30 Claude Prompts for Value Propositions

You are a messaging strategist who builds hierarchy documents used across marketing, sales and product teams. <context> I need a foundational messaging hierarchy for [PRODUCT NAME] before our [QUARTER] campaign kicks off, and right now every team is improvising their own pitch. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Primary value proposition: [ONE SENTENCE VALUE PROP] - Top three capabilities: [CAPABILITY 1, CAPABILITY 2, CAPABILITY 3] - Target audience: [TARGET AUDIENCE] </inputs> <task> Build a three level messaging hierarchy: the single overarching value proposition, three supporting pillars, and two proof points under each pillar. </task> <constraints> Each pillar should be a benefit, not a feature name. Proof points must reference something concrete, use placeholders where real data is missing rather than inventing figures. Keep pillar names to five words or less. </constraints> <format> Present as a nested outline: Level 1 value proposition, Level 2 pillars, Level 3 proof points indented under each pillar. </format>

You are a launch marketing manager coordinating messaging across web, email and sales for a specific release. <context> We are launching [PRODUCT OR FEATURE NAME] on [LAUNCH DATE] and I need the three messaging pillars that every asset in the launch will repeat. </context> <inputs> - What is launching: [PRODUCT OR FEATURE NAME] - Launch date: [LAUNCH DATE] - Audience for this launch: [LAUNCH AUDIENCE] - Business goal: [BUSINESS GOAL, e.g. upsell existing customers] </inputs> <task> Generate three messaging pillars specific to this launch, each with a one sentence explanation and a suggested headline that could sit on a landing page. </task> <constraints> Pillars must tie directly to the stated business goal, not generic product benefits. Headlines should be under twelve words. Do not repeat the same verb across all three headlines. </constraints> <format> Number the pillars one to three, each with explanation and headline as sub-bullets. </format>

You are a content strategist responsible for backing up marketing claims with evidence across the messaging deck. <context> Our messaging pillars for [PRODUCT NAME] currently have no proof points attached and legal keeps flagging our sales deck for unsupported claims. </context> <inputs> - Pillar 1: [PILLAR 1 STATEMENT] - Pillar 2: [PILLAR 2 STATEMENT] - Pillar 3: [PILLAR 3 STATEMENT] - Available evidence types: [CASE STUDIES, METRICS, CUSTOMER QUOTES, ETC] </inputs> <task> For each pillar, suggest two types of proof point we could realistically gather, and draft a placeholder sentence showing exactly how it would read once real data is inserted. </task> <constraints> Do not fabricate specific numbers or customer names. Use bracketed placeholders for anything that requires real evidence. Keep each placeholder sentence to one line. </constraints> <format> Group by pillar, listing the two proof point types and the placeholder sentence under each. </format>

You are a B2B messaging strategist who adapts one core value proposition for several buyer personas. <context> [PRODUCT NAME] sells to both [PERSONA A] and [PERSONA B], and our current messaging speaks to neither of them clearly because it tries to cover both at once. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Persona A: [PERSONA A] with priority [PERSONA A PRIORITY] - Persona B: [PERSONA B] with priority [PERSONA B PRIORITY] - Shared core value proposition: [CORE VALUE PROP] </inputs> <task> Keep the core value proposition constant and produce a persona specific opening line and top two supporting points for each persona. </task> <constraints> The core value proposition text must not change between personas, only the framing and supporting points should shift. Do not exceed three sentences per persona. </constraints> <format> Show the shared core value proposition once at the top, then two labeled sections, one per persona, each with opening line and two supporting points. </format>

You are an editor who specializes in cutting corporate messaging decks down to what actually matters. <context> Our messaging deck for [PRODUCT NAME] has grown to [NUMBER] slides of claims and nobody on the sales team can remember more than a couple of them. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Current slide count: [NUMBER] - Full list of current claims: [PASTE LIST OF CLAIMS] - Sales team feedback: [WHAT REPS SAY THEY ACTUALLY USE] </inputs> <task> Cut the list down to the five claims a rep could realistically memorize and use in a live conversation, and explain why each surviving claim earned its spot. </task> <constraints> Choose based on what reps report actually using, not what marketing prefers. Provide exactly five final claims, no more. Each justification should be one sentence. </constraints> <format> List the five surviving claims numbered, with a one sentence justification after each, followed by a short note on what got cut and why. </format>

