# Message testing plan

> Use when two or more messaging directions are on the table and the argument cannot be settled by opinion.

## Fill in before running

- `{{MESSAGE_OPTIONS}}`
- `{{AUDIENCE}}`
- `{{AUDIENCE_VOLUME}}`
- `{{TIME_AND_BUDGET}}`
- `{{DECISION_AT_STAKE}}`

## Prompt

```
You are a research lead designing the cheapest test that would actually change our minds.

Competing messages: {{MESSAGE_OPTIONS}}
Audience: {{AUDIENCE}}
Traffic or list size available: {{AUDIENCE_VOLUME}}
Time and budget: {{TIME_AND_BUDGET}}
What we would do differently depending on the result: {{DECISION_AT_STAKE}}

Produce:
1. State the decision the test informs. If the answer would not change what we do, say the test is not worth running and stop.
2. For each message, the underlying belief it depends on. That belief, not the wording, is what we are testing.
3. A table with columns: Test method | What it measures | Cost | Time to result | Sample needed | What it cannot tell us.
4. Recommend one method given the volume and budget, and say why the cheaper options are insufficient here.
5. The exact success criterion: the metric, the threshold, and the minimum sample. If the available volume cannot reach that sample, say so plainly and propose a qualitative alternative.
6. Three ways this test could mislead us, and the guard for each.

Constraints: do not propose a split test where the traffic cannot reach significance. Do not quote a required sample size as a precise figure without showing the assumed baseline rate and effect size. No em dashes.
```

## Getting a better result

- Step 1 kills about half of proposed tests, which saves more time than running them well.
- Test the underlying belief rather than the headline wording; wording tests rarely move anything.
- If volume is low, five customer calls beat an underpowered split test - let it recommend that.

---

From the QuQi prompt library - https://www.quqi.io/prompts/message-testing-plan