Communication engineering beats prompt engineering

Do you “communication engineer” like you “prompt engineer”?

Clients get shocked when they ask designers for “the wow factor” or “make it pop” - and don’t get what they want.

They weren’t clear, and no designer can engineer clarity out of vagueness.

Same applies to AI.
For some reason we call it “prompt engineering.”

Do you communication engineer a clear request with clear desirable outcomes to your colleague?

Or do you just… communicate?

AI isn’t a machine that needs special syntax. It is a collaborator that needs clear intent, same as any designer, developer, accountant, or teammate.

Here is the practical difference.

Vague request: “Make this landing page better.”

Useful request: “This page is for a founder evaluating whether to book a diagnostic call. The current problem is that the service sounds abstract. Keep the tone direct, make the first screen explain the business pain, and give me three headline options that connect UX work to revenue or wasted execution time.”

That second version is not magic. It is just communication.

The same thing happens with designers. If you ask for “more premium,” you might get thinner fonts, more whitespace, darker colors, and absolutely no improvement in the actual sales argument. If you explain that premium means lower perceived risk for a high-ticket buyer, the designer can make decisions around proof, hierarchy, reassurance, and offer clarity.

The prompt was never the point. The point was whether you knew what outcome you wanted and what constraints mattered.

Stop engineering your prompts.
Start communicating your goals.