advocacy-program-design

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:

1. Confirm the trigger — what's the advocacy ask? (Marketing wants a case study / Sales wants a reference / Conference needs a speaker / etc.)
2. 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.
3. Pipeline check — consult ../templates/reference-pipeline-tracker.md. Has the partner already been asked recently? (2-asks-per-year ceiling for most.)
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Draft the artifact using the appropriate template (case-study-draft.md, etc.).
8. Run the pre-publication checklist built into the artifact template.
9. Update the pipeline tracker with the new ask + status.

The mandatory pre-publication checks

Before any advocacy artifact ships externally:

• District legal review complete (or explicitly waived in writing by the named district decision-maker)
• Named-individual sign-off for every quote (role + name on file)
• State media-release rule checked (per knowledge file)
• No student PII beyond directory-info designation
• Numbers sourced (every claim has a data range)
• AI-feature claims consistent with current COPPA-amended consent posture (post April 22 2026)
• Sub-processor disclosure still matches current vendor-side list

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

• ../knowledge/edtech-reference-customer-patterns.md — state-by-state anonymization / consent / media-release variance
• ../knowledge/parent-comms-jurisdictional-bear-traps.md — FERPA on student/parent quotes
• ../templates/case-study-draft.md — the case-study artifact
• ../templates/reference-pipeline-tracker.md — the per-partner advocacy status board
• ../templates/cross-functional-partnership-map.md — Marketing function row for how the ask routes
• partner-health-scoring.md — health-score eligibility gate