Show Don't Tell

Every unearned adjective in product copy is a missed opportunity. "Powerful analytics" asks the reader to take your word for it. "See which pages kill signups before users leave" shows them what powerful looks like. The Show version always answers the question: what does this look like in practice?

The rule: adjectives claim, specifics prove. Replace each adjective with a fact, a number, or a scenario the reader can picture.

The translation table

Every Tell version could appear on a competitor's site unchanged. Every Show version is specific enough to be verifiable. That's the test.

The banned adjective list

Reach for any of these and stop. Replace, or cut entirely:

powerful, simple, easy, seamless, beautiful, robust, flexible, scalable, smart, intuitive, modern, next-generation, cutting-edge, best-in-class, innovative

These are claim-only words. They appear in every competitor's hero copy. They prove nothing. They are the linguistic equivalent of a stock photo of a smiling person with a laptop.

The most reliable way to spot them: read the copy aloud and underline every adjective. For each one, ask: can this be replaced with a number, a scenario, or a screenshot reference? If yes, replace. If no, cut.

When the adjective stays

Three legitimate uses where an adjective earns its place:

The adjective is the product category. "Open-source database." The word open-source is descriptive, not aspirational. It names a real property.

It's a proper noun adjective. "iOS-native," "Stripe-compatible." The reference does the proving. The reader can verify.

It's followed immediately by the proof. "Fast: first paint under 200 ms." The adjective signals; the specific delivers. The adjective alone would be empty. Paired with the number, it works.

Adjective stacks are the worst offender

The most common Show Don't Tell violation isn't a single adjective. It's three in a row: "Powerful, intuitive, modern dashboard." Three claims, zero proof. Each adjective competes with the others, and together they prove nothing.

The Show version names who cares (the board), names the frequency (30 seconds), and names the scope (one screen). The reader can picture opening the tab. That's the difference.

Numbers that lie

"Up to 10x faster" without a benchmark is a Tell dressed as a Show. The number looks specific, but up to means the actual improvement could be 1.2x. Either cite the benchmark or drop the claim.

Similarly, "trusted by 10,000+ companies" is a weak Show unless the reader recognises the companies. "Used by Stripe, Linear, and Vercel" is a strong Show even without the count because each name carries its own proof.

The smell test

Imagine the hero section with every adjective deleted. Is the remaining copy still meaningful? If yes, the adjectives were decorative and can be cut. If no, the copy depended on adjectives to do work that specifics should be doing. Either way, the adjectives need to go: replaced with the concrete detail they were standing in for.

The reader never believes an adjective. They believe a number, a name, or a scenario they can picture. Every time you write "powerful," you're asking for trust you haven't earned. Every time you write "99.97% uptime across 3 regions," you're proving it.