# Worked Examples All brands, people and numbers below are invented for illustration. Metrics shown as "account history" model how a real brief cites its own data. ## Contents 1. B2C/DTC example - short-form video/UGC brief 2. B2B example - parallel-persona video brief 3. Negative example - a bad brief, annotated ## 1. B2C/DTC example - short-form video/UGC brief ``` CREATIVE BRIEF - StandingRelief_PainFirst, 2026-03-02 Definitions: concept = one creative idea, one brief | angle = why they care, as a human sentence | hook = opening 1-3s expressing the angle | iteration = one changed element, no new brief 1 CONTEXT Goal: purchases. KPI: CPA vs $38 target. Meta Reels + Feed (4:5, 9:16). Shoot Mar 9-10, edits Mar 11-13, launch Mar 16. Budget $6k test. 3 files. 2 AUDIENCE Persona: retail/warehouse workers 30-50 on their feet 8+ hrs. Awareness: problem-aware (they know their feet hurt; they blame the job, not their insoles). Belief before: "sore feet are part of the job." Core objection (top 1-2 star pattern, category-wide): "insoles flatten out after two weeks." 3 MESSAGE Angle: "Your feet don't hurt because of your job - they hurt because you're standing on cardboard." Value prop: shift-long support that doesn't pack out. Proof point: 90-day flatten-free guarantee. Evidence: review-mining bucket 4, verbatim "by week 3 I stopped thinking about my feet" (4-star, scored 5/5). 4 HYPOTHESIS If we lead with end-of-shift foot pain and the 90-day guarantee, then problem-aware shift workers will purchase at or under $38 CPA. Type: hook. 5 HOOKS (recommended first: H1 - pain agitation matches problem-aware level; account history: pain-first beat product-first on CPA in Jan test) H1 pain agitation SPOKEN: the last hour of a shift, in their words VISUAL: locker-room bench, boots coming off TEXT: "hour 9 of 10" H2 contrarian SPOKEN: it's not the job, it's what's inside the boot VISUAL: cheap insole bending flat in one hand TEXT: "this is what you're standing on" H3 social proof SPOKEN: what reviewers say happened at week 3 VISUAL: scrolling wall of review cards TEXT: verbatim review line 6 ART Refs: [long-running category ad #1] - take the locker-room realism; [creator ad #2] - take the hands-on product demo pacing. Do: real work footwear on camera; keep guarantee on screen ≥2s. Don't: no medical claims ("helps tired feet", never "treats plantar fasciitis"); no polished-studio look. 9:16 + 4:5, preview in-placement before export. Captions on; guarantee legible sound-off; contrast ≥4.5:1. Enhancements: ALL OFF for test window. AI disclosure: none used. 7 DELIVERABLES 3 hooks × 1 main edit = 3 files, all IT of one concept. Names: StandingRelief_V1_9x16_HookPain / _HookContrarian / _HookProof. Creator: talking points only, 2 revision rounds max. Usage: paid social, 12 months, NA only. Creator adds "[Ad]" at caption start. 8 TEST Variable: hook. Constant: body edit, offer, audience, placements (targeting frozen). Minimum: 2,000 impressions/file AND $190 spend (5× target CPA) before any call. Deciding KPI: CPA; hook rate read as leading signal vs account's 27% trailing average. Win → scale winner, brief V2 iterations on its trigger type. Loss → angle survives, hooks retire; test proof-type next. Learning → angle bank. ``` ## 2. B2B example - parallel-persona video brief One of three parallel briefs for the same product (economic buyer / technical evaluator / end user); this one targets the economic buyer. The other two share sections 1 and 6 and differ in 2-5. ``` CREATIVE BRIEF - AuditHours_EconBuyer, 2026-03-04 Definitions header: as fixed in SKILL.md. 1 CONTEXT Goal: pipeline. KPI: SQL rate and cost per opportunity (not CTR - see test block). LinkedIn feed video, 1:1. Launch Mar 23. Budget $9k/mo. 2 files. 2 AUDIENCE Persona: VP Ops / COO at 50-200-person software company, owns compliance budget, doesn't run the audit. Committee note: evaluator and end-user briefs run in parallel; ~10-month cycle expected, judged on pipeline not week-one conversions. Awareness: solution-aware (comparing automation vendors vs consultants). Belief before: "audit prep just costs a quarter of someone's year." Core objection (lost-deal notes): "we already paid a consultant." 