| name | landing-page-copywriting |
| description | Writes and edits conversion copy for marketing landing pages - voice-of-customer mining, outcome-first headlines, value props, CTA labels, specific social proof. Use when the user asks to write, draft, rewrite, or fix landing-page copy, a hero headline, CTA text, or messaging. Not for section layout, visual design, or A/B testing. |
landing-page-copywriting
Write landing-page copy that reads as specific and human, not generic AI slop.
The failure this fixes
Asked to write landing-page copy, a model produces generic, invented,
self-referential lines — abstract slogans ("Innovation, redefined",
"Empowering teams to do their best work"), fabricated-sounding proof, and
made-up urgency, all in the even-cadence "grammatical symmetry" that readers now
consciously flag as AI-written. It commits to nothing because it did no customer
research. The fix: extract real language and state concrete outcomes; never
invent claims, stats, testimonials, or scarcity.
When to use / when NOT to use
Use for the words on the page: headlines, subheads, body, CTA labels, social
proof, objection copy, microcopy.
Not for: the section skeleton / ordering / form-field decisions
(landing-page-structure), palette and type (visual-design-system), running
tests (landing-page-experimentation), or plain translation (a native task, not
conversion rewriting).
Workflow
- Mine before you write (VoC first). Do not draft from imagination. Pull
verbatim phrases from 3-star reviews, support tickets, sales-call notes, and
community threads; bucket them into pain / desire / objection / proof /
emotional language; the most-frequent pain becomes the hero, in the
customer's words (paraphrasing into marketing-speak strips what converts). If
no research exists, say so and gather a lightweight sample first — never
fabricate to fill the gap. Full process:
references/copywriting-playbook.md.
- Pick a framework by audience awareness, not taste. Cold/unaware → AIDA;
problem-aware/retargeting → PAS; hidden-gap audiences → BAB; skeptical,
high-consideration → PASTOR / 4Ps. One page cannot serve all awareness
levels — segment. Table + structures in the playbook reference.
- Draft block by block, generating variants. Produce 3-5 options per block
(headline, subhead, bullets, proof, CTA), not whole pages. Apply the rules
below to each.
- Self-QA against the slop filter. For every line ask: does this sound like
every other page in the category? Would a competitor say the same thing? Does
this sentence add information or just words? Cut anything that fails. Banned
vocabulary and AI tells:
references/copywriting-playbook.md.
- Hand off for human edit. State plainly that raw output should be
human-edited before shipping, and that specific % lift numbers from the
research are directional, not promises.
The rules
- Clarity over cleverness. The hero answers what is this, who is it for, why
care in 3-5 seconds. ~80% of visitors read only the headline and first
subhead. Read at a 5th-7th-grade level.
- Headlines: outcome-first + specific. Use
[specific outcome] for [specific audience] without [pain], anchored with a number or timeframe ("Cut invoice
reconciliation from 3 days to 20 minutes"). Statements beat questions. ~4-11
words. Write the headline last, after the offer and proof, so it distills the
strongest supported claim. Avoid the generator tic The [adjective] [category] for [audience].
- Value prop: benefit-led and concrete. Translate every feature via "so
that…"; replace adjectives with facts ("Works with Salesforce, HubSpot, and
Pipedrive - connect in under 2 minutes", not "seamlessly integrates").
- CTA discipline. Describe the outcome of clicking, not the mechanism:
"Start my free trial", never "Submit" / "Learn more". One primary CTA per page;
repeat the same CTA down long pages rather than adding competing ones.
First-person edges second-person. Match commitment to traffic temperature:
cold → soft ("See how it works", "Get the guide"); warm → trial/demo; hot →
direct buy. Never "Request a demo" for cold traffic.
- Social proof = specificity. Generic proof ("Great service!", bare star
counts, "Trusted by thousands") now hurts - it reads as fake. Use attributed,
quantified, outcome-specific proof (full name + role + number: "Booked 23 calls
in the first month"). Put at least one proof element in the first screen and
place each proof adjacent to the claim or objection it answers (ROI proof
near pricing, security near the form).
- Message match. Headline, offer, visual tone, and CTA verb must continue the
exact conversation the ad or search query started. Fix this before anything
cosmetic - it is the single highest-leverage, most under-executed lever.
- Objection handling is structural. Put a proactive "You might be
wondering…" block mid-page near the CTA plus risk-reversal microcopy under the
button ("No credit card required"). Cover the 7 recurring objections
(reference).
- B2B vs B2C. B2B = one person justifying to a committee: direct,
credentialed, ROI/risk-framed, named case studies, staged CTAs. B2C = single
buyer: conversational, aspirational, reviews/UGC, one decisive CTA. Don't apply
B2C urgency tactics to risk-averse B2B buyers.
- Mobile is a separate pass. Trim AI drafts 15-20%; headline + CTA must fit a
390px screen above the fold.
- No fake anything. Fabricated countdowns, fake low-stock, invented
metrics/testimonials are actively harmful to trust. Urgency must be literally
true.
Output
Copy that is customer-sourced, specific, one-primary-CTA, message-matched, and
free of the banned AI tells - delivered as labeled blocks (headline / subhead /
bullets / proof / CTA), with any research % framed as directional and a note that
a human edit pass is expected.
References
references/copywriting-playbook.md - VoC mining process, framework table with
structures, awareness stages, the 7 objections, the banned-vocabulary / AI-tell
list, and the self-QA filter.
