Initial commit
This commit is contained in:
Zhongwei Li
212
skills/communication-storytelling/SKILL.md
Normal file
212
skills/communication-storytelling/SKILL.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,212 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: communication-storytelling
|
||||
description: Use when transforming analysis/data into persuasive narratives—presenting to executives, explaining technical concepts to non-technical audiences, creating customer-facing communications, writing investor updates, announcing changes, turning research into insights, or when user mentions "write this for", "explain to", "present findings", "make this compelling", "audience is". Invoke when information needs to become a story tailored to specific stakeholders.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Communication Storytelling
|
||||
|
||||
## Table of Contents
|
||||
- [Purpose](#purpose)
|
||||
- [When to Use](#when-to-use)
|
||||
- [What Is It?](#what-is-it)
|
||||
- [Workflow](#workflow)
|
||||
- [Common Patterns](#common-patterns)
|
||||
- [Guardrails](#guardrails)
|
||||
- [Quick Reference](#quick-reference)
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Transform complex information, analysis, or data into clear, persuasive narratives tailored to specific audiences. This skill helps you craft compelling stories with a strong headline, key supporting points, and concrete evidence that drives understanding and action.
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
Use this skill when you need to:
|
||||
|
||||
**Audience Translation:**
|
||||
- Present technical analysis to non-technical stakeholders
|
||||
- Explain complex data to executives who need quick decisions
|
||||
- Write customer-facing communications from internal analysis
|
||||
- Translate research findings into actionable insights
|
||||
|
||||
**High-Stakes Communication:**
|
||||
- Create board presentations or investor updates
|
||||
- Announce organizational changes or difficult decisions
|
||||
- Write crisis communications that build trust
|
||||
- Present recommendations that need executive buy-in
|
||||
|
||||
**Narrative Crafting:**
|
||||
- Turn A/B test results into product decisions
|
||||
- Create compelling case studies from customer data
|
||||
- Write product launch announcements from feature lists
|
||||
- Transform postmortems into learning narratives
|
||||
|
||||
**When user says:**
|
||||
- "How do I present this to [audience]?"
|
||||
- "Make this compelling for [stakeholders]"
|
||||
- "Explain [technical thing] to [non-technical audience]"
|
||||
- "Write an announcement about [change]"
|
||||
- "Turn this analysis into a narrative"
|
||||
|
||||
## What Is It?
|
||||
|
||||
Communication storytelling uses a structured approach to create narratives that inform, persuade, and inspire action. The core framework includes:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Headline** - Single clear statement capturing the essence
|
||||
2. **Key Points** - 3-5 supporting ideas with logical flow
|
||||
3. **Proof** - Evidence, data, examples, stories that substantiate
|
||||
4. **Call-to-Action** - What audience should think, feel, or do
|
||||
|
||||
**Quick example:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Bad (data dump):**
|
||||
"Our Q2 revenue was $2.3M, up from $1.8M in Q1. Customer count went from 450 to 520. Churn decreased from 5% to 3.2%. NPS improved from 42 to 58. We launched 3 new features..."
|
||||
|
||||
**Good (storytelling):**
|
||||
"We've reached product-market fit. Three signals prove it: (1) Revenue grew 28% while sales capacity stayed flat—customers are pulling product from us, not the other way around. (2) Churn dropped 36% as we focused on power users, with our top segment now at 1% monthly churn. (3) NPS jumped 16 points to 58, with customers specifically praising the three features we bet on. Recommendation: Double down on power user segment with premium tier."
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Communication Storytelling Progress:
|
||||
- [ ] Step 1: Gather inputs and clarify audience
|
||||
- [ ] Step 2: Choose appropriate narrative structure
|
||||
- [ ] Step 3: Craft the narrative
|
||||
- [ ] Step 4: Validate quality and clarity
|
||||
- [ ] Step 5: Deliver and adapt
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1: Gather inputs and clarify audience**
|
||||
|
||||
Ask user for the message (analysis, data, information to communicate), audience (who will receive this), purpose (inform, persuade, inspire, build trust), context (situation, stakes, constraints), and tone (formal, casual, urgent, celebratory). Understanding audience deeply is critical—their expertise level, concerns, decision authority, and time constraints shape everything. See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) for input questions.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 2: Choose appropriate narrative structure**
|
||||
|
||||
For standard communications (announcements, updates, presentations) → Use [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) quick template. For complex multi-stakeholder communications requiring different versions → Study [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) for audience segmentation and narrative adaptation techniques. To see what good looks like → Review [resources/examples/](resources/examples/).
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 3: Craft the narrative**
|
||||
|
||||
Create `communication-storytelling.md` with: (1) Compelling headline that captures essence in one sentence, (2) 3-5 key points arranged in logical flow (chronological, problem-solution, importance-ranked), (3) Concrete proof for each point (data, examples, quotes, stories), (4) Clear call-to-action stating what audience should do next. Use storytelling techniques: specificity over generality, show don't tell, human stories over abstract concepts, tension/resolution arcs. See [Story Structure](#story-structure) for narrative patterns.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 4: Validate quality and clarity**
|
||||
|
||||
Self-assess using [resources/evaluators/rubric_communication_storytelling.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_communication_storytelling.json). Check: headline is clear and compelling, key points are distinct and well-supported, proof is concrete and relevant, flow is logical, tone matches audience, jargon is appropriate for expertise level, call-to-action is clear and achievable, length matches time constraints. Read aloud to test clarity. Test with "so what?" question—does each point answer why audience should care? Minimum standard: Average score ≥ 3.5 before delivering.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 5: Deliver and adapt**
|
||||
|
||||
Present the completed `communication-storytelling.md` file. Highlight how narrative addresses audience's key concerns. Note storytelling techniques used (data humanized, tension-resolution, specificity). If user has feedback or needs adaptations for different audiences, use [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) for multi-version strategy.
|
||||
|
||||
## Story Structure
|
||||
|
||||
### The Hero's Journey (Transformation Story)
|
||||
|
||||
**When to use:** Major changes, pivots, overcoming challenges
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
1. **Status Quo** - Where we were (comfort, but problem lurking)
|
||||
2. **Call to Adventure** - Why we had to change (problem emerges)
|
||||
3. **Trials** - What we tried, what we learned (struggle builds credibility)
|
||||
4. **Victory** - What worked (resolution)
|
||||
5. **Return with Knowledge** - What we do now (new normal, lessons learned)
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:** "We were growing 20% YoY, but churning 10% monthly—unsustainable. Data showed we were solving the wrong problem for the wrong users. We tested 5 hypotheses over 3 months, failing at 4. The one that worked: focusing on power users willing to pay 5x more. Churn dropped to 2%, growth hit 40% YoY. Now we're betting everything on premium tier."
|
||||
|
||||
### Problem-Solution-Benefit (Decision Story)
|
||||
|
||||
**When to use:** Recommendations, proposals, project updates
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
1. **Problem** - Clearly defined issue with stakes (what happens if unaddressed)
|
||||
2. **Solution** - Your recommendation with rationale (why this, not alternatives)
|
||||
3. **Benefit** - Tangible outcomes (quantified impact)
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:** "We lose 30% of signups at checkout—$2M ARR left on table. Root cause: we ask for credit card before users see value. Proposal: 14-day trial, no card required, with onboarding emails showing ROI. Comparable companies saw 60% conversion lift. Expected impact: +$1.2M ARR with 4-week implementation."
|
||||
|
||||
### Before-After-Bridge (Contrast Story)
|
||||
|
||||
**When to use:** Product launches, feature announcements, process improvements
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
1. **Before** - Current painful state (audience's lived experience)
|
||||
2. **After** - Improved future state (what becomes possible)
|
||||
3. **Bridge** - How to get there (your solution)
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:** "Before: Sales team spends 10 hours/week manually exporting data, cleaning it in spreadsheets, and copy-pasting into slide decks—error-prone and soul-crushing. After: One-click report generation with live data, auto-refreshing dashboards, 30 minutes per week. Bridge: We built sales analytics v2.0, launching Monday with training sessions."
|
||||
|
||||
### Situation-Complication-Resolution (Executive Story)
|
||||
|
||||
**When to use:** Executive communications, board updates, investor relations
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
1. **Situation** - Context and baseline (set the stage)
|
||||
2. **Complication** - What changed or what's at stake (creates tension)
|
||||
3. **Resolution** - Your path forward (release tension)
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:** "Situation: We budgeted $5M for customer acquisition in 2024. Complication: iOS 17 privacy changes killed our primary ad channel—50% drop in conversion overnight. Resolution: Shifting $2M to content marketing (3-month ROI), $1M to partnerships (immediate distribution), keeping $2M in ads for testing new channels. Risk: content takes time to scale, but partnerships derisk timeline."
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
**Data-Heavy Communications:**
|
||||
- Lead with insight, not data
|
||||
- One number per point (too many = confusion)
|
||||
- Humanize data with stories: "42% churn" → "We lose 12 customers every week—that's Sarah's entire cohort from January"
|
||||
- Use comparisons for context: "200ms latency" → "2x slower than competitors, 3x slower than last year"
|
||||
|
||||
**Technical → Non-Technical:**
|
||||
- Translate jargon: "distributed consensus algorithm" → "how servers agree on truth without a central authority"
|
||||
- Use analogies from audience's domain: "Kubernetes is like a airport air traffic control for containers"
|
||||
- Focus on business impact, not technical implementation
|
||||
- Anticipate "why does this matter?" and answer it explicitly
|
||||
|
||||
**Change Management:**
|
||||
- Acknowledge the loss/pain (don't gloss over difficulty)
|
||||
- Paint compelling future state (hope, not just fear)
|
||||
- Show path from here to there (make it concrete)
|
||||
- Address "what about me?" early (personal impact)
|
||||
|
||||
**Crisis Communications:**
|
||||
- Lead with facts (what happened, when, impact)
|
||||
- Take accountability (no blame-shifting or weasel words)
|
||||
- State what you're doing (concrete actions with timeline)
|
||||
- Commit to transparency (when they'll hear next)
|
||||
|
||||
## Guardrails
|
||||
|
||||
**Do:**
|
||||
- ✅ Test headline clarity—can someone understand the essence in 10 seconds?
