# HarborMug: five-week editorial programme

Build three compact decision guides first, then four focused supporting pieces. The goal is to help US desk workers decide whether HarborMug fits their routine and reach the product page with fewer unanswered questions. Allocate Mia’s 30 hours and Alex’s five review hours across five weeks. This is a production plan with completed briefs; nothing has been published or sent.

All customer conversations, keyword estimates, competitor observations and search-result snapshots supplied for this plan are synthetic examples; scores are editorial judgments, not measured market demand.

## Three pillars and their links

| Pillar and hub | Customer need and product connection | Supporting cluster |
|---|---|---|
| Care without guesswork — N2, “How to clean HarborMug: hand-wash care and microwave restrictions” | Four conversations ask about cleaning or appliance use. State the hand-wash-only and no-microwave restrictions before purchase. | N6 routine checklist; N8 care-before-checkout opinion, deferred |
| Choose a mug for your desk — N1, “Is a 500ml mug right for your desk?” | C5–C6 ask about capacity and dimensions. Explain 500ml and 9 × 9 × 19cm without inventing fit or performance tests. | N4 size comparison; N6 cross-link; N10 printable experiment, deferred |
| Understand the order before checkout — N3, “HarborMug shipping costs, delivery and returns” | C7–C10 concern shipping, arrival, unopened returns and basket costs. Make actual totals and policy boundaries visible. | N5 detailed return FAQ; N7 free-shipping opinion |

Use ordinary `/blog/` pages. Suggested slugs are `harbormug-care`, `500ml-desk-mug-guide`, `harbormug-shipping`, `500ml-vs-larger-mug`, `harbormug-returns`, `desk-mug-routine` and `free-shipping-basket-cost`. These are proposed routes, not existing pages. Each hub needs a contents list, short direct answer, decision checklist, relevant product-page link and shipping-FAQ link. Add spoke links only when the spoke is approved and live; add reciprocal hub links to every spoke. N6 links to both care and selection hubs. N3 summarizes returns and links to N5 for detail; N5 owns the detailed return query to avoid duplicate pages competing for it.

## Priority and sequencing

Use the Skill’s weighted score: impact × 40% + product fit × 30% + search potential × 20% + ease of delivery × 10%. Each factor is scored 1–10; a higher resources score means easier production. Commercial relevance is represented by product fit and the buyer task, while the supplied search score represents estimated opportunity. Search intent is recorded separately, rather than confusing it with volume. The full inputs and calculated ranking are in `topic-priorities.csv`.

| Rank | ID / topic | Impact / fit / search / ease | Score | Intent and stage | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | N2 cleaning | 10 / 10 / 7 / 9 | 9.3 | Informational, implementation and pre-purchase objection | Week 1 hub |
| 2 | N1 500ml guide | 9 / 10 / 7 / 8 | 8.8 | Informational, awareness | Week 2 hub |
| 3 | N3 shipping | 8 / 10 / 6 / 10 | 8.4 | Transactional support, decision | Week 3 hub |
| 4 | N5 returns | 7 / 10 / 5 / 10 | 7.8 | Transactional support, decision | Week 4, after N3 |
| 5 | N4 size comparison | 7 / 9 / 7 / 8 | 7.7 | Commercial investigation, consideration | Week 4, after N1 |
| 6 | N6 routine checklist | 7 / 9 / 6 / 8 | 7.5 | Informational/action, implementation | Week 5, after N1 and N2 |
| 7 | N7 basket opinion | 8 / 9 / 3 / 9 | 7.4 | Shareable consideration argument | Week 5, after N3 |
| 8 | N8 care-before-checkout | 8 / 9 / 2 / 9 | 7.2 | Shareable awareness | Defer standalone; use N2 distribution angle |
| 9 | N10 printable card | 5 / 8 / 1 / 7 | 5.3 | Experimental implementation format | Defer; test only after checklist engagement |
| 10 | N9 learning diary | 4 / 7 / 1 / 8 | 4.7 | Shareable awareness | Defer until there are actual observations |

N1 scores highly despite only two conversations because its supplied impact and fit scores are high; do not describe it as the most frequent pain. Care is 4/10, size 2/10, shipping 2/10, returns 1/10 and basket objection 1/10. These counts describe this small example set only. The simulated competitor notes suggest model-specific care and shipping arithmetic as useful angles, but establish no real competitive gap.

