Describing a desired brand voice in the abstract — "friendly but professional," "confident but approachable" — rarely produces writing that actually sounds distinctive. A more effective way to discover a genuine, specific voice is to write the same message several different ways, each through a deliberately different personality, and see which version actually feels right.
Why Writing Through Different Personalities Reveals More Than Description Does
Describing a voice in adjectives forces you to guess at what those adjectives would actually sound like on the page, which tends to produce vague, hard-to-apply guidance. Actually writing the same core message multiple times, each channeling a distinctly different personality, produces real, comparable examples you can evaluate directly — and often reveals a genuine voice that's more specific and interesting than any adjective pair would have suggested on its own.
A useful version of this exercise should involve:
- Writing your actual core message once in your current, default style, for a baseline
- Rewriting that same message through a few deliberately different, contrasting personalities
- Choosing personalities that span a real range, not several that feel similar to each other
- Reviewing which version, or which specific elements from several versions, felt most authentically right
A Simple Framework
- Write your core message once in your current default style, as a baseline
- Rewrite the same message as a warm, no-nonsense mentor would say it
- Rewrite it again as an exuberant, high-energy enthusiast would say it
- Rewrite it once more as a dry, deadpan skeptic would say it, then compare all versions
> Tip: The version that feels right is rarely a pure match to any single personality you tried — it's often a specific blend, borrowing the mentor's warmth with the skeptic's directness, for example. The exercise's value is in generating real material to react to, not in finding one perfect match.
Example
Before: A team debating brand voice guidelines in the abstract, unable to agree on what "confident but warm" would actually sound like in practice.
After: The same team writing their core message through several contrasting personalities, quickly recognizing that a blend of two specific versions captured a distinctive, genuine voice far more clearly than the abstract discussion ever had.
Common Mistakes
- Describing a desired voice only in adjectives without ever writing real comparative examples
- Choosing several personalities that are too similar to reveal a meaningful contrast
- Treating the exercise as a search for one perfect match instead of material to react to and blend
- Skipping the baseline version, losing the ability to compare against your actual current default style
Once you've identified a genuine voice through this exercise, refining the specific word choices that best capture it is worth some additional attention. SeoWolf's Thesaurus Tool can help sharpen that language further.
Abstract voice guidelines are hard to apply because nobody's actually seen what they sound like — writing the same message several deliberately different ways gives you something real to react to instead.