3 MESSAGE Angle: "You're paying senior salaries for screenshot collection." Value prop: audit evidence collected continuously, not in a panic quarter. Proof point: customer outcome - 340 hours to 60 hours prep time - plus compliance-report badge and a real product screenshot. Evidence: 2 call notes (Feb), CRM lost-deal reasons, competitor ad running 200+ days leading with hours saved. 4 HYPOTHESIS If we lead with wasted senior hours and the 340→60 customer outcome, then solution-aware ops leaders will request a demo at ≤ target cost per opportunity. Type: proof. 5 HOOKS (recommended first: H1 - practitioner-led talking-head, per AJ Wilcox's observation that it tends to beat polished brand video on LinkedIn) H1 identity call-out SPOKEN: name the role and the budget line directly VISUAL: practitioner on camera, plain office TEXT: "what audit prep actually costs" H2 pain agitation SPOKEN: the quarter your best ops hire disappears VISUAL: calendar filling with audit blocks TEXT: "Q3, gone" 6 ART Refs: [long-running competitor ad] - take the talking-head framing, not the claim; [customer-story ad] - take the number-on-screen treatment. Do: real product screenshot; outcome number on screen. Don't: no stock-office b-roll; no unnamed "trusted by leaders" claims. Captions on; sound-off legible. Enhancements: off. AI disclosure: none. PMM sign-off required on ICP wording and differentiator accuracy before production. 7 DELIVERABLES 2 hooks × 1 edit = 2 files, NEW concept. Names: AuditHours_V1_1x1_HookIdentity / _HookPain. 2 revision rounds. 8 TEST Variable: hook. Constant: proof, offer, audience. Volume is low: gate on leading signals (CTR trend, demo-request rate) and say so; judge SQL rate at 30/60/90 days - a CTR winner that produces junk demos is repurposed mid-funnel, not scaled (lead quality field, reviewed with sales). Minimum: 1,000 impressions/variant/week for 3 weeks before any call. Learning → angle bank + shared with PMM. ``` ## 3. Negative example - a bad brief, annotated A realistic bad brief; every line below it is a common real-world defect. ``` BRIEF - Q2 Social Push We need 10 ads for Q2 to grow revenue and awareness. Target: all adults interested in wellness. Message: our formula is premium, science-backed, affordable, and loved by thousands. Style: authentic but premium, scroll-stopping, on-brand (see brand book, 40pp). Make some videos and statics for Meta, TikTok, whatever works. Have fun with the hooks! Deadline Friday. Team will share feedback as it comes. ``` What is wrong, line by line: - **"grow revenue and awareness"** - two goals, no KPI, no target. Deliverables were briefed before the goal exists; nothing can be killed or scaled against this. - **"10 ads"** - deliverable arithmetic without concepts. Ten of what? One concept iterated ten times and ten concepts are entirely different tests; no NEW/IT split, no naming. - **"all adults interested in wellness"** - awareness level blank, persona absent. The unaware and the most-aware need opposite openings; this serves neither. - **"premium, science-backed, affordable, and loved by thousands"** - four messages crammed into one ad; the viewer picks none. No angle a human could say out loud, no single proof point, zero evidence citations. - **"authentic but premium, scroll-stopping"** - vague adjectives instead of 2-3 reference ads; every reader decodes these differently. - **"see brand book, 40pp"** - mandatories outsourced to a document nobody will read mid-edit; no do/don't cap, no compliance line (a wellness brand with no claim guidance is a rejection or a regulator letter waiting). - **"Meta, TikTok, whatever works"** - generic specs reused across platforms; no placements, no ratios, no preview requirement. Also invisible here: enhancement toggles and AI disclosure never mentioned - uncontrolled variables by omission. - **"Have fun with the hooks!"** - hook direction fully delegated; the highest-leverage element goes untested, untagged and unrecorded. - **No hypothesis, no target number, no minimum evidence, no on-win/on-loss** - decisions will be made by feel, and hook rates will get compared across Meta and TikTok despite the metrics not being comparable. - **"feedback as it comes"** - unbounded stakeholders, no revision cap, no single approver: the revision loop that burns creator relationships. The fix is not more words - this brief is already the wrong 90 words. Rebuild it as one brief per concept through the SKILL.md workflow: interview → evidence → brainstorm → translation chain → template.