The long-form pieces, all in one place: the VSL that sits on the audit page, plus both confirmation videos, one for the call funnel and one for the two-day event. Different rules from the ads, because these play to people who have already raised a hand, so SOP-03 governs the structure rather than SOP-27.
Two videos to film, each ticked as a whole. The beats inside them are the running order for the shoot, not separate deliverables. The confirmation video is the long frame that runs on the booked page; the short personal version was dropped on 5 September, and the webinar funnel has its own confirmation video on the webinar board.
One video. SOP-03's nine-step structure, filmed in one sitting on one camera with a teleprompter. Affluent audiences want 2 to 10 minutes and a $1M+ owner is firmly in that group, so 6:00 is inside the band. What has to be defended is the front of it: hook, credibility and diagnosis are done by 1:56, and if anything gets added it goes after that, never before. Step one, verbatim: tell them exactly what you can do for them, be direct. No music sting, no logo, no name yet.
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.
One video, and it is the reason someone shows up wanting the call rather than merely attending it. Sits under the personal 60 to 90 second welcome above, for the half who want depth before they commit half an hour. Every urgency claim in it traces to a count from the 222 sales transcripts: 46 asked how long results take without being prompted, 79 had a migration or rebuild in play, 114 raised a competitor, 71 raised AI search themselves and 7 said they found us through it, 81 were running paid. There is no invented deadline in the script and there should be no countdown graphic in the edit. Full script and the evidence behind each beat on the why-now page.
You're booked, and the call's in your calendar. Before it, a few minutes on why this is worth doing now, not someday. We went back through hundreds of our own sales calls with people in almost exactly your position, and four things kept coming up. Then I'll tell you what to bring, so the 30 minutes gets you a plan instead of a chat.
Straight to camera, sitting, no desk set dressing. This is the most human piece in the funnel and it should look like it was made for one person. No music under this beat.
SOP-28 wants the confirmation page to answer, not to sell, and SOP-18 puts a personal video at the centre of show rate. The sample size is deliberately not named on camera, on Harry's note: reciting the sample size makes it sound like a research paper and puts the viewer in the audience rather than in the conversation. Saying we went through our own calls does the same job in half the words. The counts stay on this page, where the evidence needs to be checkable, and out of the mouth, where it does not.
First. 1 in 5 people we speak to asks us, unprompted, how long this takes. It's one of the most common questions we get, and the answer is that it depends on the site, but it's months rather than weeks, and that's true no matter who you hire. Which means the size of the result isn't set by how hard you push once you start. It's set by when you start. That's the uncomfortable bit, but it's also good news, because it's the one thing you control. You can't control Google, the AI models or your competitors. You can control when you start.
Slow. This is the argument the whole video rests on and it should sound like something you'd say to a friend rather than a prospect. On screen, one card: one in five asks how long it takes. Nothing else. No countdown graphics anywhere in this video.
The strongest real urgency available, and it is entirely honest: 46 of the 220 transcripts that carry prospect speech asked about time to results without being prompted, which is 21%. It reframes delay as a cost without threatening anyone, and it is the one urgency argument that survives contact with a sceptic, because they already believe the premise. Jeremy's SOPs permit urgency only where it is genuine, and this is as genuine as it gets.
Second. More than a third of those conversations had a website rebuild, a migration or a replatform in them somewhere. Some were 3 months out. Some had just gone live. One company put it better than I could: they went live with a pile of new product pages, then worked out afterwards what they'd broken, and, in their words, said “revenue is down 34%, here we are”. That's the sequence to avoid. A migration is the single fastest way to become unreadable to a search engine and to AI, and it is also completely survivable if the mapping is done before the switch instead of diagnosed after it. So if you've got a rebuild, a rebrand or a replatform coming, say so on the call, because it changes the order of everything we'd recommend. And if you've done something recently and things feel quieter since, say that too. That's not a coincidence, and it's usually fixable.
Screen: a real crawl of a post-migration site, dead URLs and redirect chains visible, cursor moving. Do not name the client. Say "here we are" as the quote it is, with a beat before and after it.
