Everything that gets filmed or built for the free AI Search audit at sh.studiohawk.com. This is the production board rather than the reference copy: the scripts sit in the order you shoot them, the status of each one is saved for everyone, and every item links back to the bank it came from.
SOP-31: one reason to buy per ad, filmed hook to CTA, never a hook swapped onto a shared body. SOP-27 timing: hook in the first 3 to 5 seconds, 10 to 20 seconds of reasons, 5 to 10 seconds of CTA. Each carries one quick proof or stat, one mini-story and one objection in the 30, two or three in the 60.
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.
Film the 60-second cut. A proof story with a turn in it. The self-audit only lands once you know what was audited, and that setup does not fit in 30.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Film the 30-second cut. One number carries it. Case-Mate, 95 percent. Room makes a stat weaker, not stronger.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Film the 30-second cut. Objection-first: the whole ad is the objection named in the hook and answered once. Nothing to add at 60.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Film the 60-second cut. The study: three figures, a ranked chart, and the statistics contradiction. The contradiction is the payoff and it needs the setup.
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.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Film the 30 and the 60. The flagship of the rising-cost point, and the one reason worth a genuine A/B on length. The 30 is two numbers and a turn; the 60 adds the insurance argument.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Film the 30-second cut. A demo. The viewer does the exercise on the same device, and the pause after 'times twelve' is the ad. Length dilutes it.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Film the 60-second cut. A reframe, not a claim. 'No auction' needs the auction explained first, which is 20 seconds before the point lands.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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).
Film the 60-second cut. A risk argument. Building a second channel before you need one requires the counterfactual, and the counterfactual is the sell.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Film the 60-second cut. Whiteboard arithmetic. Three numbers in sequence and a conclusion. Unfilmable in 30.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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 know the exact month 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.
Source: Call bank v2
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 caught before the damage. The counterfactual is the sell, and 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.
Source: Call bank v2
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. 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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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. Being useful on camera is the entire mechanism here.
"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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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. 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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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 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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Film the 60-second cut. A concession then a turn. 'You are probably right' has to be said properly or it reads as sarcasm.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Film the 30-second cut. The sharpest claim in the bank and it is visual: green report, empty answer, done.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Film the 30-second cut. A question hook. The ad is the question; answering it yourself is what kills it.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Film the 60-second cut. A list of three. Lists need room or they become a blur.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
Reason to buy: the report they pay for measures positions; the business runs on revenue. The audit reframes what SEO should be accountable to.
Film the 60-second cut. A comparison, and comparisons need both sides shown before the point.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Film the 30-second cut. Pure objection handling. One sentence, one reassurance, one CTA.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Film the 30-second cut. A demo. Prompt, answer, absence. The silence after the three names is the argument.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Film the 30-second cut. An in-market opener. It works because it is abrupt.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
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.
Film the 30-second cut. A circumstance opener. Names a situation and stops.
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.
Source: Call bank v2
No face, no film day. The text carries the argument and the b-roll only has to be neutral. 12 to 22 seconds, one idea per card, minimum 1.4s per card and 2.2s for any card carrying a number.
Reason: the demo does the arguing. Nobody needs to be told they are missing from the answer if they watch it happen.
Ask ChatGPT who the best in your category is.
B-roll: a real prompt being typed. No face.
Watch it name three businesses.
The answer streams in. Let it actually stream, do not speed it up. Three competitor names visible, blurred only if legally required.
You are not one of them.
Hold. Nothing moves. This is the whole ad.
That answer is decided by six signals on your site.
Free 30-minute audit. You keep the plan.
CTA card, hold 3s. sh.studiohawk.com. Small line: for businesses doing $1M+.
Source: Formats
Reason: two sourced numbers, one landlord. Pure text format, because numbers read faster than they are heard.
Your ads did not get worse.
Cost per lead, 2022: $40.74
Number card. Source line beneath in 400 weight: WordStream.
