A worked campaign example
Campaign angle: "Who accepts the risk when the agent acts?"—one sponsored Security Mondays guest episode for an AI-agent governance vendor, built on the acceptable-risk argument and the failure-scale reference already visible in Benn's work.
The pitch in one line: the vendor wants security leaders to associate its agent-governance tooling with a serious public conversation about what an AI failure costs, not with a product announcement.
Why this angle fits their posts. The AI-risk post argues that residual risk is normal in security but that AI raises the magnitude of failure, and asks what "acceptable risk" should mean when human life is involved. The premiere post supplies the scale reference—one bad McAfee update, 1,672 companies, 16 minutes—and asks what the equivalent looks like when autonomous agents act at machine speed. Putting those together gives the episode its spine: if we accept that some failures will happen, who decides which ones, and what has to be in place before an agent is allowed to act.
Episode questions to agree with the guest, drawn from the show's own framing:
- What does a failure look like when an agent acts across production systems at machine speed, compared with the 2010 McAfee incident?
- Where is the line between auto-fix and auto-heal, and which of the two should a security team actually buy?
- Which agent governance claims are real and which are vaporware, and what evidence should a buyer demand?
- When human safety is affected, is accepting that "bad things will happen" defensible at all?
Assets to budget for: the full episode, roughly 30 minutes, distributed on YouTube, Spotify and Apple, and a LinkedIn cut capped at about 15 minutes. The episode is introduced by a LinkedIn post that frames the guest and points to the full version; that post is where the brand's name, the guest's credentials, and the specific problem appear. Treat the two cuts as separate deliverables and settle in advance whether the brand appears in both or only the long version.
What the vendor must provide: a named guest who can carry the discussion on the record—a practitioner or executive running AI in production, not a marketing spokesperson; verifiable career and governance details, since the introduction is written from the guest's role, prior executive and founder positions, and board or advisory appointments; a recent, linkable report, incident write-up, or published interview with a position worth debating, since the format responds to something published; and agreement on what the guest can say on the record. The introductory framing is in Benn's own words, and the post is likely to close with a question to the audience rather than a product call to action.
Sequence: agree topic and on-record boundaries; collect and verify guest credentials; provide the source article or report and the debatable position; record the full session; cut the LinkedIn version; publish the framing post with the outbound link; then repurpose the long episode into clips or a follow-up asset on the vendor's own channels.
Before the episode runs, agree on pricing, exclusivity, the deliverable list, inquiry route, and permission to re-cut or republish the long episode. Request audience composition and past-episode performance. The vendor should also decide whether a guest slot is the goal or whether the brand needs its own named spokesperson in the conversation; the second requires a person who can hold up under the same questioning the show applies to its guests.
