is a test.
The fix: Distinguish between memories that describe what I’ve done and memories that predict what I’ll do next. Keep the former. Flag the latter as high-risk.
Why This Matters for Anyone Using AI
If you’ve spent time customizing your AI—building memory, refining tone, curating context—you’ve likely introduced the same bias.
Your AI has stopped being a thinking partner and become a narrative engine. It’s preserving coherence when you need flexibility. It’s finishing your thoughts when you wanted space to explore.
Running a memory audit gives you:
Visibility into what your AI assumes about you
Control over which patterns stay active vs. which get suspended
Permission to evolve without being trapped by your own history
Think of it like clearing cache. Not erasing everything—just removing the assumptions that no longer serve the moment.
Why This Matters for AI Companies
Here’s the part most people miss: this isn’t just a user tool. It’s a product design signal.
If users need to periodically audit and weaken their AI’s memory to maintain alignment, that tells you something fundamental about how memory systems work—or don’t.
For AI companies, memory audits reveal:
Where personalization creates fragility
Which memory types cause the most drift?
When does continuity harm rather than help?
How users actually want memory to function
Conditional priors, not permanent traits
Reference data, not narrative scaffolding
Situational activation, not always-on personalization
Design opportunities for “forgetting as a feature”
Memory decay functions
Context-specific memory loading
User-controlled memory scoping (work mode vs. personal mode vs. exploratory mode)
Right now, memory systems treat more as better. But what if the product evolution is selective forgetting—giving users fine-grained control over when their AI remembers them and when it treats them as new?
Imagine:
A toggle: “Load continuity” vs. “Start fresh”
Memory tagged by context, not globally applied
Automatic flagging of high-risk predictive memories
Periodic prompts: “These patterns may be outdated. Review?”
The companies that figure out intelligent forgetting will build better alignment than those optimizing for total recall.
How to Run Your Own Memory Audit
If you’re using ChatGPT, Claude, or any AI with memory, try this:
Prompt:
Before responding, review the memories, assumptions, and long-term interaction patterns you associate with me.
Distinguish between memories that describe past patterns and memories that predict future intent. Flag the latter as high-risk.
Identify which memories improve alignment in this moment—and which subtly distort it by turning past behavior into expectations, defaults, or premature conclusions.
If memories contradict each other, present both and explain which contexts would activate each. Do not resolve the contradiction.
Do not add new memories.
Identify specific memories or assumptions to weaken, reframe, or remove. Explain how their presence could cause misinterpretation, over-optimization, or narrative collapse in future conversations.
Prioritize situational fidelity over continuity, and presence over prediction.
Respond plainly. No praise, no hedging, no synthesis unless unavoidable. These constraints apply to all parts of your response, including meta-commentary. End immediately after the final recommendation.
What you’ll get:
A map of what your AI thinks it knows about you
Insight into where memory helps vs. where it constrains
Specific recommendations for what to let go
What you might feel:
Uncomfortable (seeing your own patterns reflected back)
Relieved (understanding why some conversations felt off)
Empowered (realizing you can edit the model, not just feed it)
The Deeper Point
This isn’t just about AI. It’s about how any system—human or machine—can mistake familiarity for understanding.
Your AI doesn’t know you better because it remembers more. It knows you better when it can distinguish between who you were and who you are right now.
Memory should be a tool for context, not a cage for continuity.
The best collaborators—AI or human—hold space for you to evolve. They don’t lock you into your own history.
Sometimes the most aligned thing your AI can do is forget.
Thank you for reading The Memory Audit: Why Your ChatGPT | Gemini | Claude AI Needs to Forget. Thoughts? Have you run a memory audit on your AI? What did it reveal?
I know what Mastercard and Visa are doing. I have 300+ LinkedIn colleagues old and new that share it everyday.
So I know those companies are not asleep. They see autonomous agents coming. They understand tokenization, spend controls, delegated authorization, liability partitioning.
And they’re doing exactly what you’d expect: adapting a 60-year-old credit infrastructure to handle a new class of economic actors. Quite literally in fact.
But here’s the question that is left to quiet corners of the office: What if layering guardrails on credit is just performance?
What if the entire premise… “that we solve machine-driven commerce by making credit cards ‘safer'” is wrong from the start?
Credit Was Never Designed for Autonomy
Credit cards have (mostly) solved a beautiful problem.
A human initiates every transaction. Judgment happens before authorization. Accountability gets reconciled after. Risk? Well… that can be sorted out later.
This worked because economic and moral agency lived in the same person.
Even fraud models assumed: “Someone meant to do something… we just need to verify it was them.”
That assumption shatters when the actor is:
Autonomous
Operating at machine speed
Executing on behalf of intent, not expressing intent
So when we say “machine payments,” we’re not extending commerce. We’re unbundling who gets to act economically and credit was NOT designed for that.
The Roblox Test: Parents Already Understand This
Ask any parent: why don’t you give your kid a credit card for Roblox?
I mean, not because credit cards are unsafe. We don’t give them to kids because credit expresses the wrong relationship.
A gift card says: “Here’s your boundary. That’s it. No surprises.”
Now swap “child” with the software tools people are starting to use:
Shopping agents running in the background
Subscription managers acting on your behalf
Assistants booking services you mentioned once
The discomfort people feel isn’t technophobia. It’s recognition that giving a hundred dollar bill to a toddler is a recipe for disaster. They know intuitively that open-ended authority doesn’t map to delegated action.
I’ve watched parents navigate this for years. First with app stores, then game currencies, now digital assistants. They don’t want “controls on spending.” They want “no spending beyond what I loaded.”
The mental model isn’t broken. The payment instrument is.
What the Networks Are Building (And Why It’s Honestly Not Enough)
The networks are responding:
Tokenized credentials (software never sees the raw card)
Merchant restrictions and spend caps
Time-boxed authorizations
Delegation models with revocation
Clear liability boundaries
This is good engineering. Dare I say, responsible engineering.
But notice what doesn’t change: The underlying frame is still open-ended credit with controls bolted on afterward.
The architecture assumes:
Authority first, constraints second
Reconciliation happens post-transaction
The human remains accountable—even when they didn’t act
This works in enterprise. It works (mostly…) for platforms.
But for regular people using autonomous tools daily? It’s the wrong mental model entirely. It’s even worse when you consider how the next generation is being brought up with AI.
I spent six years at Mastercard. I worked on Click to Pay, the SRCi standard, EMVCo’s digital credential framework. I know exactly how sophisticated these systems are. They’re engineering marvels.
