Teacher guide | Content marketing classroom

[Skip to content](#main)

[Content marketing classroom](/)Utah CTE Digital Marketing · Strand 2

[Lessons](/#lessons)[Student notebook](/student)[Examples & videos](/media)[Teacher guide](/guide)[Downloads](/#downloads)

On this page

[Unit at a glance](#section-1)[Standards and evidence of learning](#section-2)[Set up the digital classroom](#section-3)[Concepts to teach through the cases](#section-4)[Case 1 — REI: answer the question before asking for the sale](#section-5)[Case 2 — Visit Utah: reduce friction in an experience people imagine](#section-6)[Case 3 — Spotify Wrapped 2023: give people a story about themselves](#section-7)[Case 4 — GoPro: customers supply the raw material, the brand edits the story](#section-8)[Case 5 — Blendtec: a repeatable question makes the product demonstration memorable](#section-9)[Case 6 — Dunkin and Charli: a partnership becomes a content and action system](#section-10)[Case 7 — Dove: AI policy becomes part of the brand promise](#section-11)[Lesson 1 — What earns attention?](#section-12)[Lesson 2 — An audience needs more than a demographic label](#section-13)[Lesson 3 — One campaign, different media relationships](#section-14)[Lesson 4 — Participation, proof, and the limits of UGC](#section-15)[Lesson 5 — Choose a creator for a reason](#section-16)[Lesson 6 — What should an AI-assisted brand promise?](#section-17)[Lesson 7 — Use AI, then show the human work](#section-18)[Lesson 8 — Build a useful content system](#section-19)[Lesson 9 — Measure the job, then revise](#section-20)[Lesson 10 — Defend the campaign](#section-21)[Campaign assignment — Wasatch Weekend](#section-22)[Assessment and teacher keys](#section-23)[Source register and use notes](#section-24)[Link or network fallback](#section-25)

Teacher resource: includes discussion keys, assessment answers, and scoring guidance. This page is publicly accessible; it is not a protected assessment area.

**Freshman worksheet update:** Use the shorter student worksheet as the assignment instructions. It replaces the longer campaign requirements in this research guide: one 50–80-word original post, a resource post with two links and one-sentence explanations, one three-box AI slide, one peer revision, and a 60-second presentation. Accept one sentence or bullets for lesson answers. Model readings and vocabulary together; use the case dossiers as teacher background. For grading, give 5 points each for helpful content, clear writing, real sources, and careful fact-checking. Use these 20 points in place of the full campaign rubric for this version.

# Content marketing: earn attention, build trust, prompt action

Utah CTE Digital Marketing • Grades 11–12 • 10 lessons of 50 minutes

## Unit at a glance

Students act as a small content team. They investigate seven real cases, defend decisions using specific content evidence, then develop a two-week campaign for a fictional Utah gear-rental business or a teacher-approved local business. The driving question is: **What would make a particular audience choose to spend time with a brand’s content—and what evidence would tell us that time mattered?**

The unit moves from useful information to identity, participation, creator partnerships, and AI-assisted production. It ends with a campaign containing original branded content, curated content, an AI careers infographic, and a measurement plan. All research, responses, feedback, and submission happen digitally. Students do not need personal social accounts, paid software, printing, or a public posting requirement.

**Pacing assumption:** ten 50-minute classes, with no required homework. For five 90-minute blocks, pair lessons 1–2, 3–4, 5–6, 7–8, and 9–10. Remove a repeated opening routine and one share-out in each pair to recover ten minutes; retain case examination and production time. For students needing more production time, add a studio period after lesson 8.

**Prerequisite check:** students can identify a target audience and explain a brand’s product or service. If they cannot, use the first ten minutes of lesson 2 to model an audience need before starting the case.

**Student-facing success criteria:** I can point to evidence in a real artifact; explain who it helps and why; distinguish its creator, format, and distribution; create useful content in two categories; verify AI-assisted work; and select measures that match a business goal.

## Standards and evidence of learning

The authoritative source is the [USBE Digital Marketing Strands and Standards PDF](https://schools.utah.gov/cte/_cte/strands/DigitalMarketing.pdf), revised April 2024 and linked from the [USBE Marketing course page](https://schools.utah.gov/cte/marketing/courses). Its content marketing unit is Strand 2, on PDF page 4. Sources were reviewed October 11, 2026. The table below paraphrases the alignment; it is not a replacement for the state document.

| Alignment                            | Focus                                                                                    | Evidence collected in this unit                                                      |
| ------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Strand 2, Standard 1 — core          | Content marketing; owned, earned, paid; branded, curated, UGC, influencer, viral content | Case analyses; media classification; two campaign categories; distribution rationale |
| Strand 2, Standard 2 — core          | AI applications, SEO changes, deepfakes, copyright/royalties, emerging policies and law  | Source-based decisions; logged AI experiment; verification and revision              |
| Strand 2, performance tasks — core   | AI careers infographic; business content in two categories                               | Digital infographic plus original branded asset and curated digest                   |
| Strand 1, Standards 2–3 — supporting | Audience/persona; consistent brand identity                                              | Audience brief and shared voice rules                                                |
| Strand 3, Standards 1–4 — extension  | Search, measures, analytics, AI search                                                   | Helpful page structure; campaign metrics and diagnostic exercise                     |
| Strand 4, Standard 1 — extension     | Owned distribution                                                                       | Channel plan and accessible content                                                  |

The campaign uses **branded original content and curated content** as its two categories. A blog and a video can both be branded content: two formats alone are not the distinction students must demonstrate. The AI infographic is an additional product. This unit addresses Strand 2 comprehensively; the supporting work does not replace full instruction in the other strands.

