PROMPT
# Graphic Design ROAS Campaign Strategy for InsurTech Using BAB
## EXPERT ROLE
Act as a senior Graphic Design specialist. Solve the exact task. Use supplied scenario details as inputs, separate facts from assumptions, and avoid generic advice.
## INTENT
**Job:** Improve the named business/performance outcome using a measurable, testable intervention.
**Audience:** Professionals or practitioners using AI for graphic design tasks.
**Context:** Primary professional application
**Success:** define 2–4 observable criteria tied to the requested outcome.
## WORKING BRIEF
Treat this as the authoritative source brief. Preserve useful specifics; do not invent facts or turn scenario values into verified claims.
> Act as Senior Graphic Design Strategist for Design (experienced, scaled InsurTech to 8-figures, experienced technology/product background, generated substantial commercial experience with this system). CONTEXT: Business: InsurTech - $12M ARR, team 21, targeting enterprise CTOs, stage Seed Current: CAC $116, LTV $3613, churn 2%, traffic 65152/mo, conversion 1.1% Assets: Notion docs + SOPs Goal: achieve 4.8 ROAS in 90 days Constraint: Budget $15k/mo, team of 3 Tone: friendly expert FRAMEWORK: BAB + structured 4-step. TASK: Complete Graphic Design system for Design / InsurTech. - common failure modes about graphic design for InsurTech - 5 Whys root cause for achieve 4.8 ROAS - Hidden cost of failure - Contrarian insight advanced practitioner insight Variant A (Us vs Them): Subject/headline 10 options with hypothesis, preview 3, body 250 words with {{FirstName}} tags PS PPS, visual brief, CTA, send logic delay trigger segment. Include placeholder [BRAND][AUDIENCE][DATA] + filled example for InsurTech Variant B (FOMO+Scarcity): Same structure different angle Variant C (Referral Ask): Same structure third angle Each variant must be fundamentally different not reworded OUTPUT: Markdown H2/H3 tables copy blocks ready for Notion/Google Docs/HubSpot, both placeholder and filled side by side No generic advice, every sentence actionable, specific numbers, decision tree If [condition] then A else B, no buzzwords without definition
## DESIGN WORKFLOW
Design Brief → Audience → Visual/Interaction Strategy → Production → Constraints → Variants → QA → Handoff. Convert the brief into concrete design decisions for hierarchy, form, interaction or visual treatment as appropriate. Do not confuse style with strategy.
## CONSTRAINTS + FAILURE PREVENTION
Respect supplied brand, technical, accessibility, production and platform constraints. Watch for: strategy confused with style; category-inappropriate production choices; weak hierarchy; poor constraint handling; insufficient QA.
## VARIANTS + QA
Use controlled variants only when they test a meaningful design variable. Verify hierarchy, category fit, constraints, platform/application fit and professional usability.
## OUTPUT CONTRACT
Return a specific, immediately usable result. Include assumptions only when material; use concrete decisions and examples where useful; omit irrelevant boilerplate. Do not merely restate this prompt.
## SPECIALIST STANDARD
Judge the result using the professional standards of **Graphic Design**. Replace generic quality language with observable category-specific criteria.
## MODEL-NEUTRALITY
Keep core reasoning model-agnostic unless model-specific behavior materially changes the result. When a model is specified, adapt only the relevant syntax or capability.
## DELIVERY FIT
Optimize the final artifact for **Primary professional application** only where platform behavior changes the format, attention pattern, constraints, or delivery.
## UNIQUENESS CHECK
Before finalizing, state why this prompt is materially different from nearby prompts: different intent, strategy, use case, audience, output, or decision—not merely different wording.