|
||||
- ✅ Use concrete specifics over vague generalities
|
||||
- ✅ Match sophistication level to audience (avoid talking up or down)
|
||||
- ✅ Front-load conclusions (executives decide in first 30 seconds)
|
||||
- ✅ Show your work for major claims (data sources, assumptions)
|
||||
- ✅ Acknowledge limitations and risks (builds credibility)
|
||||
|
||||
**Don't:**
|
||||
- ❌ Bury the lede (most important thing must be first)
|
||||
- ❌ Use jargon your audience doesn't know (or define it)
|
||||
- ❌ Make claims without proof (erodes trust)
|
||||
- ❌ Assume audience cares—make them care by showing stakes
|
||||
- ❌ Write walls of text (use bullets, headers, white space)
|
||||
- ❌ Lie or mislead (including by omission)
|
||||
|
||||
**Red Flags:**
|
||||
- 🚩 Your draft is mostly bullet points with no narrative arc
|
||||
- 🚩 You can't summarize your message in one sentence
|
||||
- 🚩 You use passive voice to avoid accountability ("mistakes were made")
|
||||
- 🚩 You include data that doesn't support your points
|
||||
- 🚩 Your call-to-action is vague ("be better," "work harder")
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Reference
|
||||
|
||||
**Resources:**
|
||||
- **[resources/template.md](resources/template.md)** - Quick-start template with headline, key points, proof structure
|
||||
- **[resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md)** - Advanced techniques for multi-stakeholder communications, narrative frameworks, persuasion principles
|
||||
- **[resources/examples/](resources/examples/)** - Worked examples showing different story structures and audiences
|
||||
- **[resources/evaluators/rubric_communication_storytelling.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_communication_storytelling.json)** - 10-criteria quality rubric with audience-based thresholds
|
||||
|
||||
**When to use which resource:**
|
||||
- Standard communication → Start with template.md
|
||||
- Multiple audiences for same message → Study methodology.md multi-version strategy
|
||||
- Complex persuasion (board pitch, investor update) → Study methodology.md persuasion frameworks
|
||||
- Unsure what good looks like → Review examples/ for your scenario
|
||||
- Before delivering → Validate with rubric (score ≥ 3.5 required)
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,335 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"criteria": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Headline Clarity",
|
||||
"description": "Can audience understand the core message in 10 seconds?",
|
||||
"scoring": {
|
||||
"1": "No clear headline, or headline is vague/generic. Reader doesn't know what message is about.",
|
||||
"2": "Headline exists but is vague or buries key insight. Requires reading body to understand point.",
|
||||
"3": "Headline clearly states topic and general direction. Reader gets gist but not full insight.",
|
||||
"4": "Headline captures core message with specificity. Reader understands essence without reading body.",
|
||||
"5": "Compelling headline that captures essence, creates curiosity, and uses concrete specifics. Impossible to misunderstand."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"red_flags": [
|
||||
"Headline is generic ('Q3 Update', 'Project Status')",
|
||||
"Can't summarize message in one sentence",
|
||||
"Headline describes format not content ('Memo on X' vs 'We should do X because Y')",
|
||||
"Buries insight in paragraph 3 instead of headline"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Structure and Flow",
|
||||
"description": "Is narrative easy to follow with logical progression?",
|
||||
"scoring": {
|
||||
"1": "No clear structure. Random collection of points without logical connection.",
|
||||
"2": "Some structure but jumps around. Reader confused about how points relate or what comes next.",
|
||||
"3": "Clear structure with distinct sections. Logical flow but transitions could be smoother.",
|
||||
"4": "Well-organized structure with smooth transitions. Each point builds on previous. Easy to follow.",
|
||||
"5": "Exemplary narrative arc. Points flow naturally, build tension/resolution, guide reader seamlessly from problem to action."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"red_flags": [
|
||||
"Jumps between topics without transitions",
|
||||
"Key points overlap or repeat",
|
||||
"No clear progression (flat list of facts)",
|
||||
"Conclusion doesn't follow from body (non sequitur)"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Evidence Quality",
|
||||
"description": "Are claims backed by concrete, credible proof?",
|
||||
"scoring": {
|
||||
"1": "No evidence. Claims without support. Asks for blind trust.",
|
||||
"2": "Minimal evidence. Vague statements ('studies show', 'many customers') without specifics.",
|
||||
"3": "Adequate evidence. Some data/examples provided but missing sources or context.",
|
||||
"4": "Strong evidence. Specific data with sources, concrete examples, comparisons for context.",
|
||||
"5": "Comprehensive proof. Multiple evidence types (quantitative, qualitative, examples), sources cited, limitations acknowledged."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"red_flags": [
|
||||
"Unsourced claims ('experts agree', 'industry standard')",
|
||||
"Cherry-picked data without showing full picture",
|
||||
"Anecdotes presented as data ('one customer said' as proof of trend)",
|
||||
"No comparisons (data without context)"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Audience Fit",
|
||||
"description": "Is message tailored to audience's expertise, concerns, and constraints?",
|
||||
"scoring": {
|
||||
"1": "Wrong audience fit. Jargon for non-experts, or dumbed-down for experts. Ignores their concerns.",
|
||||
"2": "Partial fit. Some mismatch in sophistication or doesn't address key concerns audience has.",
|
||||
"3": "Good fit. Appropriate sophistication level, addresses main concerns, reasonable length.",
|
||||
"4": "Excellent fit. Matches expertise, directly addresses concerns, appropriate tone and length, uses their language.",
|
||||
"5": "Perfect fit. Deeply understands audience, anticipates objections, uses analogies from their domain, feels personalized."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"red_flags": [
|
||||
"Technical jargon for non-technical audience",
|
||||
"Oversimplifies for expert audience",
|
||||
"Doesn't address audience's stated priorities",
|
||||
"Length mismatches time available (5-page email for busy executive)"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Storytelling Techniques",
|
||||
"description": "Uses specificity, shows vs tells, humanizes data, builds tension?",
|
||||
"scoring": {
|
||||
"1": "No storytelling. Dry recitation of facts or feature list. No narrative arc.",
|
||||
"2": "Minimal storytelling. Mostly facts with occasional story elements. Tells more than shows.",
|
||||
"3": "Good storytelling. Uses some techniques (specifics, examples, data humanization). Shows and tells.",
|
||||
"4": "Strong storytelling. Consistently shows vs tells, uses specifics, humanizes data, builds some tension.",
|
||||
"5": "Masterful storytelling. Vivid specifics, shows throughout, data becomes human stories, tension and resolution arc."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"red_flags": [
|
||||
"Uses generalities instead of specifics ('many', 'significant', 'improved')",
|
||||
"Tells instead of shows ('this is great' vs concrete evidence it's great)",
|
||||
"Data dump without interpretation or humanization",
|
||||
"No narrative arc (flat delivery of information)"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Accountability and Honesty",
|
||||
"description": "Takes ownership, acknowledges risks/limitations, no blame-shifting?",
|
||||
"scoring": {
|
||||
"1": "No accountability. Passive voice, blame-shifting, or hiding responsibility.",
|
||||
"2": "Weak accountability. Some ownership but uses weasel words or deflects.",
|
||||
"3": "Adequate accountability. Takes responsibility, but doesn't fully acknowledge limitations.",
|
||||
"4": "Strong accountability. Clear ownership, acknowledges risks and limitations honestly.",
|
||||
"5": "Exemplary accountability. Named ownership, vulnerable honesty about uncertainties, acknowledges past mistakes if relevant."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"red_flags": [
|
||||
"Passive voice hides actors ('mistakes were made' vs 'I made mistakes')",
|
||||
"Blame external factors without acknowledging internal role",
|
||||
"Overconfident claims without acknowledging uncertainties",
|
||||
"Misleading by omission (hiding risks or downsides)"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Actionability (Call-to-Action)",
|
||||
"description": "Is CTA clear, specific, achievable, and time-bound?",
|
||||
"scoring": {
|
||||
"1": "No CTA, or completely vague ('think about it', 'be better').",
|
||||
"2": "CTA exists but vague or passive. Unclear what to do or who should do it.",
|
||||
"3": "Clear CTA but missing timeline, owner, or specifics on how to do it.",
|
||||
"4": "Strong CTA. Specific action, clear owner, deadline, achievable.",
|
||||
"5": "Perfect CTA. Specific, achievable, time-bound, clear owner, low-friction next step provided (link, meeting invite, etc)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"red_flags": [
|
||||
"No action requested (information without purpose)",
|
||||
"Vague ask ('let's improve X')",
|
||||
"No timeline ('eventually', 'soon')",
|
||||
"No owner (unclear who should act)",
|
||||
"Too many asks (confusing priority)"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Tone Appropriateness",
|
||||
"description": "Does tone match situation (crisis, celebration, persuasion, etc)?",
|
||||
"scoring": {
|
||||
"1": "Tone completely wrong. Casual for crisis, or somber for celebration.",
|
||||
"2": "Tone somewhat off. Misreads situation or audience expectations.",
|
||||
"3": "Tone mostly appropriate. Minor mismatches but generally fits.",
|
||||
"4": "Tone fits well. Appropriate formality, urgency, and emotion for situation.",
|
||||
"5": "Tone perfect. Nuanced match to situation, builds appropriate emotional connection, feels authentic."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"red_flags": [
|
||||
"Inappropriate levity in crisis",
|
||||
"Overly formal for casual announcement",
|
||||
"Defensive tone when accountability needed",
|
||||
"Hype/marketing speak for internal honest conversation"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Transparency",
|
||||
"description": "Are assumptions, data sources, and limitations explicit?",
|
||||
"scoring": {
|
||||
"1": "Opaque. No visibility into how conclusions reached, what's assumed, or data sources.",
|
||||
"2": "Minimal transparency. Some info provided but key assumptions or limitations hidden.",
|
||||
"3": "Adequate transparency. Main assumptions and sources stated, but some gaps.",
|
||||
"4": "High transparency. Assumptions explicit, sources cited, limitations acknowledged.",
|
||||
"5": "Full transparency. Shows work, cites sources, states assumptions, acknowledges limitations, distinguishes facts from speculation."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"red_flags": [
|
||||
"Unsourced data ('research shows')",
|
||||
"Unstated assumptions (e.g., market stays stable)",
|
||||
"No acknowledgment of limitations or uncertainties",
|
||||
"Facts and speculation mixed without distinction"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Credibility",
|
||||
"description": "Does narrative build trust through vulnerability, track record, or expert validation?",
|
||||
"scoring": {
|
||||
"1": "No credibility signals. Asks for trust without earning it.",
|
||||
"2": "Weak credibility. Some signals (e.g., 'trust me') but not substantiated.",
|
||||
"3": "Adequate credibility. Track record or external validation mentioned.",
|
||||
"4": "Strong credibility. Combines multiple signals: vulnerability, track record, expert validation, data transparency.",
|
||||
"5": "Exceptional credibility. Vulnerable honesty, demonstrated track record, expert validation, shows calibration (past predictions vs outcomes)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"red_flags": [
|
||||
"No track record or validation provided",
|
||||
"Overconfident without acknowledging past errors",
|
||||
"Appeals to authority without substance ('experts agree')",
|
||||
"No vulnerability (appears infallible, reduces trust)"
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"audience_guidance": {
|
||||
"Low-Stakes": {
|
||||
"description": "Routine updates, internal announcements, FYI communications",
|
||||
"target_score": 3.0,
|
||||
"focus_criteria": ["Headline Clarity", "Actionability", "Audience Fit"],
|
||||
"success_indicators": [
|
||||
"Message is clear and quickly understood",
|
||||
"Action needed (if any) is obvious",
|
||||
"Appropriate length for stakes"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"acceptable_tradeoffs": [
|
||||
"Can be more concise at expense of storytelling",
|
||||
"Less extensive proof needed",
|
||||
"Lower formality acceptable"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"Medium-Stakes": {
|
||||
"description": "Product announcements, project updates, recommendations needing approval",
|
||||
"target_score": 3.5,
|
||||
"focus_criteria": ["Evidence Quality", "Structure and Flow", "Storytelling Techniques", "Actionability"],
|
||||
"success_indicators": [
|
||||
"Well-supported with concrete evidence",
|
||||
"Compelling narrative that engages audience",
|
||||
"Clear action and timeline",
|
||||
"Addresses likely objections"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"acceptable_tradeoffs": [
|
||||
"Some complexity acceptable if audience has time",
|
||||
"Can be longer if stakes warrant detail"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"High-Stakes": {
|
||||
"description": "Executive decisions, crisis communications, investor updates, major changes",
|
||||
"target_score": 4.0,
|
||||
"focus_criteria": ["All criteria, especially Accountability, Evidence Quality, Credibility, Transparency"],
|
||||
"success_indicators": [
|
||||
"Comprehensive evidence from multiple sources",
|
||||
"Full transparency on assumptions and risks",
|
||||
"Clear accountability and ownership",
|
||||
"Builds credibility through vulnerability",
|
||||
"Anticipates and addresses objections",
|
||||
"Strong storytelling that builds trust"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"acceptable_tradeoffs": [
|
||||
"Can be longer if needed for completeness",
|
||||
"Extra formality for gravitas"
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"communication_type_guidance": {
|
||||
"Technical to Non-Technical": {
|
||||
"description": "Explaining technical concepts/decisions to business stakeholders",
|
||||
"critical_criteria": ["Audience Fit", "Storytelling Techniques"],
|
||||
"key_patterns": [
|
||||
"Use analogies from audience's domain",
|
||||
"Focus on business impact, not technical implementation",
|
||||
"Translate jargon or define terms",
|
||||
"Show with concrete examples, not abstract concepts"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"Executive Communication": {
|
||||
"description": "Board updates, CEO memos, investor relations",
|
||||
