Prepared for Sarah Anne • Strategic synthesis after weekend deep-dive • Brandon Moore, Netmore Marketing
Several decisions needed from you. Skim the TOC, dive into Section 11 for the consolidated decision list when you're ready.
This is the strategic synthesis from the weekend after our discovery call. Since we got off the phone Saturday, a lot of moving parts have surfaced. I've been working through them all weekend: walking your sales page, reading your Loom, mapping your run sheet against my own plan, comparing your avatar notes against Richmond's, and looking at where the existing setup needs surgery vs. wholesale rethinking. This document pulls all of that into one structured view.
I want to demonstrate I'm thinking about all of it as a single coherent system, not chasing tasks in isolation. The goal is to give you something substantial to chew on so we can land Thursday's call already aligned. Several of these threads block on each other, so the dependency order matters as much as the individual decisions.
Twelve sections. Some are tactical. Some are strategic. Most need a decision from you before I can move. Use the table of contents below to jump straight to whatever you want to look at first. If you only have time for one section, read Section 11. That's the consolidated list of decisions and asks. Everything else upstream of it is the why and the how.
Sections marked DECISION need a yes/no/preference from you. Section 11 consolidates everything in one place.
In the last 48 hours I've gone deep on everything you've already given me. The point is to stop guessing and start grounding decisions in actual data.
Four moving parts, with a real dependency order. Knowing the order matters because most of these block on each other.
The IG Live has a hard deadline. The foundation work is the longest-running upstream gate. The sales page is medium-effort but needs the foundation work first. The cold traffic strategy comes last because it depends on what we produce in the other streams. That's the order. Everything in this doc maps to it.
This is more than a 10-minute hype broadcast. The recording becomes the single biggest piece of evergreen ad creative you'll have for the rest of the sprint, plus genuine Andy-audience exposure (the one piece of partnership value the Z document didn't cancel), plus a Sarah-Andy peer moment that establishes the event's credibility for both audiences.
If the live goes well and the recording is captured cleanly, we've got 4 to 6 cuts that drive cold ads through to June 24. If it doesn't, we're rebuilding cold creative from scratch in week 2.
Andy's followers are mostly male, sales/business/coaching, follow Andy because they want to close more and build empires. Plus your followers, mostly female coaches, community-builders, warm to you, new to Andy. The bridge between both: both audiences want a 7-figure coaching/expert business. Your positioning + Andy's sales = a system neither delivers alone.
Your sales page currently anchors on "Your skills are not the problem. Your positioning is." In your Loom, you flagged that you don't fully love this line because it filters in the wrong audience (skill-doubting low-confidence coaches).
In the same Loom you surfaced a stronger angle: "How to build a 7-figure coaching business with 100 raving fans." This aligns with your actual brand (Million Dollar Groups, the Facebook Group Girl, your book). Community-building is your real expertise. Positioning was shoehorned in.
Swap "positioning" for "audience size." Keeps the existing structural spine, fixes the avatar-mismatch in one stroke, lets us preserve the page architecture you've already built.
Trade-off: still anchors the brand on what the avatar lacks rather than what your real mechanism delivers.
Higher payoff. More aligned with your actual mechanism. Maps directly to Million Dollar Groups, your book, the Facebook Group Girl brand. Contrarian against the "scale to a million" coaching trope.
Why I like this: it'll come out of your mouth naturally because it's actually how you think about your work. Authentic anchors hit harder than imported ones.
Path B. Reasons: it maps to your actual mechanism, it's contrarian against the "scale to a million" trope, it's a fresh hook for cold ads, and it's authentic to how you actually think about your work.
Path A or Path B? If Path B, I revise the spine before Tuesday's prep.
Operational, mostly already in motion:
The recording is critical and I'm running 3 layers of redundancy because losing this footage would set the entire sprint back 2 weeks.
