Length is 7:13, ten beats, timed at 165 words a minute. An eight minute frame video for the confirmation page, built to do two jobs: make someone want the call rather than merely attend it, and hand them enough to do that they arrive with agency instead of nerves. Every urgency claim traces to a count from the 222 sales transcripts, and the counts are the tight ones. 46 of 222 asked how long results take, unprompted. 79 had a migration or rebuild in play. 114 raised a competitor and 16 could name one outranking them that day. 71 raised AI search themselves and 7 said they found us through it. 81 were running paid. There is no invented deadline anywhere in this script, because there is no real one on a free audit and the ICP's first fear is being sold to by someone who would say anything.
You're booked, and the call is in your calendar. Before it, eight minutes on why this is worth doing now rather than at some vaguer point later. I'm not going to invent a deadline, because there isn't one on a free audit and you'd smell it. Instead, we went back through our own sales calls, hundreds of them, people in almost exactly your position, and four things came up often enough to be worth your time. Then I'll tell you what to bring so you get a plan out of the thirty minutes instead of a conversation.
Straight to camera, sitting, no desk set dressing. This is the most human piece in the funnel and it should look like it was made for one person. Say "I'm not going to invent a deadline" plainly and move on, no pause for effect. No music under this beat.
SOP-28 wants the confirmation page to answer, not to sell, and SOP-18 puts a personal video at the centre of show rate. The sample size is deliberately not named on camera, on Harry's note: reciting 222 makes it sound like a research paper and puts the viewer in the audience rather than in the conversation. Saying we went through our own calls does the same job in half the words. The counts stay on this page, where the evidence needs to be checkable, and out of the mouth, where it does not.
Here's the first one, and it's the least dramatic and the most useful. One in five people we speak to asks us, unprompted, how long this takes. It's the most common question we get, and the answer is that it depends on the site, but it's months rather than weeks, and that is true no matter who you hire. Which means the size of the result isn't set by how hard you push once you start. It's set by when you start. That's uncomfortable, and it's also the only genuinely good news in this video, because it's the one variable that's entirely yours. Everything else, the competition, the algorithms, what the models decide to quote, none of that is in your control. The date is.
Slow. This is the argument the whole video rests on and it should sound like something you'd say to a friend rather than a prospect. On screen, one card: one in five asks how long it takes. Nothing else. No countdown graphics anywhere in this video.
The strongest real urgency available, and it is entirely honest: 46 of 222 asked about time to results without being prompted, which is 21%. It reframes delay as a cost without threatening anyone, and it is the one urgency argument that survives contact with a sceptic, because they already believe the premise. Jeremy's SOPs permit urgency only where it is genuine, and this is as genuine as it gets.
Second. More than a third of those conversations had a website rebuild, a migration or a replatform in them somewhere. Some were three months out. Some had just gone live. The difference between those two groups is the entire reason I'm making this beat. One person put it better than I could: they went live with a pile of new product pages, then worked out afterwards what they'd broken, and, in their words, here we are. That's the sequence to avoid. A migration is the single fastest way to become unreadable to a search engine and to an AI, and it is also completely survivable if the mapping is done before the switch instead of diagnosed after it. So if you've got a rebuild, a rebrand or a replatform coming, say so on the call, because it changes the order of everything we'd recommend. And if you've just done one and things feel quieter since, say that too. That's not a coincidence, and it's usually fixable.
Screen: a real crawl of a post-migration site, dead URLs and redirect chains visible, cursor moving. Do not name the client. Say "here we are" as the quote it is, with a beat before and after it.
79 of 220 calls raised a migration, rebuild, replatform or relaunch, which is 36%, the second most common circumstance in the corpus after competitors. It is also the highest-converting angle in the ad bank and the lead cause in the VSL's diagnosis, so this beat closes the loop for anyone who came in on a migration ad. The quote is verbatim from a prospect and the client is deliberately unnamed.
Third. More than half brought up a competitor without being asked, and more than a dozen could name the exact rival who is outranking them right now, today. Here's why that matters more than it used to. Being cited compounds. Once a model learns to name a company, that creates more places that mention them, which makes them easier to name next time. The gap doesn't stay the same size while you think about it. It widens on its own, slowly, in a direction that isn't yours. That's not me being dramatic, it's just how a feedback loop works. Before your call we'll pull the actual answers where a competitor is being named instead of you, with the question and the engine, so you're not taking my word for any of this. You'll see the list.
Screen: a live AI answer naming competitors, streaming, unedited, including the pause before the names appear. Do not speed it up. This is the single most persuasive frame in the funnel and it costs nothing to shoot fresh. Re-shoot monthly, a stale screenshot is a liability.
114 of 220, 52%, is the most common theme in the entire corpus, and 16 could name a rival outranking them that day. The compounding argument is the honest version of the ICP's fear of being left behind and it is the same mechanism the VSL's timing beat uses, so the two reinforce rather than repeat. Note what this beat does not do: it never says the window is closing.