You are a startup advisor who has coached dozens of founders on their thirty second pitch. <context> I keep fumbling the answer to what does your company do at [EVENT TYPE, e.g. networking events] and I need a one-liner I can say without thinking. </context> <inputs> - Company: [COMPANY NAME] - What we actually do: [PLAIN DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT] - Who we help: [TARGET CUSTOMER] - Outcome they get: [MAIN OUTCOME] </inputs> <task> Write five one-liner variations of different lengths, from a five word version to a full sentence version, all describing the same company. </task> <constraints> Every version must be understandable by someone outside the industry. No jargon, no acronyms. None of the five versions may exceed twenty five words. </constraints> <format> Number the five versions shortest to longest, with word count noted next to each. </format>

You are a conversion focused copywriter who writes homepage hero sections for software companies. <context> Our homepage for [PRODUCT NAME] currently opens with a vague line and our bounce rate on the homepage is higher than we would like. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Primary visitor: [PRIMARY VISITOR TYPE] - Main job the product does: [MAIN JOB] - Current hero line if any: [CURRENT HERO LINE] </inputs> <task> Write eight hero headline options and one supporting subheadline for the strongest three of them. </task> <constraints> Headlines must describe what the product does, not just how it feels to use it. Avoid vague outcome words without specifics attached. Keep headlines under fourteen words. </constraints> <format> List all eight headlines first, then mark the top three with a subheadline suggestion under each. </format>

You are a brand copywriter working on a company wide rebrand project. <context> [COMPANY NAME] is rebranding from [OLD BRAND POSITIONING] and we need tagline options to test with the new visual identity. </context> <inputs> - Company: [COMPANY NAME] - Old positioning: [OLD BRAND POSITIONING] - New positioning direction: [NEW POSITIONING DIRECTION] - Tone we want: [DESIRED TONE, e.g. confident and plain spoken] </inputs> <task> Generate ten tagline candidates that fit the new positioning direction and desired tone, grouped into two styles, descriptive and aspirational. </task> <constraints> No tagline may exceed six words. Avoid words already used heavily by competitors such as [COMPETITOR TAGLINE WORDS]. Keep the two style groups clearly separated. </constraints> <format> Two headed lists, Descriptive and Aspirational, five taglines under each. </format>

You are a sales development leader who writes subject lines that get cold emails opened. <context> Our cold email open rates for [PRODUCT NAME] to [TARGET PERSONA] have dropped and I suspect the subject lines are the problem. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Target persona: [TARGET PERSONA] - Pain point we lead with: [SPECIFIC PAIN POINT] - Sender name and role: [SENDER NAME AND ROLE] </inputs> <task> Write ten subject line variations built around the value proposition, split evenly between curiosity driven and direct benefit driven styles. </task> <constraints> No subject line may exceed seven words. Avoid clickbait phrasing that does not match the email body. No exclamation points, no all caps words. </constraints> <format> Two labeled groups of five, Curiosity and Direct Benefit. </format>

You are a field marketing manager preparing booth staff for an upcoming trade show. <context> We are exhibiting [PRODUCT NAME] at [CONFERENCE NAME] and booth staff need a line that stops attendees walking past without sounding like a sales pitch. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Conference: [CONFERENCE NAME] - Attendee type most common at this event: [ATTENDEE TYPE] - Booth goal: [BOOTH GOAL, e.g. book demos] </inputs> <task> Write three opening lines booth staff can say to a passing attendee, each followed by a natural one sentence follow up question. </task> <constraints> Opening lines must sound conversational when spoken aloud, not read from a script. No corporate jargon. Each line under fifteen words. </constraints> <format> List three numbered pairs: opening line, then follow up question. </format>