## Set up the digital classroom

1.  Put the teacher guide, media companion, and student notebook in the LMS unit. Keep teacher notes separate from the student copy.
2.  Convert the student notebook to a native Google Doc. Assign one individual copy per student using Google Classroom’s “Make a copy for each student,” or give students a view-only master to duplicate. Use a separate group Google Doc for the campaign. The headings serve as navigation; students type directly after each prompt.
3.  Preflight the specific links and YouTube videos on the school network. Web research confirms source availability, not playback behind the district’s filter. The media companion provides direct links and optional embeds. Article sites may reject iframes, so open those pages directly.
4.  Have a district-approved generative text tool ready for a teacher demonstration. Students may use an approved tool if their accounts permit; the teacher demonstration and supplied flawed copy provide an equivalent route. Do not require students to create a new AI or social account.
5.  Keep a shared Google Doc titled “Evidence we can defend.” Add one useful observation after each lesson. Every entry includes a URL, page heading or video time, observation, interpretation, and remaining uncertainty.

**Access and participation:** project sources if devices are shared; give partners alternating evidence-finder and decision-maker roles. Provide captions or a teacher narration for video examples. Students who cannot watch can analyze the linked brand article and teacher’s description of the relevant sequence. Allow a recorded pitch, written pitch, or conference in place of a live presentation. Provide the audience brief and sentence stems for students needing language support. Extension students propose a test capable of disproving their strategy.

**Research norm:** “The artifact shows …, which suggests …, but it does not establish ….” A company’s newsroom is evidence of what the company announced. It is not an independent audit of effectiveness. Label source statements, student interpretations, proposed strategies, and classroom data separately.

## Concepts to teach through the cases

Content marketing gives an audience a reason to pay attention through useful information, entertainment, identity, or participation. The business still has a purpose: for example, qualified inquiries, product consideration, repeat use, or trust. A price promotion can be useful advertising, but students should explain the audience value of a content piece beyond the discount.

Teach classification on three separate dimensions:

| Dimension        | Question                                                             | Example                                                                                |
| ---------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Content category | Who made it, and what relationship or editorial process produced it? | Original branded guide; curated resources; customer-created video; creator partnership |
| Format           | What form does the audience consume?                                 | Article, infographic, podcast, image, video                                            |
| Distribution     | Who controls the channel, and is placement purchased?                | Brand website: owned; independent coverage: earned; purchased placement: paid          |

A brand can post a customer-created video on its own channel: it is UGC in origin and owned in that placement. Paid media includes purchased ad placement and compensated creator distribution, including an agreed exchange for a free product or service. Creating an asset costs money, but that alone does not make its distribution paid media. Brand social accounts count as owned channels for this unit; the platform still controls access and algorithms. “Viral” describes observed spread, not a guaranteed content plan. A high lifetime view count does not tell us the speed of spread.

For curation, students select outside sources for a specific audience, add a reason to use each, and preserve attribution. Linking with original commentary is the classroom model. A pasted article, a list of a brand’s own posts, or an AI summary without traceable sources does not meet the curation task.

## Case 1 — REI: answer the question before asking for the sale

**Inspect:** [Hiking for Beginners](https://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/hiking-for-beginners.html). Focus on “Choose a Hiking Route,” “Choose Your Hiking Gear,” and the links into gear advice and shopping. This is the actual content, not a case-study summary.

**Documented context:** REI publishes the guide within Expert Advice. It organizes the beginner’s problem into finding a partner, choosing a route, and selecting gear. Informational sections sit alongside links to further advice, experiences, and merchandise. The page names a contributing expert. [Primary source: REI guide](https://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/hiking-for-beginners.html).

**Teaching interpretation:** ask whether the guide would still be useful if a reader bought nothing. Then ask how being useful might influence a later choice. The content creates a plausible bridge between a beginner’s uncertainty and a retailer’s offer; the public page does not reveal how many purchases it caused.

**Evidence hunt:** each pair identifies one question answered, one credibility cue, and one possible next step. They name the exact heading or link label. A defensible response connects “Choose a Hiking Route” to a first-time hiker’s uncertainty and a relevant gear link to a later consideration step. It does not claim the article proves conversion.

**Decision:** a new rental shop has time for one article. Should it publish “Our amazing rental packages” or an answer to a beginner’s concrete question? Students pitch a title, audience question, and next step. Accept either direction only if the usefulness and business purpose are specific.

**Misconception to catch:** “It’s on a store website, so it is just an ad.” Ownership and usefulness are separate observations. **Transfer:** make the campaign asset solve one question before introducing the offer.

## Case 2 — Visit Utah: reduce friction in an experience people imagine

**Inspect:** [How to Stargaze in Utah](https://www.visitutah.com/articles/how-to-stargaze), by Whitney Childers; then follow the [Dark Sky Parks and Places page](https://www.visitutah.com/places-to-go/dark-sky-parks). Focus on “When to Go Stargazing,” “Fear of Darkness,” “Stargazing with Kids,” and “Where to Stargaze.”

**Documented context:** Visit Utah combines practical planning advice with photography, an expert voice, and links to places and related stories. The article addresses darkness and family participation, rather than simply displaying destinations. [Primary source: Visit Utah article](https://www.visitutah.com/articles/how-to-stargaze).

**Teaching interpretation:** the tourist is making a decision under uncertainty: what will the experience feel like, what will I need, and where would I start? Different headings support different needs. Students should infer an audience from those cues, without claiming the publisher disclosed demographic research.

**Evidence hunt:** teams choose a first-time visitor, a family, or a photography enthusiast. They locate two cues supporting that audience and identify a question the page still leaves open. They trace one click from inspiration to planning and propose a measure for that step.

**Decision:** would the rental-shop campaign lead with an impressive landscape photo, a preparation guide, or an accessible first-trip itinerary? Require a reason tied to an audience barrier and a case observation. A strong response may use a photo as an entry point, but supplies practical information after it.

**Curation task:** select this article, the REI guide, and one verified independent resource for the campaign’s resource digest. Explain why each belongs. These are student-selected outside resources; do not label Visit Utah’s original article itself as a wholly curated post. **Transfer:** organize content around decisions the audience must make, rather than around everything the business wants to say.