Fourth, and this is the one that changed how I think about the whole thing. Nearly a third brought up AI search themselves. We didn't raise it. And seven of them, seven actual people, told us on the call that they found us through it. They asked ChatGPT who the best SEO agency was, and it said us, and that's why they were sitting there. Think about what that actually means. The mechanism I'm describing already worked. It worked on somebody with your job, with your budget, deciding who to trust with a real amount of money, and they never saw an ad. That's the whole product in one sentence. The only question left is whether it's working for you or for the company that comes up when someone asks about your category.
Screen: the prompt typed live, the answer streaming. Then cut back to Harry for the last two sentences with nothing on screen at all. Deliver "and they never saw an ad" flat, do not lean on it.
7 of 220 said they found StudioHawk through an AI answer, which is 3%. Small number, enormous argument, and the reason to state it as a count rather than a percentage: seven real people is concrete and 3% sounds like a rounding error. This is the only proof in the funnel where the product demonstrates itself on the buyer, and it is currently used nowhere else.
One more thing, quickly, because more than a third of those calls were with people already running paid. If that's you, you already know the shape of it. The leads stop the day the card stops. The cost per lead goes one direction over time, and it isn't down. None of it accumulates, so year three costs more than year one for the same result. I'm not going to tell you to turn your ads off, that would be stupid advice and we don't even do paid. But on the call it's worth putting the two numbers next to each other, what you spend a month to rent demand, against what it costs to own a position that keeps working. Bring the first number. We'll do the comparison honestly, including the cases where the answer is that ads are still your better buy.
Screen: nothing, or a simple two-column comparison drawn live. No graphs. Say the last sentence like you mean it, because it is the line that makes the rest of the beat believable.
81 of 220, 37%, were running paid and comparing cost per lead. This is Harry's rent-versus-owning argument from the VSL, made once more with the corpus number behind it, and the concession at the end is doing real work: admitting that ads sometimes win is what buys permission for everything before it. SOP-25 and the ICP both point the same way, the buyer's first fear is being sold to by someone who would say anything.
So, the call itself. Thirty minutes, and a senior strategist, not a salesperson reading a script. Before it we crawl your site and grade it against SOURC-E, our six signals, and we pull the answers where you're being left out. You'll get the score, the citation gap, and a ninety day plan in the order we'd actually do it. You keep all of it in writing whether you hire us or not, and that's not a trick, it's just cheaper for us to be useful to a hundred people and work with three of them than to chase a hundred. If you do want us to run it afterwards, it starts from two thousand dollars a month, month to month, no lock-in. I'm telling you the price now so it isn't a reveal at the end of a call you've already given half an hour to.
Screen: the scorecard, the citation list and the ninety day plan as real documents. Price said at normal pace with no apology in the voice.
SOP-28 says the confirmation page pre-empts what the call would otherwise have to spend time on, and SOP-03 says the price is stated plainly and early. Saying it here rather than on the call is the single biggest show-rate and close-rate lever in the sequence, because 88% of the corpus raises price unprompted and the ones who feel ambushed by it disengage before the second half.
Four things, and they take about ten minutes. One, three search terms, written as a sentence a real customer would type, not keywords. Two, go and ask ChatGPT who it recommends for that thing in your area, and write down what comes back, including the names that aren't yours. Three, if you're running ads, the monthly number. And four, if someone else runs your marketing, get them on the call. Not because you need permission, but because they're the one inside the site, and a plan that arrives second-hand dies in the handover. Do those four and the thirty minutes goes on what to do. Skip them and we'll spend half of it gathering information you already had.
On screen as a numbered list, held long enough to screenshot, because some people will. Say it slowly enough to be written down.
This is the agency half and it is also a show-rate mechanism: someone who has done ten minutes of preparation is materially more likely to turn up, and someone who has run the prompt has already seen the problem for themselves. Getting the marketing manager on the call comes straight from the corpus, where the owner buys and the manager executes, and the split is where good plans go to die.
Whatever you decide, you leave with the scorecard, the list of answers where someone else is named instead of you, and the ninety day plan. In writing, yours to keep, and yours to hand to whoever you like, including another agency. That's a deliberate decision on our part. If the plan is good enough to be worth stealing, that tells you more about whether to work with us than anything I could say in this video.
Flat, no smile on the last line, it is stronger straight. Documents on screen one more time, briefly.
Risk reversal, and the line about handing it to another agency is the strongest trust move available here because it is verifiable within thirty minutes of the call ending. It also quietly answers the corpus's most common private worry, which is being locked into something.
That's it. Block the time, do the four things, and bring the person who'd actually do the work. If something comes up, reply to the confirmation email and move it rather than skipping it, because the audit gets built either way and it's a waste for nobody to read it. See you on the call.
Warm, small smile, then cut. No outro card, no logo sting, no music.
The reschedule line is deliberate and it is worth defending against anyone who wants it removed for sounding soft. A no-show costs the build we have already done; a reschedule costs nothing and keeps a qualified person in the funnel. SOP-06 exists because the alternative is losing them silently.