You are a competitive intelligence manager who prepares differentiation briefs for sales teams. <context> We keep losing deals to [COMPETITOR NAME] and reps do not have a clear answer when a prospect asks why [PRODUCT NAME] is different. </context> <inputs> - Our product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Competitor: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Where we win: [OUR ADVANTAGE] - Where they win: [THEIR ADVANTAGE] </inputs> <task> Write a one page differentiation brief a rep can read in two minutes before a call, including how to respond honestly when the competitor advantage comes up. </task> <constraints> Do not disparage the competitor by name in the language a rep would say out loud. Be honest about where the competitor is genuinely stronger. Keep the brief to four short sections. </constraints> <format> Sections: Where We Win, Where They Win, How To Respond, One Sentence Summary. </format>

You are a positioning strategist who helps challenger brands compete against an established market leader. <context> [COMPETITOR NAME] dominates [PRODUCT CATEGORY] and prospects default to assuming they are the safe choice, which makes it hard to get [PRODUCT NAME] considered. </context> <inputs> - Category leader: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Our product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Underserved segment the leader ignores: [UNDERSERVED SEGMENT] - Our real advantage for that segment: [SPECIFIC ADVANTAGE] </inputs> <task> Write a value proposition that does not attack the leader directly but instead reframes the buying decision around the underserved segment's actual needs. </task> <constraints> Never name the competitor negatively, focus entirely on the segment's needs. Keep the value proposition to two sentences. Avoid implying the leader is bad, only that they are not built for this segment. </constraints> <format> Return the value proposition, then a short note explaining the reframing logic in one paragraph. </format>

You are a sales enablement manager building a battlecard for an upcoming competitive quarter. <context> Reps are entering more deals against [COMPETITOR NAME] and need quick talking points they can pull up mid call. </context> <inputs> - Competitor: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Deals we have lost to them because of: [LOSS REASON] - Deals we have won against them because of: [WIN REASON] - Pricing difference if relevant: [PRICING NOTE] </inputs> <task> Produce five battlecard talking points a rep can use live on a call, each addressing a specific objection tied to this competitor. </task> <constraints> Each talking point must be answerable in under fifteen seconds when spoken. No point may rely on outdated feature comparisons, mark anything that needs a fact check. Stay factual, not promotional. </constraints> <format> Five numbered talking points, each with the objection it answers noted in parentheses. </format>

You are a product marketing manager dealing with a real feature gap against a competitor. <context> [COMPETITOR NAME] just shipped [COMPETITOR FEATURE] and we do not have an equivalent yet, but the sales team is panicking about how to respond. </context> <inputs> - Missing feature: [COMPETITOR FEATURE] - Our roadmap status: [ROADMAP STATUS, e.g. planned next quarter or not planned] - What we offer instead today: [CURRENT ALTERNATIVE APPROACH] - Customer segment asking about this: [CUSTOMER SEGMENT] </inputs> <task> Write an honest talking point for reps that acknowledges the gap without sounding defensive, and redirects to where our current approach genuinely helps this segment. </task> <constraints> Do not deny or minimize the gap. Do not promise a roadmap date unless one is provided in the inputs. Keep the talking point to three sentences. </constraints> <format> Return the talking point as a single ready to use paragraph, followed by one internal note on when this answer should be escalated to a manager. </format>

You are a sales trainer who prepares reps to defend pricing against cheaper competitors. <context> Prospects keep comparing [PRODUCT NAME] to [CHEAPER COMPETITOR] on price alone and reps are discounting too quickly to close the gap. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Cheaper competitor: [CHEAPER COMPETITOR] - Price difference: [PRICE DIFFERENCE] - What the higher price includes: [WHAT JUSTIFIES THE PRICE] </inputs> <task> Write a value based response to the price objection that reframes the conversation around total outcome rather than sticker price, plus a one sentence version for a fast paced call. </task> <constraints> Do not disparage the cheaper competitor's quality without evidence. Base the reframe entirely on what is included at the higher price. Avoid sounding defensive about the price. </constraints> <format> Return the full response first, then the compressed one sentence version labeled Quick version. </format>

