I wrote a short tone guide so every RAXXO product page, error message, and email sounds like the same studio wrote it
The guide is a list of banned words and required habits, not a mood board or a set of adjectives
It exists because I once read two RAXXO product pages back to back and they sounded like different companies
I check new copy against it before anything ships, the same way I check code against a style guide
The Moment I Noticed the Voice Was Drifting
I write every word on every RAXXO product page myself, across every tool the studio has shipped. For a long time I assumed that alone would keep the voice consistent. One person writing everything sounds like a guarantee of consistency, and for the first few tools it was.
The drift showed up slowly, the way most consistency problems do. I was updating a product page for an older tool and had a newer one's page open in the next tab for reference. Reading them side by side, they did not sound like the same studio. The older page explained things in long, careful sentences, hedging almost every claim. The newer one was short and blunt, stating things flatly with no qualifiers at all. Neither page was wrong on its own. Put next to each other, they read like two different people had written them, and a visitor who saw both in the same session would have no reason to think they came from the same place.
That was the moment I stopped trusting "I wrote it, so it is consistent" as a real safeguard. Voice drifts naturally over time even from a single writer, because whatever mood, deadline pressure, or recent reading is shaping your sentences that week bleeds into the copy. Without something to check against, each page ends up sounding like a snapshot of how I was writing that particular week, not like a studio with a fixed identity.
I went looking for how far the drift actually went once I noticed it, and it was worse than the two pages that first caught my attention. I pulled up product pages from across the full lineup and read them in one sitting, back to back, something I had never actually done before because I normally only look at one page at a time while working on it. Read together, they sorted almost cleanly into two eras. An earlier era where I explained everything, qualified every claim, and let sentences run long because I was still nervous about overpromising. A later era where I had swung hard the other way, writing short and blunt with almost no explanation at all, because I had gotten tired of my own hedging. Neither era was the actual RAXXO voice. They were both reactions to the era before them, which is a very different thing from a voice that was chosen on purpose.
The fix was not to rewrite every existing page from memory and hope I got it right this time. It was to write down, explicitly, what the RAXXO voice actually is, so future me has something to check new copy against instead of relying on future me remembering how past me sounded.
What Actually Went Into the Guide
The guide is short on purpose. A long style document nobody rereads before writing is worse than no document at all, because it creates the feeling of having a system without the discipline of actually using it. Mine fits on one page, and I built it out of two kinds of entries: things that are banned outright, and habits that are required.
The banned list came from going back through old copy and circling anything that made me wince on a second read. Hedge words like "might," "could potentially," and "in some cases" made the cut, because they were showing up in places where I actually knew the answer and was just softening it out of habit. Vague superlatives like "powerful," "seamless," and "cutting-edge" got banned too, not because they are inherently bad words, but because they describe nothing. A visitor cannot picture "seamless." They can picture "loads in under a second" or "works without creating an account first," which is language this studio's tools can usually back up honestly.
The required habits list is shorter but does more work. Every product claim has to be checkable by the person reading it, not just assertable. Every error message has to say what happened and what to do next, never just what went wrong. Every page opens with the problem the tool solves, stated in one sentence, before anything about how it solves it. That last rule alone fixed more inconsistency than any banned word ever did, because it forced every page into the same shape before a single sentence of actual voice got written.
I also wrote down three real sentences, one from an actual shipped page, as the standard to match. Not a description of the tone, an actual example of it. Descriptions of tone are easy to interpret loosely. A real sentence sitting there as a reference is much harder to drift away from without noticing, the same way the design system that makes five RAXXO tools feel like one studio uses actual component examples instead of abstract color theory to keep the visual side consistent.
Picking those three sentences was harder than writing the rest of the guide combined. My first instinct was to pick the three sentences I was proudest of, the ones that sounded the most polished on their own. That instinct was wrong, and I caught it before finalizing anything. A reference sentence has to represent the ordinary, repeatable voice, not the best single line I ever happened to write on a good day. I ended up picking three plain, slightly boring sentences instead, the kind that could plausibly appear on any product page without standing out, because a reference built from an outlier teaches the wrong lesson every time it gets checked against.
How I Actually Use It
The guide is useless if it only exists as a document I wrote once and never opened again, so I built a habit around it instead of trusting myself to remember it. Before any new page, email template, or error message ships, I read it against the guide, line by line, the same way I would run a linter against new code before a commit.
Most of what the check catches is small. A hedge word that snuck back in. A sentence explaining what a feature does instead of what problem it solves. An adjective doing the work a specific number should be doing. None of these are dramatic on their own, and that is exactly why they need a checklist instead of a gut feeling. Gut feelings catch big, obvious voice mismatches. They do not catch one soft hedge word in an otherwise fine paragraph, and one soft hedge word per page, repeated across a dozen pages, is exactly how the drift I noticed originally happened.
The check also runs on things that are not marketing copy at all. Error messages get the same pass, because an error message written in a different voice than the product page around it is its own kind of inconsistency, and often the more damaging one, since error messages show up at exactly the moment a visitor is already frustrated. The error message I rewrite until a stranger understands it is really the same discipline applied to a single, high-stress sentence instead of a whole page.
I do not run the check on every internal note or half-finished draft. It applies to anything that ships where a customer will read it, which keeps the overhead reasonable. A quick internal Slack-style note to myself about a bug does not need to sound like RAXXO. A published page, an email a customer receives after buying something, or a confirmation message on checkout does, every time, no exceptions.
Where the Guide Still Falls Short
I want to be honest about the limits of this, because a tone guide is not a magic fix and I do not treat it like one. It catches word choice and sentence shape. It does not catch a page that is technically on-voice but boring, or a page that follows every rule and still fails to explain the actual problem a tool solves. Voice consistency and quality are related but different problems, and the guide only solves the first one.
It also does not scale perfectly to every format. A long-form piece like this one follows a looser version of the same rules, because an 1800 word article needs room to build an argument that a three-sentence product description does not. I check longer pieces against the spirit of the guide, banned words and required habits, without forcing every sentence into product-page shape. Trying to apply the exact same checklist everywhere would make longer writing stiff in a way that does not serve the reader.
The guide has also needed real updates, not just enforcement. When I added subscription products to the lineup, I had to write new required habits for how a recurring charge gets described, because the existing rules were written with one-time purchases in mind and did not translate cleanly. A style guide that never changes is a sign nobody is actually using it against new situations, not a sign it is finished.
Bottom Line
One person writing every word for every RAXXO tool felt like it should guarantee a consistent voice, and it did not, because voice drifts naturally with mood and time even from a single writer. Writing the drift down, as specific banned words and specific required habits instead of a vague description of tone, gave me something to check new copy against instead of trusting memory.
The guide is not clever. It is a page of rules and three example sentences, checked before anything ships. What it buys back is the thing that made me notice the problem in the first place: a visitor who reads two different RAXXO pages in the same sitting should never be able to tell they were written months apart.
Top comments (0)