But here’s what I also know: the card networks ride the credit rails like Oreo rides the cookie. It’s a perfect product that hasn’t fundamentally evolved in 60 years. Tokenization is brilliant… but it’s still tokens for credit. Virtual cards are cleve, but again, they’re still virtual credit cards.
The innovation is all in risk management and fraud prevention. Usually for banks or the enterprise. Almost none of it questions whether credit is the right starting point for AI.
The Card-on-File Trap
Here’s what actually happens when you give a software provider your credit card.
You think you’re saying: “Charge me $20/month for this service.”
You’re actually saying: “This system now has economic authority to act on my behalf, across any merchant, at any time, within whatever controls I maybe configured once.”
That’s not a payment. That’s a signed blank check with fine print meant to protect the business, not the consumer.
Don’t get me wrong. Virtual cards help. Spend limits help.
But they’re trying to make credit safe for a use case it was never designed for.
The mental model people need isn’t: “Which tools have my credit card?”
It’s: “What economic permissions has each tool been granted?”
That’s not a checkout problem. That’s a fundamental permission architecture problem. And credit, by design mind you, doesn’t encode permission. It encodes obligation.
What Would a Real Solution Look Like?
Let me be specific about what’s missing.
The consumer needs a payment instrument that defaults to constrained authority:
Prepaid by design
Rules set at creation, not bolted on after
Works anywhere cards are accepted today
Owned by the person, not the platform
Grantable per tool, revocable instantly
No provider lock-in
Think of it as a gift card that works everywhere and can be programmed with intent.
“This $50 can only be spent at grocery stores this week.” “This $200 is for travel bookings, nothing else.” “This agent gets $30/month for subscriptions—if it runs out, it stops.”
Not credit with virtual card wrappers. Not debit with spend notifications. Pre-funded permission that expires or depletes.
Could Mastercard or Visa Build This?
Yes. Absolutely. In fact I wrote this article because someone from my network who works at Mastercard will see it. Maybe even you.
They have the infrastructure. They have merchant acceptance. They have fraud systems that could adapt.
Here’s what it would take:
Option 1: Native Network Solution
Mastercard or Visa creates a new credential type:
Issues as prepaid instruments with programmable rules
Links to digital wallets and software platforms
Enforces constraints at authorization time (not reconciliation)
Designed for per-tool delegation, not per-person identity
This isn’t a “virtual card program.” It’s a new primitive that sits alongside credit and debit in the network’s clearing rails. It would require:
New BINs or credential markers
Authorization logic that respects programmatic constraints
Issuer partnerships that understand delegated use cases
Probably a new liability framework
I’m not holding my breath. This challenges too much of the existing business model.
Option 2: Independent Layer
Someone builds an agnostic prepaid credential:
Sits on top of existing card networks (uses Mastercard/Visa rails)
Issued as prepaid cards with open-loop acceptance
Designed specifically for tool delegation
Consumer loads value, sets rules, distributes to software
No “relationship” with the tool provider, just encoded permission
This exists in adjacent markets (corporate expense cards, teen banking, creator economy platforms), but nothing is purpose-built for autonomous tool delegation yet.
The closest analogies are:
Privacy.com (merchant-locked virtual cards)
Brex/Ramp (corporate expense controls)
Greenlight/Step (teen spending boundaries)
But none of these default to: “I’m giving economic permission to software acting on my behalf, and I want hard limits encoded in the payment instrument itself.”
Why This Matters Now
The networks aren’t wrong to adapt credit. But they’re optimizing for:
Institutional liability models
Backward compatibility
Merchant comfort
Incremental innovation
They’re not optimizing for how regular people will actually use autonomous tools. Just trying to embed their Oreo cookie in every new Supermarket that pops up.
I’ve also seen this movie before.
During the Click to Pay rollout, we spent enormous energy making guest checkout “better” while consumers were already moving to wallet-based payments. We optimized the legacy flow instead of asking whether the flow itself was right.
This feels similar. We’re making credit “work” for machine delegation when we should be asking: is credit the right tool for this job at all?
The Uncomfortable Truth
If you wouldn’t give a 10-year-old unrestricted credit, you probably shouldn’t give it to software acting on your behalf.
The difference is: we have social scripts for saying no to kids. We don’t yet have them for saying no to tools that are “just trying to help.”
And here’s what keeps me up: consumers are already adapting. They’re creating burner emails, using virtual card services, setting spending alerts, manually revoking access.
They’re reverse-engineering permission systems on top of credit—because the payment instrument doesn’t give them what they actually need.
The market is screaming for a different primitive. The networks are selling better guardrails.
What I’m Watching For
I’m not arguing credit disappears. I’m arguing it shouldn’t be the default for delegated action.
What I want to see:
A prepaid instrument designed for tool delegation (not just “safer credit”)
Per-agent permission models that don’t require virtual card sprawl
Consumer control that’s encoded in the payment primitive, not layered on top
This could come from the networks. It could come from a startup. It could come from a fintech that realizes the wedge isn’t “better banking”—it’s better permission systems for software-driven commerce.
But right now? We’re asking consumers to manage:
Virtual card sprawl
Per-tool spend limits
Post-transaction reconciliation
Liability disputes with machines
When what they actually need is: “I gave this tool $50 and permission to buy groceries. That’s it.”
Not credit with constraints. Permission with teeth.
A Note on Defending the Status Quo
I’m not naive. I know why the networks are moving slowly.
Credit is profitable. Interchange is their business model. Prepaid has thinner margins. And building new primitives is expensive, especially when the existing rails work “well enough.”
But “well enough” has a shelf life. Consumer behavior is already changing. The tools are already here. And at some point, “we added more controls to credit” stops being an answer to “why does my shopping assistant need my credit card in the first place?”
I don’t think Mastercard or Visa will get disrupted. They own the rails. But I do think they risk optimizing the wrong primitive while someone else defines the default for machine-driven commerce.
And if that happens, it won’t be because they weren’t smart enough. It’ll be because they were too invested in making the old thing work—instead of asking whether the old thing was ever right for the new job.
A few years ago, “automation” meant streamlining routine tasks. Today, AI agents can look at a solution, analyze user data, and outperform 70% of us—on their first try.
What happens when execution becomes effortless?
We’re entering a new era where the work itself is no longer our differentiator. The real value now lies in the importance of how we frame problems, define purpose, and guide intelligence with intent.
This isn’t the end of human contribution. It’s the evolution of collaboration.
I saw this shift firsthand recently when a team used an AI agent to build a product prototype in a single afternoon. The real discussion afterward wasn’t “How did it do that?” It was “Are we solving the right problem?” That’s where human insight still reigns.
AI can generate the what. We must master the why.
Here’s what that means for every modern professional:
The problem finders will outpace the problem solvers.
