Call funnel VSL: the free audit, built on the ICP.

If you run a business doing at least a million a year, you already know you should be showing up when someone asks an AI who to use. You've probably run the search yourself, for the thing you actually sell, and watched it name two or three companies that aren't you. What you don't have is any idea what to do about it. And if you've just rebuilt your site, or you're about to, this is more urgent for you than anyone, because that is the most common way a business drops out of the answer. What makes it worse is you're already paying somebody for search, every month, and nobody can give you a straight answer on whether it's working. The report comes back green. The revenue is flat. In thirty minutes we'll tell you exactly where you stand and what's causing it, free, and in writing. And if you run marketing and this got forwarded to you, it's for you more than anyone.

Direct to camera, no music, no logo, no name yet. Slow through the first three sentences and let "companies that aren't you" land properly, that is the moment the whole video hangs on. Then tighten and speed up through the three pains. Flatten right out for the offer so it sounds like a fact rather than a pitch. Last line warm, small smile. If there is one place to do a second take, it is the pause after "aren't you".

Migration added as a qualifier, per Harry's note. It earns the place: a rebuild is now the lead cause in the diagnosis, it is the highest-converting angle in the ad bank, and it is the one circumstance where the viewer already knows something changed and has been waiting for someone to explain it. Naming it here and again in beat 3 is deliberate, because the hook qualifies and the diagnosis explains. "The ad bill climbs every year and none of it compounds" came out to pay for it; the compounding argument is now made properly in 3b rather than glanced at twice.

I'm Harry Sanders. I started StudioHawk a decade ago when SEO got serious and built one of the first SEO only companies with direct access to specialists. Now a hundred and twenty specialists across Melbourne, London and Atlanta, running AI SEO for QuickBooks, Weber and HelloFresh, and we've been named best large SEO agency seven times. Here's what that looks like in money, not rankings. Case-Mate, ninety-five percent more revenue. Clarks, a hundred and one percent year on year in organic revenue. Tapt, six hundred and eight percent return on investment. Then Bondi Sands, Aje, Acuity, Equity Estates, The Entourage, Dogline, Evolve, Paragon, SnowsBest. All of them written up on our site, with the actual work, not just the number. And we only do this. No paid, no social, no web build. AI Search is the whole business, which is the reason we can go deeper on it than a full-service agency ever will.

This is the overwhelm beat and the screen carries it, not the voice. Build the wall from studiohawk.com/case-studies: every case study as a card, real thumbnails and real headline figures, filling the frame while the names are said. Three money results land one card at a time, large. Then the whole grid at once for the name sweep, and hold it two seconds past the last name so the eye can wander. No animation on the figures, no logo carousel sliding, it is a wall not a parade. Deliver the nine names at a clip, flat, no emphasis on any one of them, then slow right back down for "we only do this". BEFORE BUILDING THE CARD: confirm the exact count. Two reads of the page returned seventeen and eighteen, so the script deliberately says "all of them" rather than a number. If you want a number on screen, count it on the day. Also confirm The Entourage is still live on the page, it appeared in one read and not the other.

Harry's founding line merged in rather than promoted over the top. His edit was written against the version of this beat from before the case study wall, so it carried no case studies, and taking it verbatim would have deleted the wall he asked for in the same session. Merged, both survive. The line earns its place on SOP-03 step 2, which wants relevant experience rather than backstory: "one of the first SEO only companies with direct access to specialists" is a differentiator, not an origin story, and it sets up the no-account-manager promise in beat 5 four beats early. The ranking behind the wall is unchanged and it is the one the script already argues, money before rankings, because this video says out loud that it measures revenue. Case-Mate, Clarks and Tapt are the only three published money metrics on the page. The nine names after them are recognition and category spread. Sylvane and The Motor Enclave stay held back for the close. This beat is now the second longest in the script. If it needs to come down, the split to make is money here and the name sweep moved to the close, not cutting Harry's opening.

So why aren't you in the answer? It's usually not that you need more content. We built a framework called SOURCE, built using thousands of campaigns and millions of data points that we have collected over a decade, which maps issues down to either Structural, Offsite, Uniqueness, Relevance, Credibility, and Evaluation. Most SEO is still behind, so none of these show up in the report you're being sent, which is exactly why it's green but you are not getting more leads.