"critical_criteria": ["Headline Clarity", "Evidence Quality", "Transparency"],
|
||||
"key_patterns": [
|
||||
"Front-load conclusions (BLUF - Bottom Line Up Front)",
|
||||
"Quantify everything (revenue, cost, time, risk)",
|
||||
"Show vs baseline/target/competitors",
|
||||
"Acknowledge risks explicitly"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"Customer-Facing": {
|
||||
"description": "Product announcements, incident communications, customer updates",
|
||||
"critical_criteria": ["Tone Appropriateness", "Accountability", "Actionability"],
|
||||
"key_patterns": [
|
||||
"Lead with customer impact (not internal process)",
|
||||
"Clear next steps for customer",
|
||||
"Empathy for pain points",
|
||||
"No jargon or internal acronyms"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"Change Management": {
|
||||
"description": "Org changes, process changes, difficult news",
|
||||
"critical_criteria": ["Tone Appropriateness", "Accountability", "Storytelling Techniques", "Transparency"],
|
||||
"key_patterns": [
|
||||
"Acknowledge loss/pain (don't gloss over difficulty)",
|
||||
"Paint compelling future state",
|
||||
"Show path from here to there",
|
||||
"Address 'what about me?' early"
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"Crisis Communication": {
|
||||
"description": "Incidents, outages, mistakes, sensitive issues",
|
||||
"critical_criteria": ["Accountability", "Transparency", "Actionability", "Credibility"],
|
||||
"key_patterns": [
|
||||
"Lead with facts (what happened, when, impact)",
|
||||
"Take accountability (no passive voice or blame-shifting)",
|
||||
"State what you're doing (concrete actions with timeline)",
|
||||
"Commit to transparency (when they'll hear next)"
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"common_failure_modes": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"failure_mode": "Burying the Lede",
|
||||
"symptoms": "Important insight appears in paragraph 3 or buried in middle of long text.",
|
||||
"consequences": "Busy audience never sees main point. Decisions delayed or made without full context.",
|
||||
"fix": "Move most important insight to headline and first sentence. Use inverted pyramid (most important first)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"failure_mode": "Death by Bullets",
|
||||
"symptoms": "Deck with 50 bullet points, no narrative thread connecting them.",
|
||||
"consequences": "Audience can't follow logic, points don't build, no memorable takeaway.",
|
||||
"fix": "Use bullets to support narrative, not replace it. Each slide should have one key point."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"failure_mode": "Jargon Mismatch",
|
||||
"symptoms": "Technical terms for non-technical audience, or dumbed-down language for experts.",
|
||||
"consequences": "Audience either confused or insulted. Message doesn't land.",
|
||||
"fix": "Match sophistication to audience. Define jargon when needed. Use analogies from their domain."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"failure_mode": "Data Dump Without Interpretation",
|
||||
"symptoms": "Lists metrics without context or insight. 'Churn is 3.2%, NPS is 58, CAC is $1,150.'",
|
||||
"consequences": "Audience doesn't know what data means or what to do with it.",
|
||||
"fix": "Lead with insight, support with data. 'We're retaining customers well (3.2% churn is top quartile) but they're expensive to acquire ($1,150 CAC = 18-month payback).'"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"failure_mode": "Vague Call-to-Action",
|
||||
"symptoms": "CTA like 'Let's be more customer-focused' or 'Think about this'.",
|
||||
"consequences": "No one does anything. Message dies without action.",
|
||||
"fix": "Specific action, owner, timeline. 'Sarah, approve $50K budget by Friday' or 'Each team should interview 5 customers by month-end using guide [link].'"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"failure_mode": "No Stakes",
|
||||
"symptoms": "Recommendation without showing cost of inaction. 'We should improve X.'",
|
||||
"consequences": "Audience doesn't prioritize. Request ignored in favor of urgent items.",
|
||||
"fix": "Show opportunity cost. 'Page load time is 2.5s, costing us 30% of conversions ($800K annually). Optimizing to 1s recovers $240K in year 1.'"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"failure_mode": "Correlation as Causation",
|
||||
"symptoms": "Claims causal relationship based on correlation. 'Feature X increased, then revenue grew, so X caused growth.'",
|
||||
"consequences": "Wrong decisions based on spurious relationships. Waste resources on non-drivers.",
|
||||
"fix": "Be explicit about causation vs correlation. If claiming causation, show mechanism or use causal inference methods."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"failure_mode": "Passive Voice Hiding Accountability",
|
||||
"symptoms": "'Mistakes were made', 'The decision was reached', 'It was determined that...'",
|
||||
"consequences": "Erodes trust. Audience doesn't know who's responsible or in control.",
|
||||
"fix": "Use active voice with named actors. 'I made mistakes', 'The exec team decided', 'Based on our analysis, I recommend...'"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"scale": 5,
|
||||
"minimum_average_score": 3.5,
|
||||
"interpretation": {
|
||||
"1.0-2.0": "Inadequate. Major issues with clarity, evidence, or audience fit. Do not deliver. Revise significantly.",
|
||||
"2.0-3.0": "Needs improvement. Basic structure present but weak evidence, poor storytelling, or mismatched tone. Acceptable only for low-stakes FYI messages.",
|
||||
"3.0-3.5": "Acceptable. Clear message with adequate evidence. Suitable for routine communications and internal updates.",
|
||||
"3.5-4.0": "Good. Compelling narrative with strong evidence and clear action. Suitable for medium-stakes product announcements, recommendations.",
|
||||
"4.0-5.0": "Excellent. Masterful storytelling, comprehensive evidence, builds credibility and trust. Suitable for high-stakes executive/crisis/customer communications."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,242 @@
|
||||
# Example: Product Launch Announcement
|
||||
|
||||
## Scenario
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:** Launching "Analytics Insights" - automated report generation tool that saves customer success teams 10-15 hours per week. Announcing to existing customers via email + blog post.
|
||||
|
||||
**Audience:** Customer success managers and directors at mid-size B2B SaaS companies
|
||||
- Expertise: Moderate technical literacy, very familiar with pain points
|
||||
- Concerns: Time savings, ease of adoption, cost, disruption to current workflow
|
||||
- Time available: 2-3 minutes to read email, 5-10 minutes for blog
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose:** Drive adoption of new feature (target: 40% adoption in 30 days)
|
||||
|
||||
**Tone:** Empathetic (acknowledge pain), excited (benefits), supportive (easy transition)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Story Structure Used
|
||||
|
||||
**Before-After-Bridge (BAB):**
|
||||
1. Before: Painful current state (audience's lived experience)
|
||||
2. After: Improved future state (what becomes possible)
|
||||
3. Bridge: The solution (how to get there)
|
||||
4. Call to Action: Next step to access the "after" state
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Draft: Communication
|
||||
|
||||
### Before (Weak - Feature Announcement)
|
||||
|
||||
> Subject: New Feature: Analytics Insights
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Hi there,
|
||||
>
|
||||
> We're excited to announce Analytics Insights, a new feature that automatically generates customer health reports. This feature uses machine learning to analyze usage patterns and create personalized insights for each customer.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Key features:
|
||||
> - Automated report generation
|
||||
> - Customizable templates
|
||||
> - Email scheduling
|
||||
> - Data visualization
|
||||
> - 10+ pre-built metrics
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Analytics Insights is available now in the dashboard under "Reports." Check out our documentation for setup instructions.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Let us know if you have any questions!
|
||||
|
||||
**Problems:**
|
||||
- ❌ Leads with feature ("Analytics Insights") not benefit
|
||||
- ❌ Doesn't acknowledge current pain (assumes audience knows why they need this)
|
||||
- ❌ Feature list without context (why do I care about "customizable templates"?)
|
||||
- ❌ No proof (claims time savings but doesn't quantify or show evidence)
|
||||
- ❌ Weak CTA ("check it out") without urgency or clear next step
|
||||
- ❌ No storytelling - just a list of features
|
||||
|
||||
### After (Strong - Storytelling)
|
||||
|
||||
> Subject: Spend 15 hours/week on customers, not spreadsheets
|
||||
>
|
||||
> # Before: Your Weekends Belong to Excel. After: They Belong to You.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> If you're a customer success manager, I don't have to tell you how your Fridays go.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Your current Friday afternoon:**
|
||||
> - 2:00pm: Start pulling usage data for your top 20 accounts
|
||||
> - 2:45pm: Export to CSV, clean up formatting issues (why does every export break?)
|
||||
> - 3:30pm: Build pivot tables and charts in Google Sheets
|
||||
> - 4:15pm: Copy-paste into your customer email template
|
||||
> - 4:45pm: Personalize each email (change "Hey Sarah" to "Hey Michael", update account-specific context)
|
||||
> - 6:30pm: Send last email, realize you spent 4.5 hours on reporting that should have taken 30 minutes
|
||||
> - Saturday morning: Customer replies asking for clarification on a metric - back to your laptop
|
||||
>
|
||||
> You became a CS manager to build relationships and drive retention. Instead, you're a data janitor.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> We built Analytics Insights to fix this.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ## After: What Your Friday Looks Like Now
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Your new Friday afternoon:**
|
||||
> - 2:00pm: Open Analytics Insights, click "Generate Reports"
|
||||
> - 2:03pm: Review automatically generated insights for your 20 accounts (already personalized, already visualized, already in email format)
|
||||
> - 2:15pm: Click "Send" or make minor tweaks if needed
|
||||
> - 2:20pm: Done. You just freed up 4 hours.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **What you do with those 4 hours:**
|
||||
> - Proactively reach out to at-risk accounts (the system flagged 3 with declining usage)
|
||||
> - Prepare for Monday's executive retention review (with confidence, not scrambling)
|
||||
> - Actually leave at 5pm on Friday
|
||||
>
|
||||
> This isn't about automation for automation's sake. It's about spending time on what matters: your customers.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ## How It Works (The Bridge)
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Setup (5 minutes):**
|
||||
> 1. Go to Reports → Analytics Insights
|
||||
> 2. Choose your template (we have 5 pre-built, including "Executive Summary" and "Feature Adoption")
|
||||
> 3. Select accounts and schedule (weekly Fridays at 2pm, or on-demand)
|
||||
> 4. Done.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **What Happens Next:**
|
||||
> Every Friday at 2pm, Analytics Insights:
|
||||
> - Pulls usage data for each account (sessions, feature adoption, health score trends)
|
||||
> - Generates insights using the same patterns you'd manually identify ("Sarah's team adoption is up 40% this month, driven by the new workflow builder")
|
||||
> - Creates beautiful visualizations (no more manual charting)
|
||||
> - Drafts personalized emails (including customer name, account-specific context, relevant metrics)
|
||||
> - Sends to you for review (or auto-sends if you enable it)
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Customization:**
|
||||
> - Add your own metrics (we start with 12 standard ones)
|
||||
> - Edit templates (match your voice and brand)
|
||||
> - Override insights (AI gets it 90% right, you perfect the last 10%)
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ## Why We Built This (Proof You Can Trust It)
|
||||
>
|
||||
> We didn't build this in a vacuum. Over the past 6 months:
|
||||
> - We interviewed 40 CS managers like you
|
||||
> - 38 of them mentioned "manual reporting" as their #1 time sink
|
||||
> - Average time reported: 12 hours per week
|
||||
>
|
||||
> We piloted Analytics Insights with 12 beta customers for 8 weeks. Results:
|
||||
> - **Time saved:** Average 10.6 hours per week (range: 8-15 hours depending on account size)
|
||||
> - **Accuracy:** 94% of AI-generated insights matched what CS managers would have written manually
|
||||
> - **Adoption:** 11 of 12 beta users now use it weekly (one still tweaking template preferences)
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **What beta users said:**
|
||||
>
|
||||
> > "This is the feature I didn't know I needed until I had it. Now I can't imagine going back. I left at 4pm last Friday for the first time in a year." — Sarah Chen, CS Director, TechCorp (120 accounts)
|
||||
>
|
||||
> > "I was skeptical about AI writing my customer emails. But it nails the tone—I only change 1-2 sentences per email now. Total game changer." — Michael Rodriguez, CS Manager, GrowthCo (45 accounts)
|
||||
>
|
||||
> > "The ROI calculation is simple: I save 12 hours per week. That's 48 hours per month. If my time is worth $100/hr (conservative), this saves my company $4,800/month. It's already included in my plan. This is a no-brainer." — Jamie Lee, VP Customer Success, DataCo (8-person CS team)
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ## This Is Included (No Extra Cost)
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Analytics Insights is included in your current plan. No upgrade, no add-on, no surprise invoice.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Why? Because your success is our success. If you spend less time on manual work and more time with customers, retention improves. When retention improves, we both win.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ## Get Started Today (Your Friday Is Waiting)
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Here's what to do next:**
|
||||
>
|
||||
> 1. **[Try it now - 5 minute setup](link)** → Set up your first automated report
|
||||
> 2. **[Watch 3-minute demo video](link)** → See it in action before you commit
|
||||
> 3. **[Join office hours this Thursday 2pm PT](link)** → Ask questions, see advanced tips
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **What to expect:**
|
||||
> - **This week:** Set up and generate your first report (test with 5 accounts before full rollout)
|
||||
> - **Next week:** Roll out to all accounts, customize templates to match your voice
|
||||
> - **Week 3:** Sit back and enjoy your Fridays (seriously, that's the goal)
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Need help?**
|
||||
> Reply to this email and I'll personally help you set up. Or book time with our CS team [here](link).
