Branding & Positioning prompts

Define a brand voice.

WHAT THE BUSINESS DOES: [CONTEXT]
WHO IT SERVES: [AUDIENCE]
HOW YOU WANT TO BE PERCEIVED: [ADJECTIVES OR DESCRIPTION]
EXISTING WRITING: [PASTE SAMPLES, or 'none']
COMPETITORS' TONE: [HOW THEY SOUND]
WHO WILL WRITE USING THIS: [TEAM SIZE AND EXPERIENCE]

Produce:

1. THE VOICE TRAITS - three or four. For each:
   - The trait
   - What it means concretely in writing
   - A DO example and a DON'T example, both real sentences
   - THE DIAL: how far to go, because every trait has a failure mode. Direct becomes blunt; warm becomes saccharine; playful becomes unprofessional; expert becomes condescending. Name the failure mode.

2. THE DISTINCTIVENESS TEST - for each trait, could a competitor claim the opposite? 'Trustworthy' and 'helpful' fail; nobody claims to be untrustworthy. A voice built from traits everyone claims is not a voice. Mark each PASS or FAIL and replace the failures.

3. AGAINST THE COMPETITION - given how competitors sound, where does this voice actually differentiate? If everyone in the category is friendly and approachable, being friendly and approachable is invisible.

4. THE MECHANICS - the decisions that make voice concrete and consistent: person, contractions, sentence length, formality, humour, jargon, how you address the reader, how you deliver bad news, and how you apologise.

5. VOICE ACROSS CONTEXTS - a table: Context | How the voice shifts. Cover: marketing, support, error messages, bad news, legal, and social. A single voice applied identically everywhere fails; an error message should not be playful.

6. THE WORDS - terms you use, terms you avoid, and how you refer to your own things.

7. BEFORE AND AFTER - three real sentences rewritten from off-voice to on-voice.

8. THE ONE-PAGE VERSION - what a new writer needs. If the guide is longer than a page, nobody will use it.

Derive from my samples where I gave them. Do not produce generic brand-voice adjectives.

Write a value proposition.

WHAT WE DO: [DESCRIPTION]
WHO IT IS FOR: [SPECIFIC CUSTOMER]
THE PROBLEM: [WHAT THEY STRUGGLE WITH]
WHAT THEY DO TODAY INSTEAD: [THE ALTERNATIVE - a competitor, a manual process, or nothing]
WHAT WE DO DIFFERENTLY: [YOUR CLAIM]
WHY THAT IS TRUE: [THE STRUCTURAL REASON - what makes it hard to copy]
PROOF: [EVIDENCE]

Produce:

1. FIVE VALUE PROPOSITIONS, each a different angle:
   - The outcome achieved
   - The problem removed
   - The comparison to the current alternative
   - The specific mechanism that makes it work
   - The customer's own words

   Each under 20 words.

2. THE SUBSTITUTION TEST - for each, substitute your three closest competitors' names. Does it still read as true? If yes, it is a category description, not a value proposition. Mark each PASS or FAIL.

3. THE OPPOSITE TEST - would any competitor claim the opposite? 'Easy to use' fails; 'takes a week to learn and then you are faster than anyone' passes.

4. THE SPECIFICITY UPGRADE - for each surviving option, make it more specific. Numbers, timeframes, named situations. 'Save time' becomes 'closes the month in two days instead of nine'.

5. THE PROOF CHECK - can you substantiate the differentiated claim? An unsupported value proposition is a liability; the first customer who tests it and finds it false becomes a detractor.

6. THE SUPPORTING STRUCTURE - the headline value proposition, then three supporting points that make it credible, then the proof for each.

7. THE RECOMMENDATION - one, with reasoning, and where to use it: homepage, ads, sales calls, the elevator answer.

8. WHAT THIS EXCLUDES - a value proposition that appeals to everyone appeals to no one. Name who this turns away, and confirm that is acceptable.

Help me name something.

WHAT IT IS: [THE THING]
WHAT IT DOES: [FUNCTION]
WHO USES IT: [AUDIENCE]
WHERE THE NAME APPEARS: [logo, URL, app store, said aloud, in documentation]
EXISTING BRAND CONTEXT: [PARENT BRAND AND ITS NAMING CONVENTIONS, if any]
WHAT I LIKE AND DISLIKE: [ANY DIRECTION]
MARKETS: [WHERE IT WILL BE USED AND IN WHAT LANGUAGES]

Produce:

1. TWENTY NAMES across these approaches, five each:
   - DESCRIPTIVE: says what it does. Easy to understand, hard to own, weak trademark.
   - SUGGESTIVE: implies the benefit without stating it. Usually the best balance.
   - ABSTRACT: means nothing initially, becomes ownable. Requires marketing spend to fill with meaning.
   - COMPOUND OR INVENTED: combined or coined words.