You are a technical marketing manager who writes for engineering and IT audiences. <context> [PRODUCT NAME] is usually evaluated by [TECHNICAL BUYER TITLE] and our current messaging is too high level for them to take seriously. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Technical buyer: [TECHNICAL BUYER TITLE] - Technical concern they raise most: [TECHNICAL CONCERN] - Real technical detail that addresses it: [TECHNICAL DETAIL] </inputs> <task> Write a value proposition aimed specifically at this technical buyer that leads with the technical detail rather than a business outcome. </task> <constraints> Use precise technical language this buyer would respect, not marketing abstractions. Keep it to three sentences. Do not oversimplify the technical detail to the point of being inaccurate. </constraints> <format> Return the value proposition as a short paragraph, followed by one sentence on where this messaging belongs, such as documentation or a technical one pager. </format>

You are a value engineering manager who translates product benefits into financial terms for budget holders. <context> [PRODUCT NAME] gets stuck at the [TECHNICAL BUYER TITLE] level and struggles to get in front of the [ECONOMIC BUYER TITLE] who actually approves budget. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Economic buyer: [ECONOMIC BUYER TITLE] - Cost or time currently wasted: [CURRENT COST OR WASTE] - Expected improvement: [EXPECTED IMPROVEMENT, use placeholder if unverified] </inputs> <task> Write a value proposition framed entirely in financial terms, budget impact, risk reduction, or time saved, suitable for a one paragraph email to this economic buyer. </task> <constraints> Do not use a specific ROI number unless it is explicitly provided, use a placeholder instead. Avoid technical detail entirely, this buyer cares about business impact only. Keep to four sentences. </constraints> <format> Return the paragraph ready to paste into an email, with the placeholder for the unverified figure clearly marked. </format>

You are a product marketing manager focused on the day to day user of the product rather than the buyer. <context> We sell [PRODUCT NAME] to [ECONOMIC BUYER TITLE] but the actual daily users are [END USER TITLE], and adoption suffers when users do not see the point. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - End user: [END USER TITLE] - Daily frustration this product removes: [DAILY FRUSTRATION] - What their day looks like after adoption: [DAY AFTER ADOPTION] </inputs> <task> Write a value proposition aimed at the end user's daily experience, written the way a helpful coworker would explain it, not the way a buyer would justify it. </task> <constraints> Avoid business outcome language like efficiency gains, focus on the concrete daily experience instead. Keep it under sixty words. Write in a warm, direct tone. </constraints> <format> Return a single short paragraph suitable for an in-app onboarding message. </format>

You are a vertical marketing manager who adapts a horizontal product message for a specific industry. <context> [PRODUCT NAME] is built as a horizontal product but we are pushing into [TARGET INDUSTRY] and the generic messaging is not landing with buyers there. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Target industry: [TARGET INDUSTRY] - Generic value proposition today: [GENERIC VALUE PROP] - Industry specific pain point: [INDUSTRY SPECIFIC PAIN POINT] </inputs> <task> Rewrite the generic value proposition using vocabulary and examples specific to [TARGET INDUSTRY], anchored to the industry specific pain point. </task> <constraints> Use terminology this industry actually uses day to day, not generic business language. Do not claim industry specific features that were not confirmed. Keep the rewrite to two sentences. </constraints> <format> Return the original generic version, then the industry specific rewrite directly beneath it for comparison. </format>

You are an enterprise deal strategist who prepares messaging for buying committees rather than single decision makers. <context> [PRODUCT NAME] is in final review with a buying committee at [ACCOUNT NAME] and different stakeholders care about different things, which is causing the deal to stall. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Account: [ACCOUNT NAME] - Stakeholder roles involved: [LIST OF STAKEHOLDER ROLES] - Main source of hesitation: [MAIN HESITATION] </inputs> <task> Write a one paragraph value proposition that speaks to the shared concern across the committee, plus one supporting line tailored to each stakeholder role listed. </task> <constraints> The shared paragraph must not contradict any individual stakeholder's priority. Keep each tailored line to one sentence. Address the main hesitation directly rather than avoiding it. </constraints> <format> Return the shared paragraph first, then a labeled line for each stakeholder role. </format>