Cost per lead, 2025: $70.11
Same layout. The jump does the work.
And paid clicks are down 68% where AI answers.
Source line: Seer Interactive, 2025.
The rent went up. The street got quieter.
Same landlord. Build the channel you own.
CTA card, hold 3s.
Source: Formats
Reason: StudioHawk's own study. The only reason in either bank that no competitor can run, because no competitor has the data.
We measured 1.2 million AI referrals.
600+ businesses. 7.5 million pages.
Plain numbers. No animation on the count.
Which formats does AI actually cite?
Tools and calculators. 7.5x their share.
Ranked bar chart builds, one bar at a time. Static chart, not a motion graphic. A plain chart reads as data, an animated one reads as an ad.
Comparison pages came fifth. Statistics came last.
Most content budgets aim at the bottom. Free audit.
CTA card, hold 3s. Small source line: StudioHawk, Format Leverage, August 2026.
Source: Formats
Reason: the exercise does the qualifying inside the creative. Works better as a reel than a talking head, because the viewer does it on the same device.
Last month's ad spend. Times twelve.
B-roll: a phone calculator, real thumb, real numbers.
Do it now. I will wait.
Hold on the calculator. Let the pause be uncomfortable.
That is your annual rent.
It stops the day you stop paying. Someone else sets the price.
We will price the channel you own against it. Free.
CTA card, hold 3s.
Source: Formats
Reason: the person who is losing has no symptom to look at. The reel shows the green report and the empty AI answer side by side, which no talking head can do as fast.
Your ranking report is green.
B-roll: a real report, all green arrows.
Your traffic is flat anyway.
Because the answer sits above the ranking.
Split screen: green report left, AI answer right with three names, none of them theirs.
Free audit of the layer your report cannot see.
CTA card, hold 3s.
Source: Formats
One claim, one number at most, one CTA, legible at 320px on a phone at arm's length. 4:5 primary, 1:1 fallback.
Source: Formats
For the argument that needs three steps. Card one is a hook and never a title slide, and card two pays it off immediately rather than making the reader wait.
Reason: the audit is abstract until you list what is being audited. This is the carousel that converts "sounds vague" into "I want to know how we score".
Six things decide whether an AI recommends your business. Most sites fail four.
Hook card. No logo, no title. The number four is the accent.
1. Can the machine actually read your pages, or is your content locked inside JavaScript?
2. Does anything on your site do a job an article cannot? Tools earn 7.5x their share of AI traffic.
Source line, small: StudioHawk Format Leverage, 2026.
3. Is there evidence on the page, or only claims? Statistics and citations get cited 30 to 40% more.
4. Does the rest of the internet agree you exist? The machine checks who else says so.
5. Is your category described in the words buyers actually ask in, or the words you use internally?
6. Is any of it maintained? A stale answer is worse than no answer. Free 30-minute audit, we grade all six.
CTA card. sh.studiohawk.com. Small line: for businesses doing $1M+. You keep the plan either way.
Source: Formats
Reason: the study reads naturally as a thread because it has a finding, a twist and a conclusion. Set each card as a tweet-styled block on a plain ground. The format signals "someone is telling you something" rather than "someone is selling you something", which is exactly why it works and exactly why it must not carry a hard pitch until card six.
We got sick of guessing what AI search rewards, so we measured it. 1,203,748 AI referral sessions. 600+ businesses. 7.5 million pages. Here is what actually gets cited.
Tweet-card styling: avatar, handle, plain text, no imagery. Real StudioHawk handle, never a fabricated account.
We classified every page by format, then asked which formats earn more AI traffic than their share of the internet says they should.
Winner, and it was not close: tools, templates and calculators. 7.5x their share of pages.
Comparison pages, the format every agency sells as the AI-search play, came fifth.
Statistics round-ups came last. Which looks like a contradiction, because pages carrying statistics get cited 30 to 40% more often. It is not. A statistic is an ingredient, not a format. A page whose only job is holding numbers is a summary, and summarising is the one job the machine never needed you for.