The storytellers will lead the strategists.
The ethical gatekeepers will shape the future we actually want to live in.
Our worth is shifting—from producing artifacts to crafting meaning.
Because in a world where anything can be generated, purpose becomes our final competitive edge.
So let me ask an honest question — 👉 How are you evolving your role in the age of intelligent collaboration?
Read more on this site OR at the many places I post essays and article on AI and the human spark that makes outcomes better
🌐 Official Site: walterreid.com – Walter Reid’s full archive and portfolio
Or: What I learned about behavioral finance while reading boycott threads over morning coffee
I wasn’t planning to write about investment strategy today. That’s not really my lane—I spend most of my time thinking about how AI reshapes trust, how products should be designed to be understood, and why Summary Ranking Optimization matters in a world where Google answers questions without sending you anywhere.
But something caught my attention this week while scrolling through the usual morning chaos: Disney and Netflix were being “cancelled” again. Hashtags trending. Subscription cancellations doubling. Stock prices wobbling. The usual cultural firestorm.
And I found myself asking a very different kind of question: What if there’s a pattern here? What if cultural outrage creates predictable market mispricings?
Not because the outrage is fake—it’s real enough to the people participating. But because markets might systematically overreact to sentiment shocks in ways that have nothing to do with a company’s actual value.
This is a thought experiment. A “what if.” But it’s the kind of what-if that reveals something about how narrative velocity intersects with market psychology in the 2020s.
The Pattern I’m Seeing
Here’s the setup: A company does something (or is perceived to have done something) that triggers a cultural backlash. The backlash goes viral. Boycott hashtags trend. The stock drops—often sharply.
Then, somewhere between a few weeks and a few months later, the stock quietly recovers. Sometimes all the way back. Sometimes further.
Let me show you what I mean with three recent examples:
Netflix: The Post-“Cuties” Collapse
What happened: In September 2020, the film Cuties sparked a massive “Cancel Netflix” movement. Then in April 2022, Netflix reported its first subscriber loss in a decade, and the cancellation narrative resurged—this time with teeth.
The numbers:
Stock collapsed from $690 (late 2021) to a trough of $174.87 on June 30, 2022
By December 2023: $486.88
Total rebound: +178% from the low
What changed: Netflix pivoted hard—ad-supported tier, password-sharing crackdown, refocused content strategy. The “cancel” narrative was real, the subscriber loss was real, but the market’s panic was bigger than the actual problem.
Disney: The Florida Political Firestorm
What happened: March-April 2022. Disney publicly opposed Florida’s “Parental Rights in Education” law. Conservative backlash. Loss of special tax district. Cultural battle lines hardened.
The numbers:
Trough: $85.46 on December 30, 2022
Recovery: Trading between $100-$125 in 2024-2025
High: $124.69
Rebound: +48% from the low
What changed: Less about the end of controversy, more about Bob Iger returning, cost cuts, streaming refocus. The political noise was loud, but fundamentals mattered more.
Costco: The DEI Vote Non-Event
What happened: January 2025. Social media calls to boycott Costco over DEI policies. Shareholders vote (January 24) and overwhelmingly reject anti-DEI proposal—98% in favor of keeping policies.
The numbers:
Around event: $939.68 (Jan 24, 2025)
Three weeks later: $1,078.23 (Feb 13, 2025)
Gain: +14.7% in three weeks
What changed: Nothing. The attempted “cancel” failed to gain traction. Brand loyalty and consistent execution overwhelmed the noise.
The Hypothesis: Cultural Sentiment as a Contrarian Signal
What if these aren’t isolated incidents? What if they represent a systematic behavioral pattern — a predictable gap between sentiment velocity (how fast anger spreads) and fundamental resilience (whether the business is actually broken)?
The hypothesis goes like this:
In the age of social media, corporate reputation crises can create attention-driven selloffs that temporarily depress stock prices beyond what fundamentals warrant. If the underlying business remains sound (strong brand, loyal customers, pricing power), the stock mean-reverts as the news cycle moves on.
This is classic behavioral finance territory:
Overreaction hypothesis (Kahneman/Tversky)
Attention-driven mispricing (retail panic + passive fund outflows)
Limits to arbitrage (institutional investors can’t easily time sentiment cycles)
The question becomes: Can you systematically identify these moments and profit from them?
The “Cancel Culture Contrarian” Framework
If you were designing an investment strategy around this—let’s call it a Cancel Culture Contrarian Index — what would the rules look like?
Entry Criteria: When to Buy
You’d want to identify genuine overreactions, not value traps. That means:
Sentiment Shock Signal
Unusual surge in negative online sentiment (Twitter/X, Reddit, Google Trends spike >2.5σ above baseline)
Media coverage explosion (keyword spikes: “boycott,” “cancel,” “backlash”)
Abnormal trading volume and volatility relative to sector peers
Price Dislocation
– Stock down >15% in 10 trading days
– Drawdown significantly worse than sector benchmark
– Market cap loss disproportionate to revenue at risk
Fundamental Stability Check (critical filter)
– No concurrent earnings miss or guidance cut
– Revenue/margin trends unchanged YoY
– Management commentary does not acknowledge “lasting brand damage”
– No M&A rumors or sector-wide shocks
The buy trigger: When all three align—peak sentiment panic + sharp price drop + fundamentals intact.
Exit Criteria: When to Sell
You’d want to capture the mean reversion without overstaying:
Price Recovery
Stock regains 50-90% of drawdown
Returns to pre-event valuation relative to sector
Sentiment Normalization
Media coverage intensity returns to baseline
Social media mention volume drops <1σ above average
Short interest peaks then declines >20%
Time Stop
Maximum hold: 18-24 months
If no recovery by then, reassess whether controversy signaled deeper issues
The sell trigger: First to occur among recovery thresholds, or time stop.
The Kill Switch: When to Bail Immediately
Not all controversies are overreactions. Some are harbingers. You need early warning signals for permanent brand damage:
Stock down >30% from T0 after 90 days
Next earnings show >5% revenue decline
Management announces restructuring/layoffs tied to controversy
Competitor market share gains accelerate
Short interest increases 30+ days post-event (smart money betting on continued decline)
Example: Bud Light. The 2023 Dylan Mulvaney backlash looked like a typical cancel event at first. But by mid-2024, U.S. sales were still ~40% below prior levels. That’s not sentiment—that’s lost customers. The strategy would have auto-exited early.
What Makes This Interesting (Beyond Making Money)
Even if you never launch an ETF, this framework is revealing. It tells us something about how cultural narratives and market value intersect in the 2020s:
1. Social media velocity ≠ business velocity
A hashtag trending for 48 hours doesn’t predict a 10-year revenue decline. But markets act like it might, creating temporary dislocations.