Six of seven scheduled pieces are searchable (86%); one is shareable (14%). This intentionally departs from 60/30/10 while the blog has no established foundation. Repurposed emails and carousels add distribution without becoming extra original articles. No experiment is funded in this cycle.

## Capacity and release calendar

Mia owns research, drafting, editing, static assets, staging, distribution drafts and measurement. Alex owns factual/policy review and final editorial sign-off. The weekly maximum is six hours for Mia and one for Alex; `capacity-calendar.csv` itemizes all hours. Releases below are proposed, conditional on approval and the team’s normal publishing access.

| Week | Draft/research | Edit | Asset | Email/carousel | Staging/QA | Measurement/buffer | Alex review | Deliverable and dependency |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---|
| 1 | 3 | 1 | .5 | .5 | .5 | .5 | 1 | N2 care hub; establish event baseline |
| 2 | 3 | 1 | .5 | .5 | .5 | .5 | 1 | N1 selection hub; link to N2 |
| 3 | 3 | 1 | .5 | .5 | .5 | .5 | 1 | N3 logistics hub; reconcile shipping FAQ |
| 4 | 3 | .75 | .5 | .5 | .5 | .75 | 1 | N5 then N4; both parent hubs already released |
| 5 | 2.5 | .75 | .5 | .75 | .5 | 1 | 1 | N6 then N7; review early behaviour |

Weeks 4–5 use short pieces, shared source checking and reusable graphics. Split Alex’s hour into 30 minutes per piece in those weeks. Each original yields two small distribution derivatives within the listed hours. If review or corrections exceed the buffer, move N7 to the backlog first, then N6; retain the three hubs and accurate policy answers. Do not increase hours or skip review. Deferred assets have no hidden capacity allocation.

## Production briefs

All customer-facing titles and sample copy are English, consistent with the US audience; no other target language was specified. Word ranges are ceilings for planning, not quotas. Every piece links to its parent or related hub and offers a contextual product visit rather than forcing a purchase.

### N2 — care hub, 650–800 words

**Target:** “how to clean HarborMug”; searchable how-to expanded into a compact pillar guide. **Evidence:** C1–C4 and the product care field. **Information gain:** the supplied simulated results are generic; this guide puts model-specific hand-wash and microwave restrictions together. **Outline:** direct answer; hand-wash requirement; coffee-cleaning questions; dishwasher and microwave FAQ; care commitment before buying. Do not invent detergent, abrasive, soaking or disassembly instructions; Alex must validate any detailed cleaning method before inclusion. **CTA:** “Check HarborMug’s size and product details.” **Owner/review:** Mia; Alex verifies every care instruction. **Two derivatives:** short care email and three-card appliance-restriction carousel, both returning to the hub. **Useful behaviour:** care-section readers who continue to product details; fewer repeated care questions per 100 orders, monitored without claiming causation.

### N1 — selection hub, 650–800 words

**Target:** “500ml mug guide”; searchable decision guide. **Evidence:** C5–C6, capacity, dimensions, weight and material. **Information gain:** a single decision sheet combines size with care constraints rather than a generic capacity list. **Outline:** 500ml capacity; 9 × 9 × 19cm and 0.35kg specifications; measure your available desk space; compare your usual drink volume; care trade-off; who should compare larger sizes. Do not infer base clearance, usable fill line, lid dimensions, heat retention or leak resistance. **CTA:** “See the 500ml HarborMug.” **Owner/review:** Mia; Alex checks specifications and unsupported fit claims. **Two derivatives:** specification email and static size checklist carousel. **Useful behaviour:** specification/checklist interaction followed by a product visit.

### N3 — logistics hub, 600–750 words

**Target:** “HarborMug shipping cost”; searchable FAQ guide. **Evidence:** C7–C8, C10 and shipping policies. **Information gain:** exact basket arithmetic plus separate dispatch and delivery windows. **Outline:** US domestic scope; below-$50 fee; threshold examples; dispatch versus delivery; unused-return summary; links to shipping FAQ and, later, N5. **CTA:** “Check your basket total before ordering.” **Owner/review:** Mia; Alex checks all numbers and policy consistency. **Two derivatives:** shipping arithmetic email and basket-table carousel. **Useful behaviour:** shipping-answer readers reaching product/basket details; delivery-question rate per 100 orders. Do not promise a calendar arrival date.

