Hook library

Starts a story or test whose outcome is withheld until later in the ad.

It starts something the viewer wants finished. The test is set up in the first line and the result is held back, so staying is the only way to find out — and the setup costs them nothing to understand.

We tried [product] for [timeframe]. Here's what happened.

• We gave this to ten people who hate cooking.
• Day one, versus the day I nearly sent it back.
• I tried the thing everyone says doesn't work.

Best for

High consideration; measurable change over time

Poor fit

Impulse or commodity purchases, where the payoff isn't worth waiting for.

Watch out

Drives watch time without CAC movement. Always read against CAC, not hold rate.

Implies privileged knowledge the viewer doesn't have.

It reframes the ad from selling to telling. The viewer isn't being pitched, they're being let in — which specifically lowers the guard people keep up against advertising. It borrows the authority of someone who works inside the category.

The reason [competitor] never delivers [outcome] isn't what you think.

• Nobody in this industry buys the version they sell you.
• The reason these are all the same price has nothing to do with what's in them.
• I worked at a factory that makes these. Here's what I check now.

Best for

Look-alike spec categories where buyers distrust claims

Poor fit

Categories with obvious visible product differences

Watch out

Reads as clickbait without a real expert co-sign behind it.

States the result but hides the how.

It leads with the result, which earns the attention, then withholds the how, which keeps it. By the time you explain anything the viewer already wants the outcome.

[outcome] in [timeframe] — and it's not what you'd guess.

• It's not the ingredients.
• The reason this works has nothing to do with the coating.
• Same result, completely different method.

Best for

Products with a genuinely novel mechanism

Poor fit

Me-too products, category-standard mechanism

Watch out

If the mechanism isn't differentiated the payoff lands flat.

Frames the product as stumbled into rather than sought.

It removes the intent to sell from the setup. A recommendation from someone who wasn't shopping reads differently from one by someone who was — there's no obvious reason for them to be telling you except that it worked.

I found [product] by accident and it changed how I [action].

• I bought this for something completely different.
• This was supposed to be a one-off. It's been four months.
• I only tried it because the other one ran out.

Best for

Apparel, beauty, home — personal narrative categories

Poor fit

Regulated categories where implied claims create risk

Watch out

Saturated to parody in supplements. Check the Ad Library first.

• Always asserts an implied result — needs a real, checkable source.

Promises a payoff inside a named short window.

A named window turns watching into waiting for something. It sets an expectation the ad then has to meet, which is also the risk — if nothing happens, you've promised and failed in public.

Watch what happens to [product] in [timeframe].

• Give this ten seconds.
• Watch the edge of the pan.
• It changes about halfway through.

Best for

Education-heavy crowded categories

Poor fit

Products with no visible change to show

Watch out

Requires a real visual payoff or it under-delivers.

Opens on a question the viewer cannot answer for themselves.

A question the viewer can answer gets answered silently and they scroll. One they can't creates a small itch only the ad can scratch. The whole hook lives in how specific the question is.

Why does [problem] still happen?

• Why does it only ever happen on the left side?
• Why is the second one never as good as the first?
• Why do these always fail in exactly the same place?

Best for

Sub-segment-specific pains phrased narrowly

Poor fit

Broad category questions — answerable, so they scroll

Watch out

Any question the viewer CAN answer, they will, and then leave.

• Never on: existing customers

Attacks the category behaviour before offering an alternative.

It argues with something the viewer is already doing, which is harder to ignore than a claim about your product. The cost is that it only works on someone with no stake in the decision yet.

Stop buying [category].

• Stop buying these.
• Throw yours out.
• You don't need a better one. You need to stop doing the other thing.

Best for

Cold prospecting; subscription and commodity

Poor fit

Retargeting, warm, high-consideration, regulated

Watch out

Fails hard on warm audiences and high-consideration products. Someone who already visited the product page reads it as arguing with a decision they've made, and on supplements or healthcare a negative opening tends to trigger scepticism rather than curiosity.

