Specialize For Roles, Not Actions

Most products do [something] for [someone].

Imagine a course on writing.

Which side is more persuasive: A course...

• ...on writing?
• ...for writers?

I'd argue that roles are more persuasive than actions.

1. Roles Are Permanent

Compare these:

• Jennifer enjoys dogs a lot
• Jennifer is a dog person

Both seem similar, but Jennifer seemed more enamored with dogs when she was described as a dog person (Walton & Banaji, 2004).

Same with these examples:

• ...is a coffee-drinker VS. drinks coffee a lot
• ...is a night person VS. stays up late
• ...is a baseball fan VS. watches baseball a lot

Verbs are fickle — they depend on the day, time, and more.

But nouns? They're permanent.

Therefore, a course "for writers" will convey permanent benefits.

2. Implicit Social Proof

Consider each mental image:

• ...on writing: Prospects imagine the act of writing.
• ...for writers: Prospects imagine a group of writers taking your course.

Roles contain social proof. And these hypothetical people belong to the same ingroup as prospects, so this effect is further magnified.

3. Validation for Newcomers

Some purchases can validate a role.

If writers are buying your course, they will inherit this designation (i.e., become an official writer) by merely purchasing it.

Takeaway

• Sprinkle Roles Throughout Copy. You can still mention actions too. Just don't forget to include roles.

Caveats

• Foster a Growth Mindset. Customers were less likely to sign up for a training program for "leaders" because it seemed difficult (Savani & Zou, 2019). But this hesitation was resolved by describing leadership as a skill that could be developed.
• Harder With Diverse Segments. You might need action-framing if your product caters to many types of people.

• Savani, K., & Zou, X. (2019). Making the leader identity salient can be demotivating. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 25(2), 245.
• Walton, G. M., & Banaji, M. R. (2004). Being what you say: The effect of essentialist linguistic labels on preferences. Social Cognition, 22(2), 193-213.