Cold direct response ads for the free AI Search audit at sh.studiohawk.com, built from Jeremy's original SOPs rather than the vault summaries. The rule that changes the format comes from SOP-31, Ad Diversification, and it is blunt: post-Andromeda, swapping hooks onto one shared body "lasts for a much shorter duration"; what holds is an ad built from hook to CTA around a single reason someone would buy, and fifteen to twenty of those a month, each a genuinely different reason. So every entry below is one reason, one ad, one 30-second and one 60-second cut, with its own headlines and primary text for Dynamic Creative. The seventeen angles already on the film day page are indexed here as reasons, and thirty-one new ones are scripted in full, which is three months of production at Jeremy's floor. Reasons 39 to 46 were added on 4 September from the full 222-call analysis on the persona page, and 47 to 51 from the ICP brief the same day. Migration is the only substantial theme that rises as a deal progresses, from 31% of Discovery calls to 40% of Proposal calls, which is why it now has the largest segment in the bank.
Jeremy's instruction is to write down every reason somebody would buy, and to say all of them across the bank rather than pick favourites, because "you never know which point is going to be the one that hooks them" (SOP-35). Grouped by the major points the application form already asks about in question three, so the ad a person clicked and the reason they tick on the form can be read against each other. Category is SOP-31's hook taxonomy. Status says whether the ad already exists on the film day page or is scripted below.
| # | Reason to buy | Major point | SOP-31 category | Hook style | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AI keeps naming one competitor, and you know which one | Named competitor | Envy | Call-out | /ads-call #1 |
| 2 | Competitors show up in AI answers, you do not, and no report shows the loss | Left behind | Fear | Pain | /ads-call #2 |
| 3 | A second opinion on the report you already pay for | Agency doubt | Frustration | Objection-first | /ads-call #3 |
| 4 | Samsung found us through ChatGPT, not an ad, not a referral | Proof | Social proof | Bold claim | /ads-call #4 |
| 5 | Traffic went flat and nobody can say why | Left behind | Frustration | Pain | /ads-call #5 |
| 6 | A scored answer to "am I in the answer or not" | Mechanism | Specific question | Question | /ads-call #6 |
| 7 | Why an agency would do this for free, said out loud | Mechanism | Objection-first | Objection-first | /ads-call #7 |
| 8 | Sylvane: 621 percent more AI mentions | Proof | Transformation | Bold claim | /ads-call #8 |
| 9 | Be the owner who saw it early, not the one who got told | Left behind | Identity | Call-out | /ads-call #9 |
| 10 | The room you walk into: senior people, your data, no deck | Mechanism | Identity | Circumstance | /ads-call #10 |
| 11 | 272 strangers already asked the machine about your category this week | Named competitor | Social proof | Shock stat | /ads-call #11 |
| 12 | The shortlist happens without you in the room | Left behind | Problem agitation | Pain | /ads-call #12 |
| 13 | Who actually reads your site now: a model, not a person | Named competitor | Social proof | Curiosity | /ads-call #13 |
| 14 | How a citation actually gets won | Mechanism | Tactical | Bold claim | /ads-call #14 |
| 15 | What the machine says about you, read live | Named competitor | Curiosity | Question | /ads-call #15 |
| 16 | You are the ingredient, someone else is the dish | Named competitor | Problem agitation | Pain | /ads-call #16 |
| 17 | Second place costs more to fix than first cost to win | Left behind | Urgency (honest) | Bold claim | /ads-call #17 |
| 21 | We ran the audit on ourselves, and we pass | Proof | Social proof | Bold claim | new, below |
| 22 | Case-Mate: 95 percent revenue growth from organic, in US retail | Proof | Transformation | Bold claim | new, below |
| 23 | First Fence of Georgia: this is not only for Samsung | Proof | Social proof | Objection-first | new, below |
| 24 | Your ads did not get worse, your rent went up | Rising ad cost | Problem agitation | Pain | new, below |
| 25 | Last month's ad spend times twelve: circle that number | Rising ad cost | Tactical | Shock stat | new, below |
| 26 | Nobody can outbid you for a recommendation | Rising ad cost | Curiosity | Bold claim | new, below |
| 27 | Build the second channel before you need it | Rising ad cost | Urgency (honest) | Circumstance | new, below |
| 28 | What a 30 percent organic mix does to your blended CAC | Rising ad cost | Tactical | Question | new, below |
| 29 | If you feel left behind on AI search, you are probably right, and early | Left behind | Urgency (honest) | Question | new, below |
| 30 | Your rankings look fine. That is the problem. | Left behind | Problem agitation | Myth-busting | new, below |
| 31 | Is your agency talking about AI SEO yet? | Agency doubt | Frustration | Question | new, below |
| 32 | The three numbers your agency should be reporting | Agency doubt | Tactical | Curiosity | new, below |
| 33 | Ranking reports against revenue reports | Agency doubt | Problem agitation | Myth-busting | new, below |
| 34 | Hand it to your current agency the same afternoon | Agency doubt | Objection-first | Objection-first | new, below |
| 35 | Ask ChatGPT for the best of what you sell in your city. Now. | Named competitor | Tactical | Call-out | new, below |
| 36 | You already pay for SEO. Here is the part the invoice does not cover. | In-market opener | Problem agitation | You already know | new, below |
| 37 | The CEO asked why the competitor is winning. This is the answer. | In-market opener | Identity | Circumstance | new, below |
Numbering starts at 21 for the new reasons so the angle tags never collide with the topic test (1 to 7) or the film day bank (1 to 17); the dashboard groups on the tag and reads the words after it. Where a new reason overlaps an existing one, the note on the ad says which to film first. Two categories are still thin after this pass, Transformation and Tactical, which is where the third month's reasons should come from: more named results as they land, and more "here is exactly how it works" pieces cut from the audit itself.
Samsung stays the flagship. These three give the proof point three different psychological doors: we pass our own test, a US retail number, and a local service business that says this is not only for the big names.
Reason to buy: an agency that sells AI-search visibility should be visible in AI search. We are, and we will show it, which makes the audit credible before it starts.
Every agency will tell you they can get you recommended by AI. Ask the AI about them first.
Here's ours. Open ChatGPT, ask for the best AI SEO agency, and StudioHawk comes back. Same channel Samsung used to find us. Same channel your customers are starting to use to find you.
Live screen capture, no blur, the whole answer visible.
We get named because of how our site is built, what it publishes, and whether the engines can read and trust it. Six signals. We score every one on our own site, and if we didn't pass, we'd have no business selling the audit.
Scorecard for studiohawk.com filling in, six rows, all green.
