ع
Learn Tracks Reference Guides Saved
playbook

Build the messaging framework everything else inherits

Turn scattered product facts and sales notes into one messaging house — positioning, value pillars with proof, per-persona angles, and objection handling — that every campaign, page, deck, and rep says the same way.

medium ~1.5 hours to build, reused everywhere
when to reach for this

Enterprise marketing fragments at the message: Sales pitches one thing, the website says another, the deck a third, and a buyer hears three companies. The fix is a messaging framework — a "messaging house" with one positioning statement, value pillars backed by real proof, angles tailored per persona, and honest objection handling. Product marketing builds it once; every campaign, landing page, deck, and rep inherits it. This is the what we say; the brand-voice playbook governs how we say it. Build this early — most other Marketing playbooks get sharper when "our message" finally points at one document.

gather this first
  • Your raw inputs as files or pasted text — product/feature briefs, a few sales-call or win/loss notes, any positioning you already have.
  • Who you're for: 2–3 real target personas/segments — the role, what they're trying to do, and what they're afraid of.
  • The proof: real customer outcomes, metrics, integrations, or certifications you can actually stand behind. Bring your competitor brief too (from the competitor-intel playbook) so the differentiation is grounded.
the workflow

  1. Lock the audience and the core promise

    Open the folder with your inputs in Claude Desktop and ask in the chat — no terminal needed. Before any pillars, force the foundation: exactly who it's for and the single promise. Everything downstream hangs off this one sentence, so make it sharp.

    you ask
    Read these product briefs and sales notes. Draft a positioning statement in this shape: for [target persona] who [need], our product is the [category] that [core value] — unlike [main alternative], we [key differentiator]. Then give me the single core promise in one plain sentence. Don't write value pillars yet.

    what you get back A tight positioning statement plus a one-line core promise — the spine the whole framework hangs off. If this isn't crisp, nothing downstream will be.

    Resist jumping to pillars. A fuzzy promise produces a framework that sounds fine and means nothing.

  2. Build the value pillars — and demand proof for each

    Turn the promise into 3–4 pillars, each a benefit plus the evidence behind it. The proof requirement is the whole point: a pillar you can't back is a liability waiting to embarrass a rep.

    you ask
    From that core promise, draft 3–4 value pillars. For each: the benefit in the customer's own words, the specific capability that delivers it, and the single hardest proof point we have (a metric, a named outcome, a certification). Flag any pillar where the proof is thin or missing.

    what you get back A messaging house — pillars stated as customer benefits, each tied to a capability and a real proof point, with the unsupported ones flagged for you to fix or cut.

  3. Tailor the message per persona

    Same house, different emphasis. A CFO and a practitioner buy on different pillars and fear different things — give each the version that lands.

    you ask
    For each of our [2–3] personas, rewrite the core promise and the 2 pillars that matter most to them, in their language and priorities — and name the one objection each persona is most likely to raise.

    what you get back Per-persona angles: the promise and top pillars re-pointed for each segment, plus the objection each is primed to push back with.

  4. Handle the objections head-on

    Every deal stalls on the same handful of objections. Draft honest answers now, grounded in proof, so Sales isn't improvising them live.

    you ask
    List the 6 objections we hit most — price, switching cost, trust/security, "why now", build-vs-buy, and the one specific to us. For each, draft a crisp, honest response grounded in our real proof. No spin — a response a skeptical buyer would actually accept.

    what you get back An objection-handling table — the six hardest pushbacks with honest, proof-backed answers. Sales will reach for this more than anything else in the framework.

  5. Assemble the one-page framework

    Pull it into one canonical artifact. Keep it short — a framework nobody can hold in their head doesn't get used.

    you ask
    Assemble everything into one messaging-framework.md: the positioning statement, the core promise, the value pillars with proof, the per-persona angles, the objection-handling table, and a short "words we use / words we avoid" line. Keep it to one or two pages.

    what you get back A single, paste-ready messaging-framework.md — the source of truth every campaign, page, deck, and rep inherits.

    Save this file. Pair it with brand-voice.md: this one decides what you say, that one decides how.

make it your own
  • Hand it to Sales: the objection table and per-persona angles drop straight into sales enablement — the same source of truth keeps Marketing and Sales finally saying one thing (see the Sales playbooks).
  • Refresh on launches: re-run this when the product or market genuinely shifts, and version the file — a framework that silently goes stale is worse than none.
  • Make it a skill (Power Track): load messaging-framework.md as a reusable skill or /onmessage command so every draft is checked against the message, not just the voice (see the Features tab).
watch out for
  • Proof, or it's not a pillar. A pillar with no evidence is a wish — flag it and fix it before it reaches a rep who'll get caught making a claim they can't back.
  • Differentiation has to be true and defensible, not just flattering — the same discipline as the competitor-intel brief. An angle a buyer can disprove in one search is a liability.
  • *This is what, not how.* Don't collapse it into the brand-voice doc — keep them separate so each does its job. Message governs substance; voice governs tone.
  • One owner, reviewed changes. Product marketing owns this file; if everyone can edit it, it drifts back into three companies' worth of messages within a quarter.

you'll end up with A one-page messaging framework — positioning, value pillars with proof, per-persona angles, and objection handling — that every campaign, landing page, deck, and rep inherits, so the whole company finally says one thing buyers can believe.

Questions people ask

How is this different from the brand-voice playbook?
The messaging framework decides *what* you say — your positioning, pillars, proof, and objection answers. The brand-voice doc decides *how* you say it — tone, rhythm, words you use and avoid. You want both, kept separate: feed `messaging-framework.md` and `brand-voice.md` together into a content task and you get drafts that are both on-message and on-voice.
What if we don't have proof for one of the pillars?
That's exactly what step two is designed to surface. Claude flags any pillar with thin or missing evidence so you can fix it — find the metric, the named customer, the certification — or cut the pillar. A pillar with no proof is a claim a competitor or a prospect can disprove, so it's better caught here than in front of a buyer.
Who should own the messaging framework?
One owner — usually product marketing. The whole value is that it's a single source of truth; if everyone can edit it, it drifts back into the fragmented mess it was meant to fix. Treat changes as a reviewed update with a version bump, not a free-for-all, and re-run the playbook when the product or market genuinely shifts.
Can Sales use this, or is it just for Marketing?
Sales is one of its biggest users. The objection-handling table and the per-persona angles are built for reps — they're the answers to the questions that stall deals. Handing Sales the same framework Marketing writes from is how the company stops saying three different things to the same buyer.