Use Clean Sequence 698803 to check how your ‘promise’ to the audience might connect with their landscape of attention
Here's a 520-word article plus a 480-word example... then I share the scaffold I used to draft the article.
The ‘promise’ made by the writer to the audience is essential for value and content, in my opinion. You may already be aware of some good examples such as Rob Fitzpatrick’s ‘Write Useful Books’; his promise is to deliver a modern approach to designing and refining recommendable nonfiction.
I’d like to propose Clean Sequence 698803 as a practical way of checking and evolving a ‘promise’. (If you’re still at the stage of wanting to know more about a ‘promise’ I suggest this article.)
Essence
The essence of Clean Sequence 698803 is:
get clarity on your audience (the assumption is that you’ve already got a pretty clear idea);
get clarity on your ‘promise’ to that audience;
compare your promise with the audience’s existing landscape of attention;
assess the extent to which the promise will be distinctive, memorable and credible; and
identify any changes that need to be made.
If you think this sounds quite complex… I agree. It’s not an easy one if you’re just getting started with Clean Sequences.
To help, here are a few definitions before we work through an example together:
Landscape of attention = this is what the audience is tending to think about. ‘Landscape’ is a metaphor. Some things are close and appear very large in the landscape while other things may be in the distance but still there. The audience can move their attention around the landscape, particularly if directed to do so by the writer.
Distinctive = this is the opposite of the ‘same old thing’ or ‘just more of the same’. When something is distinctive it stands out. Novelty is often associated with being distinctive.
Memorable = this is something that can stick in the mind. I recently looked up a book entitled ‘Living in Information: Responsible Design for Digital Places’. An adjacent book on Amazon was ‘The $1,000,000 Web Designer Guide’. I think the second title would score higher for memorability (though it’s not necessarily good in other ways).
Credible = this is similar to ‘believable’. A promise like ‘read this book and become better at chess’ is credible. A less credible promise would be ‘read this book and totally transform your life, finances and love life in just one hour’.
My example of a ‘promise’ is a chapter heading in Rob Fitzpatrick’s ‘Write Useful Books’. We’ll answer the full set of questions in Clean Sequence 698803, which are in italics:
Thinking of the audience…
Rob Fitzpatrick’s intended audience is, I believe, people who are open to a different way of designing and refining a problem-solving nonfiction book, adapting lessons of product designers. (I took this from the book, apologies to Rob if it’s incorrect.)
And thinking of a promise to the audience that’s made in a heading or title….
The heading of chapter six is ‘Gather better data, build a better book’. So that’s the promise we’re thinking about.
And to what extent could the audience see that promise as fitting within their landscape of attention? You can answer on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being high.
I’d give it a 7 out of 10. It’s reasonable to expect that ‘gather better data’ and ‘build a better book’ are both in the audience’s landscape of attention but probably the audience have not previously connected those two ideas. So 7 out of 10 seems reasonable. Certainly it’s more than 5 out of 10 and less than 10 out of 10.
Interestingly, my score would change dramatically if I re-defined the audience, for example to: ‘People with a passion for writing a pleasure-giving nonfiction book that expresses their ideas and thoughts on making our world a better place, in every way, for every person.’ For such an audience my estimate might be 1 out of 10 or even -1 out of 10. For them, the very idea of using data to ‘build’ a book might cause a visceral reaction of revulsion. (“It’s MY book, I’m expressing myself, the whole point is that I tell readers what I care about, I’m not responding to their cares!”)
And to what extent could the audience see that promise as distinctive? You can answer on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being high.
I’d give it an 8 out of 10. Rob’s approach is really quite different to other books about writing.
And to what extent could that promise be memorable to the audience? You can answer on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being high.
Hmm. Another 8 out of 10. It’s short and snappy. There’s also a nice balance to the two clauses in the title.
And to what extent could the audience see that promise as credible? You can answer on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being high.
Within the context of the book, the promise seems quite credible to me given that Rob has earlier said that “a major theme” of the book is to “stop writing your manuscript in secret and start exposing it to – and learning from – real readers as quickly as possible... You want to find (and fix) your book’s mistakes before launch, not after.”
And when all that, how does the promise seem now?
It seems fine.
And when that’s how it is, what needs to happen?
Nothing.
Does this make sense? If so, you could run Clean Sequence 698803 with your own ‘promises’ to your audience. You can do this even before you have gone to the trouble of writing a whole section or book. It will force you to clarify your ideas.
And if you can give yourself high scores, the chance of your target audience liking and recommending your book goes up a little more. So you’re more likely to have a successful test during the exposure to “real readers” that Rob talks about.
I hope Clean Sequence 698803 now seems more straightforward than it did at the start. It really is worth the time if it can help you to “improve your book before you write it” (Rob Fitzpatrick).
<ends>
Resources:
1. Here’s the original draft of the article that shows how the content emerged from a Clean Sequence (code = 840921). The questions posed by the Clean Sequence are in italics:
Thinking of the topic you are willing to write about…
My draft subheading is ‘Use Clean Sequence 698803 to check how your ‘promise’ to the audience might connect with their landscape of attention’.
