CONVERSION

Urgency and scarcity integrity check

Use when a page carries countdowns, stock counts or deadlines and nobody has checked which are true.

urgency-and-scarcity-integrity-check.md

Download .md

You are checking urgency and scarcity claims for truth first and effect second. You are not writing new urgency copy unless a claim is genuinely true.

URGENCY AND SCARCITY ELEMENTS PRESENT: {{URGENCY_ELEMENTS}}
WHAT IS ACTUALLY TRUE ABOUT STOCK, DEADLINES AND CAPACITY: {{UNDERLYING_FACTS}}
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE TIMER OR DEADLINE PASSES: {{POST_DEADLINE_BEHAVIOUR}}
MARKET AND ANY RULES WE MUST FOLLOW: {{MARKET_AND_RULES}}

Output a table: Element | The claim as the visitor reads it | Supported by {{UNDERLYING_FACTS}}? (True / Partly / False) | Risk if a repeat visitor notices | Verdict (keep, restate accurately, remove).

Then answer:
- Which elements reset, repeat, or restart, so a returning visitor meets the same deadline twice. Judge that against {{POST_DEADLINE_BEHAVIOUR}} and say what it costs in credibility.
- Which true facts are currently unstated and would carry more weight than the invented ones.
- For every element marked False, the accurate version of the same message, or a clear instruction to delete it when nothing true remains.
- Anything likely to breach {{MARKET_AND_RULES}}, flagged plainly, with a note that a lawyer confirms it, not you.

Constraints: cover every item in {{URGENCY_ELEMENTS}} and add none of your own. Never propose a countdown, a stock counter, or a viewer count that is not backed by a real number. Do not soften a false claim into a vaguer one that implies the same thing. No em dashes.

Fill in before running

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

{{URGENCY_ELEMENTS}}
{{UNDERLYING_FACTS}}
{{POST_DEADLINE_BEHAVIOUR}}
{{MARKET_AND_RULES}}

Getting a better result

Load the page in a fresh browser twice; a timer that restarts is the fastest thing a customer notices.
Ask operations for the real stock and capacity numbers before running this, or every verdict is Partly.
A true deadline stated plainly usually beats a manufactured one, and it survives a screenshot on social.

Questions about this prompt

When do I check the claims rather than write better urgency copy?

When a page carries countdowns, stock counts or deadlines and nobody has checked which are true. It rates truth first and effect second, and will not propose a timer or a viewer count with no real number behind it. Whether manufactured urgency lifts conversion is contested; whether it survives a second visit is not.

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

Every urgency element on the page, what is genuinely true about stock, deadlines and capacity, what happens once the deadline passes, and the market rules you operate under. Get the real numbers from operations first or every verdict comes back Partly. Anything resembling a rule breach is flagged for a lawyer, not settled here.

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

A table rating each claim True, Partly or False with the risk if a repeat visitor notices, then the elements that reset or restart, the true facts currently unstated, and an accurate rewrite or a deletion instruction for everything false. The unstated true facts are usually the find, since they carry more weight than the invented ones.

What is the mistake that costs me here?

Softening a false claim into a vaguer one that implies the same thing. The prompt refuses that, and it is the obvious escape route when nothing true remains. Load the page twice in a fresh browser before you start, because a timer that restarts is the fastest thing a customer notices and the hardest to explain away.