📦 deps(thirdparty): update snapshots
This commit is contained in:
ci[bot]
@@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
|
||||
# Offer Anatomy
|
||||
|
||||
A complete offer has six components. Skip any one and conversion suffers — usually noticeably.
|
||||
|
||||
## The six components
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Component | Question it answers | Where it fails |
|
||||
|---|-----------|---------------------|----------------|
|
||||
| 1 | **Core deliverable** | What do they get? | Too vague, or pitched as features instead of outcome |
|
||||
| 2 | **Bonus stack** | What else do they get that makes the core feel undervalued? | Either no bonuses, or inflated/fake bonuses |
|
||||
| 3 | **Guarantee** | What happens if it doesn't work? | None, wrong type, or over-promising |
|
||||
| 4 | **Scarcity / urgency** | Why now, not later? | None, fake, or destructively manipulative |
|
||||
| 5 | **Name** | What is this thing called? | Generic, internal-jargon, or no name at all |
|
||||
| 6 | **Price + payment structure** | What do they pay and how? | Single number with no payment flexibility |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Core deliverable
|
||||
|
||||
The thing they actually get.
|
||||
|
||||
### Define it as an outcome, not a feature list
|
||||
|
||||
- **Feature-pitched (weak):** "6 modules, 24 lessons, weekly calls, private community."
|
||||
- **Outcome-pitched (strong):** "A working customer-acquisition system that brings 5 qualified leads per week within 60 days — built with you, not handed to you."
|
||||
|
||||
The features still matter — buyers want to know what they're getting — but the *frame* is the outcome. Features support the outcome, they don't replace it.
|
||||
|
||||
### Define the scope explicitly
|
||||
|
||||
What's in. What's out. What's optional. Buyers buy clarity; ambiguity erodes perceived likelihood.
|
||||
|
||||
Example scope statement:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Includes:
|
||||
- 90-day program with weekly live calls (recorded)
|
||||
- Private Slack with daily founder access
|
||||
- 12 fill-in-the-blank templates
|
||||
- 1 90-minute strategy session with a senior strategist
|
||||
|
||||
Doesn't include:
|
||||
- 1:1 calls outside the strategy session
|
||||
- Implementation of the work (you/your team does this; we coach)
|
||||
- Tools and software (you provide; we recommend specific stacks)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Match the depth to the buyer's stage of awareness
|
||||
|
||||
Sophisticated buyers want the methodology and scope. New-to-category buyers want the dream outcome and proof. Read your audience.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Bonus stack
|
||||
|
||||
What you add to make the core feel undervalued at the asking price.
|
||||
|
||||
Bonuses do three jobs at once:
|
||||
1. **Raise perceived value** of the total offer
|
||||
2. **Lower perceived risk** — even if the core underdelivers, "I got X for free"
|
||||
3. **Close specific objections** — each bonus can target a different buying objection
|
||||
|
||||
### How to construct bonuses
|
||||
|
||||
For each major objection your buyer has, add a bonus that closes it:
|
||||
|
||||
| Objection | Targeted bonus |
|
||||
|-----------|---------------|
|
||||
| "I don't have time to implement this" | Done-for-you setup, day 1 |
|
||||
| "I don't know which tools to use" | Pre-vetted tool stack with discount codes |
|
||||
| "What if I get stuck?" | 30-day async support |
|
||||
| "I'm not sure my team will buy in" | Stakeholder pitch deck for your team |
|
||||
| "I've tried something like this before and it didn't work" | Case study of someone in your exact situation |
|
||||
|
||||
A 4-bonus stack that closes 4 specific objections converts massively better than a 4-bonus stack of generic "extras."
|
||||
|
||||
### Don't inflate
|
||||
|
||||
"$50,000 in bonuses!" on a $500 offer reads as scam. The asymmetry destroys trust.
|
||||
|
||||
Bonuses should:
|
||||
- Have a stated value the buyer can verify (compare to a comparable product)
|
||||
- Total to less than 2x the price (e.g., a $1K offer can have ~$1.5K in bonuses comfortably)
|
||||
- Be things you'd actually sell separately if you wanted
|
||||
|
||||
For the full bonus-stacking framework, see [bonus-stacking.md](bonus-stacking.md).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Guarantee
|
||||
|
||||
What happens if it doesn't work.
|
||||
|
||||
A guarantee directly raises perceived likelihood of achievement (the buyer thinks: "they'll only offer this if they're sure"). It also lowers effort & sacrifice (less emotional risk).
|
||||
|
||||
The wrong guarantee can hurt:
|
||||
- Over-promising guarantees attract refund-seekers
|
||||
- Generic "100% guaranteed" with no conditions reads as legally unenforceable
|
||||
- No guarantee at all signals you're not confident
|
||||
|
||||
The right type depends on your business model, refund risk tolerance, and buyer sophistication. For the full taxonomy, see [guarantee-design.md](guarantee-design.md).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Scarcity / urgency
|
||||
|
||||
The reason to buy now, not later.