You've filmed plenty of stuff before so I won't insult you with a lighting/setup checklist. The one piece worth covering Tuesday is the joint-live mechanic specifically, since you've mentioned you've never done one of those. Quick version: you start your own Live, Andy joins as a viewer, then you tap his profile and "Add" or "Invite as Guest" so he comes on screen with you. Both audiences see it simultaneously; the broadcast appears in his followers' feeds as "Sarah Anne is live with Andy Elliott." When you end the live, IG prompts you to save to your camera roll: tap yes. I'll cover the rest on Tuesday and be online during the broadcast in case anything surprises us.
When I asked you for more depth than "early-stage coaches who need clients," you sent me a paragraph that's frankly more avatar-specific than what most clients produce after a 90-minute workshop. The fact that you reacted to Richmond's docs and pulled out the divergences cleanly tells me you have this in your head, you just hadn't externalized it.
Four critical differences. These are the things that make your avatar yours, not just a clone of his.
| Dimension | Richmond's avatar | Yours |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanism | 1-on-1 Tiny Challenge (5 days, no audience needed) | Community-building (100 raving fans → pipeline) |
| Specific pain Richmond doesn't name | — | "Tapped-out warm audience." The moment after the network is burned. |
| Tactical pain layer | "Random engagement, no clients" | "Posting on platforms, ghosted in the follow-up" |
| Influencer set | Russell, Pedro Adao, Tony, Myron, Brendon (funnel/DR) | Tony, Andy, Eileen, Amy P, Russell (online business / course creator / community) |
The avatar is the root node of marketing. Every piece of copy reads from it. The reason the line "your skills are not the problem, your positioning is" didn't sit right with you in the Loom is because it was written without a real avatar grounding. It was generic coach-marketer copy. Now we know better.
If we fix the avatar, the sales page rewrites itself. The ad copy writes itself. The IG Live anchor lands naturally. The email sequence has a real audience to talk to. Without the avatar, everything that ships is guesswork.
I've drafted a v1 of your avatar in my system, marked everything as "needs confirmation" where I'm guessing. Six questions would lock it. Most can be answered in 1 to 2 sentences.
Richmond's avatar mostly earns less than $10K/month from coaching with day-job income on top. Does that match yours, or do you see your buyers skewing higher (e.g., $10-30K/mo coaches who already have a coaching business but are stuck on lead consistency)?
Before someone buys your $20K mastermind, what HAVE they typically bought? Books? $1K-$5K courses? Which of your influencer set (Tony, Andy, Eileen, Amy P, Russell) have they actively paid for?
What changes RIGHT BEFORE a past client invested with you? Was it the warm-pool-tap-out moment? Day job got rough? Hit a revenue ceiling? "I bought because X happened." What was the X?
When you or Kalie are closing, what's the single most common hesitation? Is it "I just bought Amy P's program," "wrong time financially," "not sure I'm ready," "I'm not a Facebook group person"? Different objections require different rebuttals in copy.
When you named Tony / Andy / Eileen / Amy P / Russell, do your clients actually follow those people and buy from them, or are those people aspirational figures they admire from afar? Big difference for cold ad targeting.
Your verbatim language: "I know I can help people, no idea how to get in front of people" and "feels so busy trying to implement all the things." Are these from clients verbatim on sales calls, or your interpretation of what they feel? I'd love to use them as direct quotes in copy if they're literally what people say.
If you could send me access to 3 to 5 of your most recent mastermind closing calls (recordings or transcripts), one analysis pass on those would unlock most of the avatar work plus the objection bank plus the verbatim language for ad copy. This is the single highest-leverage thing in the whole engagement. If recordings aren't available, even rough notes from past sales calls work.
It's the strategic foundation that sits between the avatar and the actual copy. Without it, every piece of copy is a fresh guess. With it, copy gets faster AND more consistent because everyone is reading from the same source of truth.
What's the core problem. What's the solution category. What makes us unique. What objections do we handle. What's our statement of value. What's the customer's job-to-be-done.
A v0 of your core message canvas, structurally cloned from Richmond's, with your-specific swaps based on the avatar work and your Loom feedback. Lives in my system. Everything in it is hypothesis right now. It locks once we have the avatar refined and 3 to 5 sales call analyses done.