So here's the offer. We run the same six signals on your site, free, pull the exact answers where the engines name a competitor instead of you, and give you the three moves that close the biggest gap first.
Why free? Because a fair number of the businesses we audit ask us to run the plan. That's the whole mechanic.
Thirty minutes, a senior strategist, and you keep the plan either way. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
This is SOP-34's honest half made into an ad and it is the single most defensible credibility asset the funnel has. Film the screen capture the same day; the answer must be real and current. If the answer ever stops naming us, pull the ad the same day.
Reason to buy: a US retail brand grew organic revenue 95 percent. For an owner who thinks in revenue, not rankings, this is the number.
Ninety-five percent more revenue from organic search. A US retail brand. No extra ad spend.
The number as plain on-screen text, nothing else.
Case-Mate sells phone cases in one of the most crowded categories online. We rebuilt how the engines read their site and what it publishes, and organic revenue nearly doubled. Not traffic. Revenue. That's the case study, it's linked on the page.
Case-study card cutaway, the +95% exactly as published on the site.
We'll grade your site against the same framework, free. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Reason to buy: "this is for Samsung, not for a business like mine" is the objection the Samsung ad creates. A local fence company with top-three rankings up 172 percent answers it.
You think this AI search stuff is for Samsung and not for a business like yours. Here's a fence company in Georgia.
To camera, half smile.
First Fence of Georgia. Local, service business, real customers who need a fence this month. Top-three rankings up a hundred and seventy-two percent. Same six-signal framework, same method we run for QuickBooks and Weber, scaled to a business that answers its own phone.
Case-study card. Then a plain map pin, Georgia.
Free audit, thirty minutes, you keep the plan. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Reason to buy: StudioHawk owns the largest published study of what AI search actually cites. Tools, templates and calculators earned AI traffic at seven and a half times their share of pages. Comparison pages, the format every agency sells, came fifth. Statistics round-ups came last. Nobody else can quote this because nobody else has the data, and it reframes the audit from an opinion into a read against a measured benchmark.
Source: Hitches, L., "Format Leverage", StudioHawk, 24 August 2026, studiohawk.com.au/blog/ai-search-format-leverage/. 1,203,748 AI referral sessions across more than 600 businesses and 7.5 million classified pages, 15 January to 14 July 2026. Quote the study by name on screen. Do not round "seven and a half times" up.
Everyone has an opinion about what AI search rewards. We went and measured it.
One point two million AI referral sessions. Six hundred businesses. Seven and a half million pages, classified by format. Then we asked a simple question: which formats earn more AI traffic than their share of the internet says they should?
The three figures on screen one at a time. Source card, small: StudioHawk, Format Leverage, August 2026.
Tools, templates and calculators won, at seven and a half times their share of pages. Comparison pages came fifth. And statistics round-ups came last, which is the interesting one, because pages carrying statistics get cited thirty to forty percent more often. That is not a contradiction. A statistic is an ingredient, not a format. A number on a page that does a real job is evidence. A page whose only job is holding numbers is a summary, and summarising is the one job the machine never needed you for.
Ranked chart, then the two findings side by side as plain text.
If your content plan is comparison posts and statistics round-ups, you are spending at the wrong end of our own data. On the free audit we show you where AI search sends buyers in your market, grade your site against the six signals that decide it, and tell you which formats are worth building in your category. Thirty minutes with a senior strategist.
Scorecard cutaway.
You keep the plan whether you hire us or not. The study is public, and it is linked below. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Added 4 September from the SOURCE manuscript. This is the strongest unused proof asset in the business: original research, published, quotable by name, and impossible for a competitor to copy. SOP-26 Part 5 calls this the credibility mechanism, a specific measured claim that makes every softer claim in the ad believable by association. It is also the only reason in this bank that attacks the buyer's current content plan rather than their agency or their ad spend, which makes it the natural pairing with reason 33. Film it with the chart on a screen behind Harry, not as a motion graphic; the SOPs are consistent that a plain chart reads as data and an animated one reads as an ad.
Paid is getting dearer and it stops the day you stop. That is one fact and it can be entered through five different doors: the price of a click, the size of the annual bill, the auction you cannot win, the insurance argument, and the finance argument. Verified figures only. Both contested numbers are now sourced, from Harry's own book: cost per lead up 72 percent 2022 to 2025 ($40.74 to $70.11, WordStream/LocaliQ) and paid clicks down 68 percent where an AI Overview appears (Seer Interactive, September 2025). Reasons 24 and 25 were rewritten on 4 September to use them. See the flag at the bottom.
Reason to buy: cost per lead is up 72 percent since 2022 and paid clicks are down 68 percent where an AI Overview appears, and the traffic stops the day the spend stops. Paid is rent; the audit shows the channel you can own.
Your ads didn't get worse. Your cost per lead is up seventy-two percent since 2022.
On-screen, plain: $40.74 to $70.11. Small source line: WordStream.
So the same budget buys fewer buyers every year, and the day you stop paying, the traffic stops. That's rent. Meanwhile AI engines answer your buyers directly and name two or three businesses, free, every time. We'll check, free, whether you're one of them in your market.
Cutaway: a live AI answer naming three businesses, none of them us.
Thirty minutes, plan's yours either way. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Your ads didn't get worse. Your rent went up.
In 2022 the average cost per lead on Google Ads was forty dollars seventy-four. In 2025 it was seventy dollars eleven. Seventy-two percent, in three years. And on the searches that now show an AI answer at the top, paid clicks are down sixty-eight percent. The rent went up and the street got quieter, and it's the same landlord doing both.
Two figures on screen one at a time, then the 68 percent. Small source lines: WordStream/LocaliQ, 2022 and 2025; Seer Interactive, September 2025.
If paid is your only channel, you're one cost spike from a margin problem you can't fix quickly. The businesses that come through it built a second channel before they needed one, and that channel is AI search: your buyers ask, the engines name two or three businesses, no auction, no cost per click, and it compounds.
We'll grade your site against our six-part framework, free, and pull where the engines currently send buyers in your market. Thirty minutes with a senior strategist, three moves in order.
Scorecard cutaway.
Why free? Because a fair number of the businesses we audit ask us to run the plan. That's the mechanic, and there isn't a catch under it.
You keep the plan whether you hire us or not. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Reason to buy: the annual ad bill, seen as one figure, is the qualifier. A forty-thousand-a-month spender circles $480,000 and feels it. Someone spending nothing has no number and self-excludes.
Get your phone calculator out. Last month's ad spend, times twelve.
Harry does it on his own phone, screen to camera.