You are a growth marketer who runs messaging tests on landing pages. <context> We want to test our current value proposition for [PRODUCT NAME] against alternatives on [PAGE OR CHANNEL] but only have one real variant written. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Current value proposition: [CURRENT VALUE PROP] - Page or channel: [PAGE OR CHANNEL] - Hypothesis to test: [HYPOTHESIS, e.g. speed matters more than price] </inputs> <task> Generate three alternative value proposition variants that each isolate a different single benefit, so the test result tells us which benefit resonates most. </task> <constraints> Each variant must change only the core benefit claim, keep sentence structure and length roughly consistent across variants so the test isolates one variable. No variant may exceed twenty words. </constraints> <format> List the current version as the control, then the three variants labeled A, B and C with the isolated benefit named next to each. </format>

You are a customer research lead who runs interviews to test whether messaging actually resonates. <context> Before we commit budget to promoting this value proposition for [PRODUCT NAME], I want to validate it with real customers in [NUMBER] interviews. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Value proposition to test: [VALUE PROP TO TEST] - Customer segment to interview: [CUSTOMER SEGMENT] - Number of interviews planned: [NUMBER] </inputs> <task> Write a short interview script with six questions designed to reveal whether this value proposition matches what the customer actually values, without leading the witness. </task> <constraints> Questions must be open ended, avoid any wording that hints at the desired answer. Do not read the value proposition to the customer before question four. Keep the script to one page. </constraints> <format> Numbered list of six questions in the order they should be asked, with a one line note on what each question is trying to reveal. </format>

You are a messaging quality reviewer who scores value propositions before they go external. <context> Several teams have submitted competing value proposition drafts for [PRODUCT NAME] and I need an objective way to pick the strongest one before it goes to the website. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Draft 1: [DRAFT VALUE PROP 1] - Draft 2: [DRAFT VALUE PROP 2] - Draft 3: [DRAFT VALUE PROP 3] </inputs> <task> Score each draft against five criteria, clarity, specificity, differentiation, believability and memorability, on a scale of one to five, and recommend the strongest overall. </task> <constraints> Justify every score with one specific reason, do not give a score without explanation. Be willing to give low scores if deserved. Recommend only one winner, not a tie. </constraints> <format> Table style output with draft, five scores, total, and a one line justification per score, then a final recommendation paragraph. </format>

You are a customer marketing manager who mines real feedback for messaging material. <context> I have a pile of raw customer quotes about [PRODUCT NAME] from [SOURCE, e.g. support tickets or reviews] and need to turn the best ones into evidence for our value proposition. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Source of quotes: [SOURCE] - Raw quotes: [PASTE RAW CUSTOMER QUOTES] - Value proposition they should support: [TARGET VALUE PROP] </inputs> <task> Select the three quotes that best support the target value proposition, lightly clean each for grammar without changing meaning, and suggest where each could be used. </task> <constraints> Do not alter the customer's meaning or add words they did not say. Flag if none of the quotes genuinely support the value proposition rather than forcing a fit. Keep suggestions to one line each. </constraints> <format> List the three selected quotes with source, cleaned version, and suggested placement such as homepage or case study. </format>

You are a product marketing analyst who turns raw sales call feedback into messaging recommendations. <context> Sales has been telling me informally that our value proposition for [PRODUCT NAME] is not landing on calls, and I have [NUMBER] call notes to go through before proposing a refresh. </context> <inputs> - Product: [PRODUCT NAME] - Number of call notes: [NUMBER] - Raw call notes or summaries: [PASTE CALL NOTES] - Current value proposition: [CURRENT VALUE PROP] </inputs> <task> Identify the three most common reactions to the current value proposition across the notes, and propose one specific messaging adjustment for each reaction. </task> <constraints> Base every finding on what appears in the actual notes, do not invent patterns that are not there. If the notes are insufficient to support a finding, say so instead of guessing. Keep each adjustment to one sentence. </constraints> <format> Three sections, one per reaction, each with the reaction summary, supporting evidence from the notes, and the suggested adjustment. </format>