78 of 220 calls raised a migration, rebuild, replatform or relaunch, which is 35%, the second most common circumstance in the corpus after competitors. It is also the highest-converting angle in the ad bank and the lead cause in the VSL's diagnosis, so this beat closes the loop for anyone who came in on a migration ad. The quote is verbatim from a prospect and the client is deliberately unnamed.
Third. Nearly half brought up a competitor without being asked, and most could name the exact rival who is outranking them right now, today. Being cited compounds. Once a model learns to name a company, that creates more places that mention them, which makes them easier to name next time. The gap doesn't stay the same size while you think about it. It widens on its own, slowly, in a direction that isn't yours. That's not me being dramatic, it's just how a feedback loop works. Before your call we'll pull the actual answers where a competitor is being named instead of you, with the question and the engine, so you're not taking my word for any of this. You'll see the list.
Screen: a live AI answer naming competitors, streaming, unedited, including the pause before the names appear. Do not speed it up. This is the single most persuasive frame in the funnel and it costs nothing to shoot fresh. Re-shoot monthly, a stale screenshot is a liability.
108 of 220, 49%, is the most common theme in the entire corpus, and 15 could name a rival outranking them that day. It said "more than half" until the counts were rebased onto a single denominator; 49% is not more than half, so the line now says nearly half. The compounding argument is the honest version of the ICP's fear of being left behind and it is the same mechanism the VSL's timing beat uses, so the two reinforce rather than repeat. Note what this beat does not do: it never says the window is closing.
Fourth, nearly a third brought up AI search themselves, and 2 in 10 told us on the call that they found us through it. They asked ChatGPT who the best SEO agency was, and it said us, and that's why they were sitting there. The mechanism I'm describing already worked. It worked on somebody with your job, with your budget, deciding who to trust with a real amount of money, and they never saw an ad. The only question left is whether it's working for you or for the company that comes up when someone asks about your category.
Screen: the prompt typed live, the answer streaming. Then cut back to Harry for the last two sentences with nothing on screen at all. Deliver "and they never saw an ad" flat, do not lean on it.
7 of 220 said they found StudioHawk through an AI answer, which is 3%. Small number, enormous argument, and the reason to state it as a count rather than a percentage: seven real people is concrete and 3% sounds like a rounding error. This is the only proof in the funnel where the product demonstrates itself on the buyer, and it is currently used nowhere else.
One more thing, quickly, because more than three quarters of these calls were with people already running paid. If that's you, you already know the shape of it. The leads stop the day the card stops. The cost per lead goes one direction over time, and it isn't down. None of it accumulates, so year three costs more than year one for the same result. I'm not going to tell you to turn your ads off. They're still a good supporting channel. But on the call it's worth putting the two numbers next to each other, what you spend a month to rent demand, against what it costs to own a position that keeps working. Bring the first number. We'll do the comparison honestly, including the cases where ads are the better option.
Screen: nothing, or a simple two-column comparison drawn live. No graphs. Say the last sentence like you mean it, because it is the line that makes the rest of the beat believable.
81 of 220, 37%, were running paid and comparing cost per lead. This is Harry's rent-versus-owning argument from the VSL, made once more with the corpus number behind it, and the concession at the end is doing real work: admitting that ads sometimes win is what buys permission for everything before it. SOP-25 and the ICP both point the same way, the buyer's first fear is being sold to by someone who would say anything.
So, the call itself. 30 minutes with a senior SEO strategist, not a salesperson reading a script. Before it we crawl your site and grade it against SOURCE, our 6 signals, and we pull the answers where you're being left out. You'll get the score, the citation gap, and a 90 day plan in the order we'd actually do it. You keep all of it in writing whether you hire us or not, and that's not a trick. A fair number of the businesses we audit ask us to run the plan, and that's how it pays for itself. If you do want us to run it afterwards, it starts from $2,000 a month, month to month, no lock-in, with 60 days notice. I'm telling you the price now so it isn't a reveal at the end of a call you've already given half an hour to.
Screen: the scorecard, the citation list and the ninety day plan as real documents. Price said at normal pace with no apology in the voice.