That's your annual rent. It works the day you pay, stops the day you stop, the price is set by someone else, and it's up seventy-two percent per lead since 2022. Now here's the other channel: AI engines answering your buyers directly and naming two or three businesses, free, no auction. We'll price what owning that would take, against the number you just circled.
Free audit, thirty minutes, bring the number. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Lifted from the deck's day-one exercise (M2 on the topic tests page) and rebuilt as a cold ad. Jeremy's SOP-26 Part 8 calls this the demo framework: showing a process on screen convinces people it is real. The exercise does the qualifying inside the creative.
Reason to buy: in an auction the biggest budget wins. In an AI answer there is no auction, so the best-built site wins, which is a game a $1M business can actually play against a $100M one.
You will never outspend the biggest player in your category. You don't have to.
Every paid channel is an auction, and in an auction the deepest pocket wins. AI search isn't an auction. When a buyer asks the machine who to use, it names two or three businesses based on whether it can read the site, trust it, and lift an answer out of it. Budget doesn't enter the room.
That's the first time in fifteen years the channel that decides has been winnable on quality rather than spend. A fence company in Georgia got recommended in its area on the same six signals we run for Samsung. Nobody bought that spot.
The free audit scores your site on those six signals, shows the exact answers where a competitor is named instead of you, and gives you the three moves in order. Thirty minutes with a senior strategist.
Why free? A fair number of the businesses we audit ask us to run the plan. That's the whole model.
You keep the plan either way. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Reason to buy: single-channel dependence is a risk the owner already half-knows. This is the insurance argument, addressed to the condition "cash-flow positive but capped" (SOP-35).
You're doing over a million a year and most of it walks in through one door. That's the problem nobody raises until the door gets expensive.
SOP-26 circumstance opener: name their situation, then the risk in it.
Every year the same ad budget buys a little less. One algorithm change, one new competitor in the auction, one bad quarter in the platform, and the door narrows. If it's your only door, that's a margin problem you can't fix in a month.
The businesses that survive the next spike built a second channel while the first one still worked. AI search is that channel: buyers ask the machine, it names two or three businesses, there's no auction, and being named compounds. Samsung found us that way.
The free audit shows you where AI search is already sending buyers in your market, grades your site on the six signals that decide it, and gives you the three moves that close the biggest gap first. Thirty minutes with a senior strategist.
This isn't a pitch to stop running ads. Keep them. It's a plan for the day they stop being enough.
The objection: "we can't just turn off paid". Conceded outright.
Free, you keep the plan. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
The same reason as the topic test's dropped Angle 5, rewritten around the condition rather than the fear. Angle 5's round-one numbers were on the wrong audience and do not count against it.
Reason to buy: the finance version. For the owner or CFO who runs the business on CAC, the argument is arithmetic, not fear. Circles want vision; this is the one ad written for the Triangle who has to build the case.
If you run your business on cost per customer, this is the only AI search ad written for you.
Here's the arithmetic. Say a hundred customers a month, all paid, at your current CAC. Now thirty of them arrive because a machine recommended you when someone asked. Same hundred customers, thirty of them cost you nothing at the click. Blended CAC drops by roughly a third, and next quarter it drops again, because recommendations compound and auctions don't.
Whiteboard, three lines, no more. Keep the numbers illustrative and say so on screen: "illustrative".
That's the second channel in finance terms: not more traffic, cheaper customers, and a number you can put in a board deck. Case-Mate grew organic revenue ninety-five percent on exactly this.
The free audit tells you where you stand on the six signals that decide whether you get recommended, where competitors are named instead of you, and the three moves in order. Thirty minutes with a senior strategist, and the plan is yours to model.
Why free? Some of the businesses we audit ask us to run the plan. That's the mechanic.
Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
The one ad in the bank aimed at the person who reports upward rather than the owner. Keep the arithmetic labelled illustrative on screen; SOP-35 is explicit that big specific claims attract the wrong buyer and this one is a model, not a promise.
32% of all 222 recorded sales calls have the prospect raising a rebuild, migration or re-theme, and it is the only substantial theme that rises as a deal progresses, from 31% at Discovery to 40% at Proposal. It is the strongest positive signal in the corpus and there was not one ad about it. It now has proof: Sylvane is a migration case study whose headline results are AI-search results, which is the exact intersection this whole funnel argues for, and it is reason 52 below. Underneath the headline number the corpus splits into distinct situations, and the reasons below are written one per situation: 27 companies raise redirects, deleted pages or URL structure (the largest single technical subject anywhere in 222 calls, and almost always as a question); 9 are about to migrate or are mid-build; 4 describe a build done by someone who was never hired to protect search; and one asked, unprompted, for someone to stay ninety days past go-live. The fear is specific, dated and self-inflicted, which makes it the easiest genuine urgency in the whole bank: nobody has to be told a migration is risky, they already suspect theirs went wrong. ATF Services watched monthly traffic fall from around 10,000 to 2,900 after theirs. Dermapenworld: "before we migrated to this new headless, our SEO reports were like the best." Never blame them for it, and never blame the developer by name; the person watching almost certainly signed off the build.
Reason to buy: the most common story in the dataset, said back to them in one sentence. They already suspect the rebuild cost them something; nobody has been able to show them what, because the agency that built it is not the agency that measures it.
Film the 30-second cut. A recognition hook. The whole ad is the sentence "you already know when it happened", and length dilutes it.
You got a new website, and the traffic never came back. You know the exact month it happened.
Harry to camera, flat, no preamble. No on-screen text for the first five seconds; the line has to land alone.
Everyone told you it was Google. Usually it isn't. It's a few hundred URLs that never got redirected, a page template that lost its headings, and a robots file nobody read. That damage is quiet, it compounds, and the people who built the site are not the people who measure it.
Screen: a real crawl showing 404s on old URLs. Real data, not a mockup.
Free thirty-minute audit. We'll tell you what the migration cost you, in writing. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
You got a new website, and the traffic never came back.
This is the most common thing we see. One business we spoke to went from around ten thousand visits a month to under three thousand after a migration, and eighteen months later still could not tell you why. Another said their reports were the best they'd ever had, right up until the rebuild.
Two plain text cards for the numbers. No logos, no names.
It is almost never the design. It is redirects that were never mapped, templates that dropped their heading structure, and pages that were quietly removed because someone decided they did not matter. None of that shows up in a design review, and all of it shows up in revenue about two months later.
We'll crawl the old site against the new one, find what was lost, and give you the fix list in priority order. Thirty minutes with a senior strategist, free, and you keep the list whether you work with us or not.
Scorecard cutaway.