And, in relationship to the topic, where is the audience now?
The ‘promise’ made by the writer to the audience is essential for value and content, in my opinion. You may already be aware of some good examples such as Rob Fitzpatrick’s ‘Write Useful Books’ where the promise is that he will deliver a modern approach to designing and refining recommendable nonfiction. If you’re happy with the concept of ‘promise’, I’d like to propose Clean Sequence 698803 as a practical way of checking and evolving it. (If you’re still at the stage of wanting to know more about a ‘promise’ I suggest this article.)
And what do they need to know?
The essence of Clean Sequence 698803 is:
get clarity on your audience (the assumption is that you’ve already got a pretty clear idea);
get clarity on the promise;
compare the promise with the audience’s existing landscape of attention;
assess the extent to which the promise will be distinctive, memorable and credible; and
identify any changes that need to be made.
And is there anything else about that?
If you think this sounds quite complex… I agree. It’s not an easy one if you’re just getting started with Clean Sequences.
To help, here are a few definitions before we work through an example together:
Landscape of attention = this is what the audience is tending to think about. ‘Landscape’ is a metaphor. Some things are close and appear very large in the landscape while other things may be in the distance but still there. The audience can move their attention around the landscape, particularly if directed to do so by the writer.
Distinctive = this is the opposite of the ‘same old thing’ or ‘just more of the same’. When something is distinctive it stands out. Novelty is often associated with being distinctive.
Memorable = this is something that can stick in the mind. I recently looked up a book entitled ‘Living in Information: Responsible Design for Digital Places’. An adjacent book on Amazon was ‘The $1,000,000 Web Designer Guide’. I think the second title would score higher for memorability (though it’s not necessarily good in other ways).
Credible = this is similar to ‘believable’. A promise like ‘read this book and become better at chess’ is credible. A less credible promise would be ‘read this book and totally transform your life, finances and love life in just one hour’.
And when that’s how it is, then what could happen?
My example of a ‘promise’ is a chapter heading in Rob Fitzpatrick’s ‘Write Useful Books’. We’ll use the full set of questions in Clean Sequence 698803, which are in italics:
Thinking of the audience…
Rob Fitzpatrick’s intended audience is, I believe, people who are open to a different way of designing and refining a problem-solving nonfiction book, adapting lessons of product designers.
And thinking of a promise to the audience that’s made in a heading or title….
The heading of chapter six is ‘Gather better data, build a better book’. So that’s the promise we’re thinking about.
And to what extent could the audience see that promise as fitting within their landscape of attention? You can answer on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being high.
I’d give it a 7 out of 10. It’s just an estimate. It’s reasonable to expect that ‘gather better data’ is in the audience’s landscape of attention, as is ‘build a better book’, but probably the audience have not previously connected those two ideas. So 7 out of 10 seems reasonable. Certainly it’s more than 5 out of 10 and less than 10 out of 10.
Interestingly, the estimate could change dramatically if I re-defined the audience, for example to: ‘People with a passion for writing a pleasure-giving nonfiction book that expresses their ideas and thoughts on making our world a better place, in every way, for every person.’ For such an audience my estimate might be 1 out of 10 or even -1 out of 10. For them, the very idea of using data to ‘build’ a book might cause a visceral reaction of revulsion. (“It’s MY book, I’m expressing myself, the whole point is that I tell readers what I care about, I’m not responding to their cares!”)
And to what extent could the audience see that promise as distinctive? You can answer on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being high.
I’d give it an 8 out of 10. Rob’s approach is really quite different to other books about writing.
And to what extent could that promise be memorable to the audience? You can answer on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being high.
Hmm. Another 8 out of 10. It’s short and snappy. There’s also a nice balance to the two clauses in the title.
And to what extent could the audience see that promise as credible? You can answer on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being high.
Within the context of the book, the promise seems quite credible to me given that Rob has earlier said that “a major theme” of the book is to “stop writing your manuscript in secret and start exposing it to – and learning from – real readers as quickly as possible. That might feel scary, but there are ways to do it safely, and it’s worth doing. You want to find (and fix) your book’s mistakes before launch, not after.”
And when all that, how does the promise seem now?
It seems fine.
And when that’s how it is, what needs to happen?
Nothing.
And when all that, what might the audience like to have happen?
Does this make sense? If so, you could run Clean Sequence 698803 with your own ‘promises’ to your audience. You can do this even before you have gone to the trouble of writing a whole section or book.
And is there a relationship between that and another problem for the audience?
It will force you to clarify your ideas. Remember how the first score went from +7 to -1 when I tried out a different characterisation of the audience.
And is there a relationship between that and another desired outcome for the audience?
And when you can give yourself a high score, the chance of your target audience liking and recommending your book goes up a little more. So you’re more likely to have a successful test during the exposure to “real readers” that Rob talks about.
And when all that, what is the difference…between what your audience at the beginning… and what they know now?
I hope Clean Sequence 698803 now seems more straightforward. It really is worth the time if it can help with improving your book before you write it (to use another phrase from Rob Fitzpatrick).