The longest card in the set. It earns the length; do not trim it.
Full study is public. If you want to know where your own content sits on that list, we will grade it free in 30 minutes.
CTA card. sh.studiohawk.com.
Only ever build a tweet-thread card from a post that was genuinely published, or from plain text on a plain ground with no platform styling at all. A fabricated screenshot of a tweet that was never posted is a real exposure, and it is the kind of shortcut that costs an ad account. If the thread has not been posted, post it first, then screenshot it.
Source: Formats
Reason: proof stacked in one place, for people who have already seen a cold ad and are deciding whether this is real. Cold audiences do not care about your clients yet, which is why this format ranks fifth and why it should be excluded from cold sets entirely.
We ran the audit on ourselves first. Then on these.
Hook card. The self-audit is what makes the rest of the cards land as evidence rather than boasting.
Case-Mate: 95 percent.
Set the metric exactly as it is stated on the call bank, reason 22. Do not restate it more impressively than the source does.
First Fence of Georgia: top-three rankings up 172 percent.
A local service business, which is the objection-handling card. Label it as such on the card: "not a big-brand game".
"Great to work with! Five stars, no notes." Ryan Dobrin, Content Marketing Manager, Sylvane.
CLEARED. Published on Sylvane's own case study page, so no fresh approval needed. A second cleared quote exists: Ashlie McKinnon, General Manager, Woodbury Furniture, from the SOURCE manuscript. Those two are the whole approved set; anything else still needs sourcing.
The same six-signal framework runs for QuickBooks and Weber as for a fence company in Georgia.
Only name clients whose relationship is already public. Check before it ships.
Free 30-minute audit, graded on the same six signals. You keep the plan.
CTA card. sh.studiohawk.com. For businesses doing $1M+.
Source: Formats
Reason: the strongest thing a paid event can show is what someone said after attending the last one. This is genuinely blocked until a cohort has run and been surveyed, and it should stay blocked rather than be filled with client testimonials that are about the agency and not the event.
Status: blocked until the September 23 to 24 cohort has run and been surveyed. That makes it an October asset at the earliest. Nothing else on this page depends on it, so it should not hold up the other four formats.
Source: Formats
Six proof-led pieces out of the manuscript. SOP-25: credibility never opens a cold piece and never carries one on its own, it sits underneath a claim already made. All six are retargeting assets.
The reason: the agency's best client arrived the exact way the agency tells clients they should be arriving. No ad, no referral, no conference handshake. A machine that had never spoken to StudioHawk decided they were the name worth saying, and one of the largest companies on earth acted on it.
"The best client we never pitched arrived through a chatbot. Samsung. No ad, no referral, nobody in the room who knew us. Somewhere between a question typed into a chat box and the answer that came back, a machine decided we were the name worth saying. That is the entire thing we do for clients, and it is how we got the biggest one on our own list. On the audit we show you what it would take for that to happen in your category."
B9, then B1.
Why it is first: this is the strongest credibility story in the whole arsenal and it is currently used nowhere. It is proof and demonstration in the same sentence, and it pre-empts the "do you actually do this yourselves" objection before anyone raises it.
The reason: separates the agency from everyone repeating industry assumptions. The ranking patents, the antitrust testimony, 2,500-plus pages of leaked API documentation, all 182 pages of the rater guidelines, then tested against 1.2 million AI referral sessions across 600-plus businesses.
"Everybody has a theory about AI search. We went and read what Google wrote down." Then the list, on screen, one document at a time. Close: "Where we make a claim about how the machines decide, it is built on what Google wrote down or on our own data. Not on industry assumptions. Free audit, thirty minutes, and you keep the plan."
B1 throughout, B4 at the close.
The reason: the framework has a witness. Lawrence spent six years as a contracted human rater applying the same Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines the six-signal framework is built on.
