Point-of-View Sentence-Starter Test
Force each section to end with a defensible belief or boundary
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 98%
Audit every section by requiring its conclusion to complete one of three sentence stems: “I believe,” “I won't,” or “I disagree with.” If the author cannot finish any stem honestly, the section probably contains information but no distinct point of view. Develop the missing position by drawing on firsthand experience, proprietary evidence, and the trade-offs the author has repeatedly observed. Then express the resulting recommendation, refusal, or disagreement directly. The test intentionally creates boundaries: a useful position may alienate readers who want a different outcome, but it attracts those who value the author's judgment. Its purpose is not reflexive contrarianism. The final claim must be defensible, relevant to the reader's decision, and supported by more than rhetoric.
Origin
Extracted from Marketing Against The Grain as a repeatable editing test for determining whether content has a genuine point of view.
Core principles
- 01Useful expertise makes decisions rather than hiding behind balanced summaries
- 02A real position creates boundaries and excludes incompatible choices
- 03Strong points of view should arise from evidence and experience
- 04A position becomes clearer when expressed as a belief, refusal, or disagreement
How to run it
- 1
Isolate a Section's Decision
Identify the practical question or trade-off addressed by a section. Separate its background information from the judgment readers need from the author.
Pro tip Ask what the reader should do differently after reading the section.
Watch out A topic summary is not itself a decision.
- 2
Apply the Three Stems
Try to complete a sentence beginning with “I believe,” “I won't,” or “I disagree with.” Choose the stem that most honestly captures the author's judgment.
Pro tip Draft all three versions if the position remains unclear, then select the most precise one.
Watch out Do not manufacture disagreement merely to sound provocative.
- 3
Draw the Boundary
State who should follow the recommendation, under what conditions, and what alternative is rejected. Make the line clear enough to guide a real decision.
Pro tip Conditional rules are stronger than sweeping claims when the evidence applies only to a defined group.
Watch out Avoid universal claims when the experience supports only a narrow context.
- 4
Attach Supporting Evidence
Connect the position to firsthand cases, original tests, measurements, or repeated outcomes. Explain why the evidence justifies the boundary.
Pro tip Use the strongest counterexample to test whether the rule needs refinement.
Watch out An unsupported hard line can damage trust even when it attracts attention.
- 5
End with the Position
Place the final belief, refusal, or disagreement where the reader cannot miss it. Remove language that immediately retreats into empty neutrality.
Pro tip Use plain language rather than abstract brand terminology.
Watch out Do not bury necessary exceptions that materially change the recommendation.
In the wild
A countertop installer moves beyond a neutral marble-versus-quartzite comparison and states that they will walk away from a marble job for a household with three children under ten. The boundary is based on repeated experience with etched surfaces and leads to a clear alternative: quartzite.
→ Prospective customers understand the installer's judgment, ideal customer, and recommended choice immediately.
A real-estate team uses its results from 41 offers to disagree with the common recommendation to attach a personal letter. The stance is supported by lower observed acceptance rates for offers carrying letters.
→ A generic tactics article becomes a defensible recommendation grounded in original evidence.
Common mistakes
Confusing Provocation with a Position
A shocking claim without evidence may attract attention but does not demonstrate expert judgment.
Retreating into False Balance
Presenting every option as equally suitable after making a recommendation erases the decision rule.
Ignoring Conditions
A strong position should define the people and circumstances to which it applies rather than pretending to be universal.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for expert-led articles, comparison pages, opinion pieces, and brand content intended to influence decisions.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal for neutral reference material, regulated disclosures, or reporting that must avoid advocacy.
From the transcript
“End every section with a sentence that starts, I believe or I won't, or I disagree with.”
“If you can't, then you don't really have a strong point of view in the content you're creating.”
“To bring somebody in, you need to alienate other people. You cannot sit in the middle.”
From the episode
How to Rank #1 on Google in 2026 (The 6-Step SEO Playbook)