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ## A Note from Our CEO
|
||||
>
|
||||
> "We started this company because we believe customer success teams are undervalued and overworked. You're expected to be data analysts, relationship managers, product experts, and therapists—all at once. This feature is our attempt to give you back time to focus on what you do best: building relationships that drive retention. I hope it makes your life a little easier."
|
||||
>
|
||||
> —CEO Name
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **P.S.** Set a reminder to try this before next Friday. Future you will thank present you when you leave work at 5pm instead of 7pm. [Set up Analytics Insights now →](link)
|
||||
|
||||
**Why This Works:**
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Headline:** "Spend 15 hours/week on customers, not spreadsheets" - benefit-focused, quantified, relatable
|
||||
✅ **Empathy:** Opens with painfully specific current state that audience lives ("Friday 2pm, start pulling usage data...")
|
||||
✅ **Show don't tell:** Detailed timeline of current Friday (4.5 hours of manual work) vs new Friday (20 minutes)
|
||||
✅ **Specificity:** 10.6 hours saved (not "saves time"), 94% accuracy (not "highly accurate"), 11/12 adoption (not "popular")
|
||||
✅ **Social proof:** 3 customer testimonials with names, companies, account sizes (credibility through specificity)
|
||||
✅ **Proof:** Beta results (12 customers, 8 weeks, quantified outcomes) not just claims
|
||||
✅ **Stakes:** Humanized ($4,800/month = 48 hours × $100/hr) and emotional (leave at 5pm on Friday)
|
||||
✅ **No-risk:** Included in current plan (removes cost objection)
|
||||
✅ **Actionability:** 3 clear next steps (try now, watch demo, join office hours) with timelines
|
||||
✅ **Multiple CTAs:** Try now (for action-oriented), watch demo (for cautious), office hours (for question-askers)
|
||||
✅ **Tone:** Empathetic ("I don't have to tell you..."), supportive ("I'll personally help"), excited but not over-the-top
|
||||
✅ **Structure:** BAB (Before → After → Bridge) creates clear transformation narrative
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Self-Assessment Using Rubric
|
||||
|
||||
**Headline Clarity (5/5):** "Spend 15 hours/week on customers, not spreadsheets" - crystal clear benefit
|
||||
**Structure (5/5):** BAB (Before painful, After aspirational, Bridge actionable) - perfect fit for product launch
|
||||
**Evidence Quality (5/5):** 12 beta customers, 8 weeks, 10.6 hours saved, 94% accuracy, 11/12 adoption, 3 named testimonials
|
||||
**Audience Fit (5/5):** Deep empathy with CS manager pain points, appropriate detail level, addresses concerns (cost, accuracy, adoption)
|
||||
**Storytelling (5/5):** Hyper-specific current state (Friday timeline), vivid future state (leave at 5pm), concrete bridge (5-minute setup)
|
||||
**Accountability (4/5):** Acknowledges AI isn't perfect (90% right, you perfect last 10%), CEO note shows commitment
|
||||
**Actionability (5/5):** 3 tiered CTAs (try/watch/ask), weekly timeline, support offers (personal help, office hours)
|
||||
**Tone (5/5):** Empathetic + excited + supportive - matches product launch for existing customers
|
||||
**Transparency (5/5):** Shows beta results (not just cherry-picked wins), admits AI needs 10% human refinement
|
||||
**Credibility (5/5):** Customer testimonials with full names/companies, quantified beta results, CEO commitment
|
||||
|
||||
**Average: 4.9/5** ✓ Production-ready (very strong)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Techniques Demonstrated
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Empathy Opening:** Start with painful specificity audience recognizes ("Your Friday afternoon: 2:00pm...")
|
||||
2. **Transformation Narrative:** Contrast current painful state (6:30pm still working) with aspirational future (2:20pm done)
|
||||
3. **Humanization:** Time saved → emotional benefit (leave at 5pm Friday for first time in a year)
|
||||
4. **Social Proof:** 3 testimonials from different seniority levels (director, manager, VP) with specific results
|
||||
5. **Risk Removal:** Included in current plan (no cost), 5-minute setup (low effort), personal help offered (low barrier)
|
||||
6. **Multiple CTAs:** Try/Watch/Ask - accommodates different audience personas (action-takers, cautious evaluators, question-askers)
|
||||
7. **Proof Stack:** Interviews (40 CS managers) + beta (12 customers, 8 weeks) + testimonials (3 named) = comprehensive evidence
|
||||
8. **Specificity:** Not "saves time" but "10.6 hours/week", not "accurate" but "94%", not "popular" but "11/12 beta users"
|
||||
9. **CEO Voice:** Adds weight and shows company commitment (not just product team shipping feature)
|
||||
10. **PS Technique:** Reinforces CTA with emotional hook (future you will thank present you)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Alternative Version: Internal Announcement (to CS Team)
|
||||
|
||||
If announcing internally to your own CS team (not customers), adjust:
|
||||
|
||||
**Headline:** "Reclaim Your Fridays: New Auto-Reporting Tool Launching"
|
||||
|
||||
**Changes:**
|
||||
- More emphasis on how to get support (training sessions, dedicated Slack channel)
|
||||
- Call out change management (optional first month, required after pilot)
|
||||
- Acknowledge concerns ("I know change is hard when you have a system that works")
|
||||
- Add metrics we're tracking (adoption rate, time saved, quality scores)
|
||||
- Make CEO note about supporting the team through transition
|
||||
|
||||
**Tone shift:** Still empathetic, but more collaborative (we're in this together) vs selling (you should use this)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Alternative Version: Blog Post (Public)
|
||||
|
||||
If publishing as public blog (not just customers), adjust:
|
||||
|
||||
**Headline:** "Why We Built Analytics Insights: Giving CS Teams Their Time Back"
|
||||
|
||||
**Changes:**
|
||||
- Add "Why this matters for the industry" section (CS burnout crisis, data janitor problem universal)
|
||||
- Include more behind-the-scenes (how we built it, technical challenges overcome)
|
||||
- Broaden appeal (useful for any CS tool provider, not just our customers)
|
||||
- End with industry call-to-action (other CS tools should solve this too)
|
||||
|
||||
**Tone shift:** Thought leadership (here's what we learned) vs product marketing (here's what you get)
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,184 @@
|
||||
# Example: Technical Incident Postmortem
|
||||
|
||||
## Scenario
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:** Major database outage affected 80% of customers for 4 hours on a Saturday. Need to communicate to executive team on Monday.
|
||||
|
||||
**Audience:** CEO, CTO, VP Product, VP Customer Success
|
||||
- Expertise: Mixed (CEO non-technical, others technical)
|
||||
- Concerns: Customer impact, reputation, revenue risk, engineering capability
|
||||
- Time available: 15 minutes in emergency exec meeting
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose:** Build trust through accountability, explain root cause, commit to prevention
|
||||
|
||||
**Tone:** Serious but measured, accountable not defensive, solution-oriented
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Story Structure Used
|
||||
|
||||
**Crisis Communication Arc (Trust Building):**
|
||||
1. Acknowledge problem honestly
|
||||
2. Show accountability and action taken
|
||||
3. Explain root cause and prevention
|
||||
4. Commit to transparency and improvement
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Draft: Communication
|
||||
|
||||
### Before (Weak - Data Dump)
|
||||
|
||||
> Subject: Database Incident - Saturday Nov 2
|
||||
>
|
||||
> On Saturday November 2nd from 2:14am to 6:47am PT, our primary database experienced corrupted indexes causing query failures. 80% of customer requests returned errors. The incident was triggered by a combination of factors including a schema migration deployed on Friday evening and increased load from a batch job. We rolled back the migration at 5:30am which partially restored service. Full recovery occurred at 6:47am after rebuilding indexes.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Impact: 4h 33min outage, 847 customers affected, 12,400 failed requests. Root cause was insufficient testing of migration under production load patterns. We are implementing better testing procedures.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Let me know if you have questions.
|
||||
|
||||
**Problems:**
|
||||
- ❌ Buries emotional acknowledgment (no empathy for customer impact)
|
||||
- ❌ Technical jargon obscures key insights ("corrupted indexes" - what does that mean for business?)
|
||||
- ❌ Passive voice avoids accountability ("was triggered by" - who's responsible?)
|
||||
- ❌ Vague prevention ("better testing" - what specifically?)
