| Criterion | Check |
|---|---|
| Canvas traceability | Every copy decision is traced to the hierarchy stage, ELM/HSM route, or positioning claim from the Week 2 canvas |
| Audience language evidence and forum post | Three to five verbatim audience phrases are documented with platform name, URL, and date accessed, including the phrase posted to the Week 4 forum |
| TPB diagnosis and framing decision | The weakest TPB factor is named; both gain-frame and loss-frame hooks respond to it, and the outperformance prediction is linked to the hierarchy stage |
| Four-part structure and Canva build | All four parts are present in the Canva mockup: hook, claim, evidence, and call to action; each sentence is evidence-labelled or marked [ASSUMPTION] |
| Evidence quality | The evidence element is specific, verifiable, and cited: a statistic with source, a named testimonial, or an institutional certification |
| Call to action alignment | The call to action matches the hierarchy stage; a conversion-level action stays absent from an Awareness or Knowledge stage |
| Mobile scroll test and readability/accessibility check | The scroll test result is recorded with reviewer feedback; the Hemingway grade level and WebAIM contrast ratio are recorded, with revisions noted if either failed the standard |
| Cialdini principle | One or two Cialdini principles are identified and placed within the four-part structure with a one-sentence justification |
| Message test plan and class vote | The test plan has a hypothesis, a specific metric, a minimum sample size per variant, and a decision rule including confidence level; the class vote result is recorded against the prediction where applicable |
| AI prompt log | At least three prompts with AI outputs, evidence links, and student decisions are documented |
| Reflection and presentation | The 200-word reflection identifies the highest-risk copy assumption and the evidence that would resolve it; the PDF is readable and correctly named |
Week 4 Independent Study and Submission
Self-learning Copy Development
Investigation
1 Plan and Setup
⏱ 60 min
Confirm copy scope, identify audience language sources, set up the copybook template.
Investigation
2 Research and Capture
⏱ 90 min
Document audience language from public reviews, forums, and search queries.
Production
3 Copy Development
⏱ 120 min
Finish the primary mockup, then produce a caption and a longer-format variant.
Production
4 Edit and Document
⏱ 60 min
Complete evidence labels, the AI prompt log, and the message test plan.
Assessment
5 Quiz and Submit
⏱ 30 min
Complete the Moodle quiz and submit the final copybook PDF by 23:59 MVT.
Your six hours of self-directed study happen outside class across the week. Use the time to deepen your audience language research, complete your copybook, document every copy decision, and submit your final PDF. The sections below give you the submission requirements, the formative checklist, review questions to consolidate your learning, and the key takeaways that connect this week to the rest of the module.
Independent Study
Your six hours of independent study should turn your tutorial draft copybook into a complete, evidenced document that another reader can evaluate and challenge. Use the time deliberately:
- 60 minutes to confirm your copy scope, identify audience language sources, and set up the copybook template
- 90 minutes to collect and document audience language from at least three public sources
- 120 minutes to finish the primary mockup and produce two additional format variants
- 60 minutes to complete evidence labels, write the message test plan, and add citations
- 30 minutes to complete the Moodle quiz and submit your final PDF by 23:59 MVT
NoteWorking from the chapter’s worked examples
Three worked examples from this week’s chapter model exactly what a completed entry looks like, across three different campaign categories: the Villa College Certificate example works through a credential programme step by step, and the two condensed callouts that follow it apply the same sequence to a community marathon and a guesthouse. Whichever category your own campaign falls closest to, hold your draft next to that example and check that your TPB diagnosis, frame, and evidence reach the same level of specificity. Figure 1 in the tutorial chapter shows what a finished mockup looks like once the four-part structure is actually built, rather than only described.
Your Week 4 submission should include:
- Campaign topic and scope, with a one-sentence explanation of which copy challenge the hierarchy stage and ELM/HSM route from the Week 2 canvas imply.
- Audience language record: three to five verbatim phrases from public sources with platform name, URL, and date accessed, including the phrase you posted to the Week 4 Moodle forum, alongside one or two real ad examples sourced from the Meta Ad Library or Google Ads Transparency Center with a note on what you borrowed or avoided.
- A theory of planned behaviour diagnosis naming the weakest link (attitude, subjective norm, or perceived behavioural control) for your audience, and gain-frame and loss-frame hook versions that respond to it, with a one-sentence prediction for which will outperform and a rationale linked to the hierarchy stage.
- Completed copy decision record (from the tutorial) covering the four-part structure, hook, claim, evidence, call to action, with every entry labelled as evidence-based or [ASSUMPTION] with a testing method, alongside the finished Canva mockup at your platform’s dimensions.
- At least one Cialdini principle identified and located within the copy structure with a one-sentence justification.