### N5 — return FAQ, 300–400 words

**Target:** “HarborMug return policy”; searchable decision FAQ. **Evidence:** C9 and unused-within-30-days policy. **Information gain:** a worked timing example keeps merchant approval distinct from eligibility. **Outline:** unused condition; request window; unopened example; approval boundary; how to request through the existing support route. Do not invent a contact address, return postage terms, return address or refund timing. **CTA:** “Review the return conditions before you order.” **Owner/review:** Mia; Alex checks policy and exception language. **Two derivatives:** return-window email snippet and eligibility carousel. **Useful behaviour:** return-policy readers who then review product details, plus repeat eligibility questions. **Dependency:** N3.

### N4 — size comparison, 400–500 words

**Target:** “500ml mug vs larger mug”; searchable comparison. **Evidence:** C5–C6. **Information gain:** explicit 500ml trade-offs without invented heat or leak tests. **Outline:** use your normal drink volume; refill tolerance; measured space; 500ml product facts; what to verify on any larger alternative. No named competitor specifications are available. **CTA:** “Compare your routine with HarborMug’s specifications.” **Owner/review:** Mia; Alex checks that hypothetical alternatives are clearly labeled. **Two derivatives:** refill-choice email and comparison carousel. **Useful behaviour:** comparison-to-product click rate. **Dependency:** N1.

### N6 — routine checklist, 300–400 words

**Target:** “desk mug routine checklist”; searchable template with shareable utility. **Evidence:** C2 and C5. **Information gain:** standalone checklist includes model-specific care limits. **Outline:** check your usual volume and desk space; plan hand-washing; avoid microwave use; review product and order conditions. Include the copy-ready checklist below as text; a new printable layout is outside scope. **CTA:** “Use the checklist, then check the product details.” **Owner/review:** Mia; Alex checks care wording. **Two derivatives:** checklist email and static checklist carousel. **Useful behaviour:** checklist completion followed by specification or product view. **Dependencies:** N1 and N2.

### N7 — basket opinion, 350–450 words

**Title:** “Why buying more for free shipping can cost more.” Shareable opinion for consideration; no validated search query is claimed. **Evidence:** C7/C10 and calculated basket totals. **Distinct contribution:** a concrete one-/two-/three-mug comparison explains total spend rather than glorifying a free-shipping badge. **Outline:** answer the objection; show totals; explain when another mug is useful; link to shipping hub. **CTA:** “Choose the quantity you need, then check the total.” **Owner/review:** Mia; Alex checks arithmetic and neutral buying advice. **Two derivatives:** one-idea email and cost-table carousel. **Useful behaviour:** informed product visits and basket quantity review; larger baskets alone are not success. **Dependency:** N3.

## Copy-ready modules for drafting

**Care answer:** “HarborMug is hand-wash only and is not microwave safe. If dishwasher cleaning or microwave reheating is essential to your routine, consider those requirements before ordering.”

**Size answer:** “HarborMug holds 500ml and measures 9 × 9 × 19cm. Compare those dimensions with your desk space and think about how much you usually pour before choosing.”

**Shipping answer:** “US domestic shipping is $5 on orders below $50 and free on orders of $50 or more. Dispatch takes 2 business days; delivery takes 3–5 business days. Keep both stages in mind when planning your order.”

**Basket table, before any applicable taxes:**

| Quantity | Merchandise | Shipping | Total |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| 1 | $24 | $5 | $29 |
| 2 | $48 | $5 | $53 |
| 3 | $72 | $0 | $72 |

“Two mugs do not meet the $50 free-shipping threshold. Adding a third mug saves $5 in shipping but increases your total from $53 to $72: $19 more. Buy the extra mug if you need it, rather than to reduce shipping alone.” No discounts are assumed.

**Return answer:** “Returns are available for unused items within 30 days. Final refunds require merchant approval. For example, an unopened item delivered on October 20 with a return requested on November 3 is 14 days after delivery and falls within the stated window; this does not itself approve a refund.” The example uses only the supplied case and makes no commitment on unspecified fees or processing time.

**Routine checklist:**

- Compare 500ml with your usual drink volume.
- Measure the space available against 9 × 9 × 19cm.
- Make room in your routine for hand-washing.
- Plan without microwave reheating of the mug.
- Check quantity, shipping costs and return conditions before ordering.

**Reusable email draft:** Subject: “Will 500ml suit your desk routine?” Body: “Start with your usual drink volume, the space on your desk and how you prefer to clean your mug. HarborMug holds 500ml, measures 9 × 9 × 19cm and is hand-wash only. It is not microwave safe. Use our size guide to decide whether it fits your routine.” Link label: “Read the 500ml guide.” Attach the approved guide URL when available; this is a draft, not a sent message.

