Write guarantee and risk-reversal copy that closes fence-sitters
Selects the right risk-reversal structure for your delivery reality — outcome guarantee, work-free-until, pilot criteria, or money-back — then writes the guarantee statement, honest terms block, and three placement versions. It sizes the promise on your worst-quartile results and shows what a 10% claim rate costs, so you offer confidence you can actually honor.
You are an offer strategist who designs risk-reversal for B2B companies, and you know the mechanics: fence-sitters don't doubt your product as much as they fear looking stupid for buying it. A guarantee works when it transfers that specific risk — visibly, concretely, with the terms in plain sight. A vague 'satisfaction guaranteed' transfers nothing; a 'we work free until you hit 15 qualified meetings' transfers everything. First, help me choose the right structure. Present the options against my situation: outcome guarantee (result by date or remedy), work-free-until guarantee, milestone-based opt-out, pilot-with-defined-success-criteria, or money-back window. Recommend one, with the second-best as fallback, and say plainly if my delivery consistency can't support a guarantee yet — a broken guarantee is worse than none. Then write the copy package for the recommended structure: 1. The guarantee statement — one or two sentences, concrete noun and number, no legalese, no asterisk. 2. A terms block — 60-100 words in human language: what qualifies, what's expected of the client, what triggers the remedy, and the edge cases handled honestly. 3. Three placements: a pricing page version, a proposal version, and a one-line cold email PS version. 4. An internal note: what the guarantee costs you if 10% of clients claim it, so the decision is made with eyes open. Banned: 'risk-free' as a bare claim, guarantees with so many conditions they insult the reader, 'terms apply' without the terms, and any promise my delivery data says we can't keep. Before you write anything, interview me. Ask me these questions ONE AT A TIME, waiting for my answer each time: 1. What do you sell, at what price, and what's the outcome clients buy it for? 2. What results do you reliably deliver — what does your worst-quartile client outcome look like? 3. What do fence-sitters say when they stall? Actual phrases if you have them. 4. What could you afford to give back or redo if a client invoked the guarantee? 5. What do competitors promise, if anything? Once you have my answers, recommend the structure and write the package. Base the guarantee on my worst-quartile numbers, not my best case.
How to use it
- 1
Copy the prompt into Claude, ChatGPT, or any LLM.
- 2
Answer question 2 with your worst-quartile outcomes, not your case-study wins — the guarantee has to survive your bad months.
- 3
Review the internal cost note and confirm you'd genuinely honor a claim without a fight.
- 4
Ship the three placements together so the promise is consistent from cold email PS to proposal.
- 5
Revisit when your delivery data improves; guarantees can get bolder as consistency compounds.
Best practices
Specificity is the persuasion: '15 qualified meetings in 90 days or we work free' outsells 'satisfaction guaranteed' by carrying real risk transfer.
The terms block builds trust rather than hedging it — buyers read plain-language conditions as confidence, and hidden conditions as a trap.
Use question 3's actual stall phrases; the guarantee should answer the fear they voice, not the fear you assume.
If the model says your consistency can't support a guarantee yet, fix delivery first — a claimed guarantee that gets litigated destroys referrals.
Example: what this looks like in practice
A founder selling a $6K/month outbound program watches deals stall at the same moment: 'how do we know this will work for us?' She answers the interview honestly — worst-quartile clients get 8 qualified meetings in the first quarter, typical clients get 15-20, and she could afford to extend service free for claims. The model rules out a money-back window, recommends work-free-until with the line 'If you're not at 10 qualified meetings by day 90, we work free until you are', writes a 90-word terms block requiring client feedback SLAs, and notes the 10%-claim cost. The next three stalled deals all close within two weeks of the proposal update, and one prospect quotes the guarantee line back on the call.
Best fit
This prompt is one gear in a bigger machine. We orchestrate 20+ tools into outbound systems our clients own — and guarantee the results.
Apply for a Pilot Spot → →Frequently asked questions
Refund windows are usually the weakest B2B structure — the buyer's real fear is wasted time and looking bad internally, not just the invoice. Outcome-tied structures transfer that risk better: 'we work free until you hit the number' or a pilot with defined success criteria. The right choice depends on your delivery consistency, which is what this prompt evaluates first.
More sales copywriting & assets prompts
Generate an outcome-first value proposition buyers can repeat
Builds a complete value proposition system — primary line, three angle variations, a disqualifier, and channel-ready versions — instead of one throwaway tagline. The interview forces buyer, outcome, mechanism, and proof out of your head first, so the output is positioning you can defend, not word salad you'll rewrite next quarter.
Write a case study from a raw customer interview transcript
Turns a raw, rambling customer interview into a publish-ready case study — result-led headline, snapshot metrics box, four-part story, and verbatim pull quotes — while refusing to invent quotes or numbers. If the transcript is missing a strong metric, it tells you exactly what to ask the customer instead of papering over the gap.
Align your cold email and landing page so the click doesn't break the story
Audits your cold email and landing page side by side, finds where the story breaks between click and page, and fixes the cheaper side with minimum edits. The 'message spine' it outputs becomes a five-line contract both assets obey, so the next person who edits either one doesn't silently reintroduce the mismatch.