Build the Launch Kit: Battlecard, Deck Outline, and Objection Guide

Marketing Academy · Field Work●Product Marketing

CoreBuild the Asset· 70 minutes

Casper Sleep

Objective: Given a new-product launch brief two weeks before sales kickoff, build the three core deliverables a rep needs on day one: a one-page battlecard, a sales deck outline, and a 5-objection handling guide.

Casper is launching a new hybrid mattress line and reps have zero materials two weeks before the sales kickoff. Lost-deal notes from the current line are your only field input.

Produce the minimum viable enablement kit: one battlecard against the top competitor, one deck outline following the problem-solution-proof-next-step arc, and five objections with talk tracks, all traceable to real lost-deal notes.

Before you start

What you'll need

Free path (everything below is enough to finish)

Google Docs

FreeDraft the battlecard and deck outline

Free, fast collaborative drafting for both assets

Google Sheets

FreeBuild the objection table and the usage-tracking log

Free, easy to share with reps and update live

Paid upgrades (optional, faster/deeper)

The free path (Docs + Sheets) produces a fully usable kit; Canva only speeds up the final visual polish.

Canva(optional)

FreemiumDesign the final battlecard as a polished one-pager for the kickoff deck

Templated layouts speed up the final design pass once content is locked

The process

4 steps

Step 01 of 04

Building assets in order of impact, starting with what unblocks the most deals

The Create phase builds assets in order of impact, starting with what unblocks the most deals, not everything at once.

With two weeks and one PMM, which of battlecard, deck, objection guide, and onboarding curriculum ships first, and why?

Google Docs— Draft a one-paragraph prioritization note before building anything

Procedure

List all four possible assets from the lesson's Create phase
Rank them by how many active deals each would unblock this week
Commit to building only the top three in the two-week window

Sample output

Priority order: 1) Battlecard (3 active competitive deals waiting), 2) Deck outline, 3) Objection guide, 4) Onboarding curriculum (deferred to next quarter)

Healthy

The onboarding curriculum, the longest build, gets explicitly deferred rather than started late and shipped incomplete.

Unhealthy

All four assets get started simultaneously and none ship complete by kickoff.

What this means

Ranking by deals unblocked, not by build order convenience, is what keeps the kit shippable in two weeks.

So what do I do about it?

Symptom	Action	Effort
All four assets are in progress with none finished	Cut to the top three by active-deal impact and defer the rest explicitly	30 min

YouYou can do this yourself, no engineering access required.

Step 02 of 04

Sales deck follows a consistent problem-solution-proof-next-step arc

The master sales deck follows a consistent arc: the buyer's problem, how the product solves it, proof it works, and the next step.

The launch brief has a features list but no problem statement. What's the first slide's content before any feature appears?

Google Docs— Outline the deck as a bulleted slide list in the same doc

Procedure

Write slide 1 as the buyer's problem, in the buyer's own words, no product mention
Write slide 2 as the solution, tied directly back to the problem stated on slide 1
Write slide 3 as proof (a named result or reference), slide 4 as the next step

Sample output

Slide 1: "Back pain from an old mattress is the #1 reason shoppers switch brands"
Slide 2: Hybrid line's zoned support solves exactly that complaint
Slide 3: Reference customer result
Slide 4: Trial offer as the next step

Healthy

Slide 1 contains zero product mentions and reads like a customer complaint.

Unhealthy

Slide 1 opens with a feature list disguised as a problem statement.

What this means

If a competitor's rep could present your slide 1 with their own logo on it, it's not actually about the buyer's problem yet.

So what do I do about it?

Symptom	Action	Effort
Slide 1 mentions the product name or a feature	Rewrite it purely as the buyer's stated pain, sourced from lost-deal notes	5 min

YouYou can do this yourself, no engineering access required.

Step 03 of 04

Objection-handling guides built from call recordings, not guesswork

Objection-handling guides are built from call recordings and rep interviews, not guesswork from a conference room, and use conversational language.

Lost-deal notes show 'too firm' as the top objection on the old mattress line. Does that objection carry over to the new hybrid line as-is, or does it need re-sourcing?

Google Sheets— Build the 5-objection table in a shared sheet

Procedure

Check whether each old-line objection still applies to the new hybrid product's actual specs
Drop or rewrite any objection the new product spec already resolves
Write a conversational talk track for the 5 objections that still apply

Sample output

Objection: "Too firm for side sleepers" — DROPPED, hybrid line adds a softer top layer that resolves this
Objection: "Price is higher than the old line" — KEPT, talk track: "It's $150 more, and it replaces two toppers most side-sleepers buy separately anyway."

Healthy

Objections tied to specs the new product has actually changed get dropped or rewritten, not copy-pasted.

Unhealthy

The old line's objection list gets copied over unchanged onto a product with different specs.

What this means

An objection guide is only trustworthy if someone checked whether the product still has that objection.

So what do I do about it?

Symptom	Action	Effort
An objection about a spec the new product no longer has is still on the list	Cross-check every old objection against the new product's actual spec sheet before keeping it	30 min

YouYou can do this yourself, no engineering access required.

Step 04 of 04

Tracking content usage rate after launch

The Measure phase tracks content usage rate in the content platform 30 days after launch and compares win rates by asset usage.

The kit ships in two weeks. What gets set up before launch day so usage can actually be measured on day 30?

Google Sheets— Set up a lightweight usage log before kickoff

Procedure

Create a shared log where reps note which asset they used per competitive deal
Set a calendar reminder for a 30-day usage-rate review
Define in advance what 'used' means (opened vs. referenced on the call)

Sample output

Usage log created · 30-day review scheduled for [date] · 'Used' defined as: referenced during the call, not just opened

Healthy

The tracking mechanism exists before launch day, so day-30 data is real instead of retroactively guessed.

Unhealthy

No tracking is set up and usage gets estimated from memory at the 30-day mark.

What this means

Measurement infrastructure has to exist before the content ships, not get bolted on after adoption is already unclear.

So what do I do about it?

Symptom	Action	Effort
No usage log exists a week before launch	Set up the shared log and the 30-day review reminder now, before kickoff	5 min

YouYou can do this yourself, no engineering access required.

Final deliverable

A launch-ready kit: one battlecard, one deck outline in the problem-solution-proof-next-step arc, a 5-objection guide with talk tracks, and a usage-tracking log set up before launch.

See a reference example

Sample output

Allbirds new-line launch kit (excerpt)

Battlecard: landmine question + 1 talk track vs. top competitor
Deck: 4-slide arc, problem stated with zero product mentions on slide 1
Objection guide: 5 objections re-sourced against new spec sheet, 1 dropped
Usage log: shared sheet live, 30-day review set for Sept 2026

Success criteria

You're done when you can:

Battlecard, deck outline, and objection guide are all built and internally consistent with each other
Deck slide 1 contains no product or feature mention
At least one objection from the prior product line is explicitly dropped or rewritten based on the new spec sheet
A usage-tracking mechanism exists before the stated launch date, not after