direct-response-copy

Direct Response Copy

Write copy whose only job is to cause one specific action — click, signup, purchase, reply. Governing principle: one page, one reader, one action. Every section either moves the reader toward that action or gets cut; persuasion comes from a named mechanism and real proof, never from volume or hype.

When to use / when not to

• Use for any asset with a conversion goal: landing/sales/opt-in pages, ads, promotional emails, upgrade prompts.
• Requires a positioning claim and a voice. If the positioning is missing or mushy, run skills/marketing/positioning-angles first — copy cannot rescue an undifferentiated claim. If a voice guide exists from skills/marketing/brand-voice, write within it; if not, sketch voice from intake and proceed.
• Multi-email automated flows → skills/marketing/email-sequences (it reuses this architecture per email). Content meant to rank → skills/marketing/seo-content. Recurring relationship email → skills/marketing/newsletter.

Intake

One batch; pull answers from existing artifacts (positioning statement, voice guide, lead magnet spec) before asking:

1. What asset, and what is the ONE action a successful reader takes?
2. What's the offer, and what does it cost the reader (money, time, email address)?
3. Who is the reader, and what's the #1 reason they'd hesitate? (If unknown, name the likely objection yourself and flag it.)
4. What proof exists — testimonials, case studies, numbers, credentials, recognizable customers?
5. Any real deadline, capacity limit, or price change?

Don't stall: with an offer and audience in hand, draft with stated assumptions rather than blocking on Q3–Q5 — but never fill Q4/Q5 gaps with invented material.

Workflow — build the eight components in order

1. Hook

Draft 3–5 hooks using different formulas, present them with one-line rationales, and have the user pick (default to your top pick if they defer):

Formula	Template
Curiosity	"The one thing [person] gets wrong about [topic]"
Specificity	"How I [specific result] in [specific timeframe]"
Benefit	"[Specific benefit] without [specific drawback]"
Question	"Are you [specific situation]?"
Bold statement	"[Controversial claim about the industry]"

Decision rules: cold traffic → curiosity or bold; warm traffic that knows the problem → benefit or specificity; jaded market → specificity with proof baked in. A specificity hook may only use results that actually happened.

2. Problem validation

Show the reader you understand their situation before selling anything. Formula: "You're [specific situation], and it's frustrating because [specific consequence]." Rule: use the reader's own words (support tickets, reviews, sales calls) when available — felt understanding is what keeps them reading.

3. Mechanism

Explain how the result happens, using the named mechanism from the positioning statement. Formula: "Most people try [common approach]. But here's what works: [named mechanism]." Rule: the mechanism must be named ("The Micro-Launch Method"), never "our approach". No mechanism in the positioning → stop and get one from skills/marketing/positioning-angles.

4. Solution presentation

Present the offer as the mechanism made available — inevitable, not salesy. Formula: "That's why we created [offer]. It [specific benefit] by [mechanism]."

5. Social proof

Deploy the strongest proof from intake Q4: testimonials → results-bearing case studies → customer counts → awards → metrics. Hard rule: never fabricate testimonials, customer counts, or statistics. If proof is thin, substitute mechanism logic + a risk reversal (guarantee, free tier, no-card trial) and tell the user proof collection is their highest-leverage next task.

6. Objection handling

Take the #1 objection (intake Q3) plus the standard four — no time, too expensive, tried it before, won't work for me — and answer the 2–3 that fit this reader. Formula: "You might be thinking [objection]. Here's the truth: [answer]." Rule: answer honestly or reframe; never deny a true cost ("it does take 30 minutes a day — here's why that's the point").

7. Call-to-action

One action, stated identically everywhere it appears (long pages: after solution, after proof, at the end). Formulas: simple ("Start your free trial"), benefit-focused ("Get the checklist now"), curiosity ("See how it works"), low-friction ("Reply and I'll send it over"). Decision rules: high-commitment offers → low-friction or curiosity CTA; free offers → benefit-focused. Never two competing actions on one page.

8. Urgency

Use only urgency that is true: a real deadline, real capacity limit, real price change, or the honest cost of waiting ("every week without X costs you Y"). Hard rule: no fake countdowns, fake scarcity, or evergreen 'closing soon'. If nothing real exists, end on the cost of inaction and skip the section.

Then: voice pass and pressure test

Rewrite the draft through the voice guide (or stated voice assumptions), then run the persuasion checklist: specific beats vague ("increase revenue 23%" > "increase revenue" — only with a real number); proof quantified where honest; reciprocity — the page gives value before asking; authority shown, not claimed; consistency — the argument aligns with what the reader already believes about their problem.

Required output format

# [Asset type] — [Offer]
**Goal action:** [the one action] · **Reader:** [who] · **Voice:** [guide reference or stated assumption]

---
[HOOK]
...
[PROBLEM]
...
[MECHANISM]
...
[SOLUTION]
...
[PROOF]
...
[OBJECTIONS]
...
[CTA]
...
[URGENCY]
...
---

## Hook alternates
2. "..." — [formula, when to prefer it]
3. "..." — ...

## Gaps flagged
- [missing proof, unverified claims, urgency omitted because nothing real exists]

## Conversion checklist
[the quality bar below, each item marked PASS/FAIL for this draft]

Deliver the copy clean (section labels are for the user's review; note they're removable). For ads or short emails, compress: hook, problem/mechanism fused, CTA — same rules, fewer sections.

Quality bar (check before delivering)

• One CTA action; every CTA instance asks for exactly the same thing.
• Hook works out of context (would stop a scroll with zero surrounding info).
• Mechanism is named; the word "approach" or "process" never stands in for it.
• Every number, testimonial, and customer count came from the user — zero invented proof.
• Urgency is real or absent — never manufactured.
• Each objection answered, not dodged; true costs acknowledged.
• Voice matches the voice guide (or stated assumption); no generic "marketing voice" drift.
• Nothing on the page could be pasted onto a competitor's site unchanged.

Integration

• Upstream: skills/marketing/positioning-angles supplies the claim and named mechanism (the page's spine); skills/marketing/brand-voice supplies the voice guide; skills/marketing/lead-magnet supplies the offer spec when the page sells a magnet.
• Downstream: skills/marketing/email-sequences reuses the page's hook/mechanism/objection answers across its emails; skills/marketing/content-atomizer can atomize a strong sales page into ad variants and social posts. What crosses the boundary is the finished copy plus the flagged-gaps list.