• Never on: retargeting, existing customers

Tells the viewer not to act, triggering reactance.

Telling someone not to buy makes them work out whether they're the exception, which is a far more engaged state than being sold to. It needs a real disqualifier — a fake one is transparent.

Don't buy [product] if you think [objection].

• Don't buy this if you're happy with the one you've got.
• This is the wrong product for most people.
• Skip this unless you're doing it every day.

Best for

Ad-fatigued, contrarian, skeptical audiences

Poor fit

Audiences with no prior category exposure

Watch out

Only works if the disqualifier is real.

• Never on: cold prospecting

Leads with the viewer's own hesitation, then resolves it.

It opens with the viewer's own hesitation, so the ad starts on their side of the argument. Everything after it reads as an answer rather than a pitch — provided the answer actually arrives.

I almost didn't buy [product]. I thought [objection].

• I almost didn't order it.
• The price put me off for about a year.
• I assumed this was going to be a gimmick.

Best for

Considered purchases; a real objection to overcome

Poor fit

No meaningful purchase anxiety

Watch out

The objection must resolve within 15-30s or the negative frame sticks.

• Never on: retargeting
• Needs a real quote. a real customer objection, from a review or support ticket. No real source, hook blocked.

Opens with an unexpected fact about the category.

An uncomfortable fact stops the scroll because it doesn't sound like advertising. It only holds if the fact is real and checkable — the credibility is the entire hook.

[number] people buy [category] every year. Almost none know this.

• [Any number here must be one you can point to.] Most of what's sold as this isn't.
• The thing that ruins these is the thing you do every night.
• There's no legal definition of the word on the front.

Best for

Categories with a real, citable, under-known fact

Poor fit

Anywhere the fact is soft or unverifiable

Watch out

Substantiation risk. Every claim must be defensible.

• Never on: retargeting, existing customers
• Always asserts a stated fact — needs a real, checkable source.

Names a category belief and overturns it.

It takes something the viewer believes and puts it back in play. A belief is more engaging than information because they have a position to defend, and the ad gets to argue with it.

Everything you've been told about [category] is wrong.

• More is not better here.
• The step everyone skips is the one that matters.
• That rule was invented by someone selling something.

Best for

Education-heavy categories with folk wisdom

Poor fit

Where the myth is actually correct or protected

Watch out

Needs a defensible counter-claim, not just a provocative one.

• Never on: retargeting
• Always asserts a counter-claim — needs a real, checkable source.

Frames the incumbent as obviously inferior.

It makes the old option look like a decision rather than a default. The viewer has to justify what they already use, which is a much more active state than being shown a new thing.

Why would you ever buy [competitor] when [product] exists?

• Why is anyone still doing it the old way?
• This exists, and people still buy the other one.
• Name one reason to keep using yours.

Best for

Disruptors with a meaningfully different product

Poor fit

Marginal improvements; cautious brand voices

Watch out

Invites direct comparison. Not advisable if only marginally better.

• Never on: retargeting
• Always asserts a comparative claim — needs a real, checkable source.

Positions the ad as a caution before the viewer acts.

It frames the ad as information the viewer needs rather than something they're being sold. A loss lands harder than an equivalent gain — but only with a real, near-term downside and an immediate fix.

If you [action], stop.

• If you do this at night, stop.
• Check yours before you use it again.
• This is the mistake that ruins them.

Best for

Products preventing a real near-term downside

Poor fit

Low-stakes categories with no genuine risk

Watch out

Fear framing with no credible remedy depresses rather than motivates.

• Never on: existing customers
• Always asserts a risk claim — needs a real, checkable source.

A real customer objection over the opening frame, answered on camera.

The first thing the viewer reads is someone else's doubt rather than your pitch, so it doesn't register as an ad for the first second. And the objection is usually theirs too — which turns the rest of the video into a reply instead of a claim.

