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

I'm Harry Sanders, founder of StudioHawk. If your business does over a million a year, we help you get more leads and more revenue from SEO & AI search, channels you don't pay per click for and that compounds over time, with a written plan and a team of specialists behind you. You've probably already asked AI for what you sell and watched it name two or three competitors that aren't you. And if you've just rebuilt your site, or you're about to, this matters even more for you. It's likely you're already paying somebody to do parts of this for you, but reports comes back green, The revenue is flat. Give us 30 minutes, free, and we'll show you in writing why that's happening, and what to fix first.

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 started StudioHawk over a decade ago, as one of the first SEO only companies with direct access to specialists. Now 120 specialists across Atlanta, London and Melbourne, and the SEO team behind QuickBooks, Weber and HelloFresh. We've been named best large SEO agency 7 times, and 2 in 10 of the businesses we speak to now find us through ChatGPT, which is exactly the point. Here's what that looks like in revenue. Case-Mate, 95 percent more organic revenue. Clarks, 101 percent year on year in organic revenue. Then Bondi Sands, Aje, Acuity, Equity Estates, The Entourage, Dogline and Paragon, all written up on our site. And we only do this. No paid, no social, no web design.

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. Two money results land one card at a time, large (Tapt dropped on Harry's call, 14 September). 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? Usually it's one of three things. Your site was built in a way that AI can't read properly. Your pages say what everyone else's pages say. Or not enough of the web is vouching for you. We grade every site against SOURCE, six signals: Structure, Offsite, Uniqueness, Relevance, Credibility and Evaluation. Most of that never shows up in a standard ranking report, which is why yours is green and the leads aren't coming.

Overlay the SOURCE 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 confirmed on 5 September that the SOURCE whitepaper exists. It is not on the hub yet: drop the PDF into the shared folder and the editor cuts the six-pillar page from it for this overlay. Until it lands, this beat cannot be cut. 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 SOURCE 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.

Why does the timing matter? This is the biggest change in how people find businesses since Google. Nine and a half billion visits a month across the AI tools now, up 70 percent in a year, and that's Similarweb's number, not ours. It's still early, so the answers aren't locked in. But once AI starts naming a business, it keeps naming it. That works for you, or for your competitor.

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: a free AI search audit. 30 minutes with a senior SEO strategist. Before the call we crawl your site and grade it against SOURCE, the six signals that decide whether Google or AI recommends you. We pull the actual answers where a competitor is being named instead of you, and tell you which of the six is holding you back. Rebuilt your site, or about to? We crawl the old one against the new one too. Then you get a custom 90 day action plan, starting with the three moves that close the biggest gap first. You leave with all of it in writing whether you hire us or not. Why free? Because a fair number of the businesses we audit ask us to run the plan. That's the whole mechanic.

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 SOURCE 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 citation gap is back, on Harry's call. It came out in an earlier trim and it was the one deliverable in this beat that is proof rather than promise: a list of the literal answers naming somebody else, with the query and the engine, which the prospect can check the moment the call ends. 49% of the corpus raises a competitor unprompted, the single most common theme in 220 transcripts, so it is also the thing they most want out of the audit. It costs four seconds. The custom ninety day action plan stays the other half of what makes this an offer rather than a diagnosis, and it is what a marketing manager takes to their owner.

What I want you to do: get a calculator. Last month's ad spend, times 12. That's your rent. It stops the day the card stops. AI search is owning. It compounds. If you want us to run the plan afterwards, it starts from $2,000 a month, month to month, no lock-in, with 60 days notice. If you've heard enough, the application is under this video.

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.

Two things people wonder but don't ask. How long does this take? Months, not weeks. The first month moves signals, citations usually start showing up in months 2 to 4, and from there it compounds. And would this work for my business? We do this for a phone case brand, a shoe retailer, a race track and a bookkeeping firm. The six signals are the same in all of them. What changes is which one is broken.

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.

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.

Let me be honest - you should already be doing something with SEO, whether that's an in-house team, 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.

Click the button under this video. It's five questions, about 45 seconds. If it's a fit, you pick your time straight away, and a senior strategist reads your answers before the call.

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.

Let me close this video with a quick story. Sylvane sell air quality gear against Home Depot and Lowe's. They were moving platforms, which is exactly where most businesses lose ground, and came out with brand mentions inside the AI models up 621 percent, and AI referral revenue up 145 percent month on month. Ryan Dobrin's review, in full: great to work with, 5 stars, no notes. The Motor Enclave rebuilt their whole site and came out 218 percent up in visibility instead of down. Worst case, you spend 30 minutes and leave with the plan in writing. Best case, you find out what's been quietly costing you while it's still cheap to fix. The application is right under this video. If it's a fit, you pick your time straight away.

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.