Overlay the SOURC-E whitepaper as the six are named, one pillar highlighting as each word is said, and hold the full framework on screen through the last sentence. This is the only place in the video where a graphic is doing the teaching, so give it room and do not cut away early. Slower than everything around it. Stop dead after "more leads". HARRY, WHICH FILE: there is still no SOURC-E whitepaper on the hub or the public site. Candidates are the Format Leverage study, 1,203,748 AI referral sessions across 600-plus businesses, and the SOURC-E deck the webinar teaches from. Send the PDF and this gets pointed at it. ONE SPELLING NOTE for the overlay: the framework's S is Structure everywhere else in the funnel, and the script says Structural. Fine spoken, but the card should use the canonical six so it matches the scorecard and the webinar deck.

Harry's rewrite, promoted verbatim with one typo fixed. It trades three named causes for the framework itself, which is a bigger claim and a better one: three causes is a diagnosis, a framework built on a decade of campaigns is a reason to believe the diagnosis. It also puts SOURC-E at position three instead of position five, so the name is established before the offer uses it. Two consequences worth knowing. The offer beat no longer has "three things" to point back at and now points at the six. And the hook still promises that a rebuild or migration is the most common way a business drops out; that is now carried implicitly by Structural rather than said out loud, which is consistent but quieter. If retention dips between the hook and the offer, putting the rebuild back into this beat as the example of a Structural failure is the first thing to try.

One thing about timing, and I'll be straight rather than dramatic about it. This is the biggest change to how people find a business since Google. Nine and a half billion visits a month across the AI tools now, up seventy percent in a year, and that's Similarweb's measurement, not ours. It's early enough that the answers aren't settled yet. That matters because being cited compounds. Once these models learn to name you, it reinforces: you get named, which creates more places that mention you, which makes you easier to name next time. Which means the reverse is also true.

Flat and unhurried. No music swell, no leaning into camera. The whole beat fails if it sounds like pressure. Put the Similarweb attribution on screen as a plain card while you say it. End on "the reverse is also true" and cut, without explaining it.

Harry's trim kept exactly: the beat ends on the implication rather than spelling it out, which is stronger and shorter. Worth noting what went with it, because it was load-bearing: "there is no deadline on this call and I am not going to invent one" was the line that separated this from a closing-window pitch, and the ICP's first fear is not knowing who to trust. The beat still refuses to name a deadline, so the protection is structural rather than stated, but if this tests as pushy that line is the first thing to put back. The growth figure answers Harry's note about volume data, and it sits here rather than in the offer because this is the beat where a number is an argument. Similarweb's own panel, published 29 July 2026, 9.5 billion average monthly visits across generative AI platforms, up 70% year on year from June 2025 to May 2026. Attribute it out loud every time. It is a third party measuring a market, which is a different and better claim than a vendor measuring itself.

So here's the offer. Thirty minutes with a senior strategist, free. Before it we crawl your site, grade it against SOURCE, the six signals that decide whether a search engine or an AI recommends you, and against the one point two million AI referrals we've measured ourselves, and tell you which of the six is actually stopping you. Then you get a custom ninety day action plan. You leave with all of it in writing whether you hire us or not. And we measure the thing you care about, which is revenue, not rankings.

The scorecard on screen while the deliverables are listed, six rows, some green some red, then the ninety day plan as a real document with dates on it, not a mockup. The SOURC-E overlay has already done its work in beat 3, so do not repeat it here. Even pace, no selling in the voice. This beat is a list and it should sound like one.

The framework is named here on Harry's note, and only named. Saying SOURC-E and then leaving it as shorthand would put the video in direct conflict with its own argument, because the funnel elsewhere attacks agencies that run on "acronyms, dashboards nobody reads, and a quiet implication that not following is your problem". So the script says the name once, in the same breath as the plain-English definition it already had, and the overlay carries the six words. Two spoken words instead of forty, and the viewer sees the framework rather than being told to remember it. The custom ninety day action plan stays the biggest upgrade in this beat: it turns the audit from a diagnosis into something with a next step, and it is what a marketing manager takes to their owner.

What I want you to do - in a calculator, write down your ad spend and agency spend last month and multiply it by 12x. That is your rent, the second you stop paying you lose the traction, AI SEO is owning, it compounds, real estate that you can't buy and audience that you are losing because you can't reach them where they search now. Compare that to the cost if you want us to run the plan afterwards, it starts from $2000 a month, month to month.

Slow right down and let them actually do the sum. A real calculator on screen, or a pen and paper, while you say the first line. Say the price at normal pace with no apology in the voice, then stop.

