The bullet-list section in the Answer block where you state — in specific, board-actionable language — what you want the target to do. Sits between the diagnosis (Complication) and the closing ask (the single one-line CTA on the final slide).
Why they matter
- They convert thesis into resolution-ready proposals. A board meeting can vote on "spin Midstream within 24 months". It cannot vote on "unlock value".
- They prevent the campaign from being negotiated away. Specific demands force specific responses; vague demands invite vague settlements.
- They define what "yes" looks like. A campaign without a clearly stated success condition cannot declare victory or accept settlement.
- They are the spine of the deck. Every slide of evidence in the Complication block should support at least one demand.
How many
3–6 demands. Fewer than 3 and you look incomplete; more than 6 and the campaign loses focus and becomes a wishlist.
The consensus:
- 3 demands: clean, focused, often single-thesis (peer-gap operational turnaround, fraud exposé)
- 4–5 demands: most multi-axis activist campaigns (governance + ops + capital return)
- 6 demands: large-cap conglomerate engagements (DuPont, Disney, Phillips 66) — the upper bound
How to phrase a demand
Each demand must contain:
- Specific verb ("replace", "spin", "approve", "commit", "discontinue") — never "consider", "evaluate", "explore"
- Direct object (what the action operates on)
- Quantification where possible ($X buyback, N% target, by date)
- Implementation window ("within 24 months", "by Q3 2025")
Bad
- "Improve operational performance" — no verb, no object, no metric
- "Consider strategic alternatives" — soft verb, no commitment
- "Address governance concerns" — vague on all dimensions
Good
- "Replace CEO Fred Green with Hunter Harrison."
- "Separate the real-estate portfolio into a REIT within 24 months."
- "Authorise a $4bn accelerated share repurchase within 90 days."
- "Reduce the operating ratio from 81% to 65% by FY2015."
- "Refresh the Board with our 7 nominees."
The demand grammar (template)
[Verb] [direct object] [quantifier] [timeline]
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Replace the CEO (Hunter immediately
Harrison)
Spin Midstream ($25bn) within 24 months
Approve share buyback ($4bn) within 90 days
Reduce SG&A as % from 10.6% by FY2025
to 6.5%
How demands map to the rest of the deck
Each demand should:
- Be supported by 3–10 slides of evidence in the Complication
- Be quantified by valuation work in the Answer
- Be enabled by the closing ask (the closing ask is the mechanism that makes the demands actionable — usually electing your slate)
If a demand has no supporting evidence, cut it. If you have evidence without a corresponding demand, sharpen it into one or move to appendix.
Worked examples
Pershing Square · McDonald's (Nov 2005) — 5 demands
- IPO 65% of McOpCo (the ~9,000 company-operated restaurants) at ~7x EBITDA
- Issue $14.7bn of CMBS-style financing secured against McDonald's real estate
- Use debt and IPO proceeds to repurchase ~316mm shares at $40/share
- Leave Pro Forma McDonald's as a pure real estate/franchise royalty
- Have McOpCo pay market rent and a market franchise fee
Note: every demand has a number, a mechanism, and a transformation described — the deck reads as an executable plan, not a pitch.
Pershing Square · Canadian Pacific (Feb 2012) — 3 demands
- Replace CEO Fred Green with Hunter Harrison
- Elect Pershing Square's Nominees for Management Change slate to the Board
- Drive operating ratio to industry-leading levels in line with CN
Note: only 3 demands, all interlocking. (1) requires (2); (2) enables (1); (3) is the outcome metric (1) and (2) deliver.
Starboard · Darden (Sep 2014) — 8 demands
- Elect Starboard's full slate of 12 director nominees to replace the entire Darden Board
- Appoint a new transformational CEO (Clarence Otis is retiring)
- Implement a company-wide margin improvement plan targeting $215–$326M of annual EBITDA uplift
- Execute a turnaround of Olive Garden focused on authenticity, quality, and value
- Separate Darden's real estate (PropCo/OpCo) to unlock ~$1B of shareholder value
- Spin off the Specialty Restaurant Group (SRG)
- Launch an international and domestic franchising program
- Align executive compensation with shareholder returns and protect the investment-grade rating and dividend
8 demands is the upper edge — Darden's deck has the page count (294) to support each one with detailed evidence. Don't try this at home unless you have the same depth.
Common mistakes
- Soft verbs. "Consider", "evaluate", "explore" — easy to ignore, easy to settle into a no-op review.
- Demands without quantification. "Buy back stock" → "Buy back $4bn at a max price of $50".
- Demands without timelines. "Spin the segment" → "Spin within 24 months of announcement".
- Too many demands. Anything past 6 dilutes focus and creates negotiation room — management agrees to 1, settles, claims victory.
- Demands that contradict the slate's incentives. If your slate would be removed if Demand X executes, the slate won't act on it. Align demands with the slate's continuing role.
- Mixing demands with asks. "Vote our slate" is the closing ask, not a demand. Demands are what the resulting board does.
See also
storytelling/three-reasons.md— the headline version sits in reason 3 (typically); demands are the operationalised expansionstorytelling/closing-ask.md— the singular CTA on the closing slideslides/slide-architecture.md— primary demands live in Block 7 (Answer)patterns/management-change.md— when "replace the CEO" is one of the demandspatterns/breakup-spinoff.md— when "spin / separate / sell" is one