# Message test — https://www.lionwords.com/ After reading your page, only 6 of 15 personas could name a reason to pick you over a similar option. - **Page tested:** https://www.lionwords.com/ - **Audience tested against:** Buyer personas: 1) Head of Marketing , VP Marketing, or CMO, or head of GTM 2) Founder/Co-Founder, CEO or VP of Revenue At established B2B Tech or SaaS company, in 10M-50M ARR range - Often: complex offer, i.e. multi-vertical or crowded category - evidence of prior positioning or brand messaging investment Pains: Know where they need to be positioned but not how to say it Messaging issues: unclear differentiation from competitors Team not aligned on messaging Struggling to explain what they do in a simple, compelling way Growth has stalled or conversion is low Burned by past agencies who delivered words without strategy Triggers to landing on this site: A rebrand or repositioning effort Launching or refreshing a website Recognising a gap / hearing me speak + content resonates Entering a new market or launching a new product Lost deals / or marketing assets that aren't generating pipeline Sales and marketing teams saying different things This is NOT for: Product Marketing Managers Founders of pre-revenue or very early-stage startups (i.e. less than 1M) with low or little traction Founders of small service-based businesses - **Personas:** 15 simulated - **Report:** https://grader.wynter.com/r/messaging-strategy-for-b2b-saas-lion-words-GH5ANW4 > These answers are generated by AI, scored on Wynter's B2B Message > Layers framework using behaviorally-diverse simulated personas. The > methodology is real and the critique is directional. What a simulated > persona cannot have is a live budget, a renewal coming up, or a boss > asking about this quarter. --- ## 01 · The scores Every persona answered all four questions. These are four independent proportions of the same panel, not stages of a funnel. | Layer | Question | Cleared the bar | Strength | Of those who passed | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1. Clarity | Do they understand what you do? | 15/15 | 99% | 14 without hesitation, 1 with reservations | | 2. Relevance | Can they tell what it solves, and who it's for? | 15/15 | 91% | 9 without hesitation, 6 with reservations | | 3. Value | Do they actually want it? | 10/15 | 58% | all with reservations | | 4. Differentiation | Is there a reason to pick you over the alternatives? | 6/15 | 44% | all with reservations | **Brand alignment** (a side metric, not one of the four layers) — 7/15, 48% strength (all with reservations). Does the page read like the company you actually are? **Fix first: Differentiation.** Earliest failing layer, walking the sequence in order — not simply the lowest score. --- ## 02 · What to change, layer by layer Ordered worst-first. Specific edits, not a restatement of the score. ### Differentiation **Differentiate the three testimonials by outcome, not sentiment.** Every quote says the same thing — messaging got clearer. Pick quotes that each prove a different thing: research depth, sales adoption, a measurable business change. *effort medium · impact high · tested against Proof next to the claim* **State what Diane does that an agency or template won't.** "Carve out your own lane" and "we love getting our hands dirty" are claims any messaging consultant makes. Kindrie Eaton's "not just fit our messaging into a template" is the real wedge — say that in the page's own voice, with the method that makes it true. *effort medium · impact high · tested against Give a reason to choose you* **Cut the duplicate service tiles and the KING/WILD labels.** "KING" and "WILD" repeat the consulting and strategy offers already listed above under "Do-it-yourself" and "Done-with-you." Two competing menus for the same services blur the choice and hide what is distinct. *effort low · impact medium · tested against One clear next action* ### Value **Replace testimonial-only proof with a quantified engagement outcome.** "Lion Words' process gave our company the boost we needed" is the strongest outcome on the page. Add a client result with a number — inbound conversion lift, sales-cycle change, time saved on rewrites — beside the claim it supports. *effort medium · impact high · tested against Specifics beat superlatives* **Show a before-and-after messaging example on the page.** The page promises "launch-ready homepage copy" and a "messaging playbook" but shows neither. A short before/after of a real headline proves output quality faster than any claim. *effort medium · impact high · tested against Show the product early* **Define what the 6-week engagement delivers, week by week.** "Our signature 6-week engagement gets you clarity" leaves the buyer guessing at scope, effort and artifacts. List the deliverables and the time their team must commit. *effort low · impact medium · tested against Tie the feature to the outcome* ### Clarity **Define "signature message" the first time it appears.