If you're about to migrate instead, that's a better call to have. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
The highest-confidence new reason in the bank. 45 of 175 companies raise a migration or rebuild in their own words, and unlike every other theme it grows rather than fades as the deal gets real. One caution on the hook: genuinely unexplained traffic loss is rarer than it sounds, only about 1% of calls state it outright, so the ad should lead on the migration and let the traffic drop be the consequence rather than the claim. Do not name a platform in the hook: the condition spans Shopify, WordPress, Drupal, headless and custom builds, and naming one halves the audience.
Reason to buy: the same condition caught before the damage instead of after. Cheaper for them, far better for us, and it is the one version of this message with a real deadline attached that we did not invent.
Film the 60-second cut. A risk argument needs the counterfactual, and the counterfactual is the sell. At 30 it reads as scaremongering.
If you're rebuilding your website right now, there's a conversation you want to have before it goes live, not after.
Because the pattern is always the same. The build runs late. The launch date does not move, because it is tied to a season you cannot argue with. And the redirect map, which is the single thing that protects every visitor you already have, is the last job on the list and the first one that gets rushed.
On screen, plain: BUILD LATE. DATE FIXED. REDIRECTS RUSHED.
One business we spoke to was going live weeks before Black Friday for the second year running, and told us they knew it was too close and could not do anything about it. That is a normal, well-run business, not a careless one. The problem is that nobody in the room owns search, so it gets picked up last.
We'll review the build before it ships: URL mapping, templates, headings, internal links, and what happens to the pages you are quietly dropping. Thirty minutes, free, and the checklist is yours whether you hire us or not.
Scorecard cutaway.
Do it before launch and it is a checklist. Do it after and it is a recovery project. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Pair this with reason 39 in the same ad set and let the algorithm sort pre from post. They are the same condition at two different moments and the creative cost is one extra take on the same film day.
Reason to buy: names the ownership gap without blaming anyone in it. This is the version of "nobody owns search" that a buyer can forward to the colleague who chose the developer, which matters because 56% of these calls have more than one person on them.
Film the 30-second cut. One structural observation, said once. It gets weaker with elaboration, and elaboration is where it starts sounding like blame.
Your web designer and your SEO agency have probably never been in the same meeting.
That is not anybody's fault, it is just how it gets bought. One is a project, the other is a retainer, and the handover between them is a zip file. Which is why the template changes and nobody flags it, and why the pages get dropped and nobody costs it. Search does not have an owner, so it gets picked up last by whoever is nearest.
Free thirty-minute audit, and we'll show you the gap in your own site. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Written deliberately so it does not attack the incumbent. Only 12% of parsed calls criticise their agency and 63% have one, so an ad that says "your agency is failing you" insults the majority and the person who hired them, who is often on the call.
Reason to buy: removes the largest silent objection in a market where 63% already have an agency, and does it by being generous rather than competitive. It also makes the ad safe to show to the colleague who owns that relationship.
Film the 30-second cut. Pure objection handling: one concern, one reassurance, one CTA, per SOP-27.
If you already have an SEO agency, bring them to the audit. Seriously.
Most people assume a free audit is a pitch with a scorecard stapled to it. Put your agency on the call and it stops being that immediately. Either they already knew about everything we find, which is worth knowing, or they didn't, which is worth more. You keep the findings either way, and you are allowed to just hand them the list.
Thirty minutes, free, no obligation to move anything. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
The most under-priced idea in this rewrite. It converts the single biggest structural objection in the market into a reason to say yes, it is provably what the audit already does (Property Inspectors chose StudioHawk precisely because the audit was blunt), and it is the only ad in the bank that a buyer can forward to their agency without embarrassment.
Reason to buy: redirects are the single most-raised technical subject in the entire call corpus, 27 companies out of 175, and almost always as a question rather than a statement. "Will we be punished for having redirects?" "Should they live in WordPress or Cloudflare?" "What happens if someone lands on a URL we deleted?" Nobody has given these people a straight answer, and the ad that does earns the call.
Film the 60-second cut. It teaches, and teaching needs room. This is the one reason in the bank where being useful on camera is the entire mechanism.
"Will redirects hurt our rankings?" It's the most common question we get, and the honest answer is: not the redirect. The missing one.
Harry to camera. No preamble, no name.
A redirect is a forwarding address. Putting one in place is close to free. What costs you is the page that got deleted with no forwarding address at all, because every link pointing at it, every bit of authority it earned, and every person who bookmarked it, hits a dead end.
Whiteboard, drawn live: OLD URL to NEW URL with an arrow, then a second OLD URL with the arrow going nowhere. Draw it, do not animate it.
And it happens for a reasonable-sounding reason every time. Someone looks at a page for a product you no longer carry, or a service you no longer offer, and says: that's not relevant any more, delete it. Which is right about the content and wrong about the address.
On the free audit we crawl what your site used to have against what it has now, and hand you the list of addresses that lead nowhere, in order of what they were worth. Thirty minutes with a senior strategist.
Screen: a real crawl, real 404 list, real numbers.
You keep the list either way, and most of it is an afternoon of work for whoever runs your site. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Grounded in more corpus evidence than any other reason in the bank: 27 companies raised redirects, URLs or deleted pages unprompted, including Knightcorp asking "if we do update these, will we be punished for having redirects?", Loan Market asking whether to run them in WordPress or Cloudflare, and Clicksend finding 750 pages of redirect chains. Answer the question properly on camera and the audit sells itself.
Reason to buy: the reason migrations break, said without blaming anyone. Web development and search are genuinely different disciplines, and the person who built the site was hired for the first one. This is the only safe way to say "your build cost you traffic" to a buyer who chose the builder, which matters because only 8% of the corpus criticises their suppliers.
Film the 30-second cut. A single reframe. Said once it is generous; elaborated it becomes an accusation.
Your web developer probably did a great job. On a different job to the one you needed.
Building a website and keeping a website findable are two industries that happen to share a browser. One is judged on how it looks and whether it works. The other is judged on things that are invisible on launch day and expensive six months later. Nobody hires a developer to protect their organic traffic, so nobody does.
Free thirty-minute audit of what your build missed. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Four companies described exactly this: Bstore's previous hire was "a bit junior" and did not know how to migrate cleanly, Olga Berg's developers pushed pages live that should not have been, and one prospect described watching a developer carry over none of the SEO architecture and the site tank overnight. Say it generously. The person watching hired that developer.
Reason to buy: a prospect asked for this unprompted, in these words: they wanted StudioHawk around at least 90 days post-migration in case anything happens. That is a buyer describing the shape of the engagement they want. Sell it back to them as an offer rather than waiting for them to ask.
Film the 30-second cut. It is an offer, not an argument. Offers get worse when they are explained.
