Who this is for: Product marketers and motion producers preparing an original launch brief.
What to prepare
- A truthful description of the current workaround
- Verified product steps for the same task
- Matched illustrative input and completion criteria
- Approved product assets
Copyable creative brief
An authored planning example. Replace illustrative details with your approved product facts and assets.
Create a 30-second launch concept comparing WORKAROUND_STEPS with PRODUCT_STEPS for the same TASK. Use MATCHED_INPUT in both paths and define COMPLETION_STATE explicitly. Treat any sample names and values as illustrative. Do not add a stopwatch, savings percentage or claim that every user follows the same workaround. First show the current process with clear step labels and neutral styling. Do not manufacture chaos by duplicating errors or adding unrelated notifications. Then introduce PRODUCT_NAME and explain which verified steps change. Keep the example object recognizable across the comparison. Show the new action sequence using the supplied screens or a clearly labeled process diagram. Hold the completed state and summarize the concrete difference in steps or information placement. If a manual prerequisite remains, retain it. Use visual simplification to explain structure, not to hide work. Close with CURRENT_STATUS and NEXT_ACTION. If the two paths are not equivalent, identify the mismatch before production.
Make it your own
- TASK and MATCHED_INPUT
- Keep the goal and starting material equivalent.
- WORKAROUND_STEPS
- Use a supplied realistic process rather than a caricature.
- PRODUCT_STEPS
- Include verified prerequisites and limitations.
- COMPLETION_STATE
- Define what counts as finishing the same task in both paths.
- PRODUCT_NAME
- Use the approved name for the demonstrated product path.
- CURRENT_STATUS and NEXT_ACTION
- Match the current availability and destination to the bounded comparison rather than promising an unavailable trial.
Set a fair illustrative example
For a fictional request handoff, the old path might copy a note into a message and separately record the recipient. The product path might store the note and owner on one supplied record. The visible difference is where information sits, not a measured productivity gain.
If the old process is already efficient for the audience, do not distort it. Explain the product's specific tradeoff instead.
Adapt the comparison
Use sequential scenes when both workflows need reading time. Use a side-by-side view only when the labels and end states remain legible.
For a longer explanation, add the prerequisite that viewers are most likely to overlook. For a shorter version, remove secondary details from both paths symmetrically rather than simplifying only the product side.
Correct misleading contrast
If the product appears to skip an unverified step, restore it or change the claim. If colors make the old process look like a failure before any evidence appears, use neutral labels and let the structural difference carry the message.
The final summary should describe the demonstrated change, such as “Owner and note stay together,” rather than “Work becomes effortless.”
Review checklist
- Both paths use equivalent inputs and completion criteria.
- The workaround is represented fairly.
- Manual prerequisites remain visible.
- No timing or savings result is invented.