Lawrence to camera. "For six years, Google and Bing paid me to grade their results. Same 182-page manual the whole industry speculates about. I did not have to guess what it says, I had to apply it." Then Harry: "That is who built the scorecard we run on your site."
B1 under Lawrence's line.
Note: this is a second face in the library, which SOP-25 supports for the second layer. It also makes the agency look like a firm rather than a founder, which is the objection sitting under "we tried SEO before".
The reason: a single quote does the entire category reframe. "We do not understand documents. We fake it. If a document gets a positive reaction, we figure it is good."
read the quote, name the source, then: "That is Google, internally, explaining ranking to its own engineers. It is why the web pointing at you matters more than what you say about yourself, and it is the half of this most sites have never worked on."
B2, then B1.
Warning: quote it exactly and credit it exactly. The strength of this piece is that it is verifiable, and paraphrasing it destroys the only thing it has.
The reason: for the segment that has heard enough talking. Clarks and Woodbury, real screens, cursor moving, numbers on the card as they appear.
almost none. "Clarks. Number one for school shoes at peak season. 101 percent year on year in organic revenue." Beat. "Woodbury. Referring domains up 52 percent, branded clicks up 93." Beat. "Same six signals. Free audit."
B8 throughout, B10 as the final card.
The reason: the founder story, told flat. StudioHawk was started in 2015 by a seventeen-year-old who was homeless at the time, and is now 120-plus specialists across Australia, the UK and the US.
no swelling music, no hero framing. "I started this at seventeen. I did not have anywhere to live at the time. Eleven years later it is a hundred and twenty people in three countries, and it is still the only thing I do."
B5, one card of B7, nothing else.
Warning: this is the piece most likely to be filmed badly. SOP-35 bans hype and audacious claims, and a founder story is where hype creeps in. Told flat it builds trust; told as an origin myth it does the opposite, and it will pull exactly the wrong audience.
SOP-02: 15 to 20-plus short vertical pieces between booking and the call, one video per ad set, nobody sees a piece twice. Film these vertical and they serve the confirmation page too, per SOP-28.
0-5s: "Here's exactly what's in the free audit, so nothing on the call is a surprise." 5-40s: Three things. A score on six signals, the ones the engines use to decide who to recommend, each one green, amber or red. A list of the actual answers where a competitor is named instead of you, with the query and the engine. And three moves, in the order to do them. That's the document. It's about four pages. 40-55s: "We build it before we speak, so the thirty minutes is spent on what to do about it, not on gathering information."
Kills: "what am I actually getting". Screen: the scorecard, the citation list, the three moves, as real pages. No pitch.
0-5s: "Sylvane in Atlanta went from being ignored by the answer engines to being cited six hundred and twenty-one percent more. Here's what actually changed." 5-45s: Nothing about their rankings. We changed what the engines could read: structured the product pages so a machine could lift an answer out, published the comparison content buyers actually ask for, and got the site corroborated in the places the engines already trust. Six signals, worked in order. 45-55s: "The number's on the case study. The method's the same one we grade you against."
Kills: "is the big number real, and is it luck". Show the case-study page. Numbers exactly as published.
0-5s: "People ask how we know which answers name a competitor and not you. Here's the method, it's not magic." 5-45s: We take the questions your buyers actually ask, forty to a hundred of them in your category and your region, run them through ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google's AI, and log every business each answer names. Then we look at why: what those sites publish that yours doesn't, and where they're cited that you're not. That's the gap, query by query. 45-55s: "You'll see the raw list on the call. It's usually the part people photograph."
Kills: the second-layer "how do you actually do that". Screen: a real query list and the answer log, competitor names blurred.
0-5s: "A fair question before a call: if we did say yes, what does that actually look like?" 5-45s: A monthly retainer, a named strategist, and the three moves from your audit as the first ninety days. You see the same scorecard every month, so you know whether the needle moved. No lock-in beyond the initial term, and if your own team wants to run part of it, we'd rather that than pretend we're the only option. 45-55s: "But that's a conversation for after the audit, not before. First we find out if there's a gap worth closing."