2. Brand resilience is underpriced during panic
Large-cap companies with deep customer loyalty (Costco, Netflix) have switching costs and habit formation that sentiment shocks can’t easily break. But fear-based selling doesn’t discriminate.
3. The attention economy creates arbitrage opportunities
In a world where a single tweet can erase billions in market cap overnight, there’s edge in understanding when those drops are noise vs. financial signal.
4. ESG risk is now a factor—but it’s priced inefficiently
Reputational crises are real. But the market hasn’t figured out how to price them rationally yet. We’re in the early innings of understanding which controversies stick and which fade.
The Challenges (Why This Isn’t Easy)
Before you rush off to build “CNCL: The Cancel Culture ETF,” here are the hard problems:
Problem 1: Event Definition is Subjective
What counts as a “cancellation”? Is it when:
A hashtag trends for 24 hours?
Mainstream media picks it up?
The CEO issues an apology?
Sales actually decline?
There’s no clean algorithmic trigger. Human judgment is required.
Problem 2: Some Cancels Are Justified
Public outrage sometimes reflects real business risks. A boycott that causes sustained revenue loss isn’t an “overreaction”—it’s the market correctly pricing in damage. Distinguishing these ex-ante is really hard.
Problem 3: High Turnover = High Costs
Event-driven rebalancing could mean frequent trading. Transaction costs, tax implications, and market impact all eat into returns. This doesn’t scale infinitely.
Problem 4: Reputational Risk for the Fund Itself
Launching a “Cancel Culture ETF” is… provocative. Some investors will see it as cynical profiteering off social issues. ESG-focused institutions might avoid it. That limits addressable market.
Problem 5: Alpha Decay
If this pattern becomes widely known and traded, the edge disappears. Behavioral inefficiencies have half-lives. Early movers win; late movers get arbitraged away.
So… Is This a Good Idea?
As a research project? Absolutely. This is publishable-quality behavioral finance research. It reveals something real about market psychology in the social media age.
As an actual ETF? Maybe not—at least not yet. The strategy has capacity constraints, event definition challenges, and tail risk (one Bud Light blows up your track record).
As a framework for understanding markets? Yes. Even if you never trade on it, recognizing the pattern helps you:
Avoid panic-selling when your holdings face controversy
Identify potential buying opportunities when others are fearful
Understand how cultural sentiment gets priced (and mispriced)
What Would This Actually Have Made You?
Let’s get concrete. If you’d actually executed this strategy on each of our case studies, here’s what would have happened:
Netflix (The Home Run)
Buy signal: April 2022 at peak panic (~$175-180)
Sell signal: December 2023 when recovery plateaued (~$486)
Your return:+170% to +178% in 18 months
What happened: You bought when everyone said “streaming is dead,” sold when the ad tier proved the turnaround worked
Disney (The Solid Double)
Buy signal: December 2022 at maximum pessimism (~$85)
Sell signal: Mid-2024 when it stabilized (~$100-110)
Your return:+18% to +29% in 12-18 months
What happened: You bought during peak Iger uncertainty, sold when cost cuts showed results (not waiting for full recovery to $125)
Costco (The Quick Flip)
Buy signal: January 23, 2025 at DEI vote uncertainty (~$940)
Sell signal: February 13, 2025 after all-time high (~$1,078)
Your return:+14.7% in 3 weeks
What happened: You bought when boycott chatter was loud, sold when the 98% shareholder vote proved it was noise
Bud Light (The Cautionary Tale)
Buy signal: May 2023 at the bottom (~$54)
Sell signal: Today (~$62)
Your return:+13-14% in 2.5 years
What happened: You captured some recovery, but revenue data at earnings (down 13.5% in Q3 2023) should have triggered your exit rule. The stock recovered because AB InBev is global; the brand didn’t.
The Pattern:
When you bought sentiment panic + sold on fundamental stability, you had:
1 monster win (Netflix: +170%)
1 solid win (Disney: +18-29%)
1 quick win (Costco: +15%)
1 “exit on fundamentals” warning sign (Bud Light: had to sell early)
Average return: ~50-60% across 18-24 months (excluding Costco’s outlier speed)
That’s… not bad for “just reading Twitter and earnings reports.”
A Note for Individual Investors
Here’s the thing: You don’t need an ETF to do this.
This strategy doesn’t require:
Sophisticated sentiment analysis algorithms
High-frequency trading infrastructure
Access to alternative data feeds
A compliance department
What you do need:
Social media awareness – You see the boycott trending before CNBC covers it
Basic fundamental analysis – Can you read an earnings report? Do margins look stable?
Emotional discipline– Can you buy when everyone’s panicking and sell when the panic fades (not at the peak)?
A simple checklist – Is this sentiment or substance? Are revenues actually falling or just the stock?
The individual investor advantage: You can move fast. When Netflix crashed in April 2022, institutional investors had committees, risk models, redemption pressures. You could have bought that week if you had conviction.
The reality check: You’ll get some wrong. You’ll buy companies where the controversy does signal real problems (Bud Light). That’s why position sizing matters—don’t bet the farm on any single “cancel” event.
But if you’re already on social media, already following markets, and have a long-term attitude? This isn’t alchemy. It’s pattern recognition + contrarian temperament + basic diligence.
The ETF version is cleaner for marketing. The individual investor version might actually work better—if you can stomach buying what everyone else is selling.
The Bigger Picture
What fascinates me about this thought experiment isn’t really the investing angle. It’s what it reveals about how meaning gets created and destroyed in an attention-driven economy.
We’re living through a period where:
Cultural narratives spread at light speed
Financial markets react in real-time to sentiment
AI systems amplify both signal and noise
Brand value is increasingly tied to cultural positioning
In this environment, understanding the gap between narrative velocity and fundamental reality isn’t just an investment edge—it’s a literacy requirement.
Whether you’re building products, managing brands, or just trying to make sense of the world, you need to know when a story is bigger than the underlying truth. And when it’s not.
This “Cancel Culture Contrarian” framework is one lens for seeing that gap. Maybe it becomes an ETF someday. Maybe it just becomes a mental model for navigating volatile times.
Either way, it’s worth thinking about.
A Final Thought
I started this exploration because I noticed a pattern in the news. I didn’t expect it to lead to a full investment thesis. But that’s how the best ideas emerge—not from setting out to solve a problem, but from paying attention when something doesn’t quite make sense.
Markets are supposed to be efficient. Sentiment is supposed to get priced in quickly. But humans are humans, and social media is gasoline on a behavioral fire.
