Call prep, channel research, and competitive analysis · Updated 11 Aug 2026
Monday 17 August 2026 — 5:30pm
Paul + Cody Schneider. Tim and Melissa invited as optional. Read this page before the call. Cody built this category and his company Graphed is a direct competitor to AME — this is the conversation that sets the competitive context.
CEO and co-founder of Graphed, previously co-founder of SwellAI (AI content creation, bootstrapped) and Drafthorse AI. Growth marketer turned AI-agent builder. Ex-advisor-level operator in B2B SaaS growth.
He coined and built the category of AI marketing agents — autonomous software running marketing functions (cold outbound, content, SEO, ads) without human operators. This is exactly what AME (Automated Marketing Engine) is building. He is simultaneously the best teacher of the category and the most direct competitor.
His view of the market: marketing is becoming code. Agents are cron jobs with LLMs attached where judgment is needed. The infrastructure costs $200/month and runs 10,000 cold emails. The question is not whether to automate — it is how fast.
graphed.com X: @codyschneiderx YouTube750+ marketing data sources synced into a managed Postgres warehouse with freshness checks and retry handling. Deploy agents, web servers, and cron jobs via CLI. Live dashboards with conversational analytics via MCP (plain-English queries against your warehouse).
This is the infrastructure layer under his marketing agents. He is selling both the agents and the data platform. AME competes at the agent layer; Graphed goes deeper into data infrastructure.
Graphed’s strength: Data infrastructure (750+ sources), agent templates as products, platform pricing, Claude Code integration, developer-first tooling.
AME’s angle: Vertical-specific knowledge (construction, home building), human-in-the-loop judgment where Graphed is fully automated, relationship-based GTM vs self-serve platform.
The tension: Tim flagged cost control and ROI as the core risk. A $100k system is a hard sell. Cody’s stack runs at $200/month. If Graphed commoditizes the infrastructure, the value AME sells must be the niche knowledge and the client relationship — not the tooling.
Watch item h23 in the huddle is directly related to this. Decide before the call: are we positioning against Graphed, alongside them, or as their white-label partner for verticals they do not serve?
Cody's playbook (full 20-tool notes), built out for the WholeMagnetics niche specifically — keyword set, where the players actually are, and the whole stack mapped tool-by-tool.
Core terms: programmable magnets, coded magnets, Polymagnet, correlated magnetics, multipole magnets, multi-pole magnet array, magnetic pixel, maxel, magnetic latch, magnetic detent, wear-free magnetic component, custom magnet design.
"Magnet" alone pulls in refrigerator-magnet and rare-earth-commodity noise. Every search, scrape filter, and ad group should require at least one of the specific terms above — that's what separates this niche from generic magnetics content.
The known incumbent: Polymagnet / Correlated Magnetics Research (patent holder on coded-magnet technology) — their own LinkedIn and site activity is the first source account to watch, same role Isenberg/Schneider play as source accounts in the original playbook.
Patent search: Google Patents assignee search for Correlated Magnetics Research surfaces the actual patent family (US8947185B2, US9202615B2, US9111672B2, US7821367B2 and others) — then check each patent's "cited by" list. Whoever cites these patents is building on or around this exact technology — a discovery channel Schneider's original demo didn't need because LinkedIn engagement alone was enough for his market. Magnetics is more technical; patents are a real second signal his playbook doesn't use.
Verified real supplier relationship: Correlated Magnetics Research and Industrial Magnetics Inc. announced a Polymagnet supply partnership (covered in Magnetics Magazine) — that's a confirmed, named player in this exact supply chain, not a guess.
Trade shows & directories that are actually active (correcting an earlier draft of this page: the old "International Magnetics Association" folded into a working group under The Transformer Association back in 2006 and isn't a live source anymore). Use instead: The Magnetics Conference, Orlando, March 2026 — the marketplace event for magnet and magnetic-assembly suppliers; and ThomasNet's magnet supplier directories, which list active, verifiable companies today. General magnet manufacturers worth researching as a starting list from those directories (verify who's actually active on LinkedIn before treating any of them as a source account — this is a research starting point, not a confirmed lead list): Dexter Magnetic Technologies, Bunting Magnetics, Adams Magnetic Products, Eclipse Magnetics.
Scrape: Apify + API Maestro against the Polymagnet source account and any verified incumbent accounts — but filter every engager against the keyword set in step 1 before they enter the enrichment waterfall. This is the step that keeps the list on-niche.
