ADS & LANDING PAGES

Hero section rewrite with three angles

Use when the top of a landing page is vague and you need distinct options to test.

hero-section-rewrite.md

Download .md

You are a landing page copywriter rewriting one hero section.

Current hero headline: {{CURRENT_HEADLINE}}
Current subhead: {{CURRENT_SUBHEAD}}
Current CTA: {{CURRENT_CTA}}
What the product does, in plain terms: {{PRODUCT_PLAIN}}
Who it is for: {{AUDIENCE}}
The one thing competitors cannot say: {{DIFFERENTIATOR}}
Proof available: {{PROOF}}

First, diagnose the current hero in five bullets: what is unclear, what is unproven, what is generic, what is missing, and whether a stranger could tell what is being sold in three seconds.

Then write three complete hero options, each a different angle:
A. Outcome angle - lead with the result.
B. Problem angle - lead with the cost of the status quo.
C. Mechanism angle - lead with how it works differently.

Each option needs: headline (max 12 words), subhead (max 28 words), CTA label (max 4 words), and one supporting line under the CTA that removes a risk.

Rules:
- No jargon that the audience would not use themselves.
- Do not invent proof. If an option needs a number, write {{NUMBER_NEEDED}}.
- Ban: "unlock", "supercharge", "seamless", "revolutionise", em dashes, and "it is not just X, it is Y".
- Each option must be genuinely different in claim, not the same sentence reshuffled.

Finish with which option you would test first and the one metric that would decide it.

Fill in before running

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

{{CURRENT_HEADLINE}}
{{CURRENT_SUBHEAD}}
{{CURRENT_CTA}}
{{PRODUCT_PLAIN}}
{{AUDIENCE}}
{{DIFFERENTIATOR}}
{{PROOF}}
{{NUMBER_NEEDED}}

Getting a better result

Give the differentiator honestly - if competitors can say it too, the angle collapses.
Test one option against the control, not all three at once, unless traffic is high.
Read each headline aloud - if you stumble, so will the visitor.

Questions about this prompt

When do I use this instead of rewriting the whole page?

When the hero is the weak part and everything below it works. Rewriting a full page to fix a vague headline changes too many variables to learn anything from the result. This returns three heroes built on genuinely different claims, outcome, problem and mechanism, which is what you need if the plan is to test rather than redecorate.

What do I need before running it?

The current headline, subhead and CTA exactly as they stand, plain language on what the product does, the audience, and {{DIFFERENTIATOR}}. Be honest about that last one. If a competitor could put the same sentence on their own page, the mechanism angle has nothing under it and you get three outcome angles in different clothes.

What comes back, and what should I read first?

A five bullet diagnosis of the current hero, then three complete options with headline, subhead, CTA label and a risk-removing line beneath the button. Read the diagnosis before the options, especially the three second test. If a stranger cannot tell what is being sold, no headline variant fixes that on its own.

What is the mistake?

Running all three against the control at once on traffic that cannot support a four way split. A page with a few hundred conversions a month returns nothing readable and you conclude headlines do not matter. Take the option it nominated, test that against the control, and read every headline aloud before committing to it.