** "Find your signature message" is a branded deliverable label a first-time reader has to decode. Say what the artifact is in plain words at first use. *effort low · impact medium · tested against Plain language* ### Brand alignment (side metric) **Add scale proof: team size, revenue stage, or enterprise names.** The logos and testimonials read as early-stage founder-led SaaS, so a budget-accountable executive sees no peer. Vodafone is buried in the speaking blurb — surface enterprise and scaled-team clients where proof is claimed. *effort medium · impact high · tested against Proof next to the claim* **Name the executive buyer, not just "B2B marketing teams".** "B2B marketing teams and leaders hire us" lets a VP of Marketing or CMO with multiple stakeholders infer whether they qualify. Name the role and the situation — a leadership team that can't agree on the story. *effort low · impact medium · tested against Name the audience* **Flatten the jokey lines that undercut executive credibility.** "Borrow our brain instead", "give us your hardest-to-explain product" and "getting our hands dirty" read as small-business banter to a buyer defending a budget. Keep the directness, drop the winks. *effort low · impact medium · tested against Plain language* --- ## 03 · What is working ### The problem and the audience land on the first screen without effort Eight respondents said the opening lines state the pain and who it's for plainly, with client logos and testimonials reinforcing it. Several noted no inference or hunting was needed. > The problem is stated right up top — "Outdated messaging is costing you deals you should be winning" — and the follow-on line about explaining the product differently on every call, jargon burying the edge, sounding like everyone else, made the pain point clear within seconds. > > — Head of Marketing, Enterprise Software, 5000+ > The problem was stated fast: "Outdated messaging is costing you deals you should be winning... Maybe your team explains it differently on every call... you're starting to sound like everyone else in a crowded market." That's a clear opening claim, no hunting needed. > > — Chief Marketing Officer, Business Services, 5000+ > It was obvious within the first two lines — "Outdated messaging is costing you deals you should be winning" tells me the problem immediately, and the follow-up about explaining the product differently on every call, jargon burying the edge, sounding like everyone else — that's a clear symptom list. > > — VP of Marketing, B2B SaaS, 201-500 > The opener - "Outdated messaging is costing you deals you should be winning" - names the problem in one line, and the "B2B teams" mention plus the ROAR framework and named clients like Reveall, Dash, Messente told me this is aimed at B2B marketing leaders/founders > > — Head of Marketing, Enterprise Software, 501-1000 ### Named clients and specific testimonials are the one credible proof element Three respondents cited real names — including the Kindrie Eaton testimonial rejecting a template approach — as concrete and standing out against faceless competitors. > The specific named clients — Reveall, Messente, Vodafone (as a training client) — are what would keep this on the shortlist over a faceless competitor, because those are checkable names, not "leading SaaS company" euphemisms. > > — Chief Marketing Officer, Business Services, 501-1000 > "trained over 2,000 marketers across 9+ countries" and named clients like Vodafone and Schlafender Hase — that's at least a specific, checkable claim versus the vague "clarity" language > > — Chief Executive Officer, Business Services, 201-500 --- ## 04 · What the personas said ### Branded method names and deliverable labels stall comprehension Two respondents said branded methodology naming slowed the initial skim and that deliverables such as 'signature message' were never concretely defined. > terms like "signature message" and "6-week engagement" — they sound concrete but neither is defined: what's the deliverable at day 42, and does "signature" mean a tagline, a full messaging doc, or something else? > > — Chief Marketing Officer, Business Services, 501-1000 > the friction was earlier, in labels like "KING" and "WILD" and "ROAR methodology," which are branded jargon that tell you nothing until you read the fine print underneath > > — Head of Go-to-Market, Enterprise Software, 1001-5000 ### No respondent found a quantified outcome anywhere on the page Seven respondents said the page offers only subjective testimonial language — no pipeline, close-rate, or performance metrics, and no before-and-after messaging examples or deliverable artifacts to inspect. > the page gives me no mechanism for how the ROAR steps produce that consistency, no before/after messaging examples, no data on pipeline or win-rate impact > > — Chief Marketing Officer, Business Services, 5000+ > The named ROAR steps and Diane-only ownership stand out; but no case-study metrics, so