[Overlay: "I thought [objection]"] — answered on camera

• [Yours must come from a real review, comment or customer — never write one.] [overlay: "way too expensive for what it is"] → answered with the cost breakdown
• [overlay: "does this actually work on curly hair"] → answered by demonstrating it
• [overlay: "I already own one of these"] → answered with the specific difference

Best for

Categories where every product looks the same and the product gives you nothing to lead with. Works cold and warm.

Poor fit

Brands with no real comments or reviews to draw from.

Watch out

Fabricated comments are a brand-trust risk and increasingly obvious.

• Needs a real quote. a real comment or review, verbatim. No real source, hook blocked.

No copy — the first frame itself violates feed expectation.

It buys a second of attention by looking wrong for the feed — no copy, no product, nothing that signals an ad. That second is all it buys, so relevance has to arrive immediately behind it.

[First frame: unexpected visual or audio break, no copy]

• [Open on the aftermath, not the product]
• [Two seconds of silence where music should be]
• [Something breaking, then the product]

Best for

Saturated feeds; TikTok and Reels

Poor fit

High-intent environments where benefit-led aligns

Watch out

Interrupting without relevance buys attention you can't convert. Something has to make it relevant within a second or two.

• Never on: retargeting, existing customers

Names and validates a pain before positioning any solution.

It gets agreement before it asks for anything. A viewer who has just silently thought "yes, that's exactly it" listens differently to whatever comes next. That recognition is the whole hook — which is also why it fails when the relief takes too long to arrive.

Nobody talks about how bad [problem] actually is.

• Nobody warns you about the 4pm version of yourself.
• It's not the mess. It's that you cleaned it yesterday.
• The problem isn't the shoes. It's the twenty minutes after you take them off.

Best for

Problems the buyer already feels and could describe unprompted — sleep, fit, skin, smell, mess.

Poor fit

Problems the buyer hasn't noticed yet — you'd be teaching and agitating at once.

Watch out

Agitation with no fast credible remedy depresses the viewer.

• Never on: retargeting, existing customers

Asks whether the viewer has observed a recurring annoyance.

It asks the viewer to confirm an observation rather than accept a claim. Agreeing is easy, and once they've agreed once they're in the conversation.

Ever notice that [problem] always happens?

• Ever notice it only does it when you're in a hurry?
• Ever tried to do this one-handed?
• Ever wondered why they're all exactly the same size?

Best for

Mid-consideration: problem known, solution unknown

Poor fit

Unaware audiences with no reference point

Watch out

Loses force when the observation isn't specific.

• Never on: existing customers

Quantifies what the viewer is losing right now.

It converts a vague annoyance into a quantity, and a quantity is something you can decide to stop losing. The figure carries the entire hook, which is why it has to be defensible.

[problem] is costing you [number] every [timeframe].

• [Any number here must be one you can point to.] You're replacing these more often than you think.
• The cheap one costs more across a year.
• [state the real cost of doing nothing]

Best for

Products with a calculable waste to displace

Poor fit

No quantifiable downside to inaction

Watch out

The number must be defensible. An invented figure is a trust and compliance problem.

• Always asserts a cost figure — needs a real, checkable source.

Ties inaction to a closing window that is real and external.

A real closing window converts intention into action, because "later" stops being an option. Manufactured deadlines work once and then train people to ignore all of them, including the real ones.

[offer] ends [timeframe]. Here's what to do first.

• After the fifteenth this becomes a different price.
• The last of this run.
• It ships before the weekend, or after the month.

Best for

Genuine seasonal, stock or regulatory deadlines

Poor fit

Manufactured urgency

Watch out

Only works while the deadline is real and externally verifiable. Manufactured ones work once and then train people to ignore all of them.

• Never on: cold prospecting

Acknowledges what the viewer already tried and why it failed.

It names what the viewer has already tried, which proves you understand the problem rather than just selling into it. It needs a real explanation of why those failed, or it's only criticism of competitors.

You've tried everything for [problem]. Here's why it didn't work.

