This rubric assesses copy persuasion quality — not technical SEO compliance. Technical audits check whether your H1 contains the right keyword and your schema validates. This rubric answers a different question: does this copy convince a sophisticated B2B buyer to take the next step?

That distinction matters because B2B SaaS buyers complete 90% of their journey before contacting a vendor. Your copy is doing the selling long before your sales team gets involved. If it reads like every other agency's website — generic, templated, interchangeable — you lose the deal before you know the deal existed.

How to use this rubric: Audit one page at a time. Score each check as PASS (2 pts), PARTIAL (1 pt), or FAIL (0 pts). Total: 80 points across 40 checks. For every PARTIAL or FAIL, quote the specific passage and write a 1-2 sentence rewrite hook. Run your technical SEO audit first, then use this rubric on pages that pass technical checks but need copy quality review.

90%

B2B buyer journey completed before vendor contact

LinkedIn / Demand Gen Report

6–10

Decision-makers in a typical B2B buying group

Gartner

40%

Low-quality content targeted by Google March 2024 update

Search Engine Journal

Template Copy vs. Persuasive Copy

The gap between template copy and persuasive copy is the gap between a page that gets skimmed and a page that gets forwarded to the CFO. This rubric catches the patterns that make copy feel generic — and scores the specificity that makes it convert.

Template Copy

“We provide comprehensive SEO services for B2B SaaS companies. Our team of experts leverages cutting-edge strategies to help you achieve your growth goals. With our proven methodology, we deliver results that matter.”

Persuasive Copy

“Your blog generates 5,000 visits a month and zero pipeline. The content reads well. The keywords are right. But nobody on your buying committee has ever forwarded a blog post to the CFO with 'this is how we should think about SEO.' That's the problem we solve.”

Dimension P: Audience Resonance (10 Checks)

Would the target buyer read this and think "this person understands my problem"?

Your ICP is a sophisticated buyer — a B2B SaaS founder, VP Marketing, or Head of Growth at a Series A-C company. They've likely worked with agencies before, understand marketing fundamentals, and are deeply skeptical of vendor claims. Copy that over-explains basics or leads with capabilities instead of pain points fails before the reader reaches the second paragraph.

Audience Resonance

Does the copy speak the buyer's language and address their real problems?

Pain-point specificity

The opening section names a specific pain the ICP experiences — not 'SEO is important' but 'your blog generates 5,000 visits/month and zero pipeline.' The pain should be concrete enough that the reader thinks 'they've seen my exact situation.'

ICP language match

The copy uses the words the buyer actually uses: 'pipeline,' 'buying committee,' '6-month sales cycle,' 'board deck,' 'CAC.' Count ICP-native terms — 5+ used naturally throughout = PASS. Consultant jargon the buyer wouldn't say = FAIL.

Sophistication calibration

The copy respects the reader's intelligence. No over-explaining basics they already know (e.g., defining 'SEO' or 'content marketing' on a page targeting VP-level buyers). Explains only what is genuinely new.

Objection anticipation

The copy proactively addresses 2+ likely objections a skeptical buyer would raise: 'How is this different from a full-service agency?' / 'Where are the case studies?' / 'Can you handle our scale?' Substantive responses, not dismissive hand-waves.

Forward test

Would a VP Marketing forward this page to their CEO with 'this is how we should think about this'? The content must deliver standalone strategic value — frameworks, data, or analysis worth sharing — not just a self-promotional pitch.

Problem-before-solution ratio

The page spends 30-50% framing the problem before introducing the solution. The reader needs to feel understood before being sold. If the page opens with 'here's what we do,' the problem framing is missing.

Buying-stage alignment

Copy matches the expected buyer awareness stage for the page type. Service pages target solution-aware buyers. Blog posts target problem-aware readers. Listicles target comparison-stage buyers. Mismatched stages confuse the reader.

Emotional precision

The copy connects to a real emotional driver without manipulation — frustration with agencies that assign junior account managers, board pressure to show pipeline, fear of falling behind competitors. Specific and authentic, not generic or fear-based.

Outcome specificity

The copy paints a specific picture of the outcome: 'pipeline attribution within 6-12 months' not 'better results.' Outcomes stated with metrics, timelines, or deliverables pass. 'Grow your organic presence' fails.

Competitive framing

When the buyer is comparing options, the page positions honestly within the competitive landscape — agency vs. in-house, focused vs. full-service, your approach vs. alternatives. Honest tradeoffs, not claims of superiority without evidence.

Dimension Q: Authority Positioning (10 Checks)

Does this copy establish domain expertise that goes beyond what a generic content mill would produce?