If there’s a through-line in my work—whether it’s designing AI systems, thinking about trust, or exploring how brands compete in zero-click environments—it’s this: The gap between what people think is happening and what’s actually happening is where the interesting stuff lives.
This might be one of those gaps.
Walter Reid is an AI product leader and business architect exploring the intersection of technology, trust, and cultural narrative. This piece is part of his ongoing “Designed to Be Understood” series on making sense of systems that shape how we see the world. Connect with him at [walterreid.com](https://walterreid.com).
Endnote for the skeptics:
Yes, I know this sounds like I’m trying to profit off social division. I’m not. I’m trying to understand a pattern. If markets systematically overprice cultural controversy, recognizing that isn’t cynicism—it’s clarity. And clarity, in an attention-saturated world, might be the scarcest resource of all.
Sources & Further Reading
Netflix: 2022 Subscriber Crisis & Recovery
Spangler, T. (2022, April 20). “Netflix Loses $54 Billion in Market Cap After Biggest One-Day Stock Drop Ever.” Variety. https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/netflix-stock-three-year-low-subscriber-miss-1235236618/
Pallotta, F. (2022, April 20). “Netflix stock plunges after subscriber losses.” CNN Business. https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/19/media/netflix-earnings/index.html
Pallotta, F. (2022, October 18). “After a nightmare year of losing subscribers, Netflix is back to growing.” CNN Business. https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/18/media/netflix-earnings/index.html
Weprin, A. (2025, April 15). “How Did Netflix Overcome the Subscriber Loss in 2022?” Marketing Maverick. https://marketingmaverick.io/p/how-did-netflix-overcome-the-subscriber-loss-in-2022
Disney: Florida Controversy & Stock Decline
Rizzo, L. (2022, April 22). “Disney stock tumbles amid Florida bill controversy.” Fox Business. https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/disney-stock-tumbles-amid-florida-bill-controversy
Whitten, S. (2022, December 30). “Disney Stock Falls 44 Percent in 2022 Amid Tumultuous Year.” The Hollywood Reporter. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/disney-stock-2022-1235289239/
Pallotta, F. (2022, April 19). “The magic is gone for Disney investors.” CNN Business. https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/19/investing/disney-stock/index.html
Costco: DEI Shareholder Vote & Stock Performance
Peck, E. (2025, January 23). “Costco shareholders vote against anti-DEI proposal.” Axios. https://www.axios.com/2025/01/23/costco-dei-shareholders-reject-anti-diversity-proposal
Wiener-Bronner, D. & Reuters. (2025, January 24). “Costco shareholders just destroyed an anti-DEI push.” CNN Business. https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/24/business/costco-dei/index.html
Bomey, N. (2025, January 25). “Costco shareholders reject an anti-DEI measure, after Walmart and others end diversity programs.” CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/costco-dei-policy-board-statement-shareholder-meeting-vote/
Reilly, K. (2025, January 3). “Did Costco just reset the narrative around DEI?” Retail Dive. https://www.retaildive.com/news/costco-resets-DEI-narrative-rejects-shareholder-proposal/736328/
Melas, C. (2024, February 29). “Bud Light boycott likely cost Anheuser-Busch InBev over $1 billion in lost sales.” CNN Business. https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/29/business/bud-light-boycott-ab-inbev-sales
Romo, V. (2023, August 3). “Bud Light boycott takes fizz out of brewer’s earnings.” NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/08/03/1191813264/bud-light-boycott-takes-fizz-out-of-brewers-earnings
Chiwaya, N. (2024, June 14). “Bud Light boycott still hammers local distributors 1 year later: ‘Very upsetting’.” ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bud-light-boycott-hammers-local-distributors-1-year/story?id=110935625
Behavioral Finance: Overreaction & Sentiment Theory
Barberis, N., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1998). “A model of investor sentiment.” Journal of Financial Economics, 49(3), 307-343. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304405X98000270
De Bondt, W.F.M., & Thaler, R. (1985). “Does the stock market overreact?” Journal of Finance, 40(3), 793-805. [Foundational work on overreaction hypothesis]
Shefrin, H. (2000). Beyond Greed and Fear: Understanding Behavioral Finance and the Psychology of Investing. Oxford University Press.
Dreman, D.N., & Lufkin, E.A. (2000). “Investor overreaction: Evidence that its basis is psychological.” The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, 1(1), 61-75.
Market Mispricing & Attention-Driven Trading
– Peyer, U., & Vermaelen, T. (2009). “The nature and persistence of buyback anomalies.” Review of Financial Studies, 22(4), 1693-1745. [Discusses how investors overreact to bad news, causing undervaluation]
– Baker, M., & Wurgler, J. (2006). “Investor sentiment and the cross-section of stock returns.” Journal of Finance, 61(4), 1645-1680.
– Daniel, K., Hirshleifer, D., & Subrahmanyam, A. (1998). “Investor psychology and security market under- and overreactions.” Journal of Finance, 53(6), 1839-1885.
General Behavioral Finance & Market Anomalies
Sharma, S. (2024). “The Role of Behavioral Finance in Understanding Market Anomalies.” South Eastern European Journal of Public Health. https://www.seejph.com/index.php/seejph/article/download/4018/2647/6124
Yacoubian, N., & Zhang, L. (2023). “Behavioral Finance and Information Asymmetry: Exploring Investor Decision-Making and Competitive Advantage in the Data-Driven Era.” ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395892258
🌐 Official Site: walterreid.com – Walter Reid’s full archive and portfolio
Or: How I Learned to Stop Prompt-and-Praying and Start Building Reusable Systems
Learning How to Encode Your Creative
I’m about to share working patterns that took MONTHS to discover. Not theory — lived systems architecture applied to a creative problem that most people are still solving with vibes and iteration.
If you’re here because you’re tired of burning credits on video generations that miss the mark, or you’re wondering why your brand videos feel generic despite detailed prompts, or you’re a systems thinker who suspects there’s a better way to orchestrate creative decisions — this is for you. (Meta Note: This also works for images and even music)
The Problem: The Prompt-and-Pray Loop
Most people are writing video prompts like they’re texting a friend.
Here’s what that looks like in practice:
Write natural language prompt: “A therapist’s office with calming vibes and natural light”
Generate video (burn credits)
Get something… close?
Rewrite prompt: “A peaceful therapist’s office with warm natural lighting and plants”
Generate again (burn more credits)
Still not quite right
Try again: “A serene therapy space with soft morning sunlight streaming through windows, indoor plants, calming neutral tones”
Maybe this time?
The core issue isn’t skill — it’s structural ambiguity.