• You've tried the spray, the powder, and the thing that plugs in.
• The reason none of them worked is the same reason.
• Everything you've tried treats the symptom.

Best for

Crowded categories with high trial-and-abandon rates

Poor fit

New categories where the viewer has tried nothing

Watch out

Requires a real mechanism to follow, or it's just competitor criticism.

• Never on: existing customers
• Always asserts unverified claims about alternatives — needs a real, checkable source.

Shows two states side by side.

Two states side by side make the argument without a sentence. It's the most legible proof format there is — which is also why platforms restrict it in the categories where the claim matters most.

[Before: [problem]] → [After: [outcome]]

• Same jumper. Same wash cycle.
• [left half treated, right half not]
• Three weeks apart, same light, same spot.

Best for

Anything where the change is visible and credible: skin, cleaning, fit, repair, restoration.

Poor fit

Products with no visible change, or categories where platforms restrict before/after.

Watch out

Fails when there is no visible change to show. Before/after imagery in health, weight and cosmetic categories is conditionally restricted on Meta and may require age targeting or content limits — check the current Advertising Standards before production rather than assuming either way.

• Always asserts a before/after result — needs a real, checkable source.

Opens on the product doing the thing, no setup.

The viewer understands the benefit before anyone explains it. The product becomes its own argument, and the motion gives them a reason to stay another second while the argument lands.

[Frame 1: [product] mid-use]

• Watch what happens when I drag this across a three-year-old stain.
• This is the part nobody films.
• [open mid-action, no voiceover for two seconds]

Best for

Products with a visible action, transformation, mechanism or result — something that reads in two seconds of muted video.

Poor fit

Services, software, or anything whose benefit can't be shown.

Watch out

Demo alone is a Product-Aware message. To a Problem-Aware audience it reads flat.

Subjects the product to abuse to prove durability.

Deliberately trying to break the product convinces more than saying it's durable, because the viewer watches you take the risk. The test has to be real — staged ones get found out and take the brand with them.

We put [product] through [timeframe] of abuse.

• We ran it over.
• Three hundred pours, same seal.
• This is the fourth one we've tried to destroy.

Best for

Durability-led products: outdoor, tools, cookware, luggage, pet.

Poor fit

Consumables and cosmetics

Watch out

The test has to be real. A staged one gets spotted, and it takes the brand's credibility with it.

• Always asserts a durability claim — needs a real, checkable source.

Runs the product against an alternative in the same frame.

A comparison lets the viewer decide, which lands harder than being told. It only works when there's a visible difference — on a parity product you've just proved your competitor's point at your own expense.

[Split screen: [product] vs [competitor]]

• Same price, same size, thirty seconds apart.
• Both new, both used the same way.
• [split screen, no commentary]

Best for

Genuinely differentiated products in a category where everything looks alike.

Poor fit

Parity products

Watch out

Fails on parity products, where the comparison exposes the lack of difference. Naming a competitor also invites their retargeting and raises trademark and comparative-advertising risk — get comparative claims reviewed.

• Always asserts a head-to-head comparison — needs a real, checkable source.

Leads with texture, sound, pour, steam or condensation.

Texture, sound and motion hold attention before anyone processes a claim. It buys the first two seconds cheaply, but it carries no argument of its own — something has to follow it quickly.

[Frame 1: [product] — pour, steam, texture, condensation]

• [the pour, close, no words]
• [the sound it makes when it seals]
• [steam, then the label]

Best for

Food, drink, fragrance, anything with texture — products that do something pleasurable on camera.

Poor fit

Low-sensory products: electronics, tools, anything financial.

Watch out

Carries no argument. Needs a claim or offer immediately behind it.

Promises to teach a specific task or fix.

A promise to teach reads as useful rather than promotional, and useful gets watched. The risk is that people take the lesson and leave, so the method has to actually need your product.

How to fix [problem] in [timeframe].

• How to do this without ruining it.
• The order matters more than the products do.
• Three minutes, one tool.

