Part 1: Dimensionalising Problems
Find the problems behind the problems
Start with what you say now.
I read every piece you use to talk to customers now and list every problem it names, as the customer would say it. Where a piece names none, I record the problem you assume it solves, marked implied. The problems in the most pieces come first, so the work starts where your brand already is.
Rotate each problem through eight lenses.
Physical, functional, behavioural, emotional, relational, social, identity and future. Each lens finds a different way the same problem shows up in someone's life.
Ask why, then ladder.
Asking why takes each one down to the deep problem underneath. The ladder connects it to the personal value it matters for, then builds back to your product. That gives one argument: a reason to act, not a headline.
Check it against evidence.
Every line is marked Observed, Inferred or Hypothesis. Observed and Inferred lines name their source. A Hypothesis stays in. It's the reason to test.
Check it for slop.
Don't invent. Don't leap. Don't accept generic. An answer that could apply to almost any later-life customer is taken further or discarded.
You get up to eight arguments for each problem, one per lens. Five problems give you up to 40 arguments to test.
Example: one problem, eight lenses
Illustrative. Not a client."I'm struggling with the stairs."
Example: one lens, followed down
Illustrative. Not a client.- Surface problem"I'm struggling with the stairs."
- Relational lens"My partner carries things for me, my daughter checks whether I'm managing, I sometimes need to ask for help."
- Five whysThe people I look after are starting to look after me → I should be the one looking out for them, not the other way around → It feels like our roles are beginning to change → I don't want to become someone they have to look after
- Deep problem"I want to stay who I've always been to them, not become their responsibility."
- Back towards the productNobody needs to help me or check how I'm managing on the stairs → I get up and down the stairs on my own → Stairlift
Let your daughter be your daughter, rather than your carer.
Evidence: Hypothesis. No customer evidence supplied.Part 2: Testing Roadmap
Test the arguments head to head
Your most-used argument meets your least-used.
I rank the arguments by how many of your current pieces make them, then pair opposite ends: 1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 6, 4 v 5. The ranking isn't a guess at which argument will win. The tests find that out.
The argument is the brief.
Your team or agency makes the creative. Each brief is strict about the argument and open about how it's made. It says what the copy has to get across, what the design has to show, and which of your assets help make or prove it, and why.
Both versions are checked before they go live.
I check both versions at first or second proof, against the brief and the No One Cares Score, while changes are still cheap. If one version is made worse than the other, the test measures the making, not the argument.
Every test has to be clean.
Same audience, volume, offer, channel and dates live. One measure, agreed before the first round. If a test isn't clean, it isn't read. It runs again.
I read every result myself.
The record says what beat what, by how much, on which measure. The stronger argument goes into the next round. The weaker one is parked, not disproved.
Example: how the rounds run
Illustrative. Not a client.- Unknown
- Testing
- Stronger
- Parked
Round 1Most used meets least used
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
Round 2Stronger arguments meet
Ranked by their counts, paired the same way
Until one is leftThe strongest argument
The last one standing is the strongest argument for "I'm struggling with the stairs."
It meets the strongest argument from each of your other problems, ranked and paired the same way.
Value MapWhere heat comes from
Two arguments for the same problem show which is stronger. That doesn't move heat.
A result against the control, a benchmark or another problem's argument can.
Part 3: Value Map
Map what moves your customers
What your customers weigh up when they decide whether to act, and which parts of it actually move them
The map has one row for every problem your comms name or assume, and every row starts as Unknown. A test between two arguments for the same problem shows which argument is stronger. A result against the control, a benchmark or another problem's argument can move that problem's heat:
Only response creates heat. Never how often you say it, how much Dimensionalising found, or senior opinion.
The map shows what your customers have actually responded to, what they haven't, and what you still don't know. A Cool problem isn't one that doesn't matter. An Unknown problem isn't a small one.