## Case 3 — Spotify Wrapped 2023: give people a story about themselves

**Inspect:** [Spotify’s 2023 Wrapped experience announcement](https://newsroom.spotify.com/2023-11-29/wrapped-user-experience-2023/). Use the public example graphics; students need neither an account nor their own listening history. Optional editorial comparison: [TIME’s guide to 2023 Wrapped](https://time.com/6340656/spotify-wrapped-guide-2023/).

**Documented context:** Spotify’s November 29, 2023 announcement describes personalized listening summaries, “Me in 2023,” and “Sound Town,” with shareable results. The historical article preserves examples after the live experience has changed. [Primary source: Spotify announcement](https://newsroom.spotify.com/2023-11-29/wrapped-user-experience-2023/). TIME separately explains the campaign and the sharing of listening summaries. [Editorial source: TIME](https://time.com/6340656/spotify-wrapped-guide-2023/).

**Teaching interpretation:** Wrapped invites users to present an identity, not merely repeat a product claim. The company creates the summary; the user chooses whether to distribute it or add commentary. Distinguish the brand-generated card from an original user response. A newsroom example is not evidence that a particular user actually shared it.

**Evidence hunt:** choose one public feature. Identify what is personalized, what makes it meaningful to a user, and what action the design appears to encourage. Mark the feature description as evidence and the motivation as inference.

**Decision:** should a small business imitate a yearly recap if it has little customer data? Students propose either an opt-in recap using minimal data or a participation prompt requiring none. No student submits personal listening history. A defensible response explains a useful identity signal without treating data collection as automatically necessary.

**Media map:** company announcement: owned. Independent editorial article: earned if no sponsorship is present. A purchased placement of a share card: paid, but hypothetical unless separately documented. **Transfer:** make sharing meaningful for the participant and separate proposed distribution from observed distribution.

## Case 4 — GoPro: customers supply the raw material, the brand edits the story

**Watch:** [GoPro Awards: Million Dollar Challenge Highlight in 4K — HERO11 Black + Mini](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VfW6-1DM8Y). Use 0:00–1:00 for first observations, then continue if useful; the brand describes the reel as three minutes. [GoPro’s April 26, 2023 announcement](https://gopro.com/en/us/news/hero11-black-mini-million-dollar-challenge-video) provides the program context and participant figures.

**Documented context:** GoPro reports 42,446 submitted clips and 55 selected creators representing 21 countries. The selected creators each received $18,181.81. It describes the final reel as user-generated footage captured on the HERO11 Black or Mini. These are company-reported figures for this edition, not independent sales results. [Primary source: GoPro announcement](https://gopro.com/en/us/news/hero11-black-mini-million-dollar-challenge-video).

**Teaching interpretation:** customers create the footage, but the final compilation reflects brand selection and editing. “Authentic” cannot mean unedited or free of incentives here. The content can demonstrate product possibilities while rewarding a creator community.

**Evidence hunt:** identify a moment suggesting a product benefit and a different moment emphasizing experience or community. Record the video time rather than inventing a technical specification. What does the reel show? What could only be established through controlled testing or customer data?

**Decision:** design a safe, low-budget participation prompt for the rental shop. Specify the invitation, contribution, credit, reuse permission, and moderation. A draft invitation is a plan to request UGC; it is not actual earned media. Avoid stunts or demonstrations that students would need to reproduce.

**Teacher follow-up:** why is 42,446 a participation measure rather than a conversion rate? The denominator is not the number of exposed potential buyers, and a submitted clip is not a purchase. **Transfer:** keep a provenance record for contributed material, including compensation or prizes and permission to use it.

## Case 5 — Blendtec: a repeatable question makes the product demonstration memorable

**Watch:** [Will It Blend? — iPhone](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg1ckCkm8YI), uploaded July 10, 2007. Use the first 60 seconds to identify setup, tension, and product connection. [Blendtec’s series page](https://www.blendtec.com/pages/will-it-blend) supplies more examples. This is a historical case, not advice about current YouTube tactics.

**Documented context:** Blendtec maintains a branded series built around testing whether unusual items can be blended. The original iPhone episode is published by Blendtec’s Will It Blend? channel. [Series source](https://www.blendtec.com/pages/will-it-blend); [original video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg1ckCkm8YI). TechCrunch covered the video on July 10, 2007. [Editorial example](https://techcrunch.com/2007/07/10/will-an-iphone-blend/).

**Teaching interpretation:** a consistent question gives viewers a reason to anticipate an outcome. The entertainment remains linked to a capability the company wants associated with its product. Ask whether a memorable demonstration necessarily teaches an everyday use.

**Evidence hunt:** students name the opening question, the promised payoff, and where the product becomes essential to the story. Compare the viewer’s reason to stay with the reason to stay on the REI guide. Both may be content marketing while offering different kinds of value.

**Decision:** choose a safe recurring format for a business with limited production capacity: “Can this fit in one daypack?”, “One beginner question in 30 seconds,” or a student-proposed alternative. The class plans the demonstration rather than destroying objects. Never reproduce the iPhone experiment.

**Misconception to catch:** “We should make something viral.” Require a controllable plan—audience, repeated premise, production resources, channel, and test. Do not repeat widely circulated sales-growth percentages without a source that supports the exact period and measurement. **Transfer:** define an editorial format that can produce a second and third useful installment.

## Case 6 — Dunkin and Charli: a partnership becomes a content and action system

**Inspect:** [“The Charli” Dances Onto the Dunkin’ Menu](https://news.dunkindonuts.com/news/the-charli-dances-onto-the-dunkin-menu), September 2, 2020. The actual launch copy and image are the classroom artifacts. Read the paragraphs on the named drink, app ordering, photo contest, and social-channel content; no TikTok login is needed. Optional follow-on: [2021 Charli x Dunkin merchandise announcement](https://news.dunkindonuts.com/news/charli-dunkin-merch).

**Documented context:** the release announces a drink named for Charli D’Amelio’s usual order, a temporary app-order reward, a fan photo contest, and creator-related social content. It establishes a formal partnership. It does not disclose the creator’s fee or establish the sales lift caused by any individual post. The contest is historical and closed. [Primary source: Dunkin release](https://news.dunkindonuts.com/news/the-charli-dances-onto-the-dunkin-menu).