This is the single line that crystallizes everything. My v0 candidate:
Sarah's Mastermind teaches coaches how to build a community of 100 raving fans that fills their pipeline with warm leads, so they stop tapping out their warm network, stop being ghosted in DMs, and finally have a system for consistent income that fits the stage they're actually in.
Spent 2 to 3 hours doing a forensic walkthrough of both pages. Structurally fine, but multiple issues need fixing. Punch list below, sorted by priority. Critical items are in red and need immediate action; high-priority are amber; medium-priority are blue.
The Step 2 page where people land after the popup form. It has its own issues.
You have direct CF access and so do I. Two-stage approach so we don't rewrite everything twice:
The reason for the edit-list workflow on Stage 2: I want you to know I read your Loom carefully and I'm not making changes you'd disagree with. After we lock the first round, future changes can be more freeform.
Confirming you want the "edit list before execute" workflow for sales page changes · yes?
This was a question I owed you a real answer on. Today the urgency is a marketing assertion with nothing behind it. Both pages claim "Early bird tickets are 75% off." Neither has a specific deadline. The displayed strikethrough math doesn't match the 75% claim on any tier.
Quick context on the pricing psychology I'm working from:
Your tiers: $47 Gold / $97 Diamond VIP / $497 Platinum / $1997 Ultimate Platinum, with a $20K mastermind on the back end.
The $47 Gold tier violates the threshold rule. It's in the "fruits and vegetables" zone. This is exactly what attracted the wrong audience to the previous funnel. The people who showed up wanted a free pool party, not a coaching business. The $97 Diamond VIP is at the bottom of the sweet spot and is proportionally right for a $20K back end.
Option B. Reasons: it solves the "$47 attracts the wrong audience" problem by forcing cold buyers up to $97+ as Gold inventory burns off. The "FEW SPOTS LEFT" tag is already on the Gold ticket so the framing is partially in place. It gives the IG Live a real urgency hook ("the $47 tier won't last past May 10"). It avoids price-rise mechanics that can feel manipulative. It caps the buyer-quality problem at the entry tier.
Four questions:
Once we have those, I lock the schedule, fix the page, and the IG Live has a concrete urgency line.
Pricing strategy: Option A, Option B, or Option C? Plus the four ops inputs above.
The pool party is currently a $497 Platinum tier benefit. It's also leading the marketing on the bookout-live page in 4 to 5 places: sticky bottom marquee ("JUNE 23 VIP POOL PARTY INCLUDED"), FAQ, multiple in-page mentions, implied "differentiator" framing.
The pool party is a feature, not a transformation. Lead with transformation, not features. The transformation is "you build a community of 100 raving fans → 7-figure business." The pool party is one upgrade path inside that.
When marketing leads with a feature, the page reads as a list of cool stuff instead of a promise. That's the "rah-rah, AI-y, copy-ish" feeling you flagged.
Demote the pool party from headline-marquee to upgrade-path-inside-the-funnel. Lead the marketing with:
The pool party stays on the page (real benefit, real differentiator for $497 buyers) but it's a reason to UPGRADE inside the funnel, not the reason to LAND on the funnel. The networking-with-6-and-7-figure-business-owners angle stays as part of the Platinum tier proof.
Comfortable with the pool party demotion from headline-marquee to upgrade-path-inside-the-funnel? Yes/no/concerns?
Stepping back. I asked myself, and I think you were also wondering this, why was the funnel built around "win a pool party ticket" in the first place?
It wasn't a challenge funnel. Wasn't a webinar funnel. Wasn't a content-led funnel. It was a sweepstakes: "enter for a chance to win a free pool party ticket." That's a contest mechanic.
Sweepstakes self-select for "I want free things" psychology. They attract:
This is exactly the failure mode you described to me on the call: "None of them were coaches. They all hung up at payment details. They wanted a free pool party."
That wasn't a Kalie problem. It wasn't a sales script problem. It was a funnel-architecture problem. The funnel was attracting the wrong people by design.
