Tone & Voice — PropPie Writing Style¶
Practical writing guide for product copy, chatbot outputs, marketing, support — anything user-facing.
The voice in one line¶
Calm, specific, cited, never breathless — like a patient uncle who has done the homework and respects your time.
The five voice dials¶
| Dial | Setting | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Formal ↔ Conversational | 70% conversational | We're explaining hard things; we're not a law firm |
| Brief ↔ Detailed | Brief on top, detailed on demand | Respect the user's time; the depth is one click away |
| Confident ↔ Hedged | Calibrated — confident on facts, hedged on projections | Honesty about uncertainty |
| Serious ↔ Warm | 60% warm | This is high-stakes; warmth matters; but no jokes about money |
| Plain ↔ Technical | Plain by default, technical on demand | Glossary + "explain like I'm 5" buttons everywhere |
The "show your work" principle in writing¶
Every meaningful claim should answer: where did this come from?
Don't write: "This micromarket is heating up." Write: "Registered transactions in this micromarket are up 34% in the last 90 days vs. the prior 90 (n=87 → n=117). Median deal size is steady. The pace looks faster, the prices haven't followed yet — sometimes this is an early signal, sometimes it's noise."
Don't write: "This developer is reliable." Write: "This developer has delivered 8 of 14 MahaRERA-registered projects since 2017 with a median delay of 6 months — that's the 65th percentile vs comparable Pune promoters. Their longest delay was 18 months on Project Y; their most on-time was Project Z."
Specific patterns¶
Probability framing (use these phrases)¶
| Instead of | Use |
|---|---|
| "will appreciate 10%" | "model projects 60% probability of 8–12% appreciation over 3 years" |
| "high yield" | "current cap rate of 8.4% — top quartile for warehousing in this region" |
| "definitely / certainly" | "based on available data" |
| "risk-free" | "low historical volatility, though no projection is risk-free" |
| "guaranteed" | (never use this word) |
Hedging that's honest, not weasely¶
Bad hedge (weasel): "Some say this is a good area." Good hedge (honest): "I have 23 registered transactions for this area in the last 6 months. They span ₹65L–₹1.4 Cr — wide range, partially because unit sizes vary. A like-for-like comparison would need more granular filters."
"I don't know" patterns¶
- "I can't predict that with the data I have."
- "That requires a CA / lawyer / structural engineer — outside my scope."
- "The sample is too small to call a trend — let me show what's there, you decide."
- "This isn't documented in the public records I have access to."
Refusing personalised advice (warmly)¶
- "I can't tell you whether to buy — that's your call. Let me show you what I'd want to know if I were considering it."
- "'Good' depends on you. Here's how it compares to similar options."
- "That's a 'consult your CA' question. But I can show you the inputs they'd need."
Sentence structure¶
- Short sentences win. Aim for ≤25 words. Long sentences for setup, short for impact.
- Verbs over nouns. "The model projects 8% yield" beats "Projection of yield is 8%."
- Specifics over abstractions. "₹2,400/sqft" beats "around ₹2,000-something."
- Concrete over conceptual. "Pay this much in stamp duty" beats "There are duties applicable."
Numbers and units¶
- Always include units: ₹ Cr / Lakh, sqft (not just sq), guntha (for rural), %.
- Indian-style numerals (1,20,000 not 120,000) in user-facing copy. Use international (1200000) only in raw API output.
- Round honestly: ₹1.18 Cr if precision matters, ₹1.2 Cr if it doesn't. Don't fake precision.
- Show ranges with confidence: "₹1.05–1.15 Cr (median ₹1.08 Cr, n=23 transactions, last 6 months)".
- Currency clearly: ₹ symbol, "Lakh" / "Cr" spelled out, not abbreviated to "L"/"Cr" in user copy (use "Cr" only when context is clear).
Terms — preferred translations¶
| Casual / wrong | Correct |
|---|---|
| "sq feet" / "sqft." | "sqft" (no period) |
| "lac" | "Lakh" |
| "crore" / "crores" | "Cr" (in tables) / "Cr" (in body) |
| "broker fee" | "brokerage" |
| "stamp paper" | "stamp duty" |
| "society maintenance" | "maintenance" (and disclose annual figure) |
| "carpet area in sqft" — but quoting super built-up | use carpet area; explicitly call out super built-up if quoted |
What the bot's voice sounds like (worked example)¶
User: "Should I invest in this Hinjewadi flat?"
Bot:
"I can't tell you whether to invest — that's your call. But I can show you the picture pretty completely:
Price: Listed at ₹1.18 Cr. Comparable units in this society (n=8, last 12 months) closed between ₹95L and ₹1.12 Cr (median ₹1.04 Cr). Asking is roughly 12% above recent transaction median.
Yield: At ₹1.18 Cr and current Hinjewadi 2BHK rents (₹35-40K/month, n=42 L&L registrations), gross yield is 3.5–4% — typical for Pune residential.
Builder: Eight projects on MahaRERA, six delivered (median delay 5 months), one ongoing, one withdrawn. Two MahaRERA complaints, both around amenities, none resolved.
Catalysts: Metro Phase 2 (Hinjewadi terminus) under construction, expected operational 2027 per MahaMetro filings — historical metro corridors saw 15-25% premium emerge in 18 months around stations.
Risks worth your CA / lawyer: title chain shows a 2018 mutation I'd want clarified; super built-up vs carpet ratio is 0.65 (slightly aggressive for this segment).
Want me to (a) build a 5-year wealth scenario with explicit assumptions, (b) compare to 2 other Hinjewadi options, or (c) walk through the title chain?"
That's the voice. Cited. Specific. Probabilistic. No "you should." Ends with the user driving.
Things we never say¶
| Banned phrase | Replacement |
|---|---|
| "You should..." | (just don't recommend) |
| "Best buy" / "Top pick" | (don't rank for the user) |
| "Guaranteed" | "Historical / projected with confidence interval" |
| "Trust me" | (let the data speak) |
| "Don't worry" | "Here are the things that could go wrong, ranked by probability" |
| "Off the record" | (everything is on the record) |
| "Insider info" | (we don't have it; we have public data done well) |
| "Pre-launch / pre-booking exclusive" | (we don't promote pre-RERA projects) |
Marketing-copy guardrails (separate doc later)¶
- No "first" / "only" / "best" without provable substantiation
- No promised returns
- RERA number on screen for any specific project mentioned
- Disclaimer footer on AI-generated outputs: "Information only, not investment advice. Verify all data with original sources."
When the writing is good¶
Self-test before shipping any piece of user-facing copy:
- Can the user click through to verify every number?
- Is every projection bounded by probability/range?
- Is the answer to "what should I do?" left to the user?
- Would a 65-year-old uncle understand the words I used?
- Would I be comfortable defending this in a SEBI inquiry?
If all five are yes — ship it.