Best for

Audiences actively searching for a solution

Poor fit

Unaware audiences with no search behaviour

Watch out

Instructional framing invites the viewer to take the lesson and leave.

• Never on: existing customers

Enumerates benefits as the opening structure.

It's legible and easy to follow, which is why it's the default — and why cold audiences filter it in under a second. It works on people already comparing options, not on people deciding whether to care.

[number] reasons to switch to [product].

• Four things I checked before buying.
• The three that actually matter.
• Everything it does, in order.

Best for

Product-aware buyers comparing options

Poor fit

Cold prospecting, where benefit-led openings are already the default and get skipped.

Watch out

The most familiar structure in the feed, so cold audiences recognise and skip it quickly. It works on people already comparing options, not on people deciding whether to care.

• Always asserts feature claims — needs a real, checkable source.

Reveals the product from its packaging.

Opening something is inherently watchable and delays the reveal by a few seconds. It only works when the packaging or the first look is genuinely worth the wait.

[Frame 1: [product] being unboxed]

• [hands, box, no face]
• I've been waiting three weeks for this.
• It's heavier than I expected.

Best for

Gifting, subscription boxes, premium packaging, toys

Poor fit

Unremarkable packaging or no physical delivery

Watch out

Good for testing, harder to scale — it tends to work in bursts rather than as a durable format. Only worth it when the packaging or first look earns the wait.

Leads with a specific verifiable number.

A specific number is evidence; a vague one is filler. "Thousands love it" reads as advertising. An exact figure reads as a fact someone could go and check.

[number] people bought [product] in [timeframe].

• [Any number here must be one you can point to.] More people ordered a second one than a first.
• It sold out three times this year.
• [state the real figure, then what it means]

Best for

Considered purchases and higher price points, where the buyer wants evidence other people got it right.

Poor fit

New brands with no real numbers to cite yet.

Watch out

Generic proof performs at the benefit-led baseline. Specificity is the variable.

• Always asserts a customer number — needs a real, checkable source.

Opens on a customer's own words.

It opens in a customer's voice rather than the brand's, so the first line carries no sales intent. The specificity of a real review is the thing that makes it work — polished ones read as written.

[Opening frame: a verbatim review of [product]]

• [Yours must come from a real review, comment or customer — never write one.] [open on one verbatim review line, held on screen]
• [read it aloud, then answer it]
• [the least flattering true review you have]

Best for

Any category with a real review corpus

Poor fit

Pre-launch products with no reviews

Watch out

Check claim compliance — customer language can create regulated claims.

• Needs a real quote. a real review, verbatim, with the reviewer identifiable to the brand. No real source, hook blocked.
• Always asserts a customer review — needs a real, checkable source.

Borrows a named relevant expert's credibility.

It borrows judgement from someone with no obvious reason to flatter you. Works when the expert is relevant to the category — fame from somewhere else reads as a paid placement.

[authority] use [product].

• [Yours must come from a real review, comment or customer — never write one.] [named expert, stated relationship, one sentence on why they use it]
• "The people who do this for a living all use the same one."
• [expert disagrees with the category first, then names yours]

Best for

Look-alike spec categories where buyers distrust claims

Poor fit

Where the expert has no earned authority

Watch out

Authority must be category-relevant, not just famous.

• Always asserts a named expert — needs a real, checkable source.

Stacks sourcing and method credentials, then contrasts the category.

It answers "why does this cost that" before the viewer asks. Stacked specifics are harder to dismiss than a single claim, and each one invites checking — which is exactly why every item has to be true.

[credential]. Not all [category] is created equal.

• Three ingredients. All named on the front.
• Made in the same place it's been made for sixty years.
• Two things in it. Neither is water.

Best for

Premium food, drink, skincare, anything where sourcing is a genuine difference rather than a story.

Poor fit

Commodity products with no defensible sourcing story.

Watch out

Every credential must be substantiated. This hook invites scrutiny by design.