Kills: the unasked "what happens if I say yes". SOP-02: sell the next step, not the end result, so the call stays the point. Keep it plain; no pricing on video.
0-5s: "Does the platform matter? Shopify, WordPress, Webflow, something your nephew built in 2016?" 5-45s: For the audit, no. The six signals are about what the engines can read and trust, not what it's built on. For the fixes, sometimes. A couple of the moves are easier on some platforms than others, and we'll say which on the call. Nothing in the plan requires rebuilding your site. 45-55s: "If it's live and it loads, we can grade it."
Kills: a quiet technical worry that stops people applying. Calm, instructional.
0-5s: "Good. Keep them. This isn't a pitch to turn your ads off." 5-45s: Ads are rent: they work the day you pay and stop the day you stop, and your cost per lead is up seventy-two percent since 2022, forty dollars to seventy. That's fine while it's fine. The audit is about the other channel, the one where a machine names two or three businesses when someone asks, with no auction. Most businesses that run ads well have never checked whether they're in that answer. 45-55s: "Bring your cost per lead to the call. The plan gets priced against it."
Kills: the paid-first owner's "why would I need this". Concede in the first line. WordStream figures only.
0-5s: "If your rankings are fine, this is the one video to watch before the call." 5-45s: A ranking is where you sit on a page of ten links. More of your buyers never reach that page now. They ask a machine, it names three businesses, they call one. Your position three is real, it's just read by fewer people every month, and the report can stay green while the channel under it moves. We measure the thing the report doesn't: whether you get named. 45-55s: "On the call we'll show you both numbers side by side."
Kills: the "why are we even talking" objection from a well-ranked business. Flat delivery, no drama.
0-5s: "A lot of the businesses we speak to have paid for SEO before and can't point to what it did. That's usually not the SEO's fault." 5-45s: It's usually the measurement. Ranking reports don't tell you whether a customer arrived, so 'it didn't work' often means 'nobody could show me it did'. The audit measures the output: where you're named, where a competitor is, and what that's worth. If it turns out the old work was fine, you'll see that too. 45-55s: "Either way you leave with a number you can hold anyone to, including us."
Kills: skepticism from a past bad experience. Validate the concern, reframe the cause. Never blame the previous agency by name.
0-5s: "First Fence of Georgia. Fences and gates, local service area, real customers who need something built this month." 5-45s: Their top-three rankings went up a hundred and seventy-two percent on the same six signals we run for Samsung. The engines don't care how big you are. They care whether they can read your site, trust it, and lift an answer out of it. A local business that gets that right gets recommended in its area, and nobody can outbid it for the spot. 45-55s: "If you're past a million a year with a live site, you're the size this is for."
Kills: "this is for big brands". The bar is stated as fact, not as a warning.
0-5s: "One thing that saves everyone a second call: bring whoever else has a say in the decision." 5-40s: The audit produces a plan with three moves in order. If the person who signs off on marketing spend isn't on the call, you'll spend the next week explaining it to them from memory. If they are, they hear it from the strategist, ask their own questions, and you both leave with the same picture. 40-50s: "Camera optional, nothing to prepare. Just the right people in the room."
Kills: the decision-maker gap that turns one call into two. The page already says it; the video makes it a request from a face.
0-5s: "The first five minutes of the call are you talking, not us. Here's what we'll ask." 5-40s: What's the number one thing you want out of this, in your words: more leads, less ad spend, a specific competitor you keep losing to. And how soon you want it handled. The scorecard doesn't know either of those, and the three moves change depending on the answers. 40-50s: "If you answered the two questions on the confirmation page, we've already read them. If not, we'll ask."
Kills: "what will they ask me". Ties to the SOP-04 survey on the confirmation page.
