Brief AI for Consistent Brand Voice: Template + Criteria

Why AI outputs drift from your brand voice

Brand voice is the set of choices that make your writing sound like you, every time. It includes tone (friendly, direct, formal), word choice (simple vs technical, playful vs serious), structure (short paragraphs, bullets, strong headings), and intent (educate, reassure, challenge, entertain). When readers say “this sounds like your brand,” they usually mean those patterns feel consistent.

AI drifts because it doesn’t have a stable “default you.” It reacts to what it sees in the moment: the prompt, the examples you provide, the last few messages in the chat, and even small details like whether you asked for “punchy” or “professional.” Change the prompt slightly and the voice shifts.

Drift also happens when different people brief the AI in different ways. A founder might ask for “quick and bold,” a marketer might ask for “SEO-friendly,” and an editor might ask for “more nuance.” All three can be reasonable. Without shared rules, the outputs sound like they came from three different companies.

Context changes results too. The same brand can sound very different across a landing page, a how-to blog post, and a customer email. If the brief doesn’t say what stays constant (voice) versus what can change (format, depth, and situation), the model will often copy the tone it “expects” for that content type, not the voice you want.

This template is for anyone who needs content to sound consistent even when many hands touch it: marketers, founders, editors, agencies, and teams publishing at scale. It’s especially useful if you use an API-based writing flow (like GENERATED), where multiple prompts and contributors feed the same site.

The goal isn’t perfect first drafts. The goal is drafts that land in the right voice on the first try, so editors spend their time improving ideas, accuracy, and clarity - not rewriting the same tone problems over and over.

The drift triggers you can usually control come down to four things: vague direction (“make it engaging”), conflicting goals (casual and academic at the same time), missing “do not” rules (phrases, claims, tone shifts, formatting), and no acceptance criteria (so everyone edits toward their own taste).

What a useful AI voice brief needs to include

To brief AI for consistent brand voice, you need more than a vibe. “Write in our voice” can work for a close-knit team, but it’s not specific enough for a model or for an editor who has to judge the result.

A useful brief turns taste into choices the model can follow and the editor can check. It separates what must stay steady (voice) from what can flex (tone, format, depth).

Voice vs tone (and why it matters)

Voice is the stable personality of your brand. It should sound like the same “speaker” across blog posts, landing pages, emails, and support docs.

Tone is situational. The same brand voice can be upbeat in a launch announcement, calm in a support article, and firm in a policy update. If you only describe tone (“friendly”, “professional”), different writers will interpret it differently and AI will drift.

To lock in voice and improve output quality, define these inputs clearly:

• Audience: who you’re talking to, what they already know, and what they care about.
• Channel and format: blog post vs email vs help article, plus how skimmable it needs to be.
• Intent: what the reader should feel, understand, or do after reading.
• Constraints: required terms, banned words, legal notes, and length limits.
• Examples: 2-3 short “this is us” samples, plus 1-2 “not us” samples.

Once you provide those, you can keep the voice consistent even when topics and content types change.

Consistency usually comes from a few concrete choices: preferred words (and words you never use), point of view (first person plural “we” vs third person), sentence length, and formatting habits (short paragraphs, simple headings, whether you use contractions, how you write numbers).

A simple test: if an editor can’t point to a sentence and say exactly which rule it breaks, the rule is too vague. Replace “clear” with “use short sentences, 12-18 words when possible.” Replace “confident” with “state recommendations directly, and avoid hedging like ‘might’ and ‘could’ unless uncertainty is real.”

That level of detail makes the output repeatable and measurable.

A simple one-page brand voice guidelines template

Use this as a fill-in sheet you can paste into any AI prompt or hand to writers and editors. Keep it short enough that people actually use it.

Brand voice one-pager (copy and fill)

Brand + audience + goal (3-5 lines)

Brand: [Name, what you do in one plain sentence]

Audience: [Who you’re talking to, what they care about, what they already know]

Content goal: [What the reader should think/feel/do after reading]

Context: [Where this will appear: blog, email, landing page, help doc]

Must sound like

Write like: [3-5 adjectives, plus a short example phrase]

Pace: [fast/medium/slow]

Point of view: [we/you/I/third person]

Confidence level: [direct and certain / cautious and nuanced]

Must not sound like

Avoid sounding: [3-5 adjectives]

Avoid: [salesy / snarky / academic / overly casual]

