A practical workflow, prompts, creator briefs and testing board for choosing what to film next. This is a copy-and-run operating kit, not an autonomous software integration.
Turn product proof and audience context into distinct creative tests with clear production decisions.
<aside> 🚀 🚀 FREE STRATEGY CALL Want to grow your product through viral reach? We help teams across iGaming, mobile apps, AI products, and SaaS build creator-led organic distribution generating tens of millions of views at CPMs starting from $0.03.
<aside> 🚀 Book a free strategy call
</aside>
On the call you'll receive:
A mechanic is the repeatable structure that makes a scene worth watching: a timed challenge, a reveal, a comparison, a constraint or a visible transformation. “Funny video” is not a mechanic. The same mechanic can carry different hooks and products; that does not make every adaptation useful.
The goal is a small, evidence-backed testing slate, not an endless list of ideas.
GOAL: find what can actually be demonstrated.
ACTION: collect product capabilities, limitations, approved claims, audience situations, available footage and production constraints. Add a source or owner for every fact.
TOOL: a spreadsheet tab named Product.
OUTPUT: feature → viewer problem → visible proof → prohibited implication.
COMMON MISTAKE: choosing a trend first and making the product an awkward final shot.
Analyze the supplied product truth sheet. Return capability, audience_problem, observable_demonstration, proof_source, limitation and production_requirement. Separate verified facts from hypotheses. Identify three moments where the product visibly changes an outcome. Do not invent capabilities, testimonials or performance numbers. If the product cannot demonstrate a proposed outcome, mark it blocked.
Look for recurring situations your audience recognizes: a rushed handoff, a messy comparison, conflicting advice, a deadline or a common workaround. A context does not need to be a current viral trend.
Create a reference ledger with URL, date observed, creator, mechanic, first shot, audience context and the specific element worth learning from. Reference ideas, not someone else’s footage or likeness without permission.
Using only the attached audience notes and reference ledger, identify five recognizable situations in which the product problem appears. Return context, source, audience relevance and product role. Label unsupported contexts as hypotheses. Do not claim a format is trending without dated evidence. For each reference, abstract its structure without copying its wording or suggesting unlicensed reuse.
Use this starter menu as hypotheses:
| Mechanic | Scene structure | Product role | Failure mode |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constraint challenge | Complete a task with one clear limitation | Removes a specific obstacle | Challenge has no link to use case |
| Side-by-side | Same task, two approved methods | Makes a difference observable | Unfair comparison |
| Predict then reveal | Viewer chooses an outcome before the reveal | Supplies the explanation | Deceptive setup |
| Workaround replacement | Show existing workaround, then alternative | Simplifies an actual step | Invented pain |
| Blind choice | Compare observable outputs before labels | Lets evidence lead | Hidden material conditions |
| Mistake diagnosis | Show one mistake and a correction | Enables the correction | Shaming the viewer |
| Process timebox | Show a bounded workflow with a clock | Changes the process | Fabricated timing |
| Objection test | State a real concern and test it | Provides proof | Unperformed test |