“I’ve been through a couple of high-profile messaging workshops and never came away with a message I was happy with. The framework you’re sharing with me doesn’t look all that different from theirs. How would going through your process deliver a different result?”
That was a question I received from a prospect. A fair one.
The truth is, most messaging frameworks are more or less the same because enticing messaging requires the same ingredients: pain, desire, fear, disappointment, hope, offer, proof, call to action.
He was looking for a different output, not realising that he had an input problem.
He didn’t truly know:
- What his clients valued in him, and he certainly didn’t know what it was in their words.
- The heart of the problem they were looking to solve.
- What was at stake if they didn’t fix the problem.
- What they were quietly hoping a solution would unlock.
- What nearly stopped them hiring him.
He had a sense of what his clients wanted and valued. What he didn’t have was specificity and texture, which was why his message was flat and uninspiring.
He doesn’t need a new messaging framework.
He needs to have conversations with his clients with the intent of gathering the materials that'll inform the messaging framework. He needs to build a habit of collecting and curating prospect language in the sales process (with recorded calls, that’s easier than ever).
He'll get a different result by changing the input, not the output.