本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

behavioral-marketing

Applies decision science and cognitive bias research to marketing and product decisions — how people actually choose under uncertainty, and how framing, defaults, sequencing, and social context change behavior. Use this to diagnose why a well-argued offer is not converting, to structure choices and pricing presentation, to design an experience around how attention and memory work, or to pressure-test whether a persuasion tactic is legitimate or manipulative.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md5.1 KB
  • references/sources.md3.0 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Behavioral marketing

People do not evaluate offers on merit and then act. They decide fast, under uncertainty, using whatever the context makes salient — and then explain the decision afterward. Marketing that assumes otherwise loses to marketing that does not.

The effects that most often explain a stuck conversion

Reference dependence. Nothing is judged absolutely. A price is high or low relative to whatever was shown first, so what you present first sets the frame for everything after it.

Loss aversion. Losing something registers considerably more than gaining the equivalent. This is why switching costs are underestimated by sellers and overestimated by buyers, and why "what you are currently losing" often outperforms "what you could gain."

Choice overload. More options reduce the likelihood of any choice being made. Beyond a small number, each additional option raises the cost of deciding faster than it raises the chance of a good match. If a pricing page has seven tiers, the problem is not the copy.

Status quo and default effects. Doing nothing is the most-chosen option in almost every context, and whatever is pre-selected is disproportionately taken. Whether a default exists is often a bigger lever than anything in the argument around it.

Social proof. Evidence of what similar others did carries more weight than claims about quality — and specificity matters. "Used by four hundred logistics teams" works where "trusted by thousands" does not, because the first is checkable and names a peer group.

Zero-price effect. Free is not a very low price; it is a different category that suspends cost-benefit reasoning. This makes free tiers powerful acquisition tools and dangerous pricing anchors.

Present bias. Immediate costs and benefits are weighted far above future ones. An annual plan competes against a monthly one on the immediacy of the charge, not on total value.

Goal-gradient and endowed progress. Effort increases as a visible goal approaches, and progress already granted counts. Progress indicators work; starting someone partway along works better.

Peak-end. An experience is remembered by its most intense moment and its ending, not its average. The last screen of onboarding and the cancellation flow carry disproportionate memory weight.

Using this without becoming manipulative

Every effect above can be used to help someone decide well or to extract a decision they would regret. The distinction is not subtle, and it is testable:

  • Would the customer be comfortable if you explained the technique to them? Anchoring against a real higher-value plan passes. A fake original price does not.
  • Does it help them decide, or prevent them deciding? Reducing choice overload helps. A countdown that resets on refresh does not.
  • Does it survive a satisfied customer? Tactics that work only until the person notices produce churn, chargebacks, and in several jurisdictions regulatory exposure — dark patterns around cancellation and consent are now specifically enforced.

Scarcity and urgency deserve particular caution: legitimate when real and stated precisely, corrosive when manufactured. A false constraint is the single fastest way to lose a customer who was going to buy anyway.

Reasoning about it

  • Look for the constraint, not the list. One thing usually blocks the decision. Applying six techniques to a page with an unclear value proposition addresses none of them.
  • Second-order effects. A tactic that raises conversion and raises refunds has not worked. Judge against downstream behavior, not the immediate step.
  • Effects are contextual and interact. Published effect sizes are directional, not predictions. Treat every application as a hypothesis to test rather than a known quantity — this is where behavioral marketing most often overreaches.

Sources

references/sources.md in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.

Never

  • Deploy an effect without being able to name the mechanism. A tactic borrowed without its mechanism fails silently in a context that differs in ways nobody checked.
  • Manufacture scarcity, urgency, or social proof that is not true. It works once and costs the relationship permanently.
  • Treat a published effect size as a guaranteed lift. Those numbers come from populations and contexts that are not yours.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Designs and audits who can reach what — authentication, authorization models, privileged access, service credentials, and joiner-mover-leaver process. Use this to design a permissions model, run an access review, reduce standing privilege, handle offboarding, set up SSO or MFA, manage service and machine credentials, or diagnose why permissions have sprawled.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0332026年9月18日 更新

Concentrates marketing and sales effort on a named set of accounts rather than on volume — qualifying whether the model fits your economics at all, building the account list and the buying group inside each, tiering effort against account value, coordinating so the account experiences one campaign rather than several, and measuring account progression instead of leads. Use this to decide whether to run an account-based program, build one, or work out why an existing one produces activity and no pipeline.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0332026年9月18日 更新

Gets new users from signup to first real value — signup flow, onboarding, time-to-value, and the early experience that determines whether someone becomes a user or a lapsed account. Use this to design or fix signup and onboarding, diagnose why signups do not convert to active use, reduce time-to-value, or decide what a new user must accomplish first.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0332026年9月18日 更新

Designs orchestrator-and-subagent hierarchies for a repository — splitting agents by exclusive write surface, pairing every producer with an independent auditor, and enforcing the split with a script that runs in CI. Use this whenever the user wants to set up, expand, audit, or fix a multi-agent or subagent structure for a codebase; asks how to divide work between agents; wants agent charters, roles, or a surface map written; or is hitting agents that collide on the same files, review their own work, or drift from their remit. Also use when sizing a roster or deciding whether a new agent is justified.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0332026年9月18日 更新

Governs models and AI systems in production — intended use, evaluation, monitoring, human oversight, documentation, and the decision to deploy or retire. Use this before deploying a model or AI feature, when defining evaluation criteria, when a model's behavior has drifted, when assessing AI risk or regulatory exposure, or when deciding whether an AI system is fit for a consequential decision.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0332026年9月18日 更新

Produces executive-level research — market sizing, competitor mapping, trend analysis, and strategic intelligence — grounded in cited sources with the confidence in each claim made explicit. Use this to analyze a market or industry, map competitors, evaluate a market-entry or build-versus-buy decision, produce a research brief, or assemble evidence for a decision. Also use when comparing options that need a structured, evidence-based verdict rather than an opinion.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0332026年9月18日 更新

cbrock84 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する