Skills

Design a Marketing Campaign for a Real Organisation

8 weeks · 0 milestones

Design a complete marketing campaign brief for a real organisation — specifying the campaign objective, target audience, channel strategy, budget allocation, key creative direction, KPIs, and measurement plan. The brief must be for a real organisation with a real marketing challenge, not a simulation. Proof requires that the campaign brief be reviewed by a marketing practitioner before execution begins, or formally presented to the organisation's marketing leadership, with documented feedback on whether the strategy is viable.

Part of: Business & Management · Proves for: UG

Milestone map

3 milestones

Define Campaign Brief and Audience

2–3 weeks (2 hrs/day)

Write a campaign brief that converts a business objective into a measurable goal with a numeric success metric. Research at least one real data source — existing customer analytics, social listening, or competitor audience data — to build two to three audience personas. Document your brand positioning: what the campaign claims and the evidence that makes it credible.

Proof required

Submit a written campaign brief (one to two pages) covering: campaign objective with a numeric success metric, two to three audience personas each backed by a cited real data source, brand positioning statement, and a proposed channel mix with one-sentence rationale per channel.

What gets checked

Campaign objective is numeric and time-bound — '30% lift in trial sign-ups within 8 weeks', not 'increase awareness'
At least one persona cites a verifiable data source — analytics export, survey, or documented observation — not invented demographics
Channel rationale explains why this audience is reachable on each channel, not generic appeal to popularity

Common mistakes

Writing a product description instead of a campaign objective — listing features, not measurable outcomes
Audience personas built on assumptions with no cited data source

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

Masteryfor the dedicated

What a verifier looks for

Ask 'how will you know this worked at week 8?' — a vague answer means the objective is not measurable
Probe the persona: ask where the data came from and how many observations support it
Challenge the channel choice: pick one and ask why this specific audience is actually present there
Check the positioning claim is specific — 'better quality' fails; 'verified by X independent tests' passes

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Build Creative Assets and Message Architecture

2–3 weeks (2 hrs/day)

Develop a messaging hierarchy mapping each audience segment to a distinct core message and supporting proof points. Produce three or more creative assets — ad copy, email templates, social scripts, or visual mockups — that translate the messaging hierarchy into the specific channels in your brief. Test one asset with five or more people from the target audience and document what you learned.

Proof required

Submit: a one-page messaging hierarchy showing the core message per segment and how it substantively differs; three or more creative assets in the formats specified in your brief; a testing log with feedback from at least five target-audience participants and the specific changes made as a result.

What gets checked

Each asset is clearly traceable to one segment and one channel — not interchangeable across the campaign
Testing log captures genuine divergence in reactions, not only positive feedback or a single viewpoint
At least one asset version was revised after testing, with before and after versions shown

Common mistakes

Producing polished assets without testing — internally pleasing creative often lands differently with the actual audience
Messaging hierarchy that says the same thing to every segment with minor surface-level wording changes

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

Masteryfor the dedicated

What a verifier looks for

Ask to see before and after versions of the revised asset — what specifically changed and why?
Check the testing log: were the five participants genuinely from the target audience, not just convenient contacts?
Probe the messaging hierarchy: read two assets aloud and ask what is substantively different in what they claim
Challenge one asset: ask why this format for this channel — the answer should reference the audience data from m1

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Present Campaign for Practitioner Critique

1 week (2 hrs/day)

Present the full campaign — brief, messaging hierarchy, assets, and proposed measurement plan — to a marketing practitioner with at least three years of campaign management experience. The practitioner challenges your audience assumptions, channel choices, creative decisions, and success metrics. Revise at least one element based on their specific feedback and document the reasoning.

Proof required

Submit: the final campaign deck or document; a written record of the review session including the reviewer's name and credentials, at least three specific challenges they raised, and your written response to each; a revision log showing what changed and why.

What gets checked

Reviewer has ≥3 years of hands-on campaign management experience in a relevant domain — not a peer without domain credentials
At least three distinct challenges are documented with specific detail — not 'they liked it overall'
At least one measurable element (metric, channel, or budget) was revised post-review with the rationale documented

Common mistakes

Choosing a reviewer who will validate rather than challenge — the point is stress-testing, not approval-seeking
Documenting only positive feedback and calling the session a review

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

Masteryfor the dedicated

What a verifier looks for

Confirm reviewer credentials before treating the session as valid — ask for their role and years in campaign management
Ask: what was the hardest specific challenge raised and how did the candidate respond in the room?
Check the revision log: does the change address the root of the challenge or soften language without changing substance?
Probe the measurement plan: was the success metric revised and if so why?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

Prove Your Marketing Management Chops →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Define Campaign Brief and Audience

2–3 weeks (2 hrs/day)

Proof required

What gets checked

Campaign objective is numeric and time-bound — '30% lift in trial sign-ups within 8 weeks', not 'increase awareness'
At least one persona cites a verifiable data source — analytics export, survey, or documented observation — not invented demographics
Channel rationale explains why this audience is reachable on each channel, not generic appeal to popularity

Common mistakes

Writing a product description instead of a campaign objective — listing features, not measurable outcomes
Audience personas built on assumptions with no cited data source

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

Masteryfor the dedicated

What a verifier looks for

Ask 'how will you know this worked at week 8?' — a vague answer means the objective is not measurable
Probe the persona: ask where the data came from and how many observations support it
Challenge the channel choice: pick one and ask why this specific audience is actually present there
Check the positioning claim is specific — 'better quality' fails; 'verified by X independent tests' passes

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Build Creative Assets and Message Architecture

2–3 weeks (2 hrs/day)

Proof required

What gets checked

Each asset is clearly traceable to one segment and one channel — not interchangeable across the campaign
Testing log captures genuine divergence in reactions, not only positive feedback or a single viewpoint
At least one asset version was revised after testing, with before and after versions shown

Common mistakes

Producing polished assets without testing — internally pleasing creative often lands differently with the actual audience
Messaging hierarchy that says the same thing to every segment with minor surface-level wording changes

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

Masteryfor the dedicated

What a verifier looks for

Ask to see before and after versions of the revised asset — what specifically changed and why?
Check the testing log: were the five participants genuinely from the target audience, not just convenient contacts?
Probe the messaging hierarchy: read two assets aloud and ask what is substantively different in what they claim
Challenge one asset: ask why this format for this channel — the answer should reference the audience data from m1

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Present Campaign for Practitioner Critique

1 week (2 hrs/day)

Proof required

What gets checked

Reviewer has ≥3 years of hands-on campaign management experience in a relevant domain — not a peer without domain credentials
At least three distinct challenges are documented with specific detail — not 'they liked it overall'
At least one measurable element (metric, channel, or budget) was revised post-review with the rationale documented

Common mistakes

Choosing a reviewer who will validate rather than challenge — the point is stress-testing, not approval-seeking
Documenting only positive feedback and calling the session a review

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

Masteryfor the dedicated

What a verifier looks for

Confirm reviewer credentials before treating the session as valid — ask for their role and years in campaign management
Ask: what was the hardest specific challenge raised and how did the candidate respond in the room?
Check the revision log: does the change address the root of the challenge or soften language without changing substance?
Probe the measurement plan: was the success metric revised and if so why?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.