Skip to main content
One row per angle. An angle is not in production until it has a row here. The library exists to answer a question no individual brief can: across everything running right now, how many different arguments are actually in market. An account with twenty creatives and one argument has a diversity problem that only shows up when the angles are listed side by side.
Rows are filled from a completed angle brief. Type values come from the message angle dictionary in the ad naming conventions, which is what a report groups by.

Before you add an angle

1

Read the register below

If an angle already makes this argument, add a hook to it rather than creating a second entry.
2

Check the coverage tables

A gap is a better reason to write a new angle than an idea that arrived on its own.
3

Fill in the brief, then add a row

A row with no brief behind it is a name, not an angle.

The register

Rows 1 and 2 show examples using Doughnut Labs, a SaaS company that sells disruptive Doughnut Technology. Delete them and fill in your own.

What each angle argues

The overlap check. Two angles whose propositions cannot be told apart in one sentence are one angle with two names.

Coverage

The two tables that turn a list into a diversity check. Fill them from the register above.

By angle type

A column of zeros is an argument the account is not making at all.

By customer profile

A profile carrying one angle is a profile being spoken to one way.
Counting formats here would flatter the picture. The same proposition running as a static, a video, and a carousel is three executions of one argument, and reads as three rows only if format is mistaken for diversity. Count propositions.

Status values

Retired rows stay in the library, with the reason. An angle that was tried and failed is the most useful row here, because it is the one that stops the same argument being proposed again next quarter as a fresh idea.

Review

Angles decline without announcing it, so the review is scheduled rather than triggered. At each review, for every live angle:
  • Is performance falling across every execution, or only in one? Across all of them points at the argument. In one points at the creative. See angle fatigue is not creative fatigue.
  • Are the proof points still current, and still cleared?
  • Has the angle drifted past its guardrails in any live execution?
  • Do the coverage tables still show more than one argument carrying the account?
Producing more creative against a declining angle is the most expensive response available, because it looks like work and answers a question the data already settled. Check whether the argument is tired before scheduling the next shoot.
Last modified on August 13, 2026