Message Angle Tester
Test three message angles against the segment's real pain — which one matches the stack they run and the category they research — before you spend on creative.
Demand Gen - Messaging
Fund the angle the data backs — not the one that won the meeting
3
Angles tested
Scored on real pain
'Cut tool sprawl' wins - the segment
runs 4.2 overlapping tools on average.
'Cut tool sprawl' wins - the segment
runs 4.2 overlapping tools on average.
| Angle | Evidence | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Cut tool sprawl | 4.2 overlapping tools | Strong |
| Faster incidents | Some intent overlap | Medium |
| Lower cloud cost | No stack signal | Unproven |
Why it lands
Three angles felt equally good in the room. The data says the segment runs 4.2 overlapping observability tools on average — so 'cut tool sprawl' resonates with a real pain, while 'lower cloud cost' has no supporting signal.
Overview
Take a set of candidate message angles and a target segment, then score each angle against the segment's HG-observed reality (installed stack, category intent, peer pains) — so the demand-gen team funds the angle the data says will resonate, not the one that sounded best in the room.
Use cases
Stop A/B testing blind
Instead of burning spend to discover which angle works, score them against the segment's installed stack and intent first — then test the two that have real support.
Defend the creative decision
When a stakeholder pushes their favorite angle, the data on the segment's real pain is a more persuasive argument than opinion.
View workflow prompt
# Message Angle Tester
## Parameters
- `{{message_angles}}` *(required)* — Candidate angles to test (one per line). Example: `1) Cut tool sprawl; 2) Faster incident response; 3) Lower cloud cost`
- `{{target_segment}}` *(required)* — The segment to test against. Example: `US mid-market SaaS, 200-1000 employees`
- `{{category}}` *(required)* — Category whose intent indicates resonance. Example: `observability`
## Purpose
Score each angle in {{message_angles}} against what {{target_segment}} accounts actually run and research — using technographic stack signatures and {{category}} intent — so creative budget funds the angle grounded in the segment's real pain.
## Process
1. **Profile the segment** — `search_companies` + `company_technographic` to characterize the segment's common installed stack (the source of real pain).
2. **Map angles to pain** — for each angle in {{message_angles}}, identify the technographic or intent evidence that would make it resonate (e.g., 'cut tool sprawl' resonates if the segment runs 4+ overlapping tools).
3. **Intent corroboration** — `intent_category` for the {{category}} to see which framing aligns with what the segment is actively researching.
4. **Score** — rank angles by strength of supporting evidence; flag angles with no data support as 'unproven — A/B test before scaling'.
5. **Recommend** — name the lead angle and the evidence behind it.
## Output Format
Markdown with:
- `# Message Angle Test — {{target_segment}}`
- `## Segment Stack Profile` (common installed tools)
- `## Angle Scores` (table: angle | supporting evidence | score)
- `## Lead Angle` (the winner + why)
- `## Citations`
## Quality Checklist
- Each angle score cites technographic or intent evidence
- Angles with no data support are flagged as unproven, not scored high
- The lead angle's evidence is specific, not generic
- Segment stack profile cites `company_technographic`