Avoid patterns: [long setups, hype, filler intros, vague claims]

Reading level and sentence rules

Reading level: [simple / general / expert]

Sentence length: [target average, max length]

Paragraph length: [1-3 sentences]

Clarity rules: [define acronyms once, avoid jargon, explain with examples]

Formatting rules

Headings: [use H2/H3, how often]

Lists: [when to use bullets, max items]

Intro style: [start with the point / start with a scenario / no throat-clearing]

Ending style: [short summary + next step]

Words and naming

Banned words/phrases: [list 5-15]

Preferred phrases: [list 5-15]

Naming conventions: [ProductName capitalization, feature names, trademark notes]

Numbers and units: [spell out one to nine? use % or “percent”?]

Proof and claims rules

Allowed claims: [what you can say without sources]

Required proof: [what needs a citation, data, or an internal reference]

Forbidden claims: [no guarantees, no “best on the market,” no medical/legal advice]

A quick filled example (so it’s clear)

Brand: A friendly finance app for freelancers. Audience: busy solo workers who want simple explanations. Goal: help them choose a tax category and feel confident.

Must sound like: calm, practical, direct. Must not sound like: sarcastic, “guru,” or legal-heavy. Reading level: simple. Sentences: max 20 words. Formatting: short headings, bullets only for steps, no long intros. Banned words: “crush it,” “hack,” “guaranteed.” Preferred phrases: “here’s the simplest option,” “if you’re unsure, start with…”

Voice traits with do and don't examples

Avoid vague traits like “professional” without examples. Pick a handful of traits, define them in plain words, and show the exact kind of sentences you want and don’t want.

Voice traits (copy-ready)

Style rules that keep the traits consistent

Use these rules as defaults unless a project says otherwise:

• Contractions: allowed (you’ll, we’re) to stay human.
• Humor: light and rare; no sarcasm.
• Emojis: not allowed.
• Slang: avoid (no “kinda”, “crushing it”, “low-key”).
• Point of view: write to the reader as “you”; use “we” only for what your team does; avoid third-person unless it’s a case study.

If you want to go one step further, add a “swap list” editors can enforce (for example, replace “leverage” with “use”, “utilize” with “use”, “best-in-class” with “reliable”).

Non-negotiables: rules that override everything else

Set a small set of rules that always win, even if they conflict with “style” or “creativity.” Editors should treat these as pass or fail.

The hard rules editors enforce

Use these as defaults for every draft, no exceptions:

• Facts must be verifiable. If the source isn’t provided, the draft must use careful wording (for example, “typically”, “often”) or remove the claim.
• No hype, no inflated promises. If it reads like an ad, rewrite it into a plain benefit with a real condition (who it helps, when it works).
• Numbers need context. Only use stats, rankings, and percentages if you can cite an internal source or a trusted reference. Otherwise, replace with a range (“small to mid-size teams”) or a qualitative statement.
• Formatting is part of the voice. Keep paragraphs short, prefer concrete examples, and avoid shouting with excessive exclamation points, all-caps, or bolding every other sentence.
• Safety and sensitivity first. No medical, legal, or financial advice. Avoid stereotypes, personal data, and anything that could shame a reader.

Hype is easy to spot because it makes claims without boundaries. Common red flags to remove or rewrite include “guaranteed results,” “best on the market,” “revolutionary,” “instantly boosts SEO,” and “perfect for everyone.”

If you need to sell a benefit, ground it. “Helps teams publish faster by generating first drafts and outlines” is safer than “Explodes your traffic overnight.”

Rules for comparisons, competitors, and sensitive topics

Comparisons should be fair and specific. Don’t name competitors unless your policy allows it, and never claim they “can’t” do something unless you can prove it. Prefer neutral phrasing like “If you need X, look for Y features” instead of “Tool A is terrible.”

For sensitive topics (pricing, security, compliance, layoffs, politics), keep it factual and calm. If the draft can’t be accurate, it should say what it can and can’t confirm.

CTAs should sound like a helpful next step, not a push. Offer a clear action and a clear reason: “Generate a draft and review it with your checklist” works. If you mention a product like GENERATED, keep it practical: use it to produce a draft, then edit for voice before publishing.

Acceptance criteria editors can actually use

Acceptance criteria are the pass or fail rules for a draft. They turn feedback from “I don’t like this” into “this misses rule #3,” which makes edits faster, fairer, and repeatable across editors.