Authority is not claimed — it is demonstrated through specificity, methodology transparency, and practitioner signals that cannot be faked. A page that says "we have deep expertise" demonstrates none. A page that walks through the exact first three steps of an audit demonstrates all of it.

Authority Positioning

Does the copy prove expertise through specificity and methodology?

Methodology depth

The page explains *how* the work is done, not just *what* is done. Shows the thinking behind the deliverable list. If a reader could attempt the approach themselves based on what you've shared, that's PASS-level transparency.

Specific-over-generic ratio

Count concrete specifics (numbers, tool names, timelines, named frameworks) vs. vague claims ('significant results,' 'many companies'). Target ratio: 3 specifics for every 1 vague claim. Content grounded in verifiable data passes.

Owned framework presence

The page references a proprietary framework, named methodology, or original concept that belongs to your brand. Named frameworks with context for why they exist and what problem they solve pass. Generic, unattributed advice fails.

Practitioner signal density

Count phrases that show direct practice: 'When we audit,' 'In our experience,' 'The first thing we check,' 'We start by.' Target: 4+ practitioner signals distributed naturally across the page. Zero first-person practice statements = FAIL.

Differentiation clarity

After reading the page, can the reader articulate in one sentence how you differ from competitors? The differentiation must be obvious and stated — not implied. If you stripped the brand name, could this page belong to any competitor?

Evidence layering

The page layers multiple evidence types to support claims: data, methodology explanation, examples, honest limitations, and comparative analysis. Three or more evidence types working together = PASS. Unsupported assertions = FAIL.

Industry-specific knowledge

For vertical or niche pages: does the copy demonstrate real understanding of the vertical — regulations, buyer personas, competitive dynamics, or industry-specific keyword data? Or could you swap the industry name and have the content still make sense?

Contrarian substance

When the page makes a contrarian claim, is it backed by reasoning? 'Most agencies do X wrong' must be followed by evidence and an alternative. Empty provocation without backup is worse than no contrarian position at all.

Tool and workflow references

The copy references specific tools, workflows, or processes that show how the work actually gets done — 'We pull keyword data from Ahrefs,' 'We map content to pipeline stages before writing.' Two or more specific references = PASS.

Intellectual honesty

The page acknowledges uncertainty, evolving knowledge, or areas where the answer is not clear. 'No one can guarantee these outcomes,' 'the data here is limited,' 'this field is still evolving.' Claims of certainty where none exists = FAIL.

Dimension R: Trust & Authenticity (10 Checks)

Does this copy feel like it was written by a real person with real constraints, or does it feel like polished marketing?

Trust is built through transparency about constraints, honest positioning, and a voice that stays consistent from section to section. Performative vulnerability is worse than no vulnerability — this dimension distinguishes genuine trust signals from marketing theater.

Trust & Authenticity

Does the copy build trust through honesty and consistency?

Limitation transparency

The page explicitly states what you are NOT or who you are NOT for. 'If you need a 50-person team, we're not the right fit.' A genuine limitation statement that could cost a lead passes. No limitations stated = the page implies you can handle anything.

Case study honesty

Social proof is handled truthfully. If you have case studies, they include specific, verifiable details. If you don't have them yet, the page says so honestly — methodology-as-proof framing, not fabricated results or implied outcomes that don't exist.

Claim-to-evidence ratio

For every strong claim ('We deliver X,' 'this approach works because'), supporting evidence appears within 2 sentences — data, methodology, an example, or an honest caveat. Multiple strong claims with no adjacent evidence = FAIL.

Honest self-inclusion on comparison pages

On listicle or comparison pages: are you positioned honestly among competitors? Competitor strengths acknowledged before gaps? Fair, substantive treatment? Over-positioning yourself as the obvious winner = FAIL.

CTA pressure level

CTAs feel like a natural next step after valuable content — not a sales push. No urgency or scarcity tactics. No CTAs appearing before value has been established. The reader should feel like clicking is a logical choice, not a pressure response.

Vulnerability signals

The copy shows genuine vulnerability: admitting what is hard, what you're still learning, what hasn't worked. One or more authentic vulnerability signals that build trust through honesty — not performative humility or humble-bragging.

Voice consistency across sections

The voice stays consistent from section to section. The same person seems to have written every part of the page. Noticeable tonal shifts — authentic intro, salesy middle, generic FAQ — are a hallmark of template-assembled content.

Constraint-as-advantage framing

Real constraints (focused team, new practice, niche scope) are explicitly reframed as advantages with reasoning. 'Focused agency = no hand-offs to junior staff, senior attention on every engagement.' Hiding constraints = FAIL.