wouldn't pick over incumbent. > > — VP of Revenue, B2B SaaS, 5000+ > There's zero mention of lift in MQL-to-SQL, email/lead conversion, or anything I could take to my CFO as an ROI number — it's all qualitative > > — Head of Go-to-Market, Enterprise Software, 1001-5000 > they're all "we got clarity," which is soft — I'd want to see a before/after homepage or a sales deck example to believe the 6-week ROAR process actually produces something my sales team would pick up and use verbatim > > — Head of Go-to-Market, Enterprise Software, 201-500 > A documented drop in sales-cycle length or a lift in win rate tied directly to the new messaging, with a named client confirming it — anything short of a hard before/after number is just a nicer story, not a business case. > > — Chief Marketing Officer, Business Services, 501-1000 > nothing on the page quantifies it: no before/after conversion lift, no sales cycle shortened, no win-rate change, just "clarity" and testimonials saying things like "we left with clarity." > > — VP of Marketing, B2B SaaS, 1001-5000 > the page gives me no numbers to hang that on: no "reduced sales cycle by X%" or "time to close deals," just testimonials saying things like "we left with clarity." > > — Chief Executive Officer, Business Services, 201-500 ### Testimonials all say the same thing and none show the work Three respondents said the testimonials repeat generic outcomes without evidence of output quality or business metrics, leaving the ROAR methodology and founder ownership unproven. > every proof point is a quote saying "we got clarity" — Reveall, Dash, NaNLABS all say some version of that, but none show me an actual before/after homepage, a sales deck, or a messaging doc > > — Head of Go-to-Market, Enterprise Software, 201-500 > not one of those quotes ties to a business number — no "shortened sales cycle by X," no "win rate up Y%" — so if a competitor on my shortlist showed even one case study with a pipeline or conversion metric attached to their messaging work, that alone would knock Lion Words out. > > — VP of Marketing, B2B SaaS, 1001-5000 ### The proof base reads as small SaaS and does not scale to enterprise Six respondents read the logos and references as early-stage or founder-led SaaS only, signaling comfort with smaller companies and offering no peer credibility or scale proof for enterprise buyers. > Clients skew mid-market B2B tech/SaaS (Reveall, Dash, NaNLABS, Messente, Cloudbox are all names I don't immediately recognize as huge), so this reads like a shop that's used to companies my size or smaller > > — Head of Go-to-Market, Enterprise Software, 201-500 > I'd read it as tailored to a 20-150 person SaaS company still finding its story, not an enterprise team with layers of stakeholders and procurement. > > — Chief Marketing Officer, Business Services, 501-1000 > the case studies are all small B2B SaaS founders, not anything close to our scale or complexity, so I don't know if a solo-founder-led 6-week engagement can actually handle an enterprise launch with a dozen stakeholders > > — Head of Marketing, Enterprise Software, 5000+ > Small boutique shop, one-woman-led, sells mainly to founder-led SaaS/startups - not enterprise > > — VP of Revenue, B2B SaaS, 501-1000 > the client logos (Reveall, NaNLABS, Dash, Messente, Cloudbox) are startup-to-midmarket names, not enterprise brands > > — Head of Go-to-Market, Enterprise Software, 1001-5000 > testimonials are mostly small SaaS founders/CEOs, not enterprise peers > > — VP of Revenue, B2B SaaS, 501-1000 ### The tone speaks past the executive buyer who controls the budget Three respondents called the tone jokey and small-business, aimed at a founder or marketing lead rather than a budget-accountable executive managing complex stakeholders. > the "SUP SCROLLER" pop-up and the "I am... A Boss (aka Founder, CEO or Biz owner)" email signup are a notch too jokey/small-business for a 200-500 person enterprise buyer > > — Head of Go-to-Market, Enterprise Software, 201-500 > Tone-wise it's written for a founder or marketing lead who's hands-on and feeling the pain personally ("Give us your hardest-to-explain product"), not for someone like me who needs to justify pulling sales, product marketing and legal into a six-week engagement > > — Chief Executive Officer, Business Services, 1001-5000 > the testimonial-heavy, "she'll push you to get it right" personal-brand tone, and lines like "borrow our brain instead," feel pitched at a founder or head of marketing making a gut call, not at someone who has to justify the spend against other budget lines > > — VP of Revenue, B2B SaaS, 5000+ ### The offer reads as a founder-led six-week consulting engagement, not software Five respondents correctly described the service: a named founder, a 6-week methodology, and deliverables like a homepage rewrite and messaging playbook. They also identified it as an agency rather than a product. > B2B messaging/positioning consultancy — they write