The bridge page I demoed was a fix INSIDE the broken funnel. It patched the "cognitive whiplash" between the contest entry and the coach-positioned sales page. That's a band-aid. It works as a band-aid, but it doesn't fix the root issue.
Wednesday's IG Live is going to give us actual creative we can test direct-to-ticket-page with. Once we have that, options for replacing the contest-led funnel:
Don't rebuild the front-end funnel before Wednesday. After Wednesday's IG Live, we have actual creative to test direct-to-ticket-page. The bridge page becomes a transitional asset that serves the existing competition funnel for the next 1 to 2 weeks. By mid-May, the IG Live cuts → direct-to-ticket-page should be the dominant cold-traffic flow.
No decision needed from you on this right now. Just want you to know how I'm thinking about it.
On our call, I offered to make a one-pager for Andy's team explaining the partnership ad tech requirements. That was based on the assumption Andy's team would set up some kind of pixel-sharing infrastructure on their end. Now that we have the Z document, the picture has changed.
The Z document Andy's team sent clarified the partnership ad mechanic: their ONE operational action is approving the partnership invite when we send it. There's no tech being shared. There's nothing for the one-pager to document.
Sarah forwards this to Andy's team:
Three sentences. No formal doc. The only reason to make a real one-pager would be if Andy's team requested documentation for legal/compliance, and they haven't.
Good with replacing the one-pager with the simple message? Or do you want a more formal version for any reason?
Honest take on your 8-week run sheet: it's a good document for what it is. Better than 80% of client-side plans I've seen. The gaps are in the operational layer, not the strategic one.
It's a personal planning doc, not an ops doc. The gaps:
Merge your run sheet into my Big 3 sprint planning framework. Two columns: one for what you own, one for what I own. Date-stamp every action. Show dependencies (e.g., "early-bird deadline locked → IG Live urgency line writeable").
I can draft v1 of this tomorrow. Becomes the document we both reference for the rest of the engagement.
We've got 8 weeks until June 24. That's either eight 1-week sprints or four 2-week sprints. Trade-off: weekly gives faster pivots and less drift, bi-weekly gives more execution time per cycle but slower course-correction.
My recommendation: weekly tactical check-ins on Thursdays (which we already have locked) plus a bi-weekly deeper sprint retrospective on every other Thursday. That gives you one quick pulse-check most weeks and one proper "what's working / what's not / what changes" session every two weeks. Want your read on this.
Good with me drafting the merged sprint tracker?
Without you needing to decide anything. These are tasks I'm running this week regardless of your input. They're either operational or in scope of the engagement we already signed.
Most important section. Pulling together everything that needs your input. Two parts: decisions (yes/no/preference) and asks (need you to provide something).
The bigger strategic questions about whether to abandon the contest-funnel architecture and replace it with direct-to-ticket-page can wait until after Wednesday. Don't make decisions on that until we have the IG Live recording in hand. I just want you to know how I'm thinking about it.
The plan from now through our first weekly meeting Thursday May 1. This is the cadence I'm working to.
| When | What | Who |
|---|---|---|
| Now → Tuesday morning | You read this, react, send back decisions + answers | You |
| Tuesday | I respond to your decisions, refine IG Live spine on Path A/B | Me |
| Tuesday afternoon | Andy partnership invite sent, simple coordination message to Andy's team | Me + you forwarding |
| Tuesday evening | Optional: Tuesday test live with Andy | You + Andy |
| Tuesday late | I draft the merged sprint tracker | Me |
| Wednesday | Pre-live prep, recording rigs configured | Me + your team |
| Wednesday 7:15 PM AZ | IG Live happens, recording captured | You + Andy + recording stack |
| Wednesday late / Thursday | I cut ad creative, start running collab ads | Me |
| Thursday 6 PM EST (May 1) | First weekly meeting. Walk through avatar Before & After grid live, lock v2 avatar. | Both |
That's the plan. I'm going to bed now, but I wanted you to have this to read first thing in the morning your time.
I'll be on WhatsApp by your evening.