- Mobile scroll test result (from the tutorial) and a tone/readability/accessibility check result: a Hemingway Editor grade level and a WebAIM contrast ratio for the call-to-action element, with any revisions made in response.
- Three format variants: the primary asset format, a social media caption (under 150 characters), and a longer email or landing page opening paragraph.
- Message test plan with hypothesis, metric, minimum sample size per variant, and decision rule, plus the live class vote result recorded against your prediction if your variant was voted on.
- AI prompt log with at least three prompts, AI outputs used, evidence links, and student decisions.
- A 200-word reflection identifying the one copy assumption that carries the highest strategic risk and explaining what evidence would resolve it.
- A reference list in a consistent citation style.
The copybook submission should read as a structured decision record that a colleague could use to brief a campaign. A reader with no prior knowledge of the campaign should be able to understand the target, the hierarchy stage, the copy rationale, and the test plan, and identify which decisions are evidence-based and which require testing.
Formative Checklist
Use Table 1 before submission. The checklist is designed to catch unlabelled assumptions, missing audience language evidence, and message test plans without decision rules.
Review Questions
- A campaign audience already believes a programme is valuable and feels no social pressure against enrolling, but doubts they can fit it around their job. Using the theory of planned behaviour, name the weak link and explain why repeating the programme’s benefits in the copy leaves it unresolved.
- Explain the difference between the ELM’s central and peripheral routes and the heuristic-systematic model’s systematic and heuristic processing. Why might a campaign team use both models rather than choosing one?
- A campaign opens its copy with “Over MVR 20,000 in value” before stating the actual price of MVR 3,000. Explain the anchoring effect this creates, and explain why an opening prime of urgent, risk-laden language could change how the audience reads the rest of the message.
- What is the difference between a gain frame and a loss frame, and why does framing theory predict that the same information produces different audience responses depending on its presentation?
- A campaign team wants to use social proof in their copy. They write “join thousands of satisfied customers.” According to Cialdini’s principle, what makes this an ineffective use of social proof, and how would you improve it?
- A student writes a hook: “Level up your digital marketing career today.” Explain two specific problems with this hook using the criteria from the lecture, and rewrite it to address both problems.
- A copy draft scores a grade 14 reading level on a plain-language checker and a 2.8:1 contrast ratio on its call-to-action button. Explain why each of these results is a problem, even though the copy itself follows the four-part structure correctly.
- Your campaign is at the Preference stage of the hierarchy of effects. What call to action would you write, and what call to action would you explicitly avoid? Justify your choices by reference to the hierarchy model.
- A message test plan states: “We will test Version A and Version B and use whichever one we prefer.” Identify two problems with this plan and rewrite the decision rule correctly.
- A student uses AI to generate the claim: “This programme is ideal for ambitious professionals who are tired of being overlooked for promotions despite their hard work.” According to the evidence framework, what label applies to this claim, and what would the student need to document to move it to evidence-based status?
- You have a hook and a claim but no evidence element. You believe the evidence will be convincing once the audience visits the website. Why does this reasoning misapply the four-part copy structure?
- A campaign team deploys the scarcity principle by writing “last few places remaining” when no genuine scarcity exists. What are the two distinct problems this creates for the campaign and the brand?
TipWeek 4 at a glance
The central theoretical contribution of this week is the connection between audience state and copy structure: every verbal element of a campaign message is a decision that follows from the theory of planned behaviour diagnosis, the hierarchy of effects stage, and the ELM/HSM processing route, rather than from creative preference. TPB identifies which barrier to target; framing, anchoring, priming, and influence principles are tools for shaping the claim around that barrier; and tone, readability, and accessibility determine whether the audience can receive it at all. In Week 5 you will move from copy decisions to media placement decisions, using reach, frequency, and format structure to deliver this week’s messages to audiences at scale.
Key Takeaways
Copy is a strategic decision, rather than a finishing task. It is the moment at which all the prior decisions are translated into a claim an audience must evaluate and act on. A hook detached from the audience’s own language fails to stop them. A claim detached from the positioning statement from the canvas remains generic content, rather than a campaign claim. Evidence that resists verification is an assumption the audience may reject without explaining why.
The copybook you built this week is a first-draft decision record, rather than a finished creative deliverable. It should stay explicit about what is known, what is inferred, and what remains an assumption. The message test plan is the mechanism by which copy assumptions are converted into evidence. A team that plans a test before committing to a message is operating as an evidence-based marketing organisation. A team that commits to a message ahead of any test is operating on intuition alone.
In Week 5, you will move from copy decisions to media placement decisions: how display advertising and video formats use reach, frequency, and creative structure to deliver a message to audiences at scale. The copy decisions you made this week determine what message will appear in those formats, and the test plan you wrote will determine how the format decisions are evaluated.