SOP-28 says the confirmation page pre-empts what the call would otherwise have to spend time on, and SOP-03 says the price is stated plainly and early. Saying it here rather than on the call is the single biggest show-rate and close-rate lever in the sequence, because 88% of the corpus raises price unprompted and the ones who feel ambushed by it disengage before the second half.
One more thing before what you should bring. Go and check us out before the call. Google us, ask ChatGPT what it knows about StudioHawk, read the case studies and the reviews, and bring whatever you find. I'd rather answer it than have you sit on it.
Flat, no smile, and quicker than the beats around it: this is an invitation, not a defence. Screen: a real Google results page for StudioHawk, unedited, then nothing at all for the month lines. The month shape is the webinar deck's own How Long slide (weeks 1 to 4 signals, months 2 to 4 citations, months 4 to 12 compounding), so the call funnel and the event agree. The Trustpilot sentence came out on Harry's call on 5 September; that is handled on the page side, not on camera.
SOP-28's central instruction for the main confirmation video: tell them you will help them do their due diligence, then acknowledge the average and the slow case out loud instead of hoping they do not look. The corpus makes trust the ICP's first fear. Redone on 5 September: the first version listed what a search would surface, item by item, and read as a defence; this one invites the search, frames how to read it in two sentences, and spends the rest on the honest result range, now in the deck's own words, which is the part that makes the 621 percent two minutes later believable.
Four things to bring, and they take about 10 minutes. One, three search terms, written as a sentence a real customer would type, not keywords. Two, go and ask ChatGPT who it recommends for that thing, in your area if you're local, in your category if you're not, and write down what comes back, including the names of competitors. Three, if you're running ads, the monthly cost. And four, if someone else runs your marketing, get them on the call. Not because you need permission, but because they're the one inside the site, and a plan that arrives second-hand dies in the handover. Do those four and the 30 minutes goes on what to do. Skip them and we'll spend half of it gathering information you already had.
On screen as a numbered list, held long enough to screenshot, because some people will. Say it slowly enough to be written down.
This is the agency half and it is also a show-rate mechanism: someone who has done ten minutes of preparation is materially more likely to turn up, and someone who has run the prompt has already seen the problem for themselves. Getting the marketing manager on the call comes straight from the corpus, where the owner buys and the manager executes, and the split is where good plans go to die.
Whatever you decide, you leave with the scorecard, the list of answers where someone else is named instead of you, and the 90 day plan. In writing, yours to keep, and yours to hand to whoever you like, including another agency. That's a deliberate decision on our part. If the plan is good enough to be worth stealing, that tells you more about whether to work with us than anything I could say in this video.
Flat, no smile on the last line, it is stronger straight. Documents on screen one more time, briefly.
Risk reversal, and the line about handing it to another agency is the strongest trust move available here because it is verifiable within thirty minutes of the call ending. It also quietly answers the corpus's most common private worry, which is being locked into something.
That's it. Block the time, do the four things, and bring the person who'd actually do the work. If something comes up, reply to the confirmation email and move it rather than skipping it, because the audit gets built either way and it's a waste for nobody to read it. See you on the call.
Warm, small smile, then cut. No outro card, no logo sting, no music.
The reschedule line is deliberate and it is worth defending against anyone who wants it removed for sounding soft. A no-show costs the build we have already done; a reschedule costs nothing and keeps a qualified person in the funnel. SOP-06 exists because the alternative is losing them silently.
One video, for the two-day event. Films into the video slot on the webinar's confirmed page. Different job from the call version: nobody is being reassured about a sales conversation here, they are being locked to a date. Confirm the decision, lock Sep 23 and 24, say what to do before day one, and kill the fear that it is a pitch. Polished rather than phone-shot, because it represents a paid event.
You're in. I'm Harry Sanders, and Sophie Brannon and I are looking forward to seeing you live.
Straight in, warm, energy up. Say the dates clearly, they are the point.