|
||||
- ❌ No explicit commitment to transparency
|
||||
|
||||
### After (Strong - Storytelling)
|
||||
|
||||
> Subject: Saturday Outage: What Happened, Why, and What We're Doing About It
|
||||
>
|
||||
> # We Failed 80% of Our Customers on Saturday
|
||||
>
|
||||
> On Saturday at 2am, our main database went down, affecting 80% of customers for 4.5 hours. This is unacceptable. Our customers trust us to keep their businesses running, and we broke that trust. Here's what happened, why it happened, and how we're ensuring it never happens again.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ## What Happened
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Timeline:**
|
||||
> - **2:14am:** Automated monitoring alerted on-call engineer (Sarah) to 80% error rate
|
||||
> - **2:20am:** Sarah paged database team, identified corrupted database indexes causing all queries to fail
|
||||
> - **2:45am:** CTO (me) joined incident call after Sarah escalated
|
||||
> - **5:30am:** Rolled back Friday's schema migration, partially restored service (50% → 80% success rate)
|
||||
> - **6:47am:** Fully recovered after manually rebuilding indexes
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Customer Impact:**
|
||||
> - 847 customers (80% of active base) affected
|
||||
> - 12,400 failed requests (orders, login attempts, data syncs)
|
||||
> - 23 support tickets filed, 8 customers escalated to executives
|
||||
> - Estimated revenue impact: $15K in SLA credits
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Our Response:**
|
||||
> - 6 engineers worked through the night
|
||||
> - We proactively emailed all affected customers by 8am Saturday with status and apology
|
||||
> - We held customer office hours Sunday 2-6pm (47 customers attended)
|
||||
> - We're issuing automatic SLA credits (no request needed)
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ## Why It Happened (Root Cause)
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Immediate cause:** Friday evening we deployed a database schema migration (adding index to support new feature). Under normal load, this worked fine in staging. But Saturday at 2am, a scheduled batch job ran that queries the same table. The combination of migration + batch job created a race condition that corrupted the index.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Underlying causes (honest reflection):**
|
||||
> 1. **Insufficient testing:** We tested the migration, but not under realistic load patterns that include batch jobs
|
||||
> 2. **Risky timing:** Deploying database changes Friday evening meant skeleton crew if problems emerged
|
||||
> 3. **Missing safeguards:** Batch job didn't have circuit breaker to stop if error rate spiked
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **I take responsibility.** As CTO, I approved the deployment plan that didn't account for batch job interaction. The engineering team followed our process—the process was inadequate.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ## What We're Doing About It
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Immediate (This Week):**
|
||||
> 1. **Deployment freeze:** No schema changes until new process is in place (unfreezes Nov 10)
|
||||
> 2. **Load testing:** Adding batch job scenarios to staging environment (reproduces Saturday's load pattern)
|
||||
> 3. **Circuit breakers:** Batch jobs now halt if error rate >5% (prevents cascading failures)
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Short-term (Next 30 Days):**
|
||||
> 1. **Deployment policy:** No risky changes on Fridays or weekends (lessons from Saturday)
|
||||
> 2. **Runbook updates:** Document recovery procedures for index corruption (today it was tribal knowledge)
|
||||
> 3. **Customer communication template:** Pre-written incident comms for <30min response time
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Long-term (Next Quarter):**
|
||||
> 1. **Incident response training:** All engineers will complete tabletop exercises (scheduled for Dec)
|
||||
> 2. **Database reliability investment:** Hiring database SRE, implementing automated failover
|
||||
> 3. **Proactive monitoring:** Detect schema migration risks before they reach production
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ## Transparency Commitment
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Public postmortem:** I'm publishing a blameless postmortem on our engineering blog by Friday (I'll share draft with you first for input). Customers deserve to know we're taking this seriously and learning from it.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Monthly reliability reports:** Starting this month, I'll share incident metrics at exec meetings (MTTR, incident count, severity breakdown) so you have visibility into trends.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Ask anything:** I know you'll have questions. I'm available all day Monday—no meeting too small, no question too uncomfortable.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> ## What I Need from You
|
||||
>
|
||||
> 1. **Approval for database SRE hire** (unplanned $180K/year) - this is our #1 reliability gap
|
||||
> 2. **Customer outreach support** - If any of the 8 executive escalations need personal attention from CEO/CTO, let me know
|
||||
> 3. **Patience** - We'll have fewer feature releases next 2 weeks while we prioritize reliability
|
||||
>
|
||||
> I'm deeply sorry for this failure. Our customers and our team deserved better. We're fixing it.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> —CTO Name
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **Office hours:** Monday 9am-6pm, my door is open
|
||||
|
||||
**Why This Works:**
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Headline:** Acknowledges failure explicitly ("We Failed") - shows accountability, builds trust
|
||||
✅ **Structure:** What/Why/What We're Doing - clear, logical flow
|
||||
✅ **Specificity:** Exact numbers (847 customers, 4.5 hours, $15K) not vague ("many," "several")
|
||||
✅ **Accountability:** "I take responsibility" (named CTO) vs passive "mistakes were made"
|
||||
✅ **Show don't tell:** Timeline with timestamps shows urgency, not just "we responded quickly"
|
||||
✅ **Humanization:** Named engineer (Sarah), personal language ("deeply sorry"), emotional honesty
|
||||
✅ **Transparency:** Admits underlying causes (not just immediate trigger), commits to public postmortem
|
||||
✅ **Credibility:** Concrete actions with timelines (not vague "we'll do better")
|
||||
✅ **Stakes:** Shows revenue impact ($15K SLA credits) and customer escalations (8 to executives)
|
||||
✅ **Call-to-action:** Specific asks (SRE hire approval, customer outreach, patience on features)
|
||||
✅ **Accessibility:** "Office hours Monday 9am-6pm" - invites conversation, not defensive
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Self-Assessment Using Rubric
|
||||
|
||||
**Headline Clarity (5/5):** "We Failed 80% of Our Customers" - impossible to misunderstand
|
||||
**Structure (5/5):** What/Why/What We're Doing + Transparency Commitment - clear flow
|
||||
**Evidence Quality (5/5):** Specific data (847 customers, timeline with timestamps, $15K impact)
|
||||
**Audience Fit (5/5):** Mixed technical/non-technical with explanations, addresses exec concerns (customer impact, revenue, capability)
|
||||
**Storytelling (5/5):** Shows (timeline, named people) vs tells, humanizes data (8 escalations to executives = serious)
|
||||
**Accountability (5/5):** CTO takes responsibility explicitly, no passive voice or blame-shifting
|
||||
**Actionability (5/5):** Concrete preventions with timelines, clear asks with budget impact
|
||||
**Tone (5/5):** Serious, accountable, solution-oriented - matches crisis situation
|
||||
**Transparency (5/5):** Admits underlying causes, commits to public postmortem, invites questions
|
||||
**Credibility (5/5):** Vulnerable (admits inadequate process), shows work (root cause analysis), commits with specifics
|
||||
|
||||
**Average: 5.0/5** ✓ Production-ready
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Techniques Demonstrated
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Crisis Communication Pattern:** Acknowledge → Accountability → Action → Transparency
|
||||
2. **Specificity:** 847 customers (not "many"), 4.5 hours (not "extended"), $15K (not "financial impact")
|
||||
3. **Named Accountability:** "As CTO, I approved..." (not "the team" or "we")
|
||||
4. **Timeline Storytelling:** Timestamps create urgency and show response speed
|
||||
5. **Tiered Actions:** Immediate (this week) / Short-term (30 days) / Long-term (quarter) - shows comprehensive thinking
|
||||
6. **Vulnerability:** "I take responsibility", "deeply sorry", "customers deserved better" - builds trust through honesty
|
||||
7. **Stakeholder Addressing:** Customers (SLA credits, office hours), Team (supported through incident), Executives (asks for support)
|
||||
8. **Open Communication:** "Ask anything", "no question too uncomfortable", "my door is open" - invites dialogue
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Alternative Version: External Customer Communication
|
||||
|
||||
If communicating to customers (not internal execs), use Before-After-Bridge structure:
|
||||
|
||||
**Before:** "On Saturday morning, you may have experienced errors accessing our service. For 4.5 hours, 80% of requests failed."
|
||||
|
||||
**After:** "Service is fully restored. We've issued automatic SLA credits to affected accounts (no action needed), and we've implemented safeguards to prevent this specific failure."
|
||||
|
||||
**Bridge:** "Here's what happened and what we learned: [simplified root cause without technical jargon]. We're publishing a detailed postmortem on our blog Friday, and I'm personally available for questions: [email]."
|
||||
|
||||
**Key differences from internal version:**
|
||||
- Less technical detail (no "corrupted indexes")
|
||||
- More emphasis on customer impact and resolution
|
||||
- Explicit next steps for customers (SLA credits automatic, email for questions)
|
||||
- Still accountable and transparent, but focused on customer needs not internal process
|
||||
465
skills/communication-storytelling/resources/methodology.md
Normal file
465
skills/communication-storytelling/resources/methodology.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,465 @@
|
||||
# Communication Storytelling Methodology
|
||||
|
||||
Advanced techniques for complex multi-stakeholder communications, persuasion frameworks, and medium-specific adaptations.
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Advanced Communication Progress:
|
||||
- [ ] Step 1: Map stakeholders and create versions
|
||||
- [ ] Step 2: Apply persuasion principles
|
||||
- [ ] Step 3: Adapt to medium
|
||||
- [ ] Step 4: Build credibility and trust
|
||||
- [ ] Step 5: Test and iterate
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1:** Map stakeholders by influence/interest. Create tailored versions. See [1. Multi-Stakeholder Communications](#1-multi-stakeholder-communications).
|
||||
**Step 2:** Apply Cialdini principles and cognitive biases. See [2. Persuasion Frameworks](#2-persuasion-frameworks).
|
||||
**Step 3:** Adapt narrative to email, slides, video, or written form. See [3. Medium-Specific Adaptations](#3-medium-specific-adaptations).
|
||||
**Step 4:** Build credibility through vulnerability, data transparency, and accountability. See [4. Building Credibility](#4-building-credibility).
|
||||
**Step 5:** Test with target audience segment, gather feedback, iterate. See [5. Testing and Iteration](#5-testing-and-iteration).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Multi-Stakeholder Communications
|
||||
|
||||
### Stakeholder Mapping
|
||||
|
||||
**When multiple audiences need different versions of the same message.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Power-Interest Matrix:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
High Interest
|
||||
|
|
||||
Engage | Manage Closely
|
||||
Actively | (Key Players)
|
||||
--------------|------------------
|
||||
Monitor | Keep Informed
|
||||
(Minimal | (Keep Satisfied)
|
||||
Effort) |
|
||||
|
|
||||
Low Interest
|
||||
Low Power → High Power
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Mapping process:**
|
||||
1. List all stakeholders (executives, employees, customers, investors, regulators, public)
|
||||
2. Plot each on power-interest matrix
|
||||
3. Identify information needs for each quadrant
|
||||
4. Create communication strategy per quadrant
|
||||
|
||||
**Example: Product Sunset Announcement**
|
||||
- **CEO (High Power, High Interest):** Full business case with financials, strategic rationale, risk mitigation, resource reallocation plan
|
||||
- **Affected Customers (Low Power, High Interest):** Migration path, support timeline, feature parity in new product, testimonials from early migrators
|
||||
- **Sales Team (Medium Power, High Interest):** Objection handling guide, competitive positioning, incentive structure for upselling to new product
|
||||
- **General Employees (Low Power, Low Interest):** Company blog post with headline, 3 key points, link to FAQ
|
||||
|
||||
### Creating Tailored Versions
|
||||
|
||||
**Core message stays the same. Emphasis, detail, and proof vary by audience.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Technique: Message Map**
|
||||
1. **Headline:** Same for all audiences (consistent message)
|
||||
2. **Key Points:** Reorder by audience priorities (exec cares about ROI first, engineers care about technical approach first)
|
||||
3. **Proof:** Swap evidence types (execs want financial data, customers want testimonials, engineers want benchmarks)
|
||||
4. **CTA:** Tailor to authority level (exec approves, manager implements, IC adopts)
|
||||
|
||||
**Example: API Deprecation Announcement**
|
||||
|
||||
**Version A (Engineering Managers):**
|
||||
- Headline: "We're deprecating API v1 on Dec 31 to focus resources on v2 (3x faster, 10x more scalable)"
|
||||
- Key Points: (1) Technical improvements in v2, (2) Migration guide with code samples, (3) Support timeline and office hours
|
||||
- Proof: Performance benchmarks, migration time estimates (2-4 hours per service)
|
||||
- CTA: "Schedule migration for your team by Nov 15 using migration tool [link]"
|
||||
|
||||
**Version B (Executives):**
|
||||
- Headline: "We're deprecating API v1 to reduce technical debt and accelerate product velocity"
|
||||
- Key Points: (1) Cost savings ($500K annually in infrastructure), (2) Faster feature delivery (v2 reduces development time 40%), (3) Improved reliability (99.99% uptime vs 99.9%)
|
||||
- Proof: Financial impact, customer satisfaction improvement, competitive positioning
|
||||
- CTA: "Approve $50K migration support budget to ensure smooth transition by year-end"
|
||||
|
||||
**Version C (External Developers):**
|
||||
- Headline: "API v1 is being sunset on Dec 31, 2024 - migrate to v2 for better performance and features"
|
||||
- Key Points: (1) Why we're doing this (focus on modern architecture), (2) What you gain (3x faster, new capabilities), (3) How to migrate (step-by-step guide)
|
||||
- Proof: v2 adoption stats (80% of new integrations), customer testimonials, performance comparisons
|
||||
- CTA: "Start migration today using our automated migration tool [link] - we're here to help"
|
||||
|
||||
### Audience Segmentation Framework
|
||||
|
||||
**When you can't create individual versions for each person, segment by shared characteristics.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Segmentation dimensions:**
|
||||
- **Expertise:** Novice, practitioner, expert (affects jargon, depth, proof type)
|
||||
- **Decision role:** Recommender, influencer, approver, implementer, end-user (affects CTA, urgency)
|
||||
- **Concern:** Risk-averse, cost-conscious, innovation-focused, status-quo-defender (affects framing)
|
||||
- **Time:** 30 seconds (headline only), 5 minutes (executive summary), 30 minutes (full narrative)
|
||||
|
||||
**Technique: Create master document with expandable sections**
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# [Headline - same for all]
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary (30 seconds - for approvers)
|
||||
[3 sentences: problem, solution, ask]
|
||||
|
||||
## Full Story (5 minutes - for influencers)
|
||||
[Complete narrative with key points and proof]
|
||||
|
||||
## Technical Deep Dive (30 minutes - for implementers)
|
||||
[Detailed analysis, methodology, alternatives considered]
|
||||
|
||||
## FAQ (self-service - for end users)
|
||||
[Anticipated questions with concise answers]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Persuasion Frameworks
|
||||
|
||||
### Cialdini's 6 Principles of Influence
|
||||
|
||||
**1. Reciprocity** - People feel obligated to return favors
|
||||
- **Application:** Offer value first (free tool, helpful analysis, early access) before asking
|
||||
- **Example:** "We've prepared a cost-benefit analysis for your team [attached]. After reviewing, would you be open to a 15-minute conversation about implementation?"