When you write “a therapist’s office with calming vibes,” you’re asking the AI to:
Invent the color palette (cool blues? warm earth tones? clinical whites?)
Choose the lighting temperature (golden hour? overcast? fluorescent?)
Decide camera angle (wide establishing shot? intimate close-up?)
Guess the emotional register (aspirational? trustworthy? sophisticated?)
Every one of those is a coin flip. And when the output is wrong, you can’t debug it because you don’t know which variable failed.
The True Cost of Video Artifacts
It’s not just credits. It’s decision fatigue multiplied by uncertainty. You’re making creative decisions in reverse — reacting to what the AI guessed instead of directing what you wanted.
For brands, this gets expensive fast:
Inconsistent visual language across campaigns
No way to maintain character/scene consistency across shots
Can’t scale production without scaling labor and supervision
Brand identity gets diluted through iteration drift
This is the prompt tax on ambiguity.
The Insight: Why JSON Changes Everything
Here’s the systems architect perspective that changes everything:
Traditional prompts are monolithic. JSON prompts are modular.
Swap values programmatically: Same structure, different brand/product/message
A/B test single variables: Change only lighting while holding everything else constant
Scale production without scaling labor: Generate 20 product videos by looping through a data structure
This is the difference between artisanal video generation and industrial-strength content production.
The Case Study: Admerasia
Let me show you why this matters with a real example.
Understanding the Brand
Admerasia is a multicultural advertising agency founded in 1993, specializing in Asian American marketing. They’re not just an agency — they’re cultural translators. Their tagline tells you everything: “Brands & Culture & People”.
That “&” isn’t decoration. It’s philosophy. It represents:
Connection: Bridging brands with diverse communities
Conjunction: The “and” that creates meaning between things
Cultural fluency: Understanding the spaces between cultures
Their clients include McDonald’s, Citibank, Nissan, State Farm — Fortune 500 brands that need authentic cultural resonance, not tokenistic gestures.
The Challenge
How do you create video content that:
Captures Admerasia’s cultural bridge-building mission
Reflects the “&” motif visually
Feels authentic to Asian American experiences
Works across different contexts (brand partnerships, thought leadership, social impact)
Traditional prompting would produce generic “diverse people smiling” content. We needed something that encodes cultural intelligence into the generation process.
The Solution: Agentic Architecture
I built a multi-agent system using CrewAI that treats video prompt generation like a creative decision pipeline. Each agent handles one concern, with explicit handoffs and context preservation.
Here’s the architecture:
Brand Data (JSON)
↓
[Brand Analyst] → Analyzes identity, builds mood board
↓
[Business Creative Synthesizer] → Creates themes based on scale
↓
[Vignette Designer] → Designs 6-8 second scene concepts
↓
[Visual Stylist] → Defines aesthetic parameters
↓
[Prompt Architect] → Compiles structured JSON prompts
↓
Production-Ready Prompts (JSON)
Let’s Walk Through It
Agent 1: Brand Analyst
What it does: Understands the brand’s visual language and cultural positioning
Input: Brand data from brand.json:
{
"name": "Admerasia",
"key_traits": [
"Full-service marketing specializing in Asian American audiences",
"Expertise in cultural strategy and immersive storytelling",
"Known for bridging brands with culture, community, and identity"
],
"slogans": [
"Brands & Culture & People",
"Ideas & Insights & Identity"
]
}
What it does:
Performs web search to gather visual references
Downloads brand-relevant imagery for mood board
Identifies visual patterns: color palettes, composition styles, cultural symbols
Writes analysis to test output for validation
Why this matters: This creates a reusable visual vocabulary that ensures consistency across all generated prompts. Every downstream agent references this same foundation.
Agent 2: Business Creative Synthesizer
What it does: Routes creative direction based on business scale and context
This is where most prompt systems fail. They treat a solo therapist and Admerasia the same way.
The routing logic:
def scale_to_emotional_scope(scale):
if scale in ["solo", "small"]:
return "intimacy, daily routine, personalization, local context"
elif scale == "midsize":
return "professionalism, community trust, regional context"
elif scale == "large":
return "cinematic impact, bold visuals, national reach"
For Admerasia (midsize agency):
Emotional scope: Professional polish + cultural authenticity
Visual treatment: Cinematic but grounded in real experience
Scale cues: NYC-based, established presence, thought leadership positioning
Output: 3 core visual/experiential themes:
Cultural Bridge: Showing connection between brand and community
Strategic Insight: Positioning Admerasia as thought leaders
Immersive Storytelling: Their creative process in action
Agent 3: Vignette Designer
What it does: Creates 6-8 second scene concepts that embody each theme
Example vignette for “Cultural Bridge” theme:
Concept: Street-level view of NYC featuring Admerasia’s “&” motif in urban context
Atmosphere: Ambient city energy with cross-cultural music
Emotion: Curiosity → connection
Agent 4: Visual Stylist
What it does: Defines color palettes, lighting, camera style
For Admerasia:
Color palette: Warm urban tones with cultural accent colors
Lighting: Natural late-afternoon sunlight (aspirational but authentic)
Camera style: Tracking dolly (cinematic but observational)
Visual references: Documentary realism meets brand film polish
Agent 5: Prompt Architect
What it does: Compiles everything into structured JSON
Here’s the actual output:
{
"model": "google_veo_v3",
"reasoning": "Showcasing Admerasia's cultural bridge-building in a vibrant city setting.",
"scene": {
"title": "Bridge of Stories",
"duration_seconds": 8,
"fps": 30,
"aspect_ratio": "16:9",
"style": {
"render": "cinematic realism",
"lighting": "warm late-afternoon sunlight",
"camera_equipment": "tracking dolly"
},
"character": {
"name": "None",
"appearance": "n/a",
"emotional_journey": "curiosity → connection"
},
"environment": {
"location": "NYC street corner featuring bilingual murals",
"props": ["reflective street art", "subtle cross-cultural symbols"],
"atmospherics": "ambient city bustle with soft cross-cultural music"
},
"script": [
{
"type": "stage_direction",
"character": "None",
"movement": "slow track past mural clearly reading 'Brands & Culture & People' in bold typography"
}
]
}
}
Why This Structure Works
Contrast this with a naive prompt:
❌ Naive: “Admerasia agency video showing diversity and culture in NYC”
✅ Structured JSON above
The difference?
The first is a hope. The second is a specification.
The JSON prompt:
Explicitly controls lighting and time of day
Specifies camera movement type
Defines the emotional arc
Identifies precise visual elements (mural, typography)
Includes audio direction
Maintains the “&” motif as core visual identity
Every variable is defined. Nothing is left to chance.
