Templates / Content brief
Content brief template
Everything a writer needs before the first sentence, in the order they need it, plus one brief filled in all the way so you can see the standard.
Most rewrites are not a writing problem. They are a briefing problem. The writer delivered exactly what the brief asked for, and the brief was three lines in a chat message.
This template is the fix. It forces the decisions that cause rewrites to happen before drafting: the angle, the reader, the structure, and what done means.
Fill it in once and hand it over. If a field takes you more than a minute to answer, that is the field that would have cost you a rewrite.
How to use it
- 01Fill the header and the intent blocks yourself before you assign the piece. Those are editor decisions, not writer decisions.
- 02Write the angle in one sentence. If you cannot, do not assign the piece yet, because the writer will have to guess and their guess will be wrong.
- 03Paste the actual search results you are competing with into the intent block, with a note on what each one misses. That note is the angle.
- 04List every source with a link. Any claim without a source in the brief is a claim the writer has to either drop or research, and they should know which.
- 05Agree the definition of done before drafting starts, including who reviews and by when.
- 06Send the brief and the deadline in the same message. A brief with no date is a suggestion.
The template
Block 1. Header
The facts. Should take two minutes.
Working title: [FULL SENTENCE, CONTAINS THE SEARCH TERM]
Content type: [how to / listicle / comparison / opinion / template / case study]
Word count target: [NUMBER, plus or minus 10 percent]
Writer: [NAME]
Editor: [NAME]
Draft due: [DATE]
Publish date: [DATE]
Where it publishes: [BLOG / GUEST SITE / NEWSLETTER]
Block 2. Reader and intent
Who is searching, what they actually want, and what nobody has given them yet.
Persona: [PERSONA NAME AND ONE LINE]
Where they are: [problem aware / solution aware / comparing options / ready to buy]
The exact search: [KEYWORD OR QUESTION AS TYPED]
What they want in the first thirty seconds: [ONE SENTENCE]
What is currently ranking: [URL] covers [WHAT IT DOES WELL] but misses [THE GAP]
What is currently ranking: [URL] covers [WHAT IT DOES WELL] but misses [THE GAP]
What is currently ranking: [URL] covers [WHAT IT DOES WELL] but misses [THE GAP]
Our angle in one sentence: [THE THING WE SAY THAT THOSE THREE DO NOT]
Why we are credible on this: [WHAT WE HAVE SEEN, BUILT OR RUN]
Block 3. Structure the writer follows
Headings, in order. The writer can argue with them before drafting, not after.
H1: [TITLE]
Opening angle: [THE SITUATION TO OPEN WITH, one line]
H2: [HEADING]. Must cover: [BULLET], [BULLET]
H2: [HEADING]. Must cover: [BULLET], [BULLET]
H2: [HEADING]. Must cover: [BULLET], [BULLET]
H2: [WORKED EXAMPLE HEADING]. Must include: [THE SPECIFIC SCENARIO TO WALK THROUGH]
H2: [MISTAKES OR FAQ HEADING]. Must cover: [THE THREE QUESTIONS]
H2: What to do next. CTA: [THE ONE ACTION]
Anything explicitly out of scope: [TOPIC WE ARE NOT COVERING, AND WHY]
Block 4. Sources and claims
Every number in the finished piece traces back to a line here. No line, no number.
Source: [TITLE] | [URL] | Use for: [WHICH CLAIM]
Source: [TITLE] | [URL] | Use for: [WHICH CLAIM]
Internal data we can use: [WHAT, AND WHO APPROVES USING IT]
Expert or customer to quote: [NAME, and confirm permission before drafting]
Claims we must not make: [ANY LEGAL, COMPLIANCE OR PRODUCT CLAIM THAT IS OFF LIMITS]
If a claim has no source: cut it. Do not soften it into some studies suggest.
Block 5. Search requirements
Keep this short. A long list here produces copy written for a crawler.
Primary keyword: [PHRASE]. Must appear in the title, the first hundred words, and one H2.
Secondary terms to cover naturally: [PHRASE], [PHRASE], [PHRASE]
Questions to answer somewhere in the piece: [QUESTION], [QUESTION]
Internal links, minimum three: [URL and the anchor text], [URL and anchor], [URL and anchor]
External links: at least two, to sources, not competitors.
Meta title, under 60 characters: [DRAFT IT HERE]
Meta description, under 160 characters: [DRAFT IT HERE]
URL slug: [short-and-readable]
Block 6. Voice and formatting rules
The house rules, pasted in every time so nobody has to remember them.