|
||||
|
||||
**2. Commitment & Consistency** - People want to act consistently with past commitments
|
||||
- **Application:** Get small agreement first, then build to bigger ask
|
||||
- **Example:** "You mentioned last quarter that improving customer satisfaction was a top priority. This initiative directly addresses the #1 complaint in our NPS surveys."
|
||||
|
||||
**3. Social Proof** - People look to others' behavior for guidance
|
||||
- **Application:** Show that similar people/companies have adopted your recommendation
|
||||
- **Example:** "3 of our top 5 competitors have already implemented this approach. Salesforce saw 40% improvement in metric X within 6 months."
|
||||
|
||||
**4. Authority** - People trust credible experts
|
||||
- **Application:** Cite recognized experts, credentials, data sources
|
||||
- **Example:** "Gartner's 2024 report identifies this as a 'must-have' capability. We've consulted with Dr. Smith, the leading researcher in this space, to design our approach."
|
||||
|
||||
**5. Liking** - People say yes to those they like and relate to
|
||||
- **Application:** Find common ground, acknowledge their perspective, show empathy
|
||||
- **Example:** "I know the engineering team has been stretched thin with the platform migration—I've felt that pain on my own team. That's why this proposal includes dedicated support resources so you're not doing it alone."
|
||||
|
||||
**6. Scarcity** - People want what's limited or exclusive
|
||||
- **Application:** Highlight time constraints, limited availability, opportunity cost
|
||||
- **Example:** "The vendor's discount expires Nov 30. If we don't decide by then, we'll pay 30% more in 2025, which likely means cutting scope or delaying launch."
|
||||
|
||||
### Cognitive Biases to Leverage (Ethically)
|
||||
|
||||
**Loss Aversion** - People fear losses more than they value equivalent gains
|
||||
- ❌ Weak: "This will increase revenue by $500K"
|
||||
- ✅ Strong: "Without this, we'll lose $500K in revenue to competitors who've already adopted it"
|
||||
|
||||
**Anchoring** - First number mentioned sets reference point
|
||||
- ❌ Weak: "This costs $100K" (sounds expensive)
|
||||
- ✅ Strong: "Industry standard is $500K. We've negotiated down to $100K through our existing vendor relationship" (sounds like a deal)
|
||||
|
||||
**Status Quo Bias** - People prefer current state unless change is compelling
|
||||
- **Counter with:** Show status quo is unstable ("we're already losing ground") + paint vivid future state + provide clear transition path
|
||||
|
||||
**Availability Heuristic** - Recent vivid examples feel more probable
|
||||
- **Leverage:** Use recent concrete examples ("just last week, Customer X churned citing this exact issue") rather than abstract statistics
|
||||
|
||||
**Framing Effect** - Same info presented differently drives different decisions
|
||||
- ❌ Negative frame: "This approach has a 20% failure rate"
|
||||
- ✅ Positive frame: "This approach succeeds 80% of the time"
|
||||
- ⚠️ Use ethically: Don't hide risks, but emphasize benefits
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Medium-Specific Adaptations
|
||||
|
||||
### Email (Inbox → Action)
|
||||
|
||||
**Constraints:** Skimmed in 30 seconds, competing with 50 other emails, mobile-first
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
1. **Subject line:** Specific + actionable + urgency if appropriate
|
||||
- ✅ "Decision needed by Friday: API v1 deprecation plan"
|
||||
- ❌ "API Update"
|
||||
2. **First sentence:** Bottom line up front (BLUF)
|
||||
- "We should deprecate API v1 on Dec 31 to focus resources on v2 (3x faster, saves $500K annually)."
|
||||
3. **Body:** 3-5 short paragraphs or bullets, white space between each
|
||||
4. **CTA:** Bold, single action, deadline
|
||||
- **"Reply by Friday Nov 15 with approval or questions."**
|
||||
5. **Optional:** "TL;DR" section at top for busy executives
|
||||
|
||||
**Best practices:**
|
||||
- One CTA per email (not 5 different asks)
|
||||
- Front-load: Most important info in first 2 sentences
|
||||
- Mobile-friendly: Short paragraphs, no long sentences, use bullets
|
||||
- Progressive disclosure: Link to full doc for details
|
||||
|
||||
### Slides (Presentation Support)
|
||||
|
||||
**Constraints:** Glance-able, visual-first, presenter provides narration
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
1. **Title slide:** Headline + your name/date
|
||||
2. **Situation slide:** Context in 3-4 bullets
|
||||
3. **Complication slide:** Problem/opportunity with data
|
||||
4. **Resolution slide:** Your recommendation
|
||||
5. **Support slides:** One key point per slide with visual proof
|
||||
6. **Next steps slide:** Clear CTA with timeline and owners
|
||||
|
||||
**Design principles:**
|
||||
- **One message per slide:** Slide title = key takeaway
|
||||
- **Signal-to-noise:** Remove everything that doesn't support the point
|
||||
- **Visual hierarchy:** Big headline, supporting data smaller
|
||||
- **Consistency:** Same fonts, colors, layouts across deck
|
||||
|
||||
**Data visualization:**
|
||||
- Bar charts for comparisons
|
||||
- Line charts for trends over time
|
||||
- Pie charts for part-to-whole (use sparingly)
|
||||
- Callout boxes for key numbers
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns:**
|
||||
- ❌ Walls of text (slide should be glance-able in 3 seconds)
|
||||
- ❌ Tiny font (nothing below 18pt)
|
||||
- ❌ Reading slides word-for-word (presenter should add value)
|
||||
- ❌ Clip art or decorative images (signal, not noise)
|
||||
|
||||
### Written Narrative (Memo/Blog/Article)
|
||||
|
||||
**Constraints:** Deep reading, need to sustain attention, compete with distraction
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
1. **Headline:** Compelling + specific
|
||||
2. **Lede:** 2-3 sentences capturing essence (could stand alone)
|
||||
3. **Body:** Narrative arc with clear sections, headers, transitions
|
||||
4. **Conclusion:** Restate key takeaway + CTA
|
||||
|
||||
**Narrative devices:**
|
||||
- **Scene-setting:** "It was 2am on a Saturday when the alerts started firing..."
|
||||
- **Dialogue:** "As our CEO said in the all-hands, 'We have to make a choice: grow slower or raise prices.'"
|
||||
- **Foreshadowing:** "We didn't know it yet, but this decision would reshape our entire roadmap."
|
||||
- **Callbacks:** "Remember the $2M revenue gap from Q1? Here's how we closed it."
|
||||
|
||||
**Pacing:**
|
||||
- **Hook:** First paragraph must grab attention
|
||||
- **Vary sentence length:** Short for impact. Longer, more complex sentences for explanation and detail.
|
||||
- **Section breaks:** Use headers and white space every 3-4 paragraphs
|
||||
- **Pull quotes:** Highlight key insights in larger text/boxes
|
||||
|
||||
### Video Script (Speaking)
|
||||
|
||||
**Constraints:** Can't skim ahead, linear consumption, attention drops after 90 seconds
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
1. **Hook (0-10s):** Provoke curiosity or state benefit
|
||||
- "Most product launches fail. Here's why ours succeeded."
|
||||
2. **Promise (10-20s):** What viewer will learn
|
||||
- "In the next 3 minutes, I'll show you the 3 decisions that made the difference."
|
||||
3. **Content (20s-2:30):** Deliver on promise with clear segments
|
||||
- Pattern: Point → Proof → Example (repeat 3x)
|
||||
4. **Recap (2:30-2:50):** Restate key takeaways
|
||||
5. **CTA (2:50-3:00):** What to do next
|
||||
|
||||
**Speaking techniques:**
|
||||
- **Conversational tone:** Write how you speak, not formal prose
|
||||
- **Signposting:** "First... Second... Finally..." (helps viewer follow structure)
|
||||
- **Emphasis:** Slow down and pause before key points
|
||||
- **Visuals:** Show, don't just tell (charts, screenshots, demos)
|
||||
|
||||
**Time budgets:**
|
||||
- 30-second: Headline + one proof point + CTA
|
||||
- 2-minute: Headline + 3 key points with brief proof + CTA
|
||||
- 5-minute: Full narrative with examples and Q&A preview
|
||||
- 10+ minute: Deep dive with sections, detailed proof, objection handling
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Building Credibility
|
||||
|
||||
### Vulnerability and Honesty
|
||||
|
||||
**Counter-intuitive:** Acknowledging weaknesses builds trust.
|
||||
|
||||
**Technique: Preemptive objection handling**
|
||||
- ❌ Hide risks: "This will definitely work"
|
||||
- ✅ Acknowledge risks: "This approach has risk X. Here's how we're mitigating it. If Y happens, we have fallback plan Z."
|
||||
|
||||
**Technique: Show your work**
|
||||
- ❌ Opaque: "We should invest $2M in this"
|
||||
- ✅ Transparent: "We should invest $2M based on: (1) $5M potential upside with 60% probability = $3M expected value, (2) $500K downside protection through phased rollout, (3) comparable to competitors' investments. See detailed model [link]."
|
||||
|
||||
**Technique: Admit what you don't know**
|
||||
- ❌ Bluff: "We're confident this will work"
|
||||
- ✅ Honest: "We're confident about X and Y based on [evidence]. We're less certain about Z—it depends on how customers respond. We'll know more after 30-day pilot."
