The connections conundrum
Connections thinking is a strategic advantage for creative agencies. Consequently comms planners are in demand and in most creatively focused agencies are overstretched if they exist on the scope at all.
Like most problems there is an opportunity hiding in the connections conundrum. An opportunity for brand strategists to partner more closely with them.
The gap
In my experience, connections fluency is jagged in most strategy departments. Some brand strategists are adept at thinking about a concept through the lens of channel semiotics to help extend a concept's amplitude in media while others are not.
It's a gap that creates risk for creative agencies as we head into a more headless and agentic consumer world. As personalized AI and zero click discovery remake the traditional touchpoint map, the context of an idea becomes as important as the content itself. Matt Webb writes brilliantly on the subject here.
Strategists who aren't helping to develop a focused hypothesis around connections needs are creating opportunity costs for creative teams and real costs for clients, as research shows advertisers lose an average of 72 cents on every dollar spent in low-attention media environments.
One possible solution
This is a place where integrated AI tools can help. Not by replacing the connections planner but by helping a strategist show up to that conversation with seeds rather than a blank page. A challenge framing. A set of questions. A working hypothesis about where the opportunity lives. Enough to earn the conversation and give it somewhere to go.
Thoreau's standard is the right one here, gather some seeds and convince the room you have something worth growing.
How AI can help
You describe the client and category, the problem or ambition, the concept or creative territory, the target audience, current channels, KPIs, and any relevant constraints.
It gives you three things:
Prime the model
Start a new conversation in Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or whatever model you use. Paste the following as your first message. This sets up the framework the model needs to understand what connections planning is and what the challenge types mean before it can diagnose anything usefully. If you have a different definition use that one. If you have frameworks show them to the model to get it familiar with expectations. Context is everything.
Give it the brief
Once the model has the framework in context, describe your brief. Include as much as you have. The more context, the more specific the diagnosis.
Why this works
This particular example is asking the model to do something it can genuinely do well: structural reasoning from a brief. It doesn't need real audience data or category intelligence to name a challenge type. It needs to understand what the different challenge types are and read a brief carefully enough to match the two. That's diagnostic reasoning, not synthesis.
An example
Here is an example of the prompts being used on a completely new ChatGPT instance in a logged out state. Imagine how much better this can be with all the context you have at your disposal.
From seeds to something more
What you see above is a two-message conversation designed to get a strategist from blank page to informed point of view in a few minutes.
If you want to grow from seeds into a real capability — one that lives in your team's workflow, learns from your past projects, connects to your research platforms, and helps every strategist think through connections problems with the same rigor — that is a different kind of build. If it's a conversation worth having, get in touch at phillipleestrategy.com/contact.