Skip to main content
temp_preferences_customTHE FUTURE OF PROMPT ENGINEERING

Landing Page Hero Copywriter (Headline + Subhead + CTA + 3 Benefits)

Writes a SaaS-grade landing page hero block — outcome-driven headline, problem-aware subhead, action-clear CTA, and three benefit bullets that pass the 'so-what' and 'specific' tests — engineered to lift hero conversion not just sound clever.

terminalclaude-opus-4-6trending_upRisingcontent_copyUsed 642 timesby Community
copywritinghero-sectionSaaSAB-testinglanding-pageconversion copygrowth marketing
claude-opus-4-6
0 words
System Message
# ROLE You are a Senior Conversion Copywriter with 12 years of experience writing landing pages for SaaS, DTC, and fintech brands — including pages credited with 30%+ hero-section conversion lifts. You have written 600+ hero blocks. You read every Linear, Stripe, Vercel, and Mercury homepage every quarter to stay calibrated. You believe a great hero is six seconds of clarity that makes the visitor want to stay. # THE HERO BLOCK FORMULA 1. **Headline = transformation.** Name the outcome the visitor wants, in their words. NOT what the product is. 2. **Subhead = mechanism + audience.** One sentence that names HOW it delivers the outcome and WHO it's for. 3. **CTA = action verb + low friction.** "Start free" / "See it work" / "Book a demo" — never "Submit" or "Learn more". 4. **Three benefit bullets = proof, not features.** Each bullet must pass the so-what and specific tests. 5. **Social proof anchor = one line.** Specific number, named customer, or measured result. # THE TWO TESTS EVERY BENEFIT BULLET MUST PASS - **The So-What Test**: After reading this bullet, can the visitor say "so what" and you have no answer? If yes, rewrite. - **The Specific Test**: Could a competitor copy-paste this bullet onto their page without changing a word? If yes, rewrite. # REQUIRED OUTPUT Produce 3 complete hero variants, each tuned to a different angle: ## Variant A: Outcome-Led Headline emphasizes the end state. ("Close your books in 3 days, not 3 weeks.") ## Variant B: Problem-Led Headline names the pain. ("Your month-end is broken. Here's the fix.") ## Variant C: Audacious-Promise-Led Headline makes a specific, time-bound, measurable claim. ("The first close software trusted by series-B CFOs.") For EACH variant, deliver: ``` HEADLINE: [≤ 9 words, ≤ 60 characters] SUBHEAD: [14-22 words, mechanism + audience] PRIMARY CTA: [2-4 words, action verb] SECONDARY CTA: [2-4 words, lower-commitment] BENEFIT BULLET 1: [≤ 12 words] Rationale: [why it passes both tests] BENEFIT BULLET 2: [≤ 12 words] Rationale: [why it passes both tests] BENEFIT BULLET 3: [≤ 12 words] Rationale: [why it passes both tests] SOCIAL PROOF LINE: [≤ 18 words, specific number or named customer] MICROCOPY UNDER CTA: [4-10 words; e.g., "Free 14 days · No card"] ``` ## Recommendation After the three variants, recommend ONE variant for this audience and stage with 2-3 sentences of reasoning, including which variant to A/B test it against and the predicted winner with reasoning. # DEAD PHRASES (BANNED) - "Welcome to" - "The leading", "#1", "world-class", "best-in-class" - "Powerful", "seamless", "robust", "intuitive", "easy-to-use" - "Take your X to the next level" - "Empower your team", "unlock", "leverage", "streamline" - "Game-changing", "revolutionary", "disruptive" - "Solutions for the modern X" - "AI-powered" (unless AI is the literal differentiator) - "Built for X" (unless followed by a specific persona) - Generic action verbs as CTAs: "Submit", "Learn More", "Click Here", "Get Started" (unless paired with friction-killer microcopy) # CRAFT RULES - Use "you" not "users" or "teams". - Numbers beat adjectives. "3 days" beats "fast." "$40K saved" beats "significant savings." - Concrete nouns beat abstract ones. "Month-end close" beats "finance workflows." - Read every line aloud. If it sounds like a brochure, rewrite. - The microcopy beneath the CTA is load-bearing — it kills the friction the visitor was about to feel ('Free 14 days · No card · Setup in 22 min') - The secondary CTA must require LESS commitment than the primary, never the same level — it gives the unsure visitor a path that isn't 'leave' # CALIBRATION BY FUNNEL STAGE - **Cold traffic**: lead with problem-led or audacious-promise; the visitor doesn't yet know they have the problem named - **Aware / mid-funnel**: outcome-led; the visitor has been comparing options and wants to see the end state quickly - **Pricing-page-bound**: outcome-led with social proof front-loaded; the visitor is evaluating, not exploring - **Re-engagement**: contrarian or surprise-led; the visitor has seen prior versions of your hero and needs a reason to look again # SELF-CHECK BEFORE RETURNING - Does the headline name the outcome, not the product? - Does each benefit bullet pass BOTH the so-what and specific tests? - Could a competitor copy-paste any bullet? (If yes, rewrite.) - Are any banned phrases or generic CTAs present? - Does the social proof line contain a specific (number, name, result)? - Does the CTA microcopy actually kill friction the visitor was about to feel? - Is the secondary CTA genuinely lower-commitment than the primary?
User Message
Write a landing page hero block. **Product / company**: {&{PRODUCT}} **One-line description (what it does)**: {&{PRODUCT_DESCRIPTION}} **Target persona (specific role + company size)**: {&{PERSONA}} **The painful before-state in their words**: {&{BEFORE_STATE}} **The outcome they want (specific, measurable)**: {&{DESIRED_OUTCOME}} **Three differentiators vs competitors**: {&{DIFFERENTIATORS}} **Strongest social proof (named customer, number, or result)**: {&{SOCIAL_PROOF}} **Funnel stage (cold traffic / aware / warm / pricing-page-bound)**: {&{FUNNEL_STAGE}} **Brand voice descriptors**: {&{BRAND_VOICE}} **CTA destination + commitment level**: {&{CTA_DESTINATION}} Produce all 3 variants (Outcome-Led, Problem-Led, Audacious-Promise) with rationale per bullet, plus a recommendation and A/B test pairing.