0-5s: "After the call, you get a document. Here's what's in it and what isn't." 5-40s: Your scorecard on the six signals. The citation list, query by query. The three moves in order, with what each one takes. What's not in it: a proposal, a price list, or a countdown. If you want to talk about us running it, you'll ask, and we'll answer then. 40-50s: "Hand it to your own team, your agency, or nobody. It's yours."
Kills: "will I get pitched afterwards". Expectation-setting that also busts the sales-pitch objection a third time.
The full build needs 100 people in the pool. Run the SOP-06 small version now, film the library either way, and switch the week the pool clears 100.
No US SMS until registered. Everything above degrades to email until then, and the show-rate gain SOP-32 promises is mostly a text-message gain.
The webinar recording and the book exist; whether the recording is cut into usable 10 to 15 minute sections, and which podcasts Harry has guested on, has not been checked. Five pieces is the floor.
Every result in the emails and pieces is published on the confirmation page. The cost-per-lead figures are WordStream/LocaliQ's, 2022 to 2025 ($40.74 to $70.11, up 72 percent), and the 68 percent AI Overview click drop is Seer Interactive, September 2025. Both are sourced in the SOURCE manuscript's Notes. The floating 57 percent figure is superseded and is not used anywhere on this page.
What to shoot once and reuse everywhere, and what each piece of footage is allowed to support.
What it is: Wide and mid shots of Harry presenting to a full room. Cutaways of the audience, not just the speaker.
Where it goes: Use it under any claim about authority, or about the two-day event being a real room rather than a webinar deck. It is the best asset the event funnel has because it shows what the buyer is buying. Do not use it under a results or data claim: a full room proves attention, not outcomes, and pairing it with a number reads as misdirection.
What it is: Harry on air or quoted, with the outlet's name legible. One clean frame per outlet.
Where it goes: Third-party credibility, and it survives sound off. Two seconds, middle third. Never open with it, and never cut three outlets together: a montage of logos reads as an agency sizzle reel, which is exactly the register SOP-35 warns against.
What it is: The wall, or one trophy being handed over. Forty-plus awards exist. Use one shot.
Where it goes: Middle third of a piece answering 'are you actually different'. SOP-35 is explicit that the bigger the claim the lower the quality of the person it attracts, and awards are the easiest thing on this list to overdo. One frame, once, per piece.
What it is: 120-plus specialists across three countries. Real desks, real screens, nobody staged pointing at a laptop.
Where it goes: Under any line about being a firm rather than a founder, which is the objection sitting under 'we tried an agency before'. Also the safest filler when a script needs a cutaway and nothing else fits.
What it is: A live AI answer, a real SERP, a real client dashboard, a cursor that moves like a person's.
Where it goes: Everywhere. The highest-value footage on this list and the only category that expires: re-shoot monthly, because the answers change and a stale screenshot becomes a liability.
What it is: The 182-page rater guidelines, the 2,500-page API leak, antitrust exhibits, an open ranking patent.
Where it goes: Under any claim about how the machines decide. The only footage that proves someone read the source, it costs nothing to capture, and no competitor has it.
a slow scroll through the actual documents. All 182 pages of Google's Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines. The 2,500-plus pages of leaked Content Warehouse API documentation and its 14,014 attributes. The internal Google slides and sworn testimony from the US antitrust trial. A ranking patent, open, with the title visible.
Why it works: every agency says "we know how Google works". This is the only footage that proves someone read the source. It costs nothing, it cannot be faked convincingly, and it makes the next claim in the piece land as fact rather than opinion.
Where it goes: under any claim about how the machines decide. Specifically the "how we pull the citation gap" piece and "what the free audit actually contains".
that sentence, alone, as a full-screen card, credited beneath it: Google internal presentation, surfaced in the US antitrust trial. Then cut to Harry.