Point of view: [we and you, or third person]
Reading level: plain language. Short sentences. Explain any term the persona would not use themselves.
Paragraphs: four lines maximum.
Banned words: [YOUR LIST, for example revolutionary, industry leading, seamless, game changing]
No em dashes. Use commas or periods.
No emoji in body copy.
Images: [HOW MANY, WHAT KIND, WHO MAKES THEM]
Alt text: written by the writer, describing the image, not repeating the keyword.
Block 7. Definition of done
Agree this before drafting. It is what a review is checked against.
Every H2 from block 3 exists, or the writer flagged the change before drafting.
The worked example is filled in with specifics, not left hypothetical.
Every number has a source link in a comment.
Three internal links, two external links.
Meta title and description written, both within the limits.
Spell check and read aloud pass done by the writer, before the editor sees it.
Submitted in [DOC TOOL] with comment access for [EDITOR NAME], by [DATE].
Filled example brief
Same template, completed, for a made up bakery selling wholesale to cafes.
Working title: How to price wholesale orders when you are a small bakery
Content type: how to. Word count: 1,500. Writer: [WRITER]. Editor: [EDITOR].
Draft due: Mar 12. Publish: Mar 19. Publishes on: the blog.
Persona: owner baker, under five staff, retail only today, first wholesale inquiry just arrived.
Where they are: problem aware. They know they need a number, they do not know how to get to it.
The exact search: wholesale bakery pricing
What they want in thirty seconds: a method, not a lecture on margin.
Ranking now: a general food costing guide that never mentions wholesale minimums.
Ranking now: a supplier blog post that assumes you already have a costing system.
Ranking now: a forum thread with good instincts and no math.
Our angle: the four numbers in order, ending with a quote they can send the same day.
Why we are credible: we built the costing worksheet and we walk owners through it.
H2: Why retail pricing does not survive contact with wholesale. Must cover: volume does not mean cheaper for you, and the delivery cost nobody counts.
H2: Step one, work out your true unit cost. Must cover: ingredients, labor per batch, packaging, waste rate.
H2: Step two, decide your minimum order. Must cover: oven session capacity, delivery run cost.
H2: Step three, set the price and the review date. Must cover: putting a review date in the agreement.
H2: A worked example, forty croissants a week. Must include: the full arithmetic, start to finish.
H2: What goes wrong. Must cover: discounting for volume too early, quoting before knowing waste rate, no price review clause.
H2: What to do next. CTA: download the pricing worksheet.
Out of scope: retail pricing, menu design, anything about hiring.
Sources: our own worksheet. No external statistics in this piece, so no numbers beyond the worked example arithmetic.
Claims we must not make: no promise about margin outcomes, no claim about what other bakeries charge.
Primary keyword: wholesale bakery pricing. Secondary: bakery cost per unit, wholesale minimum order, bakery pricing worksheet.
Internal links: the costing worksheet page, the post on ingredient waste, the post on delivery routing.
Meta title: How to Price Wholesale Bakery Orders (With Example)
Meta description: Work out your true unit cost, set a minimum order, and send a wholesale price you will not regret. Includes a full worked example.
Slug: wholesale-bakery-pricing
Where this usually goes wrong
- Briefing the topic and not the angle. Write about wholesale pricing produces the same post as the three already ranking, and the writer had no way to know that was not the goal.
- Pasting a list of thirty keywords into the search block. The writer will try to use them, and the result reads like it was assembled rather than written.
- Leaving the structure block empty because you want the writer to have freedom. Freedom on the sentences, agreement on the skeleton, otherwise the disagreement surfaces at review when it costs the most.
- No definition of done, so review becomes a matter of taste and the third round of edits is about commas.
- Asking for claims and numbers without supplying any sources. The writer will find something to cite, and you will publish whatever they found.
Common questions
How long should a content brief be?
One to two pages. Long enough that the writer never has to guess the angle, short enough that you will actually write it for every piece rather than only the important ones.
Who should write the brief, the editor or the writer?
The editor writes the header, the intent and the angle. The writer can propose the structure. Splitting it that way puts each decision with the person who has the context for it.
Do freelancers need a different brief?
Same brief, plus more of the voice block, because they have not absorbed your house style from sitting near it. Add two links to published pieces that sound right.
Can this be generated automatically?
The research parts can. Creaiter can pull the ranking pages and the related terms into the intent block, which saves the hour of tab collecting. The angle is still yours, because that is the judgment about what you know that the ranking pages do not.
Related templates