Acceptance criteria are the last filter before anything reaches readers. They also tell writers what “done” looks like.

The checklist

A draft is publishable only if it meets all of these:

• Clarity: Each paragraph is 1-3 sentences, and the piece scans in under 60 seconds. Target reading time: 2-4 minutes for a standard blog section. No sentence over 25 words unless it truly needs it.
• Accuracy: Every claim is either obvious/common knowledge or supported by provided sources and product notes. No invented numbers, features, quotes, or “studies say” lines.
• Voice match: The tone matches the voice traits in your guidelines (for example: plain language, confident, friendly). No slang if your brand avoids it. No hype, no clichés, no “marketing speak.”
• Structure: Clear headings, short sections, and lists only when they improve scanning. Keep lists short (5 items max).
• Safety and compliance: Avoids sensitive claims, medical/legal advice, and personal data. No competitor bashing. No promises you can’t keep.

If any one item fails, the draft needs revision. If it fails accuracy or safety, it needs revision even if everything else is perfect.

Simple scoring rubric

Use this when you want consistency across editors (and a quick yes/no call):

Publishable: no 0s and total score 8-10. Needs revision: any 0, or total score 7 or below.

How to brief AI step by step (copy-ready prompt structure)

Treat the prompt like a mini creative brief. Put the voice rules first, then the task, then the inputs. The goal is to remove guessing.

Step-by-step briefing flow

Use this order so the model sees your priorities in the right sequence:

1. Start with your voice guide (paste it, or summarize the key rules). Include tone, words to use, words to avoid, and any formatting rules.
2. State the assignment clearly: what you want written (blog section, product update, email), plus the intended reader and what they should walk away knowing or doing.
3. Add the raw materials: outline, facts that must be included, any “must-not-change” names or claims, and constraints like word count or reading level.
4. Ask for one draft and a self-check. Tell the model to verify the draft against your acceptance criteria and list any issues it couldn’t meet.
5. When revising, give specific edits (what to change and where), not general reactions like “make it better” or “more punchy.”

After the first draft, keep feedback narrow. For example: “Shorten the intro to 2 sentences. Replace ‘innovative’ with plain wording. Add one concrete example in paragraph 3.” That kind of instruction is easy to follow and produces more stable results.

Copy-ready prompt block

VOICE BRIEF (highest priority)
- Brand traits: [3-5 traits]
- Do: [plain, direct, friendly, etc.]
- Don't: [buzzwords, hype, slang, etc.]
- Non-negotiables: [claims policy, legal notes, formatting rules]
- Vocabulary: Use [terms]. Avoid [terms].

JOB
Write a: [type of content]
Audience: [who]
Goal: [what the reader should understand/do]
Tone level: [casual / neutral / formal]
Length: [target word count]

INPUTS (facts and constraints)
- Outline: [paste bullets]
- Must-include facts: [paste]
- Must-not-change items: [product names, pricing, dates]
- Examples to match: [paste a short sample]
- Constraints: [no links, no images, reading level, etc.]

OUTPUT
1) Draft
2) Self-check against these acceptance criteria:
- [criterion 1]
- [criterion 2]
- [criterion 3]
If any criterion is not met, explain why and propose a fix.

If you generate content via an API (for example, with a tool like GENERATED on generated.app), this structure works well as a stored template so every request starts with the same voice rules and quality checks.

Common mistakes that cause inconsistent voice

Most teams try to brief AI for consistent brand voice by describing a “tone” and hoping the rest happens by magic. The gap is usually not the model. It’s the brief.

The mistakes below cause most voice drift. Each has a single change that fixes it.

• You describe the vibe, but not the writing habits. “Friendly and professional” is too vague, so the output swings between chatty and stiff. Fix: add a short style recipe: sentence length, preferred verbs, typical paragraph size, and a small list of “words we use” and “words we avoid.”

• One brief tries to cover multiple audiences and teams. Sales wants punchy copy, support wants calm instructions, and product wants precise specs, all in one document. The AI averages it into a bland voice. Fix: split into mini-briefs by content type (blog, landing page, help article) and label each with a single owner and purpose.

• You include rules that fight each other. Common example: “sound friendly” but “no contractions,” or “be concise” but “add lots of detail.” The model will violate something either way. Fix: set a priority order: non-negotiables first (legal, claims, safety), then voice traits, then formatting preferences. If two rules conflict, decide which one wins.