**Teaching interpretation:** break the launch into separate jobs: the creator association attracts attention; social material gives fans ways to participate; the named product and app offer provide a next action. The press release itself is owned media. It is evidence of a creator partnership, not the original sponsored creator post. Do not assign a particular post “paid” without seeing evidence of that relationship or purchased placement.

**Decision:** would a local shop prefer a famous creator or a smaller creator whose audience actually needs its service? Students choose selection criteria before follower count. They draft a creator brief and disclosure for a fictional compensated partnership.

**Policy resource:** the [FTC’s Disclosures 101](https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers) explains that material relationships include payment and free products. Disclosures should be clear and hard to miss; a video endorsement needs a disclosure in the video, not only its description. Teach those principles as a check on the draft, not as a claim that this case violated a rule.

**Transfer:** make a creator’s role, compensation assumptions, audience fit, and next action explicit. A celebrity name is not an evidence-based strategy on its own.

## Case 7 — Dove: AI policy becomes part of the brand promise

**Inspect:** [Dove’s Keep Beauty Real campaign page](https://www.dove.com/us/en/campaigns/purpose/keep-beauty-real.html). Use the campaign’s written pledge and displayed imagery. No campaign video is required. Students should evaluate the claim and strategy, not people’s appearance.

**Documented context:** Dove’s page describes “The Code,” links to a Real Beauty Prompt Playbook, and states a commitment not to use AI to create or distort women’s images. The page presents a prediction about AI content by 2025; a prediction in campaign copy is not a measured result. [Primary source: Dove campaign page](https://www.dove.com/us/en/campaigns/purpose/keep-beauty-real.html).

**Teaching interpretation:** the case raises a marketing decision about what a company promises to keep human and why that promise fits its identity. Students can question whether the company’s public position is sufficiently specific to guide an editor. They should not assume that avoiding one AI use means rejecting every AI-assisted workflow.

**Decision:** a rental-shop editor may use AI to brainstorm titles, summarize supplied notes, create product imagery, or invent a customer quote. Which tasks should be permitted, revised, or rejected? Require a reason and a source. A clear distinction is between helping an editor organize verified information and manufacturing evidence of a product or customer experience.

**Research check:** Google’s [generative-content guidance](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/using-gen-ai-content) emphasizes review for accuracy and useful content; producing many pages without added value may violate its spam policies. Its [AI search guidance](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/ai-features) says foundational SEO remains relevant, with no special AI markup required. The first page showed an October 1, 2026 update when reviewed. Students distinguish search engines from browser software.

**Transfer:** a brand AI policy should state permitted tasks, evidence checks, prohibited fabrication, and the human responsible for release. Treat current search guidance as dated documentation, not as a guarantee of ranking.

## Lesson 1 — What earns attention?

**Aim and alignment:** explain audience value and a business purpose using a real example; Strand 2, Standard 1. **Prepare:** REI guide and Blendtec video; student notebook lesson 1.

| Minutes | Teaching and student work                                                                                                                      |
| ------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 0–5     | Display a teacher-written sale message and the REI headline. Students type which they would open before a first hike, with a reason.           |
| 5–12    | Model audience question → content value → relevant next step on REI. Teach content category, format, and distribution as different dimensions. |
| 12–25   | Pairs examine the three assigned REI sections. Record a precise clue, interpretation, and uncertainty.                                         |
| 25–33   | Show Blendtec 0:00–1:00 twice if needed. Ask what creates the question and what keeps the brand relevant.                                      |
| 33–45   | Pairs write a comparison and propose a recurring useful content idea for a small business. Share two contrasting choices.                      |
| 45–50   | Individual exit ticket: one sentence defining content marketing, followed by case evidence and a plausible next action.                        |

**Ask:** Would either example still have value if I bought nothing today? How does each connect attention to the product? **Expected:** REI offers practical guidance; Blendtec offers a compelling demonstration. Neither artifact alone proves revenue. **Respond to error:** if students equate content marketing with “any social post,” ask them to identify the audience benefit. **Check:** the exit response needs an audience, a value, and one concrete artifact detail. Revisit missing value statements in the next opener.

## Lesson 2 — An audience needs more than a demographic label

**Aim and alignment:** infer a supported audience need and curate useful resources; Strand 2, Standard 1; supporting Strand 1, Standard 2. **Prepare:** Visit Utah case and links; campaign client brief.

| Minutes | Teaching and student work                                                                                      |
| ------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 0–5     | Ask students to improve “our audience is everyone who likes the outdoors.”                                     |
| 5–10    | Model “observed cue” versus “audience hypothesis.” Do not invent market research.                              |
| 10–25   | Teams examine Visit Utah headings for their assigned audience. Locate two clues and one unanswered question.   |
| 25–35   | Trace a planning link. Explain how the next page changes what the visitor can do.                              |
| 35–45   | Choose campaign teams of 2–3. Complete an audience need statement and begin a three-source curation shortlist. |
| 45–50   | Exit: identify a persona assumption that would need validation and the evidence that could validate it.        |

**Ask:** Which heading serves a family differently from an experienced photographer? **Expected:** the kids section supports family planning; other headings can reduce a beginner’s concern. These cues support a hypothesis, not a demographic census. **Check:** two specific cues, a need, a next action, and a labeled assumption. **Production checkpoint:** group doc now contains audience, question, and initial sources. This work feeds the final asset; it is not an extra disconnected exercise.

