Why 'Positive' Briefs, Not Writers, Are to Blame for Bad Content
For years, I handed writers exhaustive lists of 'must-include' phrases, and every time I received copy that ticked every box but was completely lifeless.
August 1, 2026·Updated September 23, 2026·Havadis
For years, I made the exact same mistake when commissioning content: handing the writer a five-page checklist of 'must-haves.' I would spell out every requested keyword, every message to deliver, and exhaustive audience persona breakdowns. The result? Every single time, I got copy that ticked all the boxes yet felt completely lifeless and plastic.
At first, I assumed the writers were the problem. But the fault didn't lie with them; it was my illusion of the traditional 'positive' brief. When you only tell a writer what they should do, you turn a creative craftsman into an assembly-line worker.
Once, I commissioned a 'visionary article on artificial intelligence.' In the brief, I wrote at length about how innovative the tone needed to be and which industries it should touch. Eight out of the ten submitted drafts began with the exact same opening: 'In our rapidly evolving digital world...'
I hadn't explicitly told them not to use that cliché. Saying 'be visionary' didn't work, because an abstract positive instruction does nothing to stop the brain from reaching for the easiest, most accessible boilerplate formula.
Psychological research on creative constraints highlighted in Harvard Business Review points to a core reality: restricting choices—such as banning specific words—forces the brain to bypass predictable associations and generate fresh solutions. In creative practice, this is known as Via Negativa, or the negative way. It is the art of arriving at the core essence by stripping away excess, clichés, and unwanted patterns. Instead of holding the writer's hand and dictating every phrase, you need to build guardrails along the edge of the cliff.
When I put this into practice in our editorial workshop, I discovered the liberating power of replacing 'Write this' with 'If you use these words, I will return the draft unread.' I added a single 'Never Do' (Anti-Brief) section to my template, filling it with industry clichés and forbidden opening hooks.
However, there is a delicate balance to maintain. If you give a writer a vague negative constraint like 'Don't be boring,' you trigger creative paralysis rather than originality. Instead, set concrete, measurable boundaries such as: 'Do not use the words synergy, dynamic, or innovative.'
Effective brand tone guides operate on this exact principle. For instance, the renowned 'What we are NOT' section in the Mailchimp Content Style Guide nails it: 'We are fun, but not silly.' That clarity cuts endless revision loops in a single stroke.
In the craft of writing, you cannot commission great prose simply by describing what you want. A writer's true potential emerges when you draw clear boundaries around the clichés, tropes, and formulas that are strictly forbidden. Constraints are not the enemy of creativity; they are its fuel.
Here is the single rule to take back to your workshop: When writing your brief, take half the time you normally spend asking 'What do we want?' and spend it answering 'What will we not tolerate?'—then deliver that to the writer as a non-negotiable, concrete list.
So, which words will you ban in your next content assignment to rescue your writer from clichés and truly set them free?
Why Positive Briefs Ruin Good Content | Havadis AI