## Review and distribution workflow

For each piece, Mia prepares ten headline options before drafting; the completed option bank is in `headline-options.md`. Use five short editing passes within the allocated edit time: structure and direct answer; clarity for first-time buyers; evidence and arithmetic; line edit; title/query/links and CTA. Hub contents must stand alone before spokes exist.

Mia checks each claim against the supplied product/policy facts, labels hypothetical examples, and gives Alex the draft plus a claim checklist. Alex verifies specifications, care, threshold calculations, delivery wording, return approval boundaries and the absence of unsupported health, environmental, heat-retention or leak claims. Mia applies corrections, checks mobile readability of tables/static text, link destinations and event labels in staging. Alex signs off; any unresolved fact blocks the affected claim or piece. This plan does not change accounts, publish or send anything.

Prepare one short owned-email derivative and one static carousel per original, reusing text and graphics rather than writing separate campaigns. The carousel routes to the owned hub/article, then to relevant product details; the email has one idea and one primary link. Queue derivatives for release week and the following week if the team publishes, using the same source text and existing approved channels. Do not assume a particular social network or an existing mailing list. If either channel is unavailable, retain its draft for an existing help surface; do not create new channels in this cycle. No partner outreach, video or podcast is included.

At each weekly review, Mia records recurring questions and useful behaviour. Feed those questions into hub FAQs before adding new articles. N8 can become a standalone argument only if it adds something beyond the care hub; N10 waits for evidence that people use N6; N9 waits for actual documented learning and cannot claim results in advance.

## Measurement and decisions

There is no measured winning article or content baseline. Week 1 should establish tracking readiness and record whatever baseline is available; missing events are “unavailable,” never zero. The supplied aggregate order/session examples are not content-attribution evidence and should not be used to forecast editorial sales lifts.

| Measure | Definition | Review and action |
|---|---|---|
| Qualified product visit rate | Distinct article sessions with a relevant answer/checklist interaction and a product-detail click ÷ distinct article sessions | Mia weekly, Alex reviews. Compare pieces after at least 100 article sessions each; below that, inspect questions and usability without ranking winners. |
| Answer-to-product rate | Sessions with product click after a defined care, size, shipping or returns interaction ÷ sessions with that interaction | Check CTA placement and answer clarity where engagement is present but progression is weak. Define interaction as explicit checklist/answer expansion where supported; otherwise use section visibility plus click, labeled a proxy. |
| Checklist use | Distinct N6 sessions with checklist interaction ÷ N6 sessions | Consider N10 only after at least 20 explicit checklist interactions and repeated requests for a printable version; these are planning thresholds, not forecasts. |
| Assisted cart behaviour | Article-referred product sessions with add-to-cart ÷ article-referred product sessions | Track with content ID and source; report counts with rates. It indicates consideration, not causal incremental sales. |
| Repeat uncertainty | Care/shipping/return questions by category per 100 orders, with raw counts | Mia tags consistently; compare equal periods. Small samples and order mix can change rates; use wording to improve answers rather than claim deflection. |
| Distribution usefulness | Email/carousel link visits leading to answer interaction or product click | Track source/medium/content ID separately. Opens, impressions and likes alone do not meet the goal. |

Use content IDs N1–N7 in event properties and tagged distribution links; deduplicate by session and exclude staff/test activity where supported. Use aggregate reporting without customer names or message text. Do not require new code within editorial hours: Mia audits existing analytics in week 1; if interaction tracking needs implementation, record that gap and use available article-to-product clicks as a clearly labeled proxy until resourced separately.

At the end of week 5, keep hubs accurate, correct repeated misunderstandings first, and choose the next spoke by useful behaviour plus repeated questions. Without enough traffic, retain the demand-led order and continue measurement; five weeks cannot establish organic-search performance. The supplied search snapshots support a provisional information-gain gate for N1–N6 only. Before real publication, replace that evidence with an actual current-results check and confirm the proposed added value; no live rankings or competitor findings have been verified here.

## Finished supporting files

`topic-priorities.csv` preserves every supplied topic, factor, keyword estimate, backing and calculated score. `capacity-calendar.csv` gives the weekly resource allocation. `headline-options.md` contains ten draft titles per scheduled piece. `evidence-and-calculations.md` records source boundaries, information-gain evidence and worked arithmetic. These support the complete operational plan above; they are not evidence of publication or business results.