• You ask for “SEO optimized” without defining it. That request often leads to keyword stuffing, repetitive headings, or generic intros. Fix: define what SEO means for you: one primary phrase used naturally, clear headings, specific questions answered, and no forced repetition. Also state what not to do (no clickbait, no filler paragraphs).

• You don’t provide approved examples and naming rules. Without a few “good” and “bad” samples, the AI invents phrasing, product names, or inconsistent capitalization. Fix: include 2 short approved paragraphs, a mini glossary (brand terms, product names, forbidden terms), and 3 “must match” formatting rules (for example: how you write numbers, dates, and CTAs).

A quick test: give the same brief to two humans. If they produce noticeably different voices, the AI will too. Tighten the brief until humans converge, then the model usually follows.

Example scenario: one brand, three writers, one consistent voice

A small SaaS team publishes one blog post every week. They have one marketer, one product manager, and one freelance writer creating drafts. Two editors rotate reviews. Deadlines are tight, and the product changes often, so the team needs writing that sounds like one person wrote it.

Here’s a prompt that looks fine, but fails because it has no real constraints:

Write a blog post about our product and how it helps with SEO. Make it friendly and professional.

This produces drafts that swing wildly. One writer sounds salesy, another sounds academic, and the third uses buzzwords and long sentences. Editors spend most of their time rewriting tone instead of fixing facts.

Now the same request, but with a short brief that pins down voice, structure, and deal-breakers:

Audience: non-technical marketers at small companies.
Voice: clear, direct, helpful. Short sentences. No hype.
Point of view: “you” for the reader, “we” only for product actions.
Reading level: plain English.
Structure: 1 short intro, 4-6 scannable sections, 1 short checklist, finish with next step.
Non-negotiables: no buzzwords, no long dashes, no claims without proof, no links.
Must include: one concrete example and 3 actionable tips.

What changes in the output: the draft becomes easier to skim, the tone stays steady, and all three writers land in the same “helpful expert” lane. Even when product details evolve, the writing still feels consistent.

Editors then use acceptance criteria to approve fast. They don’t debate taste. They check specifics: tone matches the voice traits, sentences are short and sections are scannable, required items are included (example + 3 tips), and any product claims are either supported or rewritten as neutral, verifiable statements.

If a draft fails, the editor doesn’t rewrite the whole piece. They send one note back: which criterion failed and what to change. That keeps turnaround quick and makes the next draft closer, even with mixed contributors.

Quick checks and next steps to keep voice consistent

Consistency is mostly discipline, not magic. Before you hit publish, run a few quick checks that catch most voice drift.

60-second preflight checklist

If you only check three things, check these:

• The brief is present and specific: audience, goal, and channel are stated in one sentence each.
• The rules are visible near the top: non-negotiables, reading level, taboo topics, and formatting.
• Examples exist: at least one “do” and one “don’t” for the same point.

Then do one sanity pass: if someone new joined your team today, could they write a decent draft from this brief without asking five questions?

Voice and editor checks (fast but strict)

Voice drifts when small choices stack up. Watch for these patterns:

• The traits match the brief: if you asked for “friendly and direct,” the copy should sound like a helpful person, not a brochure.
• Banned phrases stay out: remove the “marketing fog” words you promised not to use.
• Point of view stays consistent: don’t switch between “we,” “I,” and “they” unless your guide allows it.
• Acceptance criteria are met: headings, length, structure, reading level, and terminology match the rules.
• Claims are supported: if the draft says “best,” “fastest,” or “proven,” it needs a source, a metric, or a rewrite.

A simple example: if your voice guide says “no hype,” but the CTA reads “Don’t miss out, act now,” that’s a fail even if the rest is solid. Rewrite it in your style: “Try it today” or “See if it fits your workflow.”

Next steps that actually keep it consistent

Store your voice brief where everyone writes (not in a forgotten doc), and treat it like a living standard.

• Version your template (v1.2, v1.3) and note what changed.
• Review it quarterly and add new do/don’t examples based on real edits.
• Keep an “approved snippets” file: CTAs, disclaimers, intros, and preferred phrasing.

If you generate content at scale, a system like GENERATED (generated.app) can help you reuse the same voice template across requests and generate draft CTAs that fit your guidelines. The important part is still the same: treat the brief as the source of truth, and judge every output against it before publishing.