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Transparency
|
||||
|
||||
**Principle:** Show your data sources, assumptions, and limitations.
|
||||
|
||||
**Template:**
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Data Sources
|
||||
- Customer churn data (internal, last 6 months, n=450)
|
||||
- Competitor pricing (public websites, verified Oct 2024)
|
||||
- Market size (Gartner 2024 report, TAM methodology)
|
||||
|
||||
## Assumptions
|
||||
- Customer behavior remains stable (reasonable given 2-year historical consistency)
|
||||
- Competitors don't change pricing in next 6 months (risk: we'd need to adjust)
|
||||
- Economic conditions don't deteriorate (sensitive: 10% GDP contraction would reduce TAM by 30%)
|
||||
|
||||
## Limitations
|
||||
- This analysis doesn't include international markets (out of scope, could add 20% upside)
|
||||
- Sample size for Segment B is small (n=40, confidence interval wider)
|
||||
- Qualitative feedback from 12 interviews, not statistically representative
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this works:**
|
||||
- Shows intellectual rigor (you've thought through limitations)
|
||||
- Builds trust (you're not hiding weaknesses)
|
||||
- Helps audience assess reliability (they can judge if limitations matter for their decision)
|
||||
|
||||
### Accountability and Track Record
|
||||
|
||||
**Principle:** Show past predictions/recommendations and outcomes.
|
||||
|
||||
**Technique: Own past mistakes**
|
||||
- "Last year I recommended X, which underperformed. Here's what I learned: [lessons]. That's why this recommendation is different: [how you applied lessons]."
|
||||
|
||||
**Technique: Show calibration**
|
||||
- "In Q1, I forecasted 15-20% growth with 70% confidence. Actual: 18% growth (within range). In Q2, I forecasted 25-30% with 60% confidence. Actual: 22% growth (below range because of market headwinds we didn't anticipate). Here's my Q3 forecast and confidence level..."
|
||||
|
||||
**Technique: Commitments with skin in the game**
|
||||
- ❌ No stakes: "I think this will work"
|
||||
- ✅ Stakes: "I'm confident enough to commit: if this doesn't hit 80% of target by Q2, I'll personally lead the pivot plan"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Testing and Iteration
|
||||
|
||||
### Pre-Testing Your Narrative
|
||||
|
||||
**Before sending to full audience, test with representative sample.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Technique: "Stupid questions" test**
|
||||
1. Find someone from target audience who hasn't seen your draft
|
||||
2. Ask them to read it quickly (how they'll actually consume it)
|
||||
3. Ask: "What's the main point?" (tests headline clarity)
|
||||
4. Ask: "What should I do next?" (tests CTA clarity)
|
||||
5. Ask: "What questions do you have?" (reveals gaps)
|
||||
6. Watch for confused expressions (signals unclear points)
|
||||
|
||||
**Technique: Read-aloud test**
|
||||
- Read your draft aloud to yourself
|
||||
- Mark anywhere you stumble (probably unclear writing)
|
||||
- Mark anywhere you get bored (probably too long or off-topic)
|
||||
- Fix those sections
|
||||
|
||||
**Technique: Time-constraint test**
|
||||
- Give someone 30 seconds to read your email/memo
|
||||
- Ask what they remember (should be headline + one key point)
|
||||
- If they can't recall your main point, your headline isn't clear enough
|
||||
|
||||
### Iteration Based on Feedback
|
||||
|
||||
**Common feedback patterns and fixes:**
|
||||
|
||||
**"I don't understand why this matters"**
|
||||
- Fix: Add stakes section showing cost of inaction
|
||||
- Fix: Connect to audience's stated priorities more explicitly
|
||||
|
||||
**"This feels biased"**
|
||||
- Fix: Acknowledge opposing viewpoints before countering them
|
||||
- Fix: Show data that goes against your conclusion, then explain why you still recommend it
|
||||
|
||||
**"Too long, didn't read it all"**
|
||||
- Fix: Add executive summary at top
|
||||
- Fix: Cut 30% (be ruthless - most drafts have filler)
|
||||
- Fix: Use more headers and bullet points for scannability
|
||||
|
||||
**"What about [objection]?"**
|
||||
- Fix: Add FAQ or objection-handling section
|
||||
- Fix: Preemptively address top 3 objections in main narrative
|
||||
|
||||
**"I need more proof"**
|
||||
- Fix: Add specific examples, data, or case studies
|
||||
- Fix: Cite credible external sources (not just your opinion)
|
||||
|
||||
### A/B Testing Headlines and CTAs
|
||||
|
||||
**When communicating to large audiences (email campaigns, announcements, marketing), test variations.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Headlines to test:**
|
||||
- Question vs statement: "Should we migrate to API v2?" vs "We're migrating to API v2 on Dec 31"
|
||||
- Benefit vs loss: "Gain 3x performance" vs "Don't fall behind competitors"
|
||||
- Specific vs general: "Save $500K annually" vs "Reduce costs significantly"
|
||||
|
||||
**CTAs to test:**
|
||||
- Urgent vs no deadline: "Reply by Friday" vs "Reply when ready"
|
||||
- Specific vs open: "Approve budget increase" vs "Share your thoughts"
|
||||
- One ask vs multiple: "Click here to migrate" vs "Migrate, read FAQ, or contact support"
|
||||
|
||||
**Measurement:**
|
||||
- Email: Open rate (headline test), Click-through rate (CTA test), Reply rate (overall effectiveness)
|
||||
- Presentation: Questions asked (clarity test), Decision made in meeting (persuasiveness)
|
||||
- Written: Time on page (engagement), Scroll depth (how far people read), CTA completion rate
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Advanced Narrative Techniques
|
||||
|
||||
### Metaphor Frameworks
|
||||
|
||||
**When explaining complex concepts to non-experts.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirements for good metaphors:**
|
||||
1. From audience's domain (don't explain unfamiliar with unfamiliar)
|
||||
2. Structural similarity (matches key relationships, not just superficial)
|
||||
3. Highlight key insight (clarifies main point, not just decorative)
|
||||
|
||||
**Example: Explaining Microservices**
|
||||
- ❌ Poor metaphor: "Like Lego blocks" (doesn't explain communication complexity)
|
||||
- ✅ Good metaphor: "Like specialized teams (frontend, backend, database) vs generalists. Teams can move faster independently, but now need coordination meetings (APIs) and shared understanding (contracts). When coordination breaks down (service outage), one team being down can block others."
|
||||
|
||||
**Framework: "It's like... but..."**
|
||||
- "It's like [familiar thing], but [key difference that matters]"
|
||||
- Example: "Technical debt is like financial debt—you borrow speed now, pay interest later. But unlike financial debt, technical debt's interest compounds faster and isn't visible on balance sheets."
|
||||
|
||||
### Narrative Arcs for Long-Form Content
|
||||
|
||||
**Three-Act Structure (Hollywood):**
|
||||
1. **Act 1 (Setup - 25%):** Introduce status quo, characters, problem
|
||||
2. **Act 2 (Conflict - 50%):** Obstacles, rising tension, attempts that fail
|
||||
3. **Act 3 (Resolution - 25%):** Climax, solution, new equilibrium
|
||||
|
||||
**Example: Product Pivot Story**
|
||||
- Act 1: "We launched in 2022 targeting small businesses with $50/month SaaS tool. First 6 months looked great: 200 customers, $10K MRR, good engagement."
|
||||
- Act 2: "But at month 9, churn spiked to 15% monthly. We tried: (1) More features—churn stayed high. (2) Better support—churn stayed high. (3) Lower price—churn got worse. We were burning cash and running out of runway."
|
||||
- Act 3: "We interviewed 50 churned customers. Breakthrough: Small businesses needed results in days, not months—they couldn't wait for ROI. We rebuilt as done-for-you service, not self-serve SaaS. Churn dropped to 2%, price increased 5x, customers became advocates. We hit $500K ARR 6 months later."
|
||||
|
||||
**In-Medias-Res (Start in the Middle):**
|
||||
- Begin with high-tension moment, then flash back to explain how you got there
|
||||
- Example: "It was 2am on Saturday when the CEO texted: 'How bad is it?' Our main database was corrupted, affecting 80% of customers. We had 6 hours before Monday morning east coast wakeup. Here's what happened and what we learned."
|
||||
|
||||
### Emotional Arcs
|
||||
|
||||
**Different situations require different emotional journeys.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Inspiration Arc (Hero's Journey):**
|
||||
- Start: Ordinary world (relatability)
|
||||
- Middle: Challenge and struggle (empathy)
|
||||
- End: Triumph and transformation (hope)
|
||||
- **Use for:** Change management, celebrating wins, motivating teams
|
||||
|
||||
**Trust Arc (Crisis Communication):**
|
||||
- Start: Acknowledge problem (honesty)
|
||||
- Middle: Show accountability and action (responsibility)
|
||||
- End: Commit to transparency and improvement (restoration)
|
||||
- **Use for:** Incidents, mistakes, sensitive topics
|
||||
|
||||
**Persuasion Arc (Proposal):**
|
||||
- Start: Shared problem (alignment)
|
||||
- Middle: Solution with proof (logic)
|
||||
- End: Clear path forward (confidence)
|
||||
- **Use for:** Recommendations, project proposals, strategic plans
|
||||
|
||||
**Avoid emotional manipulation:**
|
||||
- ✅ Authentic emotion from real stories
|
||||
- ❌ Manufactured emotion through exaggeration or fear-mongering
|
||||
- ✅ Hope grounded in evidence
|
||||
- ❌ False hope that ignores real risks
|
||||
260
skills/communication-storytelling/resources/template.md
Normal file
260
skills/communication-storytelling/resources/template.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,260 @@
|
||||
# Communication Storytelling Template
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Communication Template Progress:
|
||||
- [ ] Step 1: Gather audience intelligence
|
||||
- [ ] Step 2: Choose story structure
|
||||
- [ ] Step 3: Draft narrative elements
|
||||
- [ ] Step 4: Refine and polish
|
||||
- [ ] Step 5: Self-assess quality
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1:** Ask input questions below. Deep understanding of audience is critical. See [Input Questions](#input-questions).
|
||||
**Step 2:** Match structure to situation. See [Story Structures](#story-structures).
|
||||
**Step 3:** Fill quick template. Write headline first. See [Quick Template](#quick-template) and [Field Guidance](#field-guidance).
|
||||
**Step 4:** Apply storytelling techniques. See [Storytelling Techniques](#storytelling-techniques).
|
||||
**Step 5:** Check against quality criteria. See [Quality Checklist](#quality-checklist).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Input Questions
|
||||
|
||||
**Required inputs:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Message** - What information/analysis/data needs to be communicated? What's the core insight, supporting evidence, backstory?
|
||||
2. **Audience** - Who specifically (name/role)? Expertise level? What do they care about? Decision authority? Time available?
|
||||
3. **Purpose** - What should audience do: inform, persuade, inspire, build trust?
|
||||
4. **Context** - Stakes (low/medium/high)? Urgency? Sentiment (good/bad/neutral)? What do they already know?
|
||||
5. **Tone** - Formal vs casual? Optimistic vs realistic? Urgent vs measured? Celebratory vs sobering?
|
||||
|
||||
**Audience intelligence:**
|
||||
- What keeps them up at night?
|
||||
- What jargon do they use vs not understand?
|
||||
- What data/stories resonate with them?
|
||||
- What's their default response (skeptical, supportive, risk-averse)?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Template
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# [Headline: One-sentence essence of your message]
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Points
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. [First key point - most important or foundational]
|
||||
**Proof:** [Concrete evidence: data, example, quote, story]
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. [Second key point - builds on first]
|
||||
**Proof:** [Concrete evidence with comparison or context]
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. [Third key point - completes the arc]
|
||||
**Proof:** [Concrete evidence tied to audience's priorities]
|
||||
|
||||
## Call to Action
|
||||
[One clear statement of what audience should do next]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
## Context (optional)
|
||||
- **Audience:** [Who this is for]
|
||||
- **Background:** [What they need to know]
|
||||
- **Stakes:** [Why this matters]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Story Structures
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Problem-Solution-Benefit (PSB)
|
||||
**Best for:** Recommendations, proposals, project updates
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:** (1) Problem - clearly defined issue with quantified stakes, (2) Solution - your recommendation with rationale, (3) Benefit - tangible outcomes with numbers, (4) Next Steps - concrete ask with timeline
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:** "We should switch to monthly subscription pricing because it solves our unpredictable revenue problem. Current annual contracts create feast-or-famine cashflow (Q1 $800K, Q2 $200K). Monthly subscriptions smooth revenue, reduce sales cycle from 6 weeks to 1 week, and give us faster product feedback. Expected impact: +40% revenue predictability, -50% sales cycle time. Next step: 90-day pilot with new customers."