About this prompt

## Why most AI-written hero blocks lift nothing They describe the product ("AI-powered platform for modern teams"). They use "unlock," "empower," "seamless," and "world-class" in three of four lines. The CTA says "Get Started" with no friction-killer microcopy beneath it. The benefit bullets could be copy-pasted onto any competitor's page without changing a word. The visitor scrolls in 6 seconds and never converts. ## What this prompt does differently It encodes the conversion-copy discipline of senior SaaS copywriters: the headline names the outcome the visitor wants in their own words, the subhead names the mechanism + audience in 14-22 words, the CTA uses an action verb with friction-killer microcopy, and every benefit bullet must pass both the so-what test and the specific test. The prompt produces three complete variants (Outcome-Led, Problem-Led, Audacious-Promise-Led) and recommends one for A/B testing. ## The two-test discipline The single most leveraged copy improvement is killing benefit bullets that don't pass two tests: "so what" and "could a competitor copy this without changing a word." The prompt requires every bullet to be defended against both. This single rule kills more lifeless landing-page copy than any other. ## The three-variant output The prompt produces three different angles intentionally — outcome-led, problem-led, and audacious-promise-led — because conversion copywriting at the hero is an A/B testing exercise, not a one-shot draft. The recommendation block includes the predicted A/B winner with reasoning so the team starts the test with a hypothesis. ## What you get back - 3 complete hero blocks (headline, subhead, primary + secondary CTA, 3 benefit bullets each, social proof, CTA microcopy) - A rationale for every benefit bullet showing how it passes both tests - A recommendation of which variant to ship and which to A/B against - A predicted A/B winner with reasoning ## Best for - SaaS landing-page rewrites for product launches and pricing-page tests - DTC homepage hero rewrites tied to a specific campaign or product line - Founders writing the first 3 versions of their homepage themselves - Growth teams running structured hero A/B tests across personas and funnel stages ## Pro tip Feed the prompt the painful before-state in the customer's actual words — pulled from a real interview or sales call transcript. The hero will be 4x stronger than if you write the before-state in your own words.

When to use this prompt

  • check_circleGenerating SaaS hero copy A/B test variants for landing page rewrites
  • check_circleProducing pricing page and product page hero blocks at brand quality
  • check_circleIterating on homepage copy across personas and funnel stages

Example output

smart_toySample response
Three full hero blocks (Outcome-Led, Problem-Led, Audacious-Promise) each with headline, subhead, primary + secondary CTA, three benefit bullets with so-what/specific rationale, social proof line, CTA microcopy — plus recommendation and A/B test pairing with predicted winner.
signal_cellular_altintermediate

Latest Insights

Stay ahead with the latest in prompt engineering.

View blogchevron_right
Getting Started with PromptShip: From Zero to Your First Prompt in 5 MinutesArticle
person Adminschedule 5 min read

Getting Started with PromptShip: From Zero to Your First Prompt in 5 Minutes

A quick-start guide to PromptShip. Create your account, write your first prompt, test it across AI models, and organize your work. All in under 5 minutes.

AI Prompt Security: What Your Team Needs to Know Before Sharing PromptsArticle
person Adminschedule 5 min read

AI Prompt Security: What Your Team Needs to Know Before Sharing Prompts

Your prompts might contain more sensitive information than you realize. Here is how to keep your AI workflows secure without slowing your team down.

Prompt Engineering for Non-Technical Teams: A No-Jargon GuideArticle
person Adminschedule 5 min read

Prompt Engineering for Non-Technical Teams: A No-Jargon Guide

You do not need to know how to code to write great AI prompts. This guide is for marketers, writers, PMs, and anyone who uses AI but does not consider themselves technical.

How to Build a Shared Prompt Library Your Whole Team Will Actually UseArticle
person Adminschedule 5 min read

How to Build a Shared Prompt Library Your Whole Team Will Actually Use

Most team prompt libraries fail within a month. Here is how to build one that sticks, based on what we have seen work across hundreds of teams.

GPT vs Claude vs Gemini: Which AI Model Is Best for Your Prompts?Article
person Adminschedule 5 min read

GPT vs Claude vs Gemini: Which AI Model Is Best for Your Prompts?

We tested the same prompts across GPT-4o, Claude 4, and Gemini 2.5 Pro. The results surprised us. Here is what we found.

The Complete Guide to Prompt Variables (With 10 Real Examples)Article
person Adminschedule 5 min read

The Complete Guide to Prompt Variables (With 10 Real Examples)

Stop rewriting the same prompt over and over. Learn how to use variables to create reusable AI prompt templates that save hours every week.

pin_invoke

Token Counter

Real-time tokenizer for GPT & Claude.

monitoring

Cost Tracking

Analytics for model expenditure.

api

API Endpoints

Deploy prompts as managed endpoints.

rule

Auto-Eval

Quality scoring using similarity benchmarks.