• Always asserts a sourcing credential — needs a real, checkable source.

Frames proof as movement away from a named incumbent.

Movement away from a known option is stronger evidence than approval, because the person had something already and gave it up. It also names your real competitor for you, which cuts both ways.

[number] people switched from [competitor] to [product].

• [Any number here must be one you can point to.] [state how many switched, and from what]
• "Most of our customers already owned one of the other thing."
• "We mostly sell to people replacing something."

Best for

Challengers with a real incumbent to name

Poor fit

Category creators with no incumbent

Watch out

Fails when there is no real incumbent to name. Naming a competitor invites their retargeting and raises comparative-advertising risk; there is no blanket prohibition, but have the claim reviewed.

• Always asserts a switching number and a named competitor — needs a real, checkable source.

Third parties react on camera; the brand never speaks first.

The brand never speaks, so nothing sounds like a claim. The viewer watches other people react and draws their own conclusion, which sticks better than being told.

[Unscripted third-party reactions to [product]]

• [Yours must come from a real review, comment or customer — never write one.] [hand it to strangers, film the first reaction]
• [two people compare, no script]
• [ask people to guess the price]

Best for

Visually demonstrable products with an immediate reaction

Poor fit

Products whose benefit is delayed or invisible

Watch out

Nothing to react to. If the benefit is delayed or invisible you get polite faces and no proof — and it is the most expensive hook here to reshoot.

• Needs a real quote. real third-party reactions, filmed. No real source, hook blocked.

The founder explains the frustration that caused the product.

A person explaining why the thing exists is more watchable than a product explaining what it does. It works where trust is the barrier — and it's strongly category-dependent, doing heavy lifting in some verticals and nothing at all in others.

I started [product] because I was tired of [problem].

• I made this because I couldn't find one.
• We were the customer first.
• This started as something I made for myself.

Best for

Brands with a real person behind them and a category where trust is the barrier.

Poor fit

Brands with no founder story, or categories where the buyer doesn't trust anyone yet.

Watch out

Vertical-dependent: top-5 format in Health & Wellness, absent from Fashion's top 10.

A customer narrates their own arc.

A single arc is easier to follow than a list of benefits, and the viewer measures themselves against the starting point rather than the end. Needs a real person, real permission, and real care in regulated categories.

[timeframe] ago I had [problem]. Now I [action].

• [Yours must come from a real review, comment or customer — never write one.] [one customer, their own words, start and end]
• [let them describe the starting point in detail]
• [no before/after imagery if the category restricts it]

Best for

Emotional products and complex transformations

Poor fit

Simple self-evident products

Watch out

Substantiation risk in health, weight and financial categories.

• Needs a real quote. a real customer's story, with their permission. No real source, hook blocked.
• Always asserts a personal result — needs a real, checkable source.

Invites the viewer into a repeated ritual the product sits inside.

It shows the product inside a life rather than on its own, which answers "when would I actually use this" without being asked. Works on people already in the category, not on people deciding whether to enter it.

Restock my [category] with me for [occasion].

• Restocking for the season, come with me.
• The five minutes that make the rest of it work.
• Sunday reset, this bit only.

Best for

Replenishment and subscription products, and anything with a ritual around it.

Poor fit

One-time purchases with no repeat rhythm

Watch out

Works on people already in the category. Weak as a cold opener.

• Never on: cold prospecting

Anchors the product to a shared memory.

A shared memory does the emotional work before the product appears. It only lands for the cohort that holds the memory — everyone else sees a non-sequitur.

[category], but without [problem].

• The one your gran had.
• Before they changed it.
• This is the version you remember.

Best for

Food, toys, apparel — shared generational memory

Poor fit

Functional categories; audiences outside the cohort

Watch out

Reference must be legible to the target cohort.

Gives the season or product a voice; wit carries the frame.

Wit signals confidence and buys goodwill, and a joke gets shared in a way a claim doesn't. It tends to convert efficiently rather than broadly, and it needs brand permission to be funny.

