The specific claim rule
Generic claims are weaker than specific ones, regardless of whether they're true. This is underappreciated.
Pretend someone sends you an email that says "I help businesses grow." Now pretend a second email says "I helped [Company] go from 5 clients to 70 in 14 months."
The second one is more persuasive. This is not news.
What's less obvious: the second claim is more persuasive even if the first one is literally more impressive. The specificity of a claim carries more weight than the scope of it.
Why specificity wins
A specific claim is verifiable. A generic one isn't. Readers don't consciously verify, they don't contact the company and ask about the 70 clients. But their brain registers that the claim could be verified. A generic claim can't be verified; there's no specific thing to check.
That verifiability-in-principle translates directly to credibility. Specific = plausibly true. Generic = could be anything.
The test
Anywhere you've written a generic claim, ask: could I replace this with something specific and still defend it?
- "Fast growth" → "23% quarter-over-quarter"
- "Satisfied customers" → "NPS of 52 after 18 months"
- "Lots of experience" → "89 campaigns launched since 2019"
If you can substitute, you should. If you can't substitute, the original claim is probably overstating reality.