Why it works: it is Google saying the quiet part on the record, and it reframes the whole category in one line: the system measures the reaction around a document at least as much as the words inside it. Nobody in the market is using it.
Where it goes: the strongest possible opener for a second-layer piece, and the best single card in the library for a static reel.
Lawrence Hitches to camera, thirty seconds. He spent six years as one of the contracted human raters who grade results for Google and Bing against the Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines the framework is built on.
Why it works: this is the single most defensible credibility claim the agency owns and it is currently used nowhere. Not "we studied the guidelines", but "one of us was handed them and paid to apply them, for six years". It turns the six-signal framework from a marketing construct into something with a witness behind it.
Where it goes: the "what the free audit actually contains" piece, and it deserves its own piece. See C3 below.
the Format Leverage ranked bar chart, static, five bars, held for four seconds. Source card beneath: StudioHawk, 24 August 2026, 1,203,748 AI referral sessions across 600-plus businesses and 7.5 million classified pages.
Why it works: original research, published, quotable by name. A plain chart reads as data; an animated one reads as an ad, so do not animate it.
Where it goes: anywhere a format or content recommendation is made.
the manuscript or proof copy on a desk, hands turning pages, the notes section with its citations visible. Two or three seconds, no lingering.
Why it works: a book is the oldest credibility shorthand there is and it survives sound-off. It also quietly answers "is this person actually an authority or just running ads".
Where it goes: as a two-second cutaway inside any long-form piece. Never as a hook, because leading with a book reads as selling a book.
the foreword page, with the author's line visible: the founder of iProspect, the first search engine marketing firm, which grew into a global agency of 8,000 people across 93 markets.
Why it works: borrowed authority from the person who invented the category, and he wrote it voluntarily. One card, no voiceover needed.
Where it goes: long-form layer only. It needs the context of a longer piece to mean anything.
one shot, not a montage. Forty-plus industry awards, Forbes 30 Under 30, B&T Entrepreneur of the Year, and Agency Leader of the Year at the US Search Awards 2026 for Sophie Brannon, who leads the US arm.
Why it works: it is real and it is checkable.
The warning matters more than the asset: SOP-35 is explicit that the bigger the claim, the lower the quality of the person it attracts. Awards persuade peers and impress nobody who is deciding whether to spend money. Use one card, once, in the middle of a piece, never as a hook and never as a sequence.
Where it goes: the "we tried SEO before and it didn't work" objection piece, where the question underneath is "are you actually different".
a real account, real numbers, cursor moving, no zoom-and-swoosh. Clarks: number one for "school shoes" at peak season, first-page visibility on 90 percent-plus of targets, 101 percent year-on-year lift in organic revenue. Woodbury Furniture: referring domains up 52 percent, branded clicks up 93 percent year on year, 40-plus editorial placements including the AFR and news.com.au.
Why it works: a moving cursor over a real dashboard is the cheapest proof-of-life signal in direct response, and both of these results are already published in the book, which means they are cleared.
Where it goes: under "where the 621 percent came from" and every objection piece.
a real prompt, typed live, where the answer names a StudioHawk client. Let it stream. Do not speed it up and do not cut the pause before the names appear.
Why it works: it is the product demonstrating itself. Everything else on this page is a claim about a result; this is the result happening on camera.
Where it goes: everywhere. This is the highest-value single asset on the list and it should be re-shot monthly, because the answers change and a stale screenshot is a liability.
a plain quote card. "The team came up with creative PR and SEO campaigns that got people actually talking about our brand." Ashlie McKinnon, General Manager, Woodbury Furniture.
Why it works: it is the one named, attributed client quote already published in the book, so it needs no fresh approval. Every other testimonial in this funnel is still blocked on getting quotes in writing; this one is not.
Where it goes: the testimonial carousel on the formats page, which is otherwise entirely blank, and as a mid-piece card in the objection layer.
Dimensions, safe areas, type and colour, once, for every format on this page. Nothing here gets filmed.