[occasion] called. It brought [outcome].

• Autumn called. It wants its jumper back.
• Your kettle is jealous.
• The sofa has opinions.

Best for

Beverage, food, apparel — brands with permission to be funny

Poor fit

Regulated or high-trust categories; formal voices

Watch out

Fails in regulated and high-trust categories, and at any brand without permission to be funny. Wit that misses reads as unserious.

Positions the product against the category default in one line.

It positions against what the viewer expects from the category, so it's understood instantly with no explanation. The claim has to be paid off within about two seconds or it reads as talk.

Not your average [category].

• Not the usual version of this.
• This one doesn't do the annoying thing.
• Everything you expect, minus the part you hate.

Best for

Products with a real demonstrable difference

Poor fit

Parity products

Watch out

Must be paid off immediately or it's the fastest route to a bounce.

Asserts category supremacy directly.

A confident claim gets attention cheaply, which is why it wins on clicks and loses on cost — it attracts everyone rather than the right person. Treat it as a reach device, not a conversion one.

This is [category] at its finest.

• The best one we've ever made.
• Nothing else comes close.
• This is the category at its best.

Best for

Top-of-funnel reach where CTR is the objective

Poor fit

Efficiency-driven prospecting and retargeting

Watch out

Fails on anything CAC-driven. It buys reach, not conversions — use it where the objective is cheap attention, and never as an efficiency play.

• Never on: cold prospecting, retargeting, existing customers

Names the audience segment in the opening line.

It does the qualifying the platform no longer does, in the first two seconds. Anyone who isn't the audience scrolls, which is fine — the ones who stay are pre-sorted before you've said anything about the product.

[audience]: you're getting [category] wrong.

• If you've got a toddler and a white sofa.
• Anyone who works twelve-hour shifts.
• This is for people who cook every night, not just at weekends.

Best for

Broad targeting, where the hook has to do the qualifying the platform no longer does.

Poor fit

Segments too small to sustain delivery

Watch out

Trades reach for relevance. Watch CPM alongside CAC.

Describes a specific moment rather than a demographic.

A specific moment beats a demographic, because people recognise moments faster than they recognise categories of person. It says "I've watched you do this" rather than "you are a type".

If [problem] sounds familiar, keep watching.

• The 4am feed, one-handed, in the dark.
• That drive home where you can't get comfortable.
• The bit where you've already left and have to go back.

Best for

Context-bound problems (4am workouts, 12-hour shifts)

Poor fit

Products used in no particular context

Watch out

Must be specific enough to feel observed, not generic.

• Never on: existing customers

States a personal identity or ritual the product belongs to.

It attaches the product to something the viewer already says about themselves, so it isn't a purchase decision, it's a confirmation. Only works when the identity is one they already claim — aspirational versions fall flat.

[product] is my entire [occasion] personality.

• This is my entire personality now.
• I've become a person who owns one of these.
• My whole morning depends on it.

Best for

Products people already mention unprompted — drinks, beauty, apparel, anything worn or displayed.

Poor fit

Purely functional purchases with no identity load

Watch out

Only lands if the identity is one the audience already claims.

Puts the viewer inside the moment of relief.

It puts the viewer inside the moment of relief instead of describing it. The format is saturated, so the specificity of the frustration is doing all the work — the POV framing itself is doing none.

POV: you finally found [category] without [problem].

• POV: it finally fits.
• POV: nobody asks you about it again.
• POV: you stopped checking.

Best for

Apparel and fit problems; any named frustration

Poor fit

B2B or high-formality brand voices

Watch out

Heavily saturated. Distinctiveness comes from the frustration's specificity.

Openly disqualifies part of the audience.

Turning people away signals confidence and makes whoever's left feel chosen. It costs reach on purpose, which only pays back when your margin supports a smaller, better-qualified audience.

[product] isn't for everyone. It's for [audience].