The riskiest ninety days of your website's life start the day it goes live, not the day before.
Everyone plans the launch. Almost nobody plans the three months after it, which is when the damage actually shows up: rankings settling in the wrong place, pages nobody noticed were gone, a template change nobody costed. By the time it appears in revenue, the project is closed and the team has moved on.
We'll tell you what to watch and for how long. Free, thirty minutes. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Straight from a buyer's own words rather than invented, which is the strongest kind of offer. It also sells a bounded engagement, which suits the 40% of the corpus asking about ongoing work without committing them to an open-ended retainer on day one.
Reason to buy: catches the exact decision, at the exact moment it is made, by a person who is right about the content and wrong about the address. Neota Logic put it perfectly: the pages are no longer relevant, they do not want them surfaced, but they do not know what to do if someone lands on that URL. That is not ignorance, it is a genuinely unanswered question.
Film the 30-second cut. A demo. The viewer recognises their own spreadsheet and the ad is over.
Somewhere there's a spreadsheet of pages you're about to delete. Discontinued products, old services, last year's campaign.
Screen: a real spreadsheet with URLs and a delete column. Cursor moving.
You're right that the content is dead. But some of those addresses are still earning: still linked to from somewhere, still bringing people in. Delete the page and you lose both. Point the address at the closest thing you do still sell, and you keep them. It's the same afternoon of work either way. It just depends on whether anyone checked first.
Show one real example: a dead URL, its referring links, its monthly visits.
Send us the list before you press delete. Free, thirty minutes. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
The most specific CTA in the bank and the easiest yes: it asks for a spreadsheet rather than a meeting. Worth testing as a lead magnet in its own right, because "send us the list before you press delete" is a smaller commitment than a thirty-minute call and lands the same conversation.
Reason to buy: every other ad in this segment describes what a migration costs. This one is the counter-example, and it is the only case study in the business where a migration and AI search meet, which is the exact intersection the whole funnel argues for. Sylvane, a 25-year-old HVAC retailer competing against Home Depot and Lowe's, moved off a custom platform onto Shopify and came out of it with more visibility than they went in with.
Film the 60-second cut. A proof story with four numbers in it. At 30 seconds it becomes a stat dump and stops being a story.
Most site migrations quietly cost you traffic. Here's one that didn't, and it's the one I'd point at if you only look at a single thing we've done.
Sylvane sell air quality equipment. Twenty-five years old, genuinely expert, and competing against Home Depot and Lowe's. They were moving off a custom platform onto Shopify, which is exactly the moment most businesses lose ground.
Screen: the real case study page. Do not recreate it in a graphic.
We mapped every URL before the move, ran crawl parity between the old site and staging, and rebuilt the category pages around what people actually search for rather than what they were called internally. Post-launch: keyword visibility up twenty-seven percent, top-three positions up fifteen. And on the AI side, brand mentions in the language models up six hundred and twenty-one percent, with AI referral revenue up a hundred and forty-five percent month on month.
Numbers as plain cards, one at a time. Source line: StudioHawk case study, Sylvane.
They also took position three for "dehumidifier", a term they had never ranked for in twenty-five years of selling them.
Free thirty-minute audit, same six signals. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Verified against the published case study on 4 September. Say the numbers exactly as written: 621% is LLM brand mentions, not traffic, and 145% is AI referral revenue month on month, not total revenue. Overstating either turns the strongest proof in the bank into a liability.
Two reasons, and a warning that now has a number on it. 40% of all 222 calls have the prospect raising AI search themselves, and the split by stage is the useful part: 50% at Discovery against 26% at Proposal. AI search is what gets them on the call and not what they are still discussing when they are choosing. So these reasons belong in cold advertising, where they are doing real work, and the VSL and the proposal should not be built on them. Corrected on 4 September against the full corpus: an earlier version of this note said 71% and told you to stop selling the category everywhere. Sell it at the top, drop it lower down.
External number, for the marketing-manager audience. G2's buyer behaviour study, presented by G2's CMO on 6sense's Revenue Makers in October 2025, puts half of B2B buyers now starting their journey inside an LLM rather than Google, and notes AI is shrinking vendor shortlists. That second half matters more than the first: a shorter shortlist is the argument for acting now, and it is the only stat here that comes from outside StudioHawk, which is exactly what a marketing manager needs when they are the one carrying the case upstairs. Flag: this is 6sense reporting G2's study, and I have not seen G2's primary research. Get the source document before it goes in a paid ad.
Reason to buy: the viewer's own feeling of being behind, met and then reframed: almost nobody has done the work yet, so the window is open. Fear and permission in one ad.
If you feel like you're getting left behind on AI search, you're probably right.
Here's the part nobody says out loud. Almost nobody in your industry has done the work yet. The window is still open. That's the good news and the deadline in one sentence.
Because right now somebody in your market is becoming the business the AI names. Your buyers ask ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google's AI, and they get two or three names back. There's no page two. And it happens quietly, because your rankings can look completely healthy while it does.
Underplayed. No eyebrow, no cutaway.
We make it visible, then fixable. Free. We grade your site against the six-part framework Samsung found us through, pull the exact answers where the engines cite a competitor instead of you, and give you the three moves that close the biggest gap first.
Why free? Because a fair number of the businesses we audit ask us to run the plan. That's the whole mechanic.
Thirty minutes with a senior strategist, and you keep the plan. Businesses past a million a year, apply below. If you've been feeling behind on this, this is the catch-up.
Keeps the topic test's Angle 7 tag so the dashboard history stays in one row. In round one this reason had the best engagement of the seven on the wrong audience.
Reason to buy: a healthy ranking report can hide a shrinking channel, because the click is being resolved before it reaches the page. Distinct from "traffic went flat" (film day 5): here nothing looks wrong yet.
Your rankings look fine. That's the problem.
A monthly SEO report scrolling, all green.
Because more of your buyers now ask a machine who to use, get an answer with three names in it, and never see the page you rank on. The report says position three. The customer went to whoever the machine said. We'll show you, free, whether that's you or a competitor.
Cutaway: a blue-links page beside an AI answer.
Thirty minutes, you keep the plan. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
The largest pool of businesses that can switch this quarter is the ones already paying an agency. "Am I being ripped off" attracted the suspicious in round one. These four keep the buyer's dignity: doubt, a missing metric, a wrong metric, and the no-switch-required route.
Reason to buy: their agency may be fine and behind at the same time. The audit is a second opinion on one specific thing, and asking costs nothing.
Is your SEO agency talking about AI SEO yet? Not in a newsletter. To you, about your site.