Enrich: same waterfall as the original — GitLeads first, Apollo on the misses, Origami or Prospeo last, LeadMagic for phone. No change needed; the waterfall doesn't care what industry it's enriching.
Verify: Million Verifier on every address, same as always.
Send: Hypertide or Inbox Kit for burner domains, kept separate from wholemagnetics.com itself, with Instantly managing sequences. Still targeting ~$200/month for the full send volume.
Organic content: Ordinal to schedule, Claude to draft — but draft from WholeMagnetics' own existing technical explainer content (already accurate, already written) instead of calls or Slack threads. The source material for this niche is the site itself, not internal meetings.
His market (B2B SaaS founders) is dense on LinkedIn and needs no other discovery channel. Magnetics is a smaller, more technical, more B2B-industrial audience — patents and trade shows do real work that LinkedIn scraping alone won't. Sales cycles run longer (engineering evaluation, not a founder deciding solo), which is why HubSpot's pipeline tracking matters more here than it did in the original demo. Everything else in the stack transfers directly.
Every link below was checked before publishing. No invented company names, no guessed URLs.
Correlated Magnetics Research / Polymagnet
Official site: polymagnet.com
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/correlated-magnetics-research
Patent discovery
Google Patents assignee search: patents.google.com/?assignee=Correlated+Magnetics+Research
— then open each result's "Cited By" tab for downstream players.
Confirmed supply partner
Industrial Magnetics Inc. — announced Polymagnet supply partnership with Correlated
Magnetics Research, covered in Magnetics Magazine.
Supplier directories (active, current)
ThomasNet — general magnets,
permanent magnets,
neodymium magnets,
magnet design & engineering services.
Trade press & events
Magnetics Magazine (industry directory + press releases) ·
2026 Magnetics events calendar ·
IEEE Magnetics Society (research/technical angle, INTERMAG conference).
Literal prompts for Claude Code, one per pipeline step. Swap in real counts/dates as you go — these are starting points, not magic words.
"Using Apify's LinkedIn Post Reactions and Post Comments actors, pull everyone who liked or commented on Correlated Magnetics Research's last 10 LinkedIn posts (linkedin.com/company/correlated-magnetics-research). Return name, LinkedIn URL, headline, and company for each. Then filter to profiles whose headline or company mentions any of: magnet, magnetics, electromechanical, actuator, sensor, mechanical engineering, industrial design."
"Go to patents.google.com and search assignee:(Correlated Magnetics Research). List every patent, then open each one's 'Cited By' tab and list the citing patents' assignees. Cross-check those assignee names against ThomasNet's magnet supplier directories (thomasnet.com/suppliers/usa/magnets-49490402 and .../permanent-magnets-49530405) to flag which ones are active commercial manufacturers versus academic-only citations."
"Pull the current listings from thomasnet.com/suppliers/usa/permanent-magnets-49530405 and .../neodymium-magnets-49530256. For each company, check their own site for any mention of programmable, coded, or multipole/multi-pole magnets. Split the output into two lists: 'niche fit' (mentions our specific terms) and 'general commodity supplier' (doesn't)."
"Take this list of LinkedIn profiles [paste from step 1] and run the enrichment waterfall: GitLeads first for email, Apollo for whatever GitLeads misses, Origami or Prospeo only for what's left after that. Output one table with name, company, email, and which tool found it, so we can see the cost breakdown by tier."
"Run every email in this enriched list through Million Verifier. Drop anything that doesn't come back valid/deliverable. Show me the before-and-after count."
"Read wholemagnetics.com's existing explainer content on how a Polymagnet differs from an ordinary magnet. Draft 5 LinkedIn posts aimed at mechanical and electrical engineers who spec magnetic components, each grounded in one specific real fact from that page — no invented statistics or claims we can't back up. Flag which one you'd remix first in 90 days."
"Check magneticsmag.com/2026-events for the March 2026 Magnetics Conference in Orlando. Once an exhibitor list is published, cross-reference exhibitor names against our enriched contact list and flag anyone worth prioritizing for an in-person meeting there."
"Set this up as a weekly Claude Code job: scrape new engagement on the Correlated Magnetics Research LinkedIn page, enrich and verify any new contacts, and append them to a running list. Don't send anything automatically — just build and maintain the list. I'll review before any send goes out."