From fdf3aeb376d384ca415a8854e6886d56a8bbc757 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: teahubxyz Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2026 07:41:29 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] skills: vendor marketingskills/social/references/carousel-frameworks.md (coreyhaines31/marketingskills, MIT) Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01H4upF5LVwmPDDqrhdUfnXh --- .../social/references/carousel-frameworks.md | 141 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 141 insertions(+) create mode 100644 .agents/skills/social/references/carousel-frameworks.md diff --git a/.agents/skills/social/references/carousel-frameworks.md b/.agents/skills/social/references/carousel-frameworks.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..76c65c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/.agents/skills/social/references/carousel-frameworks.md @@ -0,0 +1,141 @@ +# Carousel Frameworks + +Five slide-by-slide narrative architectures for carousels — Instagram carousels and LinkedIn document posts. Each framework is a different *reason to keep swiping*; picking the right one for the content matters more than polishing individual slides. + +A carousel is not a blog post chopped into squares. It's a swipe-through with two jobs per slide: deliver one idea, and make the next swipe irresistible. These frameworks encode structures that show up repeatedly in high-performing carousels; treat them as starting structures to adapt, not rigid formulas — and expect to validate against your own analytics. + +## Picking a Framework + +| Your content is... | Use | Why | +|---|---|---| +| A list of resources, tools, or tips | **A: Value-Stack** | Completeness is the promise; the count is the hook | +| A personal result with a system behind it | **B: Problem-Proof** | Proof opens and closes the loop; the system is the meat | +| Several named techniques on one theme | **C: Hack List** | Each hack re-earns the swipe independently | +| A strong opinion about a common practice | **D: Rant Callout** | Conviction is the content; structure keeps it fair | +| A product or workflow you can show | **E: Demo Walkthrough** | Seeing the steps is more persuasive than describing them | + +Two cross-framework rules before the specifics: + +- **Slide 1 is the thumbnail.** It competes in the feed alone, before anyone knows a carousel follows. Design and write it as a standalone scroll-stopper. +- **One visual template per carousel.** Same layout, type scale, and palette on every interior slide. Variety between slides reads as clutter; consistency lets the *content* change while the frame stays still. + +--- + +## Framework A: Value-Stack (4–14 slides) + +The "everything you need" carousel. Works because the cover makes a completeness claim — an exact count and an exact deliverable — and every swipe pays it down. + +| Slide | Job | Pattern | +|---|---|---| +| 1 — Cover | State the exact count + exact deliverable. Specificity proves scale upfront. | "[N] [resource type] for [role/outcome]" | +| 2 to N−1 — Value delivery | One item or category per slide, 3–6 concrete sub-items each. Same visual template, zero filler slides. | "[Category/item]: [sub-items]" | +| N — Close | Convert the swipe-through into an action. | "[Action] for [the payoff]" — comment a keyword, follow, link in bio | + +**Why the exact count matters:** "27 free tools" outperforms "the best free tools" because a number is a checkable promise — the reader can verify you delivered. Rounding up with padding breaks the trust the count created. + +*SaaS example:* "12 ChatGPT prompts for SaaS onboarding emails" → one prompt per slide with the use case → "Comment PROMPTS and I'll send the full doc." + +**Failure mode:** filler slides to hit a bigger number. Cut to the real count; a tight 8 beats a padded 14. + +--- + +## Framework B: Problem-Proof (6–10 slides) + +The "I did X, here's the system" carousel. The hook is a *result stated as fact*, not advice — and the final slide shows the receipt, closing the loop slide 1 opened. + +| Slide | Job | Pattern | +|---|---|---| +| 1 — Hook | A specific personal claim with a number. A result, not a tip. | "[I/we did X]. [Specific result, with number]." | +| 2 — Reframe the problem | Name what's *actually* going wrong so the reader recognizes themselves. | "The real problem: [named issue]" | +| 3–4 — The mechanism | Show the real system: named tools, named steps. Concrete beats vague. | "The system: [named tools/steps]" | +| 5 to N−1 — The detail | The literal prompt text, template, or step-by-step. This is the save-worthy part. | "[The literal prompt or process detail]" | +| N — Proof | The actual output artifact. A screenshot, not a description. | "[Screenshot of output]: the receipt" | + +**The open loop is the engine:** slide 1 makes a claim, the last slide proves it, and everything between explains how. Readers swipe to see whether the receipt is real. + +*SaaS example:* "We cut churn 22% with one onboarding email." → the real problem (activation, not price) → the sequence structure → the literal email copy → the retention chart. + +**Failure mode:** vague mechanism slides ("optimize your workflow") — if the middle slides don't name tools and steps, the proof slide reads as luck, not system. + +--- + +## Framework C: Hack List (6–10 slides) + +The "numbered techniques" carousel. A contrarian cover creates status anxiety — most people are doing this wrong — and each numbered hack independently re-earns the swipe. + +| Slide | Job | Pattern | +|---|---|---| +| 1 — Contrarian hook | A stat or claim implying most people fail at this. | "[Stat implying most people fail at X]" | +| 2 — The problem | Why the common approach fails, ideally with an analogy. | "The problem: [why it fails]" | +| 3 to N−1 — Numbered hacks | One named technique per slide. Bad-vs-good contrast makes each hack land instantly. | "Hack #[n]: [named technique]" | +| N — Synthesis + close | A one-line thesis tying the hacks together, then a save/share/follow CTA. | "[Thesis tying hacks together]" + [CTA] | + +**Name every technique.