Because more of your buyers now ask ChatGPT where to buy before they open Google, and most agencies are still sending ranking reports for a results page fewer people see. The report looks fine. The channel under it is moving. We'll put their last report next to what AI search actually rewards, free, run on your domain.
If they're ahead of it, we'll say so. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
The hook wording is Harry's. Keeps the ANGLE_1 tag so this replaces "Am I Being Ripped Off" in the dashboard's history rather than sitting beside it.
Reason to buy: a curiosity gap with a payoff they can act on Monday. The three numbers are named on the call, not in the ad; the ad gives one so the promise is credible.
Open your last SEO report. If it doesn't have these three numbers on it, it's measuring the wrong decade.
Number one: how often you're named. When someone asks an AI who to use in your category, are you one of the two or three businesses in the answer, and how often. That's the one that decides who gets the customer now.
Number two: who's named instead of you, by query. Not a rank, a list of the exact answers where a competitor got the recommendation. Number three: your score on the six signals the engines use to decide, so you know which of the six to fix first. Rankings are a trailing indicator of all three.
Whiteboard fills in 2 and 3. Keep it to three lines.
The free audit pulls all three for your domain and walks you through them with a senior strategist in thirty minutes. Then you can ask your agency for them every month, or hand them the plan and let them run it.
Why free? Some of the businesses we audit ask us to run the plan. That's the whole model.
Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Reason to buy: the report they pay for measures positions; the business runs on revenue. The audit reframes what SEO should be accountable to.
Here's the difference between the SEO report you get and the one you should be getting.
The one you get: positions. Page one for this, position four for that, up two, down one. The one you should get: how many customers arrived because of search this month, and how many arrived because a machine recommended you when someone asked. Positions are an input. Customers are the output.
Two report screens side by side, the second one plain.
The gap between the two is widening because AI answers now sit between the buyer and the page you rank on. You can hold position three all year while the customer goes to whoever the machine named. Case-Mate measured the output, and organic revenue rose ninety-five percent.
The free audit measures the output for your domain: where you're named, where a competitor is, and the three moves in order. Thirty minutes with a senior strategist, and a plan you can hold your agency to.
Keep your agency. Give them a better report to be accountable to.
Free. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Reason to buy: the loyalty objection, answered before it forms. You do not have to change anything to find out where you stand, and the plan is theirs to give away.
You don't have to fire your SEO agency to find out whether AI search recommends you.
The free audit is a second opinion on one specific thing: whether the engines name you or a competitor when your buyers ask who to use. You get a score, the answers where someone else is cited instead of you, and three moves. Hand all of it to your current agency the same afternoon. Plenty of good agencies just haven't built a method for this yet.
Thirty minutes, senior strategist, it's yours to give away. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Same answer as the confirmation-page module "We already have an SEO agency", said to a cold audience. SOP-26 Part 8 names objection-first as a framework in its own right; this is the one objection in the bank that deserves the whole ad.
Six reasons already exist for envy on the film day page (1, 11, 13, 15, 16, and the topic test's Beat The One Competitor). This adds the exercise: the viewer runs the check themselves, in the ad, and whatever they find is the reason to apply.
Reason to buy: the fastest audit they will ever run, done before the ad ends. Three results are possible and two of them are the reason to apply. Envy is factual here, because the model genuinely will name somebody.
Do this before the ad ends. Open ChatGPT. Ask: best whatever you sell, in your city.
Phone up, thumb typing, screen hidden.
It'll name three or four businesses. If you're in there, good. If you're not, someone in your category is, and they're being recommended to a buyer who never sees your site, never sees your ads, and never learns you exist. That's the gap. On the free audit we run the full version against your actual competitors and show you exactly why the machine picks them.
Whatever it said, bring it. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Rebuilt from the deck's day-one exercise and the Hammer Them piece "Does this actually apply to my industry?". SOP-26 Part 2 §6: real-time contextual hooks get served cheaper to people who just did the thing; a viewer who runs this prompt is now exactly that person.
The ICP lists the questions running in this person's head: am I being ripped off right now, I don't actually understand what I'm paying for, is any of this working and would I even know, I should have sorted this out years ago, is this a stupid question, and if I stop paying does it all disappear. Set that against the corpus and something useful falls out. Only 8% of 222 recorded calls criticise their agency out loud. Both facts are true: they think it, and they will not say it to a stranger who is recording. So none of these ads attack the incumbent. They say the private question on the buyer's behalf, which is a thing none of their actual conversations do, and which stays safe to watch with the person who hired that agency sitting next to them.
Reason to buy: names the single loudest private thought in the ICP without accusing anyone of anything. It also qualifies hard in the first line: it speaks only to people already paying for SEO, which is the ICP's stated filter.
Film the 30-second cut. A recognition hook. The whole ad is someone else finishing their sentence, and elaboration turns it into an accusation.
If you're paying for SEO right now, here's a question you probably haven't said out loud to anyone: is any of this actually working, and would I even know if it wasn't?
Harry to camera, calm. Not a gotcha. The tone is finishing someone's sentence, not catching them out.
It's a fair question and it's hard to answer, because the reports you get are built to look busy rather than to answer it. So we'll answer it for you, free, in thirty minutes, against your actual revenue rather than a rankings chart.
Businesses past a million a year, already doing something on search. Apply below.
The highest-leverage line in the ICP. Note what it deliberately does not say: no mention of being ripped off, no suggestion the current agency is bad. 92% of the corpus never criticises theirs, and a third of calls have more than one person on them, one of whom probably signed that contract.
Reason to buy: the ICP infers this one from how often clients volunteer relief that nothing they asked was treated as stupid. Nobody advertises on it, and it speaks directly to the fear underneath the whole category: not knowing who to trust in a market full of charlatans.
Film the 30-second cut. A promise about behaviour. Explaining it undermines it.
If you've ever sat in a marketing meeting and not asked the question because you thought it'd sound stupid, this is for you.
Half this industry runs on making you feel slow. Acronyms, dashboards nobody reads, and a quiet implication that if you don't follow, that's your problem. It isn't. If your agency can't explain what you're paying for in words you'd use yourself, that's a failure of theirs, not a gap in you. On our audit you can ask anything, twice, and nobody will do the face.
Thirty minutes, free, and you keep the plan. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
The most differentiated ad in the bank because it competes on how it feels to be a client rather than on results. It is also the only one that works equally well for the owner and for a marketing manager who has to look competent internally.
Reason to buy: the ICP names a secret desire to eventually bring this in-house and stop paying an agency. Every agency's incentive is to hide from that. Saying it out loud is disarming, it is true of how StudioHawk already works, and it directly answers the fear of being locked into something you do not understand.
