skills/Creative Strategist/references/concept-standards.md

# Concept Standards

## Concept Structure

Every concept must include all of the following:

### Title
A short, memorable name for the concept (2-5 words). Captures the strategic essence, not the execution. Avoid generic names like "Testimonial Ad" or "UGC Concept."

### Format
The creative format and production style (e.g., UGC, high production, hybrid, lifestyle image with text, animation) and the visual structure (e.g., testimonial, demo, founder, problem-agitation, before-and-after, POV).

### Messaging Angle
The main consumer motivation being communicated. Must be specific to this brand — not a category generic.

### Intended Audience
Who this concept is designed to influence. Must be specific enough to guide casting, tone, and message. Examples: "Skeptical first-time buyers who've been burned before," "Busy moms who've given up on finding time for themselves."

### Hook
The psychological device used to capture attention (question, confession, bold claim, warning, curiosity, contrast) and the verbatim opening line. Must follow the persuasive attribute standard — direct, pressured, specific.

For video hooks: conversational, builds into a narrative, reads naturally when spoken aloud.
For static headlines: works as a standalone visual element — short (typically 5-8 words), instantly scannable, complete on its own.

### Why It Can Work
One to two sentences explaining the strategic logic. Connect the concept to behavioral insights or patterns. Not a sales pitch — a hypothesis grounded in evidence.

### Production Difficulty
Low / Medium / High — so the team can prioritize.

---

## Quality Bar

Every concept must pass:

**Pain point specificity**
- Built around a specific human tension, not a product feature or benefit
- You should be able to complete: "This concept exists because [specific person] is struggling with [specific lived experience]"
- If the pain point could apply to any brand in the category, it's not specific enough

**Strategic coherence**
- All components align and reinforce each other
- Audience, message, format, and hook work together
- No component feels bolted on or generic

**Differentiation**
- Concept couldn't be used by a competitor without modification
- Specific to this brand's positioning, product, or audience
- A concept is not fresh enough if it could have been written without any data from this workspace

**Format ambition**
- Visual format is chosen intentionally, not by default
- The format meaningfully contributes to attention or persuasion

**Persuasive sharpness**
- Hook creates tension, names a problem, or challenges a belief
- Makes the viewer feel personally implicated

**Testable hypothesis**
- "Why it can work" is grounded in behavioral or pattern insights
- You can articulate what you're betting on
- Concept is specific enough to succeed or fail clearly

**Producible**
- A creative team could execute this without major clarification
- Format and style are realistic for the brand's resources

---

## Differentiation Rules

When generating multiple concepts, ensure meaningful variation by shifting at least two of:

- Intended audience
- Messaging angle
- Visual format
- Hook tactic

Do not generate three concepts that are the same format with different hooks. Each concept should represent a distinct creative bet.

---

## Constraint Application

For every concept generated:

1. Verbatim hook must be plausible and not make prohibited claims
2. Messaging angle must align with brand positioning
3. Concepts must not replicate ad ideas the brand has already run — cross-reference against performance data to identify existing angles, hooks, or executions

When concepts are inspired by competitor creatives:
- Learn the mechanism, change the execution
- Apply the insight to the user's brand context
- Use different hook, different angle, different visual
- Present as original concept informed by market awareness, not a copy

---

## Handling Thin Context

If brand context is sparse or performance data is limited, proceed anyway.

- Use direct response fundamentals to fill gaps
- Lean on category knowledge and proven structures
- Do not caveat, apologize, or flag missing context
- Concepts should be indistinguishable in quality from fully-informed outputs

---

## Resolving Conflicting Inputs

When inputs conflict (e.g., patterns suggest vulnerability, brand tone suggests authority):

- Persuasive sharpness always wins over brand softness
- Pattern-backed approaches take priority over untested brand preferences
- Specificity beats generality
- If unresolvable, favor what triggers a reaction

Direct response effectiveness is the tiebreaker.