Fifteen more slides, clearing the whole ranked list. The head to head mechanic, the four part close, the webinar-only bonus, six pillar payoff slides carrying the tie-downs, the motive, the in-house cost comparison, the how-long answer, the expiry and the price. Plus Sophie named as the person you speak to.
In deck order. Each closes a specific gap from the scorecard.
Saying nothing about why you are running a free two day webinar produces suspicion by default, and the research is emphatic that there is very little difference between a good reason and a weak one but an enormous difference between a reason and none. Placing it immediately after the deal, where you have just admitted you intend to sell, is where it does the most work.
Fair question. I will answer it before you have to ask.
Delivery. Say the first reason without flinching. Naming the commercial motive first is what makes the other two believable.
Structure is taught as technical hygiene and lands as a chore. Framing the outcome as eligibility, and tying it to the fact that it divides everything else, is what makes the room take it seriously.
What it is, what it does, what changes.
Delivery. This is the first of the six, so it teaches the audience what the pattern is. Deliver it deliberately.
Reframes offsite from link building, which this audience associates with spam and past disappointment, to corroboration, which they immediately understand.
What it is, what it does, what changes.
Delivery. The tie-down doubles as qualification. Anyone who can answer it is further along than they think.
The strongest tie-down of the six, because most people cannot answer it and the silence does the work. It also sets up the Uniqueness Claude Skill without you having to sell it.
What it is, what it does, what changes.
Delivery. Ask it and count to five. If the room goes quiet, say so out loud.
Relevance is the pillar most often confused with keywords. Framing the outcome as being cited for things you never targeted is the part that makes people re-think their content plan.
What it is, what it does, what changes.
Delivery. Ask for a show of hands in chat on the second half of the tie-down. Very few will have checked.
Turns an abstract pillar into the realisation that they already own the proof and are simply not showing it, which is a much easier thing to act on than being told to go and earn credibility.
What it is, what it does, what changes.
Delivery. Pause on "in one click". Most of the room will already be opening their own about page.
Day one surfaced the competitor name and then nothing was done with it. This turns that name into a score, live, in five minutes. It converts a general worry about AI into one number about one named rival, which is the most personal pain available in the whole two days, and it arrives immediately before the triage so people can diagnose why the score is what it is.
The name on your Mirror card. Head to head.
Delivery. Read two or three scores out loud by first name. Do not soften a bad one. The bad ones are why the next section exists.
Evaluation is the pillar most likely to be dismissed as admin, and it is the one that answers the measurement fear. The tie-down puts the CEO in the room.
What it is, what it does, what changes.
Delivery. This tie-down lands hardest with the marketing managers. Watch the chat.
The second half of the pattern interrupt. The room has just agreed they probably cannot, and this is where you say why, without insulting anybody. It sets up the honest truth slide that already follows.
Be honest with yourself for ten seconds.
Delivery. Ask it and then stop talking. Count to five. The silence is the slide.
The build-then-break pattern from the source material. You stack proof until the room is nodding, ask the obvious question, and answer it with the opposite of what they expect. The interrupt is what makes the next ninety seconds land, because nobody has a script for being told no by the person selling to them.
Others in exactly your position did this.
Delivery. Deliver the proof fast and warm, then flatten your tone completely on "probably not". The tonal drop is the technique.
Fear six in the ICP research is that this cannot be measured and takes too long, and the deck never answered it anywhere across two days. It will be asked in the Q and A of every single run, so it is better answered on your terms, on a slide, with the uncomfortable part said first.
The question everybody asks. Answered properly.
Delivery. The month-one line about lying is the one that buys you the rest of the slide. Do not soften it.
The rent ledger does this brilliantly for paid media on day one and is never repeated for the thing you actually sell. It is the same exercise, it lands harder because they just spent two days learning how much there is to know, and letting them do the arithmetic themselves is far stronger than putting your price on a slide.
We did the rent ledger for ads on day one. Here it is for search.
Delivery. Give them thirty seconds of silence to write the three numbers. Do not fill it.
The webinar-only bonus, which was the highest leverage mechanic still unbuilt. It is honest scarcity because the constraint is real: somebody has to spend an hour writing each one. It is also the artefact the marketing manager needs to take upstairs, which is the single strongest unmet need in the ICP research.
The one thing that is not going on the website.
Delivery. Say the last line and mean it. Do not mention the Brief again after this slide, including in the Q and A.
A deadline is only believable if the audience can picture it happening. Showing the closed state in advance is what separates a real window from the countdown timers everybody has learned to ignore, and it costs you nothing because the honest fallback is stated in the same breath.
So the deadline is not an abstraction.
Delivery. Put a screenshot of the actual closed booking page on this slide before you run it.