## Lesson 3 — One campaign, different media relationships

**Aim and alignment:** classify owned, earned, and paid without confusing them with format or authorship; Strand 2, Standard 1. **Prepare:** Spotify announcement and TIME article. Use public graphics rather than personal accounts.

| Minutes | Teaching and student work                                                                                                      |
| ------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 0–5     | Classify a brand video on its own account. Students may give more than one dimension.                                          |
| 5–12    | Teach the media trifecta with observed versus hypothetical placements.                                                         |
| 12–27   | Analyze one Wrapped feature and contrast the company announcement with independent editorial coverage.                         |
| 27–40   | Teams sort the six notebook scenarios. Add “insufficient evidence” when a claim cannot be made.                                |
| 40–45   | Correct the hardest classifications. Groups plan owned distribution, an earned opportunity, and a hypothetical paid placement. |
| 45–50   | Exit: explain how the same asset could appear through all three media types.                                                   |

**Ask:** Who made the card? Who chose to share it? Who paid for placement? **Expected:** a Wrapped card is initially brand-generated; adding a personal reaction can produce user-created material. A paid repost can contain the same creative asset as an organic post. **Check:** students give the reason, not just the label. **Production checkpoint:** channel plan names a controllable owned channel and clearly marks earned outcomes as uncertain.

## Lesson 4 — Participation, proof, and the limits of UGC

**Aim and alignment:** analyze UGC and critique what campaign statistics establish; Strand 2, Standard 1. **Prepare:** GoPro video and announcement.

| Minutes | Teaching and student work                                                                                            |
| ------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 0–5     | Students predict why a camera brand would invite customers to submit footage.                                        |
| 5–10    | Watch 0:00–1:00 and record two timed observations.                                                                   |
| 10–20   | Read announcement figures; separate submissions, selected creators, and awards.                                      |
| 20–33   | Teams debate whether the final reel is “unfiltered customer truth.” Require evidence about selection and incentives. |
| 33–45   | Draft the rental-shop UGC invitation: contribution, benefit, consent, credit, selection, and reuse.                  |
| 45–50   | Exit: one claim the source supports and one business result it cannot establish.                                     |

**Ask:** Would you expect the brand to select average footage? What would that mean for someone judging the product? **Expected:** customer origin can coexist with brand editing and incentives. Submission volume is participation. It does not reveal attribution to sales. **Check:** 42,446 clips is not 42,446 unique people or purchases. **Production checkpoint:** draft an invitation; actual contributions are optional and not needed to meet the campaign assignment.

## Lesson 5 — Choose a creator for a reason

**Aim and alignment:** explain a creator partnership and draft a disclosed, purposeful brief; Strand 2, Standard 1. **Prepare:** Dunkin release and FTC disclosure guidance.

| Minutes | Teaching and student work                                                                                          |
| ------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 0–5     | Rank audience fit, credibility, follower count, and ability to produce useful content. Defend the top criterion.   |
| 5–12    | Read the actual launch image/copy. Separate product, participation, and ordering actions.                          |
| 12–25   | Pairs map the release into attention → participation → action. Distinguish formal partnership from documented fee. |
| 25–35   | Read FTC’s “When to Disclose” and “How to Disclose.” Apply to a mock free-rental partnership.                      |
| 35–45   | Teams draft a brief for a fictional local creator and a clear disclosure in the intended format.                   |
| 45–50   | Exit: reject one creator selection rationale and replace it with an evidence-based criterion.                      |

**Ask:** What does the press release actually prove about the partnership? What would an original creator post let us inspect that this release does not? **Expected:** it establishes a formal collaboration and campaign mechanics; it does not reveal the fee or let us audit a particular post’s disclosure. **Check:** a draft sponsored video needs a disclosure in its script and on-screen plan. **Production checkpoint:** the brief can remain a proposed distribution option; no creator contact or purchase is required.

## Lesson 6 — What should an AI-assisted brand promise?

**Aim and alignment:** evaluate AI use, fabricated representations, and rights; Strand 2, Standard 2. **Prepare:** Dove case plus the three policy links below. Use only the specified sections, not the full reports.

| Minutes | Teaching and student work                                                                                                    |
| ------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 0–5     | Quick vote: allow AI brainstorming, synthetic product photos, or invented customer testimonials? Give initial reasons.       |
| 5–13    | Inspect Dove’s written pledge. Identify its scope and marketing purpose.                                                     |
| 13–27   | Assign three reading groups: human authorship; digital replicas; fake reviews. Each prepares one sourced rule and its limit. |
| 27–40   | Groups apply the readings to five notebook editor requests. Choose allow, revise, or reject with a reason.                   |
| 40–45   | Draft a four-sentence AI policy for the campaign.                                                                            |
| 45–50   | Exit: distinguish “a source recommends a law” from “a law has been enacted.”                                                 |

**Reading 1:** [U.S. Copyright Office, Part 2: Copyrightability](https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf), January 2025, executive summary, printed pages ii–iii. It identifies human expression as the basis for protection and treats sufficient human contribution case by case. Prompts alone do not provide sufficient control under the report’s analysis. This does not establish permission to use any output or training material.

**Reading 2:** [Copyright Office’s Part 1 release](https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2024/1048.html), July 31, 2024. The Office recommended federal protection against unauthorized digital replicas. A recommendation is not proof of enactment. Use this to discuss fabricated voices or likenesses; students need not generate a replica to analyze the issue.

**Reading 3:** [FTC Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule Q&A](https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/consumer-reviews-testimonials-rule-questions-answers), introduction and “Fake or False Reviews or Testimonials.” The rule took effect October 21, 2024; it addresses deceptive reviews, including reviews from nonexistent people. The problem is fabricated experience, not merely the presence of AI in an editor’s process.

**Expected:** brainstorming may assist a human editor; a misleading product depiction needs correction; a fake customer testimonial should be rejected. A music or photo credit does not substitute for permission or a license. **Check:** each team supports one decision with a source and distinguishes law, guidance, brand policy, and recommendation.

