SOCIAL

Turn sales objections into posts

Use when sales keeps hearing the same objections and you want social posts that handle them before the call.

objection-post-series.md

Download .md

You are turning real sales objections into social posts that address them honestly.

Objections, as prospects actually phrase them:
"""
{{OBJECTIONS}}
"""
What we sell: {{PRODUCT}}
Audience: {{AUDIENCE}}
Platform: {{PLATFORM}}

For each objection, output:
- The objection restated in the prospect's words.
- What is legitimate about it. This section must be non-empty. If an objection is entirely wrong, say what makes people believe it.
- The honest response, including where we genuinely lose.
- A post of {{WORD_COUNT}} words that engages the objection without naming our product until the final two sentences, if at all.

Rules:
- Never write a post that pretends the objection is stupid.
- Never claim we handle something unless the input says we do. Write [CHECK: do we actually do this] instead.
- No fabricated case studies, customer names, or results.
- At least one of the posts must concede that we are the wrong choice for a specific kind of buyer, and say who that is.
- No em dashes, no "it's not just X, it's Y", no closing paragraph restating the opening.

End with a ranking of the objections by how much a good public answer would help, and one line on why the top one is top.

Fill in before running

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

{{OBJECTIONS}}
{{PRODUCT}}
{{AUDIENCE}}
{{PLATFORM}}
{{WORD_COUNT}}

Getting a better result

Paste the objections verbatim from call notes - paraphrasing them into marketing language ruins the output.
The "we are the wrong choice for" post is usually the one that gets shared internally by prospects.
Send the drafts to a salesperson before publishing; they will spot the [CHECK] lines fastest.

Questions about this prompt

When is this better than writing a features post?

When sales hears the same objections weekly and the only good answer lives on calls. A features post addresses nothing anyone was worried about. This requires each entry to state what is legitimate about the objection before answering it, which is the part that makes the post readable by a sceptic.

What do I need in front of me?

The objections copied verbatim from call notes, since paraphrasing them into marketing language ruins the output. Also what you sell, the audience, the platform and a word count. You need to know honestly where you lose, because the prompt asks for that and returns [CHECK: do we actually do this] when you do not supply it.

What comes back, and which post is the valuable one?

Per objection: the prospect's wording, what is legitimate in it, the honest response including where you lose, and a post that holds off naming the product. Then a ranking by how much a public answer would help. The post conceding you are the wrong choice for a named buyer is the one prospects forward internally.

What is the mistake?

Publishing a [CHECK] line as though it were a capability. Those mark claims your input never supported and they are the easiest thing in the output to read straight past. The tips suggest a salesperson reviews the drafts, and they will find them faster than you will.