2. FOR EACH: what it suggests, and its main weakness.

3. THE PRACTICAL TESTS - for the top eight:
   - THE PHONE TEST: can you say it aloud and have someone spell it correctly?
   - THE SEARCH TEST: is it findable, or does it collide with a common word?
   - LENGTH: does it work truncated, in a URL, as a handle?
   - THE PLURAL AND VERB TEST: can people say 'I'm going to [name] it'? Names that verb well are strong.
   - THE UNFORTUNATE READING: any accidental word, acronym, or reading. Check hyphenation and running words together in a URL.

4. INTERNATIONAL CHECK - for my stated markets, any name with an unfortunate meaning, an unpronounceable cluster, or a character-set problem. Be clear that you can flag obvious risks but cannot substitute for a native speaker's check, and say which ones need one.

5. THE SHORTLIST - five, ranked, with reasoning.

6. WHAT TO CHECK BEFORE COMMITTING - trademark search in the relevant classes and jurisdictions, domain availability, social handles, app store collisions, and an existing-use search. State plainly that you cannot perform these checks and that trademark clearance needs a professional.

7. THE HONEST NOTE - name quality matters far less than most people assume. If I am agonising, say so and recommend picking from the shortlist and moving on.

Write a brand story.

WHAT THE BUSINESS DOES: [DESCRIPTION]
WHY IT EXISTS: [THE REAL REASON IT STARTED - a frustration, a gap, an opportunity, a job loss, whatever it was]
WHO STARTED IT AND THEIR BACKGROUND: [CONTEXT]
WHAT WAS HARD: [HONEST OBSTACLES]
WHAT CHANGED ALONG THE WAY: [HOW THE BUSINESS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAN]
WHO IT SERVES NOW: [CUSTOMERS]
WHERE THIS STORY WILL BE USED: [about page / pitch / press / packaging]

Produce:

1. THE STORY - structured as:
   - The specific problem or situation that started it. Concrete, dated, real.
   - What was tried and did not work
   - What changed the approach
   - What the business is now, and who it is for
   - What has not changed

2. THE LENGTH VARIANTS - 50 words, 150 words, 400 words. Different contexts need different lengths.

3. THE HONESTY CHECK - flag anything that has drifted from what I told you into narrative convention. Brand stories corrupt in predictable ways: the garage, the moment of clarity, the sceptic who was proved wrong, the customer who changed everything.

4. WHAT MAKES IT CREDIBLE - the specific details that signal this is a real business rather than a positioning exercise. Usually: a real date, a real constraint, a real failure, a real change of direction.

5. THE PART TO CUT - if any element is there because brand stories usually have one rather than because it happened.

6. WHAT THE STORY IS FOR - be clear about the job it does for the reader: it should explain why you understand their problem. A story that is only about the founder does nothing for the customer. Check that mine connects to the audience.

Rules:
- No 'it all started with a simple idea'
- No 'we saw a gap in the market'
- No 'passion' as a motivation
- No adversity narrative unless the adversity was real and relevant
- If the honest answer is 'I needed work and I was good at this', that is a fine story and more credible than most. Say so rather than inflating it.

Audit my brand consistency.

SAMPLES FROM EACH CHANNEL:
"""
[PASTE: WEBSITE COPY, SOCIAL POSTS, EMAILS, ADS, SUPPORT REPLIES, SALES MATERIAL - LABEL EACH]
"""

INTENDED POSITIONING: [WHAT YOU WANT TO BE KNOWN FOR]
INTENDED VOICE: [HOW YOU WANT TO SOUND]
WHO PRODUCES EACH: [WHICH PEOPLE OR TEAMS]

Produce:

1. WHAT EACH CHANNEL ACTUALLY SAYS YOU ARE - read each sample cold and describe the business it implies: what it does, who for, and what it is like to deal with. Do this before comparing to the intent.

2. THE DIVERGENCE MAP - where the channels disagree. Cover:
   - WHAT YOU DO: described differently in different places. Surprisingly common.
   - WHO IT IS FOR: different audiences implied
   - POSITIONING: premium in one place, budget in another
   - VOICE: formal on the site, casual on social, robotic in support
   - CLAIMS: different or contradictory promises
   - TERMINOLOGY: different words for the same thing

3. AGAINST THE INTENT - where the actual output diverges from stated positioning and voice, per channel.

4. THE WORST OFFENDER - the channel furthest from the intent, and probably why. Usually it is support or sales, because they are written under pressure by people who never saw the brand guidelines.