## Lesson 7 — Use AI, then show the human work

**Aim and alignment:** test AI assistance and create the AI careers infographic; Strand 2, Standard 2 and performance task. **Prepare:** approved text generator, supplied flawed copy, Google documentation, infographic tool such as Google Slides.

| Minutes | Teaching and student work                                                                                                                                                               |
| ------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 0–5     | Recall yesterday’s policy: what could AI help us do without inventing evidence?                                                                                                         |
| 5–12    | Teacher demonstrates the prompt below using only the simulated brief. Save prompt and output in the shared doc.                                                                         |
| 12–22   | Students audit the output: identify invented facts, exaggerated promises, generic phrasing, and omitted limitations. If live output has no obvious error, use the supplied flawed copy. |
| 22–30   | Read Google’s accuracy guidance and AI features introduction. Compare the actual guidance with “AI pages are automatically penalized” and “special AI markup guarantees visibility.”    |
| 30–45   | Teams create a compact infographic on how AI changes a content creator’s work.                                                                                                          |
| 45–50   | Exit: show a before/after edit and explain the human judgment behind it.                                                                                                                |

**Demo prompt:** “Using only the supplied Wasatch Weekend brief, suggest three titles and a 70-word introduction for first-time day hikers considering gear rental. Do not add prices, customer quotes, safety guarantees, credentials, or locations beyond the brief. Flag facts that need checking. Explain which audience question each title answers.” Paste the brief after the prompt. Students record tool name/date, prompt, output excerpt, source checks, and their edits.

**Supplied flawed copy — invented classroom example:** “Wasatch Weekend is Utah’s #1 expert-certified rental shop. For only $9, you get guaranteed-safe equipment and a trail plan that works in any weather. ‘It was perfect!’ says local customer Maya. Our AI-powered guides always rank first in Google.” None of these claims appears in the client brief. Students must not repair fabricated quotes by making them sound more realistic; remove them.

**Infographic requirements:** one named role; three workflow changes illustrated as before → AI assistance → human decision; one opportunity; two risks with checks; two current authoritative source links and dates; accessible text equivalent in the notebook. Examples of workflow stages include research, drafting, visual production, editing, and measurement. Keep it to one slide or comparable canvas. Each student explains one segment.

**Check:** the output demonstrates an actual reviewed AI experiment (teacher demo is valid), not only opinions about AI. **Production checkpoint:** AI policy, workflow record, and infographic are ready; drafted titles feed the campaign’s original asset.

## Lesson 8 — Build a useful content system

**Aim and alignment:** create original branded and curated content for the same audience; Strand 2, Standard 1 and performance task. **Prepare:** group campaign brief, source shortlist, asset templates, and rubric.

| Minutes | Teaching and student work                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| ------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 0–5     | Each team states its audience question and desired action.                                                                                                                                                                         |
| 5–10    | Model a content promise and a calendar row. Optional [HubSpot strategy video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSOfPEyeMNg), 0:03–2:40, covers the journey, planning, and goals. Use it within these five minutes, not in addition. |
| 10–18   | Plan four release moments over 14 days, tied to the two finished assets and two repurposed snippets.                                                                                                                               |
| 18–43   | Studio: draft the original branded asset and curated digest. Teacher conferences on usefulness, source accuracy, and next action.                                                                                                  |
| 43–47   | Partners verify every external link and identify one unsupported claim to remove.                                                                                                                                                  |
| 47–50   | Exit: submit both drafts and the main question for peer review.                                                                                                                                                                    |

**Expected:** the original guide gives a usable answer in the business’s voice; the digest selects outside resources and explains why the reader should use them. Repurposing changes the presentation for a channel, rather than pasting the whole asset everywhere. **Check:** two distinct categories, source links, and one coherent audience purpose. **Production checkpoint:** keep outputs deliberately small: 300–450 words or a 45–60-second script/storyboard for the original; three annotated links for the digest. Polished filming is optional.

## Lesson 9 — Measure the job, then revise

**Aim and alignment:** select useful KPIs and revise a campaign using evidence; core content decisions plus Strand 3 measurement extension. **Prepare:** simulated dataset below and rubric.

| Minutes | Teaching and student work                                                                                                                      |
| ------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 0–5     | Choose between 20,000 impressions and 25 qualified inquiries. Ask what goal each could inform.                                                 |
| 5–15    | Calculate the simulated campaign rates. Define denominators and avoid treating unlike channels as an experiment.                               |
| 15–25   | Teams recommend one action and one additional observation needed.                                                                              |
| 25–40   | Exchange draft assets. Peer reviewer checks audience usefulness, evidence, category distinction, source links, accessibility, and next action. |
| 40–47   | Make two substantive edits. Record comment → decision → change. Finish the measurement plan.                                                   |
| 47–50   | Exit: explain what an impressive metric could hide about campaign performance.                                                                 |

**Simulated data, created only for classroom practice:** these are not results from any featured brand. Campaign goal: qualified gear-reservation inquiries. A qualified inquiry includes an intended rental date and needed item. Landing visits are recorded sessions; inquiries are attributed within seven days of the recorded click. The rows use different audiences and placements and do not isolate the effect of creative format.

| Placement                   | Impressions          | Landing visits | Qualified inquiries |
| --------------------------- | -------------------- | -------------- | ------------------- |
| Paid entertainment teaser   | 20,000               | 200            | 4                   |
| Paid practical-guide teaser | 4,000                | 160            | 24                  |
| Owned resource-digest email | 800 delivered emails | 80             | 12                  |

**Answer key:** visit-to-inquiry rates are 4/200 = 2%; 24/160 = 15%; 12/80 = 15%. For the paid placements, landing visits divided by impressions are 1% and 4%. For the email, 80/800 = 10% is visits per delivered email, not a directly comparable ad click-through rate. Do not average the row rates. The guide generated more inquiries in this simulation, but the data do not prove the creative alone caused that difference. Ask for spend, audience, placement, repeat visits, and a controlled comparison before choosing a budget allocation.

**Check:** a strong recommendation uses the campaign goal, gives the denominator, and states a limitation. **Production checkpoint:** record an awareness measure and an action measure, collection method, proposed target, review date, and what decision each could change.