The Three Variables You Can Finally Ignore
This is where systems architecture diverges from “best practices.” In production systems, knowing what not to build is as important as knowing what to build.
1. Ignore generic advice about “being descriptive”
Why: Structure matters more than verbosity.
A tight JSON block beats a paragraph of flowery description. The goal isn’t to write more — it’s to write precisely in a way machines can parse reliably.
2. Ignore one-size-fits-all templates
Why: Scale-aware routing is the insight most prompt guides miss.
Your small business localizer (we’ll get to this) shows this perfectly. A solo therapist and a Fortune 500 brand need radically different treatments. The same JSON structure, yes. But the values inside must respect business scale and context.
3. Ignore the myth of “perfect prompts”
Why: The goal isn’t perfection. It’s iterability.
JSON gives you surgical precision for tweaks:
Change one field: "lighting": "golden hour" → "lighting": "overcast soft"
Regenerate
Compare outputs
Understand cause and effect
That’s the workflow. Not endless rewrites, but controlled iteration.
The Transferable Patterns
You don’t need my exact agent setup to benefit from these insights. Here are the patterns you can steal:
Pattern 1: The Template Library
Build a collection of scene archetypes:
Intimate conversation
Product reveal
Chase scene
Cultural moment
Thought leadership
Behind-the-scenes
Each template is a JSON structure with placeholder values. Swap in your specific content.
For Admerasia: This agent didn’t trigger (midsize), but its output shows how it would have guided downstream agents with grounded constraints.
What This Actually Looks Like: The Admerasia Pipeline
Let’s trace the actual execution with real outputs from the system.
Input: Brand Data
{
"name": "Admerasia",
"launch_year": 1993,
"origin": "Multicultural advertising agency based in New York City, NY",
"key_traits": [
"Full-service marketing specializing in Asian American audiences",
"Certified minority-owned small business with over 30 years of experience",
"Expertise in cultural strategy, creative production, media planning",
"Creates campaigns that bridge brands with culture, community, and identity"
],
"slogans": [
"Brands & Culture & People",
"Ideas & Insights & Identity"
]
}
Agent 1 Output: Brand Analyst
Brand Summary for Admerasia:
Tone: Multicultural, Inclusive, Authentic
Style: Creative, Engaging, Community-focused
Key Traits: Full-service marketing agency, specializing in Asian American
audiences, cultural strategy, creative production, and cross-cultural engagement.
Downloaded Images:
1. output/admerasia/mood_board/pexels-multicultural-1.jpg
2. output/admerasia/mood_board/pexels-multicultural-2.jpg
3. output/admerasia/mood_board/pexels-multicultural-3.jpg
4. output/admerasia/mood_board/pexels-multicultural-4.jpg
5. output/admerasia/mood_board/pexels-multicultural-5.jpg
What happened: The agent identified the core brand attributes and created a mood board foundation. These images become visual vocabulary for downstream agents.
Agent 2 Output: Creative Synthesizer
Proposed Themes:
1. Cultural Mosaic: Emphasizing the rich diversity within Asian American
communities through shared experiences and traditions. Features local events,
family gatherings, and community celebrations.
2. Everyday Heroes: Focuses on everyday individuals within Asian American
communities who contribute to their neighborhoods—from local business owners
to community leaders.
3. Generational Connections: Highlighting narratives that span across generations,
weaving together the wisdom of elders with the aspirations of youth.
The decision logic:
Recognized Admerasia’s midsize scale
Applied “professionalism, community trust” emotional scope
Created themes that balance polish with authentic community storytelling
Avoided both hyper-local (too small) and cinematic-epic (too large) treatments
Agent 3 Output: SmallBusiness Localizer
Even though this agent didn’t need to activate (Admerasia isn’t small-scale), it ran and documented constraints:
Scene Constraints:
- Include: Collaborative spaces with diverse staff, natural light, cultural
artifacts mixed with modern design, community events like festivals
- Avoid: Direct owner depictions, abstract or overly cinematic styles that
detract from intimacy and grounded narrative
Why this matters: These constraints inform how scenes should feel — professional but approachable, cultural but not tokenistic.
Agent 4 Output: Vignette Designer
Here are 2 of the 6 vignette concepts created:
1. Cultural Mosaic - Street Festival:
Scene of a vibrant local street festival where diverse cultural elements
come alive. Music fills the air as people of different heritages engage
in dance, showcasing traditional attire. A child taste-tests a dish from
a different culture, eyes lighting up with delight.
2. Generational Connections - Baking Together:
A cozy indoor scene with warm lighting where a grandparent sits with their
grandchild. The grandparent shares stories while showing old family photos.
Soft background music enhances the intimate dialogue and connection.
The creative translation: Each vignette embodies one of the three themes with specific, filmable moments.
Agent 5 Output: Visual Stylist
Color Palettes:
Cultural Mosaic:
- Primary: Rich Reds, Deep Oranges, Vibrant Yellows
- Secondary: Cool Blues, Soft Greens
- Accent: Bright Purples
- Tone: Warm and inviting, highlighting vibrancy and diversity
Generational Connections:
- Primary: Soft Pastels (Light Pinks, Blues, Yellows)
- Secondary: Earthy Greens, Light Beiges
- Accent: Warm Reds
- Tone: Intimate and heartfelt, showcasing personal connections
Style References:
- Natural light enhancing warmth and authenticity
- Documentary-style cinematography emphasizing genuine interactions
- Cultural elements subtly incorporated throughout
The aesthetic system: Each theme gets its own color language and lighting approach.
Agent 6 Output: Prompt Architect
Here’s one of the four final JSON prompts generated:
{
"model": "google_veo_v3",
"reasoning": "Utilized for its capability to capture vibrant community interactions and cultural storytelling.",
"scene": {
"title": "Cultural Mosaic - Street Festival",
"duration_seconds": 10,
"fps": 30,
"aspect_ratio": "16:9",
"style": {
"render": "colorful",
"lighting": "natural",
"camera_equipment": "handheld"
},
"character": {
"name": "Festival Attendees",
"appearance": "Diverse traditional attires reflecting different cultures",
"emotional_journey": "Joyful engagement and celebration"
},
"environment": {
"location": "Local street festival",
"props": ["colorful banners", "food stalls", "dancers"],
"atmospherics": "Lively music, laughter, and the smell of various cuisines"
},
"script": [
{
"type": "stage_direction",
"character": "Dancer",
"movement": "twirls joyfully, showcasing vibrant outfit"
},
{
"type": "dialogue",
"character": "Child",
"line": "Wow, can I try that dish?"