Harry's rent argument, given its own beat rather than tacked onto a 164-word offer. It reframes the retainer against money already being spent, which the corpus supports: 88% of calls raise price unprompted and the objection is almost never the number, it is what the number buys. Owning versus renting is the one claim paid media can never make. Two sentences run on when read aloud, the one starting "That is your rent" and the one starting "Compare that", so they want a pass before the teleprompter session. Left exactly as written until Harry says otherwise.

Three things worth knowing. There's no lock-in contract, no twelve or twenty-four month tie. You get direct access to the specialist doing the work, not an account manager relaying messages, because the person who knows your site should be the person you can actually talk to. And we only do SEO, so nobody's going to try to sell you a rebrand halfway through.

Flat and factual. Three points, three beats, no flourish.

All three differentiators, said as facts rather than promises. The direct-access one answers a real pain in the corpus: one prospect had five account manager changes in eighteen months and said no knowledge was ever handed over.

A few things people think but don't ask, so let me answer them. If I stop paying, does it all disappear? No, and that's the whole difference between this and ads. Would this even work for my business? We do this for a phone case brand, a shoe retailer, a race track and a bookkeeping firm. The SOURCE signals are the same in all of them, what changes is which one is broken. Should I have sorted this out years ago? Probably, and everyone says that, and it's the least useful thought available to you, because the only version of this you can actually act on is today's, imagine going back in time and being at the start of SEO, this is your chance but for AI Search. And do I have to need you forever? No. Plenty of our clients aim to bring this in-house eventually, and we'll teach you as we go so you have the option to.

Slower here. This is the trust beat and it fails if it sounds like a list being read.

Harry's addition kept verbatim, and "would this even work for my business" added on his note, answered with four real clients in four unrelated categories rather than with reassurance. Case-Mate, Clarks, The Motor Enclave and Acuity, all published. Naming the categories instead of the logos is deliberate: it lets the viewer find themselves in the list rather than being impressed by it, which is what the objection actually needs. Four questions now, each removing a real barrier, and the last one names the ICP's stated secret desire out loud, which no agency ever does.

Most people we do this for already have someone. Bring them to the call. Either they already knew about everything we find, which is worth knowing, or they didn't, which is worth more. You're welcome to take the list straight to them and never speak to us again. That happens, and it's genuinely fine.

Generous delivery. Any hint of a smirk here loses the room and the forward.

52% of the corpus has or had an agency and 34% of calls have more than one person on the prospect side, so this video gets forwarded. It has to be safe to forward.

One thing before you apply. You should already be doing something with SEO, an agency now or one you've had before. If you're starting from absolute zero, we're not the right first call, and I'd rather say that here than take the meeting.

Straight, unapologetic, and quick. It is a filter, not an apology.

Cut from 18 seconds to 12. It used to restate who this is for, which the hook now does in its first line, so all that is left is the part that does work: the ICP's hard filter that they are not starting from scratch. SOP-03 step six only asks for who it is and is not for, and saying it twice weakens both.

The button under this video is a short application. We read every one, and if it's a fit you book straight onto the calendar.

One CTA. No alternatives, no second option offered.

Check the question count on the live form before filming and say the number if someone has counted it today.

Sylvane sell air quality gear against Home Depot and Lowe's. They thought they had no chance against the giants. On top of that, they were moving platforms, which is exactly where most businesses lose ground, and came out with brand mentions inside the AI models up six hundred and twenty-one percent, and AI referral revenue up a hundred and forty-five percent month on month. Their review of working with us was four words: five stars, no notes. The Motor Enclave rebuilt their whole site and came out two hundred and eighteen percent up in visibility instead of down. Worst case here, you spend thirty minutes and finally find out whether you're in the answer or not. Best case, you find out what's been quietly costing you while it's still cheap to fix.

Two results only, named, no logo carousel. Put Ryan Dobrin's name and title under the quote, it is published and it should look like it. Pull both write-ups from studiohawk.com/case-studies so the cards match the live pages. Close on the last sentence and cut. No outro card.

Cut from five results to two, because the three money numbers moved up to the credibility beat. What is left is the two that argue something specific rather than just proving competence. Sylvane is the only AI-native result in the bank, the only place we can say brand mentions and AI referral revenue in the same sentence, and the only attributed quote we hold besides Ashlie McKinnon's. The Motor Enclave is the rebuild, which is now the lead cause in the diagnosis and the qualifier in the hook, so it closes the loop the video opens. It carries its visibility figure only, because that case study publishes no revenue number. Say 621% as brand mentions and 145% as AI referral revenue month on month; overstating either turns the strongest proof we have into a liability.