Say the Number or Say Nothing: Claims That Survive a Sceptic

The words that cancel themselves

Industry leading. Results driven. Cutting edge. Passionate about excellence. World class.

Every one of these can be written by a business that has done nothing. The reader knows that, so the claim carries no information and is discounted to zero. Worse, a page full of them signals that the writer had nothing checkable to say.

Specificity works by the opposite mechanism. "We reply to every enquiry within 24 hours" can be tested, and could be wrong. That risk is exactly what makes it persuasive.

The test

Before publishing a claim, ask: could a competitor put this identical sentence on their site tomorrow without changing anything about their business?

If yes, it is not a claim, it is decoration. Cut it or make it specific.

"We deliver high quality design" fails. "Two revision rounds included, files delivered in editable form, average turnaround four working days" passes, because a firm that cannot do those things cannot honestly write them.

What specificity does to a sceptic

Remember who is reading. In most B2B purchases the document reaches people you never meet, including at least one person whose job is to find the flaw.

Vague claims give that person nothing to verify and therefore nothing to trust. Specific claims either survive checking or fail it, and surviving is what buys the rest of the page credibility. One verifiable number does more work than a page of adjectives.

The four kinds of claim worth making

1. Operational commitments. Response times, turnaround, revision counts, what is included. Cheap to state, easy to keep, immediately checkable.
2. Sourced facts. Third party research with the source named and linked, not a statistic laundered through four blogs until nobody knows where it came from.
3. Your own measured results. With the base and the period, and only where you can evidence them, per what belongs in a case study.
4. Honest limits. What you do not do, who you are wrong for, when the answer is wait. This is the most persuasive category and the least used.

The claims to avoid entirely

Guaranteed rankings or lead volumes, which either hide conditions or invite the shortcuts that damage a site. Superlatives you cannot substantiate: best, number one, leading. Fabricated urgency, invented testimonials, and review counts nobody counted.

Beyond the trust cost, unsubstantiated advertising claims are regulated in most of the markets worth selling into, including the US, UK, EU, and Australia. Puffery has limits, and comparative or quantified claims generally need evidence behind them. This is not legal advice, but the practical rule is simple: if you would struggle to produce the evidence when asked, do not publish the claim.

The uncomfortable part

Specificity constrains you. Once you publish a 24 hour response commitment, you have to answer within 24 hours. Once you publish pricing logic, you cannot quote arbitrarily.

That constraint is the product. It is why the claim is believed, and why firms unwilling to accept it are stuck writing sentences that persuade nobody. It is the same trade behind publishing what things cost instead of hiding behind a quote form.

Frequently asked

Is any vague language acceptable? In brand lines and tone, yes. In claims about what you deliver, no.

What if we have no results to publish yet? Publish commitments and process instead. Both are honest and neither requires a case study you do not have.

Will Fixora write claims we cannot keep? No. If we cannot evidence it, it does not go on the page. Send us your copy and we will mark what would not survive a sceptic, within 48 hours.