** "The 3-second rule" is shareable and memorable; "keep it short" is neither. Named techniques travel — people repeat them and credit the source. + +*SaaS example:* "90% of trial emails never get opened." → why (they read like receipts, not messages) → Hack #1: The founder-from line, Hack #2: The one-question subject, ... → "Trial emails are conversations, not confirmations. Save this for your next sequence." + +**Failure mode:** hacks that are restatements of each other. Each slide must survive alone — if two hacks collapse into one idea, merge them and go shorter. + +--- + +## Framework D: Rant Callout (4–8 slides) + +The "someone had to say it" carousel. Personality-led and polarizing by design — the structure exists to keep the heat *fair* so it reads as conviction, not bitterness. + +| Slide | Job | Pattern | +|---|---|---| +| 1 — Provocative claim | An unpopular opinion or direct accusation about a common practice. | "Unpopular opinion: [common practice]" | +| 2 to N−2 — Escalate the argument | Sensory, specific detail. Show the offense; don't gesture at it abstractly. Each slide raises the stakes. | "[Escalating, specific complaint]" | +| N−1 — Fairness pivot | "Don't get me wrong…": clarify what you're *not* attacking. Anti-laziness, not anti-tool; anti-practice, not anti-person. | "I use [X] every day. My problem is [Y]." | +| N — Close | Firm, personality-forward sign-off. Signed rants read as owned opinions; anonymous ones read as potshots. | "[Firm sign-off]: signed [name/persona]" | + +**The fairness pivot is what makes it work.** Without it you're yelling; with it you're drawing a precise line, and precise lines get quoted. It also pre-empts the top hostile comment. + +*SaaS example:* "Your AI-generated LinkedIn posts are costing you customers." → the specifics (same em-dash cadence, same 'game-changer' vocabulary, zero lived detail) → "Don't get me wrong. I use AI daily. My problem is publishing the first draft." → "Write like you talk. [Name]" + +**Failure modes:** skipping the pivot (reads unhinged, invites pile-ons), or ranting about something your own product/content visibly does (the comments will find it). + +--- + +## Framework E: Demo Walkthrough (5–11 slides) + +The "watch it work" carousel for product or workflow content. Show the finished result first, then the steps — the outcome earns attention for the process. + +| Slide | Job | Pattern | +|---|---|---| +| 1 — Product + outcome | Brand/product plus the finished result. Lead with what they get. | "[Product] + [outcome], finished result" | +| 2 — Problem it solves | The specific frustration this replaces. | "[The specific pain this replaces]" | +| 3 — Process overview | The numbered step list, shown *before* the detail. Seeing the whole path lowers mid-swipe drop-off — readers commit when they know how long the road is. | "[N] steps to [outcome] in [timeframe]" | +| 4 to N−1 — Step-by-step | One real UI screenshot per step with a short caption. Real screenshots; mockups read as vaporware. | "Step [n]: [screenshot] + [caption]" | +| N — Result + positioning | The full-size output plus one brand-philosophy line. | "[Final output] + [positioning line]" | + +**Overview-before-detail is the key move** (same reason recipe sites list ingredients before instructions): a reader who's seen "4 steps, 10 minutes" on slide 3 will finish; a reader dropped straight into step 1 with no map bails at step 2. + +*SaaS example:* "From CSV to live dashboard in 4 steps" → the pain (weekly manual reporting) → the 4-step overview → one screenshot per step → the finished dashboard + "Built for marketers, not analysts." + +**Failure mode:** screenshots with too much UI. Crop to the action, zoom the relevant control, annotate with one arrow — each screenshot should make sense at thumbnail size. + +--- + +## Platform Notes + +**Instagram:** 1080×1350 (4:5) slides; up to 20 slides but the frameworks' ranges above reflect where completion rates hold. The caption carries the searchable text — restate the hook and add context, don't just repeat slide 1. First slide doubles as the grid thumbnail. + +**LinkedIn (document posts):** Upload as PDF. Square or 4:5. LinkedIn shows a "N pages" badge — Value-Stack's exact-count cover plays especially well here. B2B tolerates denser text per slide than Instagram, but the one-idea-per-slide rule still holds. The post text above the document is a second hook — write it as its own post, not a throwaway "see attached." + +**TikTok photo mode:** Same frameworks work; pacing skews faster — trim each framework toward its minimum slide count. + +## Production Checklist + +- [ ] Slide 1 works as a standalone feed post (test: would it stop the scroll with no carousel behind it?) +- [ ] One idea per slide — if a slide needs two sentences of setup, split it +- [ ] Same visual template on every interior slide +- [ ] Any count promised on the cover is exactly delivered (no filler, no rounding) +- [ ] Claims and numbers are real and yours — no invented stats or borrowed screenshots +- [ ] Text is legible at thumbnail size (minimum ~28pt at 1080px wide) +- [ ] Final slide has one CTA, not three +- [ ] Caption/post text written as its own hook, not a repeat of slide 1 + +## Measuring What Worked + +Judge carousels on **saves and completion**, not likes — saves signal reference value (the algorithmic win for carousels), and where per-slide analytics exist (Instagram professional insights, LinkedIn document analytics, or third-party tools), drop-off position tells you which slide broke the swipe chain. When a carousel underperforms, the fix is usually slide 1 (didn't stop the scroll) or the framework choice (list content forced into a rant structure), not the middle slides. Track per-framework performance and double down on the two that fit your audience — see [reverse-engineering.md](reverse-engineering.md) for the analysis workflow.