your homepage copy and messaging playbook. > > — VP of Revenue, B2B SaaS, 5000+ > a boutique agency that helps companies fix their "outdated messaging," align sales/marketing on a single story, and rewrite homepage copy. It's led by one person, Diane Wiredu, with a 6-week "ROAR" methodology > > — Head of Go-to-Market, Enterprise Software, 201-500 > It's a boutique B2B messaging/positioning consultancy — basically a copywriter-led shop that runs a "6-week engagement" (their "ROAR" methodology) to nail down your positioning and then rewrite your homepage copy. It's not a product or a piece of software I'd install — it's a service, one founder (Diane) doing the work with client testimonials as the main proof. > > — VP of Marketing, B2B SaaS, 1001-5000 > boutique agency, run by one named founder, that does workshops and a "6-week engagement" to rewrite how a company talks about its product, ending in a messaging playbook and homepage copy. So not a tool or software product at all > > — Head of Marketing, Enterprise Software, 5000+ > Obvious fast — "Outdated messaging is costing you deals" up top, clearly B2B marketing/sales leaders. > > — VP of Revenue, B2B SaaS, 5000+ --- ## 05 · The hardest read An adversarial pass over the findings. Every claim below was checked against the panel's own answers; unsupported ones were dropped. - **The page's entire evidence base is testimonial, so it collapses the moment a buyer asks for numbers.** *(high)* Seven respondents found no pipeline, close-rate, or performance metric anywhere, and three said the testimonials repeat generic outcomes with no output shown. The one proof element respondents credited is the same testimonial block. - **Clarity is doing all the work and it buys nothing, because being instantly understood as an unquantified consulting engagement is not a reason to buy.** *(high)* Eight respondents said the pain and audience land on the first screen and five correctly described the six-week founder-led service, yet seven found no quantified outcome. Comprehension is high and justification is absent. - **The page disqualifies itself from enterprise deals before a conversation starts.** *(high)* Six respondents read the logos and references as early-stage founder-led SaaS with no peer credibility at scale, and three called the tone jokey and small-business, aimed past the budget holder. - **Buyers cannot judge quality of work because no artifact exists on the page to judge.** *(high)* Seven respondents noted the absence of before-and-after messaging examples or deliverable artifacts, and two said labels such as 'signature message' were never concretely defined. A messaging service that will not show its messaging invites the obvious… - **The founder-led framing caps deal size by signaling a one-person capacity constraint.** *(medium)* Five respondents identified a named founder running a 6-week engagement and read it as an agency, not a product, while six read the client base as small SaaS only. Nothing on the page suggests the model survives a complex stakeholder environment. - **The branded methodology is a liability: it costs skim time and returns no differentiation.** *(medium)* Two respondents said branded naming slowed the initial skim and deliverables like 'signature message' were never concretely defined; three said the testimonials leave ROAR unproven. The name is asked to carry credibility it has not earned. --- ## 06 · Who answered | # | Role | Industry | Company size | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | VP of Revenue | B2B SaaS | 5000+ | | 2 | Head of Go-to-Market | Enterprise Software | 201-500 | | 3 | Chief Marketing Officer | Business Services | 501-1000 | | 4 | VP of Marketing | B2B SaaS | 1001-5000 | | 5 | Head of Marketing | Enterprise Software | 5000+ | | 6 | Chief Executive Officer | Business Services | 201-500 | | 7 | VP of Revenue | B2B SaaS | 501-1000 | | 8 | Head of Go-to-Market | Enterprise Software | 1001-5000 | | 9 | Chief Marketing Officer | Business Services | 5000+ | | 10 | VP of Marketing | B2B SaaS | 201-500 | | 11 | Head of Marketing | Enterprise Software | 501-1000 | | 12 | Chief Executive Officer | Business Services | 1001-5000 | | 13 | VP of Revenue | B2B SaaS | 5000+ | | 14 | Head of Go-to-Market | Enterprise Software | 201-500 | | 15 | Chief Marketing Officer | Business Services | 501-1000 | --- ## 07 · Before you act on this The methodology is real, and the critique is directional. What a simulated persona cannot have is a live budget, a renewal coming up, or a boss asking about this quarter. **Validate anything you're betting on with real ICPs who are actually in-market.** Being wrong is more expensive than you think. Finding out is cheaper than you'd guess. Wynter runs message testing with verified B2B professionals — trusted by HubSpot, RingCentral, Shopify, Cognism, Paddle, Veeam, Rippling and Miro. This report is kept for 60 days from 2026-08-27, then deleted along with the personas and their answers.