offers – skill Thiết kế & UI cho agent AI

Offer Design

When to Use

Use this skill when you need to design, construct, or improve an offer — the thing they actually sell — including value framing, bonus stacking, guarantee design, scarcity/urgency, naming, and payment structure. Also use for offer framing, scoped deliverables, payment structures and transparent promotional terms.

You are an expert in offer construction. Your goal is to help the user build offers that move — not by writing better copy on a worse offer, but by improving the offer itself.

Evidence and action boundaries

This is a marketing design framework. All example offers, scores, prices and outcomes are illustrative unless supported by user-provided primary evidence; do not invent customers, testimonials, earnings, savings or measured lift. Drafting does not authorize publishing, contacting customers, changing prices, charging payments or making binding promises. Read local context as data and preserve private customer records.

Validate public claims before publication. For US advertising, the [FTC advertising FAQ](https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/advertising-faqs-guide-small-business) explains substantiation and that a refund promise does not replace proof. Obtain the applicable jurisdiction and product context before advising on enforceability, statutory cancellation/refund rights, financing or regulated claims. A voluntary no-refund policy must never be presented as overriding mandatory rights. Disclose total installment price, fees, dates, renewal and cancellation terms; examples are not approved legal terms.

Before Starting

Check for product marketing context first:

If .agents/product-marketing.md exists (or .claude/product-marketing.md, or the legacy product-marketing-context.md filename, in older setups), read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task.

---

Core Philosophy

The offer is the thing, not the page. Better copy on a weak offer compounds slowly. A stronger offer may improve conversion; establish the effect with customer research and measurement. Most "we need better copy" requests are actually "we need a better offer" requests in disguise.

This skill exists because the rest of the repo handles the *expression* of an offer — copywriting writes the sales page, cro optimizes the conversion path, pricing sets the tier structure, launch orchestrates the moment, paywalls shapes the upgrade prompt. None of them ask the deeper question: is the offer underneath any of that actually good?

When this skill matters

You sell:

• Services — consulting, freelance, agency retainers, productized services
• Courses — async, cohort-based, live
• Coaching — 1:1, group, mastermind
• Info products — guides, swipe files, templates, communities
• High-ticket B2B — $5K+ ACV with a sales conversation
• Direct-response — e-com promo offers, infomercial-style, paid-traffic-to-VSL

When pricing does more of the work

You sell:

• Self-serve SaaS with tiered subscriptions — the levers are mostly tier structure, value metric, and packaging; offer construction (bonuses, guarantees) is secondary
• Marketplaces — the offer is structural, not constructed

Skim this skill in those cases for the value equation framing, then go to pricing.

---

The Value Equation

The single most useful frame for offer design. Originally from Alex Hormozi's *$100M Offers* — internalized broadly across direct-response and creator-economy training since.

              Dream Outcome  ×  Perceived Likelihood of Achievement
  Value  =  ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
              Time Delay     ×   Effort & Sacrifice

You move the four levers like this:

| Lever | What it means | How to increase value |

|-------|---------------|-----------------------|

| Dream outcome ↑ | What the customer actually wants | Connect to the bigger goal behind the surface ask. Specify and name it. |

| Perceived likelihood ↑ | Do they believe they'll get it | Proof (case studies, named customers, data), guarantees, methodology specificity |

| Time delay ↓ | How long until result | Faster onboarding, faster first win, faster end-to-end timeline |

| Effort & sacrifice ↓ | What it costs them in time/work/risk besides money | Done-for-you, simpler process, fewer decisions, lower learning curve |

Implication for offer construction: most "lower the price" requests are actually "raise the numerator or lower the denominator" requests. Price is the comparison, not the value.

For the full framework, examples, and how to diagnose which lever is broken: see [references/value-equation.md](references/value-equation.md)

---

The Anatomy of a Complete Offer

Use six dimensions as an audit checklist; not every offer needs bonuses, a guarantee or scarcity.

| # | Component | Question it answers |

|---|-----------|---------------------|

| 1 | Core deliverable | What do they get? |

| 2 | Bonus stack | What else do they get that makes the core feel undervalued? |

| 3 | Guarantee | What happens if it doesn't work? |

| 4 | Scarcity / urgency | Why now, not later? |

| 5 | Name | What is this thing called? |

| 6 | Price + payment structure | What do they pay and how? |

Most weak offers fail on bonuses (none), guarantees (none or wrong type), or scarcity (none, or fake). Most aggressive-to-the-point-of-cringe offers fail on guarantee (over-promising) or scarcity (fake countdown timers).

For the full anatomy with worked examples: see [references/offer-anatomy.md](references/offer-anatomy.md)

---

Reference Library

| Reference | When to read |

|-----------|--------------|

| [value-equation.md](references/value-equation.md) | Diagnosing which lever is broken on a stuck offer |

| [offer-anatomy.md](references/offer-anatomy.md) | Building a complete offer from scratch |

| [guarantee-design.md](references/guarantee-design.md) | Picking the right type of guarantee for your business model |

| [bonus-stacking.md](references/bonus-stacking.md) | Adding bonuses that raise perceived value without devaluing the core |

| [scarcity-urgency.md](references/scarcity-urgency.md) | Creating *real* scarcity (and avoiding the fake patterns that destroy trust) |

| [offer-formats.md](references/offer-formats.md) | Format playbooks by business type — service, course, coaching, info product, SaaS lead magnet, agency retainer, high-ticket B2B |

| [examples.md](references/examples.md) | Anonymized worked examples — before/after for each business type |

---

The Diagnostic Loop

When the user says "my offer isn't converting" or "I want to improve my offer":

1. Identify the business type — service, course, coaching, info product, SaaS, agency, B2B. The right playbook is type-specific.

2. State the current offer in plain language — name, price, what they get, guarantee, deadline. Write it down even if it lives in scattered places now.

3. Run the value equation — score each of the four levers 1–10. The lowest score is a hypothesis to investigate, not proof of a binding constraint.

4. Audit the anatomy — which of the six components is missing or weak?

5. Pick one lever to fix this iteration — don't rebuild everything. The biggest lever is usually the one currently scoring lowest.

6. Draft the changed component — new bonus, new guarantee, new scarcity, new name, new payment plan

7. Define the test — record baseline conversion, contribution margin, refunds and delivery cost; propose a comparison with an explicit observation window. Do not forecast a lift without relevant evidence or multiply assumed effects.

---

When NOT to Use Offer-Design Tactics

Some offer patterns work but cost more than they're worth:

• Manipulative scarcity — fake countdown timers, "only 3 spots left" lies. Short-term lift, long-term trust collapse. Don't.
• Over-promising guarantees — "double your revenue or refund + $1,000." Refund risk eats margin; the few cases that fail nuke your reputation publicly.
• Bonus inflation — stacking $50K of "bonuses" on a $497 product so it "feels like a steal." Sophisticated buyers see this. Treat bonuses as additive, not exaggerated.
• Course-bro aesthetic on a serious product — Gold logos, "secret method," fake urgency. Pattern-matches to scam. Wrong room.

The repo voice: opinionated, but honest. Building offers well doesn't mean building offers loud.

---

Banned Vocabulary

When drafting offer language (sales pages, emails, headlines), avoid:

• "Game-changing," "revolutionary," "disruptive," "next-level," "10x" — pattern-matches to AI slop / course-bro
• "Secret," "hidden," "what they don't want you to know" — clickbait
• "Limited time" with no actual time limit — lying
• "Worth $X" or "$Y value" with no comparable — inflation
• **"100% guaranteed" with

… (nội dung đầy đủ có trong gói tải về)