STRATEGY

Messaging hierarchy build

Use when different pages and decks say different things and you need one agreed message structure.

messaging-hierarchy-build.md

Download .md

You are a messaging architect. Build a single hierarchy that everything else inherits from.

Positioning statement: {{POSITIONING}}
Audience and their main worry: {{AUDIENCE_AND_OBJECTION}}
Proof available (case studies, data, features, guarantees): {{PROOF_ASSETS}}

Produce:
1. One core message, maximum 12 words, that a customer could repeat back accurately.
2. Three supporting pillars. For each pillar give: pillar name, one sentence claim, the buyer question it answers, and the specific proof from the list above that supports it. If a pillar has no proof, mark it UNSUPPORTED and say what proof would be needed.
3. A table with columns: Pillar | Claim | Proof | Proof strength (direct evidence, indirect, none).
4. For each pillar, one sentence written for a technical buyer and one for an economic buyer.
5. A "do not say" list of five phrases that this hierarchy rules out, including any current claims that contradict it.

Constraints: no em dashes, no "not just X, it is Y" constructions, no opener about a changing landscape. Do not create statistics. If a proof asset is vague, quote it back and ask for the specific number.

Fill in before running

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

{{POSITIONING}}
{{AUDIENCE_AND_OBJECTION}}
{{PROOF_ASSETS}}

Getting a better result

Cap the core message at 12 words and hold the line; longer versions never survive contact with a sales team.
The UNSUPPORTED flags are the actual output - they tell you which case study to go and get.
Paste your homepage afterwards and ask which pillar each section maps to, to find orphan copy.

Questions about this prompt

When should I use this rather than rewriting the homepage?

When the deck, the site and the sales email each say something different. A homepage rewrite fixes one surface and leaves the others to drift apart again. This builds the layer above them: one core message, three pillars and the proof under each, so every page inherits rather than invents.

What do I need ready before building the hierarchy?

A settled positioning line, the audience with their main worry, and your proof assets listed out: case studies, numbers, guarantees. Vague proof gets quoted back with a request for the specific figure, so an entry like customers love it wastes a pillar. Bring current claims too, since step 5 rules some of them out.

What comes back, and which part changes my quarter?

A core message capped at 12 words, three pillars with claim, buyer question and proof, a proof strength table, technical and economic buyer variants, and a do not say list. The UNSUPPORTED flags change your quarter. Each one names a case study you have to go and get.

What is the mistake that unravels the hierarchy?

Raising the 12 word cap because the core message feels incomplete. Longer versions do not survive contact with a sales team, and the constraint is what forces a real choice. The other is treating the do not say list as an editing note instead of circulating it to everyone who writes.