• This isn't for everyone.
• Most people should buy the cheaper one.
• If you only use it twice a year, don't.

Best for

Premium and niche positioning; defending a price point

Poor fit

Volume plays needing maximum reach

Watch out

Shrinks the pool. Only worth it when margin supports a higher CPM.

Leads directly with the discount.

For someone who already knows the product, price is the only missing information. For someone who doesn't, a discount on an unknown thing isn't a reason to stop — which is why it's the most over-used opener in the feed.

[offer] on [product].

• It's the lowest it goes.
• Same product, different number.
• This is the one week it isn't full price.

Best for

Categories where buyers already know the product

Poor fit

Cold audiences with no brand context

Watch out

Sale-led openings are common during promotional periods, so they blend into the feed exactly when everyone else is running them. It also does nothing for someone who doesn't already know the product.

Names the high price first and justifies it.

It disqualifies the wrong buyer in two seconds and flatters the right one. It also spends the price objection early, so anyone still watching has accepted the number and the rest of the ad gets to be about the product.

[product] costs more than [competitor]. Here's why.

• Yes, it costs more than the supermarket one. Here's the part they leave out.
• This is the most expensive one on the shelf. I'd want to know why too.
• If you're happy replacing yours every year, don't buy this.

Best for

Premium products whose price is public anyway, competing against something noticeably cheaper.

Poor fit

Value-positioned brands competing on price.

Watch out

Only defensible with a real reason-why.

• Always asserts a comparative price — needs a real, checkable source.

Frames the ad as news rather than a re-run.

News gets attention that a repeated message doesn't, and "back in stock" carries an implicit proof — it sold out once. Recycled newness trains people to ignore your announcements entirely.

[product] is back. [offer].

• It's back.
• New size, same thing.
• The colour everyone kept asking for.

Best for

Hero SKUs with a refresh cadence

Poor fit

Static catalogues with nothing new

Watch out

Fails when nothing has actually changed. Recycled 'newness' trains the audience to discount every future announcement.

Shows the arithmetic of the saving.

Showing the arithmetic persuades more than asserting a saving, because the viewer does the sum themselves and arrives at your conclusion rather than being handed it.

[offer] — that's [number] saved vs buying separately.

• [Any number here must be one you can point to.] Buying them separately makes no sense.
• The set costs less than two of the four.
• [show the actual sum on screen]

Best for

Catalogue-heavy browse-before-buy categories

Poor fit

Single-SKU brands with no bundle logic

Watch out

The saving has to be real arithmetic. A vague 'save more' reads as noise, and single-SKU brands have no bundle logic to show.

• Always asserts a savings figure — needs a real, checkable source.

Names a closing window on stock or price.

A closing window forces a decision that would otherwise be deferred indefinitely. It's also the most faked device in the category, so it only works for as long as yours is real.

[product] sells out in [timeframe]. [offer] ends now.

• This is the last of this run.
• When it's gone it's a different supplier.
• Two weeks, then it's seasonal again.

Best for

Real stock constraints and genuine seasonal windows

Poor fit

Cold prospecting; manufactured scarcity

Watch out

Scarcity is the easiest device to fake and audiences have learned to discount it. Once yours reads as manufactured, every future deadline you set is discounted too.

• Never on: cold prospecting

Opens on the guarantee rather than the product.

It removes the cost of being wrong, which is the actual barrier on a first purchase in an unfamiliar category. The terms then become a promise you have to keep.

Try [product] for [timeframe]. [offer].

• Use it for a month. Send it back covered in mud if you want.
• If it doesn't work, we'll take it back.
• You don't pay until you've tried it.

Best for

Higher-priced first purchases in a category the buyer hasn't bought from before.

Poor fit

Low-AOV impulse buys

Watch out

Fails when the guarantee is the only differentiator — if the product is the risk, a refund policy will not sell it. Stated terms are contractually binding.

• Always asserts guarantee terms, contractually binding — needs a real, checkable source.