Taglines: Short, Sharp, True — Case Files #2

Taglines: Short, Sharp, True — Case Files #2. We’ll turn instincts into a system you can run every week.

Positioning is the place you occupy in the buyer’s mind relative to alternatives.

Steps

  1. List three proof points — Social, data, demos. Proof turns belief into trust.
  2. Define the audience and their stakes — Name who loses what if nothing changes; real stakes sharpen choices.
  3. Document decisions in one page — People use what they can read in two minutes.
  4. Design constraints before concepts — Constraints produce coherence; they are not creative jail.
  5. State the promise in plain words — Avoid poetry; say the outcome a buyer can point to later.

Why this matters: Social, data, demos. Proof turns belief into trust. In branding, consistency is a function of decisions captured and reused.

Why this matters: Name who loses what if nothing changes; real stakes sharpen choices. In branding, consistency is a function of decisions captured and reused.

Why this matters: People use what they can read in two minutes. In branding, consistency is a function of decisions captured and reused.

Why this matters: Constraints produce coherence; they are not creative jail. In branding, consistency is a function of decisions captured and reused.

Why this matters: Avoid poetry; say the outcome a buyer can point to later. In branding, consistency is a function of decisions captured and reused.

Toolkit

How to use it: For [audience] who struggle with [problem], we deliver [outcome], proven by [proof]. Save the final in a shared doc; link from tickets so execution matches intent.

How to use it: CSS variables / design tokens for color and spacing across apps. Save the final in a shared doc; link from tickets so execution matches intent.

How to use it: From formal to playful with examples for each channel. Save the final in a shared doc; link from tickets so execution matches intent.


Related Articles

← Previous: Naming: Memorable Without Being Cute — Guide #2   Next: Logo Systems vs. One‑Off Marks — Case Files #2 →