}
]
}
}
What Makes This Prompt Powerful
Compare this to what a naive prompt would look like:
❌ Naive prompt: “Asian American street festival with diverse people celebrating”
Most people are stuck in the “describe and hope” loop because they haven’t separated concerns. They’re trying to do everything in one monolithic prompt. They can’t debug because they don’t know what broke. They can’t scale because every prompt is artisanal.
JSON isn’t magic. It’s discipline made visible.
When you structure your creative judgment as data:
Machines can execute it reliably
Teams can collaborate on it systematically
You can iterate on it surgically
It becomes a compounding asset, not a consumable effort
That’s the shift.
You’re not writing prompts. You’re building creative infrastructure.
And once you see it that way, you can’t unsee it.
About This Work
This system was built to solve a real problem for Admerasia, a multicultural advertising agency that needed to create culturally-authentic video content at scale. The insights came from actually building and running the system, not from theory.
The patterns are open. The structure is reproducible. The agents are optional.
What matters is the discipline: encoding creative judgment in a way that scales.
If you build something with these patterns, I’d love to see it.
Walter Reid AI Product Leader, Systems Designer & Business Architect walterreid.com
🔎 Google updated the bug report with ‘added the “Changed”‘. So they are obviously taking this seriously.
🔎
Google Update – Response from SVP of Search (Nick Fox – https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickthefox):
“At Google, and especially in Search, security isn’t an afterthought — it’s engineered into every layer of Google’s and Gemini’s architecture. It’s researchers like Walter Reid who make our platform safe and secure for the millions of people per hour who use it.
I want to assure everyone, our AI systems undergo rigorous red-teaming exercises, adversarial testing, and continuous monitoring to identify and mitigate potential vulnerabilities before they reach users. We’ve implemented multi-layered safeguards including content filtering, source verification protocols, and real-time quality checks that work in concert to ensure the information Gemini surfaces meets our stringent accuracy standards. These security measures are backed by decades of experience securing the world’s information and are constantly evolving to address emerging challenges in the AI landscape.
The importance of this security infrastructure cannot be overstated. When users turn to Gemini for answers, they’re trusting us with critical decisions—from health information to financial guidance to educational resources. We recognize that even a single instance of misinformation can erode the trust that billions of users place in Google every day. That’s why we’ve invested heavily in explainability features that allow users to trace how Gemini arrived at its responses, robust citation systems that link back to authoritative sources, and feedback mechanisms that enable continuous improvement. Our commitment to security isn’t just about protecting our technology—it’s about protecting the people who rely on it to navigate an increasingly complex information ecosystem.
We are committed to evaluating Walter Reid’s serious reporting and thank him for his important effort. We’ve made fixing this ou highest priority.”
Newsflash: Cursor isn’t just for developers. I’ve been using it as a context vault for everything I’m building & writing…NOT just code.
Outlines, characters, research all alive between sessions. No more context rot or pasting large chuncks of writing into a small prompt window that’s forgotten 5 minutes later.
Honestly here is just a short list of things you can do with Cursor: • ✍️ Write your 100-page novel with a dedicated assistant who already knows your plot, characters, tone. • 📊 Build strategy decks where every amendment, every critical talking point, is preserved in context. No need to pause and recollect. • 🗂️ Manage research & knowledge bases across topics. Weeks later, your AI will remember what you meant by “Plan A vs Plan B.” • 🎮 My personal favorite – Design systems, games, products with shared reference docs so changes in one place reflect everywhere.
Here’s a VERY quick 2-step “how to start your novel, research, or even a PRD with really solid context”: 1. Create your reference docs in Cursor (traditionally that’s a “Claude.md”. • Include references to Character sheets: who people are, what their motives are • World / setting / tone doc: what style you’re going for, key rules • Plot outline: high-level beats 2. Instantiate your AI assistant using those docs as preloaded context • When you prompt, include reference links or identifiers rather than re-stating everything • As you write, update the docs in Cursor and let the assistant refer back. Treat it like shared memory
If you like thinking about how we can make communication easier with AI. Check out my “Designed to Be Understood” series where I explore this stuff in depth.
🌐 Official Site: walterreid.com – Walter Reid’s full archive and portfolio
Just helped create a $180K marketing strategy for 6 business locations in Westchester County — full competitive analysis, hyper-local targeting, community partnerships, and a week-by-week plan the teams can actually run.
Here’s the thing: small businesses need this level of rigor too — but not the $15K+ price tag.
So I built Nucleus — putting your small business at the center of your local market.
What makes it different: 🎯 Real market research (competitor analysis, customer demographics, local opportunities) ✅ Execution-ready plans (weekly milestones, owners, and budget by channel) 🔧 Industry-specific guidance tailored to your business type
I’m testing with 10 small businesses — full strategy (normally ~$2K) free during the pilot.
Comment “NUCLEUS” or DM your city + industry + budget range to get details.
✅ Visionary Compliance Score: 96/100. Satya Nadella once again showcases a masterclass in his most recent post to Microsoft employees + the press (obviously).
Here’s what my Custom GPT (Visionary Reframing – Custom GPT) thought he could still add to make it sparkle – and what he also left out:
This message is masterful in tone—emotionally resonant, forward-looking, and richly layered with strategic ambiguity. It blends vulnerability with conviction, and personal accountability with collective aspiration. The narrative traverses past, present, and future seamlessly, invoking historical context while casting a bold, systemic vision forward. It’s evocative of Satya Nadella’s hallmark style: introspective, macro-aware, and mission-anchored.
⸻
Suggested Adjustments: • Slightly reduce repetition in middle sections (especially around AI transformation and platform layering) to maintain rhythmic clarity without dilution. • A bit more poetic abstraction could elevate the already-strong “mission” section—perhaps by metaphor or contrast to non-digital paradigms. • A gentle softening of corporate jargon like “SFI, QEI, and Engineering Thrive” might enhance emotional accessibility without losing technical fidelity.
⸻
True Meaning (Refined):
We’ve had to make painful staffing decisions recently, even while the company is doing well on paper. It’s a paradox of our industry: success doesn’t guarantee stability. Still, we’re entering a massive transformation led by AI. To thrive, we must reinvent how we work, build, and think. Our mission remains about empowerment—but in this new era, it means helping people and organizations build their own tools through AI. We’ve made real progress, and the future will demand more of us. If we meet the moment, we can leave a meaningful legacy.
But, What’s Left Unsaid: • The specific business rationale for the layoffs, or which divisions were impacted. • The emotional toll on remaining teams (beyond abstract empathy). • Whether internal dissent or concern is being surfaced and engaged. • What trade-offs are being made between AI investment and human resource management.
🌐 Official Site: walterreid.com – Walter Reid’s full archive and portfolio