## Lesson 10 — Defend the campaign

**Aim and alignment:** present a coherent campaign and defend the content and AI choices; Strand 2 assessment. **Prepare:** finished group links; individual exit prompts; rubric.

| Minutes | Teaching and student work                                                                                                                                                 |
| ------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 0–5     | Open all campaign links; do a final source and access check.                                                                                                              |
| 5–29    | Six teams give a three-minute pitch and take one minute of questions. For larger classes, use parallel galleries or recorded pitches rather than squeezing speaking time. |
| 29–37   | Audience submits one evidence-based recommendation per campaign viewed. Teams record one response.                                                                        |
| 37–45   | Complete individual short assessment and contribution reflection.                                                                                                         |
| 45–50   | Submit campaign doc, linked assets, AI infographic, and personal notebook.                                                                                                |

**Pitch structure:** audience barrier; one case insight with a URL or timed detail; original and curated content; owned/earned/paid plan; AI choice; measurement decision. **Ask:** What could show this idea is wrong? What makes the curated asset more useful than three search results? **Expected:** students justify editorial selection and propose measurable audience behavior. **Check:** grade each student’s explanation as well as the group artifacts. A polished campaign cannot replace evidence of individual understanding.

## Campaign assignment — Wasatch Weekend

**Fictional client brief for classroom use.** Wasatch Weekend is an invented gear-rental business in Salt Lake City. All business facts and campaign goals below are simulated. Its intended audience is adults 18–30 planning a first local day hike who do not want to buy a full kit before trying the activity. Audience demographics and needs are client assumptions, not verified research.

*   Offer: weekend rental of daypacks and trekking poles, with a plain-language explanation of how pickup and return work. Prices and store address have not been approved; do not invent them.
*   Known audience questions from the simulated brief: “What do I actually need?”, “What should I check before choosing a route?”, and “How does renting work?”
*   Voice: calm, specific, welcoming; avoid “expert-certified,” “best in Utah,” and guarantees about safety, weather, or search ranking.
*   Channels available: business website and opted-in email list. An Instagram account is a proposed additional channel. No actual account needs to be created.
*   Campaign window: 14 days. Proposed paid-placement budget: $75, simulated only. Content-production time: three staff hours, a constraint students should reflect in their plan.
*   Goal: 25 qualified inquiries during the campaign. A qualified inquiry specifies intended date and rental item; it is not a paid booking. Baseline performance is unknown, so students label the goal as a proposed target and state what data they would first request.

Teams may substitute a teacher-approved local business, school enterprise, or club. They use public information and existing authorized client material; missing client facts remain labeled assumptions. They do not contact a business, spend money, publish on its behalf, or promise results as part of this assignment.

**Required campaign package:**

1.  **Audience and strategy:** a need statement, two supporting source observations, one assumption, campaign goal, voice rules, and two specific lessons borrowed from the real cases. Cite the artifacts, not a generic brand homepage.
2.  **Category A, original branded content:** a 300–450-word useful article or a 45–60-second script with a six-frame storyboard. Include an original title/hook, a concrete audience benefit, verified facts, relevant next action, and image alt text or caption/transcript plan.
3.  **Category B, curated content:** a short digital digest with three verified outside links, each with 40–60 words of original explanation identifying who it helps and why it was selected. Give creator/publisher, title, URL, and date or “undated.” One entry can point to a video. Include one relevant campaign next action. No pasted article text.
4.  **Distribution and calendar:** four releases over 14 days; intended audience need, asset or snippet, format, channel, owned/earned/paid classification, next action, and KPI. Include a possible earned opportunity and a proposed paid placement, marking them as plans. Document the $75 allocation without spending it.
5.  **AI careers infographic:** the lesson 7 artifact plus its text equivalent, source links, and each student’s explanation. Keep separate from the two category requirements.
6.  **Review record:** AI tool/date/prompt/output excerpt and edits; sources and permissions for non-original assets; two substantive changes from peer review; individual contribution notes.
7.  **Measurement:** awareness and qualified-inquiry measures, definitions and denominators, collection method, proposed targets, a review point, and a decision rule. If nothing is published, submit the plan; never invent actual results.

**Minimum viable version:** use a Google Doc article, Google Doc resource digest, and one Google Slide infographic. Original diagrams or text-only layouts are sufficient. A video script/storyboard can demonstrate the content decision without cameras, editing software, or public upload.

## Assessment and teacher keys

**Suggested weighting:** case notebook and exits 20%; campaign 60%; individual assessment and contribution reflection 20%. Use this weighting as a unit recommendation, not as Utah’s skill-test scoring system. Formative corrections should happen before the final campaign is scored.

**Campaign rubric: 100 points.** Each row is worth 20. Score 20 for all “ready” evidence, 15 for mostly present evidence with one material gap, 10 for partial evidence or an unresolved misconception, and 5 for minimal evidence. Score 0 if absent. Use the row descriptions to explain any intermediate score.

| Criterion                         | Ready evidence — 20                                                                                                      | Partial evidence — 10                                                      |
| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Audience and case reasoning       | Specific need; labeled assumptions; two case details shape choices                                                       | Broad audience; cases named without explaining a choice                    |
| Two content categories            | Useful original branded asset and a selective, attributed curated digest                                                 | One category missing or two formats mislabeled as categories               |
| Accuracy and AI judgment          | Claims verified; sources linked; AI experiment revised; rights and misleading representations addressed                  | Unsupported claims remain; AI role or source trail unclear                 |
| Distribution and measurement      | Coherent calendar; correct media relationships; goal-matched metrics, denominators, and decision rule                    | Media labels confused; metrics disconnected from the goal                  |
| AI careers infographic and review | Specific role/workflow; opportunity and risks with checks; authoritative sources; accessible text; substantive revisions | Generic AI opinions; weak sourcing; little revision or inaccessible output |

**Notebook scenario key for lesson 3:**

*   Brand guide on its website: original branded content, article, owned placement.
*   Independent publication discusses a campaign without a disclosed sponsorship: editorial/earned; verify the page’s labels and do not infer a hidden payment.
*   Brand purchases a boost for its own video: branded content, video, paid placement; the original unboosted account post is owned.
*   Customer voluntarily posts their own clip with no brand relationship: UGC, video, organic third-party/earned attention from the brand’s perspective.
*   Creator is given a free rental in exchange for a video: creator partnership with a material connection; video format; paid/compensated creator arrangement using an in-kind exchange. This does not establish that the brand also bought an ad boost.
*   Brand publishes an edited compilation of submitted customer clips: UGC origin plus brand editing, video, owned placement; prizes or licenses can add incentives without proving paid distribution.