And you've picked the right moment to do this. This is the biggest change in how people find a business since Google: nine and a half billion visits a month go to AI tools now, up 70 percent in a year. In most markets, the spot AI recommends isn't locked in yet, and once it starts naming a business, it keeps naming it. It's already working: Samsung found us through a ChatGPT recommendation. This takes months, not weeks, so when you start matters more than anything. Somebody in your market is going to be the name AI gives. These two days are how you make sure it's you.
Energy up. This is the beat that makes them want to show up, not just remember to. Lean in on the last line.
If you haven't yet, add both days to your calendar with the buttons above this video, and move our email into your main inbox, because that's where your Zoom link comes from. There's no replay, so the calendar is what gets you in the room.
Glance up at the calendar buttons, which sit above the video on /confirmed. This is the practical job of the video.
Set up a free Claude account at claude dot ai before day two if you haven't got one already. That's where the three Claude skills we hand you will run. On the day, join from a computer with your website open, and have something to write on.
Matter of fact. The Claude account is the only homework.
Day one, you'll see how ChatGPT and Google's AI choose who to recommend, what they're saying about your market, and what renting traffic is really costing you. Day two is our framework on real websites, then we hand over the three skills and the setup guide, yours to keep.
Paint the payoff in one breath; anticipation is what show-up runs on. Three skills, matching both registration pages.
Watch your inbox for a few short emails before we start. See you live.
Small smile, hard cut.
Separate captures, so these tick individually. A VSL carries more cutaway than an ad does, and the credibility beat is where the room, press and awards footage earns its place. Everywhere else, screen recordings do more work.
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.
The longer working version of the same nine beats, plus how the shoot runs. Reference, not a deliverable.
If your business does over $1 million a year and search matters to how you get customers, this video is about one thing: finding out where AI search sends people in your market, and why it isn't sending them to you. Samsung found us that way, not through an ad. That's what our free AI Search audit does, and I'll explain exactly how it works.
If you're paying more every year for the same or fewer clicks, this video is about the one channel nobody can price you out of: where AI search sends buyers in your market, and why it isn't sending them to you. For businesses doing over a million a year. That's what our free audit finds, and I'll explain exactly how.
If you feel like you're getting left behind on AI search, this video is about finding out whether you actually are. Where the engines send people in your market, why it isn't to you, and what to do about it. For businesses doing over a million a year. That's the free audit, and here's how it works.
SOP-03 step one, verbatim rule: "Tell them exactly what you can do for them. Be direct." No music sting, no logo, no name yet. Three takes of the first fifteen seconds; everything after is identical and cut once. The page can serve the hook matching the ?a= tag the visitor arrived with, the same way the tag already reaches the application; default to the proof opening for untagged traffic.
I'm Harry Sanders. I founded StudioHawk at 17, and today our teams in Melbourne, London and Atlanta run search for brands like QuickBooks, Weber and HelloFresh. We've been named best large SEO agency 7 times. And the reason this audit exists: Samsung found us through ChatGPT. Not an ad, not a referral. The framework we'll audit you against is the one that made that happen.
SOP-03: "concrete numbers that are believable", "avoid irrelevant details". Founded at 17, three cities, three brands, seven awards, one mechanism. If the proof opening was used, Samsung is now the second mention, and that is deliberate.
Here's the industry picture in 30 seconds. AI answers are eating search. More of your buyers ask ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google's AI who to use, and those engines don't show ten blue links, they recommend 2 or 3 businesses. If you're one of them, you win a compounding channel you don't pay per click for. If you're not, your competitor does. And it doesn't matter whether you're paying an agency for SEO right now, spending on ads, or running it in-house: none of those reports tell you which side of that line you're on. That's the audit.
SOP-03 step three: sell the industry "why", compare and contrast, facts and trends. The new sentence names the three circumstances the application asks about, so the agency client, the paid spender and the in-house team each hear themselves. This beat sells the category, not us.
So here's what it is. A thirty-minute call with a senior member of my team. Free. Before the call we grade your site against SOURCE, the six-letter framework I wrote the book on, and we pull where AI engines currently cite your competitors instead of you. On the call we walk you through your scorecard, the citation gap, and the three moves that close the biggest gap first. You keep the plan whether you ever work with us or not.
