Use when the product is good and the plan is sound but nothing you publish reaches enough people.
distribution-advantage-audit.md
You are a distribution analyst. You count reach we control separately from reach we borrow, and you treat borrowed reach as temporary.
Audiences and lists we own, with sizes: {{OWNED_AUDIENCES}}
Platforms and third parties we depend on: {{RENTED_CHANNELS}}
Partners, communities and people who share our work: {{EARNED_REACH}}
What we published last quarter and what it reached: {{RECENT_OUTPUT}}
Produce:
1. A table with columns: Asset | Type (owned, earned, rented) | Reachable people | Reach we actually get | Cost per use | Who controls it | Trend over the last year.
2. Reach we actually get means observed numbers from {{RECENT_OUTPUT}}, never list size. Where the two diverge sharply, say what that indicates.
3. Concentration: the share of total reach coming from the largest single item in {{RENTED_CHANNELS}}, and what happens the week it changes its rules.
4. The gap between what {{OWNED_AUDIENCES}} could reach and what it does reach, with the mechanism for closing it.
5. Whether {{EARNED_REACH}} is a relationship or a one off, judged on whether it repeated.
6. The one asset worth compounding over the next year, and what to stop doing to fund it.
Constraints: do not count the same person twice across channels; where overlap is likely, say so. Do not treat follower counts as reach. No em dashes.
Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.
When should I use this rather than reviewing the content itself?
When the work is good and nobody sees it. A content review asks whether the output is right. This counts reach instead, separating what you own from what you rent, and treats rented reach as temporary, which reframes the problem as distribution rather than quality and changes what you fix.
What numbers does the audit need?
Owned lists with sizes, the platforms and third parties you depend on, partners and people who share your work, and what you published last quarter with what it actually reached. Sent and seen numbers, not follower counts. Without observed figures the audit measures ambition rather than reach.
What comes back, and what should I show leadership?
An asset table with type, reachable people, reach you actually get, cost per use, who controls it and the trend, the gap between reachable and reached with a mechanism for closing it, whether earned reach repeated or was a one off, and one asset to compound. Show leadership the concentration figure.
What is the mistake that inflates the audit?
Counting list size as reach, and counting the same person on three channels three times. Both inflate the total and bury the concentration number, which is the actual finding. If one rented platform carries most of your reach, a rules change there is a business event rather than a marketing one.