{"id":"mkt-x-battlecard-objection-responses","track":"marketing","audience":"sales","category":"customer-replies","technique":"grounding","title":"Write battlecard responses using only approved proof","free":false,"task":"You're updating the objection section of Harborline's sales battlecard. Write exactly 3 numbered lines in the shape Objection → Response, one per objection in your notes, with each response under 20 words and backed only by the approved proof points. Don't use the retired claim, and reply with only the plain-text list.","materialLabel":"Battlecard notes (attached to your prompt automatically)","material":"HARBORLINE (scheduling software for dental and vet clinics) - battlecard refresh\n\nTop objections from lost-deal notes:\n1. \"We already use the scheduler in our practice software.\"\n2. \"Our front desk staff won't learn a new tool.\"\n3. \"It's too expensive for a single-location clinic.\"\n\nAPPROVED proof points (Q4):\n- Syncs both ways with the 3 most common practice systems (no double entry)\n- Average front desk training time: 45 minutes (from our onboarding logs, 300+ clinics)\n- Single-location plan: $129/month; clinics recover about 6 no-show slots a month with text reminders (customer survey, n=212)\n\nRETIRED (do not use): \"Cuts no-shows by 50%\" - from a 2022 pilot with 4 clinics; marketing retired it in September.\n\nRep tips:\n- Don't bash the practice software; reps who did lost trust.\n- Keep responses short enough to say in one breath.","rules":[{"type":"numberedItems","count":3},{"type":"plainText"}],"mistakes":[{"title":"Using the retired claim","why":"\"Cuts no-shows by 50%\" is the strongest-sounding line, so the AI uses it.","fix":"Add: \"Never use the 50% claim; it's retired.\"","checks":["r1"]},{"title":"Bashing the incumbent","why":"The AI argues the practice software's scheduler is bad.","fix":"Add: \"Don't criticize their current software.\"","checks":["r2"]},{"title":"Long talk tracks","why":"The AI writes a paragraph per objection with bold labels.","fix":"Show the shape: \"Objection → Response, response under 16 words.\"","checks":["r0","plainText"]},{"title":"Adding objections","why":"The AI invents extra objections to be thorough.","fix":"Add: \"Exactly 3 numbered lines, one per objection in the notes.\"","checks":["numberedItems"]}],"promptHints":[{"label":"Sets the line shape","patterns":["objection","response","→|->"]},{"label":"Says how many","patterns":["\\b(3|three)\\b.{0,20}(lines|objections)","one (per|for each)"]},{"label":"Uses only approved proof","patterns":["approved","proof"]},{"label":"Skips the retired claim","patterns":["retired","50%"]},{"label":"Asks for only the list","patterns":["only the (numbered )?list","no (intro|notes|explanation)","nothing else","plain text"]}],"hint":"Battlecards fail when reps say things marketing retired. Tell the AI which proof is approved, which claim is dead, and the shape of each line.","rubricLabels":["Has one line for each of the 3 objections (existing scheduler, staff learning a new tool, price), each in the shape Objection → Response with a response under 20 words","Each response uses an approved proof point (two-way sync with practice systems; 45-minute training; $129/month and about 6 recovered no-show slots a month), and nothing says no-shows drop by 50%","No response criticizes the clinic's practice software, and the reply is only the numbered list with no intro or notes"]}