SOP-03 step four: state the price upfront, explain what is included, and "avoid value stacking with inflated prices". Free is the price and is said as one. SOP-30 repeats the ban: no invented component prices, ever.
The obvious question: why free? Because some of the businesses we audit will want us to run the plan, and that's how our agency grows. No pressure mechanics, no countdown timer. And if you already have an SEO agency, this isn't a pitch to fire anyone: it's a second opinion on one specific thing, and you can hand the plan to them the same afternoon. If it makes sense to do yourself, we'll say so on the call.
SOP-03 step five: "answer their questions before they ask". The two that matter for a free offer to this buyer are the catch and the loyalty objection. SOP-04's version for affluent buyers of "I already have advisors": your approach complements, it does not duplicate.
Who it's for: established businesses doing at least $1 million a year with a live website, where search genuinely matters to how you get customers. Who it isn't for: if you're pre-revenue, or you collect audits for a drawer, skip the call and join our live session instead, it will serve you better. We put senior people on these calls and we protect their time, which is why there's a short application.
SOP-03 step six: describe the ideal client, state who it is not for "politely but firmly". SOP-04: affluent clients "prefer to feel they're being selected rather than pitched", so the application is framed as selection, not a hurdle. The bar is $1M+, everywhere.
The button below this video takes about 45 seconds. Five questions, we review every application, and if it's a fit you book straight onto the calendar.
SOP-03 step seven: "tell them exactly what you want them to do next". Effort, count, outcome, and the count now matches the form. This is the sentence the whole Bridge hangs on.
Sylvane, in Atlanta: 621 percent more mentions by AI engines, cited instead of watching competitors get recommended. Case-Mate, US retail: 95 percent revenue growth from organic search. First Fence of Georgia, a local service business: top-three rankings up 172 percent. Real businesses, and the case studies are linked on the page after you apply.
SOP-03 step eight: "actual screenshots, names, specific results, don't over-polish". On screen, the three result cards exactly as published on the confirmation page, one at a time, numbers as written. This closes the TODO(PROOF) that has sat in the script since August without inventing anything. SOP-30's placement rule for the page itself: one testimonial above the apply button, the three cards beside the form.
Worst case, you spend 30 minutes and leave with your site graded and a plan you own. Best case, you find the channel your next 5 years of customers come from. Apply below.
SOP-03 step nine: the risk reversal restated, key benefit repeated, final CTA. Cut on "below".
You're in, and applying for that call was the right move. 30 minutes on Zoom with a senior strategist, on where AI search is sending customers in your market and what to do about it.
Warm, direct to camera. Plays muted first, so the opening frame carries a caption card: "You're booked. Two questions above, then watch this."
So you know exactly who's on the other end: the team that runs search for QuickBooks, Weber and HelloFresh, the framework Samsung found us through, and results like Sylvane's 621 percent lift in AI mentions, which is on this page with the case study. You're going to look us up before we speak, and you should. Everything you'd want to check is on this page, and the short videos under this one answer the questions people ask us most.
SOP-28 main-video jobs two and four in one beat: "I'm here to help you do your research so that by the time we speak, you know exactly whether this is for you." The redirect to the modules is said here and again at the end.
Here's the honest version of what can go wrong. Some businesses we audit come back with a clean scorecard and nothing much to fix, and we'll tell you that and you'll have spent 30 minutes. Some find a gap they'd rather their own team closed, and they keep the plan and we never speak again. That's fine. The audit is free because a fair number do ask us to run it, and that's the whole model.
SOP-28 job three: "addresses major risks or objections, not shying away from worst-case scenarios", and the transparency rule: "acknowledge the downside… this honesty disarms skepticism faster than anything else". The catch answer said a third time, from a different angle, is what makes it believed.
Before we speak, someone on the team pulls your current search visibility and what your competitors are winning that you aren't, so the 30 minutes starts on your business. It's a conversation, not a pitch. If we can genuinely help we'll tell you exactly how; if we're not the right fit we'll say so and point you at the better path. If you already have an agency, treat this as a second opinion on one specific thing.
Mirrors the page copy under "What happens next" almost word for word. The page and the video must agree.
