| name | advocacy-program-design |
| description | Design a structured EdTech advocacy program with 5-tier ladder (logo → quote → case study → speaker → peer call). Health-score eligibility gate (top-quartile only), 2-asks-per-year ceiling, state-by-state anonymization overlay (CA/NY/IL stricter; TX/FL more permissive), FERPA consent for student/parent quotes. Used by `success-playbook-designer` + `ferpa-comms-translator` + `edtech-partner-success-manager`. |
Skill: advocacy-program-design
Invoked by: success-playbook-designer (when authoring an advocacy play), ferpa-comms-translator (when writing partner-facing content), edtech-partner-success-manager (when handling Marketing's "got anyone for a case study?" ping), ravenclaude-core/documentarian (when drafting case-study content).
When to invoke: any time the work is "turn a partner's success into a marketable / referenceable artifact." Case studies, references, testimonials, speaker programs, peer-to-peer connections, advocacy event design.
Output: a partner-segment-appropriate advocacy plan (or single advocacy artifact) that has passed the FERPA / district-legal-review / consent / state-media-release checks before publication.
The advocacy-program shape
An advocacy program isn't a list of case studies — it's a structured pipeline with tiers, governance, and partner-asks-per-year ceilings. Skip the structure and the program degenerates into "we ask the loudest champion for whatever Marketing needs this quarter."
Tier 1 — Logo + private use
- Partner allows their name/logo to appear on the vendor's customer page
- No content (no quote, no story)
- Lowest-friction ask; most partners will agree
Tier 2 — Public attributed quote
- Partner allows a short (1-2 sentence) quote with district + named role attribution
- Quote sourced from real partner correspondence (paraphrased + approved)
- Usually 1-2 week district-legal-review turnaround
Tier 3 — Full case study
- District-attributed or anonymized depending on state-law + partner preference
- See
../../templates/case-study-draft.md for the artifact shape
- 4-12 week timeline for K-12 (depending on district legal-review timeline + state-specific media-release rules)
Tier 4 — Speaker program
- Partner agrees to speak at a vendor event (webinar, conference, customer summit)
- Requires confidence that the partner can carry the narrative in real-time + answer prospect questions
- Highest-effort ask; reserve for top-quartile partners with strong champion redundancy
Tier 5 — Peer-to-peer reference calls (with prospects)
- Partner agrees to be available for 30-minute calls with prospects evaluating the product
- Highest leverage for sales but heaviest ongoing time-burden on the partner
- Cap at 2-3 calls per year per partner
The flow
When invoked, the agent should:
- Confirm the trigger — what's the advocacy ask? (Marketing wants a case study / Sales wants a reference / Conference needs a speaker / etc.)
- Health-score filter — only top-quartile-health partners are eligible. Bottom-quartile partners are explicitly excluded (their story is unstable + the ask burns goodwill they don't have). See
partner-health-scoring.md.
- Pipeline check — consult
../templates/reference-pipeline-tracker.md. Has the partner already been asked recently? (2-asks-per-year ceiling for most.)
- Match topic to strength — what is THIS partner uniquely best positioned to speak to? Feature X they got value from? Specific use case? Segment-shaped story? Generic-happy-customer is the wrong reason to pick a reference.
- State-law overlay — per
../knowledge/edtech-reference-customer-patterns.md, confirm the partner's state allows the attribution level the ask requires. Some states (CA, NY, IL) have stricter district-personnel media-release rules than others.
- FERPA overlay (when student/parent quotes are involved) — under-18 quotes require parental consent for anything beyond directory-info; see
../knowledge/parent-comms-jurisdictional-bear-traps.md. If consent is heavy, swap to a teacher or admin quote.
- Draft the artifact using the appropriate template (case-study-draft.md, etc.).
- Run the pre-publication checklist built into the artifact template.
- Update the pipeline tracker with the new ask + status.
The mandatory pre-publication checks
Before any advocacy artifact ships externally:
Anti-patterns this skill flags
- Defaulting to the loudest champion instead of matching topic-to-strength. The most-vocal partner isn't always the right reference.
- Asking bottom-quartile-health partners for advocacy. Their story is unstable; the ask burns goodwill they need for their own recovery.
- Skipping the state-law check because "the partner said yes." District personnel can agree to attribution and STILL be in violation of their state's media-release rules. Confirm against the state-typology overlay.
- Quoting students or parents without consent collection. FERPA isn't optional; "the parent said it was OK in an email" is not sufficient documentation.
- Asking the same partner more than 2× per year. They stop being a partner and become a marketing asset; they opt out at the next renewal.
- Repeating the same ask type. Asking a partner for a case study, then a second case study, then a third. Step up the ask each time (case study → speaker → peer call), don't repeat.
When NOT to invoke
- The advocacy ask is for a partner in recovery / red-health. Defer until partner is stable.
- The ask is mid-renewal-conversation (it conflates the relationship; advocacy asks should sit OUTSIDE the renewal motion when possible).
- The state-law overlay rules out the partner's attribution + the ask requires named attribution.
Refresh triggers
- COPPA / FERPA / state student-privacy law materially changes the case-study consent overlay
- A state-specific media-release rule changes (rare; CA / NY / IL most likely)
- The 2-asks-per-year ceiling stops matching observed partner-fatigue patterns
- Marketing's advocacy-quota incentives change in a way that erodes the gates
References
