On a typical week, Monday morning was a scramble. The operations manager spent the first three hours pulling reports from four systems that didn't talk to each other, copying numbers into a spreadsheet, and emailing the regional leads to fill in the gaps. By the time the weekly review meeting started at noon, half the data was already a day old.

After the change, the same report builds itself overnight. The manager walks in at 9 a.m., reviews it over coffee, and the meeting starts with decisions rather than corrections.

That's a 33% improvement in operational efficiency.

The number is the same either way. But most case studies would give you only the number, and that's the problem. They read like resumes: a list of accomplishments with the story stripped out. And nobody hires off a resume alone. The resume gets you the interview. The interview is where you find out what actually happened.

I've spent a lot of time writing corporate case studies, and they tend to follow a standard format: what was the problem, how did we solve it, what were the results. There's nothing wrong with these sections. The problem is what we put in them: inconclusive data and not much that's interesting.

Numbers without a story are just noise

While proof is important, we're all a little less interested in percentage gains than we think we are. When's the last time you bought a product because of a percentage gain?

And this is coming from a person who will happily spend his entire morning watching James Hoffmann videos on coffee brew and grind settings. So it's not a lack of love for data that makes pure numbers uninteresting. It's the lack of context. When Hoffmann shows how a grind setting leads to a more delicious cup of coffee, the numbers sit inside a result anyone can see, and suddenly they're compelling. The data tells a story instead of just sitting there as metrics we can't visualize.

That's the key question: are our numbers helping the reader visualize something? Maybe even visualize how a similar solution could work for them? Or are they just bullet points on a resume? To quote Darryl from The Office, "Selling 2.5 billion units of paper material."

The template isn't the trap. Template-style writing is.

This second issue has to do with format, and I want to be careful here, because I don't believe there's anything wrong with a template itself. A familiar format can be pleasing to readers. It sets expectations, and when readers like what they're getting, they don't mind getting it again. Once you dial in a great cup of coffee, you don't get tired of it. You just want to keep up the quality.

The real problem is when we templatize the writing. We stop telling a story and start filling out an exam worksheet. What was the problem? Fill in the blank. What was the solution? Fill in the blank. What were the numbers? When we write that way, the result is inevitable: writing that falls flat. A resume in case study clothing.

The goal is to tell a compelling story within the framework your readers expect.

What to do about it

Usually, there's a story to tell. We just run out of steam before we tell it well, or we don't gather the material we'd need. So the case study becomes a list of achievements, and we try to bridge the gaps with headings, which only takes us so far. Here are the gaps worth filling.

Fill the purpose gap. Why did the achievement matter to them? And don't confuse goals with purpose. Expanding a website's presence is a goal. The real purpose might be building influence in a niche. The distinction matters because connecting the results back to the purpose creates a concrete image of success in the reader's mind, much like a good interview answer connects what you did to why it mattered.

Fill the context gap. Statistics in isolation don't mean much. You could write that company X experienced a 33% improvement in operational efficiency, and it would be a perfectly acceptable metric and a completely empty sentence. Tell them how instead. That's what the Monday-morning story at the top of this article is doing. The number didn't change. The story is what makes it real.

Don't fall back into the worksheet. Structure is good, but the piece shouldn't read like a question-and-answer series. Unlike an interview transcript, a case study has to carry its own context, and worksheet-style writing leaves major gaps in the story.

I'm aware of the irony of ending an article about worksheet-style writing with a checklist, so think of these less as blanks to fill and more as ways to interrogate your draft:

  • Can the reader relate to the results?
  • Why would the reader care about this story?
  • Am I telling a story or reciting facts?
  • Does the format improve the story or get in its way?
  • Could I tell it in a way that's more human?
  • Does it read like the vendor flexing, with the customer as a prop?

Don't limit yourself to these. Play devil's advocate, come at the draft from a different specialty, and challenge the writing until it gets interesting. If you're telling a story, not everyone will engage, but the right readers will resonate with it.

If your case studies read like resumes, the fix isn't a better template. It's a better interview.