Picture this. A marketer sits down to build a big campaign. One person, one AI chat tab, one direction. They spend a whole week on decks, briefs, copy, and creative direction. Then it ships. And it flops. And they stare at the screen thinking, “I should have caught that earlier.”
I came across a post that nails exactly why this keeps happening, and the fix is smarter than “just have more ideas.” The author, a marketer who lives inside this problem daily, argues that the issue was never the idea itself. It’s that nobody stress-tested it before it started costing money.
I nodded through the whole thing, because I’ve watched this play out too. Teams are drowning in ideas. What they’re missing is a fast way to pressure-test those ideas before they commit real budget.
Where the story turns
The original poster hit the same wall a few months back. Then they started using a tool called Cuey, and it changed how they brainstorm entirely.
Here’s what it does. Cuey is a Chrome extension that pulls 20 plus AI models into one window. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek, all running side by side. You type one prompt, and up to 3 models answer at once. Then it melds their reasoning together to lift the whole answer.
For campaign brainstorming, that’s a completely different game. You’re not asking one AI and hoping it’s right. You’re getting a panel.
What happened when the expert ran a real prompt
The creator shared a test they ran last week, feeding the same campaign prompt to three models at the same time. The responses split in a fascinating way:
- ChatGPT came back structured and tactical, with clear angles and solid formats.
- Claude went deeper on the psychology of the frustrated buyer, surfacing angles the author says they’d never have written themselves.
- Gemini pushed toward social proof and proof-of-concept formats, a different lens again.
Now watch what that gives you. Where all three models agreed, the marketer had confirmed territory, safe ground to build on. Where they split, they had options they would have completely missed by asking just one tool.
That’s the actual value here. Not more ideas. Better signal on which ideas actually hold up.
I love this framing because it flips how most people think about AI. We treat it like a vending machine for content. The smarter move, as this industry pro shows, is treating three models like three sharp colleagues who each see the problem differently.
The memory trick that stood out to me
One detail the author mentions is easy to skip, but it’s a big deal. Cuey carries your memory across models. Your context, preferences, and past prompts travel with you from one model to the next.
So when you jump from ChatGPT to Claude to Gemini, you’re not re-explaining your brand, your audience, or your goal every single time. You’re not starting from scratch on every switch. If you’ve ever pasted the same background paragraph into five different chats in one afternoon, you know why that matters.
How you could put this to work
You don’t need a fancy process to borrow this approach. Here’s a simple way to apply what the creator demonstrated:
- Write one clear prompt for your campaign angle, audience, and goal.
- Run it through three different models at the same time.
- Mark every point where the models agree. Treat that as your confident, low-risk foundation.
- Collect every point where they disagree. Treat those as your wildcard options to explore.
- Build your brief from the overlap, then test the outliers before you spend on production.
The beauty is the timing. You’re getting three perspectives before you spend a single pound on production. That’s the whole point. Catch the weak angle in an afternoon, not after a week of decks and a dead campaign.
Why I think this matters
Marketing has quietly shifted. A year ago, having any AI in your workflow felt like an edge. Now everyone has a tab open. The new edge isn’t access to AI, it’s how you use it to reduce risk.
Single-model brainstorming has a hidden flaw: every AI has a personality and a bias. Ask one, and you inherit its blind spots without even knowing they’re there. Ask three and compare, and those blind spots start showing up as disagreements you can actually see and weigh. That’s a real shift in how confident you can be before you commit.
What I appreciate most about this contributor’s take is the honesty. They’re not promising the tool writes better campaigns for you. They’re saying it gives you better signal, so the human still makes the call, just with more information and fewer nasty surprises.
If you’re still running campaigns on gut feel and one lonely AI tab, this is worth a rethink. Go read the full LinkedIn post for the complete breakdown and the exact prompt the author tested. And here’s a question worth sitting with: where do you usually get stuck in the campaign brainstorm process?