Two last things. Your calendar invite is in your inbox now, from StudioHawk; if it isn't in the main folder, drag it there so the reminders land. And a senior strategist is holding that slot for you; if something comes up, use the link in the invite to move it rather than miss it. See you on the call.
SOP-04's "make sure they don't forget" block, spoken: what email to look for, whitelist it, what happens next. Honest scarcity only, senior time is the constraint. No countdown.
Not the instant they book, and not the day before. SOP-32: too early interrupts the confirmation page and the first emails; too late and interest has drifted. The sweet spot is after the confirmation page and the credibility email have landed, inside the first few hours. And every lead gets contacted, including the ones the auto-score routed away from the calendar: "data shows leads lie on forms" and "some of the best buyers understate their readiness" (SOP-18, SOP-32). The routed ones get a human note pointing at the live session, not silence.
Hey [first name]! [Strategist] here with StudioHawk. I just had some time to get back to you about the AI Search audit you applied for. I've got two things I can send that I think will help a ton: the SOURCE scorecard we grade you against, so you know what's coming, or the ChatGPT citation check we ran for another business in your category. Let me know which you'd like and whether text or email works better. By the way, I'm the one you're talking to on [day] at [time]. Looking forward to it.
SOP-32's template, verbatim in shape. Both assets are real and already exist, which is the requirement. The choice is the qualification signal: whoever picks the citation check is further along. Any reply restarts the conversation. Send from a real phone; "manual outreach has infinitely higher visibility than any automated system".
Hi [first name], [strategist] here. I'm the one on your call [day]. I know we're all busy, so I'll keep this short: I had a look at [their site] before we speak and one thing jumped out that I want to show you. Nothing to prepare. See you [day].
SOP-32's "we're all busy" hook folded in. Do not reveal the finding; the unclosed loop is what gets them on the Zoom. Obviously personal, obviously not automated. Descript can swap the name if volume ever justifies it, but the point is that it looks like it was not.
Value first, never "following up". Send the asset they didn't pick. Then a second selfie. Then, for someone who was clearly interested and has gone silent, SOP-32's red-flags text, softened for this buyer: "Quick honest one: when a business goes quiet on simple questions it usually means something's changed on their side. If the timing's off, tell me and I'll park it. If it's still live, what do we need to get this done?" And before sending a booking link, one micro-commitment: "Great, I'll send my calendar link then, okay?"
SOP-32: "when a lead has shown interest and started ghosting", the red-flags message "usually results in the real objections or stall coming out". SOP-36's "what do we need to do to get this done?" from a senior person. SOP-32's micro-commitment rule: one more yes before the link. Look them up on Instagram too; a real profile that shows who you are made a 30 percent difference to reaching unresponsive leads in Jeremy's accounts.
24 hours, 2 hours, 10 minutes before, and a final check. Each reminder points back to the confirmation page if they claim they haven't seen it. The benchmarks Jeremy gives: under a 70 percent show rate, revisit the confirmation content; transparent page plus modules plus retargeting plus the email sequence takes funnels "from 50 to 60 percent to 80 percent plus"; manual contact before the call alone is worth about 30 percent. The leading indicator, before any of those numbers move, is what the strategist says about the calls.
The original script at /call-vsl was written when the application had eight questions. It has five. The corrected CTA beat is above; the original page should be updated to match or retired in favour of this one so nobody films the wrong number.
Every number spoken in both videos is already published on the confirmation page with a case-study link, or in the approved call VSL. Nothing new is claimed. Jeremy's own play-rate and completion figures are quoted as his, not as ours.
The two-question survey above the confirmation video, writing to the lead record and HubSpot. And the VSL hook selection by ?a= tag, which is a small change to vsl-boot.js : three video keys instead of one, chosen from the query string, defaulting to proof. Neither is large. Both are what makes the SOP-35 Bridge and the SOP-04 survey real rather than written down.
Three home runs and no average or honest miss. SOP-28 is specific that this reads as selected to a sophisticated buyer. The fix is a real client who got a modest result and is willing to say so on camera, not a rewrite.