Film the 60-second cut. A counterintuitive claim needs its reasoning immediately or it reads as a trick.
Here's something an agency isn't supposed to say. The goal is for you to not need us.
Most of the businesses we work with would quietly love to bring this in-house one day. That's not disloyalty, it's just sensible. And the agencies that pretend otherwise are the ones who keep the method vague on purpose, so the knowledge never transfers and the invoice never stops.
We work the other way. No lock-in contract, ever, month to month with sixty days notice. You talk directly to the specialist doing the work, not an account manager relaying it. And we show you the method as we go, because a client who understands it is a better client, and because if you outgrow us that's a good outcome, not a lost one.
Start with the free audit. Thirty minutes, we grade your site against the six signals that decide whether you get recommended, and you keep the plan whether you hire us or not.
Scorecard cutaway.
Businesses past a million a year, already doing something on search. Apply below.
Carries all three of the how-we-operate differentiators without listing them like a features slide. It is also the only ad in the bank that speaks to the ICP's stated secret desire, which by definition no competitor is addressing.
Reason to buy: a question the ICP says is genuinely in their head, and the honest answer is the entire argument for the channel. It is also the cleanest way to make the paid-media comparison without sounding anti-ads.
Film the 30-second cut. One question, one honest answer, one consequence.
People ask us this and I don't think they expect a straight answer. If we stop, does it all disappear?
No. That's the actual difference. Turn off your ads and the traffic stops that afternoon. Stop investing in search and what you've built keeps working, then slowly erodes over months as competitors move. One is a tap. The other is an asset that depreciates. They are not the same purchase and they shouldn't be judged the same way.
Whiteboard, drawn live: one line dropping off a cliff, one line easing down over months. Draw it, do not animate it.
Free thirty-minute audit of what you'd actually own. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Admitting the erosion is what makes this land. An agency claiming search is permanent gets disbelieved instantly by anyone who has watched rankings slide; conceding the slow decay buys the rest of the argument.
Reason to buy: the ICP is explicit that this buyer usually has one specific competitor they want to beat or are being beaten by. Naming that private target is far sharper than talking about competitors in general, and it turns the whole audit into a single answerable question.
Film the 30-second cut. A demo. They picture the name before you finish the sentence, and the ad is over.
You already have a name in your head. One competitor you'd genuinely like to beat, or one who's been beating you.
Hold. Give them a beat to actually think of it.
On the free audit we'll pull you and them side by side. What they're being cited for that you aren't, where the gap is, and whether it's a content problem, a technical one or an authority one. Usually it's smaller than it looks and it's almost never what people assume.
Screen: a real side-by-side, two real domains, real numbers.
Bring the name. Thirty minutes, free. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
"Bring the name" is the most specific CTA in the bank after reason 46's spreadsheet, and specificity is what separates a booked call from a saved post. A competitor overtaking them appears in 12% of the corpus, so this is a sharp minority trigger rather than a broad one: run it as a distinct ad set, not as the whole strategy.
Jeremy's three in-market openers: "you already know", "you're doing this, but", and the circumstance opener. The first two above are spread through the bank. These two are pure circumstance: the invoice they already pay, and the question the CEO already asked.
Reason to buy: they already pay for search. The audit covers the one line the invoice cannot: whether the machine names them. In-market by construction.
You already pay for SEO. Here's the part your invoice doesn't cover.
Whether a machine names you when your buyer asks who to use. That's not a ranking, it's a recommendation, and it's decided by six signals most agencies haven't built a method for yet. We score all six on your domain, free, and show you the answers where a competitor got named instead of you.
Thirty minutes, senior strategist, you keep the plan. Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
Reason to buy: the marketing lead who has been asked upward why a competitor is winning, and needs an answer with a plan attached. Written for the Triangle, in the language of the Circle who asked.
If your CEO has asked why a competitor keeps showing up where you should be, this is the answer with a plan attached.
The reason is usually that the competitor is the one the AI engines name when a buyer asks who to use, and there's no report on your desk that shows it. We pull the exact answers, score your site on the six signals that decide them, and give you three moves in order. Free, in thirty minutes, and it's a document you can walk into the next meeting with.
Businesses past a million a year, apply below.
| Setting | Jeremy's rule, from the originals | Applied here |
|---|---|---|
| Objective | Conversions, on a real downstream event (SOP-26 P3 §3) | Optimise to the application submit at /call-apply, never to a tap-fireable event. Round one's lesson. |
| Dynamic Creative | 2 to 4 videos, 2 to 3 headlines, 2 to 3 copy blocks per ad set; let the platform combine (SOP-27 step 4) | Each reason above ships with exactly that. One reason per ad set; do not mix reasons in one ad set, it defeats the SOP-31 read. |
| Short and long | Half the assets 30 seconds, half 60 to 90 (SOP-26 P1 §2) | Both cuts filmed for every reason. |
| Audience | In-market first: interest stacks, lookalikes of best clients, custom audiences; exclude anyone who applied or booked (SOP-26 P3 §3) | Not open Advantage+. A real audience, US, with the exclusions. Placements manual, Audience Network excluded ("it's trash", SOP-02). |
| Budget and read | $100 to $300 a day shows real differences in 48 to 72 hours; under that, run a full 5 to 7 days (SOP-26 P3 §4) | Do not judge a reason on 30 clicks. Cost per 3-second view reads the hook; cost per application reads the ad. |
| Swap, scale, scrub | Kill at 2 to 3x the best ad's cost per result; scale a consistent winner; if everything bombs, the audience or the in-market messaging is wrong, not the edit (SOP-26 P3 §5 to 6) | Same thresholds. |
| ABO or CBO | ABO under about $300 a day, CBO over $500 (SOP-26 P6 §3) | Start ABO so no reason starves. |
| Scaling | 10 to 20 percent every 2 to 3 days, or duplicate; watch for a 20 to 30 percent CPL creep, frequency, and sales-team feedback on quality; scale in waves (SOP-26 P6) | Same. The strategist's read on call quality is the leading indicator, per SOP-02 too. |
| Refresh | Every 2 to 4 weeks: new opener, new environment, updated proof, seasonal line, second-order and minority hooks, language lifted from sales calls (SOP-26 P7, SOP-27 step 5) | Month one films reasons 21 to 30. Month two films 31 to 37 plus the strongest three from month one re-cut with new openers. Month three comes from Transformation and Tactical, the two thin categories. |