|
||||
|
||||
Two flavors:
|
||||
- **Scarcity** — limited *quantity* (cohort size, seats, inventory, batch)
|
||||
- **Urgency** — limited *time* (cohort deadline, season, bonus expiry)
|
||||
|
||||
The bar: **the scarcity has to be real.** Fake countdown timers and "only 3 spots left" lies work once and torch trust permanently. The internet is small; you will be caught.
|
||||
|
||||
Common honest scarcity formats:
|
||||
- Cohort closes Friday (because the cohort actually starts Monday)
|
||||
- Founding-member pricing for the first 20 customers (because you're capacity-constrained)
|
||||
- Seasonal product or service (because demand is seasonal)
|
||||
- Bonus expires at launch end (because the bonus is your time)
|
||||
- Capacity-based service tier (because you literally can't take more clients)
|
||||
|
||||
For full guidance on creating real scarcity, see [scarcity-urgency.md](scarcity-urgency.md).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Name
|
||||
|
||||
What this thing is called.
|
||||
|
||||
A named offer beats an unnamed offer for three reasons:
|
||||
1. **Repeatability** — buyers can tell their friend about it
|
||||
2. **Distinction** — a name makes it a *thing*, not a generic service
|
||||
3. **Pricing power** — branded offers can charge more than the same delivery sold as a service
|
||||
|
||||
### Naming patterns that work
|
||||
|
||||
- **Outcome-named:** "The 30-Day Activation Sprint" — names what they get
|
||||
- **Methodology-named:** "The VAULT Framework" — names how you do it
|
||||
- **Identity-named:** "Founder Marketing OS" — names who it's for
|
||||
- **Compression-named:** "5-Day Cohort" — names the timing/structure
|
||||
|
||||
### Naming patterns that don't work
|
||||
|
||||
- **Generic descriptors:** "Marketing Coaching Program" — forgettable
|
||||
- **Internal jargon:** "Tier 2 Standard" — buyer can't repeat
|
||||
- **Course-bro:** "The Money-Making Machine" — pattern-matches to scam
|
||||
- **Pun-overload:** "GrowthGoGetter" — reads as low-status
|
||||
|
||||
### Practical test
|
||||
|
||||
Can a buyer text a friend: "I just signed up for *the [name]*. It's $X and you get [one-line outcome]"? If yes, the name works. If no, rename.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Price + payment structure
|
||||
|
||||
The price is the obvious part. The structure is the underrated part.
|
||||
|
||||
### Price isn't a number, it's a comparison
|
||||
|
||||
Buyers compare the price to:
|
||||
- The dream outcome (does this get me the result I want?)
|
||||
- The next-best alternative (what else could I buy?)
|
||||
- The cost of doing nothing (what does the status quo cost me?)
|
||||
- Other items in your own catalog (anchor pricing)
|
||||
|
||||
You can move price perception without changing the number by:
|
||||
- Showing the cost of doing nothing more vividly
|
||||
- Anchoring against a higher-priced alternative
|
||||
- Sequencing other items in your catalog at higher prices first
|
||||
|
||||
### Payment structure is its own lever
|
||||
|
||||
Same total price, different structures convert very differently:
|
||||
|
||||
| Structure | When it works | Trade-off |
|
||||
|-----------|---------------|-----------|
|
||||
| **Pay in full** | High-trust buyers, lower price points | Highest perceived commitment, smallest buyer pool |
|
||||
| **Pay in 2-4 installments** | Mid-range price, hesitant buyers | More buyers, payment defaults |
|
||||
| **Monthly subscription** | SaaS, ongoing services | Annuity revenue, churn risk |
|
||||
| **Pay-after-results** | High-confidence delivery, sophisticated buyers | Cash flow lag, fewer disputes |
|
||||
| **Down payment + balance on delivery** | Services with milestone-based delivery | Balance risk on backend |
|
||||
| **Free trial → paid** | Low-friction SaaS, info products | Conversion drop-off |
|
||||
|
||||
Often the right move isn't lowering price — it's adding a payment plan. Same $6K price, "$6K today" vs "$2K × 3 monthly" converts very differently.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Putting it together: an example
|
||||
|
||||
A B2B fractional CMO service.
|
||||
|
||||
| Component | Weak version | Strong version |
|
||||
|-----------|--------------|----------------|
|
||||
| **Core** | "Fractional CMO services" | "8-week marketing audit + 90-day execution plan, delivered by a CMO who's done it for 3+ similar companies" |
|
||||
| **Bonuses** | None | (1) 1:1 weekly check-ins for 90 days; (2) pre-vetted execution-partner introductions; (3) board-deck for marketing strategy section |
|
||||
| **Guarantee** | None | "If after the 8-week audit you don't have a clear 90-day plan you'd run yourself, you don't pay the audit fee" |
|
||||
| **Scarcity** | None | "We take 2 engagements per quarter — next slot opens [date]" |
|
||||
| **Name** | "fCMO Consulting" | "The 90-Day Marketing Reset" |
|
||||
| **Price** | "$15K, paid up front" | "$15K → $5K to start, $5K at week 8, $5K at week 16" |
|
||||
|
||||
Same delivery. Same person. Different offer. Different conversion.
|
||||
|
||||
The point: most "we need to lower our price" conversations are actually "we have one of six components missing or weak" conversations.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user