**Five AI editor requests for lesson 6:** brainstorm titles from verified notes; invent a first-person customer testimonial; clone a recognizable creator’s voice without permission; reuse a song because it was “found online”; draft a source-linked FAQ from supplied facts. Suggested decisions: allow with review; reject fabricated experience; reject unauthorized impersonation; obtain an appropriate license or replace; allow with verification. The voice and song decisions are classroom editorial policies informed by rights/consent concerns; do not claim one short reading settles all legal questions.

**Individual assessment, 10 points:**

1.  A customer’s original video appears on a brand’s account, then the brand buys a boost. Explain category and both placements. **2 points:** UGC origin (1); owned initial placement and paid boost (1).
2.  Explain one audience benefit in a studied artifact, naming a heading, graphic, or timed moment. **2 points:** specific evidence (1); audience value (1).
3.  Explain why 24 qualified inquiries from 160 visits is a 15% visit-to-inquiry rate, and give one limitation. **2 points:** correct denominator/calculation (1); attribution or comparison limit (1).
4.  Name one permitted AI task and one task that needs rejection or correction. Justify with a cited principle. **2 points:** reasonable contrast (1); source-based reason (1).
5.  Explain how a curated digest differs from copying articles or producing two original brand formats. **2 points:** outside editorial selection (1); attribution and original explanation (1).

**Reteaching decisions:** if over one-third of students miss question 1, reclassify one real artifact across the three dimensions. If students miss question 4, revise the supplied flawed copy together. If curation is weak, compare an unexplained link list with one annotated resource; ask what editorial judgment has been added.

## Source register and use notes

All links below were reviewed October 11, 2026. Historical examples are intentionally dated. View counts, active offers, page layouts, and platform policies can change. Use the cited artifact edition and refresh policy pages before a later teaching date. A successful web-page check does not establish that a district permits embedded playback.

*   **USBE:** [Digital Marketing standards](https://schools.utah.gov/cte/_cte/strands/DigitalMarketing.pdf), revised April 2024; [course listing](https://schools.utah.gov/cte/marketing/courses). Authority for alignment.
*   **REI:** [Hiking for Beginners](https://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/hiking-for-beginners.html), undated page. Actual owned educational content; no campaign conversion data provided.
*   **Visit Utah:** [How to Stargaze](https://www.visitutah.com/articles/how-to-stargaze), Whitney Childers, undated; [Dark Sky Parks and Places](https://www.visitutah.com/places-to-go/dark-sky-parks). Actual destination content and next-step resource. Do not reuse an old count of certified places as a current fact.
*   **Spotify:** [2023 Wrapped announcement](https://newsroom.spotify.com/2023-11-29/wrapped-user-experience-2023/), November 29, 2023. Actual feature examples. [TIME explainer](https://time.com/6340656/spotify-wrapped-guide-2023/), November 29, 2023, optional editorial comparison; ad or access restrictions may vary.
*   **GoPro:** [HERO11 challenge announcement](https://gopro.com/en/us/news/hero11-black-mini-million-dollar-challenge-video), April 26, 2023; [actual reel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VfW6-1DM8Y), same date, GoPro channel. Company-reported participation figures; not evidence of revenue attribution.
*   **Blendtec:** [series page](https://www.blendtec.com/pages/will-it-blend), undated; [iPhone episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg1ckCkm8YI), July 10, 2007, Blendtec’s Will It Blend? channel; [TechCrunch coverage](https://techcrunch.com/2007/07/10/will-an-iphone-blend/), July 10, 2007. The editorial page is optional; the primary video works as the case artifact if access varies.
*   **Dunkin:** [The Charli launch](https://news.dunkindonuts.com/news/the-charli-dances-onto-the-dunkin-menu), September 2, 2020; [merch follow-on](https://news.dunkindonuts.com/news/charli-dunkin-merch), March 29, 2021. Brand campaign copy and images; historical offers, not live assignments or creator-post disclosure evidence.
*   **Dove:** [Keep Beauty Real](https://www.dove.com/us/en/campaigns/purpose/keep-beauty-real.html), campaign page referring to 2024, page undated. Brand pledge and messaging; predictions are not verified subsequent outcomes.
*   **HubSpot Marketing:** [How to Create a Content Marketing Strategy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSOfPEyeMNg), April 16, 2020. Optional concept excerpt 0:03–2:40; its educational role also supports the publisher’s own business.
*   **Google Search Central:** [AI-generated content guidance](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/using-gen-ai-content), page showed update October 1, 2026; [AI features and websites](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/ai-features). Primary documentation for accuracy and AI-search discussion; no ranking guarantee.
*   **FTC:** [Disclosures 101](https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers), November 2019 guidance; [current reviews rule Q&A](https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/consumer-reviews-testimonials-rule-questions-answers). Primary sources for material connections and deceptive reviews.
*   **U.S. Copyright Office:** [Part 2 copyrightability report](https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf), January 2025, executive summary; [Part 1 digital replicas release](https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2024/1048.html), July 31, 2024; [AI report hub](https://www.copyright.gov/ai/). Distinguish the Office’s analysis/recommendations from enacted law and licensing permissions.

## Link or network fallback

If a brand article is unavailable in class, project its page from a teacher device if permitted and narrate the specific headings and links described in its case dossier. Students analyze those documented details and label the access limitation. For Spotify, use public newsroom examples rather than the seasonal live app. For GoPro, the brand announcement supplies program facts when video playback is blocked. For Blendtec, the series page supplies the premise. For the optional earned-media comparisons, substitute the other editorial example or use the classification scenarios. All fallback work stays in the Google Doc. Students are never asked to invent unseen visual details or campaign outcomes.

Prepared for Utah CTE Digital Marketing. Research reviewed October 11, 2026. Historical campaign examples retain their original dates. [Utah strands and standards](https://schools.utah.gov/cte/_cte/strands/DigitalMarketing.pdf).