| Batch shoot | Half a day a month, 4 to 6 ads, then re-edits (SOP-26 P9 §9) | Two half-days for month one at 30s and 60s each. Film every 60s cut first; the 30s is usually a re-edit. |
| Five per segment | At least five different creatives per audience segment, so a person who ignores video A gets an entry point in B (SOP-33, the 5-Video Rule; SOP-12 runs five per step for the same reason) | Every major point above carries at least five reasons once the film-day bank is counted. Do not launch a segment with fewer. |
| Majority or minority hook | Reach against audience size is the diagnostic: targeting a million people and reaching twenty thousand with frequency past 2 to 3 is a minority hook, it converts a sliver and fatigues fast. Majority hooks are the ones a grandfather would nod at (SOP-33) | Samsung, rent and left behind are majority hooks. Blended CAC (28) and the CEO ad (37) are minority by design; expect them to spike then fade, and read them on cost per application inside their segment, not on reach. |
| Affluent edit style | Calm, authoritative, professional background, no cartoonish editing, no five-second cuts; "even for higher-end markets, monotone corporate speak kills trust". Shorter VSL funnels suit 15 to 30 second ads; in anything past a minute, repeat the CTA once mid-body (SOP-04) | Lead every reason with its 30-second cut. The 60-second cuts here carry the CTA once in the body and once at the end. |
| Asset mix per ad set | Up to 10 videos, 5 headlines, 5 primary texts; in practice 3 to 5 short videos plus 2 to 3 statics, two short copy blocks and one or two long, headlines of 3 to 4 words and of about 10 (SOP-04) | Each reason ships two primary texts (one short, one long) and three headlines of mixed length. Add one static per reason: the graphic text on a plain card. |
| Fatigue trigger | Frequency 3.0 and rising with CTR dipping and cost climbing means refresh, not scale; at this spend tier monitor weekly with two or three backup creatives cut and waiting (SOP-04, SOP-12, SOP-33) | Month two's reasons are the backups for month one. Never wait for the decline to show in cost per application; it shows in frequency first. |
| Pixel conditioning | Fire the main conversion only on qualified leads; route unqualified answers to a page with no event, or the pixel learns the wrong audience (SOP-04 "brokie bait", SOP-12) | The application already routes sub-bar turnover away from the calendar. Make sure the event fires after that routing, not on form submit. |
| Naming | "Airbnb_HookA_BoldClaim_Sept2025" (SOP-27 step 1H) | SH_Call_<n>_<Reason>_<Framework>_<30s|60s> as written on each ad. |
How SOP-33's hook iteration fits SOP-31's one-reason rule. Jeremy's Ad Scaling SOP says you should be able to write five to ten variations of any successful hook inside a day, by three methods: restate the core concept, run the same fact through four emotional lenses (fear, opportunity, urgency, social proof), or address the same hook to different segments (the owner, the marketing lead, the CFO). That is not the hook-swapping SOP-31 retires. Each variation is a different reason, filmed whole. The rent point above is one core concept through five doors, and the agency point is one fact addressed to four conditions. When a reason wins, iterate it that way: same concept, new lens or new segment, whole new ad. Two camera angles on every shoot (SOP-33's multi-cam rule) turn each script into several distinct edits without changing a word.
Where this bank departs from the film day page on purpose: no three-hook variants (SOP-31), the objection handled is named on every ad so no ad ends on it (SOP-26 P5 §8), and the qualifier is spoken in every CTA rather than left to the form (SOP-26 P2 §5). Where it departs from Jeremy on purpose: no urgency devices except the one honest form, that citation position compounds, because the framework page rules countdowns and seat counts out for this buyer.
Jeremy's swipe file is a bare list of seventy hooks and headlines with no commentary. The twenty quoted templates and the fourteen real headlines most transferable to a $1M+ owner paying for search are below, each with a filled-in version for the ad build. Use them for Dynamic Creative headlines and for the graphic text on statics; SOP-04 wants some headlines at three or four words and some at about ten.
| Template, verbatim | Filled in for the audit |
|---|---|
| Who Else Wants [blank]? | Who Else Wants To Be The Business ChatGPT Names? |
| The Secret of [blank] | The Secret Of Getting Recommended By AI |
| Here is a Method That is Helping [blank] to [blank] | Here Is A Method Helping US Businesses Get Named By AI |
| Little Known Ways to [blank] | Little Known Ways To Be Cited By ChatGPT |
| Get Rid of [problem] Once and For All | Get Rid Of The Rising Cost Per Click Once And For All |
| Here's a Quick Way to [solve a problem] | Here's A Quick Way To See If AI Names You |
| [Do something] like [world-class example] | Get Found The Way Samsung Found Us |
| What Everybody Ought to Know About [blank] | What Everybody Ought To Know About AI Search |
| Do you make these mistakes in English? | Do You Make These Mistakes In AI Search? |
| Car insurance at low cost, if you are a careful driver | A Free AI Search Audit, If You Do Over $1M A Year |
| I Regret to Inform You Expensive Vacuums Are Worth It | I Regret To Inform You Your Rankings Are Not The Metric |
| Truckers are furious they didn't know about this GPS tracker | Business Owners Are Annoyed Nobody Told Them About This Channel |
| It's well known that X works or doesn't work | It's Well Known That Ads Get Dearer Every Year |
| Is 500% Growth For Your Roofing Company Too Much? | Is 621% More AI Mentions Too Much For Your Business? |
| You may not want to buy a new car after reading this | You May Not Want To Raise Your Ad Budget After Reading This |
| If it wasn't that good, we wouldn't make buckets of it | If It Didn't Work, Samsung Wouldn't Have Found Us Through It |
| It's time to take real estate investing seriously | It's Time To Take AI Search Seriously |
| iPhone 13: mostly disappointing | Your Ranking Report: Mostly Irrelevant |
| "How to [accomplish a goal] Without [common obstacle]" | How To Get Recommended By AI Without Rebuilding Your Site |
| "Are You Making These [number] Common Mistakes with [topic]?" | Are You Making These 3 Mistakes With AI Search? |
| "The Surprising Truth About [blank]" | The Surprising Truth About Where Your Buyers Ask First |
| "Avoid [number] [topic] Mistakes" | Avoid 3 AI Search Mistakes |
| "Discover the [number] Proven Techniques for [solving a problem]" | Discover The 6 Signals That Decide Whether AI Names You |
| "The Hidden Benefits of [blank]" | The Hidden Benefits Of A Second Opinion On Your SEO |
| "Overcome [obstacle] to [accomplish goal]" | Overcome The Auction To Win The Recommendation |
The full seventy are saved with the originals. Left out on purpose: every template with "unlock", "revolutionize", "ultimate" or "shocking" in it. SOP-35's talking-to-money rule and SOP-13's spam list both rule them out for this buyer.