5. THE CUSTOMER JOURNEY CHECK - someone who sees the ad, visits the site, emails support and talks to sales: is that one coherent experience? Describe what the inconsistency feels like from their side. This is the finding that matters.

6. WHAT IS INCONSISTENT AND FINE - not every difference is a problem. Channels legitimately differ in register. Separate real inconsistency from appropriate variation.

7. THE FIXES - ranked by visibility to customers and effort. Include the systemic fix, not just the rewrites: usually a one-page voice reference and examples, not a full guideline document.

Be specific and quote the samples.

Help me reposition.

WHAT WE WERE KNOWN FOR: [ORIGINAL POSITIONING]
WHAT WE ACTUALLY DO NOW: [CURRENT REALITY]
WHY THE CHANGE: [what happened - market shift, new capability, customer pull, competition]
OUR BEST CUSTOMERS NOW: [WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY BUY]
OUR LEGACY CUSTOMERS: [WHO CAME FOR THE OLD THING]
REVENUE SPLIT: [OLD VS NEW, ROUGHLY]
COMPETITORS IN THE NEW POSITION: [WHO ELSE IS THERE]

Produce:

1. WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS YOU ARE - from the revenue split and best customers, what is this business actually? Sometimes the answer is that the drift has already happened and the positioning is just lagging.

2. THE REPOSITIONING OPTIONS:
   - Formalise the drift: declare the new thing, accept the loss of the old audience
   - Bridge: a position that honestly covers both. Assess whether one exists or whether this would be incoherent.
   - Split: two brands or two clearly separated offerings
   - Revert: recommit to the original position and stop the drift

   For each: what it costs, what it gains, and who you lose.

3. THE LEGACY CUSTOMER QUESTION - what happens to them. Be concrete about revenue at risk and over what period. A repositioning that quietly abandons paying customers should do so deliberately, not by accident.

4. THE CREDIBILITY PROBLEM - in the new position, you are a newcomer competing with established names. What do you have that gives you a right to that position? If the honest answer is not much, the repositioning needs to be earned before it is announced.

5. THE NEW POSITIONING STATEMENT - if repositioning, written properly, and tested against a competitor substitution.

6. THE TRANSITION - what changes and in what order. Repositioning is a sequence, not an announcement: the work changes, then the evidence accumulates, then the message changes. Doing it in the other order is how repositioning fails.

7. WHAT TO KEEP - the equity in the old position that carries over. Not everything should be discarded.

8. THE RISK - the realistic downside, stated plainly.

Build a messaging framework.

WHAT WE DO: [DESCRIPTION]
AUDIENCES: [LIST EACH - role, what they care about, what they fear]
WHO DECIDES AND WHO INFLUENCES: [THE BUYING PROCESS]
OUR CORE CLAIM: [THE ONE THING THAT IS TRUE FOR EVERYONE]
PROOF WE HAVE: [EVIDENCE, AND WHICH AUDIENCE FINDS EACH CONVINCING]

Produce:

1. THE CORE MESSAGE - one sentence, true for every audience. This is the spine; everything else is a different route to it. If no single claim is true for all your audiences, that is a finding - it may mean you have two products.

2. THE MESSAGE MAP - a table per audience: What they care about | What they fear | How the core message applies to them | The proof point that convinces them | The words they use | What not to say to them

3. WHAT CHANGES AND WHAT DOES NOT - the core claim never changes. What changes is the emphasis, the evidence, the vocabulary and the outcome named. Be explicit, because this is where messaging frameworks usually go wrong: audiences get given different promises rather than different framings.

4. THE CONFLICT CHECK - anywhere the message to one audience would concern another if they saw it. They will see it; nothing is private. Flag every case. The classic is promising efficiency to executives and reassuring staff that nobody is being replaced.

5. THE BUYING PROCESS MAP - who needs what at which stage. The person who discovers you, the person who evaluates, and the person who signs usually need different things, and the middle one is typically underserved.

6. THE OBJECTION PER AUDIENCE - each one's main reason to say no, and the honest answer.

7. THE ELEVATOR VERSION for each audience - under 25 words.

8. THE CONSISTENCY TEST - read all the audience messages together. Do they describe the same product? If not, fix it.

Every version must be true. Different framings of one truth, never different promises.