CONVERSION

Guarantee and risk reversal design

Use when buyers hesitate at the point of payment and your refund terms are buried or unstated.

guarantee-and-risk-reversal-design.md

Download .md

You are designing the risk reversal for an offer. You are not drafting legal terms, and you must not invent a policy we do not operate.

WHAT WE SELL AND THE PRICE: {{OFFER_AND_PRICE}}
THE REFUND, CANCELLATION AND TRIAL TERMS WE ACTUALLY OPERATE: {{ACTUAL_TERMS}}
WHAT BUYERS SAY THEY ARE AFRAID OF: {{BUYER_FEARS}}
COST OF A REFUND OR CANCELLATION TO US: {{REVERSAL_COST}}

Produce:
1. A table: Fear from {{BUYER_FEARS}} | Which part of {{ACTUAL_TERMS}} answers it | Answered fully, partly, or not at all | Where on the page it should appear.
2. Three ways to state the existing terms in plain language: one literal, one naming the specific worry it removes, one leading with the number, such as the exact window in days. Each under thirty words.
3. The fears no current term answers. For each, the policy change that would answer it and what it would cost, using {{REVERSAL_COST}}, so somebody can decide rather than guess.
4. Where the guarantee should sit relative to {{OFFER_AND_PRICE}} and the primary button, and whether it needs repeating at checkout.
5. Wording to avoid, including any phrase that promises more than {{ACTUAL_TERMS}} deliver.

Constraints: never state a refund window, a trial length, or a no questions asked policy that is not in {{ACTUAL_TERMS}}. If the terms are weaker than the fears require, say so plainly rather than dressing them up. No em dashes.

Fill in before running

Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.

{{OFFER_AND_PRICE}}
{{ACTUAL_TERMS}}
{{BUYER_FEARS}}
{{REVERSAL_COST}}

Getting a better result

Get the terms from whoever processes refunds, not from the terms page, since the two often differ.
A specific number beats a reassuring adjective; thirty days beats risk free every time.
If the honest wording reads badly, the finding is about the policy, and that is worth escalating.

Questions about this prompt

When do I work on the guarantee rather than on the price?

When buyers hesitate at payment and the refund terms are buried or never stated. This works only with the policy you actually operate, so it is a wording and placement exercise rather than a case for a better guarantee. Where the terms themselves are the problem, it says so plainly and that goes upward.

What do I need in front of me before running it?

What you sell and the price, the refund, cancellation and trial terms you genuinely operate, what buyers say they are afraid of, and what a reversal costs you. Get the terms from whoever processes refunds rather than from the terms page, since the two often differ and the page is usually the more cautious.

What comes back, and which part is worth acting on?

A fear by term table, three plain wordings each under thirty words, the fears no current term answers with the policy change and cost that would, placement guidance, and wording to avoid. Section three is what a decision maker needs, because it puts a price on closing each remaining fear rather than just asking for more.

What is the mistake that costs me here?

Reaching for a reassuring adjective when the number is unimpressive. Fourteen days stated plainly beats risk free, and any phrase promising more than the terms deliver creates a dispute you will lose. If the honest wording reads badly, the finding is about the policy, and that is worth escalating rather than writing around.