Promise calibration

All promises are calibrated to what can actually be delivered. Specific, achievable, with appropriate ranges and caveats: '60-90 days for initial traction, 6-12 months for significant impact.' Guaranteed results without conditions = FAIL.

Authenticity fingerprint

The copy contains at least one detail, opinion, or observation that could ONLY come from someone who actually does this work. Not something any marketer could write from research. Insider knowledge, workflow details, or opinions that show years of practice.

Dimension S: Anti-Formulaic Detection (10 Checks)

If a reader visits 3 pages on your site, will they notice the copy is templated?

This dimension requires cross-page comparison. When auditing a vertical page, read at least 2 other vertical pages. When auditing a service page, read at least 2 other service pages. Flag patterns that repeat across pages with only nouns or adjectives swapped. Formulaic copy erodes the trust that the other three dimensions build.

Anti-Formulaic Detection

Does the copy feel unique across pages, or is it a template with nouns swapped?

Opening paragraph uniqueness

Compare the first paragraph against sibling pages of the same type. Is it genuinely unique — an insight, data point, or framing specific to this page? Or the same sentence with an industry/service noun swapped in?

Hero and subtitle uniqueness

Is the subtitle or hero description genuinely different from sibling pages? Compare eyebrow labels, H1 subtitles, and lede paragraphs. 'We build [adjective] content engines for [audience]' with only the adjective swapped = FAIL.

Section structure variance

Does the page have H2 sections that reflect its specific topic, or does it follow the exact same H2 order as every other page of the same type? At least 2 H2 sections unique to this page = PASS. Identical structure with nouns swapped = FAIL.

Transition sentence variety

Are sentences connecting sections varied in structure, length, and content? Or does every section end with the same pattern? If 'That's where [X] comes in' or similar connecting formulas appear 3+ times, it fails.

Recurring-theme section uniqueness

If multiple pages share a recurring theme (e.g., 'AI is changing this space'), is it framed with a unique hook relevant to each page's specific topic? Or is it near-verbatim copy reused across pages with a noun swap?

FAQ differentiation

Are FAQ questions genuinely different from sibling pages? Questions that address concerns unique to this page's specific topic pass. The same questions with an industry/service name swapped in — with answers following the same structure — fail.

CTA section differentiation

Is the CTA section tailored to this page's content — connecting the specific value delivered above to the next step? Or is it a generic 'Book a free [X] audit' with only the service noun changed and identical surrounding copy?

Filler sentence detection

Flag sentences that add no information and could be deleted without losing meaning. 'SEO is an ongoing process.' 'Every business is unique.' 'The right strategy makes all the difference.' Zero filler = PASS. Three or more = FAIL.

Data and example uniqueness

Does the page use data points, examples, or research specific to its topic? Or does it reuse the same examples from other pages on the site? Page-specific data (keyword volumes, industry stats, competitor analysis for this space) = PASS.

Overall 'could be anyone's' test

Final holistic check: mentally strip the brand name and URL. Could this exact page — structure, arguments, data, voice — appear on any competitor's website? If the answer is yes, the copy lacks the specificity that builds authority.

Scoring Guide

Sum all 40 checks. Each PASS = 2, PARTIAL = 1, FAIL = 0. Maximum: 80 points.

Score	Verdict	Action
70-80	Strong copy	Publish-ready persuasion. Minor polish only. This copy convinces sophisticated buyers.
55-69	Solid foundation	Targeted rewrite hooks will fix it. Use the PARTIAL/FAIL scorecard as a focused creative brief.
40-54	Formulaic	Needs significant copy differentiation work. Prioritize the dimensions with the lowest scores.
Below 40	Template content	Full copywriting pass required. The page reads as interchangeable with any competitor's equivalent.

Priority order for fixes: Dimension P (Audience Resonance) and Dimension S (Anti-Formulaic Detection) have the highest conversion impact. A page with strong authority positioning but generic openings loses the reader before they reach the good parts. A page that sounds like every other agency's website doesn't get forwarded to the CFO.

Minimum scores by page type: Homepage 65+, service pages 60+, vertical pages 55+ (S-dimension weighted higher), blog posts 65+, listicle pages 60+. Glossary pages are reference content and not scored by this rubric.

What to Do Next

Run this rubric on your highest-traffic service page. If you score below 55, your copy is functionally interchangeable with competitors — which means the 6-10 decision-makers in a typical B2B buying group have no reason to remember your page over the alternatives.

For the technical SEO side of content quality, pair this rubric with a structured SEO for B2B SaaS audit. Copy persuasion and technical compliance are complementary — a page needs both to convert.

If you want help running this audit across your site, get in touch. We start by reading your top 5 pages side by side — the cross-page patterns are always the biggest surprise.