Playbook replay
Build a messaging house
An umbrella line, three pillars, six proof points, and an audit marking half of them as asserted rather than evidenced.
Run for Lumira, a demo brand we invented for this page. No customer data. Nothing here runs against a live account.
Every session here was run once and saved, against a demo brand or public data. On your own account Naise works from your brand voice, your campaigns and your connected channels, so it reasons about your data instead of a stand-in.
Umbrella
Refills only work if people keep using them. We built the whole system around the second purchase, not the first.
That sentence is doing the goal's work: it is about behaviour, not price, which is how you avoid the cheap-brand read.
Pillar 1: The system, not the pouch
Refills fail on logistics, not on intent. We built reverse logistics before we built the marketing.
- 100,000 pouches returned. EVIDENCED, you have the count.
- Return rate holds above 60% after month three. ASSERTED. You have not given me this and it is the most persuasive number in the whole house.
Pillar 2: Cheaper because it continues
The price falls the longer you stay, which is a structural claim a bottle brand cannot make.
- Refill at 40% of bottle price. EVIDENCED.
- Cost per month declines after month one. EVIDENCED, follows arithmetically from the above.
Pillar 3: Measured, not claimed
The environmental case is externally assessed rather than asserted.
- Third-party lifecycle assessment. EVIDENCED, but see below.
- 82% less plastic per unit. ASSERTED. This figure appears in your product information but I have not seen it attributed to the LCA.
Three of six proof points are asserted rather than evidenced.
That is not unusual for a first draft, and it is exactly the kind of thing that goes unnoticed until an interview. Pillar 1 is the weakest: it has the strongest narrative and the least evidence under it, which is the most dangerous combination in this document.
On the LCA: having one is evidence that you measured. It is not evidence of a result. If the assessment's conclusion is favourable, cite the conclusion. If it is mixed, pillar 3 needs rewriting before a sustainability desk reads it, because those desks ask for the document.
Three questions this house does not answer, all of which a trade journalist will ask:
- What happens to the pouch after it comes back? Reuse, recycling, or incineration all give different stories, and "returned" is not the same as "recycled".
- Who pays for the return leg? If the customer pays postage, the 40% price claim is incomplete.
- What is the refill's own packaging footprint? A pouch is still packaging.
Question 1 is the one that undoes the whole house if the answer is bad. Settle it internally before this document leaves the building.
Naise created an artifact
Structure for every external message on the launch, with three of six proof points marked as unevidenced.
Umbrella
Refills only work if people keep using them. We built the whole system around the second purchase, not the first.
Pillars and proof
| Pillar | Proof | Status |
|---|---|---|
| The system, not the pouch | 100k returned | EVIDENCED |
| 60% return rate at month 3 | ASSERTED | |
| Cheaper because it continues | Refill at 40% | EVIDENCED |
| Measured, not claimed | Third-party LCA | EVIDENCED |
| 82% less plastic | ASSERTED |
Unanswered, and a trade desk will ask: what happens to the pouch after it comes back?
That was a sample. Run it on your own brand.
Naise reads your brand, your channels, and your market, then does this against your real data.
Run this playbook free