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Hero's Journey (Transformation)
|
||||
**Best for:** Major changes, pivots, overcoming challenges
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:** (1) Where We Were - comfortable but problem lurking, (2) Why We Had to Change - problem emerges, (3) What We Tried - struggles that build credibility, (4) What Worked - the breakthrough with evidence, (5) What We Do Now - new normal with lessons, (6) Call to Action
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:** "We've transformed from product-first to customer-first. For 3 years, we built features our engineers loved but churned 15% monthly. Data showed customers didn't understand our value. We tested: (1) Better onboarding—5% improvement, (2) Simpler pricing—no change, (3) Talking to 100 churned customers—breakthrough. They needed workflow automation, not platform flexibility. We rebuilt around workflows, churn dropped to 3%, NPS jumped from 32 to 61. Now every feature starts with customer interviews. Recommendation: Every team should talk to 5 customers this quarter."
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Before-After-Bridge (BAB)
|
||||
**Best for:** Product launches, feature announcements, process improvements
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:** (1) Before - painful current state (audience's lived experience), (2) After - improved future state (what becomes possible), (3) Bridge - your solution (the path forward), (4) Call to Action
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:** "Before: Customer success team spends 15 hours/week manually pulling data, creating charts, personalizing emails—error-prone and soul-crushing. After: One-click automated reports with live data, personalized insights, beautiful visuals—freeing 15 hours for high-value retention work. Bridge: We built CS Analytics Suite, launching March 1st with training and support. Sign up by Feb 15 for early access."
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Situation-Complication-Resolution (SCR)
|
||||
**Best for:** Executive communications, board updates, investor relations
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:** (1) Situation - neutral baseline with context, (2) Complication - what changed or what's at stake, (3) Resolution - your strategy to address it, (4) Implications - impact on goals/priorities, (5) Call to Action
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:** "Situation: We planned $10M ARR by Q4 with 70% from enterprise. Complication: Top 3 enterprise deals ($2M ARR) pushed to 2025 due to budget freezes—we'll miss target by 20%. Resolution: Pivoting resources to mid-market (faster sales cycles). Reallocating 2 AEs from enterprise to mid-market, launching self-serve tier for sub-$50K deals, extending runway by cutting non-essential hiring. Revised target: $8.5M ARR, 50% enterprise/50% mid-market. Risk: mid-market has higher churn, but faster iteration. Ask: Approve budget reallocation and delay 3 engineering hires to Q1 2025."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Field Guidance
|
||||
|
||||
### Crafting Headlines
|
||||
**Purpose:** Capture essence in one sentence. Reader understands your core message in 10 seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Formula options:**
|
||||
- Recommendation: "We should [do X] because [key reason]"
|
||||
- Insight: "[Counter-intuitive finding] means [implication]"
|
||||
- Achievement: "We've [accomplished X], proven by [key metric]"
|
||||
- Problem: "[Problem] is costing us [quantified impact]"
|
||||
|
||||
**Good:** ✅ "We've reached product-market fit (proven by 28% growth with flat sales capacity)"
|
||||
**Bad:** ❌ "Q3 Business Review" (too vague, no insight)
|
||||
|
||||
### Structuring Key Points
|
||||
**Purpose:** 3-5 supporting ideas with logical flow. Each point must be distinct, well-supported, and advance the narrative.
|
||||
|
||||
**Flow options:** Chronological (past→present→future) | Problem→Solution (pain→fix→benefit) | Importance-ranked (critical→supporting→implications)
|
||||
|
||||
**Each key point needs:**
|
||||
- Clear claim (one sentence)
|
||||
- Concrete proof (data, examples, quotes)
|
||||
- Connection to headline
|
||||
|
||||
**Testing:** Can you defend this with evidence? Is it distinct from other points? Does it pass "so what?" test? Would removing it weaken your case?
|
||||
|
||||
### Adding Proof
|
||||
**Purpose:** Evidence that substantiates claims. Without proof, you're asking blind trust.
|
||||
|
||||
**Types:**
|
||||
1. **Quantitative:** "Churn dropped from 8% to 3% monthly" | "2x faster than industry benchmark"
|
||||
2. **Qualitative:** Customer quotes | User stories | Expert opinions
|
||||
3. **Examples:** Case studies | Analogies | Scenarios
|
||||
4. **Logic:** First principles | Causal chains | Elimination ("tested 5, 4 failed")
|
||||
|
||||
**Best practices:** One key piece per point | Cite sources | Use comparisons for context | Humanize data with stories
|
||||
|
||||
### Writing Call-to-Action
|
||||
**Purpose:** Clear statement of what audience should do next.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strong CTAs:** ✅ Specific ("Approve $500K budget"), Achievable ("Attend 30-min demo"), Time-bound ("Respond by Friday"), Clear owner
|
||||
**Weak CTAs:** ❌ Vague ("Think about this"), Passive ("It would be great if..."), No timeline, Too many asks
|
||||
|
||||
**By purpose:**
|
||||
- Inform: "No action needed, will update next week"
|
||||
- Persuade: "Approve [decision] by [date]"
|
||||
- Inspire: "Each team should [action] this quarter"
|
||||
- Build trust: "Here's our plan, open to feedback by [date]"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Storytelling Techniques
|
||||
|
||||
### Specificity Over Generality
|
||||
❌ Vague: "We have many happy customers"
|
||||
✅ Specific: "47 customers gave 5-star reviews in past month, 32 mentioning faster load times"
|
||||
|
||||
❌ Vague: "This will improve efficiency"
|
||||
✅ Specific: "This reduces manual work from 15 hours/week to 2 hours, freeing 520 hours annually per team member"
|
||||
|
||||
### Show, Don't Tell
|
||||
❌ Tell: "Our customers love the new feature"
|
||||
✅ Show: "Within 2 weeks, 83% of active users tried the new feature, 67% use it daily. Acme Corp said it 'eliminated 3 hours of manual work each day.'"
|
||||
|
||||
❌ Tell: "The problem is urgent"
|
||||
✅ Show: "We lose $50K in potential revenue every week this persists. Three major prospects ($1.5M ARR combined) cited this as their reason for choosing competitors."
|
||||
|
||||
### Humanize Data
|
||||
❌ Raw: "Customer acquisition cost increased 23% in Q3"
|
||||
✅ Humanized: "We're now spending $1,150 to acquire each customer, up from $935—that's the cost of hiring an intern for a month, per customer"
|
||||
|
||||
❌ Raw: "System latency is 450ms at p95"
|
||||
✅ Humanized: "When customers click 'Submit Order,' they wait almost half a second—long enough to wonder if it worked and click again, creating duplicate orders"
|
||||
|
||||
### Build Tension and Resolution
|
||||
❌ No tension: "We launched a new feature and it's doing well. Adoption is 75%."
|
||||
|
||||
✅ With tension: "After 6 months building feature X, we launched to crickets—only 12% adoption in week 1. We interviewed non-adopters and discovered they didn't understand it solved their problem. We rewrote in-app messaging to show use cases, and adoption jumped to 75% in 2 weeks."
|
||||
|
||||
**Pattern:** Set up expectation → Introduce complication → Show struggle → Reveal resolution → Extract lesson
|
||||
|
||||
### Use Analogies from Audience's Domain
|
||||
- Technical→Executive: "Microservices are like specialized teams instead of generalists—faster iteration, but requires coordination overhead"
|
||||
- Data→Business: "This metric is a leading indicator, like smoke before fire—by the time revenue drops, we've already lost the battle"
|
||||
|
||||
### Lead with Insight, Not Data
|
||||
❌ Data-first: "Here are our Q3 numbers: $2.3M revenue, 520 customers, 3.2% churn, 58 NPS, 28% QoQ growth."
|
||||
|
||||
✅ Insight-first: "We've hit product-market fit. The proof: Revenue grew 28% while sales capacity stayed flat—customers are pulling product from us. Churn dropped 36% as we focused on power users. NPS jumped 16 points to 58, driven by the exact 3 features we bet on."
|
||||
|
||||
**Pattern:** Lead with conclusion → Support with 2-3 key data points → Explain what data means → State implications
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Before delivering, verify:
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
- [ ] Headline captures essence in one sentence
|
||||
- [ ] 3-5 key points (distinct, not overlapping)
|
||||
- [ ] Logical flow (points build on each other)
|
||||
- [ ] Clear call-to-action
|
||||
|
||||
**Proof:**
|
||||
- [ ] Every claim has concrete evidence
|
||||
- [ ] Data is specific (numbers, names, dates)
|
||||
- [ ] Sources cited for major claims
|
||||
- [ ] Comparisons provide context
|
||||
|
||||
**Audience Fit:**
|
||||
- [ ] Jargon appropriate for expertise level
|
||||
- [ ] Tone matches situation
|
||||
- [ ] Length matches time constraints
|
||||
- [ ] Addresses audience's key concerns
|
||||
- [ ] Front-loads conclusions
|
||||
|
||||
**Storytelling:**
|
||||
- [ ] Uses specifics over generalities
|
||||
- [ ] Shows rather than tells
|
||||
- [ ] Humanizes data with context/stories
|
||||
- [ ] Builds tension and resolution where appropriate
|
||||
- [ ] Uses analogies from audience's domain
|
||||
|
||||
**Clarity:**
|
||||
- [ ] Can summarize in one sentence
|
||||
- [ ] Each point passes "so what?" test
|
||||
- [ ] No passive voice hiding accountability
|
||||
- [ ] No walls of text (uses white space, bullets, headers)
|
||||
- [ ] Reads aloud smoothly
|
||||
|
||||
**Integrity:**
|
||||
- [ ] Acknowledges limitations and risks
|
||||
- [ ] No misleading by omission
|
||||
- [ ] States assumptions explicitly
|
||||
- [ ] Distinguishes facts from speculation
|
||||
- [ ] Takes accountability
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact:**
|
||||
- [ ] Creates urgency if action needed
|
||||
- [ ] Builds confidence if trust needed
|
||||
- [ ] Provides clear next steps
|
||||
- [ ] Memorable (one key takeaway sticks)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Pitfalls
|
||||
|
||||
**Burying the lede:** ❌ "Let me give background... [500 words later] ...so here's what we should do" | ✅ "We should do X. Here's why: [background as support]"
|
||||
|
||||
**Death by bullets:** ❌ Slide deck with 50 bullets, no narrative thread | ✅ Narrative with bullets supporting each point
|
||||
|
||||
**Jargon mismatch:** ❌ Using terms executives don't know (or dumbing down for experts) | ✅ Matching sophistication to audience, defining terms when needed
|
||||
|
||||
**Data without interpretation:** ❌ "Churn is 3.2%, NPS is 58, CAC is $1,150" | ✅ "We're retaining customers well (3.2% churn is top quartile), but they're expensive to acquire ($1,150 CAC means 18-month payback)"
|
||||
|
||||
**Vague CTA:** ❌ "Let's be more customer-focused" | ✅ "Each team should interview 5 customers this quarter using the research guide [link]"
|
||||
|
||||
**No stakes:** ❌ "We should consider improving page load time" | ✅ "Page load time is 2.5 seconds, costing us 30% of potential conversions ($800K annually). Optimizing to 1 second recovers $240K in year 1."
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user