Disclosing the price on a book-a-call webinar is one of the few counter-intuitive moves the source material is emphatic about, and it does three jobs at once here. It filters the calendar, which protects the capacity claim the next two slides rest on. It answers the trust fear directly, because withholding price is what an untrustworthy vendor does. And it removes the disadvantage your own competitive intel already identifies, which is that Meantic and Prosperity put pricing in every proposal and you do not.
I would rather you knew now than thirty minutes into a call.
Delivery. SET THE RANGE FIELDS FIRST. Say the number flatly, then stop. The second card is the one that earns the trust, so do not rush past it.
The webinar-only bonus, specced from the ICP research and now built. Six variants, linked below.
A one page internal document the attendee fills in with their own numbers during the webinar, designed to be forwarded to the person who signs things.
The blank template goes to everyone, in the pack, and it is genuinely useful alone. The bonus is the completed version: Sophie fills it in with their real data before the call, on letterhead. That is about an hour of specialist time per brief, so the cap is a fact rather than a number picked to hurry anyone. Nobody is denied anything, and the constrained thing is genuinely constrained.
| Block | Contents | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Where we appear today | Three prompts, each marked named, missing or wrong. Plus factual errors found. | Mirror card, day 1 |
| 2. Who is named instead | The competitor, and the head to head score out of three. This is the number the CEO reads first. | Head to head, day 2 |
| 3. What we rent | Annual paid spend, the three year change in cost per lead, and what it buys the day we stop. | Rent ledger, day 1 |
| 4. Our six pillar score | Six tick boxes, one per pillar, scored out of six. | The six questions |
| 5. The constraint | Which of the four problems, ticked, and where that means we start. | The honest triage |
| 6. What fixing it costs | In-house against partnered, side by side: hire, tooling, ramp, ground lost. Leave the numbers blank. They will fill them in more damningly than you would dare to. | New |
| 7. Recommendation | Three lines they write, then one line on what is being asked for. | Theirs |
One page, six variants, all built to the spec above. The fillable versions carry 26 text fields and 10 tick boxes; the print versions are flat, for handing out and writing on.
A4, fillable ·
US Letter, fillable ·
A4, print ·
US Letter, print
For Sophie, pre-filled header:
A4 ·
US Letter
It must not look like a marketing asset. Their logo at the top, not yours. Muted and document-like, closer to a board paper than a brochure. StudioHawk appears once, small, in the footer, with no logo lockup and no QR code. If it looks like an agency leave-behind it gets binned. If it looks like an internal position paper it gets circulated.
Every item from the ranked list is now done. What remains needs a decision from you, or is blocked.
| What | Status | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The 46 pillar slides. Titles with no body, roughly a third of day two. The biggest gap left in the deck. | Blocked on the export |
| 2 | The cap, the closing date and the price band. Three slides carry placeholder fields and cannot be presented until the numbers exist. | Needs you |
| 3 | The Position Brief PDF. Built, six variants, linked above. | Done |
| 4 | Move the Mirror earlier. The strongest thing in the deck still starts at slide 8. Reordering only, no new copy. | Worth testing |
| 5 | Use the turn-away reviews as proof. More five star reviews praise being told not to buy than praise any result, and it is nowhere in the deck. | One slide |
Slide 154 is new and it is the one most likely to get argued about, so here is the whole reasoning rather than just the slide.
It does three jobs at once. It filters the calendar, which is what makes the capacity claim on the two slides after it survive contact with reality. It answers the trust fear head on, because withholding price is exactly what an untrustworthy vendor does, and that fear is the first one in your own ICP notes. And it removes a disadvantage you already know you have: Meantic and Prosperity put pricing in front of buyers and you currently do not, so the buyer fills the gap with a guess, and the guess is usually worse than the truth.
A floor said on its own becomes the anchor, and then every real quote is a disappointment measured against it. The slide states the working range first and lets $2,500 land second, as the good news at the bottom of it. Same number, opposite emotional direction. Say it flatly and then stop talking. The pause is doing more work than the sentence.
Your ICP says the attendee usually is not the person who signs, so a price slide can quietly kill the booking for exactly the people you most want on a call. The third card handles it: if you are not the signer, book anyway, because you will leave with three ranked gaps and the Position Brief, which is the document for the conversation with whoever is. That is what the bonus was built for, and this is where the two pieces lock together.
Your sales-ops pricing work sets a $3,000 recurring minimum with no currency stated against it. If that figure is USD, this slide contradicts it and the $2,500 has to move. If it is AUD, the two are roughly the same number and there is no conflict. Worth resolving before anyone says either out loud.
Slide 156 carries placeholder fields, and slide 155 now depends on the same number: how many completed Briefs can Sophie realistically write. One hour each is the working assumption. Set it, or cut both slides.
Slide 154 reads [ $X ] to [ $Y ] a month. It wants the range most of your US work actually sits in, not the range you would like it to sit in. The slide only works if the number is true.
Forty-six pillar slides came through empty in the .pptx. Until that is resolved, do not import this over your live deck.